The EU I'm not sure, but nations in Europe did as for help rebuilding after the war.
oh yeah, 52 states? i cant believe i didnt notice that till now, kinda shows where you stand on the " knowledge of the United States" spectrum, but yet you still wanna throw "facts" dude, cmon. just admit that you are so overly blinded by your OPINIONS that you refuse to look at anything with slightest ounce of objectivity.
GET OFF THE DICK AND WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN GDP
GET OFF THE DICK AND WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN GDP
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-07-10 15:26:05)
Here's couple of facts regarding your great economy. Since 2000 election, usa's national debt has inreased over 1,1 trillion dollars and ALL of that money has come from foreign investors. This means that at the moment 54% of national fund is in foreign ownership. If your government keeps up same good work, you've soon sold your country to us.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.
Actually I had over 6 months old numbers. HERE'S fresh numbers.
To Gunslinger, if that continues, your GDP will be our problem..
To Gunslinger, if that continues, your GDP will be our problem..
Invest in your future.
LOL
LOL
For one thing our U.S. elected officials are what we mostly call " baby boomers " and the previous Generation.
They grew up during and immediately after WWII. People like Churchill, Stalin and Degualle [sp] were world leaders in their youth and it shaped their opinions of Europe and the Free world. When the next generation takes the reins, the ones who grew up talking and listening to you ( you wanted us to listen when you talked, right? ) it doesn't seem like you will have to worry about Americans getting involved in your affairs. Many Younger Americans didn't see the need for us to be involved even in the Tsunami.
Take North Korea for instance. We highly doubt they will try and bully the worlds strongest military. So when they do become a Nuclear power and Bush has long since left public service you will most likely be fielding their advances ( Peaceful or otherwise ) on your own. You seem confident that you are up to the task.
Other US citizens and I will do everything in our power to see to it the USA doesn't interfere with your intellectual gymnastics, forward progressive thinking and all around altruistic endeavors.
Personaly, I look foward to it as should you.
They grew up during and immediately after WWII. People like Churchill, Stalin and Degualle [sp] were world leaders in their youth and it shaped their opinions of Europe and the Free world. When the next generation takes the reins, the ones who grew up talking and listening to you ( you wanted us to listen when you talked, right? ) it doesn't seem like you will have to worry about Americans getting involved in your affairs. Many Younger Americans didn't see the need for us to be involved even in the Tsunami.
Take North Korea for instance. We highly doubt they will try and bully the worlds strongest military. So when they do become a Nuclear power and Bush has long since left public service you will most likely be fielding their advances ( Peaceful or otherwise ) on your own. You seem confident that you are up to the task.
Other US citizens and I will do everything in our power to see to it the USA doesn't interfere with your intellectual gymnastics, forward progressive thinking and all around altruistic endeavors.
Personaly, I look foward to it as should you.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-10 15:40:17)
So, killing people who don't want to fight is a strategy now?kr@cker wrote:
What with his "Shall we talk about the coalition attacking retreating forces" comment. Your lack of strategic insight is bound to be a liability.
sure, if you think soAlexanderthegrape wrote:
If we were as bad as Saddam we would have just gassed or nuked them instead of invading.
We're after their hearts and minds.
And we will win.
The voilence will never end.
nuke em like the japs
Two words B*ll Sh*tRicardoBlanco wrote:
Seeing as there's a lot of talk about Saddam's "WMD's" I just thought I should point out america's equally disturbing WMD program.
http://pumo.gnn.tv/articles/1431/Is_Ame … aqi_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
And after saying the following comments I'd be extremely surprised if Bush hadn't found any "WMD's" in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findl … .dean.wmd/
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.
Some what simplistic interpretation of the action. Ever here the term " Promote the Rout "
I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in any discussion in this forum, but I couldn't resist the opportunity...
"lighten up Frances"
I just seems so fitting! lol
"lighten up Frances"
I just seems so fitting! lol
If they're already running there's no need. And besides, if soldiers are getting killed even if they run, some of them might decide that they may as well stand and fight.Horseman 77 wrote:
Some what simplistic interpretation of the action. Ever here the term " Promote the Rout "
HA!Bubbalo wrote:
If they're already running there's no need. And besides, if soldiers are getting killed even if they run, some of them might decide that they may as well stand and fight.Horseman 77 wrote:
Some what simplistic interpretation of the action. Ever here the term " Promote the Rout "
bubbalo, this aint musket to musket combat.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the reference
Hey pekkaA hows the weather over there in fantasy land?PekkaA wrote:
Here's couple of facts regarding your great economy. Since 2000 election, usa's national debt has increased over 1,1 trillion dollars and ALL of that money has come from foreign investors. This means that at the moment 54% of national fund is in foreign ownership. If your government keeps up same good work, you've soon sold your country to us. wink
I'll tell you how it over here in reality .. kinda cloudy with a slight chance of rain
The American national debt is money America owes HERSELF they are loans taken from federal banks of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The rest of the world owes America billions and America doesn't owe any foreign nations shit!..
I love it when folks who don't have a fucking clue chime in.. Take an economics class and you'll find that the prime indicator of economic strength is GDP , per capita and total. America is strongest in BOTH and only getting stronger day by day. Keep believe the anti American bullshit you read about the US declining.. its the EXACT opposite were stronger than ever and only getting stronger.
America is also the LEAST dependant on foreign investments and import/export..
P.S. bubbalo is a jackass if EVER in combat you don't surrender you are in the fight. There is NOTHING dishonorable about shooting a fleeing soldier. But then Bubbalo is just a preteen on his mommy's computer looking to hate on America at every chance.
P.P.S. Bermuda is technically the highest per capita GDP but the only countries that outdo USA's per capita gdp are low popualtion countries.. they couldnt keep that up with 300 million people *see China*
Well at least the title is correct for the most part (not including grammar). How very incomplete the history is.
the only time an enemy is a non combatant is when they throw their weapon down and put their hands in the air. if they fight and flee with fire arms in hand, they are still valid targets. even if theyre running away. to think other wise is, im sorry, laughable and there is no debate whatsoever when it comes to that.
he's right about thiswhittsend wrote:
Prior to the ratification of our current constitution, the US operated under the Articles of Confederation. Under these articles, each 'state' was, in fact, its own 'state.' When the States ratified the Constitution of the United States, and adopted a Federalist system, a significant amount of sovereignty was lost to the Federal Government. The US Civil War was, essentially, about the sovereignty of the states. It involved an attempted seccession by several of the southern states. They lost, and those who advocated the superiority (in terms of authority) of the Federal government over the states won. Thus; the term 'state' in the US is a relic of history. Today, through many legal precedents and the precident of the Civil War, the several states, while retaining a small amount of sovereignty de jure, have none, de facto, with respect to disagreements with the Federal government.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
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. Look at how your country is made up and compare that to another country and to the European Union. I am convinced you will find the EU model a lot more similar.
To put it simply: US states are not sovereign. EU states are. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
wiki says it best check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
England has boroughs and districts, lots of them based on what were small towns close together that just grew huge and joinedGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
how do you sperate different areas of your country. is England one big area with no distinct bouandaries. England has only one mayor, one city government? I dont think you realize how insignificant state pride really is outside of the US. You arent a californian when you leave this country, you are American. I dont blame you for not understanding though, but look up the US Civil War and states rights. The issue of a State having any kind international sovereignty was handled 1861-65. The Government won. thats why we are a "Federal Republic"=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
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. Look at how your country is made up and compare that to another country and to the European Union. I am convinced you will find the EU model a lot more similar.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you got twisted perception of the United States if your gonna compare New Hampshire to Germany. Its kinda silly comparing states and nations.
link please. I'm interested. In fact, I suggest anyone who read that look it up for themselvesﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
The American national debt is money America owes HERSELF they are loans taken from federal banks of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The rest of the world owes America billions and America doesn't owe any foreign nations shit!..
America is also the LEAST dependant on foreign investments and import/export..
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-10 18:44:03)
I find it insulting anyway that today the United States is criticized for use of atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan. The cities were, in fact, of at least some military importance. How can you chastize the decision to kill civilians with such a destructive weapon. I'm sure if we could have, Truman would have required all houses, schools, women and children to be somehow "spared" from the destruction but that is just not possible. Yet let me pose one more question, HOW in the chocolate Christ did the British in their Lancaster bombers on night raids manage to miss the civilian population of Germany when accuracy from an aircraft was hard enough during the daytime?
What did people fight against in WWII? Do you remember history lessons?rootbeer73 wrote:
sure, if you think soAlexanderthegrape wrote:
If we were as bad as Saddam we would have just gassed or nuked them instead of invading.
We're after their hearts and minds.
And we will win.
The voilence will never end.
nuke em like the japs
but it wouldn't have been the same if USA had used conventional bombings, Japan would have surrendered maybe a few weeks later, probably with higher civilian losses, but without having dropped the 2 nukes. Nuclear weapons do stand alone, don't you agreeDesertFox423 wrote:
I find it insulting anyway that today the United States is criticized for use of atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan. The cities were, in fact, of at least some military importance. How can you chastize the decision to kill civilians with such a destructive weapon. I'm sure if we could have, Truman would have required all houses, schools, women and children to be somehow "spared" from the destruction but that is just not possible. Yet let me pose one more question, HOW in the chocolate Christ did the British in their Lancaster bombers on night raids manage to miss the civilian population of Germany when accuracy from an aircraft was hard enough during the daytime?
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-10 18:57:12)
if we were as bad as Saddam there would be no insurgency
No way Japan would have surrendered "a few weeks later". Japan wasn't going down without a fight since it was dishonorable for them to surrender. They needed to be sent a message that continuing the war would be far too costly. If the atomic option was not used, a costly invasion of Japan would have to take place, which would create a far higher amount of casualties than caused by those atomic weapons. The military already was already planning a course of action if the nukes weren't used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_DownfallSpumantiii wrote:
but it wouldn't have been the same if USA had used conventional bombings, Japan would have surrendered maybe a few weeks later, probably with higher civilian losses, but without having dropped the 2 nukes. Nuclear weapons do stand alone, don't you agree
I meant by air only, not ground forces, was there a plan for that? The B-29 was well capable of doing so I think, from long rangeDesertFox423 wrote:
No way Japan would have surrendered "a few weeks later". Japan wasn't going down without a fight since it was dishonorable for them to surrender. They needed to be sent a message that continuing the war would be far too costly. If the atomic option was not used, a costly invasion of Japan would have to take place, which would create a far higher amount of casualties than caused by those atomic weapons. The military already was already planning a course of action if the nukes weren't used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_DownfallSpumantiii wrote:
but it wouldn't have been the same if USA had used conventional bombings, Japan would have surrendered maybe a few weeks later, probably with higher civilian losses, but without having dropped the 2 nukes. Nuclear weapons do stand alone, don't you agree
my point is lots of conventional bombs = 1 nuclear bomb at the time 16 kilotons
16 million pounds of bomb
32000 500lb bombs
hmm that's too many bombs you're probably right
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-10 19:12:14)