[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I read some of your facts....they were incorrect.LJS9502_basic

Yes because I dsiproved them myself when I found a pretty good site with actual statistics about the lend lease aid to Russia. I am not afraid to admit I was wrong (I changed my position, if you read that post).

I never said that anyone's answers were based upon bias.I don't really understand what you mean when you say that I was assuming the reasoning... If you wanted to end the debate to disprove the facts that I was stating, you could have. Instead, I had to find actual data before which we had wasted like half an hour debating what could have easily been proven or disproven.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Isn't that what you've been doing to people who think America won the war?

LJS9502_basic

No. I use counter-arguements based on the facts as I know them, not pulling the "you are biased against/towards *insert country*"

Yes because I dsiproved them myself when I found a pretty good site with actual statistics about the lend lease aid to Russia. I am not afraid to admit I was wrong (I changed my position, if you read that post).

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

The US didn't win WW2 on their own, but denying that they had a huge role is just anti-American bias.

ROFLCOPTER603

No, it's not. It is just opinion based on a person's interpretation of history. I hate it when people use this kind of excuse to dismiss opposing viewpoints.

That being said, I have altered my position. I do not belive that the war could have been won without the US, definitely not in the Pacific and probably not in Europe, due to the vast supplies that the US gave as well as the additional manpower with which to open a second front.

I wasn't talking to you in particular, sorry if it seemed that way.But someother people have to be biased or uneducated (probably both) when they say that the war was already on the Allies favor when America came in. Britain was hosed and in a few years there wouldn't be any Russians to fight in the East, Stalin would see to that.

I know that. I just thought you were trying to invalidate everyone else's arguements by accusing them of bias.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

No, it's not. It is just opinion based on a person's interpretation of history. I hate it when people use this kind of excuse to dismiss opposing viewpoints.

Silverbond

Isn't that what you've been doing to people who think America won the war?

No. I use counter-arguements based on the facts as I know them, not pulling the "you are biased against/towards *insert country*"

The US didn't win WW2 on their own, but denying that they had a huge role is just anti-American bias.

ROFLCOPTER603

No, it's not. It is just opinion based on a person's interpretation of history. I hate it when people use this kind of excuse to dismiss opposing viewpoints.

That being said, I have altered my position. I do not belive that the war could have been won without the US, definitely not in the Pacific and probably not in Europe, due to the vast supplies that the US gave as well as the additional manpower with which to open a second front.

Meh kinda hard to root for them in my opinion seeing as the bombers were going to bomb civilian targets...

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Anytime I hear someone suggest that humans (on their own) built monolithic structures involving perfectly-cut granite/diorite blocks weighing over 1,000 tons 5,000+ years ago. I think that requires a total lack of deductive reasoning.

hartsickdiscipl

here's a guy standing up a 19,000 pound block by himself.

now multiply that by thousands of slaves and enormous guys standing behind them with whips.

it kills me that people believe you need aliens to do simple engineering tasks.

the roman aqueducts and plumbing feats were far more impressive than moving stone blocks, are those alien too?

seriously, ancient alien lore is like religion for people that like star trek and watch documentaries every once in awhile.

So, let me get this straight.. A guy with a modern understanding of mathematics and mechanics puts a 19,000 pound stone block on it's end, and you think you've debunked an entire theory? Ridiculous.

19,000lbs =/= 2,400,000 lbs. There are stones at the temple of Baalbek that are heavier than that, and those aren't even the heaviest or most precisely crafted ones that we find in monolithic structures worldwide.

People who support your side of the issue always want evidence.. "where's the evidence that aliens were here?" "Where's the evidence of the technology that they used?" etc.. etc.. Where's your evidence that people living on this planet over 10,000 years ago (dated foundation of Baalbek) had the mathematical and/or mechanical know-how to even begin doing something like this? The structures themselves aren't evidence, since we don't have any indications from that part of the world that any human civilization of the era was even approaching the level of math and planning that would be required for such feats. Heck, we don't have any indications of any "civilizations" in that era at all, do we?

Did you notice the type of simple machines that the guy in the video you posted was using to lift a single stone of just 19,000lbs? You can't just say "See, one guy could do that.. now imagine what thousands could do!" It doesn't work that way. Where is the machinery utilized by those thousands of slaves? Where is the evidence that you can even fit enough people around a block of stone that size and weight to move it? Are you suggesting that somehow the inhabitants of many parts of the world had developed some massive-scale models of what this guy was using? Where's the evidence of that? I can tell you what ancient people did write about. They often wrote about Gods from the skies coming down and directing/assisting in massive construction projects.

Do you see my problem with the line of thinking that you and most others pursue here? It just doesn't work in terms of engineering. You can't just multiply what one person could do times a thousand or five thousand. Never mind the fact that monolithic structures are just one piece of the Ancient Astronaut theory.

You could say that anything is true if the only reason for believeing that it is true is that here is no eividence against it. I (and most logical people) beleive that it is far more likely that the ancients had advanced engineering technology than that aleins gave it to them... There is more I could say but two sentences are really all that is needed to debunk your theory.

Long hair. It's much more feminin.Not being offensive or anything- but I usually won't even consider one with a really short haircut- just a preference that I can't get over.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]

Wow. 82 of you think so huh?

So who was going to stop Japan from taking over the entire Pacific and China? Russia? Nope. Too busy fending off Germany. What about England? They were getting bombed left and right and an invasion could have happened at some point. What about Italy and Germany taking over all of Africa? Without the U.S., there is no freeing of Africa, no invasion to oust Mussolini, no D-Day to put pressure on Germany, no freeing the Brits or French, and no checking and pushing back Japan. Yes. We did ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL that. I just don't see the British being powerful enought to perform a successful D-Day invasion and push the Germans back to Berlin. The Russians were too busy killing millions of their own people and soldiers to fight the Japanese AND the Germans. There WAS no one else. We saved the day, just like we helped in World War I. That's why we became the power and have the nukes and are not to be messed with.

Bloodseeker23

This is exactly the typical Americanattitude that I was talking about at the begining of the thread. The US was certainly one of the largest players, but we hardly won the war all by ourselves. As for WW1, we were not considered a great power in that period and we came in way too late in the war to make a significant difference.

He was talking about world war 1. And no, Americans cannot have that attitude because we were not the only country fighting. Hence the term world war. Not to mention that it fosters the "arrogant american" stereotype.

Wow. 82 of you think so huh?

So who was going to stop Japan from taking over the entire Pacific and China? Russia? Nope. Too busy fending off Germany. What about England? They were getting bombed left and right and an invasion could have happened at some point. What about Italy and Germany taking over all of Africa? Without the U.S., there is no freeing of Africa, no invasion to oust Mussolini, no D-Day to put pressure on Germany, no freeing the Brits or French, and no checking and pushing back Japan. Yes. We did ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL that. I just don't see the British being powerful enought to perform a successful D-Day invasion and push the Germans back to Berlin. The Russians were too busy killing millions of their own people and soldiers to fight the Japanese AND the Germans. There WAS no one else. We saved the day, just like we helped in World War I. That's why we became the power and have the nukes and are not to be messed with.

Sunfyre7896

This is exactly the typical Americanattitude that I was talking about at the begining of the thread. The US was certainly one of the largest players, but we hardly won the war all by ourselves. As for WW1, we were not considered a great power in that period and we came in way too late in the war to make a significant difference.