Other than the TDF, Why does France TOTALLY SUCK?

Originally Posted by keydates

Do you really believe that if Hitler had successfully taken over Europe, he wouldn't have tried to go take on the US?

Also from what I've heard, the US military really had to beef up after Pearl Harbor. It was pretty much in the same state as France even when PH was attacked. Meaning: had the US been in the position of France and not several thousand miles away and separated by an entire ocean, it most likely would have been overrun by Hitler. Then again, you'll probably dismiss this as liberal propaganda or the like...

Ah, yet another WWII debate.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Hitler was preparing to nuke New York (the Germans had the technology to
make atomic bombs).
Hitler believed that New York was the cradle of American Judaism and had specifically intended to target New York.

The resistance of the British and the Soviets ensured that Hitler did not get the chance to nuke New York.

Originally Posted by szbert

There was no resistance by the British until the US started to aid them. They were too busy playing duck and cover during the battle of Britain and after retreating from France in 1940.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Indeed.
You have now proven that you know absolutely nothing about the history of WW2.
Or maybe you're from the revisionist school of history, which is currently doing very well in the USA ?
You know the sort of stuff "well, actually we won the Vietnam war" for instance that they teach in your schools over there.

Short history lesson, Bertie.
Germany and Britain went to war in 1939 - September 1939.
In the meantime, the USA between 1939-1941 was profiteering from the war.
(or to use your parlance, you were neutral).

So let's do the maths here 1939-1941 : that's two years.
So if the Brits were ducking and covering as you falsely allege - and your crowd were sitting on the fence and making money from other peoples misery - how come Hitler didn't invade and conquer Britain ?

100 lines for Bertie : "We actually lost the war in Vientnam, and the revisionists are wrong"

Class dismissed.

Originally Posted by szbert

You got my name wrong.
You got your facts wrong.
Your spelling is very bad.

No further rebuttal needed.

Next!

Originally Posted by limerickman

Bertie - do your lines or else we'll increase it to 200.

Class dismissed.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Dave, our friend questioned the masculinity of soccer players.

I merely pointed out, to that clown, that soccer is the most popular sport in many countries throughout Europe.
So when he questions the masculinity of soccer players, he is, de facto, questioning the masculinity of all soccer players throughout Europe.

I can understand the fact the Americans don't like soccer though.
1-0 result after 90 minutes doesn't resonate in a nation that likes high scoring games.

Personally, I am not a soccer fan either.
I much prefer rugby when it comes to field sports.
As regards American football - I don't rate it.
Rugby is a far tougher, more physical sport.

I played rugby extensively in my younger days - played against all the rugby playing nationalities.
Have played a couple of games of American football - but rugby was certainly tougher than that.

I do follow American sport though - I like Baseball and have watched the Sox progress this year.

Originally Posted by limerickman

We have a game here called Gaelic Football - not unlike Aussie rules.
Every two years, our national Gaelic team, play the Aussies in a compromised version of both games.
I'm gonna stand on my soapbox here and tell you all - that Ireland beat them big
bad Aussies last week in the latest test series !

you're right though - that Aussie Rules stuff is very tough.

As regards Baseball, it never really caught on here in Europe.
Cricket is big here and in England and in parts of Europe.
Baseball though is followed (by us in the minority).
I think it's a great game and would love to see it catch on here.
I've followed it for a the past 25 years or so.
Ryan Nolan - Roger Clemens - McGwire etc.
I don't follow a particular team as such, but I would sit down and watch any/all teams play.
It's a great game.

Originally Posted by szbert

Originally Posted by limerickman

Indeed.
You have now proven that you know absolutely nothing about the history of WW2.
Or maybe you're from the revisionist school of history, which is currently doing very well in the USA ?
You know the sort of stuff "well, actually we won the Vietnam war" for instance that they teach in your schools over there.

Short history lesson, Bertie.
Germany and Britain went to war in 1939 - September 1939.
In the meantime, the USA between 1939-1941 was profiteering from the war.
(or to use your parlance, you were neutral).

So let's do the maths here 1939-1941 : that's two years.
So if the Brits were ducking and covering as you falsely allege - and your crowd were sitting on the fence and making money from other peoples misery - how come Hitler didn't invade and conquer Britain ?

100 lines for Bertie : "We actually lost the war in Vientnam, and the revisionists are wrong"

Class dismissed.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

Here we go with this bullshit again. Maybe Lim can try to justify again just why the Irish government remained neutral the whole war. Oh thats right, they were hoping Germany would win so Ireland would get N. Ireland. He likes to mock America for entering the war in 1941. He likes to glorify the Soviets, but doesn't tell us that they agreed with Hitler to partition Poland. I guess the Soviets were "sitting on the fence" too. Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia. I guess he didn't care about "other people's misery". Quite a nice 'lot' in Europe. Two world wars in less than a hundred years. Over 100 million consumed in 2 wars in less than 100 years. And Lim wants to bang on the US for entering in 1941.
England was saved when Hitler turned his attention to Russia.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Your fellow traveller stated that WW2 was only won because the USA entered.

I pointed out, to your friend, that the USA did not enter WW2 until 1941.
(I acknowledge that you and I did have a discussion before about the 244 pilots from the USA who did join the RAF prior to 1941 - as you privately acknowledged that 150,000 Irish people, or 6% of the total population of Ireland, fought in WW2 with Britain and the USA).

The fact of the matter remains that the USA, as a sovereign nation, remained
neutral until 1941.
I pointed out to your friend that Britain and the USSR fought bravely and curtailed the expansion of Nazi Germany for two years prior to the USA's
involvement.

I am mocking your friends insistance - that the USA somehow won WW2.
The USA did not win WW2.
The allies - made up of many people and many nations, including my own -
won WW2.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

Lim, you need a new history book. The Soviet Union did not enter the war till June 22, 1941. Thats when Hitler invaded the USSR. In August 1939 Germany and the USSR had signed a non-agression pact and partitioned Poland. I don't think that counts as fighting bravely for 2 years. You can state that England stood bravely, because they did, they were all that was left. I understand that everyone's efforts were important, but it is ridiculous to assume that the Allies would have won without the US.

Originally Posted by davidmc

Are you out trolling for friends? Your vitriol makes mine seem docile in comparison. I used to be one of the most hated people in the soapbox. Looks as if you might've outdone me. "Kid you're going to be a contender !!!" As an aside, could you say your from texas as opposed to america. You all, always bitch about you're "pioneer spirit" & being a "republic" as opposed to a state. I, personally, would turn texas back over to Mexico. Thats who we stole it from in the 1st place