Clarkson explains some differences between the USA and Europe

[Coventrysucks]

A good read.

And before certain American members start getting upset; please remember that it is supposed to be funny.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1794313,00.html

Ford Mustang
By Jeremy Clarkson
Bite the Bullitt, buy the fantasy



The new Pontiac Solstice is America’s first attempt at making a sports car in more than 50 years. And not since David Beckham’s wayward penalty kick against Portugal have we seen anything go so wide of the mark. It is comically awful.

And that sets a question. How come America’s massive car industry can’t make what is basically beans on toast? A light, zesty, pine-fresh car with an engine at the front, a simple foldaway roof in the middle and rear-wheel drive at the back? Lotus can make a sports car using nothing but a melted-down bathtub and the engine from a Rover. Alfa Romeo can make a sports car using steel so thin you can read through it, and an engine that won’t start. Then there was Triumph, which made a sports car even though its entire workforce was outside the factory warming its hands around a brazier and chanting.

So what’s America’s problem? Well, here in Europe early cars were expensive coach-built luxury goods for the tweedy and well-off. It wasn’t until the 1940s that cars for the common man came to France, Germany and Britain, and it wasn’t until the 1950s that they came to Italy. They haven’t arrived in Spain even today.

As a result we still have an innate sense that a car is something you save up for, something a bit decadent and exciting. Whereas in America the everyman Model T Ford came quickly after the introduction of internal combustion so there was never a chance for cars to earn that upmarket cachet. As a result, they’ve always seen the car as a tool: nothing more than an alternative to the horse.

In Europe we talk about style and how fast a car accelerates. In America they talk about how many horse boxes their trucks can pull and how much torque the engine produces.

If you do encounter someone over there who’s fond of performance cars they’re only really interested in how much g can be generated in the bends, whereas here those of a petrolhead disposition don’t care at all about grip, only what happens when it’s lost and the car is sliding. Then you are into the world of handling. A world where nothing but skill keeps you out of the hedge.

There’s more, too. From day one American motor sport was all about sponsorship, which is why the oval raceway was developed. It meant the whole crowd could see all the sponsors’ names all the time. The cars never zoomed off into a wood.

Here, they did. Motor racing was a rich man’s game, held far from hoi polloi on airfield perimeter roads. And on twisty tracks like this, grip was nowhere near as important as decent handling.

Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema
Jeremy Clarkson

Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema.

They also have the Ford Mustang and last week that’s what I was using to cruise up the 101 from Monterey to San Francisco. The sun was shining, 104.3 the Hippo was massaging my ear bones with soothing West Coast sounds and, like everyone else, I was doing a steady 65mph, my heart beating in slow monotonous harmony with the big V8.

This new version has been styled to resemble the original from 1965, and that’s a good thing. Less satisfactory is the news that it’s also been engineered to resemble the original with all sorts of technology that in Europe would have been considered old fashioned by Edward Longshanks.

There’s no complex double-stage turbocharging here; no elegantly machined swirl chamber to extract the best possible power and economy from the smallest possible engine. It’s a 4.6 litre V8 with just one camshaft, three valves per cylinder and the sort of power output the average European would expect from a juicer.

The platform for the new Mustang comes from a Jaguar S-type. But then the Americans take it back in time by fitting a solid rear axle such as you’d find on a Silver Cross pram, and a Panhard rod, dismissed by Newcomen as being “a bit too last year”.

So what’s it like to drive? Well, the previous day I’d taken it on a hard lap of the extraordinarily beautiful Laguna Seca raceway, which, because it’s the curliest track in North America, is regarded by racing drivers all over the world as one of the greats. Mansell. Villeneuve. Even Top Gear’s Stig go all misty eyed at the mention of it.

And frankly it was more than a match for Ford’s big daft horse. Its brakes were cooked by turn six; the final slow corner completely overwhelmed the live rear axle; and through the fearsome Corkscrew, which twists down a gradient so steep you can’t even walk up it, I’m afraid Mr Ed was about as pin sharp as a punt gun. I damn nearly soiled myself.

[Coventrysucks]

s it fast? Well, you get 300bhp, which is about 200bhp less than BMW gets from a similarly sized engine. But nevertheless it will get from 0-60mph in 5sec and reach a top speed of 150. That’s not bad for an ox cart.

But by European standards this car is rubbish. Its engine has wasteful, unused capacity that turns fuel into nothing, it couldn’t get from one end of a country lane to the other without running out of brakes and it handles like a newborn donkey.

There’s more, too. It’s got a gruff engine note, its interior has the panache of an Afghan’s cave and . . . and . . . and I can’t go on. You see, I’m running through all this car’s bad points but I’m afraid my mind is consumed by the bit where I was doing 65mph on the 101, listening to some Eagles on 104.3.

*
And then by the subsequent memory of grumbling along the waterfront in San Francisco itself, the city setting for Bullitt, the film that etched the Mustang for all time on the petrolhead’s radar.

You see, I kept thinking I’m in a Mustang in San Francisco on a glorious September afternoon. And I liked that a lot. I liked it so much that I became consumed with the notion of maybe taking a small part of the experience home with me.

The numbers look good. Because the Mustang is made from pig iron and lava it is extraordinarily cheap: $25,000. And £13,800 for 300bhp is tempting. Even if you factor in the cost of shipping, changing the lights and paying Mr Blair some tax, it’ll still only be £22,000.

For that you could have a Golf GTI, which, alongside Ford’s canoe looks like the Starship Enterprise. It’s more practical, easier to run, and around Laguna Seca undoubtedly it’d be a whole lot more competent. Whenever I drive a GTI I’m always full of admiration for its abilities, but when I was driving that Mustang I liked it. And that’s sort of more important.

Of course, the American way means they’ll never be able to build a sports car. It explains why the Pontiac Solstice is so dire. But the simplistic, covered wagon approach doesn’t really matter on a car like the Mustang, not when you’re doing 65mph in the sunshine and the Doobies are serenading you with Long Train Running. Not when it means you get a car this handsome for 13 grand.

The only worry is that if I did buy a Mustang, I’d get the car over here and on a wet November night realise that, actually, what I wanted to bring home was San Francisco.

The Mustang, then, is a great car in America. But here you’re better off with a Golf.

VITAL STATISTICS

Model Ford Mustang 4.6 litre
Engine 4600cc V8
Power 300bhp @ 5750rpm
Torque 320lb ft @ 4500rpm
Transmission 5 speed manual
Fuel 18/23mpg urban/extra urban
CO2 N/A
Acceleration 0-60mph: 5 sec
Top speed 143mph
Price $25,225 (not sold in UK)
Rating 3/5
Verdict Horrid but very loveable

[whiteballz]

hehehehehehehehehe

[my porsche]

nicenice

[Zytek_Fan]

Who is mad that the American car companies keep taking over their favourite marque?

[d-quik]

Well, you get 300bhp, which is about 200bhp less than BMW gets from a similarly sized engine.what bmw engine of similar size gets you 500bhp?

[johnnyperl]

The Mustang, then, is a great car in America. But here you’re better off with a Golf.
that says it all. its more about the customers/use than the engineering IMO. not all of america has access to mountain roads (or roads with curves).
id take the GTi anyday (was just looking at it on geman VW site)

[my porsche]

what bmw engine of similar size gets you 500bhp?
m5 engine, 5 Litres, 507 hp
gt engine, 4.6 Litres, 295 hp

[CHEESE-TACULAR]

m5 engine, 5 Litres, 507 hp
gt engine, 4.6 Litres, 295 hp
though i hate hate the mustang those two cars are seperated by what 40grand?give or take.

[Coventrysucks]

Who is mad that the American car companies keep taking over their favourite marque?


what bmw engine of similar size gets you 500bhp?

Couldn't stop yourselves eh?

Hook, line and sinker.

[my porsche]

though i hate hate the mustang those two cars are seperated by what 40grand?give or take.
closer to 60-75 ;)

[ScionDriver]

Who cares? He makes a valid point.

However he also makes the statement that I think should be stated more often: "American cars work in America." Take them overseas and we get served on all those grounds he was talking about. But here....homefield advantage.

["Clevor" Angel]

I'm not going to complain, I agree wholeheartedly.

PS, to point something out, americans have some of the cheapest petroleum in the world so car companies don't really care about the mileage so long as its "acceptable". Seeing the way Clarkson constantly talks about american cars its easy to see that he absolutely loves them. Driving the 300C, the Ford GT, the Mustang above, and a few others I've seen and read his reviews on, he pretty much always says they handle like crap, the engines aren't efficient, the styling is old and its made with less than desirable materials, pretty much whats been stated here... but he always says they have "that special something", and he always likes them and always has fun with them.

[crisis]

And that sets a question. How come America’s massive car industry can’t make what is basically beans on toast?
Because they can afford steak and all of their meat doesnt have diseases.


A light, zesty, pine-fresh car with an engine at the front, a simple foldaway roof in the middle and rear-wheel drive at the back? Lotus can make a sports car using nothing but a melted-down bathtub and the engine from a Rover. Alfa Romeo can make a sports car using steel so thin you can read through it, and an engine that won’t start. Then there was Triumph, which made a sports car even though its entire workforce was outside the factory warming its hands around a brazier and chanting.
Its about knowing your market Jeremy. Perhaps some people like being able to move/hear once they are in a seated postion. Perhaps the US market didnt have to "make do" with a workforce and industry that emerged partially devastated from ww2. So they could be a little less "careful" in the way they used their resources.




If you do encounter someone over there who’s fond of performance cars they’re only really interested in how much g can be generated in the bends, whereas here those of a petrolhead disposition don’t care at all about grip, only what happens when it’s lost and the car is sliding. Then you are into the world of handling. A world where nothing but skill keeps you out of the hedge.


Mmm, where are these rules of design that the British have right and the US has wrong?



There’s more, too. From day one American motor sport was all about sponsorship, which is why the oval raceway was developed. It meant the whole crowd could see all the sponsors’ names all the time. The cars never zoomed off into a wood.

Here, they did. Motor racing was a rich man’s game, held far from hoi polloi on airfield perimeter roads. And on twisty tracks like this, grip was nowhere near as important as decent handling.

Ok, a spectacle for the masses or another snob fest for the elite?



Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus (had) , Ferrari , Maserati and Aston Martin (had) . And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema.
Sloppy licence Jeremy. Out of hilarious analogies?



They also have the Ford Mustang and last week that’s what I was using to cruise up the 101 from Monterey to San Francisco. The sun was shining, 104.3 the Hippo was massaging my ear bones with soothing West Coast sounds and, like everyone else, I was doing a steady 65mph, my heart beating in slow monotonous harmony with the big V8.

This new version has been styled to resemble the original from 1965, and that’s a good thing. Less satisfactory is the news that it’s also been engineered to resemble the original with all sorts of technology that in Europe would have been considered old fashioned by Edward Longshanks.

Probably had a CD, A/C and a few other bits of technology and comfort you dont get in an Elise.



There’s no complex double-stage turbocharging here; no elegantly machined swirl chamber to extract the best possible power and economy from the smallest possible engine. It’s a 4.6 litre V8 with just one camshaft, three valves per cylinder and the sort of power output the average European would expect from a juicer.
But however have never been able to put in a car under $50,000.


I dont have the misfortune of being exposed to much of Jeremies rantings although I believe he is responsible for "I do have a disregard for the environment. "
and "I think the world can look after itself and we should enjoy it as best we can."

Unfortunately when a "journalist" becomes more important that the topics they cover they loose sight of the forest. Many Australian motor mag journalists also try to create a cult of personality.

[Nogger]

as always Clarkson delivers a great article.. hilarious every time... If only Swedish was so rich with words... that would make my life a lot easier when I write about cars...

[taz_rocks_miami]

I have to say the JC kinda has a point. But our market is different, as it's been said before, the US has a lot more long smooth roads, hence handling has never been a real issue.

Smaller, high reving engines are great in Europe, if you know how to work the gear box, you can get a lot of performance out of them. In the US, cars were generaly much larger and thus heavier, so big torquie engines were the natural choice. When kids started racing they used what roads and engines they had on hand. Long, straight roads, big V8s...drag racing was born. NASCAR was started by moonshiners smuggling illegal booze from one county to another on back roads using those same heavy cars, and one day they got organized and started racing on the beach of all places!! Again, cornering capabilities were not important.

Road racing does have it's place here, but it doesn't have the tradition that drag racing and NASCAR have, so our performance cars have always reflected those traditions. Look at the import (mainly Asian) racing scene here, they drag race for the most part. Impressive to see 4 cylinder FWD Honda Civics run 10.5 second 1/4 miles.

European cars reflect the roads, drivers and types of racing and motoring traditions you have on hand. In other words, it's all good. :)

[d-quik]

m5 engine, 5 Litres, 507 hp
gt engine, 4.6 Litres, 295 hpokay the m5 engine is TOTALLY! the same size as the gt engine. its not all about displacement.
Couldn't stop yourselves eh?

Hook, line and sinker.explain...

[d-quik]

fine...

[Esperante]

okay the m5 engine is TOTALLY! the same size as the m5 engine.
I would hope an M5 engine is the same size as an M5 engine.

[CdocZ]

As an American....I thought that was hilarious, hahahaha. Very entertaining read!! Thank'es.

[rev440]

JC is a extremly biased to those italion stalions! If it doesnt come from italy, german, and Britian he says its RUBISH! The truth of the matter is the Corvette spanks all these german cars around the track and is still cheaper then all the high end cars with same horse! I much prefer fifth gear and old Tiff over Top Gear and JC. Tiff has class JC is just rubish! Plus doesnt that old M5 have 2 extra pistons then the mustang? THey just dont get that americans are rich and if they want a big gass guzling car thats what there gonna have. If its not owned by VW or Ferrari most brits hate it. The truth of the matter is that the best selling car on the market is the Ford F150 now thats a shocker! I dont get whats so good about german cars. We have owned Bmw's driven 996 turbos and have driven and owned many other german cars. Id rather buy a nice Cadi over the bmw 7 series and put the rest in the stock market.

[Zytek_Fan]

4 cylinders are notorious for stalling

[rev440]

Every country has things there good at Japan makes good bikes, Germany makes good handeling high end cars, Britian well they have the Ultima, America we have cars built to beat germans, boats, and the Fastest jet ever, lets not forget Italy the mecca of sports cars. Who cares if our cars dont produce as much per litre stock.

[deffenbaugh03]

I thought it was hilarious. I am very american, but in general I hate our cars. Sure we have the Corvette, Viper, Saleen S7, and they're nice cars. But I don't think i'd ever want one. I have respect for classic american muscle cars too, they're special, there's nothing like a muscle car. I would never want one, but I can see why some people love them. But it's the cars like Ford Taurus and Chevy Impala, who would want one when you could get something like an Accord or Camry.

@Rev440- It doesn't matter that the BMW 5liter V10 has more cylinders than the Mustangs, Number of cylinder's has very little effect on power.

The fact that Manufactures like BMW and Honda can easily extract over 100bhp/l and still keep the car extremely reliable is definitely an accomplishment.

[Matra et Alpine]

4 cylinders are notorious for stalling

HAS to go down as one of the stupidist statements EVER on UCP.

Well done Z :D

"notorious" for needing drivers who know how to use a clutch and gearbox perchance IS true.

f it up with a clutch and you can stall anything. Put enough rubber on even the BIGGEST V8 and it can stall.

Or are you saying that 4 cylinder automatics stall more often then V6s and V8s ???? ROFLMAO :D

[The BIG BAD]

Four cylinders dont stall unless you cant drive a manual (stick shift) to save you life

I will admit they are easyer to stall but they are not notorius for stalling but clarkson is right american cars are still in the dark ages compared to european cars

even watching world wildest police chases tonight when a merc was stolen all the police cruisers had there arses swing out the back end while the merc didnt bat an eye lid it was embarassing to thing that american made cars are that bad especially ones desighned for high speed persuite

use impretzas like us here in blighty do and you will catch more crooks of high end vehicals ( mercs,porsches etc)

[Rockefella]

use impretzas like us here in blighty do and you will catch more crooks of high end vehicals ( mercs,porsches etc)
I've never heard of an impretza, who makes it?

[Esperante]

I've never heard of an impretza, who makes it?
I've had an impretza before. It had mustard and salt and-oh wait, that was an impretzal.

[Coventrysucks]

fine...

I can't be arsed to take time out of my busy schedule to make remark to your points.

I'm sorry if you've been brooding over this for the last 2 weeks...

[rev440]

use impretzas like us here in blighty do and you will catch more crooks of high end vehicals ( mercs,porsches etc)

Us Americans have a little thing we like to call Helicopters. When our police cruisers cant catch them we throw a chop up in the air to get them stopped.

[henk4]

Us Americans have a little thing we like to call Helicopters. When our police cruisers cant catch them we throw a chop up in the air to get them stopped.

and to get the camera teams on board for real life action shots:D

[Coventrysucks]

Us Americans have a little thing we like to call Helicopters. When our police cruisers cant catch them we throw a chop up in the air to get them stopped.

I've never seen an example of the helicopter actually "stopping" a pursuit though.

They just follow the car.

I have seen UK helicopter police landing and getting out to arrest car thieves.

[benzdriver101]

This might be off topic but I was thinking about buying a Camaro Z28 between the model years of 1998-2001 when I turn 21. I have been told Camaros are reliable when maintained. Plus, I want a car that is fast and has a great V8 rumble. The car that I have, which is a W123 230E eats the same amount of gas as the camaro and is nowhere near as fast... What do you guys think? Should I buy a Camaro?

[matek]

well in the end you can say this you can take a european car into america and it will do fine, but the other way round it doesnt work aswell.

that shouldnt be the case why should american car companies make cars that cant handle if they dont need to why not put in the extra effort and make the cars quality and not just quantity?

[Matra et Alpine]

that shouldnt be the case why should american car companies make cars that cant handle if they dont need to why not put in the extra effort and make the cars quality and not just quantity?
price ?

Best to ask Ford who have for decades made dumbed-down versions of the European cars for sale in the US. Usually one behind on chassis/suspension/engine. Crazy !!!! Of course some think they're the same and judge the Ford ROW small cars based on these !!!

[scottie300z]

I've never seen an example of the helicopter actually "stopping" a pursuit though.

They just follow the car.

I have seen UK helicopter police landing and getting out to arrest car thieves.

They dont really stop the crooks themselves, they follow it so they know its location and can tell the officers on the ground where they are going. Without them its alot more likely the thieves would escape, with them its very very more likely they will get cought. You cant get away from a helicopter, especially these days with technology. Night vision, heat vision etc....

[scottie300z]

well in the end you can say this you can take a european car into america and it will do fine, but the other way round it doesnt work aswell.

that shouldnt be the case why should american car companies make cars that cant handle if they dont need to why not put in the extra effort and make the cars quality and not just quantity?

I think its b/c Ford as a whole has trouble knowing what people in foreign countries want. They focus on americans their biggest market and know how to do that, but overseas they have trouble. maybe they are a bit slow, i dunno. But anyways this may be why they created Ford in england that is run by different people. This way those people will know what people in europe want and they create euro spec cars that the people there like.

[henk4]

I think its b/c Ford as a whole has trouble knowing what people in foreign countries want. They focus on americans their biggest market and know how to do that, but overseas they have trouble. maybe they are a bit slow, i dunno. But anyways this may be why they created Ford in england that is run by different people. This way those people will know what people in europe want and they create euro spec cars that the people there like.

and those are the cars that Americans get to see watered down versions of, one generation later:)

[Matra et Alpine]

I think its b/c Ford as a whole has trouble knowing what people in foreign countries want. They focus on americans their biggest market and know how to do that, but overseas they have trouble. maybe they are a bit slow, i dunno. But anyways this may be why they created Ford in england that is run by different people. This way those people will know what people in europe want and they create euro spec cars that the people there like.
The European platform and technology turns up in the US version anything from 2 to 5 years LATER.

Overseas Ford has NO trouble knowing what the buying public wants as they regularly are in the top 5 in all European nations :D

[Esperante]

I've never seen an example of the helicopter actually "stopping" a pursuit though.

They just follow the car.

I have seen UK helicopter police landing and getting out to arrest car thieves.
In NFS HPII they drop bombs. :D

[UCR]

My mates was chased by helicopter once and then had the great idea of runnin into a field of cows and jumpin under one (went away pretty quik) . I just paced it down the soddin road.

were clever round here.

[matek]

well america shoould make cars as if they were gona go to europe but then sell them in america then theyll still do fine:)

i should be there head director id rule ud all be driving kl cars by now that drive well:p

[Esperante]

well america shoould make cars as if they were gona go to europe but then sell them in america then theyll still do fine:)

i should be there head director id rule ud all be driving kl cars by now that drive well:p
No, they won't do fine. I believe it was Matra who once said, 'American cars are better on American roads; European cars are better on European roads.'

If Ford and GM started making cars for Europe, the most important thing that would happen would be a downsize of the car. While I would prefer it, myself, they wouldn't sell. Why do you think there are cars like the Suburban and Excursion, anyway?

[crisis]

No, they won't do fine. I believe it was Matra who once said, 'American cars are better on American roads; European cars are better on European roads.'


I dunno, I could happily cruise this stretch in a Viper or Corvette.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/chris80857/autobahn3.jpg

[early93viper]

You know what's really funny? Jeremy Clarkson would be speaking German if it wasn't for America. THAT'S F#$KING HILARIOUS!

[Rockefella]

You know what's really funny? Jeremy Clarkson would be speaking German if it wasn't for America. THAT'S F#$KING HILARIOUS!
Cue Fleet500 and Matra.

[crisis]

Cue Fleet500 and Matra.
Perhaps a simple link to the pages of prior discussion on this will do.

[Matra et Alpine]

You know what's really funny? Jeremy Clarkson would be speaking German if it wasn't for America. THAT'S F#$KING HILARIOUS!
yeah and you'd be speaking sequoia.
Learn some historical FACTS before sounding off like a redneck :D

Richard Cranium ... please leave the building !!!!

[early93viper]

yeah and you'd be speaking sequoia.
Learn some historical FACTS before sounding off like a redneck :D

Richard Cranium ... please leave the building !!!!


Interesting maybe you could enlighten me on how I would be speaking Sequoia? Please show me those Historical Facts. Maybe you had better trace my bloodline?

[Matra et Alpine]

Interesting maybe you could enlighten me on how I would be speaking Sequoia? Please show me those Historical Facts. Maybe you had better trace my bloodline?
I thought you were state-side - SEE another example of why you shodul put location in profile. If that assumption is in error then it was an erroneous suggestion but all your fault :D (put location in)

You're confusing bloodline and national language. They're not directly correlated :D

Without "Americans" then the native language in your area may be Sequoia's Cherokee language as his was the first attempted syllabory of a native indian language. Or one of the thousands of other languages in use before English/French/Spanish speakers invaded. Not really relevant or anything to be proud of, so perhaps enough to intellectually enlighten you to the stupidity of the JC comment !!!!

Has that helped see the stupidity of the JC/German comment. We dont' need to go over thi s again, it's already been covered upteen times with patriots blind to world events :(

[2ndclasscitizen]

You know what's really funny? Jeremy Clarkson would be speaking German if it wasn't for America. THAT'S F#$KING HILARIOUS!
hmmm, strange, the pom's managed to beat back the germans in the battle of britain pretty well, and i seem to remember that the russians ended up repelling the germans quite well on their own as well

[RS6]

You know what's really funny? Jeremy Clarkson would be speaking German if it wasn't for America. THAT'S F#$KING HILARIOUS!

I agree, that did make me chuckle. What language do you speak?

[Guest]

redneck me thinks...

[early93viper]

I thought you were state-side - SEE another example of why you shodul put location in profile. If that assumption is in error then it was an erroneous suggestion but all your fault :D (put location in)

You're confusing bloodline and national language. They're not directly correlated :D

Without "Americans" then the native language in your area may be Sequoia's Cherokee language as his was the first attempted syllabory of a native indian language. Or one of the thousands of other languages in use before English/French/Spanish speakers invaded. Not really relevant or anything to be proud of, so perhaps enough to intellectually enlighten you to the stupidity of the JC comment !!!!

Has that helped see the stupidity of the JC/German comment. We dont' need to go over thi s again, it's already been covered upteen times with patriots blind to world events :(


Without Americans is right as it has nothing to do with the UK. And I am not Indian so why the hell would I speak sequoia. Americans came from various places. I am Irish-American. Please tell me what language I should be speaking without the UK's help you historian you.

The truth of the matter is this: When America joined World War II Winston Churchill opened a bottle of wine and said the war was won. Because he knew America's would change dynamics of the war. As they did.

Most people seem to forget the USA's help on many political fronts not only then but now. It's probably easier to bash them and call anyone defending them redneck.

[scottie300z]

I think it would be more properly put this way, If not for the english id be speaking spanish right now. But then again i may not even be in this country or alive for that matter to speak a language.

And as far as WWII goes, i think it is still plausable that the russian's would have done what they did even if the US never entered the war. It would be hard to say, but the germans were stretched pretty thin before the US came in. The thing w/ the US is, that w/o them the japanese may have been able to take over war torn europe.

[Matra et Alpine]

Without Americans is right as it has nothing to do with the UK. And I am not Indian so why the hell would I speak sequoia. Americans came from various places. I am Irish-American. Please tell me what language I should be speaking without the UK's help you historian you.
Sorry e93v, I was clearly being too obtuse.
Sorry if this will sound school-mam'ish but I need to go through it simply then.
You speak English in an English nation which is resident on ancient lands previously populated by 'native american' tribes.
Without ENGLAND ( and France and Spain ) then as a resident on that land TODAY you would be living in a 'native American' nation which would undoubtedly speak the language of the forefathers. I picked Cherokee assuming it would be the first one written - which was done by chief Sequioa.
Now at the moment you're thinking that's stupid because of all the other factors involved. NOW you are getting why it was made in reply to your comment about JC speaking German !!!!
Do we have it now ????

The truth of the matter is this: When America joined World War II Winston Churchill opened a bottle of wine and said the war was won. Because he knew America's would change dynamics of the war. As they did.
First Churchill was a great user of the media. Everything he said in public was said for a reason. Everything he did in public was done for a reason. Reading the numerous biographies on hi are quite eye-opening. He was a very astute thinker.
America needed to hear that as they had many in congress and senate who at the time STILL did not think America should be fighting in Europe. Taking the thanks he conveyed as only having one meaning is forgetting all the OTHER nations who worked together to "win the war".
What America DID bring when it finally entered the war was the safe and untouched manufacturing capability. Something destroyed in Europe after 3 years of war. Britain had no more money to be able to afford the shackles of the lend-lease plan and continued operation of it was guaranteed to destroy the British economy. Even still Britain never got rid if rationing until the 1950s because of those measures and the worse "loans" provided !!

Most people seem to forget the USA's help on many political fronts not only then but now. It's probably easier to bash them and call anyone defending them redneck.
No, what happens is "rednecks" often make it all simple thinking that's the truth.
Forgetting the efforts and actions and commitment of all others involved.
These are then pointed out.
Usually it descends into silence once the facts are made public that American published history forgets.

Remember that Churchill had spent the year before PLEADING with America to assist in pushing back the Nazi advance. Perhaps if they'd stepped up to the mark then millions of jews would have been spared and the Japanese empire would not have felt they could match Hitlers successes ? Speculation as are all what-ifs, but as valid as any other - like what would have happened if the US hadn't entered.

Another good one is what woudl have happened if America then didn't apply draconian interest on all other war and food requirements. It ensured the destruction of the Britsih Empire, which many in American politics wished for.

What is pretty clear is that no America would NOT have entailed the surrender of the total British Isles. THAT fantasy forgets the geography of the nation :D

[Matra et Alpine]

The thing w/ the US is, that w/o them the japanese may have been able to take over war torn europe.
Interesting S.
Never heard that suggested before.
How would Japan control an empire with no defensible supply or control routes ?
Has any serious historian writen anythgin on that idea, I'd like to see their treatise on it ??

[d-quik]

I can't be arsed to take time out of my busy schedule to make remark to your points.

I'm sorry if you've been brooding over this for the last 2 weeks...oh well sorry mr. important guy with busy schedule

no need to be sry i just looked at my old posts and found this

[Esperante]

oh well sorry mr. important guy with busy schedule


Well that's a bit of a silly thing to say, isn't it?

[scottie300z]

Interesting S.
Never heard that suggested before.
How would Japan control an empire with no defensible supply or control routes ?
Has any serious historian writen anythgin on that idea, I'd like to see their treatise on it ??

I have no idea myself. just sorta wrote that then when thinking about what could have happened. they could have done it the same way as the germans i guess, go through each country using their resources against the next country. And with all the other country's beaten down so much it wouldnt be too hard. and when they got to germany or any axis favoring countries they could revive their war machine.

[Matra et Alpine]

I have no idea myself. just sorta wrote that then when thinking about what could have happened. they could have done it the same way as the germans i guess, go through each country using their resources against the next country. And with all the other country's beaten down so much it wouldnt be too hard. and when they got to germany or any axis favoring countries they could revive their war machine.
It was an interesting idea, S, as it made me consider it and hence the comment about supply routes.
There are a few mountains :) arid deserts and no food production for a VERY large part of the route.
Some of the route is through areas where the best armies in the world had for centuries before tried and have since WW2 given up trying to control.
Was an intersting diversion considering it though.

[henk4]

if Attila the Hun and Dzhengis Khan could manage already a very large stretch of the required terroritory, why not the Japanese. They improve on everything tried before by others:D

[Matra et Alpine]

if Attila the Hun and Dzhengis Khan could manage already a very large stretch of the required terroritory, why not the Japanese. They improve on everything tried before by others:D
They weren't trying to move tanks and 10 times the number of men it would THEN take to conquer :D
A small group left behind in Genkhis' day could do very little to disrupt. Back then if you were conquered you pretty much accepted it. The Boer's showed what could be done to disrupt an army better trained, better equipped and better supplied :D Take a WW2 example .. the second vehicle led raid by the newly formed SAS with a squad of only about 25 DESTROYED 100 German figher and close support bombers AND went out on three other raids the same week :D
Different times, different tacts, different challenges.
Look at ho the Ardennes offensive collapsed as supply lines were eked out ( admittedly a last ditch attempt BUT the allies new by continuing the engagement even with the losses they would prevail )


EDIT: only jsut spotted the humour :D sorry :D nice one !!!!!!

[early93viper]

Now at the moment you're thinking that's stupid because of all the other factors involved. NOW you are getting why it was made in reply to your comment about JC speaking German !!!!
Do we have it now ????



No, your talking about events that happend Hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. I am talking about events that happened with in life times. There is a huge difference. USA has been nothing but great allies to Europeons. If it wasn't Germeny or Japan it would have been the USSR and/or world war III. The fact that we had the bomb kept USSR in check. Not to mention the countless other countries.

There are millions of factors obviously. But UKs chances wouldn't be great without the USA involvement in numerous political matters.

[Blitz_]

Funny article, American cars do suck, well thier ok when you consider the mustang, viper, corvette etc. But thier sedans and what not are just plain shit. In regards to WWII, i've never really liked the British, why? Montogomery, his ego and attitude just pisses me off, and even though they may say he was great, he never even reached the heights of Patton. Other things annoy me, the desert rats, history shows and Brits say it was solely them, when in fact it was the Aussies who contributed the most and the attitude of Montogomery (again). And if there is something i do agree with, with early93viper, is that USA's contribution did help the Brit's to a great degree.

Hahaha damn i hate Montomery, snobby little uptight bastard.

[Matra et Alpine]

No, your talking about events that happend Hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. I am talking about events that happened with in life times. There is a huge difference. USA has been nothing but great allies to Europeons.
WHEN IT SUITED THEM.
Read some history from the other side of the relationship.
Check back on trade wars, business tactics and political control.
Look into the UN Security Council minutes and see over the years how many times the US has vetoed ?
I think - as it is easy to do - that the history is from one perspective. Schools tend not to teach the other persepective as it loosens government control :D

If it wasn't Germeny or Japan it would have been the USSR and/or world war III. The fact that we had the bomb kept USSR in check. Not to mention the countless other countries.
You might want to research that one a little too.
The MAD path was US/USSR and was egotistical war-mongering.
Thankfully later Presidents saw sense and undertook SALT etc.
Again, the idea that Japan could attack and conquer Europe is silly.
And USSR expansion was partly driven by the post WW2 politics. Too many what-ifs to make up stories with that are plausible :D

There are millions of factors obviously. But UKs chances wouldn't be great without the USA involvement in numerous political matters.
Yep, it's pretty much a one way street at them moment.
It' sad that american politicians dont' recognise that and put in an equal share :(
Btw, it's not a good thing !!!

[Matra et Alpine]

Funny article, American cars do suck, well thier ok when you consider the mustang, viper, corvette etc. But thier sedans and what not are just plain shit. In regards to WWII, i've never really liked the British, why? Montogomery, his ego and attitude just pisses me off, and even though they may say he was great, he never even reached the heights of Patton.
Partly because sof American military egos.
Have you read any bios of the WW2 leaders ?
Patton was a megalomaniac !!!!
Also what defines a great leader ? Would Patten have one in North Africa where shear presence of numbers WASN'T the key factor to winning ? What woudl have happened on day 2 of D-Day if Mont and the other British/Canadian leaders hadn't agreed to defend Caen knowing it to be near suicide ? Even American generals were taken by surprise at the British/Canadian willingness to commit to protect the American forces.
Sometimes the 'best' arent' the ones who grab the headlines or have movies made about them or glorified in biased media !
( for example Montgomery was a terrible publicist. Great man with the soldiers, always in the thick BUT always made sure there was a camera :D )


Other things annoy me, the desert rats, history shows and Brits say it was solely them, when in fact it was the Aussies who contributed the most and the attitude of Montogomery (again).[quote]
See that's where we differ. Brits arent' taught it was only the 8th, so I'm not sure why you've the attitude. We don't :D
[quote] And if there is something i do agree with, with early93viper, is that USA's contribution did help the Brit's to a great degree.
THAT was never refuted. BUT have you looked at the cost required to be paid ? It wasn't getting down from comradeship or partnership or "special relation".

Hahaha damn i hate Montomery, snobby little uptight bastard.
Clearly you've never read anything from his men or from anyone who met him.
It would be enlightening if you did.
He wasn't perfect but "snobby" ? Not in the sense we would use the word. Or do you just mean he had a plummy accent ? or had a moustace ? Not sure which cliche would fit :D

[early93viper]

WHEN IT SUITED THEM.


Maybe............but it got the job done.



You might want to research that one a little too.
The MAD path was US/USSR and was egotistical war-mongering.
Thankfully later Presidents saw sense and undertook SALT etc.
Again, the idea that Japan could attack and conquer Europe is silly.
And USSR expansion was partly driven by the post WW2 politics. Too many what-ifs to make up stories with that are plausible :D


The Cold war would have never happened if a Free Country (USA) didn't have the bomb. World War III would have. The USSR (and others) wanted to make the world communists and the United States (and others) wanted the world to be free (see vietnam, the korean war, etc.). Since there was threat of Nuclear annihilation neither country acted with any great military might against the other.

The great irony is that nuclear weapons have probably saved more life then they have taken. At least so far. :)

[Matra et Alpine]

Maybe............but it got the job done.
for Americans :) Want to try listing how it "got the job done" for others ?

The Cold war would have never happened if a Free Country (USA) didn't have the bomb. World War III would have.
That is conjecture as the escalation in the late 50s was precisley BECAUSE of the bomb !!! Wihtout the bobm you cannot say how "peace" may have spread.

The USSR (and others) wanted to make the world communists and the United States (and others) wanted the world to be free (see vietnam, the korean war, etc.). Since there was threat of Nuclear annihilation neither country acted with any great military might against the other.
and who's to say that a communism built by peaceful measn without the "threat" of destruction by the US woudl ahve been a bad thing ?
The problem in playing these what-ofs is trygin to seperate cause and efect. Reading Marx and the less extreme military/control freask grown by post WW2 in left-wing politics would be interesting. ( Esp. CND in the UK, MANY left wing politicians who desierd ALL nations to give up nuclear weapons )

The great irony is that nuclear weapons have probably saved more life then they have taken. At least so far. :)
Again a conhjecture that assuems that something would have driven the escalation that nuclear weapons led without there being any nuclear weapons to stop it :)
I'm not sure if all those killed on the peripheray of the cold war feel the same as you :(

[early93viper]

for Americans :) Want to try listing how it "got the job done" for others ?

That is conjecture as the escalation in the late 50s was precisley BECAUSE of the bomb !!! Wihtout the bobm you cannot say how "peace" may have spread.

and who's to say that a communism built by peaceful measn without the "threat" of destruction by the US woudl ahve been a bad thing ?
The problem in playing these what-ofs is trygin to seperate cause and efect. Reading Marx and the less extreme military/control freask grown by post WW2 in left-wing politics would be interesting. ( Esp. CND in the UK, MANY left wing politicians who desierd ALL nations to give up nuclear weapons )

Again a conhjecture that assuems that something would have driven the escalation that nuclear weapons led without there being any nuclear weapons to stop it :)
I'm not sure if all those killed on the peripheray of the cold war feel the same as you :(

:rolleyes: Right, the USSR was known for using peaceul means to get what they want. They probably would have sent over a fruit cake asking you nicely to join and be commuinists. :rolleyes:

And Commuinism is a bad thing. There is a reason POOR countries are communist contries and rich countries are capitalist countries. If you don't mind your children starving then communism is right for you.:rolleyes:

[Matra et Alpine]

:rolleyes: Right, the USSR was known for using peaceul means to get what they want. They probably would have sent over a fruit cake asking you nicely to join and be commuinists. :rolleyes:

And Commuinism is a bad thing. There is a reason POOR countries are communist contries and rich countries are capitalist countries. If you don't mind your children starving then communism is right for you.:rolleyes:
you are makign the mistake again of comparing communism as it was forced into by the war and the post war forces from the "free" west. Your comment is valid but has many many what-ifs that are assumed to work in the favour of the premise :D

Read about proper communism and not stalinism :D

Just as democracy and capitlism is movign to extremes wehre the common man has been lost so did communism. Maybe ( more what-ifs ) without the threat of fighting nuclear war there woudl ahve been scope for communism to turn away from the extremes. Many struggle over how we get rampant capitalism away from it's extremes in todays world too :(

[VtecMini]

Wow, how very wayward.

Why is it that whenever somebody dislikes any of america's cars, we have to sit through a threadful of "GAWD BLESS AMERICA!"? Is the fact that people outside america dislike american cars really that much of a problem for you? If they're what you like, then fine. Enjoy them. Smells of insecurity of you ask me.

[early93viper]

Wow, how very wayward.

Why is it that whenever somebody dislikes any of america's cars, we have to sit through a threadful of "GAWD BLESS AMERICA!"? Is the fact that people outside america dislike american cars really that much of a problem for you? If they're what you like, then fine. Enjoy them. Smells of insecurity of you ask me.


LOL wow your way off
It is the other way around. JK atacked American cars and then America not only in the article posted but several other articles:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/paperforgreg.jpg

You do have a GREAT POINT though it does smell of insecurity just not of me.

[early93viper]

you are makign the mistake again of comparing communism as it was forced into by the war and the post war forces from the "free" west. Your comment is valid but has many many what-ifs that are assumed to work in the favour of the premise :D

Read about proper communism and not stalinism :D

Just as democracy and capitlism is movign to extremes wehre the common man has been lost so did communism. Maybe ( more what-ifs ) without the threat of fighting nuclear war there woudl ahve been scope for communism to turn away from the extremes. Many struggle over how we get rampant capitalism away from it's extremes in todays world too :(

Name a rich Communist country..........anyone? It just doesn't work. Period.

And your wrong Capitalism doesn't lose the common man. I started my Landscape business with nothing but a Corsica and a push behind lawn mower. I was below the common man. Now I feel I am doing rather well for myself. That's because Capitalism gives you a chance to be great. While communism condemns you to mediocrity.

[Matra et Alpine]

Name a rich Communist country..........anyone? It just doesn't work. Period.
aha the pitfall of a capitalist -- measure "richness" by monetary value :)
You also make the mistake of atributing the label "communist" to groups wich arent'. THAT is a consequence of the American political education system :) Learn more about the variety adn the aspoirations of communism before we proceed any further please. AND let's take it to another thread. You're free to create it :)

And your wrong Capitalism doesn't lose the common man. I started my Landscape business with nothing but a Corsica and a push behind lawn mower. I was below the common man. Now I feel I am doing rather well for myself. That's because Capitalism gives you a chance to be great. While communism condemns you to mediocrity.
see the error is in taking INDIVIDUAL cases as they can always be used to justify anything including murder :(
Tell all the pensioners who can no longer afford insurance because of the ENRON corruption decimating their plans ?

AND I see you've taken the "line" on communism. Two great leaders were travelling to Paris after WW1. They both went by train. ONe in first class, the other in third. The one in thrid complained to the other for takign first and that it was betrayign communism. "no, comrade, you misunderstand communism. We ALL get to travel first class!"

It's NOT about dragging down, it's about buidling up.
But ends up corrupted.
Just look at the stock markets around the world. These were MEANT to provide a source of capital for people with ideas to manage to produce them. NOW it is a means of making paper money for the few able to play it effectively. The rich and well supported can make millions -- millions made from those who are less knowledgable and supported by brokers etc.

Each is corrupted in a different way from the ideals each of them set out to provide :(

Have you studied the history of world economics ? It is very interesting and especially how the various systems have swayed from their objectives and in their own way succeeded and failed/

[early93viper]

aha the pitfall of a capitalist -- measure "richness" by monetary value :)


Where is it that I said Monatary value? NAME A communist country that is rich.



You also make the mistake of atributing the label "communist" to groups wich arent'. THAT is a consequence of the American political education system :) Learn more about the variety adn the aspoirations of communism before we proceed any further please. AND let's take it to another thread. You're free to create it :)
/

No, this thread. Teach me, show me how communism has worked.






AND I see you've taken the "line" on communism. Two great leaders were travelling to Paris after WW1. They both went by train. ONe in first class, the other in third. The one in thrid complained to the other for takign first and that it was betrayign communism. "no, comrade, you misunderstand communism. We ALL get to travel first class!"

It's NOT about dragging down, it's about buidling up.
But ends up corrupted.
Just look at the stock markets around the world. These were MEANT to provide a source of capital for people with ideas to manage to produce them. NOW it is a means of making paper money for the few able to play it effectively. The rich and well supported can make millions -- millions made from those who are less knowledgable and supported by brokers etc.
/

Let me help you. The reason why communism doesn't work is very simple. People will work harder for themselves than they will any one else. The thought of getting ahead in life gets people starting buisnesses, inventing products, and just generaly working harder.

Would you work as hard if you got paid the same no matter what happened? If you answer that honestly you would have the answer to why communism doesn't work





Have you studied the history of world economics ? It is very interesting and especially how the various systems have swayed from their objectives and in their own way succeeded and failed/


I have studied economics a lot. But it doesn't take an economics major to see what has worked and what has failed so many times.

[scottie300z]

Let me help you. The reason why communism doesn't work is very simple. People will work harder for themselves than they will any one else. The thought of getting ahead in life gets people starting buisnesses, inventing products, and just generaly working harder.

Would you work as hard if you got paid the same no matter what happened? If you answer that honestly you would have the answer to why communism doesn't work


Thats why it wouldnt work in already rich or moderately rich countries (as it would be a pay cut to alot of people). But if communism got it start in poorer countries, (maybe an example is some african or asia countrys) then people would be getting paid more b/c of it and have a better life. and then as the country's economy got better and richer they would get paid more accordingly. That would be the motivation to work harder. Its like when company's give stock to employees, the more positive impact they have (the harder they work) the more they get paid. Comunisim is like having stock in your country.

And as far as US and the cold war and WWIII. Show me how WWWIII would have happened w/o the US, or russia would have taken control of europe. I think its a little much suggesting that they could have taken major countries or really countries west of the berlin wall. So basicaly they would have gotton exactly what they did get. Wasnt the cold war more of a tecnology/arms race then anything else? instead of making sure the russians dont take over europe. From what ive read in history books and everything the US didnt do much to prevent the russians from taking over countries other than in asia. russia was given control of a number of european country's right after WWII was settled.

[nota]

The USSR (and others) wanted to make the world communists and the United States (and others) wanted the world to be free.

Many struggle over how we get rampant capitalism away from it's extremes in todays world too
Thank you Matra for expressing a contra. Indeed there are many people on this globe who apparently rate only as second-tier world citizens (eg 'non americans') but wish to instead be allowed their own version of freedom. By golly this might encompass freedom FROM an American-mandated compulsary world-subservience to US capitalism, imperialism & domination

But the US obviously knows what's best for us mere aliens/foreigners so I guess for ALL of us to revel in Freedom-USA we must first kneel down before our McSuperiors :rolleyes:

[early93viper]

Thats why it wouldnt work in already rich or moderately rich countries (as it would be a pay cut to alot of people). But if communism got it start in poorer countries, (maybe an example is some african or asia countrys) then people would be getting paid more b/c of it and have a better life. and then as the country's economy got better and richer they would get paid more accordingly. That would be the motivation to work harder. Its like when company's give stock to employees, the more positive impact they have (the harder they work) the more they get paid. Comunisim is like having stock in your country.
.

No commusnism is not like having stock in your country. Communism is basicly when the goverment controls everything.
By defenition:
Communism:
a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society



And as far as US and the cold war and WWIII. Show me how WWWIII would have happened w/o the US, or russia would have taken control of europe. I think its a little much suggesting that they could have taken major countries or really countries west of the berlin wall. So basicaly they would have gotton exactly what they did get. Wasnt the cold war more of a tecnology/arms race then anything else? instead of making sure the russians dont take over europe. From what ive read in history books and everything the US didnt do much to prevent the russians from taking over countries other than in asia. russia was given control of a number of european country's right after WWII was settled.


Um no. The US did a lot to prevent them taking over contries everywhere. What country exactly are you refering to?

[scottie300z]

Thank you Matra for expressing a contra. Indeed there are many people on this globe who apparently rate only as second-tier world citizens (eg 'non americans') but wish to instead be allowed their own version of freedom. By golly this might encompass freedom FROM an American-mandated compulsary world-subservience to US capitalism, imperialism & domination

But the US obviously knows what's best for us mere aliens/foreigners so I guess for ALL of us to revel in Freedom-USA we must first kneel down before our McSuperiors :rolleyes:

ha, thats so true. But as far as the amrican business goes (mcdonalds) they wouldnt be in foreign country's if those foreign country's did not want them there. (make them profitable) you dont shop there, they dont exist. But i agree w/ everything else.

[early93viper]

Thank you Matra for expressing a contra. Indeed there are many people on this globe who apparently rate only as second-tier world citizens (eg 'non americans') but wish to instead be allowed their own version of freedom. By golly this might encompass freedom FROM an American-mandated compulsary world-subservience to US capitalism, imperialism & domination

But the US obviously knows what's best for us mere aliens/foreigners so I guess for ALL of us to revel in Freedom-USA we must first kneel down before our McSuperiors :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Oh the drama:rolleyes:

How has the US treated the rest of the globe as second-tier citizens?

The US has protected weaker countries and people countless times. Not saying they have never made a mistake. But find a country who has protected people more. Please.

[scottie300z]

No commusnism is not like having stock in your country. Communism is basicly when the goverment controls everything.
By defenition:
Communism:
a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society



How is that different? The better the country does b/c of the work of its workers, the more they get paid. The better a company does b/c of the work of its worker the more their stock is worth and therefore the more they get paid. the incentives are the same, which was the basis of the comparison.

And from what ive been told, wasnt the government's control theoretically supposed to weaken as time went on? And id like to note that just b/c something hasnt worked doesn't mean it cant. There are many different circumstances that cause a result to happen. Just b/c america is working so well, doesnt mean the same system will work everywhere. There are many things that caused america to be what it is today. At its beginning there were many other things going in its favor that cant always be said for other countrys.


Um no. The US did a lot to prevent them taking over contries everywhere. What country exactly are you refering to

Any european country, isnt it true that after WWII when the country's were discussing how to shape post war europe Russia was infact given the majority of europe? therefore nobody, not even the US opposed russia occupying european countrys? other then those country's later on when they revolted. But didnt the majority if not all of US's concern w/ stopping the spread of communism occur in asia and not in europe?

[Zytek_Fan]

What about Bush's gay tax returns that are only making the rich richer

[early93viper]

How is that different? The better the country does b/c of the work of its workers, the more they get paid. The better a company does b/c of the work of its worker the more their stock is worth and therefore the more they get paid. the incentives are the same, which was the basis of the comparison.

And from what ive been told, wasnt the government's control theoretically supposed to weaken as time went on? And id like to note that just b/c something hasnt worked doesn't mean it cant. There are many different circumstances that cause a result to happen. Just b/c america is working so well, doesnt mean the same system will work everywhere. There are many things that caused america to be what it is today. At its beginning there were many other things going in its favor that cant always be said for other countrys.


Theroies and making it work are two different things. Communism has just failed so many times. But anything can happen. Hell monkey's could fly out of my butt.






Any european country, isnt it true that after WWII when the country's were discussing how to shape post war europe Russia was infact given the majority of europe? therefore nobody, not even the US opposed russia occupying european countrys? other then those country's later on when they revolted. But didnt the majority if not all of US's concern w/ stopping the spread of communism occur in asia and not in europe?

See you have to say a country as I am not sure any where ever threatened. How can you defend a country not threatened?

If you mean Germeny heres what happened:

Germany is temporarily divided into 4 zones. Germany’s capital Berlin divided too. After a democratic government was installed the America, England and France reunited their sectors. Stalin refused to reunite his section, fearing a strong united Germany and wanting to retain control. This creates two Germanies; a democratic West Germany and communist dictatorship East Germany.

[scottie300z]

What about Bush's gay tax returns that are only making the rich richer

that might deserve another thread, as this one may have gone a bit off topic but is somewhat still related to the main topic.

I dont know the exact numbers, if they got more percent back or what but even if everyone in the country got a 10% tax return, the rich would get more money b/c they pay more tax. but the tax return was still equal.

[early93viper]

What about Bush's gay tax returns that are only making the rich richer

Bush's tax returns are heterosexual I assure you.

Under the President’s tax relief plan, the typical American family of four will be able to keep at least $1,600 more of their own money. It doubles the child tax credit to $1,000 per child. Reduces the marrige tax. And It also expands the charitable deductions.

How does that only make the rich richer?

[Zytek_Fan]

The richest people are getting the most money back, such as Bill Gates. And yes I do understand that many people get money back such as married people and people with children.

[scottie300z]

theroies and making it work are two different things. Communism has just failed so many times. But anything can happen. Hell monkey's could fly out of my butt.

So communism isnt necessarily a bad thing then, cause you agree it could work. Just b/c so far the poor have been communism doesnt mean it cant work out or is bad.





See you have to say a country as I am not sure any where ever threatened. How can you defend a country not threatened?

If you mean Germeny heres what happened:

Germany is temporarily divided into 4 zones. Germany’s capital Berlin divided too. After a democratic government was installed the America, England and France reunited their sectors. Stalin refused to reunite his section, fearing a strong united Germany and wanting to retain control. This creates two Germanies; a democratic West Germany and communist dictatorship East Germany.

Not threatened? didnt earlier you say that if it wasn't for the US that the USSR would control Europe? so if they didnt threaten europe, the USSR wouldnt ever control europe, and therefore back to my point that the US did not prevent the USSR from controling europe.

And there are actual countries in europe, see chzeckoslovokia or however you spell it. Where was the US then? It seems to me that besides berlin the US sort of moved on from europe.

[Zytek_Fan]

I would like to say that Bush has really ****ed up a lot of America's economy. He has benefited from gasoline price gouging because his family is in the oil industry

[scottie300z]

:rolleyes: Oh the drama:rolleyes:

How has the US treated the rest of the globe as second-tier citizens?

The US has protected weaker countries and people countless times. Not saying they have never made a mistake. But find a country who has protected people more. Please.

You could say that the fact that they feel they have to be the police treats the rest of the globe as second-tier citizens. I wouldnt say the US protects just to help those needing help. If that were true then wouldnt the people who need the help most would recieve it? And then wouldnt the people of Africa of it alot better off?

[Coventrysucks]

The US has protected weaker countries and people countless times.

In most cases the USA only comes running when it is in the interest of the USA.

The USA facilitated the Taliban's rise to power and did NOTHING about it untill it Al Qaeda made a significant attack on the USA.

Would Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded if 9/11 had not happened, but Bali, Madrid, London etc had. No!

Why has America not invaded Zimbabwe and deposed Robert Mugabe?

Because it would not benefit the USA.

[early93viper]

So communism isnt necessarily a bad thing then, cause you agree it could work. Just b/c so far the poor have been communism doesnt mean it cant work out or is bad.
.
Well I did compare it to monkey's flying out of my butt.







Not threatened? didnt earlier you say that if it wasn't for the US that the USSR would control Europe? so if they didnt threaten europe, the USSR wouldnt ever control europe, and therefore back to my point that the US did not prevent the USSR from controling europe.

And there are actual countries in europe, see chzeckoslovokia or however you spell it. Where was the US then? It seems to me that besides berlin the US sort of moved on from europe.


The reason none of them where threatened is the fact the USSR knew that the US would protect them. And Czechoslovakia was brought to communism by it's own people (Also known as Czechoslovak National Socialists).

[early93viper]

In most cases the USA only comes running when it is in the interest of the USA.

The USA facilitated the Taliban's rise to power and did NOTHING about it untill it Al Qaeda made a significant attack on the USA.

Would Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded if 9/11 had not happened, but Bali, Madrid, London etc had. No!

Why has America not invaded Zimbabwe and deposed Robert Mugabe?

Because it would not benefit the USA.


You could say that the fact that they feel they have to be the police treats the rest of the globe as second-tier citizens. I wouldnt say the US protects just to help those needing help. If that were true then wouldnt the people who need the help most would recieve it? And then wouldnt the people of Africa of it alot better off?


Admitingly the US looks after it's best intrest. As do all countries.

[scottie300z]

The reason none of them where threatened is the fact the USSR knew that the US would protect them. And Czechoslovakia was brought to communism by it's own people (Also known as Czechoslovak National Socialists).



After World War II, a reconstituted Czechoslovakia fell within the Soviet sphere of influence. In 1968, an invasion by Warsaw Pact troops ended the efforts of the country's leaders to liberalise party rule and create "socialism with a human face" during the Prague Spring.
-wikipedia

I believe that is the soviet union.

[scottie300z]

Admitingly the US looks after it's best intrest. As do all countries.

So they arent necessarily protecting countries to protect them then? how is that as honorable as you made it out? How is that helping the world more then other countries? its more like helping themselves.

[nota]

:rolleyes: Oh the drama:rolleyes:

How has the US treated the rest of the globe as second-tier citizens?
Just ask Nicaraguans, Argentinians, Cubans, much of the Middle East including Palestine, Africa (the bits which contain oil wink wink) umm let me see, yep the Irish, even little Panama & Granada oh gosh there's heaps more. Which second tier nation hasn't been invaded, overthrown, meddled with or monstered by the US in recent times? There's gotta be one .. somewhere :confused:

I know! Persia

[early93viper]

-wikipedia

I believe that is the soviet union.

There was a strong movement by a lot of Czechoslovakia people to stay away from a democraticy.

[early93viper]

So they arent necessarily protecting countries to protect them then? how is that as honorable as you made it out? How is that helping the world more then other countries? its more like helping themselves.

It is honoralbe to protect Women, Children, and men who can't protect themselves. It is hard and has been hard to justify American lives to protect all of the world from all of there problems. Especially when they remember it so differently. :)

[early93viper]

Just ask Nicaraguans, Argentinians, Cubans, much of the Middle East including Palestine, Africa (the bits which contain oil wink wink) umm let me see, yep the Irish, even little Panama & Granada oh gosh there's heaps more. Which second tier nation hasn't been invaded, overthrown, meddled with or monstered by the US in recent times? There's gotta be one .. somewhere :confused:

I know! Persia

More drama

Calm down. The US has never gone into a country with force that wasn't either a threat to it's people or to the US. Perhaps you think another country would be better at being the World power? LOL Most any other country would (and has) used it's power in a much more greedy way.

[scottie300z]

LOL Most any other country would (and has) used it's power in a much more greedy way.


Is this not greedy at all?

Originally Posted by early93viper
Admitingly the US looks after it's best intrest. As do all countries


It is honoralbe to protect Women, Children, and men who can't protect themselves. It is hard and has been hard to justify American lives to protect all of the world from all of there problems. Especially when they remember it so differently.


it would be honorable if those were the main reasons, but instead they are the main reasons given, not the main reasons when in actuality they are looking after their own best intrests.

And it isnt hard to justify american lives, you just lie and say your protecting people, making people free, or making the world a better place. You dont have to give proof, or even follow the rules and ask congress for a decleration of war, nope you just do it. If he had to get a decleration of war, he'd have to back it up w/ actual proof of a threat. too bad its too easy to undermind the system.

You cant tell me that the US went to iraq to protect people, when there are people in alot more danger then the Iraq citizens were, they are actually in more danger now. And with no proof of any threat to the US or any other country why would the US be over there? doesnt that sound a bit greedy and uncalled for?

[scottie300z]

Im not saying that all foreign involvement by america has been bad or anything, but to say the vast majority has been good, and america is superior or whatever is taking it too far.

America may go places in order to solve a problem, but you have to realise that sometimes when you solve one problem you cause two or three new ones. It may be hard to realize that especially since you may remember it so differently. :p
And that is why america may not be looked that great upon, they can be viewed as causing more problems then they fix or attempt to fix. And that really isnt to honorable when considering your dealing with people's lives. You cant just go around screwing stuff up even if your heart was actually in the right place, even though i wouldnt say america's foreign policy necessarily is.

[henk4]

Where is it that I said Monatary value? NAME A communist country that is rich.



Kazakhstan

Although in name capitalistic it retains all the treats of a communist country, the current president being the former leader of the Communist Party.
And yes in monetary terms a number of people are very rich, while in real terms the wealth of the majority of the people has declined because of the abolition of the health care, education and pension system that was available during communist times.

[henk4]

Why has America not invaded Zimbabwe and deposed Robert Mugabe?

Because it would not benefit the USA.

or Turkmenistan to remove Saparmurat Niyazov, or Uzbekistan to remove Islam Karimov:D

[Matra et Alpine]

guys you are ALL discussing RUSSIANISM and not communism :(

Please read abotu COMMUNISM.

Where is it successful ? Has anyone any friends who have worked on Israeli communes ?

Shared effort to the common goal is ACTUALLY what "communism" is about.
Stalinism and Leninism created the truly draconion centralised control everyoen uses to judge whether or not "communism" succeeds.

So it helps to recognise that communism has many flavours just liek capitalism. Some "free" capitalist nations in the world today are ACTUALLY dicatotorships with HGUE corruption. Just not the ones you're using to judge capitalism and by ignoring things like ENRON and Halliburton ?? :D

It's the bogey-man image that history has taught of commuism thanks to mcCarthyism. There are reasonble "communist" approaches all roudn the world.

AND rather than responding to each in THIS thread eithe take it elsewhere or READ THE POSTS i made. richness v monetary - missing the point. "losing income" - missing the point. BOTH of these ahve been covered already.

As an exercise the reader should list the 3 worst things with the system they support. If you can't find at least 10 to pick those three from you aren't making any logical comparison. List the 3 best things with the system you oppose. If you cant' find at least 10 to pick those three from you aren't making any logical comparison. ( how do you think businesses decide the right product to make, design to manufacture or sell ? They are taught how to OBjectively identify the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats embodied in ALL the alternatives. The language in use clearly demonstrates it woudl advance it SWOT analysis was done. Trust me, I've led and trained teams to do this for decades :D )

and to ignite a thought ... WHICH manufacturing nation is the US most "scared of" and possbily losign it's economic power to ? that would be China ... which is ??? a COMMUNIST state. Demosntrating how there is BREADTH in the "label" :D

[early93viper]

I am done.

No matter how many times Communism has failed you guys are still favorable for it. The definition of Insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. Judging by most your mental capacities perhaps you should give Communism another try maybe it will work out this time.:rolleyes:

Good luck guys moving to a communist country. :rolleyes:


SO I WILL NOT BE RESPONDING AND DOUBT I WILL READ ANYMORE POSTS.

Ps. Kazakhstan is not fully Communist and has some horrible problems especially considering there RICH in OIL and other natural recourses.

[Matra et Alpine]

cheer, early, like many others you refuse to see anything but one distorted view. For examle -- avoiding the China FACT and the proper usage of "communism" :)

Choosing not to learn about the world is a trait sadly too common :(
Are you one of the groups who dont' understand why America isnt' viewed favourably the world over ?? Ever thought there might just be a relationship :(

Bye.

[henk4]

Ps. Kazakhstan is not fully Communist and has some horrible problems especially considering there RICH in OIL and other natural recourses.

Enlighten me here, I just returned from there 4 days ago....

[scottie300z]

No matter how many times Communism has failed you guys are still favorable for it.

never said this. just opened minded that it isnt doomed to fall or automatically stupid.