Please, please go and ask an educated economist.Colfax wrote:
Ask any educated economist and they will tell you if the United States fails economically it will be the end of life as we know it.
Call me whatever you want. I don't care. The U.S. has saved so many countries its not even funny. Especially you cheeky fellows over there in the UK.
No.It.Wasn't.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Truth was spoken in his post.Colfax wrote:
Lets say theoretically the U.S. could remain self sustained for 100 years+ and we pulled all military to defense on our land and water borders and stepped back from the world community. Economies would fall, countries would be destroyed, and we would just smile and say see. You don't want us involved and look what happens.
Europeans would be speaking german if it was't for the United States (period) Like you had a handle on that (haha).
With out the U.S. the world as we know it would cease to exist. We are rich money hungry and supply half the economies in the world with their income by giving them our income. If we fall you fall and everyone falls.
Deal. With. It.
Geez, of course we have WMD's, we invented half of them. The problem is not when a country has WMD's to defend their interests in extreme situations, but when they are in the hands of a very limited, unstable group i.e. Iraq. If they had WMD's (and they probably did) the fact is Saddam would have to press the button, and that's it. On a whim, in his own country, against what everyone else was telling him, it didn't matter. He gassed and tortured his own people ffs. Once they have been invented, the fact is they're not going to go away. If you had a choice, would you ratehr give a loaded gun to a college grad or to a third-grade bully? The weapons must go to the most repsonsible countries, not because they won't miuse them, but because the chances are much, much lower. And to be perfectly honest, if we used WMD's in any other situation other than a WWIII-esque thing, there would probably be a mass riot and maybe storming of the capitol.
Edit: Oh yeah, Colfax stfu.
Edit: Oh yeah, Colfax stfu.
Last edited by Flaming_Maniac (2006-07-10 08:27:39)
I post this because I'm sick of all you ungracious pricks around the world. We are the world's big brother. Pick on our little brother or their friends and we'll beat you up. And every once and awhile we see some other kid getting beat up (and feel bad for them) and since we are bigger we help them out.
Then all you do is bitch about it. Well why don't you do something to help. Oh wait you can't.
Then all you do is bitch about it. Well why don't you do something to help. Oh wait you can't.
Last edited by Colfax (2006-07-10 08:30:11)
Seriously, how old are you Colfax?
Last edited by Flaming_Maniac (2006-07-10 08:33:22)
I don't necessarily agree with Colfax, BUT:
If you are going to dredge up the use by the US of nuclear weapons in WWII as an example of the 'evil US government' (tm) using weapons of mass destruction, then I think he has a legitimate point in talking about the good done by the US in saving Europe from the Nazis.
If you want to let the events of WWII go, then let them go; don't selectively grab some and say, 'these are relevant, but those aren't.'
If you are going to dredge up the use by the US of nuclear weapons in WWII as an example of the 'evil US government' (tm) using weapons of mass destruction, then I think he has a legitimate point in talking about the good done by the US in saving Europe from the Nazis.
If you want to let the events of WWII go, then let them go; don't selectively grab some and say, 'these are relevant, but those aren't.'
Ha ha ha, I love American teachings on these things. Although funny, it does disturb me that so many people in the US leave school believing this self-important tripe. A few things you might want to check with your teachers....Colfax wrote:
I laugh at you with pity... We should have stayed out of WWII and left germany to finish you off.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Oh God thats funny...spoken like a true nine year old! lmao..Colfax wrote:
Lets say theoretically the U.S. could remain self sustained for 100 years+ and we pulled all military to defense on our land and water borders and stepped back from the world community. Economies would fall, countries would be destroyed, and we would just smile and say see. You don't want us involved and look what happens.
Europeans would be speaking german if it was't for the United States (period) Like you had a handle on that (haha).
With out the U.S. the world as we know it would cease to exist. We are rich money hungry and supply half the economies in the world with their income by giving them our income. If we fall you fall and everyone falls.
Ask any educated economist and they will tell you if the United States fails economically it will be the end of life as we know it.
Call me whatever you want. I don't care. The U.S. has saved so many countries its not even funny. Especially you cheeky fellows over there in the UK.
1) History - How many Germans did the Russians kill vs the US? Russia have got a much, much, much bigger claim to winning the war than the US and all the literature I can find that asks the question on what would have happened if the US hadn't joined agrees that the war would have still been won by the allies but it would have been more drawn out with more deaths. Also, you obviosuly know nothing about Hitlers attempt and subsequent abandoning of inavasion of Britain (which all happened BEFORE the US were entered the war) so to say Ricardo would be speaking German without the US is bollocks on at least two counts..... However, what is certain is that without Britain you definitely wouldn't be speaking English (duh!!!!!)....
2) Economics - Agreed the US economy has the most impact because it is the biggest (kind of obvious really), but if the US economy were to fail, it would have no more effect than if say the EU's economy failed (seeing as they are roughly the same size) or if the no 2 and 3 economies both failed etc etc. Also, China and India look set to overtake the US within 20 years so you better get ready to stop using that line soon......
Sorry, can we get back on topic now? It should have been obvious to the OP that as soon as you post something that critisises the "perfect" US the age-old, Hollywood-informed tripe comes about how we'd be speaking German etc......
Back on the WMDs
You have a pretty limited view of history yourself. The Russian victory was guaranteed when a second front was opened in France by the Allies. Before then, it was sketchy. Also wondering, 'How many Japanese did the Russians kill vs. the US?' Probably would have sucked to be Russia if the US wasn't keeping those guys busy in the east, huh? The US had 10 million men in uniform during the war...I'm pretty sure they weren't sitting around with their thumbs up their collective asses saying, 'Look at those Russkies go!' You see, it's all inter-related. Saying the US did it all by itself isn't really true, but saying they weren't necessary to win the war is equally wrong.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Ha ha ha, I love American teachings on these things. Although funny, it does disturb me that so many people in the US leave school believing this self-important tripe. A few things you might want to check with your teachers....
1) History - How many Germans did the Russians kill vs the US? Russia have got a much, much, much bigger claim to winning the war than the US and all the literature I can find that asks the question on what would have happened if the US hadn't joined agrees that the war would have still been won by the allies but it would have been more drawn out with more deaths. Also, you obviosuly know nothing about Hitlers attempt and subsequent abandoning of inavasion of Britain (which all happened BEFORE the US were entered the war) so to say Ricardo would be speaking German without the US is bollocks on at least two counts..... However, what is certain is that without Britain you definitely wouldn't be speaking English (duh!!!!!)....
As far as the UK speaking German goes, I have two words: Lend Lease. How much of the UKs supply was coming from the US? Food, military, industrial goods, all coming straight from New York harbor LONG before the US entered the war. Where do you suppose those supplies might have come from without the US? Do you suspect Hitler would have been so quick to abandon plans for invasion of the UK if supplies were coming from Australia or Mexico instead of the US?
I know you want to dismiss what this guy says out of hand, but he has a valid point, even if he doesn't know the details. Again: If you want to let WWII go, then let it go. As it was dredged up in the initial post, the point has merit.
Your comments on Economics are valid.
Again, not WMD, and STILL doesn't support your statement:RicardoBlanco wrote:
Right, back onto WMD's..
http://www.shadvets.net/
You must have run out of Vietnamese people...
No response to my earlier post? I don't blame you, as the ignorance you are spreading can't stand the light of truth. The only thing you can do is spread as much BS as you can and hope those calling you on it get tired and go away.RicardoBlanco wrote:
So really, no matter what the american government say about Iraq's so called WMD's they've done exactly the same and about 100 times worse.
So Sarin and VX don't count now do they? If you used it on your own people and in larger quantities I'd say that was worse...
Last edited by RicardoBlanco (2006-07-10 08:57:24)
And how would Russia have fared had we not tied up Hitler's resources on the Western and Southern fronts?
I don't have the cold hard facts in front of me. I have been taught the cold hard facts. The fact that i can't recite exactly out of the book im sorry for. But this economic power. The EU you speak of. Thats 25 countries working together. You can't compare 25 countires economically together against the U.S. ONE country. I'm sure if we had 24 European countries in an USEU we'd be economically fine too. And india and china grow economically because they can't keep their tiny wieners in their pants.
We all depend on each other.
We all depend on each other.
Did you just look it up without reading it? Sarin and VX will KILL YOU in two minutes. These people are complaining about the carcinogenic decontaminating agents they were exposed to. If they had Sarin or VX used on them, they wouldn't be able to complain too much; they'd be dead. So....RicardoBlanco wrote:
So Sarin and VX don't count now do they? If you used it on your own people and in larger quantities I'd say that was worse...
STILL NOT WMD.
Keep googling though, maybe one day you will find something which justifies the ridiculous statement you made:
But I doubt it.RicardoBlanco wrote:
So really, no matter what the american government say about Iraq's so called WMD's they've done exactly the same and about 100 times worse.
"I still stand by what I said, the american government has some nasty shit it's fully prepared to use, all I'm asking is you think about that." If this statement is the point of your topic, then you should've made that clear in the first post. You wouldn't have received as many somewhat harsh posts. As for my thoughts toward it, I believe the United States is responsible enough. We don't murder groups of people for having different religious beliefs or cultural differences, or even kill those against a political belief. We kill those that do, and I'm glad. We'll piss off whoever the hell we want so long as we are fighting evil. If they can't be reasoned with or change their oppressive ways, then there is no other option. True progress isn't merely the improvement of technology, but the spread of righteousness. I'd rather kill 1 terrorist which saves the life of say 10 innocent people and have to go to hell for it because I murdered someone. If that is the way God works, then so be it. My suffering for another's happiness is worth it. We can only help so much at a given moment, but one area at a time is good enough for me. If sending disaster aid to some region or liberating a people "pisses off" your nation, I wouldn't care any less. Although, I do appologize from the few negative repercussions that war inevitably drags with it. I can say to you that at least we're trying hard. Sorry to stray from your statement, but if you're really worried about our arsenal and need assurance, you or your nation won't see one of our nukes unless your country as a whole attack us, or undeserving people around the planet. Lol, pretty funny and ridiculous stating the obvious there. Actually, even in that unlikely situation though, I doubt we'd resort to nuclear weapons. I can't help but laugh after reading the last part of this paragraph...but in all seriousness, that's what I think.
_________________________________
qft!!
Love this no - karma i can finally say my opinion with out people saying my opinion is wrong by -1 me
"Proud American" "Support our Troops" "Support our way of life....that would be a freedom"
_________________________________
qft!!
Love this no - karma i can finally say my opinion with out people saying my opinion is wrong by -1 me
"Proud American" "Support our Troops" "Support our way of life....that would be a freedom"
Last edited by Colfax (2006-07-10 09:22:01)
whoaaa hold on there "mate" dont forget about the millions of stones of chemical weapons jolly old england dumped on germany in ww1 ..RicardoBlanco wrote:
Lol, true, although being the only ones to use nuclear and chemical warfare on any kind of scale goes a long way to showing they can't be trusted.Bubbalo wrote:
The US stance, however, would be that they can be trusted. Not that I agree, but...........
also i dug your first link to a conspricy site .. those are allways good for a laugh
I'm a big boy now Colfax, but thanks for your concern, I'm sure I'll be able to handle the harsh posts..Colfax wrote:
"I still stand by what I said, the american government has some nasty shit it's fully prepared to use, all I'm asking is you think about that." If this statement is the point of your topic, then you should've made that clear in the first post. You wouldn't have received as many somewhat harsh posts. As for my thoughts toward it, I believe the United States is responsible enough. We don't murder groups of people for having different religious beliefs or cultural differences, or even kill those against a political belief. We kill those that do, and I'm glad. We'll piss off whoever the hell we want so long as we are fighting evil. If they can't be reasoned with or change their oppressive ways, then there is no other option. True progress isn't merely the improvement of technology, but the spread of righteousness. I'd rather kill 1 terrorist which saves the life of say 10 innocent people and have to go to hell for it because I murdered someone. If that is the way God works, then so be it. My suffering for another's happiness is worth it. We can only help so much at a given moment, but one area at a time is good enough for me. If sending disaster aid to some region or liberating a people "pisses off" your nation, I wouldn't care any less. Although, I do appologize from the few negative repercussions that war inevitably drags with it. I can say to you that at least we're trying hard. Sorry to stray from your statement, but if you're really worried about our arsenal and need assurance, you or your nation won't see one of our nukes unless your country as a whole attack us, or undeserving people around the planet. Lol, pretty funny and ridiculous stating the obvious there. Actually, even in that unlikely situation though, I doubt we'd resort to nuclear weapons. I can't help but laugh after reading the last part of this paragraph...but in all seriousness, that's what I think.
_________________________________
qft!!
I'm not going to say anything nasty to you or about you either because having read your posts in this thread I can't decide if you're mad, I'm just going to leave you well alone...
why does an Englishman seem more concerned with what the United States does as opposed to his own nation?
Actually, that one was from me if you read above. So I'll take the blame. If sanity is closing your eyes and hoping the world gets better, then I'm pretty damn "mad."RicardoBlanco wrote:
I'm a big boy now Colfax, but thanks for your concern, I'm sure I'll be able to handle the harsh posts..
I'm not going to say anything nasty to you or about you either because having read your posts in this thread I can't decide if you're mad, I'm just going to leave you well alone...
why look at your own mistakes when you can just go around judging everyone elseGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
why does an Englishman seem more concerned with what the United States does as opposed to his own nation?
Yeah quoted that wrong. I didn't want the quote he quoted to be lumped with the quote i was trying to get form his post. It was going to be to large of a post.
____________________________________
2nd
How old are you i don't know and don't care.
I'm old enough to die for my country thats all that matters...
____________________________________
2nd
I agree with what you say except for telling me to stfu.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Geez, of course we have WMD's, we invented half of them. The problem is not when a country has WMD's to defend their interests in extreme situations, but when they are in the hands of a very limited, unstable group i.e. Iraq. If they had WMD's (and they probably did) the fact is Saddam would have to press the button, and that's it. On a whim, in his own country, against what everyone else was telling him, it didn't matter. He gassed and tortured his own people ffs. Once they have been invented, the fact is they're not going to go away. If you had a choice, would you ratehr give a loaded gun to a college grad or to a third-grade bully? The weapons must go to the most repsonsible countries, not because they won't miuse them, but because the chances are much, much lower. And to be perfectly honest, if we used WMD's in any other situation other than a WWIII-esque thing, there would probably be a mass riot and maybe storming of the capitol.
Edit: Oh yeah, Colfax stfu.
How old are you i don't know and don't care.
I'm old enough to die for my country thats all that matters...
Last edited by Colfax (2006-07-10 10:47:23)
=OBS= EstebanRey:
Saw your other thread. Pity it was closed, but I couldn't help noticing it entirely sidestepped what I said before:
Saw your other thread. Pity it was closed, but I couldn't help noticing it entirely sidestepped what I said before:
You might have been doing very well during the Battle of Britain, but you were getting most of your supplies from the US, even then. I'm not particularly interested in dredging up what other countries 'owe' us from WWII, but please, don't tell me we never did anything for you either.whittsend wrote:
As far as the UK speaking German goes, I have two words: Lend Lease. How much of the UKs supply was coming from the US? Food, military, industrial goods, all coming straight from New York harbor LONG before the US entered the war. Where do you suppose those supplies might have come from without the US? Do you suspect Hitler would have been so quick to abandon plans for invasion of the UK if supplies were coming from Australia or Mexico instead of the US?
Ricardo:RicardoBlanco wrote:
I'm not going to say anything nasty to you or about you either because having read your posts in this thread I can't decide if you're mad, I'm just going to leave you well alone...
What I don't get is why people don't leave you alone. I guess I'm guilty of it too...I can't resist the bait as well. You've established yourself as a person who's opinion will never change.
With that being said, I want to encourage you to continue but please try the following:
1) How credible are your sources? If you cite something, be prepared to defend the source.
I do not believe a blog website or a report on a closed project from the 60s support your conclusion - the US has done something 100 times worse. True, we have dropped the a-bomb but the sources do not support your conclusion. In the infamous Hurricane Katrina post you said "Bush hates Black people" post you cited rapper's Kayne West statements as to support your argument...mmkay. (You need to see this - Mike Myers' uncomfortable stares are priceless).
A better way would have been to discuss past use and correlate this to current possible use. Then support why you think its possible. I've read up about the alternatives to the A-Bomb - invading Japan. The first airstrikes would have destroyed any transportation between the southern islands and the Japanese mainland - bridges, transports, etc. Basically the Japanese would have had millions starve. Then, there is the issue of US casualties with an enemy that sees surrender as dishonor. Right or wrong, the US military assessment after the island fighting was this was a war of attrition. I don't know the correct answer to the question on what to do there - either way is bad.
2) Keep on topic.
Yes, the old US won the war argument will appear. The truth is that without all three allies in WWII the outcome could have been different. Look up the Iran conference - Stalin wanted a second front or he was conemptating a peace treaty. The US saved your ass argument is in the past, and can support the current US position, but it really has no relevance.
However, in this thread you cited some weapons that are not WMDs. This would support arguments of "WMDs should include other weapons," or "Certain weapons shouldn't be used in wars" - different topic.
3) Be prepared to defend your facts
I'm not aware of US using gas in war time. If you are talking about Agent Orange - a chemical weapon. I'll give you that. The US army used too much Agent Orange during Vietnam. It sprayed more than the chemical manufactures said to. Basically, on this point - either someone decided more = better, or someone decided it could kill. I personally believe this was dumb - shouldn't have been done. But at the time, a chemical weapon is supposed to kill quickly. Cancer is not a fast kill. So I don't think it's use was meant as a chemical weapon.
4) Be prepared to have to be the Pot, Mr. Kettle.
The UK has done some things as well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of … ld_War_II. The UK has troops in Iraq as well, the President didn't send them. The UK has WMDs, etc etc etc.
5) Respect the debate
Although it's pretty much impossible to have everyone agree to this, "No.It.Isn't." and "Spoken like a true 8 year old" does not further your argument. Do not reflute the statement someone makes. (Unless the statement you are responding to an identical statement).
Anyway, keep 'em coming. I'm not sure if we are converting you or if you are converting us. Either way I hope we eventually get that ignore option on these forums...
the use of agent orange was as a defoilent, kill the jungle and you could see the enemy. not meant to be used on people. and if you wanna get technical. The UK strategy of night bombing germany during WW2 had no military significance. those night air raids were meant to kill civilians plain and simple. the US Army Air Corp did the daylight raids which proved to be pretty useless in the overall scheme of things, but the targets were factories and infrastructure. Man oh man, you could fill your life with constructive positive things or you could spend your day criticizing a country (which aint yours) and their history till the cows come home.
GET OFF THE DICK
or if you prefer
GET OFF OUR NUTS AND WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN GDP
GET OFF THE DICK
or if you prefer
GET OFF OUR NUTS AND WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN GDP
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-07-10 11:38:06)
How old are you seriously?Colfax wrote:
I don't have the cold hard facts in front of me. I have been taught the cold hard facts. The fact that i can't recite exactly out of the book im sorry for. But this economic power. The EU you speak of. Thats 25 countries working together. You can't compare 25 countires economically together against the U.S. ONE country. I'm sure if we had 24 European countries in an USEU we'd be economically fine too. And india and china grow economically because they can't keep their tiny wieners in their pants.
We all depend on each other.
EU = 25 Member states with an economic interest with each other.
US = 52 States with an economic interest in each other.
What's the difference? THe word "state" is a synomym of country, hence Israel is a country but is called "the State of Israel". The United States could just as easily be "the United Countries" hence why each state has the power to make its own laws etc.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-07-10 11:37:51)