What's the BEST thing your country has ever done.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"]Wow the attitude to ww2 displayed in this thread is insane!DivergeUnify

It's actually quite common among right wing Americans on these boards...the old-schoolers is more subtle about it though.

Of course the U.S did alot, but saying they saved Europe sounds a bit arrogant. All the allies helped during WW2 and I don't think any country should be singled out since it was a joint effort.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"]Wow the attitude to ww2 displayed in this thread is insane!DivergeUnify

It's actually quite common among right wing Americans on these boards...the old-schoolers is more subtle about it though.

Yes, we would. It's not as if the Nazi war machine would have been able to handle a war on two fronts, dealing with the French, Dutch and Yugoslav resistances and then at the same time invade Britain.

But yes, the US did help significantly in defeating Nazi Germany.

wow i cant believe some americans think that the us "won" WW2 and WW1

they were two year late on both and could not have won on their own

Ireland= Birthplace of Dracula:PShamrockRovers

Plus its a beautiful country with its own interesting language. Though Irish isnt as widely spoken as Welsh it still sounds really cool to me. I know a band that released a whole album in Welsh.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"]Wow the attitude to ww2 displayed in this thread is insane!Film-Guy

It's actually quite common among right wing Americans on these boards...the old-schoolers is more subtle about it though.

Of course the U.S did alot, but saying they saved Europe sounds a bit arrogant. All the allies helped during WW2 and I don't think any country should be singled out since it was a joint effort.

Does it matter, The allies won and hitler was defeated:|

wow i cant believe some americans think that the us "won" WW2 and WW1

they were two year late on both and could not have won on their own

ziggy87

America was 3 years late in WW1, but I agree all the allies needed each other to win and not one nation could do it alone

wow i cant believe some americans think that the us "won" WW2 and WW1

they were two year late on both and could not have won on their own

ziggy87

Plus the U.S didnt do as much in WW1 as they did in WW2. Canada did alot during WW1 and they don't get tons of credit.

For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .sonicare

The U.S did do alot in the Pacific, that cannot be denied. Though the Pacific part of WW2 isnt mentioned as much for some reason.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .Film-Guy

The U.S did do alot in the Pacific, that cannot be denied. Though the Pacific part of WW2 isnt mentioned as much for some reason.

Mainly because it did not take place in the center of the universe -> Europe.

For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .sonicare

The "we saved Europe's arse in WW2" line does not apply to the pacific campaign however.

[QUOTE="ziggy87"]

wow i cant believe some americans think that the us "won" WW2 and WW1

they were two year late on both and could not have won on their own

Film-Guy

Plus the U.S didnt do as much in WW1 as they did in WW2. Canada did alot during WW1 and they don't get tons of credit.

Canada fought under the UK in WW1, that's probably why they don't get much credit.

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"]Wow the attitude to ww2 displayed in this thread is insane!ShamrockRovers

It's actually quite common among right wing Americans on these boards...the old-schoolers is more subtle about it though.

Of course the U.S did alot, but saying they saved Europe sounds a bit arrogant. All the allies helped during WW2 and I don't think any country should be singled out since it was a joint effort.

Does it matter, The allies won and hitler was defeated:|

It really doesnt matter now, I'm just talking about how some people say the U.S saved Europe which to me anyway sounds arrogant.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"]Wow the attitude to ww2 displayed in this thread is insane!Film-Guy

It's actually quite common among right wing Americans on these boards...the old-schoolers is more subtle about it though.

Of course the U.S did alot, but saying they saved Europe sounds a bit arrogant. All the allies helped during WW2 and I don't think any country should be singled out since it was a joint effort.

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .sonicare

The U.S did do alot in the Pacific, that cannot be denied. Though the Pacific part of WW2 isnt mentioned as much for some reason.

Mainly because it did not take place in the center of the universe -> Europe.

Don't forget New Zealand's part in the Pacific campaign:)...ok you can if you want:(

Won the rugby world cup in 1987 and never again... lol

That or splitting the atom, although it's debated who actually did it first.

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"][QUOTE="ziggy87"]

wow i cant believe some americans think that the us "won" WW2 and WW1

they were two year late on both and could not have won on their own

sonicare

Plus the U.S didnt do as much in WW1 as they did in WW2. Canada did alot during WW1 and they don't get tons of credit.

Canada fought under the UK in WW1, that's probably why they don't get much credit.

WW1 in general is kinda overlooked compared to WW2. I find WW1 very interesting since it was the first time so much new technology was used in one war. Also Naval and air warfare was big in WW1 too.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .jointed

The "we saved Europe's arse in WW2" line does not apply to the pacific campaign however.

The US was instrumental in winning the war in the ETO as well as monumental in the PTO. Britain was supplied by the US well before the US officially entered the war. The UK could not have stormed fortress europe without the US support. The US was instrumental in liberating France, Holland, etc. during the war. All of those could be considered "saving your arse". While I firmly believe that Germany could never have invaded the UK, the rest of Europe was under their domination.

Allied bomber command - both the UK and US - played a huge role in destroying Germany's industrial base, denying them access to key strategic resources, and thus weakening them on both the western and eastern fronts. While Hitler's faulty decision to invade Russia may have eventually cost Russia the war, without US intervention, WW 2 would have dragged on for quite longer and led to more destruction of that region of the world.

The US also played a significant role in the reconstruction of Europe following WW2. Partly aimed at preventing Soviet domination of europe, but nonetheless another incidence of "saving".

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Film-Guy"][QUOTE="ziggy87"]

wow i cant believe some americans think that the us "won" WW2 and WW1

they were two year late on both and could not have won on their own

Film-Guy

Plus the U.S didnt do as much in WW1 as they did in WW2. Canada did alot during WW1 and they don't get tons of credit.

Canada fought under the UK in WW1, that's probably why they don't get much credit.

WW1 in general is kinda overlooked compared to WW2. I find WW1 very interesting since it was the first time so much new technology was used in one war. Also Naval and air warfare was big in WW1 too.

It was a pointless war though

[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .sonicare

The "we saved Europe's arse in WW2" line does not apply to the pacific campaign however.

The US was instrumental in winning the war in the ETO as well as monumental in the PTO. Britain was supplied by the US well before the US officially entered the war. The UK could not have stormed fortress europe without the US support. The US was instrumental in liberating France, Holland, etc. during the war. All of those could be considered "saving your arse". While I firmly believe that Germany could never have invaded the UK, the rest of Europe was under their domination.

Allied bomber command - both the UK and US - played a huge role in destroying Germany's industrial base, denying them access to key strategic resources, and thus weakening them on both the western and eastern fronts. While Hitler's faulty decision to invade Russia may have eventually cost Russia the war, without US intervention, WW 2 would have dragged on for quite longer and led to more destruction of that region of the world.

The US also played a significant role in the reconstruction of Europe following WW2. Partly aimed at preventing Soviet domination of europe, but nonetheless another incidence of "saving".

Yes but since they couldn't do it alone and other nations helped I can say this

The ALLIES saved Europe's arse

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .alexmurray

The "we saved Europe's arse in WW2" line does not apply to the pacific campaign however.

The US was instrumental in winning the war in the ETO as well as monumental in the PTO. Britain was supplied by the US well before the US officially entered the war. The UK could not have stormed fortress europe without the US support. The US was instrumental in liberating France, Holland, etc. during the war. All of those could be considered "saving your arse". While I firmly believe that Germany could never have invaded the UK, the rest of Europe was under their domination.

Allied bomber command - both the UK and US - played a huge role in destroying Germany's industrial base, denying them access to key strategic resources, and thus weakening them on both the western and eastern fronts. While Hitler's faulty decision to invade Russia may have eventually cost Russia the war, without US intervention, WW 2 would have dragged on for quite longer and led to more destruction of that region of the world.

The US also played a significant role in the reconstruction of Europe following WW2. Partly aimed at preventing Soviet domination of europe, but nonetheless another incidence of "saving".

Yes but since they couldn't do it alone and other nations helped I can say this

The ALLIES saved Europe's arse

That's true as well.

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Film-Guy"][QUOTE="ziggy87"]

wow i cant believe some americans think that the us "won" WW2 and WW1

they were two year late on both and could not have won on their own

ShamrockRovers

Plus the U.S didnt do as much in WW1 as they did in WW2. Canada did alot during WW1 and they don't get tons of credit.

Canada fought under the UK in WW1, that's probably why they don't get much credit.

WW1 in general is kinda overlooked compared to WW2. I find WW1 very interesting since it was the first time so much new technology was used in one war. Also Naval and air warfare was big in WW1 too.

It was a pointless war though

yes its was too many alliances

Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?helium_flash

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?ShamrockRovers

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

I blame these men for the treaty

[QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?alexmurray

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

I blame these men for the treaty

Well it doesn't look like its gonna happen now.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .sonicare

The "we saved Europe's arse in WW2" line does not apply to the pacific campaign however.

The US was instrumental in winning the war in the ETO as well as monumental in the PTO. Britain was supplied by the US well before the US officially entered the war. The UK could not have stormed fortress europe without the US support. The US was instrumental in liberating France, Holland, etc. during the war. All of those could be considered "saving your arse". While I firmly believe that Germany could never have invaded the UK, the rest of Europe was under their domination.

Allied bomber command - both the UK and US - played a huge role in destroying Germany's industrial base, denying them access to key strategic resources, and thus weakening them on both the western and eastern fronts. While Hitler's faulty decision to invade Russia may have eventually cost Russia the war, without US intervention, WW 2 would have dragged on for quite longer and led to more destruction of that region of the world.

The US also played a significant role in the reconstruction of Europe following WW2. Partly aimed at preventing Soviet domination of europe, but nonetheless another incidence of "saving".

I fail to see what this has to do with my comment....but oh well.

The yanks didn't "save our arses", they helped us....there's a difference. We had been fighting against the Germans night-and-day for almost 2 years before the US entered the war. We were also spearheading the African campaign, and eventually won it almost single handedly. Just look at Operation Market-Garden, the invasion of Sicily...etc. British troops were fighting everywhere.

Saying that the US saved our arses in WW2 is about the same as saying that France saved your arses in the revolutionary war, and therefore is responsible for the creation of your nation.

The US didn't save us from anything...they did however help us, which we're grateful for.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?ShamrockRovers

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

i'd say the best thing that ireland ever did was our countless playrights and poets, oscar wilde, james joyce, w.b yeats ect.

[QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?alexmurray

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

I blame these men for the treaty

[QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?Arcade-Fire

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

but i'd say the best thing that ireland ever did was our countless playrights and poets, oscar wilde, james joyce, w.b yeats ect.

Every member state has to agree with the treaty for it to be ratified, So it cant be put into law if Ireland says no

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?ShamrockRovers

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

[QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?helium_flash

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?jointed

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

You wanted Ireland to vote yes.??

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?ShamrockRovers

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

You wanted Ireland to vote yes.??

I'd rather they didn't vote for it to begin with.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?jointed

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

[QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?jointed

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

You wanted Ireland to vote yes.??

I'd rather they didn't vote for it to begin with.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?Arcade-Fire

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

How? It would give the national parliaments a more significant role.

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

[QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?Arcade-Fire

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

I blame these men for the treaty

He didn't allow the British public to vote on it because he knew that they would say no

[QUOTE="Arcade-Fire"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?jointed

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

How? It would give the national parliaments a more significant role.

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

[QUOTE="Arcade-Fire"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?ShamrockRovers

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

but i'd say the best thing that ireland ever did was our countless playrights and poets, oscar wilde, james joyce, w.b yeats ect.

Every member state has to agree with the treaty for it to be ratified, So it cant be put into law if Ireland says no

no there they are deciding what to do, it looks like the EU is moving on with it and leaving nations that said no behind

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .jointed

The "we saved Europe's arse in WW2" line does not apply to the pacific campaign however.

The US was instrumental in winning the war in the ETO as well as monumental in the PTO. Britain was supplied by the US well before the US officially entered the war. The UK could not have stormed fortress europe without the US support. The US was instrumental in liberating France, Holland, etc. during the war. All of those could be considered "saving your arse". While I firmly believe that Germany could never have invaded the UK, the rest of Europe was under their domination.

Allied bomber command - both the UK and US - played a huge role in destroying Germany's industrial base, denying them access to key strategic resources, and thus weakening them on both the western and eastern fronts. While Hitler's faulty decision to invade Russia may have eventually cost Russia the war, without US intervention, WW 2 would have dragged on for quite longer and led to more destruction of that region of the world.

The US also played a significant role in the reconstruction of Europe following WW2. Partly aimed at preventing Soviet domination of europe, but nonetheless another incidence of "saving".

I fail to see what this has to do with my comment....but oh well.

The yanks didn't "save our arses", they helped us....there's a difference. We had been fighting against the Germans night-and-day for almost 2 years before the US entered the war. We were also spearheading the African campaign, and eventually won it almost single handedly. Just look at Operation Market-Garden, the invasion of Sicily...etc. British troops were fighting everywhere.

Saying that the US saved our arses in WW2 is about the same as saying that France saved your arses in the revolutionary war, and therefore is responsible for the creation of your nation.

The US didn't save us from anything...they did however help us, which we're grateful for.

The French did save the US.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Arcade-Fire"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?Arcade-Fire

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

How? It would give the national parliaments a more significant role.

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

Your comment proves that you have no idea what you're critizing. A common trait amongst Euro-sceptics.

He didn't allow the British public to vote on it because he knew that they would say no

alexmurray

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]For all of you upset europeans, you do realize that WW2 also occurred in the pacific. The war didn't just take place in europe. . . . .hence the term "World" war. Talk about arrogance . . . .sonicare

The "we saved Europe's arse in WW2" line does not apply to the pacific campaign however.

The US was instrumental in winning the war in the ETO as well as monumental in the PTO. Britain was supplied by the US well before the US officially entered the war. The UK could not have stormed fortress europe without the US support. The US was instrumental in liberating France, Holland, etc. during the war. All of those could be considered "saving your arse". While I firmly believe that Germany could never have invaded the UK, the rest of Europe was under their domination.

Allied bomber command - both the UK and US - played a huge role in destroying Germany's industrial base, denying them access to key strategic resources, and thus weakening them on both the western and eastern fronts. While Hitler's faulty decision to invade Russia may have eventually cost Russia the war, without US intervention, WW 2 would have dragged on for quite longer and led to more destruction of that region of the world.

The US also played a significant role in the reconstruction of Europe following WW2. Partly aimed at preventing Soviet domination of europe, but nonetheless another incidence of "saving".

I fail to see what this has to do with my comment....but oh well.

The yanks didn't "save our arses", they helped us....there's a difference. We had been fighting against the Germans night-and-day for almost 2 years before the US entered the war. We were also spearheading the African campaign, and eventually won it almost single handedly. Just look at Operation Market-Garden, the invasion of Sicily...etc. British troops were fighting everywhere.

Saying that the US saved our arses in WW2 is about the same as saying that France saved your arses in the revolutionary war, and therefore is responsible for the creation of your nation.

The US didn't save us from anything...they did however help us, which we're grateful for.

The French did save the US.

The French helped the US...it was the Americans who had to fight and die to gain independence. Grante, the French sent a few battalions, but I wouldn't call that "saved".

[QUOTE="Arcade-Fire"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Arcade-Fire"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?jointed

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

How? It would give the national parliaments a more significant role.

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

Your comment proves that you have no idea what you're critizing. A common trait amongst Euro-sceptics.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Arcade-Fire"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Arcade-Fire"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="ShamrockRovers"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]Can someone explain why it was a good thing that Ireland voted against the Lisbon treaty? How would it have made the world worse?Arcade-Fire

It would of been a step closer to making Europe a super-state.

It's going to change the EU's governmental structure (making the parliament much more relevant, adding a High-representative post...sort of like a foreign minister, changing the defense policy...etc.)

I just hope Ireland gets it's act together soon.

How? It would give the national parliaments a more significant role.

Your comment proves that you have no idea what you're critizing. A common trait amongst Euro-sceptics.

1. First step to a united EU army.

2. The EU parliament, National parliaments and other democratic institutions become more relevant

3. The EU central bank becomes an official institution.

I have more than 3 reasons though.