Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0400

daestrom wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:cCdUc.7957$ZI1.361860@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> daestrom wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:bofTc.27270$a65.1160570@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry. I tell it like it is. America the incompetent, and
>>>> anti-social.
>>>
>>> Anti-social, perhaps. Incompetent, that's a bit of an exageration
>>> since we 'incompetent' Americans have accomplished quite a few
>>> things in every decade since the 1800's. Just as European's have
>>> (when they weren't fighting and killing each other).
>>
>> Did I mention arrogant and blowhard? Sorry. Slipped my mind.
>>
>>>
>>> The
>>>> only thing they are good at these days is warfare and even there
>>>> only when they can run it by pushbutton.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.. Europe didn't seem to mind it when we fought it the
>>> 'old-fashioned' way in helping liberate a few countries over there.
>>
>> Very late and with your industries outside of the battlefield the
>> untouched production capacity of the U.S. helped turn the tide by
>> bombing from high altitude ( there is that fear of actual warfare
>> again) after the British had pretty much decimated the German air
>> supremacy. The invasion, of course, was the real effort which took
>> the 'fresh troops' of the U.S. finally allowed to do some real work,
>> (war is won by the troops 'on the ground' a truism).
>>
>> But the war had already been effectively won by England and the
>> Commonwealth countries, by keeping the victory from Hitler during
>> 1939 to 1942.
>
> True, England and the Channel held Hitler at bay in the battle of
> Britain. But 'effectively won' is baloney. If the invasion in Europe
> was delayed by 6 - 9 months, the German jet fighter, V2 rocket and
> their own atomic bomb research would have been the outcome. Holding
> the third Reich at bay did not 'effectively' win anything but some
> time.

That is the point, dimwit. Winning a war is basically a series of stalling
tactics until you get ahead of the game. In this case by Japan kicking the
U.S. in the head and getting them involved. However, the outcome of the war
without the U.S. was probably a 'pyrhic victory' with both Germany and
Britain exhausted by the time they finish. On the other hand, they would
then have decades to work on developing the war materials to finish off the
U..S. the 'war' would be finished when Hitler ruled the world. And without
Britain stopping him for the required period of time, that would probably
have happened.

>
>> If they
>> hadn't, the U.S. would probably be talking German now because they
>> would have been fighting the whole of the Eurasian continent without
>> a foothold to launch a retaliation from. In other words, the water
>> barrier that kept them from being involved in 'europes war' would
>> then have been a barrier to defense when Germany or Japan got the
>> nuclear bomb working. Remember that the Manhattan project did not
>> start until Ameirca had joined the war and they would have been just
>> one more victim if Europe had not held Hitler off long enough for
>> Japan to kick your butts into some sort of belated action. Got to
>> admit that after a long time sitting on the sidelines, the fresh
>> troops looked good in relation to the battle weary Europeans. And
>> that is NOT a compliment.
>>
>
> Actually, the first US engagements in north africa were abysmal. But
> if the US hadn't entered the war when it did, how much longer do you
> think Great Britain would have been able to hold out?

Indefinitely, being resupplied by the Commonwealth. Germany had shown that
they could not deliver a crippling blow. The actual deaths and damages from
the 'blanket bombing' was less than you might think. More 'sound and fury'
than effective. And England had won the 'Battle of Britain' so Hitler would
have had to give up the idea of a blitzkrieg from the skies to cover a
foothold. So the question is really how long it would take England to build
up an invasion force and whether German scientists got the A-bomb working
before then.

> Even before
> officially entering the war, UK was receiving massive shipments of
> food and supplies from US (US merchant marine lost more lives than
> the US navy to Hitler's wolf-packs).

The U.S. shipped nothing to the U.K during the Battle of Brittain. In fact,
what supplies they did contribute (mostly driven by the executive against
the power of the congress) prior to Pearl Harbor had to be dragged over the
Canadian Border with ropes to get around the restrictions.

>
> As for the 'water barrier', Hitler recognized one of Europe's
> weaknesses is Africa to the south. Any number of points on the
> southern shore of the Mediteranian could serve as a staging area for
> an invasion. Unfortunately, he could not hold the north African
> shores.

Mainly because of the stiff resistance from England. Once that was done, he
would have rolled over Africa.

>
>> The other scenario that I can think of is a victorious German Eurasia
>> attacking from the East while the victorious Japanese attack from
>> the West to 'split the loot'.
>>
>> But keep bragging. It makes it easy to show you up.
>>
>> The problem is really not yours. The problem is the separate
>> public/private school systesm that teach the peasants to be
>> manipulatable 'useful idiot' filled with slogans and empty of
>> thought, while the private schools teach their members to be
>> 'natural supermen' ala racial or individual superiority. A training
>> that the sons and daughters of the elite need to keep them from
>> remembering just how incompetent they really are.
>>
>> And the issue was not the America of 1942 but of the America of
>> 2003. They are VERY different animals. Much more in common with
>> Hitlers fascism than Europe and the Allies.

http://www.threeworldwars.com/overview.htm