PDA

View Full Version : seen the preview for the movie "Flyboys"



fordfan25
09-04-2006, 03:10 PM
Looks like it going to be a kick a** movie. WW1 dog fights YEA!. O and dont even start euro boys with your BS USA flag waveing cr&p http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. Start your own thread for that hatefull trash.

Im not sure what the plot is to be but the acton sceen's look awsome. fighter attack on a zepline looked great. Should be good fun. At least for those who dont expet it to be a documentry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 03:10 PM
Looks like it going to be a kick a** movie. WW1 dog fights YEA!. O and dont even start euro boys with your BS USA flag waveing cr&p http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. Start your own thread for that hatefull trash.

Im not sure what the plot is to be but the acton sceen's look awsome. fighter attack on a zepline looked great. Should be good fun. At least for those who dont expet it to be a documentry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 03:15 PM
Yeah, it looks like it will be good. But Hollywood has a way of turning good trailers into crappy movies.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 03:33 PM
Sadly yes.
For example, Congo had one of the greatest trailers I've ever seen. But then.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Sadly yes.
For example, Congo had one of the greatest trailers I've ever seen. But then.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>STINK'N DIRTY APE'S. holloywood in not the only one's who does that.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 05:58 PM
It looks awful.

I think the producers mistook biplanes with F-15s. What else accelerates in a vertical climb?

Oh, and since when is every German plane a red Fokker tri-decker?

Not to mention the ridiculous US flag-waving. 1 million American troops sat on their asses as Pershing negotiated for a contiguous piece of front, only relenting when the March 1918 German offensive forced him to use his divisions to plug holes in the line.

As far as raping history goes, if Pearl Harbor was an unlubed ***** entering your arse, this looks to be a cactus.

And of course, there's the Token Magic Negro. Bagger Vance, flyboy!

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
It looks awful.

I think the producers mistook biplanes with F-15s. What else accelerates in a vertical climb?

Oh, and since when is every German plane a red Fokker tri-decker?

Not to mention the ridiculous US flag-waving. 1 million American troops sat on their asses as Pershing negotiated for a contiguous piece of front, only relenting when the March 1918 German offensive forced him to use his divisions to plug holes in the line.

As far as raping history goes, if Pearl Harbor was an unlubed ***** entering your arse, this looks to be a cactus.

And of course, there's the Token Magic Negro. Bagger Vance, flyboy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read post #1. No euro-whining. Europe is welcome to make their own movies.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 06:09 PM
America is welcome to not publish its movies outside of America. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
But its kinda nice to have your blessing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PBNA-Boosher
09-04-2006, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Oh, and since when is every German plane a red Fokker tri-decker?

And of course, there's the Token Magic Negro. Bagger Vance, flyboy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there was a period of time when Manfred von Richtofen (The Red Baron) realized that his scarlet aircraft was actually nothing more than a big target and that all of the enemy pilots were trying to shoot him down and leave everyone else. Because of this danger to his life he ordered everyone in his squadron to paint their planes the same scarlet color. Thus we get the phrase "Richtofen's Flying Circus."

Just in case you didn't realize, as well, there were African-American flyers in WW1. One went through the RCAF to do it, but nevertheless, they were there too.

berg417448
09-04-2006, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
America is welcome to not publish its movies outside of America. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
But its kinda nice to have your blessing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No one forces anyone to go see them. You could ignore most of the movies like I do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
America is welcome to not publish its movies outside of America. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
But its kinda nice to have your blessing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because someone might hold a gun to your head and force you to go see it?

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Oh, and since when is every German plane a red Fokker tri-decker?

And of course, there's the Token Magic Negro. Bagger Vance, flyboy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there was a period of time when Manfred von Richtofen (The Red Baron) realized that his scarlet aircraft was actually nothing more than a big target and that all of the enemy pilots were trying to shoot him down and leave everyone else. Because of this danger to his life he ordered everyone in his squadron to paint their planes the same scarlet color. Thus we get the phrase "Richtofen's Flying Circus."

Just in case you didn't realize, as well, there were African-American flyers in WW1. One went through the RCAF to do it, but nevertheless, they were there too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry mate, but that isn't 100% correct.
Richthofen did not intend to paint his plane red in the first place, but as the time came when Jasta 11 decided to paint their aircraft in bright colors ( for recognition between them) his trademark red, giant suitcase made him the "red" baron.
They we're called "Flying Circus" because their machines were painted in all colors of the rainbow, only Manfred and Lothar had completely red planes.
Altough I picture Lothars Dr.1 having a white undernose, but I'm not shure.

And he did sometimes change the plane within the squadron, not because everyone was trying to shoot him down, but rather because all enemys would avoid fighting him.You can read in his diary how mad he was about it at the time.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
America is welcome to not publish its movies outside of America. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
But its kinda nice to have your blessing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because someone might hold a gun to your head and force you to go see it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just why do you smell americabashing even if someone makes a joke and even sets a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif at the end of it?

*edit*
Why exactly do I have the right to look at hollywood movies but can't say that they are full
of historical garbage and missuse foreign cultures ( my own one for example) in a very unrespectfull and sometimes even insulting way?

*edit2*
I do not want to hijack this thread so if you have anything to say, please PM me.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
It looks awful.

I think the producers mistook biplanes with F-15s. What else accelerates in a vertical climb?

Oh, and since when is every German plane a red Fokker tri-decker?

Not to mention the ridiculous US flag-waving. 1 million American troops sat on their asses as Pershing negotiated for a contiguous piece of front, only relenting when the March 1918 German offensive forced him to use his divisions to plug holes in the line.

As far as raping history goes, if Pearl Harbor was an unlubed ***** entering your arse, this looks to be a cactus.

And of course, there's the Token Magic Negro. Bagger Vance, flyboy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>blah blah blah yak yak yak blah blah blah just STFU.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
America is welcome to not publish its movies outside of America. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
But its kinda nice to have your blessing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because someone might hold a gun to your head and force you to go see it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just why do you smell americabashing even if someone makes a joke and even sets a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif at the end of it?

*edit*
Why exactly do I have the right to look at hollywood movies but can't say that they are full
of historical garbage and missuse foreign cultures ( my own one for example) in a very unrespectfull and sometimes even insulting way?

*edit2*
I do not want to hijack this thread so if you have anything to say, please PM me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you can, just dont start spouting your euro trash talk in my thread. im sick of every thread about a movie thats made in the USA being dumped on over silly a** resones just because its made in the USA or features USA soldiers. Funny how no one dumped on enemy at the gate like thay do other USA movies. what ever, just take the USA bashing some place else. and im mostly talking to warspit. Ooooo the planes are red OOOooooo there US fighter piolets actualy winning Boooo Just STFU all ready. Kinda like how every one harps on PH's love story yet no one mentunes BoB lame love story.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Read post #1. No euro-whining. Europe is welcome to make their own movies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's European? I'm Canadian, and I'm a history fanatic, and America didn't do jack during the first world war.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
Just in case you didn't realize, as well, there were African-American flyers in WW1. One went through the RCAF to do it, but nevertheless, they were there too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You mean "black", not "African-American". The only American of African heritage to fly, was, as you say, not in the American force. There were other black pilots, but they weren't Americans.

So again, he is the Token Magic Negro.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 06:42 PM
I neither like BoB nor PH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.
But not because they're inacurate concerning history, just because I don't think that they stand out as works of art.
Of course I won't miss the dogfighting in Fly Boys, but I'm kind of surprised that you expected any other response in a forum full of historia enthousiasts and especially after theres allready been a thread with the same topic.

Btw. Whats Euro trash talk?

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Read post #1. No euro-whining. Europe is welcome to make their own movies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who's European? I'm Canadian, and I'm a history fanatic, and America didn't do jack during the first world war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If scale is your meter, then may I say Canada hasn't done Jack since?

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Just why do you smell americabashing even if someone makes a joke and even sets a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif at the end of it?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif make your insult "veiled." Veils are transparent.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
*edit*
Why exactly do I have the right to look at hollywood movies but can't say that they are full of historical garbage and missuse foreign cultures ( my own one for example) in a very unrespectfull and sometimes even insulting way?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have the right to say anything you want. So do I. I'll reserve my opinion until i've seent he movie. You obviously hve already seen it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
*edit2*
I do not want to hijack this thread so if you have anything to say, please PM me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've already hijacked it. You state your piece, then ask responders to PM you. Very nice.

LStarosta
09-04-2006, 06:46 PM
http://www.faithforthefamily.com/wallpaper/godblessamerica2_lg.jpg

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

You've already hijacked it. You state your piece, then ask responders to PM you. Very nice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not. If you guys expect to have a private conversation without the "euro boys", wich are a large part of this community, keep it private and don't expect a proud euro boy to read and keep quiet.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If scale is your meter, then may I say Canada hasn't done Jack since? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You mean other than being the only other major power in Korea, and having inflicted and sustained proportionately more casualties in World War II than the US?

Yeah, Canada has done "nothing" since. Right. Keep dreaming.

Look, you've got World War II, Korea, and of course Vietnam (lol) to look back on. Don't try to claim credit for World War I.

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
If scale is your meter, then may I say Canada hasn't done Jack since? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You mean other than being the only other major power in Korea, and having inflicted and sustained proportionately more casualties in World War II than the US?

Yeah, Canada has done "nothing" since. Right. Keep dreaming.

Look, you've got World War II, Korea, and of course Vietnam (lol) to look back on. Don't try to claim credit for World War I. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always thought this article smacked of the truth.

Bomb Canada: The case for war

National Review, Nov 25, 2002 by Jonah Goldberg

It's quite possible that the greatest favor the United States could do for Canada is to declare war on it. No, this isn't a tribute to South Park, the TV cartoon that popularized a song -- "Blame Canada" -- calling for an outright invasion of our northern neighbor. A full-scale conquest is unnecessary; all Canada needs is to be slapped around a little bit, to be treated like a whining kid who's got to start acting like a man. We've done it more than once, and we've threatened it plenty of times. Thomas Jefferson told President Madison that conquering Canada would be "a mere matter of marching." Of course, that advice resulted in the burning of the White House in the War of 1812, but the U.S. still came out ahead. Why would a new war be necessary? The short answer is: to keep the Canadians from being conquered by the United States. In effect, it would be a war to keep Canada free. But first some background.

Five decades ago, historian Frank Underhill wrote that the Canadian is "the first anti-American, the model anti-American, the archetypal anti- American, the ideal anti-American as he exists in the mind of God." In a sense this isn't really true. Philosophically and politically, the New Soviet Man was a superior anti-American: He not only hated America but had a blueprint for its replacement. After all, the perfect anti- American must be pro-something else; he must offer a viable alternative to that which he detests.

Canadian anti-Americanism does none of this. It is anti-American by reflex, which is to say that when America goes about its business, Canada flinches and calls this tic "the Canadian way." It was ever thus: The very formation of the Canadian state was, quite literally, a flinch in response to America's muscle-flexing. Canada's 1867 confederation, according to most historians, was the direct result of Canada's not-unfounded fears that the battle-hardened Union Army would turn its sights on Canada the way a still-peckish lion lazily turns on a fat gazelle. The Canadian Mounties, perhaps the most enduring symbol of Canadian pride and rectitude, were created to restrain the tomfoolery of American whiskey traders. They chose their red tunics solely to distinguish themselves from the Union blues of the American cavalry. It may even have been Americans who came up with the Mounties' famous motto, "They always get their man."
Virtually all of Canada's public policies were born out of a studied contrariness to U.S. policies, real or perceived. Canada's disastrous health-care system survives because of three things: vast sums of (poorly spent) money, the limitless patience of Canadian citizens who are regularly willing to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries, and the widespread fear that any reform might constitute "Americanization." There's every reason to believe that Canadians would embrace at least a few market reforms -- which might, for example, reduce the wait for an MRI from a national median of 12.4 weeks -- if only it didn't seem like capitulation to "American-style" health care. But Canada won't even legalize private health insurance as long as this is perceived as Americanization. It is a matter of national pride to have a "different" -- i.e., worse-but-more- egalitarian -- health-care system than they do south of the border (I mean south of our border: Canada has fewer MRI machines per capita than Latin America).

The accusation of wanting to "Americanize" healthcare is a Medusa's head any politician can use to petrify opponents. Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, declared in a 2001 TV interview: "If we're going to have a universal system . . . we should not be afraid to say, 'Can the private sector run this hospital better? Can they provide this service better? If they can, why should we fear that?'" The reaction from editorialists and the health-care community was one of near-total condemnation -- including the charge of "Americanization."

At a conference sponsored by the Fraser Institute, a free-market- oriented Canadian think tank, I listened to a speech by Preston Manning, a founder of the conservative New Alliance Party. I sat next to David Gratzer, a Canadian health-care expert and physician. "This guy is sort of the standard-bearer for free-market conservatives in Canada," Gratzer said, gesturing at Manning, "and he's to the left of Sweden."

Gratzer was serious. Over the last ten years, Sweden has introduced a host of fee-for-service reforms, and the government now permits private health insurance. These moves have reduced waiting periods for equipment and surgeries, by 50 percent in some cases. Canada is the only industrialized democracy in the world that flatly prohibits private insurance of any kind. One wonders why they don't just call it Swedenization and get to work.

Indeed, in the last election Prime Minister Jean Chretien campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics that had sprouted up to meet demand. Chretien argued that such clinics undermine the ideal of universal health care; not a single major party objected. The result was predictable: Hospital parking lots in Michigan are full of Canadian license plates. And in Saskatchewan -- the province where Canadian socialized medicine was born -- the phone book displays an ad for a clinic in North Dakota. It reads: "Need Health Care Now?"
Health care is only the most prominent example of the Canadian ethos being frozen in the headlights of anti-Americanism. The dysfunctional state of Canadian democracy is partially attributable to Canada's fears of seeming too American. Preston Manning speaks about the need to permit cross-party coalition building in parliament -- yet he is very quick to caution that Canadians don't want "American-style" politics. But Canada is barely a functioning democracy at all: Its governmental structure, if described objectively, is far more similar to what we would expect in a corrupt African state with decades of one-party rule. Jeffrey Simpson, who might be called the Canadian David Broder, has even written a book entitled The Friendly Dictatorship, which sports on its cover a doctored photo of Jean Chretien in a Pinochet-style military tunic.

Simpson argues not only that Chretien is the "Sun King" of Canada, but that the government itself is designed to be for all intents and purposes a secular monarchy. In Canada, the prime minister appoints the entire senate and has a level of control over members of parliament that would make Tom "The Hammer" DeLay surrender his whip. If one of Chretien's fellow Liberals fails to toe the party line, the prime minister has the power to kick him out of the party and even to refuse to ratify his election papers.

In fact, nothing would be better for Canada than a rabble-rousing, American-style democracy. It's not as if Canada had no conservatives: The western region, for example, is remarkably similar to America's in its laissez-faire attitude, but the stagnant political system simply doesn't permit the expression of such regional differences at the federal level. Canada's senate was intended, like America's, to represent regional interests -- but because theirs is appointed by the prime minister, its senators tend to be geriatric cronies appointed as a reward for sycophancy.

One reason Canadians are reluctant to reform this bizarre system is that Canadian culture confuses its quirks with its character. Feeling swamped by U.S. culture, Canadians have stitched together a national identity from whatever's lying around. They try to plug leaks by restricting foreign ownership of bookstores and mandating huge quotas for homegrown cultural products. Canadians cling to this barely seaworthy raft, and are loath to untie a single plank from it. This explains the famous Canadian radio survey which asked listeners to complete the phrase, "as Canadian as . . . " (looking for something like "as American as apple pie"). The winning response was: "as Canadian as possible, under the circumstances."

Consider, also, the rant of Molson Joe: "I'm not a lumberjack or a fur trader. I don't live in an igloo, eat blubber, or own a dogsled. I don't know Jimmy, Suzie, or Sally from Canada, although I'm certain they're very nice. I have a prime minister, not a president. I speak English and French, not American. And I pronounce it 'about,' not 'a- boot.' I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peacekeeping, not policing; diversity, not assimilation. And that the beaver is a proud and noble animal. A tuque is a hat, a chesterfield is a couch. And it's pronounced zed. Okay? Not zee. Zed. Canada is the second-largest land mass, the first nation of hockey, and the best part of North America. My name is Joe and I am Canadian."

This is the text from a Molson beer commercial that first appeared in movie theaters two years ago. It has made "Molson Joe" a figure of Paul Bunyanesque stature in Canadian life. The public reacted to the ad as if it had announced V-J Day: Schoolkids quoted it; parents loved it; Sheila Copps, Canada's heritage minister, even showed it at an international conference on American cultural imperialism. This national bout of St. Vitus's Dance over a mildly amusing beer commercial is a manifestation of Canada's obsession with its own inferiority complex. Canadian bookshelves groan with self-help books for the Canadian soul: Why I Hate Canadians; Nationalism Without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian; Lament for a Nation; and many dozens of others.

The Washington Post's former Canada bureau chief, Steven Pearlstein -- an American -- set off a firestorm with an essay noting that Canadian identity is being threatened by America's overwhelming cultural and economic influence. This point has, of course, been made by one Canadian journalist or another pretty much every day for the last century; but, for some reason, when it appeared in an American paper it was considered an outrage. Pearlstein wrote: "Over the years, Canadians might have coalesced around a shared sense of history but for the fact that they have so little of it they consider worth remembering. The country never fought a revolution or a civil war, pioneered no great social or political movement, produced no great world leader, and committed no memorable atrocities -- as one writer put it, Canada has no Lincolns, no Gettysburgs, and no Gettysburg addresses."

Victoria Dickenson, director of Montreal's McCord Museum of Canadian History, mouthed the typical reaction when she sarcastically exclaimed: "Gosh, if we could just massacre some people!" Journalists swarmed famous Canadian historians asking them to preen about Canada's morally superior history -- which, Canadians boast, is an evolution, not a revolution. They noted that America -- what with slavery and war and all that -- had no right to judge Canada.
Given all of the above, it's not surprising that when you talk to ordinary Canadians -- who are, by and large, a wonderfully decent and friendly bunch -- they have a ready vocabulary to explain the U.S.- Canada relationship. They talk about how America is Canada's "big brother" and how, like any younger sibling, Canada is naturally inclined to find fault with its more accomplished elders. But this metaphor leaves out an important part of the dynamic: Kid brothers normally express their objections not to their big brothers, but to their parents. "He failed his report card!" "He's guilty of 400 years of racism and oppression!" And so on.

For much of Canada's history, its parents could be found in the British Empire. Canada was founded largely by loyalists who rejected America's rebelliousness toward King George; it was never the prodigal son to England, but rather the good son who never left home. Even today, Canadians are vastly more deferential to their government than Americans are; by definition, loyalists do what governments say, rebels don't. With independence, the Canadians were left without a parent to suck up to and with a resented brother who was now their only real protector. Indeed, the U.S. has supplanted dear old Dad as the most important player on the world stage; this new circumstance has prompted Canadians to find a surrogate parent in the United Nations. And that's a real problem, for both Canada and the U.S.

It is no exaggeration to say that Jean Chretien is no friend of the United States. Shortly after 9/11 he made a series of idiotic remarks about how America essentially deserved what it got from al-Qaeda: We were attacked because we are too rich and arrogant, and the rest of the world is too poor and humble. He's never backed off those remarks and has even reiterated them. Chretien's view is the settled opinion of most of Canada's intellectual class.

The Chretien government believes that the war on terrorism is basically illegitimate. Hence Chretien's mortifying foot-dragging before visiting Ground Zero; his insistence that it wouldn't be right to outlaw Hezbollah on Canadian soil; and his government's absurd hissy-fit over America's attempt to police its borders against immigrants from terrorist states who try to come through Canada. These policies are partly the product of a longstanding Canadian desire to be the U.N.'s favorite country: Breaking with its immediate family -- the U.S. and Britain -- Canada has found a new family in the "international community." Canada has internalized the assumptions and mythology of U.N.-ology: not just anti-Americanism but also the belief that Western nations don't need military might anymore. As a consequence, Canada is simply unarmed.

"Canada has never been able to defend itself," says Barry Cooper, a Canadian defense expert. "We've always had to rely on coalitions, be they British, French, or the Americans." The difference today, notes Cooper, is that Canada pretty much has no interest in even contributing to the coalition. Canada's military has an immensely proud tradition and by all accounts Canadian warriors remain an impressive lot, but they are ill-equipped and increasingly under-trained.

Canadians have long talked about how they are a "moral superpower" and a nation of peacekeepers, not warriors. While they were never in fact a moral superpower -- when was the last time a dictator said, "We'd better not, the Canadians might admonish us"? -- Canadians were at one time a nation of a peacekeepers who helped enforce U.N.-brokered deals around the world (Suez 1956, Congo 1960, etc.). Today, Canada ranks Number 37 as a peacekeeping nation in terms of committed troops and resources, and it spends less than half the average of the skinflint defense budgets of NATO. Chretien talks about not sending troops to Iraq; in truth, even if Chretien wanted to join the Iraq invasion, Canada's role would be like Jamaica's at the Winter Olympics -- a noble and heartwarming gesture, but a gesture nonetheless.

Despite Canada's self-delusions, it is, quite simply, not a serious country anymore. It is a northern Puerto Rico with an EU sensibility. Canada has no desire to be anything but the United Nations' ambassador to North America, talking about the need to keep the peace around the world but doing nothing about it save for hosting countless academic conferences about how terrible America is. It used to be an equal partner in NORAD, but now chooses to stay out of America's new homeland-defense plans -- including missile defense -- partly because it reflexively views anything in America's national-security interest to be inherently inimical to its own, partly because it draws juvenile satisfaction from being a stick-in-the-mud. In a sense, Canada is the boringly self-content society described in Francis ***uyama's The End of History, except for the fact that history continues beyond its shores.

Naturally, America is going to defend itself with or without Canada's cooperation, but this self-Finlandization has serious consequences nonetheless. If, for example, al-Qaeda launched a September 11-style attack from Canadian soil, we would have only two choices: ask Canada to take charge, or take charge ourselves. The predictable -- and necessary -- U.S. action would spark outrage.

We certainly don't need the burden of turning "the world's longest undefended border" into one of the world's longest defended ones. And that's why a little invasion is precisely what Canada needs. In the past, Canada has responded to real threats from the U.S. -- and elsewhere -- with courage and conviction (for instance, some say more Canadians went south to enlist for war in Vietnam than Americans went north to dodge it). If the U.S. were to launch a quick raid into Canada, blow up some symbolic but unoccupied structure -- Toronto's CN Tower, or perhaps an empty hockey stadium -- Canada would rearm overnight.

Indeed, Canada might even be forced to rethink many of its absurd socialist policies in order to pay for the costs involved in protecting itself from the Yankee peril. Canada's neurotic anti-Americanism would be transformed into manly resolve. The U.S. could quickly pretend to be frightened that it had messed with the wrong country, and negotiate a fragile peace with the newly ornery Canadians. In a sense, the U.S. owes it to Canada to slap it out of its shame-spiral. That's what big brothers do.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 06:59 PM
Hey SkyChimp, way to make yourself a TOTAL cliche now.

Woo, didn't see THAT one coming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Your attitude is precisely why most of the world dislikes America now.

In a short six months, you went from having our utmost sympathy for 9/11 to being the most disliked western nation in existence.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 06:59 PM
How old are you, SkyChimp?

leitmotiv
09-04-2006, 07:07 PM
Ye cats---running on top of an exploding zep? This is going to be a comic book with plenty of sex/relationships for the dates. Should have a new category: not for anybody older than 15.

Easy there, gx-warspite, nobody in their right mind would trivialize the American intervention, least of all the people of the time from Lloyd-George and Clemenceau, to Foch, Haig and Petain. Without Americans to help hold the line, the German March-July 1918 offensive would have reached Paris. The British and the French were exhausted. Without the Americans, there would have been no British August 1918 offensive which broke the German line and broke the nerves of Ludendorff.

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Hey SkyChimp, way to make yourself a TOTAL cliche now.

Woo, didn't see THAT one coming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Your attitude is precisely why most of the world dislikes America now.

In a short six months, you went from having our utmost sympathy for 9/11 to being the most disliked western nation in existence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My attitude? My attitude is that Canadian piety has gotten old. You've nothing to
lecture Americans on. You just haven't realized that, yet.

berg417448
09-04-2006, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Should have a new category: not for anybody older than 15.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What an excellent idea!

RCAF_Irish_403
09-04-2006, 07:11 PM
ugh...sorry i opened this thread

leitmotiv
09-04-2006, 07:11 PM
Bravo, SkyChimp---sanctimonious Canucks bored the dickens out of me when I lived in London.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ye cats---running on top of an exploding zep? This is going to be a comic book with plenty of sex/relationships for the dates. Should have a new category: not for anybody older than 15.

Easy there, gx-warspite, nobody in their right mind would trivialize the American intervention, least of all the people of the time from Lloyd-George and Clemenceau, to Foch, Haig and Petain. Without Americans to help hold the line, the German March-July 1918 offensive would have reached Paris. The British and the French were exhausted. Without the Americans, there would have been no British August 1918 offensive which broke the German line and broke the nerves of Ludendorff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I agree that American PRESENCE and the POTENTIAL Allied offensive in 1919/1920 is what drove Lundendorff to his poorly-conceived March attack, and ultimately it was American men and materiel that would have taken over the majority burden... but the fact is that Pershing sat with 1 million men in early 1918 during the early German rush, trying to demand a single unified front.

I don't dislike Americans, I find myself defending Americans to most of my friends here, but people like SkyChimp make me wonder if maybe you guys don't deserve to learn some humility. If you're so keen on standing alone and beating your chest, that you can take on the world by yourselves, have fun. The way you're alienating the rest of the West, it won't be long until you ARE alone.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 07:14 PM
Warspite, you generalize.
That puts you on exactly the same level this monkey is allready on.
It would be sad to come this far.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Bravo, SkyChimp---sanctimonious Canucks bored the dickens out of me when I lived in London. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, right.

So we went from euro-haters, to Canadians. Funny how you manage to keep labeling everyone by their nationality or continent and blaming THAT for the fact that this is a crappy movie.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Warspite, you generalize.
That puts you on exactly the same level this monkey is allready on.
It would be sad to come this far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I generalize so much that tonight, like every Sunday, I look forward to a discussion with my friends at a cafe about why I still think that more troops should be sent to Iraq, why Israel was right in its conflict with Lebanon, and that despite what you may say about Americans, I'd rather live in a world with them as sole superpower than with Russia or China in charge.

LStarosta
09-04-2006, 07:18 PM
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares2.jpg

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Warspite, you generalize.
That puts you on exactly the same level this monkey is allready on.
It would be sad to come this far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, I generalize so much that tonight, like every Sunday, I look forward to a discussion with my friends at a cafe about why I still think that more troops should be sent to Iraq, why Israel was right in its conflict with Lebanon, and that despite what you may say about Americans, I'd rather live in a world with them as sole superpower than with Russia or China in charge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did in your last post, but my statement was in no way ment to be offensive anyway.

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 07:26 PM
And I don't dislike Canadians. But nevertheless, I find more and more Canadians that want to teach a lesson I'm not sure they are qualified to teach.

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
So we went from euro-haters, to Canadians. Funny how you manage to keep labeling everyone by their nationality or continent and blaming THAT for the fact that this is a crappy movie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven't seen the movie! Yet you are ready to judge it in its entirety. And YOU initiated an attack on America's contribution to WWI. Then you announced your nationality like it was some qualification to do what you did.

That's what Americans are beginning to see as typically Canadian. It's nauseating.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
ugh...sorry i opened this thread </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea im sorry i started it. i kinew all these USA bashing a**hats were going to show up which is why i tried to head it off in my first post.

Feathered_IV
09-04-2006, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
...and dont even start euro boys with your BS USA flag waveing cr&p http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. Start your own thread for that hatefull trash.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, we can say anything we want. As long as we don't say anything negative about it?

Is this that thing you call Democracy? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 07:47 PM
if you dont like the USA and it "flag waveing" movies JUST DONT POST IN THIS THREAD ABOUT SILLY A** ANTI USA PROPAGANDA BS. STFU. good greif some of you SOOOOOOOO need to get a life and get you heads pulled free. you dont like the USA well BOO HOO i dont care. Just stop with the BS every time something as triveal as a freakn movie is brought up here. you want to argue about polotics find a politcle forum and have at it.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 07:50 PM
You want someone to talk with you about Flyboys without mentioning its flag weaving bias?
Find the next Bar.
As you know, this is a public forum.
And if it comes to the "get a life" thing;
I'm here since the Demo, thats almost exactly 5 years ago.
You're here since a little more then 3 years.
Now look at our postcounts.
Do the math who spends more time posting here.

LStarosta
09-04-2006, 07:52 PM
I never complained about UK flag waving bias in The Battle of Britain, so please don't complain about US pride in movies we make. Thx.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

You've already hijacked it. You state your piece, then ask responders to PM you. Very nice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not. If you guys expect to have a private conversation without the "euro boys", wich are a large part of this community, keep it private and don't expect a proud euro boy to read and keep quiet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No one expects a private conversation. i just did not want what happend to ...well happen. euro's are more than welcome top post in my thread. unlike some other is hear im neather racist or predjudist. i just didnt want a heap of bs post about how awful the movie is because of "flag waveing" ect even though it is not even out. its stupid from the get go. its a movie, made in the usa,its made primarly for usa movie goes,its not a documentry. Of course its going to be patreoidicle, of course its going to have hero's doing crazy stuff. i would not expect dos'boot to be about a USA distroyer crew who bands togather to down the evil german sub. think about it.

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
You haven't seen the movie! Yet you are ready to judge it in its entirety. And YOU initiated an attack on America's contribution to WWI. Then you announced your nationality like it was some qualification to do what you did.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You accused me of being European, I am not.

The trailer shows things about the movie, like the absurd number of red Fokkers, or the silly climbing in the vertical - that I know bug me. Not to mention a guy running across an exploding Zeppeling.

Finally, you made yourself a target with the euro-hating remark. Fact is, what I said is true: America's contribution to World War I was negligible in a material sense. The strategic importance of American entry to the war was obviously of the highest order, and American industry created many arms and munitions for European states (but this wsa all paid for).

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
ugh...sorry i opened this thread </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea im sorry i started it. i kinew all these USA bashing a**hats were going to show up which is why i tried to head it off in my first post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And if you hadn't said anything about Euro-haters, I wouldn't have made a comment.

But your attitude towards the world is so hostile I felt compelled to remind you that America didn't do much in the war, and that in this case, the "euro haters" did in fact have a point.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 07:57 PM
I think you have either not seen "Das Boot" or you don't remember it to well.
There's not one unrespectfull or exagerated line agains the British in it.
But I get your point.
I for one will enjoy Flyboys, as I will enjoy this one:
http://www.redbaron-themovie.com/

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
You want someone to talk with you about Flyboys without mentioning its flag weaving bias?
Find the next Bar.
As you know, this is a public forum.
And if it comes to the "get a life" thing;
I'm here since the Demo, thats almost exactly 5 years ago.
You're here since a little more then 3 years.
Now look at our postcounts.
Do the math who spends more time posting here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First why are you even bring up post count ect. secound iv been hear sence near release of FB and lost alot of post count dureing the forum change.. i could care less about how long you'v been hear or about how much spam you eat. and yes i do want to hear from people about a movie but with out the same cra* that is puked out time and agine about EVRY movie being flag waveing. no i wont go to a bar to discusse a movie ill do it right here. all i asked was for people to check there bias at the door wich no one seems to be able to do. what flag waveing have you seen in "flyboys". i have not seen anyone waveing a flag. all you people are doing is trolling. and not in a a good *crash* sorta way. its every thread about a war movie made in the usa. "falg waveing flag waveing" its silly and gets old. so just check it at the door.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
ugh...sorry i opened this thread </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea im sorry i started it. i kinew all these USA bashing a**hats were going to show up which is why i tried to head it off in my first post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And if you hadn't said anything about Euro-haters, I wouldn't have made a comment.

But your attitude towards the world is so hostile I felt compelled to remind you that America didn't do much in the war, and that in this case, the "euro haters" did in fact have a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> my attitude towards the world is not hostile in the least. i eat alot of freanch fries and iv impregnated many of the worlds ladies lol. ALL I WANTED WAS ONE THREAD ABOUT A KOOL LOOKING WW MOVIE WITH OUT PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRYS COMEING IN AND DISTROYING IT WITH THE SAME OLD SONG AND DANCE. *caps sorry* thats it thats all i wanted.

berg417448
09-04-2006, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I think you have either not seen "Das Boot" or you don't remember it to well.
There's not one unrespectfull or exagerated line agains the British in it.
But I get your point.
I for one will enjoy Flyboys, as I will enjoy this one:
http://www.redbaron-themovie.com/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'll go see that Red Baron movie too but after reading the script synopsis on that site I'm beginning to worry! Then again...As long as it is not about this I'll be satisfied:
http://www.redbaron.com/

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 08:05 PM
Did you look at our postcounts?
Because your answer makes the impression that you think I wanted to impress with mine.
This might be a production of my poor capabilitys in english, of course.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I think you have either not seen "Das Boot" or you don't remember it to well.
There's not one unrespectfull or exagerated line agains the British in it.
But I get your point.
I for one will enjoy Flyboys, as I will enjoy this one:
http://www.redbaron-themovie.com/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>rgr. iv seen and realy LOVE dos boot. i was just useing that to make a point that i would not expect a film about a war made in say USSR to show the russian troops as cowards or what ever. Nore would i expect a BoB movie made in england be about a hero german and a evil british commander. maby i could have worded my first post better but i still ment what i said.
Dont any one get me wrong. i could care less what country your from. but when you keep hearing the same thing over and over it does get old.

kool i didnt hear about that one ill check it out.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Did you look at our postcounts?
Because your answer makes the impression that you think I wanted to impress with mine.
This might be a production of my poor capabilitys in english, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>rgr no i didnt look at your post count but now i see what you ment. i just dont care about how often some one post ect. what i ment by get a life was that some people spend to large a part of there life with to narrow a veiw on things such as what color a plane is in a movie or that the rims on the spit are not the right tone of black lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. and yea i have trouble with english as well...im from the south so i got a good excusse. were all dumb red neck flag wavers who never got a good grasp on english spelling. to much tiome fixing tractors and bass fishing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R_Target
09-04-2006, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
Then again...As long as it is not about this I'll be satisfied:
http://www.redbaron.com/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, I never understood the connection. It's terrible pizza too.

SkyChimp
09-04-2006, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
You accused me of being European, I am not.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Accused?" You feel "accused?" Is being European that bad? My comment was tongue in cheek while yours was of the utmost seriousness.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The trailer shows things about the movie, like the absurd number of red Fokkers, or the silly climbing in the vertical - that I know bug me. Not to mention a guy running across an exploding Zeppeling.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then keep you remarks in that context. You decided to expand the thread by critizing the American contribution to WWI.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Finally, you made yourself a target with the euro-hating remark. Fact is, what I said is true: America's contribution to World War I was negligible in a material sense. The strategic importance of American entry to the war was obviously of the highest order, and American industry created many arms and munitions for European states (but this wsa all paid for). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't hate Europeans, I hate pious *******s - be they American, European, or Canadian. I don't care for people with a nationalist chip on their shoulder that have to take the most benign subject and turn it into a "history lesson" with the sole intent of putting certain nationalities "in their place." Certain Canadians may not yet have learned they are in no position to lecture.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 08:15 PM
LOL i just checked that red barron link lol

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 08:19 PM
yea chimp thats what im sayn to. check the bias at the door. 3 pages of nothing but arguing and little of it even about the movie. thats what i was tryn to avoide in my first post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif so sad . but any way lets try to let it go.

The movie looks set to put me into the feeling to play that up comeing WW1 sim. what was its name?

LStarosta
09-04-2006, 08:20 PM
That guy looks like Tom Selleck.

HuninMunin
09-04-2006, 08:21 PM
I got you perfectly Fordfan, but your first post really seemed "anti-euro-boy" to me; I thought nevermind ( afterall we communicate over miles and miles, not knowing anything about eachother).
But as I made my (also tounge in cheek) remark towards skychimp, I was bounced immidiatly, wich wasn't really helpfull to my attitude towards this thread, I'm shure you know what I mean.

Anyway, to get this back on topic; I felt the same thing reading the synopsis Berg; but just look at the gallery and the Albatrosse they put together.
Or the extremly accuratly looking paint schemes of the planes.
It won't disapoint. At least I hope so.

WTE_Ibis
09-04-2006, 08:59 PM
.
Well I have to say Ford fan that your first post absolutely invited what you said you didn't want.

Whether that invitation was deliberate or not I wouldn't know but you shouldn't be surprised at the responses it elicited. And some here need to be a little more diplomatic, after all we're here because of a shared interest.


.

jensenpark
09-04-2006, 09:27 PM
Trying to stay a bit on topic: the trailer looks slick - but I fear what kind of hash they'll make of it. Some goofy love story...It would be nice if it was closer to a Derek Robinson book and less like a Pearl Harbour type.

On the other issues:

Chimp, I normally agree with your points of view. I'll just say that it is not right to label Canada/Canadians as one way due to the actions of the politicians and the intelligentia...any more than it is too stereotype Americans.

The comments can really be taken out of sort on a day when a Cdn soldier was killed by a USAF pilot in error. Again...

gx-warspite
09-04-2006, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I don't hate Europeans, I hate pious *******s - be they American, European, or Canadian. I don't care for people with a nationalist chip on their shoulder that have to take the most benign subject and turn it into a "history lesson" with the sole intent of putting certain nationalities "in their place." Certain Canadians may not yet have learned they are in no position to lecture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're the biggest hypocrite ever, and what I just quoted is pretty much the most damning evidence I can imagine.

LStarosta
09-04-2006, 09:54 PM
Will this thread ever die?

LStarosta
09-04-2006, 09:55 PM
****, I just bumped it again.

LStarosta
09-04-2006, 09:55 PM
Dammit.

fordfan25
09-04-2006, 10:45 PM
you know you like it.

panther3485
09-04-2006, 11:02 PM
Hi guys!

Just a few thoughts.

(a) I'd like to see the movie 'Flyboys' and judge it myself, rather than jump the gun now, with pre-conceived ideas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(b) Although the US 'on-the-ground' contribution to WW1 came late, it nevertheless did make a decisive difference at a time when the British and French (and for that matter, the Germans themselves) were exhausted after nearly 4 years of bloody conflict. It also made the Germans more desperate to force a decision before the full weight of American manpower and materiel could come into play.
So, late - yes. Unimportant - definitely not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

(c) Sure, some of us criticize Hollywood for what it produces and sometimes I feel the criticism is truly warranted. However, we must never fall into the trap of believing that Hollwood really represents Americans per se. It is, in essence, little more than a money-making 'entertainment factory', though I agree that the medium is powerful and potentially open to misuse. During my Army service, I worked with a good number of US military personnel, including some from their various Special Forces outfits. Take it from me, they are NOT shallow or gullible.


Best regards to all, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

BoCfuss
09-04-2006, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi guys!

Just a few thoughts.

(a) I'd like to see the movie 'Flyboys' and judge it myself, rather than jump the gun now, with pre-conceived ideas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(b) Although the US 'on-the-ground' contribution to WW1 came late, it nevertheless did make a decisive difference at a time when the British and French (and for that matter, the Germans themselves) were exhausted after nearly 4 years of bloody conflict. It also made the Germans more desperate to force a decision before the full weight of American manpower and materiel could come into play.
So, late - yes. Unimportant - definitely not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

(c) Sure, some of us criticize Hollywood for what it produces and sometimes I feel the criticism is truly warranted. However, we must never fall into the trap of believing that Hollwood really represents Americans per se. It is, in essence, little more than a money-making 'entertainment factory', though I agree that the medium is powerful and potentially open to misuse. During my Army service, I worked with a good number of US military personnel, including some from their various Special Forces outfits. Take it from me, they are NOT shallow or gullible.


Best regards to all, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Professor_1942
09-04-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

I always thought this article smacked of the truth.

Bomb Canada: The case for war

National Review, Nov 25, 2002 by Jonah Goldberg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You couldn't find any more recent garbage to copy & paste? Maybe Ann Coulter has something for you.

leitmotiv
09-04-2006, 11:59 PM
Hell's bells---this ain't a Yank vs. whatever thing---it's a c--p, insulting film for people with expectations so downsized even filmed comic books are taken seriously---as a Yank, Hollywood is an embarrassment to me. I hope DAMBUSTERS or the von Richthofen film are good because FLYBOYS is pre-teen tomfoolery---all you need to know is in the bit with the pilot crashing into a zep, exploding it, and running along the envelope---PEARL HARBOR II. Ecccchhhhhhhh. Get THE BLUE MAX on DVD---the last great flying film made forty years ago!

Feathered_IV
09-05-2006, 12:09 AM
Skychimp, in your studied opinion, how many Canadians do you propose to kill in order for the remainder to adopt an attitude that is to your liking?

Please, could you also tell me which ones you propose be killed. Children? the elderly? or just a more indiscriminate slaughter?

Also, if you could specify how you propose to dispatch them. Would you drop an atomic bomb? Maybe you prefer napalm. Or would a concentration camp provide a quieter and less public arena?

Who is to pay for the cost of killing these Canadians? The Canadian taxpayer? Your military? Or do you prefer to privatise the murder of your neighbours?

I'm sure you've really thought it through, so I'll look forward to hearing your plan.

Thanks in advance.

panther3485
09-05-2006, 12:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Hell's bells---this ain't a Yank vs. whatever thing---it's a c--p, insulting film for people with expectations so downsized even filmed comic books are taken seriously---as a Yank, Hollywood is an embarrassment to me. I hope DAMBUSTERS or the von Richthofen film are good because FLYBOYS is pre-teen tomfoolery---all you need to know is in the bit with the pilot crashing into a zep, exploding it, and running along the envelope---PEARL HARBOR II. Ecccchhhhhhhh. Get THE BLUE MAX on DVD---the last great flying film made forty years ago! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless you are like me, and consider 'Battle of Britain' to be a 'great flying film' also, in which case it's 37 years ago!

DuxCorvan
09-05-2006, 12:35 AM
Well... stop this Western Civilization vs Western Civilization nonsense about who cooks the pork better, and back to topic:

No, not every German plane was a Fokker Dr.I, in fact it wasn't built in big numbers, despite being popular. The most common German fighters in 1917 and 1918 were Albatros D.V and Fokker D.VII, respectively.

Yes, Fokker Dr.I could actually climb almost vertically for a good amount of time before stalling -allied pilots said it looked like it was 'hanging' of his propeller. It was one of its advantages. It was a tiny, light, manoeuvrable and reliable plane, with splendid turn-rate nad roll-rate, and its triplane -almost quadruplane if you count the tiny wing between wheels- configuration gave it almost a supernatural lift. On the bad side, it was unstable -as almost any good WW1 fighter- and too draggy and slowish.

No, not every Dr.I was painted red. Voss's one was painted silver, for example. The plane came out of factory with a 'washed out' olive drab finish. Most had this colours, with later personal additions.

In Jasta 1, only Manfred von Richthofen's Dr.I had all its *upper* surfaces painted in red. The others had some red paint, and other colors and motifs, too.

BTW, Richthofen used several Dr.Is in his late career. The infamous all-red one is not the one he used when he died. Richthofen's final Dr.I was not all-red. It had upper surfaces red, half-forward fuselage red, aft fuselage in original factory olive drab, and all lower surfaces in pale blue.

horseback
09-05-2006, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ye cats---running on top of an exploding zep? This is going to be a comic book with plenty of sex/relationships for the dates. Should have a new category: not for anybody older than 15.

Easy there, gx-warspite, nobody in their right mind would trivialize the American intervention, least of all the people of the time from Lloyd-George and Clemenceau, to Foch, Haig and Petain. Without Americans to help hold the line, the German March-July 1918 offensive would have reached Paris. The British and the French were exhausted. Without the Americans, there would have been no British August 1918 offensive which broke the German line and broke the nerves of Ludendorff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I agree that American PRESENCE and the POTENTIAL Allied offensive in 1919/1920 is what drove Lundendorff to his poorly-conceived March attack, and ultimately it was American men and materiel that would have taken over the majority burden... but the fact is that Pershing sat with 1 million men in early 1918 during the early German rush, trying to demand a single unified front.

I don't dislike Americans, I find myself defending Americans to most of my friends here, but people like SkyChimp make me wonder if maybe you guys don't deserve to learn some humility. If you're so keen on standing alone and beating your chest, that you can take on the world by yourselves, have fun. The way you're alienating the rest of the West, it won't be long until you ARE alone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My grandfathers were two of the million guys sitting on their asses while Pershing fended off the British and French generals trying to plug American units directly into their own commands. President Wilson and the Congress had made crystal clear the requirement that US troops had US commanders, but our 'Allies' seemed to think that it was a formality.

My maternal grandfather had a story about a "British" (may have been a Canadian-Grandpa Schultz was first-generation & terrible about identifying non-German and non-Lakota accents) who attempted to draft US soldiers into his unit at gunpoint.

Bad idea. Only a US colonel's direct intervention kept him and his little group of NCOs from developing a severe case of dead (Webley revolvers vs '03 Springfields-do the math).

One of the big reasons for the delayed US entry into that war (and the next one) was the very real (and realistic) fear that foreign generals would use OUR SONS for cannon fodder instead of their own men. The fact that almost every time a foreigner has had command of US troops in combat, their casualty rates skyrocketed may justify that sentiment.

cheers

horseback

leitmotiv
09-05-2006, 12:36 AM
BATTLE OF BRITAIN is a bit lifeless at times, and, except for the great danse macabre montage of tangling fighters and bombers towards the end, it is not really good cinema. BLUE MAX is a good film, and also the best thing in its genre since the original DAMBUSTERS. You know, I can't think of a really great film that was also a flying film except possibly THE RIGHT STUFF.

leitmotiv
09-05-2006, 12:43 AM
I have a bit of a stake in WWI. My father's father fought in WWI, was gassed, never recovered, and died early leaving his wife and kids to struggle through the great Depression. His blood was English but he was 100% American and he was a doughboy. We were there and we bailed out the Entente for better or for worse.

panther3485
09-05-2006, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"BATTLE OF BRITAIN is a bit lifeless at times, and, except for the great danse macabre montage of tangling fighters and bombers towards the end, it is not really good cinema." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I didn't find Battle of Britain in the slightest bit 'lifeless' anywhere - quite the opposite, in fact, and I was pretty much riveted to it most of the way through. I just didn't like the lame 'matrimonial-problems-***-romance' bit, between Christopher Plummer and Susannah York. Apart from that, I thought it was excellent cinema!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
"BLUE MAX is a good film, and also the best thing in its genre since the original DAMBUSTERS." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't put 'The Blue Max' in precisely the same genre, because AFAIK, it's fictitious? I do agree that it was a good movie, but in my book not as good as either 'The Dam Busters' or 'Battle of Britain', both of which are based on true life historical events and both of which, IIRC, rate at least reasonably highly in the areas of historical and technical accuracy. Not really an 'apples for apples' comparison, IMHO.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "You know, I can't think of a really great film that was also a flying film except possibly THE RIGHT STUFF." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that was a good movie, but for me not so good that I'd be eager to see it again. Whereas, 'The Blue Max', 'The Dam Busters' and 'Battle of Britain' are all in my home movie collection precisely because I'm happy to watch them again and again.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

But hey, we've got different opinions about these movies and that's cool with me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

John_Wayne_
09-05-2006, 01:45 AM
Great flying movie? Hell, I'll give you a great flying movie.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/Big_Duke/flying_tigers2xs.jpg


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
09-05-2006, 01:51 AM
Dam straight.

gx-warspite
09-05-2006, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
My grandfathers were two of the million guys sitting on their asses while Pershing fended off the British and French generals trying to plug American units directly into their own commands. President Wilson and the Congress had made crystal clear the requirement that US troops had US commanders, but our 'Allies' seemed to think that it was a formality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And my great-great uncle fought while yours were sitting around in Paris and Brest, while much of the rest of my family was trying to save itself from the Germans in Poland.

Look, I'm not arguing against the policy of trying to have a unified piece of front for yourself, but when the Germans are breaking through, you don't wait until the last possible moment to plug your units into the line. IMO it was a wise idea to have an American front line with American command, but the fact is that Ludendorff's offensive, no matter how poorly conceived, stalled mostly because his soldiers started pillaging the towns they conquered. At such a moment, when the Allied line is shattered, you don't continue quibbling.

Regardless: none of this changes the fact that historically, the Americans didn't actually contribute much men or materiel to the war. Their casualties (inflicted and sustained) and accomplishments lack significance. That's all I'm saying. I'm in full agreement that in 1919 America would have had a major share in the war, and by 1920, it would have easily been the most involved partner of the four Allies.

But when you compare American achievements compared to the British/Commonwealth on the Somme, Paschendaele, or the French in Verdun, or the Russians along their entire front, it's a joke. In fact, technically, World War II was won in Russia. The Russians inflicted about 70% of all German casualties. The Russians sustained 90% of all Allied casualties.

Go ahead, make your pro-American movies. Just don't expect the world to sit quietly as you propound the lies and half-truths that glorify you. We're laughing, and with history on our side. Don't tell us to shut up when we know the truth. We're not here to swallow your lies.

And honestly, I wouldn't even care if Found On Road Dead Fan hadn't said his comments about "euro-haters". I don't care about Saving Private Ryan, Patton, or a dozen other movies that exaggerate the American contribution. But hey, he's picking a fight. He's trying to shut down all the arguments pointing out that America sat on its *** for 3 years, then sat with a million men in France for another year, and finally got involved. If you want to claim credit for the glory, you bleed. Pure and simple.

Feathered_IV
09-05-2006, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Dam straight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ploughman
09-05-2006, 03:19 AM
I'm probably going to regret having anything to do with this nasty, rotten thread but I was having a look around and found this interesting angle on American troops being placed under foreign command during World War One that I was completely unaware of. Four Regiments of US soldiers served gallantly under the command of the French.

"More than three decades ago, historians began to weave the little-known exploits of African-Americans into the fabric of American history. Frank E. Roberts's The American Foreign Legion continues that trend by contributing another chapter to American military historiography.

By 2004 the public had grown accustomed to reading about black soldiers in nearly every area of American military history. Roberts cogently reminds us that was not always the case. By taking the reader back to the second decade of the twentieth century, he places on center stage the story of the 93d Division, thus showing a time and place when all servicemen were not treated equally.

The story line begins when the US Army refuses to use black soldiers, assigning them instead to the French army. What no doubt was designed to demean and disgrace had the unintended effect of giving these black Americans the opportunity to excel on the battlefield. More pointedly, Secretary of War Newton D. Baker "issued specific orders to Gen. John J. Pershing ... that all American units would serve under the direct command" of Allied Expeditionary Forces Headquarters (p. 1). Pershing relied on an obscure clause in the policy statement to release to the French army the four regiments of American infantry (the 369th, 370th, 371st, and 372d) that neither he nor his commanders wanted. Roberts's story tells how units of the 93d fought to repel potent German offensives on the one hand and to combat the rigidity of American military segregation on the other.
Advertisement

Once placed under French command, blacks proved their worth as fighters and true defenders of justice and equality. Using 11 maps and detailed accounts of infantry action in such operations as the Battles of Champagne-Marne and the MeuseArgonne, as well as the Oise-Aisne Offensive, Roberts relives Allied assaults in vivid detail, recounting movements on almost an hourly basis.

A paradox of this study is that by 1917-18, American military commanders should have been familiar with the success of blacks in uniform. They should have known of blacks who had served in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War in particular. Even if they had not heard of Crispus Attucks or Martin R. Delaney, they should have known of Eugene Bullard (the "Black Swallow of Death") or some of the black units that had fought with the French in Senegal or with the British in the Dardanelles campaign or in Cameroon. Indeed, when Sergeant Cox boasted that "this here flag ain't never agoin' to touch the ground" (p. 100) as the 369th moved towards Remicourt in 1918, images of William H. Carney of the 54th Massachusetts at Fort Wagner should have surfaced in the minds of every military commander.

Roberts shows that blacks excelled under French command in World War I, yet when the time came to celebrate, he writes that the bravery of blacks was overlooked despite their having earned 42 Distinguished Service Crosses and 325 individual conferrals of the Croix de Guerre, among other awards as listed in appendix B. Indeed, America brought no black participants to the celebration on Bastille Day in 1919, as other nations did. Even worse, the official record of the US Army failed to show that the 93d had served at all."

From the Air & Space Power Journal, Summer 2005.

The American Foreign Legion: Black Soldiers of the 93d in World War I by Frank E. Roberts. Naval Institute Press (http://www.usni.org/ press/press.html), USNI Operations Center, 2062 Generals Highway, Annapolis, Maryland 21401-6780, 2004, 288 pages, $29.95 (hardcover).

leitmotiv
09-05-2006, 03:20 AM
I hope so, Feathered_IV, or an entire generation of American males is preverted.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2006, 03:31 AM
However much we cringe when watching Top Gun or Battle Of Britain (OK I will forgive BOB cos its from 1969) for their flag waving bias.

We still love the damn films.

Anything with warplanes in it is better than the usual ****. (except for Pearl Harbour, that was appalling with hardly any flying anyway). I am glad to watch them.

BTW have you guys seem 'Team Amercia : World Police' from the SOuth Park Creators? Thats a funny film, especially the love sequence song :

Pearl Harbour Sucked (from Team America : World Police)

I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the point, when he made Pearl harbour,
I need you like Ben Afleck needs acting school, he was terrible in that film

Chorus:

Pearl Harbour sucked, Just a little bit more, than I miss you...
Yeah Pearl harbour sucked, and I miss you...

Really funny film, go see it.


We need more warplane films! (And more Trey Parker and Matt Stone stuff too, roll on the fall for more South Park)

AWL_Spinner
09-05-2006, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kinda like how every one harps on PH's love story yet no one mentunes BoB lame love story </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair I think most people hate PH because it sucked on a truly monumental scale. Any love story irritation is merely incidental.

As for the movies, I love a work of fiction as much as the next person as long as it's not dressed up as history.

Don't know anything about the WW1 film in question but will be unlikely to see it, if what is reported above is correct regarding cheap numbnuts CGI cheese.

BaronUnderpants
09-05-2006, 03:46 AM
Fordfan, if u would have said " pay no mind to the usuall US flag waiving part, its just fictional and we all know the real history" instead of what u DID say, this thread would have looked completly differant.

Personally i havent seen any of the clips but the "crash into a zeppeline and running along it while exploding part" truly puts me of regarding this fly movie, flag waving or no flag waving.

I get dissepointed every time, why would anyone even want to make up a story about real events that 99% of the time tops anything anyone can make up in the first place?

Really, why?

As for the US bashing, people are getting sick and tired of Hollywood choosing any event they like, turning it into a all amarican affair with all the glory, sorrow and blood. Glory, sorrow and blood that rightfully belongs to someone else, just to make a buck.

The first and strongest statement that can be made against this development is the large US movie crowd saying its NOT ok by simply not waching the garbage.

Please note that i said "Hollywood"...not "US"

Personally, if i HAVE to see it ill wait untill i can rent it for a buck....wich wont be long according to the prewiew comments. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

P.S. anyone got a link...so i can in fact claim that i know what the h**l im talking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Feathered_IV
09-05-2006, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I hope so, Feathered_IV, or an entire generation of American males is preverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I don't know. He couldn't have been that active http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Von_Rat
09-05-2006, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:



Fact is, what I said is true: America's contribution to World War I was negligible in a material sense. The strategic importance of American entry to the war was obviously of the highest order, and American industry created many arms and munitions for European states (but this wsa all paid for).

Regardless: none of this changes the fact that historically, the Americans didn't actually contribute much men or materiel to the war.Their casualties (inflicted and sustained) and accomplishments lack significance.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


negligible?????

didnt contribute much men or material???

btw you counterdict yourself.


heres some facts, as opposed to just throwing bs.


in sept. BEFS front was 140km
AEFS was 157km.

note in sept, the AEF was invovled in intense combat. it just wasnt holding quite sectors.

bef had 100,000 losses in sept. aef had 60,000. true befs losses are higher but american losses are hi enough to say they played a important part in chasing germans to rhine.

in oct. the nominal combat strengths of the 3 allied armies on western front was nearly equal.this means that even before 1919 the americans already just as "involved" as the brits or french.

total dead on western front for whole war, bef 750,000,
aef 85,000, quite a lot considering short time they were in action.

i guess 85,0000 dead, in just a few months of combat, lack signifigance to the likes of you.

at the end of 1918 there were 2 million americans in france.

as for accomplishments, the san micheal offensive was one of the most successful allied offensive of the war. the americans took a position that had held out for years against everything allies threw at it.

as for material,do i really need to type out the hugh amounts of explosives, rifles, or even howitzers that were provided to the allies.

so much for negilable.

pershing wanted a contigous front because he didt want the american army broken up into small units under allied generals, and having their lives squandered by those same idiot allied generals, who had already squandered millions of their own soldiers lives. you should blame those same idiot allied generals for not immediatly allowing pershing what he wanted. namely american troops fighting under american commanders. they risked defeat rather than give pershing what he wanted. thats the real reason they "sat on their asses". they werent sitting btw they were training.


during the course of the war the allies borrowed $10.5 billion from us.
to put this in context in 1914 britains and frances combined defence budgets were only $671 million.

britains national debt was 7.5 billion pounds in 1919, of which 1.2 billion was owed to america.


as for paid for????? didnt britain default on those loans?


when i read **** like you posted, i start to wonder, that maybe the kaiser wasn't such a bad guy after all.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2006, 06:05 AM
I found the complete lyric for the song 'Pearl Harbour sucked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pearl Harbor
by Team America: World Police


I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that€s an awful lot girl
And now, now you€ve gone away
And all I€m trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He€s way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that ****ty movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Brilliant


'Terrorists from DirkaDirka-Stan have invaded '

whiteladder
09-05-2006, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as for paid for????? didnt britain default on those loans? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


When all international loans held by America were suspended in 1934 the debt was 866m. The payments were never restarted.
I guess if the 2.3 billion owed to the UK had been honoured by other countries there might have been more progress on paying this off.

Not good really, although our American cousins will be happy to note we did settle our bill for WW2 on the 31 of December last year, with a last payment of $83million!

grumpy01
09-05-2006, 06:36 AM
The African American in the movie was a token move by hollywood. What I want to know is what's with the disgusting fatbody flyboy. They did a shot of him in the preview and I almost lost my cookies. He looked like a joke.

WTE_Moleboy
09-05-2006, 06:57 AM
Never thought I would say this but can a mod shut this thread? It is going nowhere, acheiving nothing and wasting time.

Feathered_IV
09-05-2006, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grumpy01:
The African American in the movie was a token move by hollywood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no. The Lafayette did really have an African American pilot amongst their number. It would be inaccurate not to include him.

PBNA-Boosher
09-05-2006, 09:31 AM
Hey guess what? I'm American and CRINGED when I watched Pearl Harbor. I CRINGED when I watched Saving Ryan's Privates. Let's face it. The world is much stupider than most of us wish to believe. It's always about the "get rich quick," "I need more oil," "this land is your land, but now it's my land," or "Gosh darn it, Magda, I want more veggies."
Let's at least pretend to be civilized war fanatics, and instead of shooting people over it, use 88mm artillery!

LStarosta
09-05-2006, 09:49 AM
Saving Private Ryan was based on a true story, so STFU. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

LStarosta
09-05-2006, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I found the complete lyric for the song 'Pearl Harbour sucked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pearl Harbor
by Team America: World Police


I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that€s an awful lot girl
And now, now you€ve gone away
And all I€m trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He€s way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that ****ty movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Brilliant


'Terrorists from DirkaDirka-Stan have invaded ' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

panther3485
09-05-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Saving Private Ryan was based on a true story, so STFU. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. It is very heavily fictionalized, inspired by a true story to which it bears very, very little resemblance. There was no 'mission' to recover this soldier:

"The real "Ryan" was Sgt. Frederick (Fritz) Niland, who, with some other members of the 101st, was inadvertently dropped too far inland. They eventually made their own way back to their unit at Carentan, where the Chaplain, Lt. Col. Father Francis Sampson, told Niland about the death of his three brothers, two at Normandy and one in the Far East.

Under the US War Department's Sole Survivor Policy, brought about after the death of five Sullivan brothers serving on the same ship, Fr. Sampson arranged passage back to Britain and thereafter to his parents, Augusta and Michael Niland, in Tonawanda, New York. There was no behind-the-lines rescue mission, and his mother was not a widow, although it is believed that she did receive all the telegrams at the same time (Ambrose, Stephen E., D-Day, Simon & Schuster, 1997). Additionally, the brother believed to be killed in the Far East turned out to have been captured and later returned home. Fr. Francis Sampson wrote about Niland and the story of the 101st, in his 1958 book, Look Out Below (ISBN 1-877702-00-5)."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan#Historical_background

LStarosta
09-05-2006, 10:27 AM
No, it was a true story, they even showed the real James Ryan in the intro of the movie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

panther3485
09-05-2006, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
No, it was a true story, they even showed the real James Ryan in the intro of the movie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I get it - your'e only joking. Sorry, late at night and I'm tired! (My excuse, and I'm sticking to it!) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Xiolablu3
09-05-2006, 10:49 AM
I actually enjoy most of the Hollywood stuff if I look past the rubbish bits.

Saving Private RYan was cool
TopGun was great
The Thin Red line was REALLY good.

But Pearl harbor definitely sucked 'and I miss you...'

panther3485
09-05-2006, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
"I actually enjoy most of the Hollywood stuff if I look past the rubbish bits." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some cases, there's not much left after that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Divine-Wind
09-05-2006, 11:10 AM
99.9% of Hollywood stuff these days is rubbish. Enjoy the .1% of awesomeness! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vipez-
09-05-2006, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
blah blah blah yak yak yak blah blah blah just STFU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.kerrolisaa.com/kuvat/asiapres0tt.jpeg

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-05-2006, 01:18 PM
Weren't the flying bits filmed in Merrie Olde England?

MOH_MADMAN
09-05-2006, 01:29 PM
you can see the hands of the animators moving the planes around, how cheezy.

fordfan25
09-05-2006, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Dam straight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yep.

fordfan25
09-05-2006, 02:57 PM
good greif Mods just lock this thread. i knew better than to try with some of of the kind that hangs here. locker up tight.

fordfan25
09-05-2006, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MOH_MADMAN:
you can see the hands of the animators moving the planes around, how cheezy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Suuuuure you can http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

John_Wayne_
09-05-2006, 02:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:

quote:
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Dam straight.


He was?
yep.



You'd better believe it, pilgrim.

carguy_
09-05-2006, 03:18 PM
YES!Oh plz plz plz dooooon`t lock this thread we can bash Yankeeees sum more then we make EU bashing thread that is gonna be cool too!


Other than I like those threads I never feel negative about those movies.Say what you want the Top Gun jet battles,Pearl Harbour attack,attack on the Omaha beach and thin red line,Memphis Bell they were all very cool.

Although somehow I fail to see the flag waving aspect in those movies.Too bad that they`re being often used by leaders to lie to ppl.And since most ppl believe movie content,they`re naive as hell.

If someone tells me **** about WWII I tell him what I know about it and make him hide in his little hole where he can stay in denial as long as he likes.

As for WWI I don`t know much about it.The issue that interests me is what has US made on WWI.My very doubtful knowlede about it is that US made a great deal out of WWI.After WWI there was question as to who`s the strongest.

LStarosta
09-05-2006, 03:29 PM
http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/landofthefree.jpg

AMERICA 4 TEH WINZ!!1111

HuninMunin
09-05-2006, 04:10 PM
The largest contribution was undoubtfully german.
Taking on all four of ya at one time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

fordfan25
09-05-2006, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
The largest contribution was undoubtfully german.
Taking on all four of ya at one time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea but we wernt realy try'n http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif we prefer BMW to mini coper so we was secretly rooting for you guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

rebelpacket
09-05-2006, 04:59 PM
I am proud to be an american. I am. I love my country, and the opportunities it affords me.

But sometimes, I'm embarassed to be an American. I wish we (meaning my country) would calm down, and look around. We've only been around for a century or two. We barely have a history, let alone a culture. There is much to be learned from other countries in the world. Places like Russia, England, Germany, Poland, Norway, China, Japan.

I just wish, every now and then, Americans would stop talking, and start listening. Its amazing how much you can learn about other ways of life, and the perspective you can gain from it.

All the foofy stuff out of the way, I'm excited for the movie. Yes, there will likely be huge historical inaccuracies, like Fokker Dr.I triplanes everywhere, huge explosions, and unrealistic aerial gunnery. But its a movie. Its meant to entertain. If I get all fired up, and decide to go play some IL2 FB because of it, so be it. I know a fair amount about the history of WWI and WWII aerial combat, to make up my own mind about what is truth and fiction.

Yes, it has the typical american cowboys in it. Yes, other countries may find it offensive, especially considering our limited involvment in WWI. But, thats America's Hollywood for you. Trust me, some of us dislike it as much as the rest of you do.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2006, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
Hey guess what? I'm American and CRINGED when I watched Pearl Harbor. I CRINGED when I watched Saving Ryan's Privates. Let's face it. The world is much stupider than most of us wish to believe. It's always about the "get rich quick," "I need more oil," "this land is your land, but now it's my land," or "Gosh darn it, Magda, I want more veggies."
Let's at least pretend to be civilized war fanatics, and instead of shooting people over it, use 88mm artillery! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Look mate, here in England we creamed Germany and Japan all on our own. We are just too tough for you Yanks so you had better cancel your planned invasion of Britain and Canada. We know all about it and we still have Radar and SOund locators left over from the Battle Of Britain. Your F22's will get smashed on the White CLiffs of Dover.

Your 'Team America World Police' had better call off the attack. We know that you are fed up with all the Evil English on our island (You have subtle hints in your movies, always the baddie is an Englishman http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)


Now you know our secret, that we are a Nation of Evil leaders, we will be ready for your assualt!

Our rocket powered Spitfires all flown by a cloned Michael Caine will blow up your Ben Affleck clones in their supersonic P40's!

David Niven will place satchel charges on the shoreline to blow up Tom Hanks when he lands on the beach.

We have Jude Law ready to snipe all of your Memphis Belles. He can shoot the pilot from 1 mile away.

Its ON!!!


(Sorry I've had a few beers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

gx-warspite
09-05-2006, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:



Fact is, what I said is true: America's contribution to World War I was negligible in a material sense. The strategic importance of American entry to the war was obviously of the highest order, and American industry created many arms and munitions for European states (but this wsa all paid for).

Regardless: none of this changes the fact that historically, the Americans didn't actually contribute much men or materiel to the war.Their casualties (inflicted and sustained) and accomplishments lack significance.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


negligible?????

didnt contribute much men or material???

btw you counterdict yourself.


heres some facts, as opposed to just throwing bs.


in sept. BEFS front was 140km
AEFS was 157km.

note in sept, the AEF was invovled in intense combat. it just wasnt holding quite sectors.

bef had 100,000 losses in sept. aef had 60,000. true befs losses are higher but american losses are hi enough to say they played a important part in chasing germans to rhine.

in oct. the nominal combat strengths of the 3 allied armies on western front was nearly equal.this means that even before 1919 the americans already just as "involved" as the brits or french.

total dead on western front for whole war, bef 750,000,
aef 85,000, quite a lot considering short time they were in action.

i guess 85,0000 dead, in just a few months of combat, lack signifigance to the likes of you.

at the end of 1918 there were 2 million americans in france.

as for accomplishments, the san micheal offensive was one of the most successful allied offensive of the war. the americans took a position that had held out for years against everything allies threw at it.

as for material,do i really need to type out the hugh amounts of explosives, rifles, or even howitzers that were provided to the allies.

so much for negilable.

pershing wanted a contigous front because he didt want the american army broken up into small units under allied generals, and having their lives squandered by those same idiot allied generals, who had already squandered millions of their own soldiers lives. you should blame those same idiot allied generals for not immediatly allowing pershing what he wanted. namely american troops fighting under american commanders. they risked defeat rather than give pershing what he wanted. thats the real reason they "sat on their asses". they werent sitting btw they were training.


during the course of the war the allies borrowed $10.5 billion from us.
to put this in context in 1914 britains and frances combined defence budgets were only $671 million.

britains national debt was 7.5 billion pounds in 1919, of which 1.2 billion was owed to america.


as for paid for????? didnt britain default on those loans?


when i read **** like you posted, i start to wonder, that maybe the kaiser wasn't such a bad guy after all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So basically... you agree with me.

America sat out the war, sat the early German rush in 1918, plugged the lines, and then helped with the final push. That's right, the Americans finally started taking significant casualties, AFTER the Allies stopped the German advance.

Meanwhile, Americans profited immensely from the loans and material they SOLD to the Allies. It's not like the Allies got your help for free, instead they paid through it for the nose. And NO, neither Britain nor France defaulted on those loans. Where do you think the money for the boom of the 1920s came from? The Allies continued paying even through the Great Depression.

Heck, Britain only finished paying off her debt to America from World War II just a couple of years ago. See? This is exactly the kind of ignorant pompous **** people despise about Americans. You assume your help was free. You assume you helped willingly, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into both wars.

Let me put it to you this way:

If the US had entered the war in 1914, it could have had a substantial presence in France in 1915. This would have prevented the Germans from making their headlong advance into Russia by tying down German divisions. Which in turn would have prevented the disastrous losses the Russians took and thus prevented the formation of the Soviet Union. With no pressure on Russia, the Gallipoli disaster would never have occured, and those forces could have been used to better effect in Palestine, or on the western front itself.

So in a nutshell, here is the history of America in the world wars:

1. Sit and watch as democracies struggle for their lives.
2. Sell munitions to those same democracies, and lend them money at typically high war interest rates.
3. Profit as such for several years.
4. Get dragged into the war (German unrestricted warfare, or Pearl Harbour), and finally get off your butts.
5. By the time you actually arrive on the scene, someone else has done the dirty work (the Brits and French in WW1, the Russians in WW2).
6. Claim glory.

And seriously, that's not a bad strategy. It's what I'd do if I was in charge of the US. It's what I'd do for my country to maximize its benefit from a war.

Where the problem comes in is where you start acting high and mighty over it. The rest of the world, well, we've got working education systems. We know what happened. We know you got forced into both wars, that your help cost a fortune, that you profited from the conflicts at our expense. Quite simply, you can't expect someone to be grateful for your help.

Imagine if you were being harassed by your neighbour. His dog would **** on your lawn and his kids would break your windows. You couldn't do anything about him yourself, but the neighbour behind you, who occasionally lost a window, said he'd help you if you paid him $10,000. Would you be grateful? I doubt it. You paid for his help.

SkyChimp
09-05-2006, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
But when you compare American achievements compared to the British/Commonwealth on the Somme, Paschendaele, or the French in Verdun, or the Russians along their entire front, it's a joke. In fact, technically, World War II was won in Russia. The Russians inflicted about 70% of all German casualties. The Russians sustained 90% of all Allied casualties.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russia sustained huge casualties, in part, because they fought unwisely. The western allies, for the most part, did not.

And as for winning WWII, you know, of course, that the WWII was fought in more places that Europe?
Russia€s contribution to the war against Japan was nil €" except if you count hurling a 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army which had been stripped bare to support the army in the Philippines and the home islands. In fact, it was the United States that fought the principal war against Japan.

I€m curious as to how you might characterize the contribution of the British and Commonwealth (to include, ahem, Canada) to the defeat of Japan when compared to that of the United States? Would you characterize it as €œa joke?€ I wonder if you would describe their contribution as as paltry as that of the US in WWI? Is their contribution unworthy of praise or commemoration? Would a movie like €œKokoda Trail€ spur as much hate in you as €œFlyboys€ does?

I patiently await you rationalization, or irrational reaction.

carts
09-05-2006, 06:24 PM
Well just coming into the end of this disscusion,all i can really say is "wtf" its a crappy "Pearl Harbor" type of movie,but what really pisses me off is that,there was enough real bravery shown by naive 19 yr old boys,dieing screaming on fire,to make a fitting movie about.....lets not forget.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2006, 06:25 PM
I dunno why you bother getting invloved in these stupid discussions, Yanks.

All this 'We' did this, 'You' didnt do squat, is just a load of bollox.

None of 'us' did anything, it was 2 generations ago. When they were fighting, they had the sense to be on the same side remember? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

SOme folks get a bit upset at the rewriting of history, but YOU guys didnt write those films? DO you really feel responsible for some of the trash that gets written? I certainly dont feel responsible for the British 'Carry on' films or crappy soap operas.

Dont waste your time with it guys, you cuold be doing much better things. (Like flying P38's with me online http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif, see you there)

Xiolablu3
09-05-2006, 06:31 PM
Look, most Americans are dicks...and Europeans are pussies....

See, there's three kinds of people: d*cks, pussies, and a*sholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and d*cks just want to f*ck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your a*sholes. And all the a*sholes want us to sh*t all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at d*cks once in a while, because pussies get f*cked by d*cks. But d*cks also f*ck a*sholes. And if they didn't f*ck the a*sholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your d*ck and your ***** all covered in sh*t!

SkyChimp
09-05-2006, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
So basically... you agree with me.

America sat out the war, sat the early German rush in 1918, plugged the lines, and then helped with the final push. That's right, the Americans finally started taking significant casualties, AFTER the Allies stopped the German advance.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet it was still contribution. Unworthy of any recognition in your eyes? It€s painfully obvious that not enough American died to satisfy you, so they are unworthy of any praise? What about Canada? The United Sates suffered nearly twice as many killed in WWI as the Canadians. The Canadians began fighting in 1915. The US began in 1918. Please tell me how you would characterize the Canadian contribution to WWI? Are Canadians worthy of any commemoration?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Meanwhile, Americans profited immensely from the loans and material they SOLD to the Allies. It's not like the Allies got your help for free, instead they paid through it for the nose. And NO, neither Britain nor France defaulted on those loans. Where do you think the money for the boom of the 1920s came from? The Allies continued paying even through the Great Depression.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Britain and France had help repaying those loans, namely in the form of reparations paid by Germany. Germany was able to pay those reparations, in large part, by loans and grants from the Americans. When Britain€s and France€s desire to €œstick it to the Germans€ for causing WWI put Germany into the deepest depression of any western nation, it was the United States that gave them money to satisfy Britain and France€s urge for revenge.

For more, here€s a neat article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Heck, Britain only finished paying off her debt to America from World War II just a couple of years ago. See? This is exactly the kind of ignorant pompous **** people despise about Americans. You assume your help was free. You assume you helped willingly, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into both wars.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what irritates Americans about people like you is your conscious distortion of history. Most of the loans came as part of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. What you have refused to mention is that the Marshall Plan included grants, as well as loans, that have never been paid off. The US gave away billions as a result of WWI and WWII, a large portion of which will never be paid back.

Give you distortions, the rest of you post of unworthy of comment.

fordfan25
09-05-2006, 07:29 PM
forget it chimp some people just have the p***** envy thing going on . fill's them with rage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif kinda sad how some think thay should have gotten every thing for free though.

panther3485
09-05-2006, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
But when you compare American achievements compared to the British/Commonwealth on the Somme, Paschendaele, or the French in Verdun, or the Russians along their entire front, it's a joke. In fact, technically, World War II was won in Russia. The Russians inflicted about 70% of all German casualties. The Russians sustained 90% of all Allied casualties.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russia sustained huge casualties, in part, because they fought unwisely. The western allies, for the most part, did not.

And as for winning WWII, you know, of course, that the WWII was fought in more places that Europe?
Russia€s contribution to the war against Japan was nil €" except if you count hurling a 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army which had been stripped bare to support the army in the Philippines and the home islands. In fact, it was the United States that fought the principal war against Japan.

I€m curious as to how you might characterize the contribution of the British and Commonwealth (to include, ahem, Canada) to the defeat of Japan when compared to that of the United States? Would you characterize it as €œa joke?€ I wonder if you would describe their contribution as as paltry as that of the US in WWI? Is their contribution unworthy of praise or commemoration? Would a movie like €œKokoda Trail€ spur as much hate in you as €œFlyboys€ does?

I patiently await you rationalization, or irrational reaction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right, SkyChimp.

When speaking of WW2, some seem to totally overlook the Pacific Theatre. USA definitely the main player in that one!

Did some of the other Allies make a useful contribution there? Did they suffer there? Of course they did, but the Americans unquestionably carried the principal burden of the war against Japan. In every sense. And they carried it all the way through, from start to finish.

Speaking as an Australian, I'm glad they did!


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

Edit: I am comparing contributions to the war against Japan by the USA, the other Western Allies and the Soviet Union. We should not overlook the fact that China suffered terribly at the hands of the Japanese, and for years before WW2 'officially' started, nor should we overlook the Chinese contribution to the later and final struggle. Just thought I'd better mention that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
09-05-2006, 08:21 PM
A lot of you guys are making some valid points but one or two of you are going a bit 'overboard' IMHO and something else that I believe should be mentioned in regard to the USA and both World Wars:

Sure, tyrrany needs to be fought when it is a threat to freedom and peace in the World.

HOWEVER, looking at it pragmatically and all things considered, why should the USA have allowed herself to become involved in a EUROPEAN conflict, unless it was clearly in her strategic interests to do so?

That's not to say that in the case of WW2, the thwarting of Nazism/Fascism in Europe would not have ultimately made the World a better place for the Americans too, but the case is far less clear for WW1. Sometimes, I think a certain amount of 'balance' is missing from a lot of the posts here.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

Divine-Wind
09-05-2006, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Look, most Americans are dicks...and Europeans are pussies....

See, there's three kinds of people: d*cks, pussies, and a*sholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and d*cks just want to f*ck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your a*sholes. And all the a*sholes want us to sh*t all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at d*cks once in a while, because pussies get f*cked by d*cks. But d*cks also f*ck a*sholes. And if they didn't f*ck the a*sholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your d*ck and your ***** all covered in sh*t! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

That made my day.

Phas3e
09-05-2006, 08:50 PM
I will close off the learned part of my brain and enjoy this movie for what it will be, an action movie.

Noone should go and expect a history lesson from either this or the Red Baron.

LStarosta
09-05-2006, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
A lot of you guys are making some valid points but one or two of you are going a bit 'overboard' IMHO and something else that I believe should be mentioned in regard to the USA and both World Wars:

Sure, tyrrany needs to be fought when it is a threat to freedom and peace in the World.

HOWEVER, looking at it pragmatically and all things considered, why should the USA have allowed herself to become involved in a EUROPEAN conflict, unless it was clearly in her strategic interests to do so?

That's not to say that in the case of WW2, the thwarting of Nazism/Fascism in Europe would not have ultimately made the World a better place for the Americans too, but the case is far less clear for WW1. Sometimes, I think a certain amount of 'balance' is missing from a lot of the posts here.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's because at the end of the day, we Americans are hypocrites, and we LOVE double standards. It's what sustains our country. Gender inequity, racial inequity, economic inequity... it's what makes our world go around, not fat bottom girls as a certain homosexual rockstar may want you to believe.

We preached the Monroe Doctrine, and the Roosevelt Corollary to the aforementioned policy, which as you know forbade any European government from intervening in any Western Hemisphere affairs, but that burning double-standard passion within us exploded, and we satisfied our urgent need by intervening in Eastern Hemisphere affairs by participating in both world wars. Sure, we denied it with our isolationist rantings and policies at first, but America as a whole just couldn't wait to blow a double-standard load all over Europe.

And that's the truth.

gx-warspite
09-06-2006, 01:33 AM
SkyChimp, god dammit dude, shut up.

You're just so ignorant it hurts. Where did you get that the US had twice as many casualties as Canada? 240,000 Canadian dead and injured for 360,000 American dead and injured. Considering America had TEN times the population, your contribution - again - was minor. Compare that to the five million that France lost, or 2.5 million that Britain lost. As for Canada's contribution? First victims of a gas attack on the Somme, held the Somme, won Vimy Ridge, spearheaded, along with the ANZACs, the Allied assaults that drove Germany to her borders over the last 100 days of the war.

And NO, it's not about how many Americans died. It's about pointing out that Europeans are right that America did not win the first World War, that it was a European conflict. You have no great claim on victory there. THAT'S ALL. Jumping in at the last minute doesn't make you saviors.

Germany didn't pay even 10% of the reparations she was supposed to. Or did you miss that in your rush to proliferate more ignorance?

The Marshall Plan had a meagre effect in rebuilding Europe. Read up on it sometime, it's highly over-rated.

gx-warspite
09-06-2006, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
HOWEVER, looking at it pragmatically and all things considered, why should the USA have allowed herself to become involved in a EUROPEAN conflict, unless it was clearly in her strategic interests to do so?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I perfectly agree. Wilson and Roosevelt played their hands very well.

The point I'M making is that the rest of the world is aware of that as well. So we take exception to the idea that America somehow benevolently decided to intervene, didn't profit in any way, and saved the world.

You were dragged into both wars. In WW1, German unrestricted warfare was destroying your European trade. In World War II, Japan had to actually sneak attack you, and even then, it was Germany that declared war on the US, not the other way around.

gx-warspite
09-06-2006, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Edit: I am comparing contributions to the war against Japan by the USA, the other Western Allies and the Soviet Union. We should not overlook the fact that China suffered terribly at the hands of the Japanese, and for years before WW2 'officially' started, nor should we overlook the Chinese contribution to the later and final struggle. Just thought I'd better mention that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's pretty much all I'd add. China's contribution to the war against Japan is totally underrated. Almost all of Japan's army was fighting there, though granted, there isn't much ground over which to fight in the Pacific. I heartily concede that the US won the war against Japan, but even the Japanese leadership knew they were fighting a losing conflict. They planned a year to 18 months of offensives and then biting down in a defensive posture to make peace more appealing so that America could focus on Germany. I give full credit to the Americans for knocking out Japan, way ahead of schedule, since it was decided between Roosevelt and Churchill to put Japan on the backburner.

gx-warspite
09-06-2006, 01:50 AM
edit doublepost

carguy_
09-06-2006, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Would a movie like €œKokoda Trail€ spur as much hate in you as €œFlyboys€ does? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAT hate?!We`re TALKING here dude!It is sooooo easy to say he hates you,yeah!Get your head examined.

gx-warspite
09-06-2006, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Russia sustained huge casualties, in part, because they fought unwisely. The western allies, for the most part, did not.

And as for winning WWII, you know, of course, that the WWII was fought in more places that Europe?

Russia€s contribution to the war against Japan was nil €" except if you count hurling a 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army which had been stripped bare to support the army in the Philippines and the home islands. In fact, it was the United States that fought the principal war against Japan.

I€m curious as to how you might characterize the contribution of the British and Commonwealth (to include, ahem, Canada) to the defeat of Japan when compared to that of the United States? Would you characterize it as €œa joke?€ I wonder if you would describe their contribution as as paltry as that of the US in WWI? Is their contribution unworthy of praise or commemoration? Would a movie like €œKokoda Trail€ spur as much hate in you as €œFlyboys€ does?

I patiently await you rationalization, or irrational reaction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Pacific War was on the back-burner. As I said in my previous post, even Japanese leadership understood it was going to go on the defensive after 18 months at most (which happened almost to the day at Midway). The American forces involved - mainly the Navy and Marines - wouldn't have been used in Europe anyway. Finally, other than by pointing out that America profited vastly from World War II and again sat on its *** until dragged into the conflict, I never disputed the American contribution.

Yeah, the Russians didn't have the best leadership, but they're the ones that faced 90% of German armed forces for three years before Normandy was opened as a front.

Germany was put on the defensive after Stalingrad. Germany was in retreat after Kursk, and it was Operation Bagration that destroyed Army Group Centre. It was, incidentally, the largest defeat Germany suffered during the war, resulting in the destruction of their most important fighting force and a severe weakening and reduction of their front.

Let me give you a breakdown:

German estimates for Operation Bagration:

800,000 defending against 1,700,000 attacking.
260,000 dead Germans, 250,000 wounded, 116,000 POWs.

Soviet estimates were 1.5 times as high.


German losses in Wacht am Rhein, the attack on the Ardennes, were 84,834 - total. A mere 16,000 dead.


So please, don't even try to compare the fronts. The disparity in scale is tremendous.

Of course, American contribution to World War II was much greater and decisive. American tanks, planes and munitions armed much of the British, all of the Free French, all of the Free Poles and a significant portion of the Russian forces.

America was decisive in the victory, but then again, so were Britain and Russia. You're no doubt thinking "ya but Europe would've been screwed if USA hadn't intervened." Guess what? Europe would have been screwed if Britain fell or gave into the generous peace terms Hitler was offering. Europe would probably never have been liberated if a German-Soviet war hadn't erupted.

And you know, if you weren't forced into this conflict, if it didn't take an underhanded Japanese sneak attack to force you into war, maybe then people wouldn't mind it if you bragged about being saviors. But that's not what happened. For the second world war in a row, you were dragged kicking and screaming against your will into the conflict.

carguy_
09-06-2006, 02:21 AM
I thought the common knowledge is that US provided UK with vast war&life materials through the Atlantic.Roosevelt widened the free trade area of the ocean too.Couldn`t possibly imagine he didn`t know that information of a U-boat sinking an American trade ship would come soon.And you don`t let them sink your ships.So it looks more like a provokation from the US.

gx-warspite
09-06-2006, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I thought the common knowledge is that US provided UK with vast war&life materials through the Atlantic.Roosevelt widened the free trade area of the ocean too.Couldn`t possibly imagine he didn`t know that information of a U-boat sinking an American trade ship would come soon.And you don`t let them sink your ships.So it looks more like a provokation from the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, and Britain paid for every last ounce of material - including those sunk by German U-boats. You make it sound like America did it out of the goodness of its heart.

Oh, and it wasn't German U-boats that provoked American entry into WW2. It was Pearl Harbour. You know, like the really bad movie?

carguy_
09-06-2006, 02:51 AM
I mean that Germany did notice the help US gave UK,whether it was for free or not.I don`t think anyone doubts that without those materials,UK would lose Atlantic war.US ships would get sunked and US would not watch that without taking action.

From the looks of it,Roosevelt was willing but the society was not.An impulse was needed to make ppl think they were just as endangered as the UK.

Ruy Horta
09-06-2006, 03:16 AM
When I saw the header to this thread I thought yeah, great something about Flyboys!!

You remember when you didn't really look at the markings and what they stood for but were mesmerized about AIRPLANES!!!

This is the first feeling I get when I think of the movie Flyboys: WW1 Air Combat!

So why did the OP already include an indirect attack?!

I am getting so sick and tired of this USA vs WORLD attitude (or vise versa). Not every thread needs to become a discussion. So what if I don't care for Bush and his foreign policy (what he does domestically is beyond my caring - you get what you vote for).

Flyboys is AIRCRAFT, even if the plot is BS, I'll enjoy it like I enjoyed Pearl Harbor - yes, I even admit to that, even if it wasn't historically correct, full of bombastic BS etc etc etc; the Mrs and Me enjoyed it TOGETHER.'

I'll probably enjoy Tom "Billy Fisk" Cruise winning the Battle of Britain (like Benny Afleck did before him).

For those 90-240 mins I'll turn off my sense of Politics and Historical Correctness and go blank, enjoy the camera work, effects and if lucky the acting and plot.

Damn I'll admit I love these movies even if they stink.

BTW ironic, many of our classic movie favorites are full of BS, flaws, bad drama etc etc etc - still we enjoy(ed) them.

So here's one Euro guy who at least for those few minutes of fantasy forgets any modern conflict and clashing interests to enjoy a movie even if its full of USA this and USA that.

Bring on Flyboys!!

PS.
There is some irony in a movie about transatlantic cooperation being a platform for such discussion. Lets face the fact that the US entry into WW1 tipped the balance in favour of the Western Allies. If it wasn't the Flyboys, it certainly was the millions of American troops.

Ruy Horta
09-06-2006, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Britain and France had help repaying those loans, namely in the form of reparations paid by Germany. Germany was able to pay those reparations, in large part, by loans and grants from the Americans. When Britain€s and France€s desire to €œstick it to the Germans€ for causing WWI put Germany into the deepest depression of any western nation, it was the United States that gave them money to satisfy Britain and France€s urge for revenge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been reading some about this very issue, but it appears to be one of the myths (leading to WW2).

The Anglo-French did demand huge repayments, but Germany only paid a fraction. German economic collapse was caused by a combination of factors, some of them already set in motion during the war itself.

It is also unfair to lump together Britain and France - is it an anti-european thing - as it was mainly the French who drove the whole revenge and repayment issue.

OTOH, never forget that it was FRANCE which had paid the highest price in terms of blood and destruction. Think back to 1870/71 and it become easier to understand: Action-Reaction.

Inter european history in the last couple of centuries and its relation with the USA is pretty complex, it doesn't really suit to throw it into some lump conclusions (suiting modern ideas).

IIJG69_Kartofe
09-06-2006, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by grumpy01:
The African American in the movie was a token move by hollywood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no. The Lafayette did really have an African American pilot amongst their number. It would be inaccurate not to include him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, officialy hi didn't fly in the lafayette squadron buy an anoter french squad, the SPA-93.

Look here:

Eug¨ne jacques BULLARD (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-s/2005/3tri05/chivaletteeng.html)

And Here:

BULLARD (http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/bullard.html)


A really exeptionnal man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

mattinen
09-06-2006, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">im sick of every thread about a movie thats made in the USA being dumped on over silly a** resones just because its made in the USA or features USA soldiers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps this has something to do with fact the US more or less dominates the filmindustry and there simply isn't many alternatives? If you want to see a warfilm there rarely is a non-US alternative.

A different matter is that not everybody like these movies, but this doesn't automaticly mean that you hate the americans or want to bash United States. People just have different tastes when films are concerned.

I also think that these things shouldn't be taken so personally. If somebody doesn't like the often somewhat overpatriotic mood of US war movies (according to the European taste that is), this doesn't necessarily mean that you are bashing the US or its servicemen/women.

BiscuitKnight
09-06-2006, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Yet it was still contribution. Unworthy of any recognition in your eyes? It€s painfully obvious that not enough American died to satisfy you, so they are unworthy of any praise? What about Canada? The United Sates suffered nearly twice as many killed in WWI as the Canadians. The Canadians began fighting in 1915. The US began in 1918. Please tell me how you would characterize the Canadian contribution to WWI? Are Canadians worthy of any commemoration? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. I avoided this topic for this reason, but you really trolled me in here.

SkyChimp, last time I checked, Australia suffered I believe 115,000 casualties in WWI and had a population of about 11M. 10% casualties for the whole population. I'm sure I've read it was the highest per capita. So perhaps we should measure contribution by something like multiply the GDP by the number of people fit for service? It might produce a rough idea of the country's fighting power by the fact that if you've got a lower GDP = less taxes, therefore less ability to purchase weapons, plus lower economic power to build weapons, then the combat available troops for obvious reasons, then multiply to get an idea of the relative power. Maybe use the square root or something. I dunno, I'm just guess. Whatever, the relative combat value of 1914 Great Britain would clock in higher than 1939 Great Britain, while 1941 USA would clock in somewhere around the USSR's value, and Germany would clock in somewhere below both.

The point is, for relative combat value, the USA suffered shockingly LOW casualties. Also, know why the casualties were so high for the short period? Belleau Wood, anyone?

Plan: US Marines will attack and capture Belleau Wood from light resistance.
The US arrive, the French tell them attacking the Wood will only waste lives. The US attack anyway. Charging across open ground into machinegun fire. The USMC captured the Wood, to their credit. But it, and the 100 days offensive, are all you need to look up to see why casualties were high: the US troops weren't always ready to listen to people with experience, and couple this with head on attacks, you're bound to have high casualties. To the USA's credit, it's much the same as in 1944: superior numbers, superior units in many cases (example: US Infantry Div vs a ragtag Division off Osttruppen using 1918 French rifles), the strategy of hammering the enemy works when you've got the ability to absorb the losses. The strategy Patton used would be hopeless applied to the Eastern front from either side, but the strategy used by Chuikov at Stalingrad, or by Yeremenko and Zhukov in the wider view, would be overly cautious - wasteful even, if applied to the Western Front 1944.

I'll insist here, I am no US"ophobe". In my history and politics class I've defended the USA against the people (including my teachers) who don't give credit where due and downplay US achievements. I'd do the same were it Britain, Canada, not France though.

I simply feel it's necessary to point out that the Commonwealth (Ie UK, Canada, ANZACs and others like South Africa) casualties occured in battles like Ypres, Cambrai, Somme, etc, in battles where the offensives achieved only higher piles of bodies - the advantage being that by 1918 the Allies had more bodies to add until the Germans were completely denuded of males capable of handling weapons, IE anyone over 5. Adding the USA to it merely accelerated the German defeat.

DoubleTap2005A
09-06-2006, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

I also think that these things shouldn't be taken so personally. If somebody doesn't like the often somewhat overpatriotic mood of US war movies (according to the European taste that is), this doesn't necessarily mean that you are bashing the US or its servicemen/women. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, but this cuts both ways. Some people on these threads seem to take it as some sort of slight or personal insult of them and/or their history/nation when there is a US film that shows our experiences/soldiers/battles positively and with pride. Automatically some people take it as, €œOh, GOD! Look at those obnoxious Americans claiming they did everything and won the war all by themselves€¦€ That over-reaction tends to smack of anti-Americanism many times, which SHOULD be just as objectionable as anti-British, German, Japanese, etc., sentiment.

It is not just these boards, either. I worked with a gent who was originally from Russia who got completely bent out of shape when Band of Brothers came out, claiming that it made it out like only the US fought and won WWII.

Well, NO, it did not. Uh, yeah, it was about US paratroopers, so it tended to have a lot of Americans in it, but how does that translate into "only Americans fought in the war"? It doesn't, but somehow certain people are geared up to take it that way. It€s like their default setting. Its obnoxious, its irritating and its undeserved.

If I may make an observation for some of my fellow board posters of that ilk, perhaps the trouble is not in American stars, but in yourselves. I notice a derisive reference to €œflag-waving€ in many of these snarky posts, which I take as dismissal of patriotism itself. If so, that€s your issue to deal with. Americans, in general, do tend to be very patriotic in comparison to, say Europeans. Take it as a cultural difference. Vive€ La Difference!

However, those of you who react so acidly might to ask yourself why you cannot find that kind of patriotism and pride in your own history and nation. For example, if you are a Brit, and you can€t muster any pride in the sacrifices your countrymen made against long odds in the Second World War, if you in fact can€t get rah-rah over the accomplishment that was the victory in the Battle of Britain, then I find that appalling and sad. WTF not?!?

If you are a German who finds it hard to reconcile the skill, bravery and sacrifice of your soldiers and airmen with the legacy of the system they were fighting for and what it did, I understand, but it ain€t Americas fault either.

Sometimes I feel that when the claws come out over American sentiment of what we did in WWII, it is motivated partly by this angry inability to display similar pride so openly. If that is the case, then it is really your issue, not America€s. Deal with it. Don€t make America or Americans your whipping boy over it. We€re tired of it and we€re going to let you know.

BTW, I would love to see a new Battle of Britain movie made (without Tom Cruise is just dandy), am looking forward to see the Yamato film, would very much like to see a German €œBand of Brothers€ as long as it did not try to portray Nazism as just another political party.

Von_Rat
09-06-2006, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">gx-warspite

So basically... you agree with me.

America sat out the war, sat the early German rush in 1918, plugged the lines, and then helped with the final push. That's right, the Americans finally started taking significant casualties, AFTER the Allies stopped the German advance.

Meanwhile, Americans profited immensely from the loans and material they SOLD to the Allies. It's not like the Allies got your help for free, instead they paid through it for the nose. And NO, neither Britain nor France defaulted on those loans. Where do you think the money for the boom of the 1920s came from? The Allies continued paying even through the Great Depression.

Heck, Britain only finished paying off her debt to America from World War II just a couple of years ago. See? This is exactly the kind of ignorant pompous **** people despise about Americans. You assume your help was free. You assume you helped willingly, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into both wars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the only reason american troops were sitting on their asses is because idiot allied generals refused to accept that american troops had to fight under american commanders. the idiot allies risked defeat rather than let american troops fight the way they insisted on fighting, meaning under american commanders. can you blame america for insisting on not fighting under idiot allied generals who already slaughtered millions of their own troops. the us even threatened to withdraw all us troops from france, thats how strongly we felt about it.

as other poster stated, britain defaulted on most of their ww1 debt to us in 1934. they never repayed the balance.

so i guess they didnt pay through the nose, they ended up getting most of it for free.

yes they paid off ww2 debts sixty years late with inflated money. their last payment was 83 million in todays dollars, which isnt worth squat compared to 83 million in 1945 dollars.

ww1 was not our fight until germans started sinking our ships, if it wasnt for that we would of glady let the germans kick your sorry asses.

having to be dragged kicking and screaming into war i think is a sign of a very intelligent people. unlike many europeans who blindy let themselves get led to slaughter in the name of glory.

Von_Rat
09-06-2006, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let me put it to you this way:

If the US had entered the war in 1914, it could have had a substantial presence in France in 1915. This would have prevented the Germans from making their headlong advance into Russia by tying down German divisions. Which in turn would have prevented the disastrous losses the Russians took and thus prevented the formation of the Soviet Union. With no pressure on Russia, the Gallipoli disaster would never have occured, and those forces could have been used to better effect in Palestine, or on the western front itself.

So in a nutshell, here is the history of America in the world wars:

1. Sit and watch as democracies struggle for their lives.
2. Sell munitions to those same democracies, and lend them money at typically high war interest rates.
3. Profit as such for several years.
4. Get dragged into the war (German unrestricted warfare, or Pearl Harbour), and finally get off your butts.
5. By the time you actually arrive on the scene, someone else has done the dirty work (the Brits and French in WW1, the Russians in WW2).
6. Claim glory.

And seriously, that's not a bad strategy. It's what I'd do if I was in charge of the US. It's what I'd do for my country to maximize its benefit from a war.

Where the problem comes in is where you start acting high and mighty over it. The rest of the world, well, we've got working education systems. We know what happened. We know you got forced into both wars, that your help cost a fortune, that you profited from the conflicts at our expense. Quite simply, you can't expect someone to be grateful for your help.

Imagine if you were being harassed by your neighbour. His dog would **** on your lawn and his kids would break your windows. You couldn't do anything about him yourself, but the neighbour behind you, who occasionally lost a window, said he'd help you if you paid him $10,000. Would you be grateful? I doubt it. You paid for his help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


why in gods name would the us enter the war in 1914. just because europeans were stupid enough to get slaughtered by the millions over the murder of a dim witted austrian duke, doesnt mean the us should be just as stupid.

as for sitting out wars till last minute,,, the europeans started both these mindless slaughters. and for some reason think america is required to come in to bail them out.

both ww1 and ww2 never should of happened. they only happened because of european stupidity. the us didnt start either of them, so why should america have to pay for european stupidity.

panther3485
09-06-2006, 08:51 AM
DoubleTap and Von_Rat have both made some very good points here.

(Did I hear myself correctly? Did I really say that? Yep, I did!)

Von_Rat
09-06-2006, 08:55 AM
i apologise if i sound harsh on europeans. the us does plenty of stupid things, cough iraq cough. and we pay the price for them, along with our european friends.

but the cost of us stupidity is nothing compared to the horrors of the world wars, that could have been prevented by europeans.

ploughman
09-06-2006, 09:17 AM
That's alright mate, whenever I hear the word Europeans used in anger I just turn off. It's a nice phrase and all, and I dare say it has some utility, but in this context it's about as meaningulful as lumping everyone east of the Urals into a bag marked Asians and waving your finger at them.

Just to get a lick in though, how many Europeans were at Pearl Harbor?

Divine-Wind
09-06-2006, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
When I saw the header to this thread I thought yeah, great something about Flyboys!!

You remember when you didn't really look at the markings and what they stood for but were mesmerized about AIRPLANES!!!

This is the first feeling I get when I think of the movie Flyboys: WW1 Air Combat!

So why did the OP already include an indirect attack?!

I am getting so sick and tired of this USA vs WORLD attitude (or vise versa). Not every thread needs to become a discussion. So what if I don't care for Bush and his foreign policy (what he does domestically is beyond my caring - you get what you vote for).

Flyboys is AIRCRAFT, even if the plot is BS, I'll enjoy it like I enjoyed Pearl Harbor - yes, I even admit to that, even if it wasn't historically correct, full of bombastic BS etc etc etc; the Mrs and Me enjoyed it TOGETHER.'

I'll probably enjoy Tom "Billy Fisk" Cruise winning the Battle of Britain (like Benny Afleck did before him).

For those 90-240 mins I'll turn off my sense of Politics and Historical Correctness and go blank, enjoy the camera work, effects and if lucky the acting and plot.

Damn I'll admit I love these movies even if they stink.

BTW ironic, many of our classic movie favorites are full of BS, flaws, bad drama etc etc etc - still we enjoy(ed) them.

So here's one Euro guy who at least for those few minutes of fantasy forgets any modern conflict and clashing interests to enjoy a movie even if its full of USA this and USA that.

Bring on Flyboys!!

PS.
There is some irony in a movie about transatlantic cooperation being a platform for such discussion. Lets face the fact that the US entry into WW1 tipped the balance in favour of the Western Allies. If it wasn't the Flyboys, it certainly was the millions of American troops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1

It may have a Star Wars III-like plot, but to **** with it. I'm an airplane geek, and that's all I'll care about with this movie, the planes.

Waldo.Pepper
09-06-2006, 09:38 AM
WHY HASN'T THIS THREAD BEEN DELETED SIX/SEVEN PAGES AGO!

Grue_
09-06-2006, 10:08 AM
This forum demonstrates how wars get started in the first place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

This thread is doomed...

LStarosta
09-06-2006, 10:14 AM
http://www.virtualservices.com.au/images/thumbs%20up.jpg

One, two, three, four,
I declare a thumb war!

Von_Rat
09-06-2006, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
That's alright mate, whenever I hear the word Europeans used in anger I just turn off. It's a nice phrase and all, and I dare say it has some utility, but in this context it's about as meaningulful as lumping everyone east of the Urals into a bag marked Asians and waving your finger at them.

Just to get a lick in though, how many Europeans were at Pearl Harbor? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm i thought ww2 started in europe.

seriously japan would never have taken on us, not to mention the brits and french if hitler hadnt already started ww2 and had overan most of europe.

hitler could of been stopped early, better yet if ww1 had ended as wilson wished, no reparations etc. hitler would have been just a failed artist in vienna.

even better yet if the major european powers had kept their heads in 1914, none of the whole bloody mess need to have happened.

i was using the term europeans to avoid mentioning the major european powers by name. my flame ******ant underwear is past its warrenty.

DuxCorvan
09-06-2006, 02:22 PM
Ok, let's talk about Spain. F*ck you all. Americans and Trans-Pirenaics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

We shared very few wars with the US. In the first one we helped them to get free from the Evil Pirate Empire. To give thanks, they help Mexicans get ride of us, and then rob them half their territory. To continue thanksgiving, they forge a lie and start an agression war to 'free' Cuba and Philippines, this is, to take them for themselves.

But, what about WW2? WW2 in Europe started in 1936, here, under my feet. How can you Super Euro Democrats accuse the US of being passive lazy boys? The evilest totalitary regimes the world have seen were disputing the future here, while Spanish democracy languished, and you were serving Hitler Center-Europe in a dish, with your f*ck*ng "appeasement" and "non intervention" politics. You were, however, selling us obsolescent material in exchange for pure gold. No, not loan, no debts. CASH in advance.

And Franco won the war. A fascist regime. You were so thankful that he didn't enter the war and give Hitler Gibraltar and the Canary Islands, that you left us under his fascist thumb for almost 40 years. But, of course, you didn't send money, nor food, nor anything to help us reconstruct our country. You didn't want to mess with Franco, because he was so evil a dictator, ah, ah.

The curious thing, is, had we fought against you, Franco would had been defeated, and then we had benefitted from loans and invests, we had been part of the 50s economical 'miracle' the same as ex-axis countries like Germany or Japan.

But, no, he was dirty, after you let him win. However, when the USA needed some fancy bases near the Strait in the 60s, they discovered how good McCarthian Franco was, and bought him huge portions of our territory to land their B-52s, in exchange for Corean War tanks, exclusive bribed Lockheed contracts and a trash-bound WW2 pocket carrier.

And all this time having to see a piece of colonial Ancien Régime vestige called Gibraltar, a piece of solid sht taken in 1704 and retained thanks to a 1713 Treaty which is, curiously, constantly violated thru constant expansion beyond the original frontier. And here it is: you the finest hour guys retreat from China but retain this colonial insult in the heart of the UE.

So stop this stupid thread war: it's only us who have NOTHING to thank to none of you, you warlike roosters. Better think about making a film on how you washed your hands while Legion Kondor bombed Gernika in 1938, or how you wiped your as$es with the dreams and national feelings of Czecs and Slovaks, or how you all sold your allied Poland to Stalin in Yalta and Potsdam.

No country, not even Spain, has its hands clean. History is just a tale of betrayals, hidden agendas and deceptions. "State Reasons", boys. Read Macchiavelli.

So stop bullsht. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

carguy_
09-06-2006, 02:49 PM
DUXCORVAN FOR TEH WINZ!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

ploughman
09-06-2006, 02:55 PM
http://www.montypythonpages.com/pictures/spanish_inq.jpg

Nobody expects...

Divine-Wind
09-06-2006, 04:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DuxCorvan for president.

MB_Avro_UK
09-06-2006, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Ok, let's talk about Spain. F*ck you all. Americans and Trans-Pirenaics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

We shared very few wars with the US. In the first one we helped them to get free from the Evil Pirate Empire. To give thanks, they help Mexicans get ride of us, and then rob them half their territory. To continue thanksgiving, they forge a lie and start an agression war to 'free' Cuba and Philippines, this is, to take them for themselves.

But, what about WW2? WW2 in Europe started in 1936, here, under my feet. How can you Super Euro Democrats accuse the US of being passive lazy boys? The evilest totalitary regimes the world have seen were disputing the future here, while Spanish democracy languished, and you were serving Hitler Center-Europe in a dish, with your f*ck*ng "appeasement" and "non intervention" politics. You were, however, selling us obsolescent material in exchange for pure gold. No, not loan, no debts. CASH in advance.

And Franco won the war. A fascist regime. You were so thankful that he didn't enter the war and give Hitler Gibraltar and the Canary Islands, that you left us under his fascist thumb for almost 40 years. But, of course, you didn't send money, nor food, nor anything to help us reconstruct our country. You didn't want to mess with Franco, because he was so evil a dictator, ah, ah.

The curious thing, is, had we fought against you, Franco would had been defeated, and then we had benefitted from loans and invests, we had been part of the 50s economical 'miracle' the same as ex-axis countries like Germany or Japan.

But, no, he was dirty, after you let him win. However, when the USA needed some fancy bases near the Strait in the 60s, they discovered how good McCarthian Franco was, and bought him huge portions of our territory to land their B-52s, in exchange for Corean War tanks, exclusive bribed Lockheed contracts and a trash-bound WW2 pocket carrier.

And all this time having to see a piece of colonial Ancien Régime vestige called Gibraltar, a piece of solid sht taken in 1704 and retained thanks to a 1713 Treaty which is, curiously, constantly violated thru constant expansion beyond the original frontier. And here it is: you the finest hour guys retreat from China but retain this colonial insult in the heart of the UE.

So stop this stupid thread war: it's only us who have NOTHING to thank to none of you, you warlike roosters. Better think about making a film on how you washed your hands while Legion Kondor bombed Gernika in 1938, or how you wiped your as$es with the dreams and national feelings of Czecs and Slovaks, or how you all sold your allied Poland to Stalin in Yalta and Potsdam.

No country, not even Spain, has its hands clean. History is just a tale of betrayals, hidden agendas and deceptions. "State Reasons", boys. Read Macchiavelli.

So stop bullsht. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey DuxCorvan,

In my opinion you are a very intelligent guy with a fantastic sense of humour http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But what does your post mean ???

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

DuxCorvan
09-06-2006, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
But what does your post mean ???
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It means we the oysters are about tired of seeing the walrus and the carpenter fighting about who cried more tears. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

fordfan25
09-06-2006, 05:06 PM
if we dont go to war on behalf of others were wrong, when we do were also wrong. Also we are expected to frount for everything with out getting repayed or with out getting something in return. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. some nations need to stop bit**ing and moaning and expecting another nation to give them everything and learn to take care of them selves and solve there own problems.

SkyChimp
09-06-2006, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
SkyChimp, god dammit dude, shut up.

You're just so ignorant it hurts. Where did you get that the US had twice as many casualties as Canada? 240,000 Canadian dead and injured for 360,000 American dead and injured.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You €œdon€t read so good€ do you? I said DEAD, not casualties. Twice as many dead in one year than Canada had in three.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Considering America had TEN times the population, your contribution - again - was minor. Compare that to the five million that France lost, or 2.5 million that Britain lost. As for Canada's contribution? First victims of a gas attack on the Somme, held the Somme, won Vimy Ridge, spearheaded, along with the ANZACs, the Allied assaults that drove Germany to her borders over the last 100 days of the war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I€m simply pointing out that Canada€s contribution to WWI was meager by your own standards. In 3 years of war, Canada lost roughly half the troops the US did in just one. If WWI wasn€t an American war, it certainly wasn€t a Canadian war, either. Or do you have one standard for your country, and another for the US?

And while you can point out minor Canadian participation in the Somme, the US can claim major participation in the Second Battle of the Marne. It€s all participation, and it all deserves commemoration.

Lastly, NO ONE on this forum, including myself, claimed that the US won WWI. You simply assumed that some movie was going to claim it €" an assumption made without having even seen the movie.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And NO, it's not about how many Americans died. It's about pointing out that Europeans are right that America did not win the first World War, that it was a European conflict. You have no great claim on victory there. THAT'S ALL. Jumping in at the last minute doesn't make you saviors.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one here claimed the US won WWI. In fact, I€d ask you to point out where that claim was made. You€ve had a fit over something that was never said.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Germany didn't pay even 10% of the reparations she was supposed to. Or did you miss that in your rush to proliferate more ignorance?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only ignorance displayed was your appalling statement that Britain and France €œdidn€t default€ on the loans given them by the US. In fact, they did default on them, to a huge degree. You either didn€t know, which is odd for a €œhistory freak,€ or you tried to intentionally mislead people on this forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Marshall Plan had a meagre effect in rebuilding Europe. Read up on it sometime, it's highly over-rated.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, from you, is must be gospel.

SkyChimp
09-06-2006, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That's pretty much all I'd add. China's contribution to the war against Japan is totally underrated. Almost all of Japan's army was fighting there, though granted, there isn't much ground over which to fight in the Pacific. I heartily concede that the US won the war against Japan, but even the Japanese leadership knew they were fighting a losing conflict. They planned a year to 18 months of offensives and then biting down in a defensive posture to make peace more appealing so that America could focus on Germany. I give full credit to the Americans for knocking out Japan, way ahead of schedule, since it was decided between Roosevelt and Churchill to put Japan on the backburner.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost all of Japan€s army outside of Japan was fighting in China prior to Pearl Harbor. Even after Pearl Harbor, the principal portion of Japan€s army was there. Nevertheless, after the Pearl Harbor, China was essentially a repository for troops, the Japanese stripping them out to take and defend more preferred pieces of real estate, like the Solomons, New Guinea, Netherlands East Indies, and the Philippines. In 8 years of war in China, the IJA suffered around 500,000 killed. The IJA suffered the principal portion of its casualties elsewhere. More than 1/2 of IJA troops killed in WWII were killed in places other than China.

SkyChimp
09-06-2006, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">:
The Pacific War was on the back-burner. As I said in my previous post, even Japanese leadership understood it was going to go on the defensive after 18 months at most (which happened almost to the day at Midway).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

6 months. December 7, 1941 to June 4, 1942.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The American forces involved - mainly the Navy and Marines - wouldn't have been used in Europe anyway.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, of course, that the US Army and USAAF participated in the war against Japan? The Navy and Marines were the primary prosecutors of the campaign in the Pacific. The US effort in French-Indo China, China, the Southwest Pacific, and the Philippines, was primarily prosecuted by the US Army. The battles there dwarfed those in the Pacific.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Finally, other than by pointing out that America profited vastly from World War II and again sat on its *** until dragged into the conflict, I never disputed the American contribution.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dragged in? It was a foregone conclusion that the US would fight in WWII long before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The US was already supplying Great Britain and France, providing convoy escorts and cover, and garrisoning its Pacific outposts before war was declared. If the US didn€t enter the war before you deemed it should have, it was because it was trying to prepare for the war, as it knew it couldn€t avoid it. The US went to war before it was prepared, because war was forced upon her.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
So please, don't even try to compare the fronts. The disparity in scale is tremendous.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn€t comparing fronts, simply pointing out that which you apparently didn€t know, that the war consisted of more than that fought in Europe. In fact, the US fought WWII over a broader arena than any other power €" Alaska to Australia, Hawaii to Burma, Europe, Africa, the Atlantic€¦



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
America was decisive in the victory, but then again, so were Britain and Russia. You're no doubt thinking "ya but Europe would've been screwed if USA hadn't intervened." Guess what? Europe would have been screwed if Britain fell or gave into the generous peace terms Hitler was offering. Europe would probably never have been liberated if a German-Soviet war hadn't erupted.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn€t thinking that at all, but you were clearly assuming I would. Much like your previous assumptions that have led you to where you are now, and your appalling insults and displays of ignorance.

SkyChimp
09-06-2006, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Sure, and Britain paid for every last ounce of material - including those sunk by German U-boats. You make it sound like America did it out of the goodness of its heart.

Oh, and it wasn't German U-boats that provoked American entry into WW2. It was Pearl Harbour. You know, like the really bad movie?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but they didn€t. The only lend-lease supplies on which Americans asked payment was that material left over at the end of the war, and still useable and retained. Great Britain dumped vast quantities of American lend-lease supplies into the ocean after the war and avoided paying on them. Essentially all lend-lease material sent was free, except that kept after the war, for which Great Britain paid only a fraction of its cost.

I posted this for you earlier, which is a very good, and short, synopsis of the debt situation between the US and GB. You obviously didn€t bother to read it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

fordfan25
09-06-2006, 06:59 PM
gettem chimp. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
09-06-2006, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Been reading some about this very issue, but it appears to be one of the myths (leading to WW2).

The Anglo-French did demand huge repayments, but Germany only paid a fraction. German economic collapse was caused by a combination of factors, some of them already set in motion during the war itself.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, Germany did not pay all its reparations. And neither France nor GB repaid all its loans. The Allies defaulted in their payments to the US because Germany defaulted in their payments to the allies.

Germany didn't pay its reparations because it couldn't. Not only did its economy collapse, its land taken, and its citizen dispersed, there was also a massive post war humanitarian disaster involving mass starvation. Not only did France (and GB) push for crushing reparations, when the US attempted to ship food to post war Germany to relieve the humanitarian crisis, they blocked that, too.

Xiolablu3
09-06-2006, 08:13 PM
So is Flyboys any good? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

SkyChimp
09-06-2006, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
So is Flyboys any good? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask Warspite, he's seen it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

leitmotiv
09-07-2006, 12:47 AM
Great article on the U.K. war debt to the U.S., SkyChimp. An English historian wrote a decidedly unsentimental history of the U.S. and U.K. during WWII and after: CHURCHILL'S GRAND ALLIANCE by John Charmley which dispels most of the nonsense about the special relationship.

BiscuitKnight
09-07-2006, 01:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Ok, let's talk about Spain. F*ck you all. Americans and Trans-Pirenaics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[removed to avoid a massive quote, not out of disrespect]

So stop bullsht. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dux, you've earned my respect from what you've said, a fair few here have, this forum's generally populated by people more intelligent than my schoolteachers, though that's not always saying much.

But, although I can, to some degree, see your point of view - and I thank you, it's a very useful viewpoint and it's broadened my mind.

The catch is, Spain didn't participate in WWI, she had few friends. You want to leave the world to sort out its problems, for whatever reason, then expect that the world will be more than happy to leave you in a mess when you find yourself in one. Sure, communist and facists intervened either way, but largely the powers you're attacking now - Britain and the USA - stayed out. You seem to push, at one level, that why didn't the Allies help you? Well, why should they? You were traditionally enemies to a greater degree, you didn't assist them in WWI, you didn't do anything to warrant another few million casualties liberating you. The SPANISH CIVIL war. Your problem.

Moreover, nations rarely intervene in matters for good. Even when they do, does one nation necessarily want the help? What if the UN went in and established democracy in Iran. Think they'd like it? What if the UN went in and liberated Tibet. Think Tibet would like it? What if Australia obliterated the Indonesia government, established a Western democracy and allowed nations that wanted to, to separate? Would that be right? And when you look at history, why bother? Vietnam wasn't a shining example of how to help a nation in need, but all the same, a fair few Vietnamese wanted to be communist, and that didn't exactly work out for them. The 1919 invasion of Russia - did the Russians want help getting rid of totilitarian "communists"? Odds on Spain not being too happy for Allied intervention.

And, also, although the viewpoint was interesting: how a neutral nation sees the squabbling of two others, the fact is the debate is somewhat valid. "Just enjoy it as a movie!",
"Stop being petty!", blah blah blah. Sure, I watched Pearl Harbour, I didn't mind the historical inconsistancies. But I am filled with anger for people who distort history usually. Turn the other cheek, in cases like this, is bound to just cause further liberties of how [x] country was teh pwnz0r.

Oh and, last thing: I agree with you, history isn't black and white, everything is highly convoluted and twisted, selfish, greedy, and opportunities for unity are constantly missed. Mistakes are constantly repeated, but more than repetition of history, I fear a major change caused by the ill informed and overly idealistic that leads to Western values being completely overwhelmed by vicious monsters, internal or external.

DuxCorvan
09-07-2006, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
The catch is, Spain didn't participate in WWI, she had few friends. You want to leave the world to sort out its problems, for whatever reason, then expect that the world will be more than happy to leave you in a mess when you find yourself in one. Sure, communist and facists intervened either way, but largely the powers you're attacking now - Britain and the USA - stayed out. You seem to push, at one level, that why didn't the Allies help you? Well, why should they? You were traditionally enemies to a greater degree, you didn't assist them in WWI, you didn't do anything to warrant another few million casualties liberating you. The SPANISH CIVIL war. Your problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Spain didn't participate in WWI: All the implied powers had collaborated just a few years before in the total extinction and liquidation of Spanish overseas and African colonial domain. It had been excluded from any conversation related to balance of power in the international concert, and PURPOSEDLY excluded from the alliance systems prior to the conflict. We were not powerful anymore, we could not give much to the war effort, and they didn't want to share any part of the cake with us, they didn't need us and put us aside. We didn't "leave the world to sort out its problems", they left us out!

2) The problem with SCW, is not that the Western democratic powers didn't intervene, we didn't expect them to do so. The problem is that they DID. I could explain it to you, but the Wikipedia does it quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

"Foreign involvement.

The rebellion was opposed by the government (with the troops that remained loyal to the Republic), as well as by the vast majority of urban workers, who were often members of Socialist, Communist and anarchist groups.

Although the British government proclaimed itself neutral, its diplomats in Spain urged support for the Nationalists. Britain froze all Spanish assets, an act that affected primarily the loyalist side because the government had transferred its gold reserves to Britain for safe keeping at the start of the war. Similarly, the Anglo-French arms embargo hit the Republicans disproportionately and did not prevent the Nationalists from getting weapons from Italy and Germany. Britain also discouraged activity by its citizens supporting the Republicans. The last Republican prime minister, Juan Negr*n, hoped that a general outbreak of war in Europe would compel the European powers (mainly Britain and France) to finally help the republic, but World War II would not commence until months after the Spanish conflict had ended. Ultimately neither Britain nor France intervened to any significant extent. Britain supplied food and medicine to the Republic, but actively discouraged the French government of Léon Blum from supplying weapons.

Both Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini and Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler violated the embargo and sent troops (Corpo Truppe Volontarie and Legi³n C³ndor), aircraft, and weapons to support Franco. The Italian contribution amounted to over 60,000 troops at the height of the war, and the involvement helped to increase Mussolini's popularity among Italian Catholics, as the latter had remained highly critical of their ex-Socialist fascist Duce.[citation needed] Italian military help to Nationalists against the anti-clerical and anti-Catholic atrocities committed by the Republican side, worked well in Italian propaganda targeting on Catholics. On July 27, 1936 the first squadron of Italian airplanes sent by Benito Mussolini arrived in Spain.[7]. It has been speculated that Hitler used the Spanish Civil War issue to distract Mussolini from Hitler's own designs on and plans for Austria (Anschluss), as the authoritarian Catholic, anti-Nazi V¤terl¤ndische Front government of autonomous Austria had been in alliance with Mussolini, and in 1934 during the assassinnation of Austria's authoritarian president Engelbert Dollfuss had already successfully invoked Italian military assistance in case of a Nazi German invasion.

(...)

Due to the Franco-British arms embargo, the Government of the Republic could receive aid and purchase arms only from the Soviet Union, which was thousands of miles away and in economic disarray itself. These arms included 1,000 aircraft, 900 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 300 armored cars, hundreds of thousands of small arms, and 30,000 tons of ammunition (some of which was defective). To pay for these armaments the Republicans used US$500 million in gold reserves. At the start of the war the Bank of Spain had the world's fourth largest reserve of gold, about US$750 million [2], although some assets were frozen by the French and British governments. The Soviet Union also sent more than 2,000 personnel, mainly tank crews and pilots, who actively participated in combat, on the Republican side. [3] Nevertheless, some have contended that the Soviet government was motivated by the desire to sell arms and that they charged extortionate prices [4]. Later, the "Moscow gold" was an issue during the Spanish transition to democracy. They have also been accused of prolonging the war because Stalin knew that Britain and France would never accept a communist government. Though Stalin did call for the repression of Republican elements that were hostile to the Soviet Union (e.g. the anti-Stalininst POUM), he also made a conscious effort to limit Soviet involvement in the struggle and silence its revolutionary aspects in an attempt to remain on good diplomatic terms with the French and British.[8] Mexico also aided the Republicans by providing rifles and food. Throughout the war, the efforts of the elected government of the Republic to resist the rebel army were hampered by Franco-British 'non-intervention', long supply lines and intermittent availability of weapons of widely variable quality.

(...)

The Nationalists received substantial overt aid in the form of arms and troops from Germany and Italy. The Republicans received no aid from any major world power other than the Soviet Union, from whom they could purchase arms, thanks to their control of the Spanish gold reserves located in Madrid at the beginning of the war. At this time, Britain and France were deeply divided politically, while the United States was isolationist, neutralist, and was little concerned with what it largely saw as an internal matter in a European country. Nevertheless, from the outset the Nationalists received important support from some elements of American business. The American-owned Vacuum Oil Company in Tangier, for example, refused to sell to Republican ships and the Texas Oil Company supplied gasoline on credit to Franco until the war's end. Many in these countries were also shocked by the violence practiced by anarchist and POUM militias - and reported by a relatively free press in the Republican zone - and feared Stalinist influence over the Republican government. Reprisals, assassinations and other atrocities in the rebel zone were, of course, not reported nearly as widely.

Germany and the USSR used the war as a testing ground for faster tanks and aircraft that were just becoming available at the time. The Messerschmitt Me-109 fighter and Junkers Ju 52 transport/bomber were both used in the Spanish Civil War. The Soviets provided Polikarpov I-15 and Polikarpov I-16 fighters. The Spanish Civil War was also an example of total war, where the bombing of the Basque town of Guernica by the Legi³n C³ndor, as depicted by Pablo Picasso in Guernica, foreshadowed episodes of World War II such as the bombing campaign on Britain by the Nazis and the bombing of Dresden by the Allies.

The extent of foreign involvement in the conflict has led some commentators (most notably Paul Preston) to view it as part of a wider integrated European Civil War."
-----

This is, in Spain, you let Hitler and Mussolini gain power, while tossing the Democratic side into the arms of Stalin.

Your attitude started WW2 -and Cold War!- in Spain.

On the other side, why was not the 1939 invasion of Poland, the GERMAN-POLAND WAR, this is, THEIR problem? Why was the 1938 invasion of Czech-Slovakia ITS problem, then? Can you tell the difference?

Ah, I forgot, Hitler was a "perfect gentleman" by then. (Chamberlain) And we had no petroleum...

WOLFMondo
09-07-2006, 04:44 AM
Flyboys looks ******ed. I'll still see it and probably hate it for all the right reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

having to be dragged kicking and screaming into war i think is a sign of a very intelligent people. unlike many europeans who blindy let themselves get led to slaughter in the name of glory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von Rat, Britain in 1939 did not want war. It only went to war to stop a mad man taking over Europe. That wasn't glorious or stupid, it was the right thing to do.

Please don't lump all Europeans together.

leitmotiv
09-07-2006, 05:03 AM
1939 Wasn't 1914. Troops moving through Berlin on Sept 1 did so to empty streets---no huge crowds, bands, or cheers. When you consider how many of the British were dead set against war, period, anywhere (the Oxford Union declaration of pacifism, etc), it is astounding they fought as hard and long as they did.

joeap
09-07-2006, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...

And all this time having to see a piece of colonial Ancien Régime vestige called Gibraltar, a piece of solid sht taken in 1704 and retained thanks to a 1713 Treaty which is, curiously, constantly violated thru constant expansion beyond the original frontier. And here it is: you the finest hour guys retreat from China but retain this colonial insult in the heart of the UE.

So stop bullsht. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Super post Dux thumbs up to you.

Bloody curious about this part of the post though. BTW I am Greek Canadian so no historical agenda here. Don't the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British? What about Ceuta and Melilla?

What about Istanbul? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Really does any of this matter NOW?

Xiolablu3
09-07-2006, 05:28 AM
Spain is a big Ally of the UK nowadays.

They joined the UK and Germany to produce the Typhoon.

They entered Iraq with the UK and the US even tho there was massive protest by the civilian population.

They are good Allies.

ploughman
09-07-2006, 05:29 AM
It matters because it matters, these sorts of things are curious that way. If it didn't matter, it wouldn't matter.

DuxCorvan
09-07-2006, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Don't the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe. People living there in 1713 also wanted to remain Spaniards, so they had to leave. Because the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht says so. And in its Article 10 says also that if ever the British "decided to sell, give, emancipate or enajenate that territory in whatever form, then Spain must have the first option to receive it". If we're to respect the Treaty, let's respect it in full. If UK decides to get rid of Gibraltar, they have to give it to us. Then, and only then, we may give autonomy or independence -or whatever special status- to Gibraltar people, but it would be a Spanish matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What about Ceuta and Melilla? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ceuta and Melilla were taken by the Portuguese in the late 15th century. By then, those tiny territories were not inhabitated and Morocco didn't exist as a nation. They were given to Spain shortly thereafter. When Philip II got the Portuguese crown in 1580, those fortresses reamined in Spanish posession. The Portuguese never claimed them. Take on account that:

1) People there -including muslims- also want to be Spaniards, but the territory isn't linked by any treaty nor legal circumstance to the state of Morocco -which didn't exist in the 15th Century- nor had it ever been populated or cultivated before their occupation by the indigenous bereber tribes who lived more to the south. Their claims over it are also backed by their geographical situation. Remember that Ceuta is only 21 km away of Peninsular coast.

2)Ceuta and Melilla enjoy a near to independence status, having the legal consideration of "Autonome Cities". That means that they have a Parlament-like elected council, full autonomy in matters such as education, administration, police, health, etc, and can even dictate their own laws on many subjects. They enjoy, of course, the benefits of living in a democratic UE country with press freedom, speech freedom, religion freedom, secret universal sufrage and equality of rights for men and women. We can grant Gibraltar those same privileges. Can the dictatorial absolutist Moroccan monarchy grant the same rights to Ceuta and Melilla people?

They were Spanish territory 200 years before the USA existed, and they weren't stolen from any existing state. If that were the case, Canada should restore the Canadian territory to the Iroquois, Hurons, etc.

Gibraltar, on the other way, was taken from Spain, an existing state, the same way we could go now and take Quebec from you, and retain it thru a Peace Treaty. UK has the right (despite a lot of violations of the Treaty terms, which don't allow territorial waters around the Rock, and mark a 'no man's land' ilegally occupied by Gibraltar's airport), but you'll concede it has no sense to retain a piece of foreign territory that should belong to an allied country of your very same European Confederation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What about Istanbul? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What happens with Istanbul? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif AFAIK, we've had nothing to do with the Turkish, except the Lepanto battle of 1571 -which was a naval battle- and their support to Algerian berber pirates between the 15th and the 18th centuries... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Von_Rat
09-07-2006, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Flyboys looks ******ed. I'll still see it and probably hate it for all the right reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

having to be dragged kicking and screaming into war i think is a sign of a very intelligent people. unlike many europeans who blindy let themselves get led to slaughter in the name of glory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von Rat, Britain in 1939 did not want war. It only went to war to stop a mad man taking over Europe. That wasn't glorious or stupid, it was the right thing to do.

Please don't lump all Europeans together. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i believe i was mainly speaking about ww1 and prior. nobody really wanted war in 1939, except hitler. but im tired of people blaming the us for not wanting to go to war even more than britain. thats why it took pearl harbour to get us in. the us was almost totally against getting involved in yet another european war. they also didnt care whether or not it was the right thing to do, they saw it as europes problem, which it was. and the problem could of been solved or prevented, by the major european powers, without the us. since the major european powers were to blind or stupid to prevent the rise of hitler, i can see why the us was very reluctant to get involved.


as i said before i was using the term europeans to avoid mentioning the major european powers by name.

Ruy Horta
09-07-2006, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
exclusive bribed Lockheed contracts and a trash-bound WW2 pocket carrier.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT'S COMPLETE BS DUX!!!

It is a fact that Lockheed did its share of bribing in the Netherlands as well, so no way you Spaniards can claim an exclusive!!!

Arriba, Abacho...etc etc etc

fordfan25
09-07-2006, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
So is Flyboys any good? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>na just USA chest thumping propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

DuxCorvan
09-07-2006, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Arriba, Abacho...etc etc etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arriba, abajo, al centro y pa' dentro!

("Up, down, to the center and in!" typical toast rite, accompanied by movement of the glass) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu:
Spain is a big Ally of the UK nowadays.

They joined the UK and Germany to produce the Typhoon.

They entered Iraq with the UK and the US even tho there was massive protest by the civilian population.

They are good Allies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We were... Unfortunately, that clone of Mr. Bean, our dear President Mr. Zapatero, thinks that the best way to act before terrorist blackmail is... giving them what they want. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

I'm sorry for leaving Irak the way we did... I didn't share Bush/Blair/Aznar vision about war in Irak, but I still feel our chicken-like defection as a treason to our allies and the best way to encourage terrorism. Compromises are compromises.

About that civilian massive protest... one of the things I've learned about people is that people stupidity grows exponentially with number. If you put two morons together, they are not only two morons, each one's silliness is also doubled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

joeap
09-07-2006, 02:38 PM
Dux, my point about Istanbul was it was a Greek-speaking Christian city taken by force and now part of Turkey. Greece will never get it back, nor should they (mad "Magne Greca" dreams of the late 19th century notwithstanding). Anyway the population is Turk now and won't want to change.

So if the people of Gibraltar want to remain British let them. I am also sure the Indians were not happy when Euros came to the Americas but we can't reverse history, anyway their situation is similar to Morroco I guess (there was no aborignal states, a couple of empires but no one state). Can't comment on the treaty aspect as I am not a specialist in that respect.

DuxCorvan
09-07-2006, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
So if the people of Gibraltar want to remain British let them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they will remain British if they want! It's the territory under their feet what we want to be again Spanish. As citizens of the EU, the British people there can stay in their properties with full rights, as much time as they want. Forever. No problem. They can even participate in the elections of the local council or parlament. Spanish Constitution grants it so -as all EU constitutions.

And a NATO base is always a NATO base, independently of the nationality of the soil.

And it's not something we can choose: it's a legal obligation. Sorry, but Treaties are to be respected. If the Treaty has no value, then Gibraltar has never been British. If it has value, then it must be Spanish as soon it is not British.

The fact is that Gibraltar people don't want to be Spanish... nor British. They want independence. And they still can have it, but not right from the UK.

Von_Rat
09-07-2006, 06:18 PM
i admire your principals, but,,,, try telling the turks living in istanbul that the soil under their feet is greek.

then duck.

im not refering to just the gilbralter issue, but in general,common people living today are not going to like accepting the terms of some two hundred year old treaty that destroys ,in their minds, their lives. if the goverments involved force them to, then the goverments are wrong.
let the people decide and forget old treatys.

luftluuver
09-07-2006, 08:38 PM
Finally watch the trailer.

What got me was how the a/c flew like they were on rails. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

DuxCorvan
09-08-2006, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
common people living today are not going to like accepting the terms of some two hundred year old treaty that destroys ,in their minds, their lives </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) They live there thanks to that 300 year old treaty.

2) It would not "destroy their lives". Their lives would go on *exactly* as they are now. They're not being exiled, nor pursued, nor would it make them lose their jobs, nor their houses, nor their rights, nor even their nationality -they could even benefit from double nationality. The only affected in their interests would be the huge amount of drug smugglers that profit of Gibraltar's actual government 'relaxed' attitude to drug traffic through the Streit.

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I never complained about UK flag waving bias in The Battle of Britain, so please don't complain about US pride in movies we make. Thx. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Difference is UK won the BoB and made a movie about it. Did US airmen win WW1 ? Why not make a Hollywood WW1 film about Bishop or Richthofen with all the CG effects and pyrotechnics? ....Nah sod that! we'll just make some ficticious **** to satisfy the majority of US cinema goers who dont know or care anything about history.

Thats why people are complaining.

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
ugh...sorry i opened this thread </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea im sorry i started it. i kinew all these USA bashing a**hats were going to show up which is why i tried to head it off in my first post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And if you hadn't said anything about Euro-haters, I wouldn't have made a comment.

But your attitude towards the world is so hostile I felt compelled to remind you that America didn't do much in the war, and that in this case, the "euro haters" did in fact have a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> my attitude towards the world is not hostile in the least. i eat alot of freanch fries and iv impregnated many of the worlds ladies lol. ALL I WANTED WAS ONE THREAD ABOUT A KOOL LOOKING WW MOVIE WITH OUT PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRYS COMEING IN AND DISTROYING IT WITH THE SAME OLD SONG AND DANCE. *caps sorry* thats it thats all i wanted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

boasting about inseminating 'many of the worlds ladies' with your idiot seed is rather distasteful. Isnt refering to beastiality against forum rules anyway ?

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ye cats---running on top of an exploding zep? This is going to be a comic book with plenty of sex/relationships for the dates. Should have a new category: not for anybody older than 15.

Easy there, gx-warspite, nobody in their right mind would trivialize the American intervention, least of all the people of the time from Lloyd-George and Clemenceau, to Foch, Haig and Petain. Without Americans to help hold the line, the German March-July 1918 offensive would have reached Paris. The British and the French were exhausted. Without the Americans, there would have been no British August 1918 offensive which broke the German line and broke the nerves of Ludendorff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I agree that American PRESENCE and the POTENTIAL Allied offensive in 1919/1920 is what drove Lundendorff to his poorly-conceived March attack, and ultimately it was American men and materiel that would have taken over the majority burden... but the fact is that Pershing sat with 1 million men in early 1918 during the early German rush, trying to demand a single unified front.

I don't dislike Americans, I find myself defending Americans to most of my friends here, but people like SkyChimp make me wonder if maybe you guys don't deserve to learn some humility. If you're so keen on standing alone and beating your chest, that you can take on the world by yourselves, have fun. The way you're alienating the rest of the West, it won't be long until you ARE alone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My grandfathers were two of the million guys sitting on their asses while Pershing fended off the British and French generals trying to plug American units directly into their own commands. President Wilson and the Congress had made crystal clear the requirement that US troops had US commanders, but our 'Allies' seemed to think that it was a formality.

My maternal grandfather had a story about a "British" (may have been a Canadian-Grandpa Schultz was first-generation & terrible about identifying non-German and non-Lakota accents) who attempted to draft US soldiers into his unit at gunpoint.

Bad idea. Only a US colonel's direct intervention kept him and his little group of NCOs from developing a severe case of dead (Webley revolvers vs '03 Springfields-do the math).

One of the big reasons for the delayed US entry into that war (and the next one) was the very real (and realistic) fear that foreign generals would use OUR SONS for cannon fodder instead of their own men. The fact that almost every time a foreigner has had command of US troops in combat, their casualty rates skyrocketed may justify that sentiment.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Great Grandfather was on of the 8 million mobilised British service men of WW1. He served in WW1 from 1914 through to 1919 on the Western front. I still have the tin box that the Queen issued to all British soldiers in the trenches over the 1914 christmas period. It contained chocolate, tobacco, cigarretes and also a little Xmas card 'from' the queen with her photo inserted in it.

I can post some pictures here if any are interested in it, it still has remnants of tobacco in the pack and the front of the box is embossed with the coats of arms of all the Allied nations from 1914 including Serbia and Belgium.

I can relate to your post Horseback, and I can also greatly appreciate the fears of US mothers and fathers during both WW1 and WW2 that Britain would use their sons to fight somebody elses war. There was huge distrust and dislike of Britain in the USA before during and after WW1 and there still are strong undercurrents to this day - just a quick glance on these forums says it all lol! As much as I agree and sympathise with the American view about wanting to conserve lives and stay out for as long as possible, I know my Great Grandfather and his very few WW1 friends that survived with him greatly resented what they perceived to be US troops arriving late and taking all of the credit just when the war appeared almost won.

My Grandfather ( his son - both have now passed away ) also served in the British Army in 1940 to 45, and his views on US assistance were also tarnished by the great belief amongst British service men that the US were holding out of the war as long as possible to save their own skins. The belief was that the US was able to stay out of the war precisely because Britain was still fighting and holding her ground. He also told stories of jealousy about the volume and quality of US equipment compared to their own - but then again he and his friends thought that the Germans had the best gear and all wanted a Luger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lots of this hostility - even if it is mixed with respect and gratitude - is present today in the form of these mens children, grand children and great grand children. I dont really know where im going with this but I just thought it was worth posting.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
and the problem could of been solved or prevented, by the major european powers, without the us. since the major european powers were to blind or stupid to prevent the rise of hitler, i can see why the us was very reluctant to get involved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not a simple as blind or stupid to preventing his rise. It was allot more complicated than that. Many saw his rise but the popular opinion of the people the governments represent didn't want war. The two largest European powers didn't want war.

The rise of hitler was as much about the fallout from WW1 as his ability to manipulate the German people, for it was the Germans who voted him in. He had a 1 3rd majority in 1933 and thats massive in a state which has more political party than a dog has fleas.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I never complained about UK flag waving bias in The Battle of Britain, so please don't complain about US pride in movies we make. Thx. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats comedy. The British won the Battle of Britain with out any direct US help. No bias needed. Whereas every US made war film ignores the efforts of just about everyone else or even makes it up coughU571cough.

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
SkyChimp, god dammit dude, shut up.

You're just so ignorant it hurts. Where did you get that the US had twice as many casualties as Canada? 240,000 Canadian dead and injured for 360,000 American dead and injured. Considering America had TEN times the population, your contribution - again - was minor. Compare that to the five million that France lost, or 2.5 million that Britain lost. As for Canada's contribution? First victims of a gas attack on the Somme, held the Somme, won Vimy Ridge, spearheaded, along with the ANZACs, the Allied assaults that drove Germany to her borders over the last 100 days of the war.

And NO, it's not about how many Americans died. It's about pointing out that Europeans are right that America did not win the first World War, that it was a European conflict. You have no great claim on victory there. THAT'S ALL. Jumping in at the last minute doesn't make you saviors.

Germany didn't pay even 10% of the reparations she was supposed to. Or did you miss that in your rush to proliferate more ignorance?

The Marshall Plan had a meagre effect in rebuilding Europe. Read up on it sometime, it's highly over-rated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Woodrow Wilson decreed that Germany should not have to pay her war reparitions to Britain and France. Nice of him to volunteer this option to Germany over the heads of British and France's governments.

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i apologise if i sound harsh on europeans. the us does plenty of stupid things, cough iraq cough. and we pay the price for them, along with our european friends.

but the cost of us stupidity is nothing compared to the horrors of the world wars, that could have been prevented by europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It helps if your country is isolationist and 1000's of miles away from rivals/threats. Europe was the hub of the world in 1914 with 3 or 4 superpowers sharing borders and rubbing each other up the wrong way. Tension is aided by proximity.

Look at the hissy fit you guys threw during the Cuban Missile crisis? Its fine if the ballistic missiles are in Europe but when they appear in your own back yard you threaten to start WW3.

Sure Europeans are the only stupid ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Ok, let's talk about Spain. F*ck you all. Americans and Trans-Pirenaics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

We shared very few wars with the US. In the first one we helped them to get free from the Evil Pirate Empire. To give thanks, they help Mexicans get ride of us, and then rob them half their territory. To continue thanksgiving, they forge a lie and start an agression war to 'free' Cuba and Philippines, this is, to take them for themselves.

But, what about WW2? WW2 in Europe started in 1936, here, under my feet. How can you Super Euro Democrats accuse the US of being passive lazy boys? The evilest totalitary regimes the world have seen were disputing the future here, while Spanish democracy languished, and you were serving Hitler Center-Europe in a dish, with your f*ck*ng "appeasement" and "non intervention" politics. You were, however, selling us obsolescent material in exchange for pure gold. No, not loan, no debts. CASH in advance.

And Franco won the war. A fascist regime. You were so thankful that he didn't enter the war and give Hitler Gibraltar and the Canary Islands, that you left us under his fascist thumb for almost 40 years. But, of course, you didn't send money, nor food, nor anything to help us reconstruct our country. You didn't want to mess with Franco, because he was so evil a dictator, ah, ah.

The curious thing, is, had we fought against you, Franco would had been defeated, and then we had benefitted from loans and invests, we had been part of the 50s economical 'miracle' the same as ex-axis countries like Germany or Japan.

But, no, he was dirty, after you let him win. However, when the USA needed some fancy bases near the Strait in the 60s, they discovered how good McCarthian Franco was, and bought him huge portions of our territory to land their B-52s, in exchange for Corean War tanks, exclusive bribed Lockheed contracts and a trash-bound WW2 pocket carrier.

And all this time having to see a piece of colonial Ancien Régime vestige called Gibraltar, a piece of solid sht taken in 1704 and retained thanks to a 1713 Treaty which is, curiously, constantly violated thru constant expansion beyond the original frontier. And here it is: you the finest hour guys retreat from China but retain this colonial insult in the heart of the UE.

So stop this stupid thread war: it's only us who have NOTHING to thank to none of you, you warlike roosters. Better think about making a film on how you washed your hands while Legion Kondor bombed Gernika in 1938, or how you wiped your as$es with the dreams and national feelings of Czecs and Slovaks, or how you all sold your allied Poland to Stalin in Yalta and Potsdam.

No country, not even Spain, has its hands clean. History is just a tale of betrayals, hidden agendas and deceptions. "State Reasons", boys. Read Macchiavelli.

So stop bullsht. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But your loving all your free EU grants now arent you honey bunch ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
gettem chimp. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whpshhhhh ! Whpshhhhhh ! round up those god damn Varmints Chimp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Von_Rat
09-08-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
and the problem could of been solved or prevented, by the major european powers, without the us. since the major european powers were to blind or stupid to prevent the rise of hitler, i can see why the us was very reluctant to get involved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Its not a simple as blind or stupid to preventing his rise. It was allot more complicated than that. Many saw his rise but the popular opinion of the people the governments represent didn't want war. The two largest European powers didn't want war.

The rise of hitler was as much about the fallout from WW1 as his ability to manipulate the German people, for it was the Germans who voted him in. He had a 1 3rd majority in 1933 and thats massive in a state which has more political party than a dog has fleas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


and many americans saw his rise too. but the us wanted war even less than the two largest europeans powers, and because they wanted war even less, they stay out as long as possiable, and are constantly being critised for it on these forums. if the us can be critised here for not acting sooner. i can critise the european powers for also not acting sooner, in what was their own backyard.

if the european powers, acting against us advice, hadnt opted for a vengeful peace after ww1, hitler would of just been a failed artist. many people, even at the time thought a vengeful peace was blind and stupid.

and if killing millions just because some dim witted arch duke gets murdered, isnt blind and stupid, i dont know what is. in other words, no ww1, no rise of hitler.

Von_Rat
09-08-2006, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i apologise if i sound harsh on europeans. the us does plenty of stupid things, cough iraq cough. and we pay the price for them, along with our european friends.

but the cost of us stupidity is nothing compared to the horrors of the world wars, that could have been prevented by europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It helps if your country is isolationist and 1000's of miles away from rivals/threats. Europe was the hub of the world in 1914 with 3 or 4 superpowers sharing borders and rubbing each other up the wrong way. Tension is aided by proximity.

Look at the hissy fit you guys threw during the Cuban Missile crisis? Its fine if the ballistic missiles are in Europe but when they appear in your own back yard you threaten to start WW3.

Sure Europeans are the only stupid ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i already said us does stupid things. you even qouted it. maybe you better actually read what you quote.

cuban missile crises didnt cause 60 million dead and devastate europe. maybe it could have, but the plain fact is, it did not.

carguy_
09-08-2006, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
and many americans saw his rise too. but the us wanted war even less than the two largest europeans powers, and because they wanted war even less, they stay out as long as possiable, and are constantly being critised for it on these forums. if the us can be critised here for not acting sooner. i can critise the european powers for also not acting sooner, in what was their own backyard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed what US did was quite smart even if it was acting like aholes.There was no threat of German invasion of US even if Hitler had ever taken the UK.Stalin was just about to attack,both powers would bleed themselves so neither would be able to cause danger to US at least for few years to come.
That looks as if the US never intended to free the western Europe as the British isles were just about the best spot to gather invasion foces.Taken,those would be very hard to invade and that would have been just the first step to enter Europe.However,US didn`t seem to care much about that,even if they helped the British by giving them ships and resources.
Why is US critisized?Maybe the British though the US owed them something?As if the US was obliged to protect the UK.Ask the Brits about that.
European superpowers have no excuse for letting 3rd Reich grow.Maybe they want to share that responsibility with US...?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
if the european powers, acting against us advice, hadnt opted for a vengeful peace after ww1, hitler would of just been a failed artist. many people, even at the time thought a vengeful peace was blind and stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hard to say.Maybe yes maybe not.Remember that Germany were BIG after war with France in 1871.They would have lost their grounds after WWI regardless as the nations which saw their chance brought their state structures back.Losing vast grounds in the east was a factor that contributed to German society`s depression.And that was not a revenge I think,just giving back the stuff to whom it belongs.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

and if killing millions just because some dim witted arch duke gets murdered, isnt blind and stupid, i dont know what is. in other words, no ww1, no rise of hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I think thats very wrong. The rise of the Nazi party can be traced all the way back to 1850, might have been a different leader, war might not have happened but extreme right wing German nationalism and antisematism was on the rise well before WW1. The same message the Nazis were putting out in 1930 were being put out 80 years before that.

I think world war was inevitable, dates and names might have been different but it was inevitable.

The first world war was stupid but packs and alliances are something you have to honour. There is no point signing them in the first place if you have no intention of following them through. You can't pick and choose what your going to honour and when and what critera fits when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is.

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i apologise if i sound harsh on europeans. the us does plenty of stupid things, cough iraq cough. and we pay the price for them, along with our european friends.

but the cost of us stupidity is nothing compared to the horrors of the world wars, that could have been prevented by europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It helps if your country is isolationist and 1000's of miles away from rivals/threats. Europe was the hub of the world in 1914 with 3 or 4 superpowers sharing borders and rubbing each other up the wrong way. Tension is aided by proximity.

Look at the hissy fit you guys threw during the Cuban Missile crisis? Its fine if the ballistic missiles are in Europe but when they appear in your own back yard you threaten to start WW3.

Sure Europeans are the only stupid ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i already said us does stupid things. you even qouted it. maybe you better actually read what you quote.

cuban missile crises didnt cause 60 million dead and devastate europe. maybe it could have, but the plain fact is, it did not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cuban Missile crisis had the potential to end the world. Re read the other bit and acknowledge it if you want or just ignore it and focus on the bits that avoid the point.

DoubleTap2005A
09-08-2006, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I never complained about UK flag waving bias in The Battle of Britain, so please don't complain about US pride in movies we make. Thx. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats comedy. The British won the Battle of Britain with out any direct US help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, and we won Midway without any direct UK or Soviet help. So, is Midway an acceptable film for us Yanks to enjoy according to the rest of the world? Please tell us because we need to know so we can relax and enjoy at least SOME of our movies without guilt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No bias needed. Whereas every US made war film ignores the efforts of just about everyone else or even makes it up coughU571cough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, surprise, surprise, American films made by American film studios primarily for Americans tend to highlight American soldiers, airmen, sailors, battles, etc. Color me shocked. And?

The first question it begs is, why are American studios responsible for creating films highlighting other nation's efforts? Don't get me wrong, I would like to see such films, and despite the beliefs of some here, so would many other Americans. That's not the point. Why are "we" (and I LOOSELY associate myself with Holywood for this point only) responsible for making Russian, British, war-films? We actually do so, sometimes, but are we obligated? Says who?

Can't those nations makes their own self-orientated films? Oh, that's right, they do. And surprisingly, Americans don't feel slighted when Enemy at the Gates doesn't mention the massive American lend-lease aid given to the Soviets. Somehow we carry on without binding ourselves into knots.

In addition, just because a film does not show any other other armed forces other than the US does not mean it is slighting them. Midway, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Patton, etc. either were about American battles or focused on American units in battles. Were they supposed to throw in Allied troops as some sort of affirmative action to make everyone feel better? Oh, and Patton and Band of Brothers did have British troops in them, btw.

I fully support your point when it comes to U-571. In a thread long past I commented that I thought it was both galling and unnecessary to twist history to make it an American submarine and crew for the movie. I tend to think that in general about any "historical" film. I think U-571 would have done as well monetarily with a primarily British cast AS Brits, and maybe have done better overseas.

If WE are unable to do the that film without screwing it up, the question then becomes, HOW COME A BRITISH FILM COMPANY DID NOT DO IT? Why doesn't a British film company think to do a film about such a historically thrilling and important aspect of the English war effort?

The question is answered in part by what I wrote earlier; there is a tendency of some in europe and elsewhere to downplay their own history and its accomplishments and victories. To them, it tends to smack of "flag-waiving" which is repellent to them. Well, then, I COULD make the argument that if someone is not sufficiently proud of their own history to dramatize the story, why do they get so pissed off when WE think they should and we do so? Think about it; as twisted as it may have been to make it an American operation, would the story of that British success have ever gotten told in ANY form? I think not and THAT is what pisses me off.

As I pointed it out then, however, don't blame America in general, because it is the twits in Hollywood who "don't get it", and many Americans themselves are fed up with their twaddle. We're lucky nowadays if we get a film out of them that does not portray the US military as incompetent, or psychopaths, or both. We get PLENTY of those nowadays, so when we get one that is even somewhat flattering, the last thing we want to hear is complaints about our "flag-waving" or "bias".

In closing, then, may I suggest that some of the anger and resentment seen here is not particularly unwarranted, but perhaps is misdirected? Why not ask some of your own film studios and famous actors why they hell they can't find it in themselves to make this stuff. I sure as hell would like to see them.

/rant

Worf101
09-08-2006, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
It looks awful.

I think the producers mistook biplanes with F-15s. What else accelerates in a vertical climb?

Oh, and since when is every German plane a red Fokker tri-decker?

Not to mention the ridiculous US flag-waving. 1 million American troops sat on their asses as Pershing negotiated for a contiguous piece of front, only relenting when the March 1918 German offensive forced him to use his divisions to plug holes in the line.

As far as raping history goes, if Pearl Harbor was an unlubed ***** entering your arse, this looks to be a cactus.

And of course, there's the Token Magic Negro. Bagger Vance, flyboy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that just made my butt cheeks tighten.. Thanks for the descriptions M8.

Da Worfster

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
Okay, and we won Midway without any direct UK or Soviet help. So, is Midway an acceptable film for us Yanks to enjoy according to the rest of the world? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Midway is a very enjoyable film, immersive and importantly accurate. Wave your flags as much as you desire. Just be careful you don't get RSI from it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:

If WE are unable to do the that film without screwing it up, the question then becomes, HOW COME A BRITISH FILM COMPANY DID NOT DO IT? Why doesn't a British film company think to do a film about such a historically thrilling and important aspect of the English war effort?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its British!! Not English!

Maybe we don't need to make lots of flag waving patriotic feel good movies? We did back in the '50's when we needed to feel good about ourselves cause our country was so damn poor from war.

There are lots of good US war films. Lots of bad ones too. Accuracy and portrail seem to be the problem though. Thats what I think pisses people off. When they see Ben Afleck saving our limey asses in his Spitfire, Jon Bon Jovi stealing the enigma machine etc i.e. stuff that didn't happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
Can't those nations makes their own self-orientated films? Oh, that's right, they do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, looking at British cinema, in the 40's, 50's and 60's we did make allot of war films, and some good ones too, but I don't see any of them resorting to making up history. Many are pretty sad, Bridge over the River Kwai anyone?

Alternativly, maybe the rest of the world doesn't need to make flag waving patriotic rubbish?

Box-weasel
09-08-2006, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> gx-warspite SkyChimp, g__ dammit dude, shut up.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you think this language makes you sound impressive? Blasphemy has consequences.

This forum is full of anti-American posters who take any and every opportunity to attack the US.
Like the liberals in this country, they will always blame America first. History is subverted to minimize American contributions and suggest that we always have a colonialist agenda. This is a convenient approach that negates self-inspection.

As for the Cuban missile crisis, when threatened we will respond. What part of this can the Europeans and others not understand? JFK's actions were one of his own Profiles in Courage. I remember being a scared kid practising "Duck and Cover" drills in elementary school and the enormous relief when Russia backed down. This is not the way I want to live or for my kids to live. But I truly think that our stance has ended a lot of fascist governments aspirations.

Americans are patriotic; We love our country.
We believe in freedom and its necessary defense.
We believe that God has blessed our nation and that He expects us to share these blessings with the rest of the world. The blessings of freedom and democracy.

Also, nations will always act to ensure their own economic survival. The US has helped MANY more than it has hurt. Basically, we want to be left alone. Even if we go to war, we end up rebuilding our defeated enemies. Who else does this? We want to be liked and enevitably try to do the right thing.

Many of our so-called allies and also our enemies only focus on our mistakes and avoid the core of our philosophy. They are envious of our successes and and too scared to access the possible consequences of their policies of appeasement and avoidance.

If you are going to take our money don't stab us in the back.

In conclusion and off-track: BULLDOZE the UN into the East River! Clear.

Oh, and yes I'll probably see the movie because it has airplanes in it.

weasel /OUT

LStarosta
09-08-2006, 09:22 AM
I find your beliefs of unquestioning patriotism quite fascist in and of themselves. I love my country, but I am not afraid to be a critical individual and denounce some of the bad things we have done in this world, not only in contemporary times, but throughout our relatively brief history.

I suggest you read some of Adorno's "Education after Auschwitz". He has some very insightful ideas about the fine line between patriotism and fascism and the social effects of public pedagogy.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 09:25 AM
Yay! Lets go wave some flags!

I never realised the USSR was facist. I feel enlightened.

DoubleTap2005A
09-08-2006, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Alternativly, maybe the rest of the world doesn't need to make flag waving patriotic rubbish? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, first, thank you for illustrating and affirming my point:

"The question is answered in part by what I wrote earlier; there is a tendency of some in europe and elsewhere to downplay their own history and its accomplishments and victories. To them, it tends to smack of "flag-waiving" which is repellent to them."

Second, if you really are not enthralled or concerned with such "flag-waiving", if such stories of your exploits in the war are "rubbish", then explain to me why it even matters to you that U-571, or any other film, slights or ignores such efforts? They are not worthy of glorifying or displaying at all, right?

In short, why on earth are you so upset and concerned that people are stealing your "rubbish"?

Like I have said more than once, the issue is not how WE perceive your history, its how YOU perceive it; as rubbish.

God that's depressing...

DoubleTap2005A
09-08-2006, 09:51 AM
BTW, I have yet to meet an American who liked Pearl Harbor. See my previous notes regarding Hollywood and the rest of America not being the same thing.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 10:04 AM
I know not every American is the same, one of my best mates is from Vermont and I fly with more US guys than I do Brits and I like them. Hell, I even like Von Rat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stealing my rubbish? Where did that come from? I don't think anyone sees history as 'rubbish'. What people see as rubbish is innacurrate **** with no actual relevence to history i.e. Flyboys.

Maybe if they were stealing my history and rewriting it innaccurately and replacing British servicemen with American service men I'd upset. Oh wait, thats been done before.

The problem is not about perception, its the utter rubbish produced by hollywood which uses poorly realised history with gross innaccuracies to down right lies. If someone percieves a film as historical fact when its blatantly not true then we have an issue.

They are not worthy of glorifying or displaying at all, right?

Not at all. Just get it right or don't bother.

panther3485
09-08-2006, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoubleTap2005A:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Alternativly, maybe the rest of the world doesn't need to make flag waving patriotic rubbish? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, first, thank you for illustrating and affirming my point:

"The question is answered in part by what I wrote earlier; there is a tendency of some in europe and elsewhere to downplay their own history and its accomplishments and victories. To them, it tends to smack of "flag-waiving" which is repellent to them."

Second, if you really are not enthralled or concerned with such "flag-waiving", if such stories of your exploits in the war are "rubbish", then explain to me why it even matters to you that U-571, or any other film, slights or ignores such efforts? They are not worthy of glorifying or displaying at all, right?

In short, why on earth are you so upset and concerned that people are stealing your "rubbish"?

Like I have said more than once, the issue is not how WE perceive your history, its how YOU perceive it; as rubbish.

God that's depressing... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relax, DoubleTap - we don't all think it's rubbish. Some of us are, in fact, very proud of the good/worthwhile things we've accomplished.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 10:11 AM
Being proud of worthwile things: Great. All the more power too you.

I don't know why you would think, or anyone in fact would think history is 'rubbish' or making films about it is 'rubbish'. What people have an issue with is innaccurate stories, biased stories, outright lies, basically misinterpretting or deliberatly changing history to make a forgettable action film.

Von_Rat
09-08-2006, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i apologise if i sound harsh on europeans. the us does plenty of stupid things, cough iraq cough. and we pay the price for them, along with our european friends.

but the cost of us stupidity is nothing compared to the horrors of the world wars, that could have been prevented by europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It helps if your country is isolationist and 1000's of miles away from rivals/threats. Europe was the hub of the world in 1914 with 3 or 4 superpowers sharing borders and rubbing each other up the wrong way. Tension is aided by proximity.

Look at the hissy fit you guys threw during the Cuban Missile crisis? Its fine if the ballistic missiles are in Europe but when they appear in your own back yard you threaten to start WW3.

Sure Europeans are the only stupid ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i already said us does stupid things. you even qouted it. maybe you better actually read what you quote.

cuban missile crises didnt cause 60 million dead and devastate europe. maybe it could have, but the plain fact is, it did not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cuban Missile crisis had the potential to end the world. Re read the other bit and acknowledge it if you want or just ignore it and focus on the bits that avoid the point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you managed to avpid my point. so i'll just avoid yours, whatever the heck it was.

if it was about european powers rubbing up against each other, well they seem to get along just fine now. maybe they just got smarter.

us and ussr only had the potential to screw up and kill millions of each other, but they never did. the europeans actually did screw up and kill millions in the world wars.

panther3485
09-08-2006, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
What people have an issue with is innaccurate stories, biased stories, outright lies, basically misinterpretting or deliberatly changing history to make a forgettable action film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definitely have an issue, if I can see that history has been deliberately corrupted either for 'political'/'PC' reasons, or for cynical commercial gain above all else.

Generally, I don't have an issue with so-called 'flag-waving' (at least, not within reason). I expect a bit of American 'flag-waving' in American movies, British 'flag-waving' in British movies etc. As long as it's not overdone to the point of being sickening or presented in such a way that it constitutes a blatant distortion of history.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

DoubleTap2005A
09-08-2006, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Stealing my rubbish? Where did that come from? I don't think anyone sees history as 'rubbish'. What people see as rubbish is innacurrate **** with no actual relevence to history i.e. Flyboys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, perhaps then you can come out and say you do not like inaccurate **** in principle, without making it an AMERICAN trait, which you did originally:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Whereas every US made war film ignores the efforts of just about everyone else or even makes it up coughU571cough." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is my original issue here. This Flyboys film, which NO ONE has seen in its entirety, seemed to be an excuse to go off on anti-American rants, or at least make snide remarks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe if they were stealing my history and rewriting it innaccurately and replacing British servicemen with American service men I'd upset. Oh wait, thats been done before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are getting bent out of shape over ONE film! Is that really your issue or is it something else? And again, why did a British film company not make a movie of it themselves?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem is not about perception, its the utter rubbish produced by hollywood which uses poorly realised history with gross innaccuracies to down right lies. If someone percieves a film as historical fact when its blatantly not true then we have an issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I wrote; take it up with Hollywood, not America. America has issues with much of Hollywood itself, as I mentioned. And again, I am seeing a lot of hostility over 2 films, one of which even Americans themselves thought was crapola.

And I would say that if someone perceives a film as historical fact when its blatantly not true, then your real issue should be with the education they received or how much reading they bother doing.

Anyway, I am still not clear, does a Brit have the right to feel patriotic and a desire to wave the Union Jack when one ponders/views/portrays the efforts and victory of the Battle of Britain, or is that all silly rubbish to make one feel good?

You might think I am splitting hairs here, but I do have a point.

Von_Rat
09-08-2006, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

and if killing millions just because some dim witted arch duke gets murdered, isnt blind and stupid, i dont know what is. in other words, no ww1, no rise of hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I think thats very wrong. The rise of the Nazi party can be traced all the way back to 1850, might have been a different leader, war might not have happened but extreme right wing German nationalism and antisematism was on the rise well before WW1. The same message the Nazis were putting out in 1930 were being put out 80 years before that.

I think world war was inevitable, dates and names might have been different but it was inevitable.

The first world war was stupid but packs and alliances are something you have to honour. There is no point signing them in the first place if you have no intention of following them through. You can't pick and choose what your going to honour and when and what critera fits when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nothing is inevitable in human affairs. we all have free will.

sadly, we dont always have the courage to use it.



signing a treaty that traps you into a stupid war, isnt to bright either.

fordfan25
09-08-2006, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I never complained about UK flag waving bias in The Battle of Britain, so please don't complain about US pride in movies we make. Thx. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Difference is UK won the BoB and made a movie about it. Did US airmen win WW1 ? Why not make a Hollywood WW1 film about Bishop or Richthofen with all the CG effects and pyrotechnics? ....Nah sod that! we'll just make some ficticious **** to satisfy the majority of US cinema goers who dont know or care anything about history.

Thats why people are complaining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> so your saying no u.s airmen fight in WW1? so you know that the plot of flyboys is in fact that U.S airmen "won" ww1? So your saying that because the usa was not in ww1 from the start that the usa sould not make a movie about usa airmen in ww1. so your saying that people are complaing because thay are like whinny little 5 year olds who think there little brother got a slightly bigger piece of pie.... o wait thats what im saying.

Sintubin
09-08-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Hey SkyChimp, way to make yourself a TOTAL cliche now.

Woo, didn't see THAT one coming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Your attitude is precisely why most of the world dislikes America now.

In a short six months, you went from having our utmost sympathy for 9/11 to being the most disliked western nation in existence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My attitude? My attitude is that Canadian piety has gotten old. You've nothing to
lecture Americans on. You just haven't realized that, yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMISH TRASH TALK

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

nothing is inevitable in human affairs. we all have free will.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its inevitable that we'll drag and bag yet one more Spitfire piloted by a lone Spitnub. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
09-08-2006, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
so your saying no u.s airmen fight in WW1? so you know that the plot of flyboys is in fact that U.S airmen "won" ww1? So your saying that because the usa was not in ww1 from the start that the usa sould not make a movie about usa airmen in ww1. so your saying that people are complaing because thay are like whinny little 5 year olds who think there little brother got a slightly bigger piece of pie.... o wait thats what im saying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please do not dumb the issue down to this.You see,Hollywood is a tool of great power.There is not denying that a majority of every nation are average people of average intelligence and even worse wisdom.Those people believe anything they see on the screen.This way,Hollywood can be a tool of "educating" those people.US totally dominates movie industry so other countries forcing their version of history have little or no chance of beating Hollywood.Why?Because Hollywood has got the best ppl working on special effects,directors and powerful producers.I love every US movie with WWII special effects.It is breathtaking.The love story is totally of no interest to me.
The only bad side of this is that those people making movies don`t exactly know the history.
Should we believe their ignorance?No.I think that we have so many sources of information available that making a such a WWII movie is not less than a movie with DELIBERATE false version of history.

What I am afraid is that the masses of people are being lied to.Forthermore they do not have any idea about it.Hence they can be used to make an overall society point of view on some issues.The masses create prejudices.What majority of ppl think goes.Hollywood has a great part in creating false POVs and that is wrong.


Now plz excuse me,I gots me a sortie to fly.

Slickun
09-08-2006, 02:53 PM
Isn't the stroy about the Lafayette Escadrille?

What is wrong with portraying that? A small group of Americans flying for the French? Kind of a stirring story in itself, if you think about it. Sort of like a WW1 version of the Flying Tigers.

I can't wait for it to come out. My only fear is that a love story will ruin it, like Pearl harbor, or Enemy at the Gates.

It's about flying, planes, machine guns and heroic doings.

Manu-6S
09-08-2006, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Box-weasel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> gx-warspite SkyChimp, g__ dammit dude, shut up.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you think this language makes you sound impressive? Blasphemy has consequences.

This forum is full of anti-American posters who take any and every opportunity to attack the US.
Like the liberals in this country, they will always blame America first. History is subverted to minimize American contributions and suggest that we always have a colonialist agenda. This is a convenient approach that negates self-inspection.

As for the Cuban missile crisis, when threatened we will respond. What part of this can the Europeans and others not understand? JFK's actions were one of his own Profiles in Courage. I remember being a scared kid practising "Duck and Cover" drills in elementary school and the enormous relief when Russia backed down. This is not the way I want to live or for my kids to live. But I truly think that our stance has ended a lot of fascist governments aspirations.

Americans are patriotic; We love our country.
We believe in freedom and its necessary defense.
We believe that God has blessed our nation and that He expects us to share these blessings with the rest of the world. The blessings of freedom and democracy.

Also, nations will always act to ensure their own economic survival. The US has helped MANY more than it has hurt. Basically, we want to be left alone. Even if we go to war, we end up rebuilding our defeated enemies. Who else does this? We want to be liked and enevitably try to do the right thing.

Many of our so-called allies and also our enemies only focus on our mistakes and avoid the core of our philosophy. They are envious of our successes and and too scared to access the possible consequences of their policies of appeasement and avoidance.

If you are going to take our money don't stab us in the back.

In conclusion and off-track: BULLDOZE the UN into the East River! Clear.

Oh, and yes I'll probably see the movie because it has airplanes in it.

weasel /OUT </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you joking or you are really serious? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

fordfan25
09-08-2006, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
so your saying no u.s airmen fight in WW1? so you know that the plot of flyboys is in fact that U.S airmen "won" ww1? So your saying that because the usa was not in ww1 from the start that the usa sould not make a movie about usa airmen in ww1. so your saying that people are complaing because thay are like whinny little 5 year olds who think there little brother got a slightly bigger piece of pie.... o wait thats what im saying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please do not dumb the issue down to this.You see,Hollywood is a tool of great power.There is not denying that a majority of every nation are average people of average intelligence and even worse wisdom.Those people believe anything they see on the screen.This way,Hollywood can be a tool of "educating" those people.US totally dominates movie industry so other countries forcing their version of history have little or no chance of beating Hollywood.Why?Because Hollywood has got the best ppl working on special effects,directors and powerful producers.I love every US movie with WWII special effects.It is breathtaking.The love story is totally of no interest to me.
The only bad side of this is that those people making movies don`t exactly know the history.
Should we believe their ignorance?No.I think that we have so many sources of information available that making a such a WWII movie is not less than a movie with DELIBERATE false version of history.

What I am afraid is that the masses of people are being lied to.Forthermore they do not have any idea about it.Hence they can be used to make an overall society point of view on some issues.The masses create prejudices.What majority of ppl think goes.Hollywood has a great part in creating false POVs and that is wrong.


Now plz excuse me,I gots me a sortie to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> so .....your saying no u.s airmen fight in WW1? so you know that the plot of flyboys is in fact that U.S airmen "won" ww1? So your saying that because the usa was not in ww1 from the start that the usa sould not make a movie about usa airmen in ww1. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

DuxCorvan
09-08-2006, 05:36 PM
Ok, since I strayed from the main discussion, here are my 2 cents:

Someone paid to have this movie done. It's his/her movie, it's his/her inversion. If he/she believes that he/she will earn more money/fame making it to satisfy their US potential public -even if it is at the cost of some bias or common places- it's their right to do so.

They could have chosen any other aspect of WW1 air warfare, but they decided to focus on US late war intervention -OK for me. It's their product. It's an interesting stage of war, and I'll enjoy it the same. Had the Italians made a movie about Italians flying Capronis and Ansaldos, I'd watch it also. With Italian flag-wavering and all, saying they won WW2 -somehow they lost even being in the winning side: they were injustly treated in the post-war terms, their efforts ignored by their allies... well, that's another topic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Please, you can't -nor shouldn't- decide on what a California producer makes with his money. They sell movies, if you don't like them, don't buy them.

If I was to get pis$ed off every time a Hollywood projects a ridiculous view about Spanish history or culture, I'd be always pis$ed off. Just watch Errol Flynn's pirate movies... those sweaty 'Spanish' (?) evil ship captains, with 16th century infantry helmets, shoe polish on their face, a ring in their ears, big brows and angry mwa-hahaha expression... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif My poor father always said WTF? every time he saw that. But I never got angry. Just thought "these guys have not seen a 17th century Spanish portrait in their lives." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

fordfan25
09-08-2006, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Ok, since I strayed from the main discussion, here are my 2 cents:

Someone paid to have this movie done. It's his/her movie, it's his/her inversion. If he/she believes that he/she will earn more money/fame making it to satisfy their US potential public -even if it is at the cost of some bias or common places- it's their right to do so.

They could have chosen any other aspect of WW1 air warfare, but they decided to focus on US late war intervention -OK for me. It's their product. It's an interesting stage of war, and I'll enjoy it the same. Had the Italians made a movie about Italians flying Capronis and Ansaldos, I'd watch it also. With Italian flag-wavering and all, saying they won WW2 -somehow they lost even being in the winning side: they were injustly treated in the post-war terms, their efforts ignored by their allies... well, that's another topic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Please, you can't -nor shouldn't- decide on what a California producer makes with his money. They sell movies, if you don't like them, don't buy them.

If I was to get pis$ed off every time a Hollywood projects a ridiculous view about Spanish history or culture, I'd be always pis$ed off. Just watch Errol Flynn's pirate movies... those sweaty 'Spanish' (?) evil ship captains, with 16th century infantry helmets, shoe polish on their face, a ring in their ears, big brows and angry mwa-hahaha expression... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif My poor father always said WTF? every time he saw that. But I never got angry. Just thought "these guys have not seen a 17th century Spanish portrait in their lives." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yea spanish captains did NOT wear infantry helmets . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

all jokeing aside i to have always wounderd why thay so blantntly depected spanish capt in such a bad light. i was a mod at a sid miers pirates fan site for a while and many arguments bock out about that. strange thing is most of the spanish people there didnt care that thare country ect was always the "evil" spanish in those games.

Von_Rat
09-08-2006, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

nothing is inevitable in human affairs. we all have free will.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its inevitable that we'll drag and bag yet one more Spitfire piloted by a lone Spitnub. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol,,,, no truer words were ever spoken.

DuxCorvan
09-09-2006, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
yea spanish captains did NOT wear infantry helmets . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, 16th century Spanish *ship* commanders/captains were noblemen and didn't wear helmets at all. It was against their dignity. They only wore hats, and only when in civilian dress.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">all jokeing aside i to have always wounderd why thay so blantntly depected spanish capt in such a bad light. i was a mod at a sid miers pirates fan site for a while and many arguments bock out about that. strange thing is most of the spanish people there didnt care that thare country ect was always the "evil" spanish in those games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that if Errol Flynn is a pirate -a bloody criminal, to be honest- and is the starring 'good' and clean handsome guy, then the criminal chasers -the Spanish fleet- have to be 'evil', ugly and dirty.

Anyway, I always play the Spanish "pirate hunter" in Sid Meier's Pirates. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And those 'evil' noblemen (Count Velasquez, Marquis Mendoza) have so cartoon-esque looks and stupid names -have you noticed that all Spanish-related evil characters in US films are called Mendoza, a somewhat rare Spanish surname?- that it is a pleasure crossing swords with them... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
09-09-2006, 01:01 PM
Dux, good points. Sorry I asked a few questions and put us off topic. BTW I found a stand in the open-air food market here (in Geneva, I am an expat) that sells stuff like churros and a drink that I had called horchata de chufa. Spanish food is tops. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Back on topic, the problem is not that Merrikans make movies about themselves, it's that their industry has engough money and pull so that everyone in the world sees them, or has the chance to. No one is forced, but then the choice is not always free either. Some US films are great, and I think if we were forced to watch German or Chinese films all the time we would complain too. Some of us. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
09-09-2006, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
yea spanish captains did NOT wear infantry helmets . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, 16th century Spanish *ship* commanders/captains were noblemen and didn't wear helmets at all. It was against their dignity. They only wore hats, and only when in civilian dress.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">all jokeing aside i to have always wounderd why thay so blantntly depected spanish capt in such a bad light. i was a mod at a sid miers pirates fan site for a while and many arguments bock out about that. strange thing is most of the spanish people there didnt care that thare country ect was always the "evil" spanish in those games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that if Errol Flynn is a pirate -a bloody criminal, to be honest- and is the starring 'good' and clean handsome guy, then the criminal chasers -the Spanish fleet- have to be 'evil', ugly and dirty.

Anyway, I always play the Spanish "pirate hunter" in Sid Meier's Pirates. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And those 'evil' noblemen (Count Velasquez, Marquis Mendoza) have so cartoon-esque looks and stupid names -have you noticed that all Spanish-related evil characters in US films are called Mendoza, a somewhat rare Spanish surname?- that it is a pleasure crossing swords with them... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea was not the name of the bad guy in one of the last zoro films mendoza? lol

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-10-2006, 05:30 AM
17th Century English sailors often wore skirts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif