Pages: 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 18

Topic closed

2005-12-17 17:07:12
Sarum
The Angry Geek
+11|7118

FeloniousMonk wrote:

shingara wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:


Most certainly not. They continued to be a monarchy long after 1776. The whole point of the American Revolution was to get away from that form of government.
hmm, long after u say, WE STILL HAVE ONE.

and the government goes back way longer than that, and definetlky longer back than when u lot went trundling off to the new land. and are u forgeting about france who is younger than ours but way much older than yours. dont forget the fact that it wasnt and isnt just english that went there, but half the world is in america when it comes to races. and u had the help of france, spit
Uh, you're not run by a monarchy. The Crown does not make state decisions like it did back in the days of the American Revolution. Britain is not under the same form of government it was then.
No form of government is 100% static. And the Monarchy still technically has the power to make decisions and hand out royal decrees,  they can even dissolve parliament if they want. They just don't.

Parliament as a elected house has been around a long time in the UK. Exactly when it adopted it's modern form is debatable, but it became an elected body probably somewhere around the 13 or 14 hundreds. It was certainly already well established as a governing body in the early 1600's, because when King Charles I engaged in a power struggle with it, attempting to take more power for the monarch, the result was the English Civil War, between Royalists and Parliamentarians.

The result was a short-lived Republic, which kinda dissolved into a military dictatorship, so we decided we liked the monarchy better and re-instated a King. They've never had absolute power since then, although the exact balance of power between the various bits of government has shifted back and forth to a certain extent.
2005-12-17 17:09:12
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|7006
Good point.
2005-12-17 20:34:19
chitlin
Banned
+36|7034
constitutional monarchy
n.

A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation.

The hereditary monarch, who must belong to the Church of England according to the Act of Settlement of 1701, is almost entirely limited to exercising ceremonial functions.

After the Second Reform Act of 1867, and the growth of the two-party (Liberal and Conservative) system, the Queen's room for manoeuvre decreased. Her freedom to choose which individual should occupy the premiership was increasingly restricted.

There is no specific defined date when the UK became labeled a Constitutional Monarcy, however it is generally accepted that when the two party system was enabled that it was the official end of the last control the Monarchy had. The crown need not assent to all legislation, but assent has not been withheld since 1707. I suspect that if someone in the Royal family actually tried to block a legislation it would be defeated quickly, but it doesnt matter becuase they dont have the power to enact legistlation and they are strictly a ceremonial nature.

The parliment has had power for hundreds of years before 1867 but never a controlling power till then ..so the in this context the United Kingdom's government has been in place since 1867 almost a hundred years after Americas.
2005-12-19 06:26:14
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7112|Cologne, Germany

Sarum wrote:

Nothing like a good bit of USA bashing to get everyone’s blood pressure up, eh?

I think maybe our first question really ought to be how we're defining "greatest". Started the most wars? Started the wars that resulting in the most deaths? Won the most wars? Something else entirely? Because the answer might well depend on the question you’re asking.

There can be little doubt the WWI and WWII were the biggest wars the world has seen, and Germany has the dubious honour of being the aggressor in both of them, so I suppose that gives them a fairly solid claim to being the "greatest" aggressor.

Having said that, the US has been involved in a lot more wars, especially post WWII. Much smaller in scale, yes, but they've hardly been out of conflict since 1914. It'd take quite a bit of stats digging to actually say for certain whether all the wars the US has fought in adds up to more casualties than the two World Wars.

The quiet and reserved British Isles aren’t doing too badly for themselves in these stakes either. In a similar way to the US, the UK has fought a large number of wars and small scale conflicts almost continuously since the turn of the century. (Take a look a the Wikipedia timelines of American Military History and British Military History There’s a whole lot of wars and conflicts most people have never heard of.)

And lets not forget Africa (because far too many people do). Over the last century it’s been the continuous host to a very large number of wars, most of which we never hear of here in the west. Some of these last for decades, and I very much doubt anyone has tried to properly count the casualties. It’s probably safe to say millions have died fighting for causes we aren’t even aware of.

You might want to define "aggressor" too, since I think our governments would rather us not bill the Iraq wars as aggression on our part. We're defending any number of different things, liberating, fighting for freedom, for democracy, for whatever, it's a pre-emptive defensive move because he's got weapons, or wants them, is friends with terrorists, or might be. In my opinion, despite the old adage that "the best form of defence is attack", I don't think pre-emptive strikes count as anything but aggression. If I went around kicking the shit out of all the kids that hang out around the shops drinking, I very much doubt I'd be able to plead pre-emptive self defence on the ground that drunken teenagers sometimes get a little uppity. It'd be GBH and assault, and I'd spend some time in jail for it.

Maybe we’re asking the wrong question. Drawing our lines along international boundaries is silly. They’re just imaginary fences drawn by years of conflicts and built out of nationalistic propaganda that tries to tell us that “this side of the imaginary line is different”.

Humanity is without doubt, the most aggressive species on the planet. It doesn’t really matter where you’re born, what language you speak or what colour your skin is. We fight wars over whatever excuse comes to mind at the time, be that our various Gods and beliefs, our economic or political systems, over money, territory, oil, diamonds, over vague ideals like freedom and justice. We sometimes even fight them without any real attempt at justification beyond “because we can”. In the end it all comes down to the same thing. The struggle to be and prove ourselves, superior, and to crush any threat to that superiority. An evolutionary instinct gone haywire in our allegedly civilised world. Something we feel more strongly than any species on the planet. It’s why we are where we are, at the top of the food chain, the Alpha Species. It’s built deep into our collective psyche, intrinsically linked with the desire to survive. We’ve always fought. We always will.

The answer to the question “which country has been the greatest military aggressor” is simple: The one that had most opportunity.
I second that.
2006-03-09 05:19:15
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6902|Finland

KillerAFET wrote:

Nehil wrote:

I never said that I support Saddam, I think that he should be put on trial and go to prison. Invading Iraq wasen't so smart from my point of view, what should be done was to wait for the UN decision and support a civil revolution.
You gotta stop reading the Helsinki Inquirer and go back to school.
Ok.. So Nehil's from Sweden (profile-check... ...yep.), and your asking him/her to stop reading the "Helsinki Inquirer". You're from Texas, that figures.. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and I apologise for that.

I'm just wondering, do you know where Iraq is? I mean, nations' capitals should be pretty easy to know. It's Stockholm, not Helsinki that's in Sweden! Helsinki = Finland. Get it? I know that it's the neighbouring country, and that makes it easy for me to know that, but hey, at least I don't point out Australia as Iraq on the world map.
So maybe you should go back to school, Texan, you may have loads to learn. Then again, maybe you just skipped geography and concentrated on something else; you might actually be intelligent for all I know.

Regarding the actual topic, I pretty much second the post before this one.

Another off-topic P.S., I'm sick of the word noob, actually I think that was the first time I wrote it. Can't it just be replaced with the word Dumbass? Really? As for actual beginners learning, how about a less insulting "novice"?

Yours,

-DonFck, a Novice, yet not a Dumbass

Last edited by DonFck (2006-03-09 07:35:45)

I need around tree fiddy.
2006-03-09 08:14:24
RogueWarrior
Member
+0|6913
OK look at my sig thats all I have to say on this subject.

Semper Fi
2006-03-09 08:19:06
-EcS-Blade
Mr.Speakman
+153|6911|Manchester UK
lol lets not forget vietnam. u got ure asses wooped (not tht thts a gd thing)
2006-03-09 09:02:50
Asmodeane
Member
+0|6903|Hellsinki, Finland
I recommend you do some research on the subject before accusing the US forces of defeat in Vietnam. The soldiers were betrayed by the political machine and the public opinion rather than by their own efficiency. Here are some interesting facts & statistics about the Vietnam war...  http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.htm
2006-03-09 09:09:37
chuckle_hound
Member
+32|6938|Edinburgh, Scotland

j-bass wrote:

easy there lefty.  I think it would be more accurate to say the U.S.  has responded to more aggression than any other country.  All of Europe would be speaking German right now if not for the United States.
Everytime I read that, it makes me giggle.
2006-03-09 09:14:11
-EcS-Blade
Mr.Speakman
+153|6911|Manchester UK
i agree with most of those facts but one tht stood out the most was where it says kim was NOT burnt by american napalm. This is a lie becouse one of the men who carry,d out the attack saw the picture of kim and knowing tht it was gim and his other men who did this , he was ashamed and startid drinking heavily. and if she was not burnt by an american attack what was she burnt with. also where do these facts get there sources it quiet easy for someone jst to say Fact: most us soldiers during the vietnam war where not drifted.
2006-03-09 09:20:54
Asmodeane
Member
+0|6903|Hellsinki, Finland
The South Vietnamese forces bombed the village in question. Also, do some of your own research, the sources are at the bottom of the page, search the web, read a few books, etc...
2006-05-02 20:35:14
USMC_C_Thorn
Member
+0|6863

-EcS-Blade wrote:

lol lets not forget vietnam. u got ure asses wooped (not tht thts a gd thing)
btw the US may have withdrawn but we didnt get our asses kicked.  The US had ~58,000 deaths while the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong had ~ 1,100,000 deaths. Here is the WS that had the info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Last edited by USMC_C_Thorn (2006-05-02 20:42:39)

2006-05-02 22:33:29
Jack_Danger
Member
+2|6940|America

Nehil wrote:

Ok, I see some people have fucked up views of thire own country, that is the USA and the american people. Now, I'm not saying that all americans are stupid but I sure am thinking it No seriously, someone said that if not becuse of the US we would all talk German....Yea right.

During the WWII 80% of the German military efforts was going east, yes to the russians! Sure you guys did some hell of a fighting at the west coast battling TWO WHOLE DIVISONS! Even the Germans knew that defending the west coast was pointless. They'd rather defend the east and help the Italians to the south. But I do know alot of young american lifes were lost fighting the Natzi, and I do think that was brave, but I don't really know if they were fighting for the Jews/other opressed minority. That's becuse everybody didn't know that those deathcamps existed back in say 1942, most kids signed up becuse of the money and "Go kick some German ass".

-"But hey! We would not be here today if not becuse of the USA! God bless us!"
Nah, more like fuck the US, fuck the US becuse of what they did during WWII, remember a town called Nagasaki? I DON'T CUSE IT WAS FUCKING BLOWN AWAY! Wait, more like fuck everyone who participated in WWII. Everyone made some big fuck ups during that time, especially some guy named Adolf(uckhead).

Could I ask the selfloving, selfish bastards who live in the US today to stop acting so superior like you were some badass cops waving your six shooter? Today US is going kinda straight to hell, how can you not be outraged that your current president cheated in the elections 2000! You chat about shitty rich man problems instead of using your power to make a difference. Gathering up during the G8 and fuck around for the taxpayers money! AAAAAARHG!

Call me a fucking lefty/commy, cuse thats what I am in your eyes! But ain't that your biggest fear? Normally I'm a nice guy and would never hurt another human or animal, but in one case I'll make an exeption, killing the dumbass named "Georg Walker Bush Jr.", give me a fucking gun and I'll take him down with the first and last shot.

If you didn't vote for Bush don't take this personally. If you did vote for him come visit me in Sweden where I am building a cannon so I can fire you into the sun.

(The text above should not be taken dead serious!)
I don't want to get involved in this argument much. So all I am saying is: Pearl Harbor was an act of aggression towards the U.S. by Japan so it forced us to act in defense and we declare war on Japan. Then Hitler declares war on the U.S. in response so then we are FORCED to take action in Europe(So we weren't fighting for the jews or other oppressed minority, we were fighting for ourselves) Also most kids didn't sign up for money, THEY WERE DRAFTED. And for the thing about Nagasaki, We warned Japan to surrender or else we would BLOW THE FUCKING HELL out of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they didn't listen. Only and ONLY after we told them that Tokyo and Kyoto were next did they surrender.

So before you say that the U.S. was unjust in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that we were involved in WWII for selfish and corrupted reasons, AND that the people that died for THE WORLD'S freedom from the Nazis were in it for "money". LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Point made. kthxbai.

-Jack Danger
2006-05-02 22:42:18
scouseclarky
Member
+10|6852

j-bass wrote:

easy there lefty.  I think it would be more accurate to say the U.S.  has responded to more aggression than any other country.  All of Europe would be speaking German right now if not for the United States.
i think your forgetting that the uk stood alone for 3 years fighting the germans b4 america even considerd joining the war thats y it was calld the battle of brittian not the battle of usa dont get me wrong the states did a hell of alot of fighting however what u said makes it sound like america won the war all by it's self i dont think either of my grandfathers would say the same
2006-05-02 23:12:01
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6908|Westminster, California

Ssandstorm wrote:

we all know now that america will never win the war in iraq, and that another vietnam style withdrawal is inevitable

they should never have gone in the first place and now their soldiers are paying the price for the governments lies
Thank God America doesn't rely on cowards like you.
2006-05-02 23:26:27
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6908|Westminster, California

Tempelridderen wrote:

Have you seen bowling for columbine? There is one scene there that showes that what the U.S i doing isn't to rewarding. .  Personally I find diplomacy as a better way to solve problems..

It's not like forging evidence that say that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is a smart thing to do, it was just a matter of time berfore the whole s*** blew up in their face. Everybody knows that the war in Iraq is all about oil.
Morons quoting morons. Bowling for Columbine? Anti-American rubish.
Most of the world owes what freedom it has to us, the U.S. .
Don't call us next time your in the shit. Ingrateful people.
You are not worthy of one American life if you in any way justify terrorism. Terrorism is hacking heads off and flying passenger jets into civillian buildings and blowing up shoppers. Terror is what you'll feel when you hear our jets in the sky and you know their looking for you.
2006-05-02 23:28:54
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6908|Westminster, California

-EcS-Blade wrote:

lol lets not forget vietnam. u got ure asses wooped (not tht thts a gd thing)
I will not dignify this shit with a responce, it's just stupid.
2006-05-03 02:08:20
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7043|PNW

-EcS-Blade wrote:

lol lets not forget vietnam. u got ure asses wooped (not tht thts a gd thing)
Check the kill/death ratio. Also, where are the Soviet sub pens in the region? Wait...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-03 02:08:56)

2006-05-03 03:22:21
BVC
Member
+325|6966

scouseclarky wrote:

i think your forgetting that the uk stood alone for 3 years fighting the germans b4 america even considerd joining the war thats y it was calld the battle of brittian not the battle of usa dont get me wrong the states did a hell of alot of fighting however what u said makes it sound like america won the war all by it's self i dont think either of my grandfathers would say the same
Not completely alone my commonwealth brother!
2006-05-03 03:22:57
I2elik
Member
+12|7023|Perth, Western Australia

yerded wrote:

Tempelridderen wrote:

Have you seen bowling for columbine? There is one scene there that showes that what the U.S i doing isn't to rewarding. .  Personally I find diplomacy as a better way to solve problems..

It's not like forging evidence that say that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is a smart thing to do, it was just a matter of time berfore the whole s*** blew up in their face. Everybody knows that the war in Iraq is all about oil.
Morons quoting morons. Bowling for Columbine? Anti-American rubish.
Most of the world owes what freedom it has to us, the U.S. .
Don't call us next time your in the shit. Ingrateful people.
You are not worthy of one American life if you in any way justify terrorism. Terrorism is hacking heads off and flying passenger jets into civillian buildings and blowing up shoppers. Terror is what you'll feel when you hear our jets in the sky and you know their looking for you.
He wasn't justifying terrorism, obviously you see an alternative view of the Invasion of Iraq as "Terrorism Justification", get your morals straight you ignorant fuck.

Being Australian , I'm grateful for the Americans assisting us in the Pacific as well as the British. But comparing the old USA to the new USA is like comparing Butter to Cream, they're different.

And another thing, Germany started it's invasion of Russia and had alot of success, until they hit winter, then they were fucked over. And over in Western Europe there was a stalemate, as recent attempts to invade Britain were held back.

But here's my question, why, pray tell, does America only choose to assist other countries when they are threatened or attacked? Whatever happened to humanity eh?
Examples? Here you go:

WW1 :The USA holds out until the sinking of the Lusitania and the telegram to Mexico from Germany to ask them to fight against the US.

WW2 : The USA, once again, goes back to it's isolationist ways, and yet again chooses to hold back until they are directly threatened. But their assistance was needed in the Pacific theatre, though I might add that the Japanese had abandoned efforts to invade Australia by then, and chose to expand more into China and countries surrounding it.

Korean War: An attempt to stop the "threat of communism" or the opposite of Democracy, during the whole "Communism Paranoia" thing.

Vietnam : A war that probably had the largest amount of opposition to, there was no real reason to fight there, unless the "threat of communism" would last, oh right, Berlin Wall? The Iron Curtain coming down over Russian and Eastern Europe? Oh no, they aren't important, because Communism lasts forever right?

Gulf War: No complaints there, just more media frenzies, something for the american press to get something interesting instead of the usual "Which Toothpaste/Diswasher/Cola is best?" crap you get nowadays.

Iraq War : Not necessarily a war, but something that started when America was directly threatened, they obviously knew that Saddam wouldn't stop torturing and kill thousands, but they let him stay in power after the Gulf War, what gives? Well they finally realised their retarded mistake and took the Neo-Hitler out of power.

No, America is not an aggressor, it's more of a selfish country that only helps out when it's own ideals (albeit, some are highly flawed) are in danger, or in other words, indirectly or directly attacked, heck, it's the new age Democracy more and more countries are conforming too.
2006-05-03 05:28:03
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6899|space command ur anus
the us has become the new ROME, and here's why.
1. Rome were obsessed about there "democracy" that consisted of old rich men like the USA.
2. they see it as there task to democratise the WORLD.
3. they give themselves the right of pre emtive  warfare.
4. they have a LARGE military presence in the world, thru hundreds of permanent military bases.
2006-05-03 05:34:27
nix0n
Banned
+5|6913

Ssandstorm wrote:

we all know now that america will never win the war in iraq, and that another vietnam style withdrawal is inevitable

they should never have gone in the first place and now their soldiers are paying the price for the governments lies
Get your facts straight little australian man
2006-05-03 05:38:40
nix0n
Banned
+5|6913

I2elik wrote:

yerded wrote:

Tempelridderen wrote:

Have you seen bowling for columbine? There is one scene there that showes that what the U.S i doing isn't to rewarding. .  Personally I find diplomacy as a better way to solve problems..

It's not like forging evidence that say that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is a smart thing to do, it was just a matter of time berfore the whole s*** blew up in their face. Everybody knows that the war in Iraq is all about oil.
Morons quoting morons. Bowling for Columbine? Anti-American rubish.
Most of the world owes what freedom it has to us, the U.S. .
Don't call us next time your in the shit. Ingrateful people.
You are not worthy of one American life if you in any way justify terrorism. Terrorism is hacking heads off and flying passenger jets into civillian buildings and blowing up shoppers. Terror is what you'll feel when you hear our jets in the sky and you know their looking for you.
He wasn't justifying terrorism, obviously you see an alternative view of the Invasion of Iraq as "Terrorism Justification", get your morals straight you ignorant fuck.

Being Australian , I'm grateful for the Americans assisting us in the Pacific as well as the British. But comparing the old USA to the new USA is like comparing Butter to Cream, they're different.

And another thing, Germany started it's invasion of Russia and had alot of success, until they hit winter, then they were fucked over. And over in Western Europe there was a stalemate, as recent attempts to invade Britain were held back.

But here's my question, why, pray tell, does America only choose to assist other countries when they are threatened or attacked? Whatever happened to humanity eh?
Examples? Here you go:

WW1 :The USA holds out until the sinking of the Lusitania and the telegram to Mexico from Germany to ask them to fight against the US.

WW2 : The USA, once again, goes back to it's isolationist ways, and yet again chooses to hold back until they are directly threatened. But their assistance was needed in the Pacific theatre, though I might add that the Japanese had abandoned efforts to invade Australia by then, and chose to expand more into China and countries surrounding it.

Korean War: An attempt to stop the "threat of communism" or the opposite of Democracy, during the whole "Communism Paranoia" thing.

Vietnam : A war that probably had the largest amount of opposition to, there was no real reason to fight there, unless the "threat of communism" would last, oh right, Berlin Wall? The Iron Curtain coming down over Russian and Eastern Europe? Oh no, they aren't important, because Communism lasts forever right?

Gulf War: No complaints there, just more media frenzies, something for the american press to get something interesting instead of the usual "Which Toothpaste/Diswasher/Cola is best?" crap you get nowadays.

Iraq War : Not necessarily a war, but something that started when America was directly threatened, they obviously knew that Saddam wouldn't stop torturing and kill thousands, but they let him stay in power after the Gulf War, what gives? Well they finally realised their retarded mistake and took the Neo-Hitler out of power.

No, America is not an aggressor, it's more of a selfish country that only helps out when it's own ideals (albeit, some are highly flawed) are in danger, or in other words, indirectly or directly attacked, heck, it's the new age Democracy more and more countries are conforming too.
I beleive thats how every country is, why bother fighting for something if its not a threat
2006-05-03 05:46:31
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6899|space command ur anus

yerded wrote:

Tempelridderen wrote:

Have you seen bowling for columbine? There is one scene there that showes that what the U.S i doing isn't to rewarding. .  Personally I find diplomacy as a better way to solve problems..

It's not like forging evidence that say that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is a smart thing to do, it was just a matter of time berfore the whole s*** blew up in their face. Everybody knows that the war in Iraq is all about oil.
Morons quoting morons. Bowling for Columbine? Anti-American rubish.
Most of the world owes what freedom it has to us, the U.S. .
Don't call us next time your in the shit. Ingrateful people.
You are not worthy of one American life if you in any way justify terrorism. Terrorism is hacking heads off and flying passenger jets into civillian buildings and blowing up shoppers. Terror is what you'll feel when you hear our jets in the sky and you know their looking for you.
lol owe you, you are truly an asshole, we don't owe you shit.


my conclusjon of you a FUCKING ASSHOLE, FUCK FACE

Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-05-03 05:47:45)

2006-05-03 05:49:28
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6872|132 and Bush

dshak wrote:

its not really worth even bringing up the first gulf war, there's no debate on motives or justifications for that one (oil or no oil)... that whole discussion goes for a walk when Iraq invades a largely defenseless Kuwait. (yeah, remember back when we actually waited for other countries to be aggressive, rather than anticipating their aggression)
Not to mention if we invaded in the first gulf war why did we pull out if it was just for oil?
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 18

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard