In this scenario, we must assume that the US provided
no support, like a true neutral country. In that case, it's widely accepted that Britain would have fallen years before, since they would have been unable to break the German u-boat blockade without more resources, and would have run out of supplies much earlier. Of course, it's possible Hitler might have made another tactical blunder, and let the Russians become too strong before finally conquering Britain and redirecting his troops, but I have a strong feeling the outcome of the war would have been different without
any US involvement.
*raises hand*
Different Government. Different Political Climate. 60 years ago. This is IRRELEVANT TO MY POINT.I am saying you need to stop interfering
NOW, not 60 years ago.
I am going to assume that you have conceded every point you have not answered.
The correct term is Supply-Side Economics. The basic principle is that if major organisations save lots of oney on taxes, they can afford to pay their employees more. What actually happens is they just term those tax breaks into higher profits, and bigger bonuses for the executives. It does
NOT work as it is supposed to. The Republicans very own Communism - fine in theory, bullshit in practice.
I reference Al Franken's short comic Supply-Side Jesus for further explanation.
I think we need them
Does this mean you're a wealthy person who receives massive tax breaks? That'd explain a lot. If you aren't, you are being deluded about the amount of tax you are not paying. You have saved a small fraction of what Bush tells you you have.
Again, source is Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them..Consider who gives the most international aid (which does not consist of arms) to less fortunate nations. THE US!!!
I'm very sorry to shatter your misconceptions, but...
THIS IS WRONG.[/size]
Japan gives more in foreign aid, every year. Thats not more
per person, thats
MORE[/b]. And numerous European countries give more
per person in their country. Belgium and Sweden are two, I believe.
1) My personal opinion is that war over resources is justified. Hypothetical example- in the interests of every country in the world, the US puts together a coalition of armies designed to topple a dictatorial, anti-Western government that violently seizes control of Saudi Arabia. Read closely, those of you who are idiots.... the key words are: every country, coalition, dictatorial, violent revolution.
This example is fine, as you actually WOULD be acting in the interests of other countries... ostensibly, anyway. Its a bad example, form the point of view that Iraq was purely selfish and unilateral action. Which it was.
My last point: AMERICA DID NOT ACT ILLEGALLY IN IRAQ If all other reasons to support the war are removed (to end human rights abuses, to end Saddam's obvious defiance of the UN and it's resolutions- a legitimate reason to invade by itself, the fact that Saddam was supporting terrorists, the obvious realization that war would invariably have come in the future), consider this:
"The NBCs Saddam Hussein used on the Kurds were sold to him by America and Britian for use in the Iran-Iraq war. Never forget who created Saddam Hussein. We did."
We went in to clean up our joint mess.
There are two issues here, which you have confused. Morality. Legality.
Morally, yes, the war removed a despotic, evil man from a position of power and, with enough time, and careful handling of the situation, Iraq may eventually be better for it. It is not at the moment.
Legally, no, you acted illegally, lied to your citizenry (so did Britian, but thats another discussion; arguments against the Labour government) ignored the U.N, bullied the weapons inspectors and performed an illegal, unsanctioned invasion on a country under false pretenses. This is very illegal, with good reason.
-Anti-US feelings came before anti-French ones.
Proof, man, proof! Prove this!
I can say, for example, 'Iran has greater military power than America'. This is bullshit, but it was easy to type, no?
The French fought for your independence from nasty Britian, and frickin GAVE you your countries most famous landmark. According to YOUR arguments (the crap about WW2, etc, that I told you to shut up about), YOU owe FRANCE
BIGTIME.WHEN did this so-called anti-American sentiment begin? WHAT caused it? WHO caused it?
As far as I can see, it started after you flipped the French off for opposing your invasion of Afganistan, it was caused by the fact you're arrogant bullies, and it was caused by Dubya.
Communism: is an evil idea, which can never be put into practice, is the destroyer of nations (look at the horrible economic state East Germany is in, with the sole cause being Communism), and has caused many problems through it's belief in world revolution.
No, no, no! It is not an 'evil' idea. It is a
brilliant idea, but has always been, and always will be, poorly implemented. Karl Marx based his ideas on there being a Communist uprising in a recently industrialised country, like Britian in the 1800's. This has never happened. The major Communist revolution in history (1917 October Revolution, in Russia. Or Petrograd, to be precise) was in a pre-industrial country, where 80%+ of the citizens were peasants. This is not according to Marxist models, so it is not surprising the Bolshevik party created a despotic. A despotic dictator the west supported through WW2, I add...
Mole- I dunno if the English are still supporting us..... I believe I'm wrong though, and the Spanish deserted us. I honestly forgot.
English forces still hold Basra, and much of the south.
The reason that America is not liked by many of the countries in Europe is simply because the extreme capalist policy some people seem to have
See my point about Supply-Side Economics above... this is why it does not work.
Hyvry- what on earth does capitalism have to do with anything here?
A lot. Its why the Bush administrations economic policy is based on plundering companies and lining pockets.