you got twisted perception of the United States if your gonna compare New Hampshire to Germany. Its kinda silly comparing states and nations.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
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. 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.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
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?
You're ignoring his point
State in the US is far different then the state you speak of. Screw NH try N or S Dakota population in cows is larger then people. Also federal laws govern over states laws. Theres checks and balances.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
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.
And as i said earlier i'm old enough to die for my country that's all that matters. just search SSS.gov and figure it out
Not sure how you wanks do military over there.
Last edited by Colfax (2006-07-10 11:51:46)
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.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
How old are you seriously?
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?
Wow...Pug wrote:
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...
You wrote a letter..
Ok I'll be quick.
1) I'm sure Bush loves black people.
"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."
Dropping an A-bomb by any standards is pretty bad and I'd argue 100 times worse than anything any other Government has done since the Holocaust.
2) Sorry, at what point have I mentioned WWII in this thread? And wtf is "conemptating"..sounds funky!
3) Again, sorry, Agent Orange wasn't a gas, but it was sprayed out of planes. You do, however, seem to agree it was a chemical weapon.
4) I have never disputed the fact that the UK has it's fair share of atrocities, feel free to discuss..
5) The first was sarcastic , "No.It.Isn't.", and the other guy I was referring to IS mad.
This is debate and serious talk and I think your country's foreign policy merits 'Debate'. I'm sorry if you don't like it, ignore me if you choose, just don't make me have to write this much again...please!
Oh for the record, I just typed agent orange into google images to try and get some pics of the planes spreading it and this it what it brought up...
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum … mp;spell=1
Last edited by RicardoBlanco (2006-07-10 12:16:59)
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.
or like comparing Rhode Island and Italywhittsend 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.
Don't you know that there is only one definition for each word and it's usage never changes no matter what country or language your are speaking or the context of the situation!!!!???!?!?!? Damn you where's than neg K when you need it!!whittsend 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.
Here:RicardoBlanco wrote:
2) Sorry, at what point have I mentioned WWII in this thread?
As noted before, nobody had any concept of the ramifications of nuclear weapons then, and since we have become aware of them, the number of nuclear weapons used by the US is: 0. To compare that with the deliberate use of Chemical weapons which were fully understood by Saddam Hussein is disingenuous.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Dropping an A-bomb by any standards is pretty bad and I'd argue 100 times worse than anything any other Government has done since the Holocaust.
Why will you not respond to this point?
Defolaint. It was intended to remove the jungle in which the VC hid themselves. As it turns out, it is also a carcinogen, so, again, we have ceased using it. Comparing it to chemical weapons designed to kill people (it doesn't have a fraction of the killing power of a nerve gas, and even seems benign when compared to a lesser weapon like mustard gas) reveals a great deal of ignorance on the subject.RicardoBlanco wrote:
3) Again, sorry, Agent Orange wasn't a gas, but it was sprayed out of planes. You do, however, seem to agree it was a chemical weapon.
Your spurious arguments are a poor justification of your criticisms.RicardoBlanco wrote:
This is debate and serious talk and I think your country's foreign policy merits 'Debate'. I'm sorry if you don't like it, ignore me if you choose, just don't make me have to write this much again...please!
Nobody doubts that Agent Orange was sprayed by planes. Find me a legitimate link that says its purpose was anything other than killing plants, please.
hey, the uk has nuclear weapons, and more, think about that yourself before you start pointing fingers!RicardoBlanco 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.
since when was BUSH looking?And after saying the following comments I'd be extremely surprised if Bush hadn't found any "WMD's" in Iraq.p
lol. how so?RicardoBlanco wrote:
the other guy I was referring to IS mad.
I see no complaints here about the US nuking itself (well, at least our "unpopulated" western states). I'd figure it would be a greater point of argument than good ol' Agent Orange.
Partially it is true. The US outgrew the rest of the world thanks to the World Wars. They invested in Europe to rebuild what they and others had destroyed. With other words: They're stuck to Europe. Sink us and you'll sink yourself. The EU is depending on each other, since they aren't a whole yet; they can survive.RicardoBlanco wrote:
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.
Judging by the US' reputation I guess they'll be left on themselves if anything would happen, especially if you'd step out and start some isolation. Then it will be the US who needs aid and the roles will be switched. Nice plan ^^
(sorry for going back this far)
So will I - you missed the point - I guess the examples confused you.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Wow...
You wrote a letter..
Ok I'll be quick.
I forgot to add - I think you're just instigating - while wearing your Grandma's panties, masturbating and smearing peanut butter all over yourself.
Lighten up Ricardo - be positive once in a while. Post some praise at some point. Surprise us.
My two cents:whittsend wrote:
As noted before, nobody had any concept of the ramifications of nuclear weapons then, and since we have become aware of them, the number of nuclear weapons used by the US is: 0.
Comparing it to chemical weapons designed to kill people (it doesn't have a fraction of the killing power of a nerve gas, and even seems benign when compared to a lesser weapon like mustard gas) reveals a great deal of ignorance on the subject.
-I believe the US knew the ramifications of dropping the bomb. At the time there was a "invade" or "drop the a-bomb" analysis. Someone thought the a-bomb would be better. I sure wouldn't want to be involved with approving that decision. I think it was the right decision - what I've read said it would have been worse to invade Japan for the Japanese than bombing.
-Weapons kill quickly. Agent Orange doesn't kill quickly = not a weapon. Misused? Yep - sprayed too much but it wasn't meant to kill people.
You got problems if you believe we just drop a nuke on a country, we were prevoked and overreacted yes, one bombing would have done just fine. But, What about pearl harbor! The only reason that they didnt get any farther is we repeled there ass and nuked their country. NOT a great idea if you ask me, but the idea to attack America with a huge force, and not declear war, ealry in the morning wasn't the greatest either.RicardoBlanco wrote:
'Selective historian'...what, you mean I include the relevant stuff...damn right! Going by your reasoning Saddam only used them in a defensive posture too. He got shot at so he gassed a village. Someone squeeks communism at your country so you gas theirs and drop nukes on another. Defensive, lol...kr@cker wrote:
only ones to use chem warfare? Oh wait it's ric, the selective historian.
The US stance is that it, like your infallible England and Aus, have and will only use them in a defensive posture.
Funny how there is no mention of the international opposition to the space-based defense initiative, which would have allowed the US to abandon the mutually assured destruction defense posture. You also fail to reference things like Anniston Army Depot, the incincerators of which have been runnin full throttle destroying chem weapons for years now. BTW, you may wish to look up some of England's policies on these things. A director named Terry Gilliam filmed a gret documentary on England's developement of the world's deadliest joke which it unleashed on the nazis in a most unreleenting and inhumane manner.
So yeah, We can be trusted not to just nuke some country for: Land, a religious crusade, Just for the fuck of it.
Why Japan attacked Pearl harbor...
The U.S. response included economic sanctions , most importantly partial or full embargoes of scrap metal and gasoline and closing the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, and renouncing previously signed trade agreements between the two countries. Again, the Japanese didn't back down and, in 1941, moved into northern Indochina. The U.S. response was to freeze Japanese assets and initiate a complete oil embargo.
We did this because:
Japan didn't back down, but instead continued its military campaign in China and formally aligned itself with the Axis Powers in 1940.
Was their attack justifiable?
Hell no in my eyes.
SOurces cited from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_ … Background
The U.S. response included economic sanctions , most importantly partial or full embargoes of scrap metal and gasoline and closing the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, and renouncing previously signed trade agreements between the two countries. Again, the Japanese didn't back down and, in 1941, moved into northern Indochina. The U.S. response was to freeze Japanese assets and initiate a complete oil embargo.
We did this because:
Japan didn't back down, but instead continued its military campaign in China and formally aligned itself with the Axis Powers in 1940.
Was their attack justifiable?
Hell no in my eyes.
SOurces cited from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_ … Background
go read some books. noone "overreacted" ..xGBlitzkrieg wrote:
we were prevoked and overreacted yes,
There is no question that the bombs saved millions of Japanese lives. They broke their 'no surrender' stance where before they had armed every man woman and child in preparation of defense from the inevitable invasion. In your attempts to villify America you should really take a look at the status of Japan today. This country we committed such a "horrible atrocity" upon just happens to be one of our staunchest allies today.
how many times do I have to post this.... blanco posts no personal statements or fact. he merely finds the most liberal, anti-american media stories out there and presents it here as 100% truth and fact. This guy clearly hates America, in my opinion because he is jealous, and nothing will ever change his mind of that!!! why we argue with him is pointless and he is one reason i will miss negative karma.
Yep, the guy needs a new hobby. Until we stop reacting he'll just keep posting and masturbating with sandpaper while whistling Yankee Doodle.comet241 wrote:
how many times do I have to post this.... blanco posts no personal statements or fact. he merely finds the most liberal, anti-american media stories out there and presents it here as 100% truth and fact.
He can't be stopped. My grandma's a lot like him - always complaining, no action, no suggestions for change.
ok americans friends, you people keep using "the EU asked for our help and they got it and now they're hating us" argument all the time. Ok, when did the EU ask for help?