Where is the US economy headed?

Why wouldn't we sell our oil at full market prices? and WTF are you talking about, reread that sentence and see if it makes sense to you, cause I'm at a loss... what war ships? Ice breakers sure, but war ships? WTF??

No reason why you should you not sell your oil at full market prices and that is the only reason you are selling a gallon of oil to us.

Your selling of oil to us place us under no obligation to you of any kind as if you sell the oil somewhere else that would be fine as we would in turn buy replacement oil off the world market.

The US had no dog in this race of your.

Oh those peaceful icebreakers are arm warships and you are building more at the cost of billions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2719

The next largest contract is for $3.1 billion for 6-8 Arctic Patrol Ships (armed icebreakers) - 98 meters long (just under 300'). By comparison, the CSCSC warship above is 142 meters long (470'). First ships due to be in service in 2017.

The history was entirely accurate - no revisionism or sarcasm at all. However, thank you for so earnestly demonstrating my point. We were wrong for getting in "late" (in your perspective, not ours) and we were wrong for dealing with the predictable consequences of getting involved at all.

The post war connfrontation was a direct consequence of WWII and our participation in it. It really doesn't matter whether or not you connected the two. That you don't merely betrays your inconsistency and perhaps lack of understanding.

I don't expect gratitude at all.

I think you would have to look very hard thoughout human history to find an example of another extended confrontation of competing and hostile powers that was redolved without a major war. Certainly the internal conflicts in Europe throughout the last few centuries each caused more destruction and human suffering than the resolution of the conflict between the USSR and the Western nations. By those standards the Cold War was vastly less destructive than those of Europe - your lack of "warm fuzzies notwithstanding.

Every political entity does the best it can for the majority of its citizens, except for the United States where our politicians do what is best for the top 1%.

You got to be kidding me governments have a long sad history of servicing the ruling class not the majority of their people.

At best we can only hope to keep this in some kind of a balance and not allow it to get completely out of hand as is happening now in the US.

ok Gob. I wasn't born or alive anywhere near the dates of the second world war. In fact 20 years or so later, I was living with the very real consequences that these two nations would be at war, and we would be caught in the middle.
What exactly do you think we owe you gratitude for? It wasn't our war either. We just happened to be there long before you, because we really did care that fascism was ruining Europe and, of course, we wanted to help our allies.
History has been written. Thank you for not making me learn german...
Again, this wasn't about the WWII, but you keep peddling how wonderful you were/are. The cold war was mostly about the fact that the USSR was the one country you wouldn't dare go to war with, but like terrorism, it was an excellent way to keep the masses terrified. OOOh look, the big, bad, red bogey man.
As for predictable consequences... Since the war, please tell me, what exactly was the foreign mission of the US? You've started how many wars? For a nation that took a pole, how many wars or military actions have you been involved in since, and what was the justification? Democracy? The big warm fuzzy USA brought peace and less destruction to Chile, Korea, the Philipines, Vietnam, Iraq...
I think I understand the situation completely.

Ceili I can understand your and your country men/women inferiority complex in relationship to the US and the emotional needs to try to find some way to paint us in a bad light.

Most US citizens hardly give your country a moment though in any given year however that could change if your warships game playing with the Russians would blow up in your face and we needed to pull your ass out of the fire.

Hey dumb dumb... Read a newspaper. What warships?
Inferiority complex? what? Emotional needs? Huh? I could give a **** who or what think about us. I don't want to die from nuclear fallout. Isn't that why Kennedy had the whole bay of pigs thing, so that you floridians weren't vaporized? There are other ways to end a conflict aside from bloodshed. I know, it's a strange concept to you. War is your middle name.

Poor baby we always had address the what warships question........

Canada playing in the big league and needing to keep looking over your shoulders to make sure the US will pull your ass out of the fire if needed.

As far as ending conflicts without bloodshed that is why your country are building 6 or eight new arm icebreakers/warships at a cost of over 3 billions.

Give me a break your country is more then willing to play the military force card even when you had just enough of a naval to get you into trouble that we will need to bail you out of.

Canada is reminding me of a dog I used to have as a boy who would picked fights with larger dogs and then come running back to me whining to be picked up.

As soon as he was in my arms he would begin growling at the dog he had just annoy.

We don't know do we? Both sides were pretty much sick of the whole thing by 1945 and the Soviet regime was incredidibly paranoid. Many former POWs were sent to gulags as Stalin was scared of contamination of ideas from the west, and that was Nazi Geremany, God knows how comfortable he would have felt with a whole swath of citizens from mature democracies. It may have been more trouble than it was worth, but then again we don't know.

That's because it's only got three letters.

Many people in Russia also lost their lives; I think it was 2/3ds of St Petersburg's population if my memory serves.

You're quite right, the casualties in the West pale into insignificance when compared to the blood debt the Soviets paid.

Yeah--but they treat death in a more casual and light-hearted manner than we do and thus the after affects there are probably faded now rather than the subject of the song and dance we continue to make about it all as if it matters to the coming generations to whom WW1 and 2, the Wars of the Roses and the Punic Wars all seem the same.

These media people and soft-headed politicians and Uncle Tom Cobley and all running around with poppies in their lapels make me want to puke. If somebody popped a paper bag in the next room they would have a nervous breakdown.

The only trouble is is that we have a large bunch of experts and a raft of hangers-on who have studied these archaic events to the exclusion of everything else, that's why they are experts, and they would be struck dumb academically if we decided to forget it and move on. It's their job. It's a useless job it seems to me. They are all arguing among themselves anyway.

The situation now is a number of quantum leaps more advanced than it was in 1945. Politicians could order us sloggers into battle in those days from their desks. Now their desks are Target Oxo. Next time they get it too. If not from the searing flash then from a lampost.

Lines on a young countryboy coming to town in the late 16th century--



Now the town has come into every home. I fear your money is nosafe.

No we don't know for certain, but a lot of money was spent by the US and Europe based on the belief that the USSR was in fact imperialistic and had Western Europe in its sights, I think they were right, but, in any case, we do know the US didn't force air bases on the UK.

The next question I asked was:

What will European governments do if Ron Paul wins the presidency, or our financial woes force us to drastically reduce defense spending...and we withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Europe?

Look, in the long run I don't really care whether Europe is grateful to the US for anything. Whether or not Europe should feel grateful is immaterial. You can't force an ingrate to be grateful in any case.

What I do care about is the financial conditions in the US.

I see no militarily strategic reason for keeping US bases in Europe. Maybe someone can tell me why I am wrong about this.

I also see no geo-political reason for keeping US bases in Europe. Europe is going to side with the US to the extent that it serves its interests. I'd like to think our interests are aligned for reasons other than we are footing the majority of your defense bill, but I can't be sure.

It seems to me that if we pulled all of our bases from Europe tomorrow, it would benefit us economically.

Again, the question is how will it impact Europe, aside from the economic losses suffered by base towns and villages that benefit from commerce with the US military and it's personnel.

If Europe would have to turn around and spend more of its own money on its defense then the bases represent real value to Europe, whether you or Walter care to admit the same.

I just don't think we are getting consideration comensurate with that value, and see no reason to continue providing it.

I certainly appreciate that the Pentagon will, under any and all circumstances, argue that US security demands European bases, but I would have to see concrete reasons why before I took them at their word.

As it stands know, I'm fairly certain I support a prompt removal of all bases in Europe, and if my research suggests that the majority of Europeans don't want the bases on their soil, I will be dead certain, and this will inform me as to voting and communicating with my elected representatives.

I doubt European governments will act with unanimity about anything. There's a real scandal over here about the former defence secretary Liam Fox's chum Adam Werrity, who has been involved in some really suspicious goings on all over the world. The Tories managed to put the kibosh on the Eurofighter project, and it does look as if more of our future defence procurement will be reliant on the American defence industry regardless of anything else.

As for Putin, he seems to have made himself a very wealthy man, and Russia's influence in Europe is pretty much guaranteed with Russian gas anyway. The military bases in the UK don't worry me so much as the consequences of giving over part of our sovereignty, the 'unwitting' part we played in extraordinary renditions is what most springs to mind.

Yet another reason for us to pull out our forces and equipment!

Well, I don't blame you for thinking so, at least, (even though you may not agree with their politics), you don't think your ministers put another country's interests over your own. There is a very strong suspicion that Liam Fox and Adam Werrity were doing just that, through the well-dodgy Atlantic Bridge 'charity,' putting America and Israel's interests ahead of Britain's, and that's no way for the British defence secretary to act.