Is France serious?

much easier to say that when you aren't looking down the barrels of one of the most efficiently run and tactically brilliant armies of all time. Americans are no different than any one else in any other country, contrary to what they like to think.
 
good luck taking 48 capitals within a few days and some how splitting the country from coast to coast when the entire population is armed and hostile. And good luck taking the south, take a lesson from history and figure out how long that takes and how many lives it will cost. Meanwhile somehow trying to get a handle on the rocky mountains.
 
no one said a few days. it would take months, but it would get done.

and ha! you really think some rednecks with hunting rifles are going to stop an invading military? Yes, they might take out a few and cause some problems, but if you shoot a tank with a rifle...good luck.
 
It is easier to say that when i am not looking down the barrel of gun, but are you forgetting that we won our independence from the one of the most tactically brilliant armies of all time. Americans are no different than people from other countries? Every one is different you dumbass. Maybe you should take the time to meet some of them and you will understand. You think Muslim Extremists are fanatic? Go to Oklahoma and Texas then come back and tell me they would not fight to the death for their Country and their God.
 
a military that fought with tactics that had been outdated for a hundred years. Blitzkrieg was just about completely unheard of.

and think what you want, but when the country is being invaded, we're all the same. Quit being a 7th grade history student. "We're alllllll different and unique!" It's a nice idea, but its not true.

and if they wanted to fight, they would. But they'd be killed, and it would be a little speedbump
 
So you're betting your country's survival in the case of an invasion on some God lovin', gun totin' "masters" of guerilla warfare and advanced tactics?
 
yup. thats how we beat the nazis. we sent a group of 10 good ol' boys from down south over, and 3 days later, the nazis surrendered.
 
You claim i am ignorant when you don't even take into account all of the variables. You act as if they would face no opposition, that every advance would be a victory, that sounds pretty ignorant to me. Do you not think that our armed population would fight to the death? They might be able to invade, but victory would be impossible and our surrender would not be an option.
 
I'm with this guy

god bless america

usa-1riv.jpg


"bbubu but the blitzkriegz"
 
This is particularly fatuous even for newschoolers, where the average 15 year old thinks that the United States is the legal ruling body on all international issues.
 
i get what youre saying.

i disagree in so much that using a Rand thought pattern, the individual is supreme. freedom from the collective, IE the government, is the highest goal.

another paramount of Friedman and Rand to an extent (but Friedman wrote a book entitled it) is the freedom to choose. the freedom to action, the freedom to inaction (very important)

the basic tennate is acting rationally, in your own self interest, while at the same time respecting the rights of others.

its basically the highest form of respect. the realization that your rights apply to everyone else, and that you dont violate the rights of others.

let me cherry pick an excerpt from the lexicon

"A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob . . . .

The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority."
 
if the US fell, it would be like iraq right now, or many european countries in wwII with all sorts of resistance forces and such constantly making life difficult.
 
While it's nice, this is just as ambiguous as how communism works on a large scale.
Rational thinking isn't possible. We are not and never will be rational thinkers. We buy bottled water, we leap off 40 foot cliffs on skis while inverting, we buy Nike instead of cheap shoes, etc. Our brains are far too complex (or maybe simplistic) that our gut emotion will always have a role in our actions. Therefore, the individual will often times fail when left with a decision solo. This is where a collective group can rationally analyze behavior. The unintentional implications of ones action (Einstein's work on the atomic theory now paved the way for the most detrimental of human inventions). Hell we don't even have a grip on our own purchase repercussions. We buy things in China that can put out our jobs.
This is why the typical rational man and homo economicus is a complete fabrication and just as blissfully hopeless as a complete conversion to utopian society.
 
France bet all their marbles on the their defense line, the germans went around it torn ass through 212,935 sq miles of country side while living right next door. Good luck getting that same force across the atlantic and pacific then proceed to find your way through 3,119,884 sq miles of what the hell. I don't doubt they could have done some damage, but it would be impossible to roll over the entire lower 48 with 3 million men and 2,500 tanks. So roughly one german per square mile and is going to do the job?

 
No one wants to work for Air Canada. Have you ever talked to one of their flight attendants? They do NOT want to work. Hell, they don't even want to walk because it aggravates their cankles.
 
Would the US surrender? Probably not... If you've ever seen Red Dawn, you'd know why not...

That said... would they surrender if they were absolutely overwhelmed, and held at gunpoint to the extent that if they kept fighting without any legitimate help, most of their people would perish as a whole?

Honestly, I believe in the american Bravado thing in many ways... we've been taught to never give up, never surrender, grab their guns, slit their throats, and roll around dodging bullets like rambo our entire lives, and to punch communist scum right in the kisser.

but I dont think that if we were in the same situation that France was in in 1940, we would last very long... France hardly had any army to fight with anyway by the time they waved the white flag... neither did anyone else in mainland europe by the time the nazis rolled through...

 
Yes, you're right (no you aren't) that's why Canada sent so many more troops over seas to fight (they didn't) and die than did USA.

Oh wait that's not true. If Canada had a larger army than the United States could you explain to me how only 45000 Canadians died in comparison to the 416000 Americans that died? Do Canadian soldiers have a supernatural ability to dodge bullets that I don't know about, or did Canada just not have as many troops as the USA?

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
 
But what happen to the US military numbers if someone were to attack us or invade? I don't think the germans could move fast enough to thwart the U.S. from staging massive counter attacks or stop the U.S. from producing weapons. I actually believe Hitler himself conceded that the United States was his most potentially dangerous opponent in his second book Zweites Buch.

 
Within days of the invasion of Poland, Canada declared war on Germany on September 10, 1939. As in World War I, Canadian formations fought under British theater command, and they played an important role in the Allied campaigns in Europe. Canadian forces contributed heavily with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) in the Battle of Britain, in the air raids against Germany, by the Royal Canadian Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic, by the army in the Italian campaign, the Raid on Dieppe, the Invasion of Normandy (including the landing on Juno Beach on D-Day), and the Scheldt.The Canadian Army in Europe after Normandy fought its way up through coastal France, into western Belgium, overrunning many German V-1 and V-2 bases, and then into southern and eastern Netherlands. The Canadian Army received the surrender of all German forces in theNetherlands in May 1945. In Italy, a Corps was fielded beginning in January 1944, and the Canadian Army in Normandy built up from a single division in June 1944, to a full Corps in July 1944, and next, to a field Army in August 1944, under which several foreign national formations were under its command, including at various times British, Polish, Dutch, and American forces. The Canadian Army in western Europe was a part of the British 21st Army Group under Field Marshall Bernard L. Montgomery.In March 1945, both I and II Canadian Corps came under command of the First Canadian Army in Belgium and the Netherlands. From 1941, Canadian forces had also participated in the defense of British territories against Japanese forces, especially Hong Kong where an understrength brigade had been deployed before the war broke out in the Pacific, and it was ultimately destroyed/captured. As the war in Europe wound down, from late 1944, many Royal Canadian Navy ships and personnel were transferred from the Atlantic to join the British Pacific Fleet. About one million Canadians served in uniform during World War II.Over 167,000 aircrews were trained in Canada through the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, a program which served to train aircrews for the various air forces of British Commonwealth nations.

I would shut the fuck up ignoramus, it seems as though we do have a supernatural ability to dodge bullets..also known as we kick fucking ass.
 
You have not proven me wrong. You just told me that Canada was involved in the war which no one would have denied. In order to justify your condescending tone you're going to need to prove to me that Canada had a much larger military than the United States at the onset of US involvement in World War 2.
 
As the war in Europe wound down, from late 1944, many Royal Canadian Navy ships and personnel were transferred from the Atlantic to join the British Pacific Fleet. About one million Canadians served in uniform during World War II.

Read the last sentence you fucking retard.
Canada also lost a larger part of it's population than the United States did, not that it matters..I'm just saying how wrong you are.
 
France aren't pussies because they lost the war. It's because the saw the war coming years in advance and did nothing to stop it. Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland; they said "no"; he didn't stop, and they just rolled over.
 
so we can also blame Great Britain for that.

can't blame the USA though, because congress was too much of a collective pussy to sign the treaties and join the league their own leader had proposed and created.
 
I'm sorry; you are right. All that data supporting your claim proves I am wrong. Please forgive me for ever insinuating that you would tell a falsehood.
 
what does he need to prove? it's common knowledge unless you're fucking stupid as all hell. But I'm sure gnartron can probably pull up some stats for you.
 
My apologies. It seemed to me at the time that exposing the falsehood of your claims would be beneficial to the debate. Once again, I'm sorry for telling the truth.
 
and keep in mind that in world war I, france and the uk combined for almost 3 million people killed. France represented almost 2 million of those. Do you think they were all jumping at the chance of another war? People don't realize the magnitude of WWI. Hell, even during one of my classes on it, sometimes a particular stat just suddenly hits, and you realize that each of these numbers represents a person killed. it's incredible.
 
My previous posts covers this as well. I'm sorry for ever doubting you. You are right and everything you say is right. Please forgive me.
 
The worst part is he's ACTUALLY right. Maybe if suckshit pussy ass congress would allow Roosevelt to go to war then you might have something to say, but they didn't..and because of that stayed out until 41. We were there right as Poland was invaded, something you cannot claim. I shouldn't even be saying this, you give Americans a bad name. People have shed their blood for their country, died in frozen shitholes thousands of miles away from home..and you belittle their sacrifice.
On behalf every Allied armed forces service member in the second world war. Fuck You.
 
he did actually, i believe he stated that they would make the worst enemy, or the best ally. And supposedly he was outraged when the japanese attacked.

however, this whole argument has been over a completely hypothetical situation, in which we replaced france with the US, so just about all that goes straight out the window. Really no one can be sure how exactly it would have gone down, but it's fair to say that there was almost country in the world that was prepared to defend themselves from the nazis in 39-40.
 
Yes, I have belittled the sacrifice of your poor Canadian troops, and I am sorry; however, I would just like to point out that 9x as many Americans gave that sacrifice than did Canadians. (You will notice I rounded down because I don't want to lie in order to support my argument).
 
No, you have belittled the sacrifice of every Allied member of the war effort. Canada lost a higher percentage of people than America did. We had 16 million people at the time, you had over 100 million. That's entirely beside the point, you're a disrespectful arrogant little piece of shit.
 
I am done debating with you. You have repeatedly proven a willingness to lie that makes this argument a chore for me of exposing the truth over and over again. Also, You are immature and incapable of formulating an educated response. For these reasons, I will not reply to either you or Gnartron's posts any further. Thank you for your time.
 
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hfYJsQAhl0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hfYJsQAhl0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
ehh i dont know. (maybe i'll see the light after some philosophy classes at Westminster :)

i buy bottled water because i derive a value out of it. maybe its the convenience, maybe its the taste (or lack of it;) but i choose bottled water over the alternative.

ive never hucked a 40ft cliff ;) but i can say that i partake in dangerious activities knowing the risks, but i choose, to still participate because of the value i derive from them outweighs the risks. (at this point) although in my own personal experience i have made the rational decision to scale back my skiing because of a persisting back injury. (a decision i deem to be rational in my long term interests)

maybe i am an anomaly (for more than one reason;) but i like to think my actions are taken with purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top