If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:47:30 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote: "John Kulp" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:35 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: I think you will find that the US sat on its hands when Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe Oh that's right. I forgot that the hundreds of thousands of US killed and wounded happened in the US and would later shipped over to be put in graves in France and elsewhere. That's right. That's what happened. Hitler invaded Poland in what year? The Americans joined the war in Europe in what year and why? I think you will find there is a gap of a couple of years between those dates. Of course, there was. We keep forgetting here how incompetent Europeans are at solving their own problems. Just like Bosnia, of course, we had to intervene to stop it. And Poland was invaded in September 1939 and the US started the Lendlease program less than a year and a half later. Far too long for you is it? 12 years wasn't enough for you for Bosnia so it looks like the US sat on its hand for quite a while when Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe. Next And might have continued to sit on its hand had Japan not hit Pearl Harbor. A good "what if" for argument is "what if Hitler hadn't gratuitously declared war on the USA right after pearl Harbor?" -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
In article
, dechucka wrote: "John Kulp" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:35 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: I think you will find that the US sat on its hands when Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe Oh that's right. I forgot that the hundreds of thousands of US killed and wounded happened in the US and would later shipped over to be put in graves in France and elsewhere. That's right. That's what happened. Hitler invaded Poland in what year? The Americans joined the war in Europe in what year and why? I think you will find there is a gap of a couple of years between those dates. Of course, there was. We keep forgetting here how incompetent Europeans are at solving their own problems. Just like Bosnia, of course, we had to intervene to stop it. And Poland was invaded in September 1939 and the US started the Lendlease program less than a year and a half later. Far too long for you is it? 12 years wasn't enough for you for Bosnia so it looks like the US sat on its hand for quite a while when Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe. Next Hummm... but it was France and the UK who were charged and accepted the responsibility to inspect Germany after WWI to prevent Germany from building up a military... and by 1936 they didn't even need to make physical inspections... just read the paper. Who sat on their hands ? "NEXT" jay Wed Aug 15, 2007 |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:32:33 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote: "John Kulp" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:30:30 +1000, "dechucka" wrote: Perhaps so you'll better comprehend: I've can comprehend the fact easily the Yanks sat on their hands while Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe Oh poor Europe. Why don't you just stop killing each other and relying on us? totally different debate, you claimed that the US did not sit on its' hands when Europe was threatened by Hitler and Mussolini I pointed out that you were wrong Only you would think a neutral country at the time not acting for less than a year and a half, not the two you said, would be sitting on its hands, compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12 years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think? a. less than a year and a half is nothing. Well it was about 1/4 of the time the war lasted Big deal. Solve you own problems. Funny how lots of you only like America when it saving your asses isn't it? America like normal only got involved in the war when it suited their self interest ie Japan blew up your fleet in Pearl Harbour Gee, as if any country in their right mind gets involved in a war for any other reason. Brilliant. Switzerland never did anything except rip off jews the entire war we aren't discussing Switzerland That's right. It's not in Europe is it? Spain then. Oops not in Europe either. Ireland then. Oops also not in Europe. Portugal. My god, also not in Europe. Sweden. Definitely not in Europe. wtf r u going on about? I think you are trying to divert attention from the fact that the US sat on its' hands while europe was threatened by Hitler and Mussolini. This may have been a good thing or a bad thing but it is a fact Uhh, how about an analysis of European countries that sat on their hands for the ENTIRE WWII? b. why should we have done anything at all? Europeans love to slaughter each other--see entire 20th century. you only did something about it after Pearl harbour, if not the Americans would have continued to try and make a profit out of the European War. Never heard of Lendlease have you? How about the Marshall Plan afterwards. Did you hear of that? Len Lease that was a deferred payment scheme wasn't it. Now do you note that the Marshall plan was AFTER the war. Doesn't take away from the fact that the yanks had sat on their hands You really are a simpleton aren't you? I don't know Len. Is he a friend of yours? Here, why don't you read about what it really was and see how much we got back: Lend-Lease was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945 in return for land to house a military base. It began in March 1941, nine months before Pearl Harbor. It was abruptly stopped by the Americans immediately after VE-day A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a discount, for £1,075 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) And, oh yeah, while we were sitting on our hands: Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article". Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October, 1941. Earlier, there was an entirely different program in 1940, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for basing rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. Reduces your stupid sitting on our hands crap doesn't it? c. in spite of this, we did and took care of the problem didn't we? Just like Bosnia. well I think those damn Russians had quite a bit to do with it That's right. They were going to veto the action in the Security Council, so it was done with NATO. Big contribution. I was referring to WW2 Funny we were talking about Bosnia and the US. No one doubts what Russia did, but go and read about Stalingrad and you will have hoped both Stalin and Hitler would have lost, given what they both did. |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:36:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: John Kulp writes: Me, I'll take the medical specialists who actually know what they doing and talking about. Me, I'll do the research myself. I don't like it when others try to make my decisions for me. It's dangerous to make decisions based on the opinions of others, and it's dangerous to rely exclusively on credentials. Fine by me. Who cares if you kill yourself. If you say so. Then it's a world class crappy system not supposedly the world's finest as the WHO thinks. Can't even handle an infitesimal percentage of the population. World class that. It really has nothing to do with the health system. The same problem would have existed anywhere under the same weather conditions. See entire rest of Europe during the same heat wave. Gee, can even transport about 1/3 of the people that go to a football game spread out all over France. Transport them where? Can't figure that out either can you. Even after I gave you several examples. Complete bull**** as usual. It's done all the time in emergencies here. No, it is not. Even in hot desert climates, heat waves kill people. Blah, blah. Crappy French health system. But I guess in our dismal system (see Black) we plan for various emergencies in advance (excepting the Bushies, of course, who couldn't organize a Boy Scout reunion). Is New Orleans an example of how well you plan in advance? Gee, what did I just say genius? Even Nixon recognized that two wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs. See French healthcare system, heat wave 2003. Hmm, you must be suffering from it now. As wikipedia says "Heat prostration, or heat exhaustion, is characterized by mental confusion, muscle cramps, and often nausea or vomiting. At this stage the victim will likely be sweating profusely. With continued exposure to ambient heat, which sometimes is facilitated by the mental confusion, temperature may rise into the 39 to 40 °C range (103 to 104 °F), and lead to full-blown heat stroke." Yeah, these are all symptons that wouldn't lead someone to think something is seriously wrong alright. Not a self taught idiot like you. Any normal person would. A temperature of 39 to 40 °C range (103 to 104 °F) not serious? Hahahahaha. Typical conclusion of a self taught idiot. |
#325
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: John Kulp writes: So now you are wandering all the way back to 1955 to try to compare something? The Chicago figure dates from 1995. Are you completely unaware of all the technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems that makes you're argument completely ridiculous? There have been no significant technological advances in this domain, particularly since 1995. The last important advance was air conditioning, but it places where it is not widely used, it is not much of a factor. Right. No medical advances since 1995. Well, there goes all the other guy's major European drug advances alone. |
#326
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:45:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
so it looks like the US sat on its hand for quite a while when Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe. Next And might have continued to sit on its hand had Japan not hit Pearl Harbor. A good "what if" for argument is "what if Hitler hadn't gratuitously declared war on the USA right after pearl Harbor?" While I don't agree with the sitting on our hands stuff unless you are just talking about sending troops as you can see from the various aid that was given (and never repaid), this is an interesting question vis-a-vis Europe because we certainly would have been involved in Asia. Though Roosevelt purposely withheld resources from the Asian theatre to put into Europe. Just ask MacArthur in The Phillippines. Another interesting question is what would have happened in Europe had Hitler not attacked Russia? |
#327
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
Make credence recognised that on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:31:42 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted: Gee, what did I just say genius? Even Nixon recognized that two wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs. That's not necessarily the case. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they can cancel each other out, and that's better than one wrong. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
|
#330
|
|||
|
|||
Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
spend $6 get $40,000 | [email protected] | Europe | 1 | February 27th, 2007 11:34 PM |
Belgians spend more than ever | ginger-haired-lard-arsed-money-grabbing-bitch | Europe | 1 | December 25th, 2006 08:42 PM |
SPEND | [email protected] | Europe | 1 | May 29th, 2006 08:46 PM |
SPEND YOUR MONEY FOR SOMETHING USEFUL | [email protected] | Cruises | 0 | May 25th, 2006 12:35 AM |
How should I spend one day in Reykjavik? | H Kong | Europe | 5 | November 23rd, 2003 12:16 AM |