LMAO.......yer gunna have to, cuz Marconius sure as hell won't.PuckMercury wrote:
well, sir, while I may not agree with what you have to say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it
Last edited by lowing (2006-08-03 17:24:34)
Dr. ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ, yes, you are the one with the English deficiency. Your third sentence in this most recent screed doesn't make any sense. When you infer, that's how you understand something to be based on what someone has told you. When you imply you are expressing something indirectly. When you infer, you are concluding something. For instance, you inferred that I was lying because I dared say I may have had as much or more history than you. I myself have inferred from the way you write and don't know the difference between imply and infer that you are likely the one lying about his education. But that is neither here nor there.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Wait do i need to define hypcrite to you now ? Im the one with the english deficiency ? There is no grey area in contradicting yourself which you accused me of.. Im also aware of the course schedule for a history major and more than 4 semesters of american history alone ? thats why i called bullshit.. and if you did read the previous statements you would know i didnt infer that america has NEVER participated in any imperialistic efforts but that america today is NOT an imperial power and imo saying so makes you look like a conspiracy thoerist anti-american screwball... imoChuckles wrote:
If you go back and re read what I said, I didn't say promoting democracy and imperialism are synonymous.
What I said at the beginning was this:
So first you rail against people saying America is Imperialist, and then you complain that isolationism is counterproductive and that they should be out "freeing people from tyranny" when they get the chance? That seems a little hypocritical.
I was simply saying you can't get too bent out of shape at people when they see you advocate your own brand of "freeing people from tyranny". They might think that "freeing people from tyranny" is an imperialistic act. Especially when we only seem to want to free those from tyranny when we stand to gain. If America did this out of the good of her heart we'd have been in Darfur long before Iraq, but there's no oil in Darfur.
I'm not anti American either. I love my country. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate America. We have this thing here called Freedom of Speech. It makes America great. People that don't like it probably hate America. And just so you know, I'm just picking on you now, since I offered a truce and you didn't want it.
Last edited by Chuckles (2006-08-03 18:24:44)
Actually that wasn't my point at all, but I guess I can see how you thought that since the word "oil" is mentioned once. Currency changes, I have no idea where you got that from...ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
oversimplifying by a mile.. saying it was all about oil is as off base as saying it had nothing to do with oil
also implying that these conflicts are motivated by the flirting of currency changes in the middle east is majorly overplaying the EU's role
But anyway, the US is the sole superpower and thus has a great influence in the world. If the US decided to stay out of everything, becoming isolationist, it would loose its political and economic influence on the world. And probably then the world would be calling the US negligent, as it was when the US refused to enter WWII.
Last edited by EVieira (2006-08-03 17:38:41)
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
When has the world TRUELY been UNITED on anything?? Its CERTAIN countries that are united, and a few that just go along with something/trend of the moment (because one of those countries is a major trading partner etc./funder). I have NEVER seen all the coutries in the UN get along on any one issue, ever!!! Maybe to increase the list of their diplomatic immunities, but certainly not important world issues!!!Nicholas Langdon wrote:
or you could just use your power to back the voice of the world(the UN) and loan your almighty spidey type senses through them, thus presenting a unified front, rather than, what the world thinks vs. what the us thinks.fadedsteve wrote:
Imperialism?? Where is this HUGE American Empire everyone is talking about??
I would hate to see the world had the Soviet Union won the cold war!
All you Euro/liberals who think the world would be much better off had America lost, ARE HIGH ON DRUGS!!
I would hate to see the world if Islamo-fascism wins this current war on terror! YES WE ARE AT WAR PEOPLE!!!
We are FORCED to interject ourselves because we are the lone superpower! With that responsibility comes failures and succeses. We're not perfect, but were also not the sole reason why the world is the way it is!! America cant hold every countries hand and teach them how to grow into a modern progressive country. Its not feasible to think that we could or should either!! If anything we go out of our way to try and help as much as we can!!
If anything we need to stay humble and not get ahead of ourselves! Take care of our own, and fight the good fight when it is right to do so(ie war on terror)!! NEVER EVER back down to defeatist thought just to captiulate to our enemies to avoid conflict!! That is a LOSING proposition in the long run! All it does is allow the enemy to get stonger and have a stonger will to fight us (perseption of weakness)!!!
Either way GOD BLESS THE USA and ALL who support her!!!
Why should we bow down to the EU??
When your saying that the USA is not listening to worldly opinion I assume you mean Europe (outside of europe there is China, who dissents (doesnt support the USA) due to them wanting to be a lone superpower on their own right so they have their own agenda, same for Russia). I also assume the issues we seem un-united are on the current war on terror. Well son. . . the USA doesn't capitulate and or negotiate with terrorists, we have decided to FIGHT THEM!! Which by the way is a GOOD THING! We have tried going the euro route of negotiations for years!!! It hasnt worked OBVIOUSLY! So we (USA) are trying a new approach that the euros dont care for. They are still our "friends" and we still value their opinion, but we have to do what we have to do to protect our own civilians.
Israel is in the same boat as the USA on this issue, either way were (USA/Israel) "dammed if we do, and dammed if we don't", thats just the way the world works. It aint going to change until Europe suffers a major attack by terrorists, then and ONLY then will they perhaps join our team and come in for the big WIN!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-08-03 18:58:18)
When you act smart assed and try to talk down and correct people its a good idea to be right else look like a dumbass.Chuckles wrote:
When you infer, that's how you understand something to be based on what someone has told you.
n·fer Pronunciation (n-fûr)
v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers
v.tr.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion
4. To hint; imply.
You can try to save face all day saying spreading democracy is imperialism thats nowhere near an example of hypocrisy . I got an assignment for you... go look up the words hypocrite and imperial because you cant seem to grasp their meanings.Chuckles wrote:
I was simply saying you can't get too bent out of shape at people when they see you advocate your own brand of "freeing people from tyranny". They might think that "freeing people from tyranny" is an imperialistic act.
Oh please dont pick on me sir i break easily.Chuckles wrote:
I'm not anti American either. I love my country. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate America. We have this thing here called Freedom of Speech. It makes America great. People that don't like it probably hate America. And just so you know, I'm just picking on you now, since I offered a truce and you didn't want it.
Couple things you got confused.. firstly that wasnt directed towards anyone. Secondly i said makes you "look" not that its directly makes you but seems or appears as so and i also said "in my opinion". I never impede on anyones free speech.. thats unamerican. Nice try to spin tho.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
america today is NOT an imperial power and imo saying so makes you look like a conspiracy thoerist anti-american screwball... imo
America is basically the UN. We give more resources to the UN then any other nation. That is why America has to step in on everything. Also, America is the largest supporter and closest alley with Israel. If America was not a super power then you would hear about who ever the super power is having to step in.dogpile1487 wrote:
if you watch the news for 5 minutes you will probably see something about the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Whether that Israeli attacks are a good idea or not is not the issue i am trying to bring up. what i'm trying to point out is that why is it the job of the US to step in and try to initiate a cease fire between the two countries? shouldn't that be the job of the UN? granted that nobody listens to the UN but still that's not the point. no one sent a representative to try to initiate a cease fire between the US and Iraq. It just seems that the US has been stepping over its boundaries and mingling in the business of other countries and this may be part of the reason that not too many people think highly of the US. They may be one of the strongest nations in the world but they can't do anything they want. i just want to bring this up for debate. i am a US citizen and a registered republican but i still don't agree with everything that the US goverment is doing and i feel that is the right of the people to question what it's government is doing. so let me know what you think about this subject.
i didnt say anything about europe. it dosent matter why the other countries go along with it, as long as they do. i agree sometimes a more severe stance may be neccasary to take, but that is not americas job. any wars american gets into is not for the good of that countries people, there will be some economic gain there, anything else would be preposterious. i dont think europe suffering a terroist attack would change their mind. look at madrid. anyway i just worked a long ass shift and its early in the morning so im not going to add anymore right now but i might get back at some point.fadedsteve wrote:
When has the world TRUELY been UNITED on anything?? Its CERTAIN countries that are united, and a few that just go along with something/trend of the moment (because one of those countries is a major trading partner etc./funder). I have NEVER seen all the coutries in the UN get along on any one issue, ever!!! Maybe to increase the list of their diplomatic immunities, but certainly not important world issues!!!Nicholas Langdon wrote:
or you could just use your power to back the voice of the world(the UN) and loan your almighty spidey type senses through them, thus presenting a unified front, rather than, what the world thinks vs. what the us thinks.fadedsteve wrote:
Imperialism?? Where is this HUGE American Empire everyone is talking about??
I would hate to see the world had the Soviet Union won the cold war!
All you Euro/liberals who think the world would be much better off had America lost, ARE HIGH ON DRUGS!!
I would hate to see the world if Islamo-fascism wins this current war on terror! YES WE ARE AT WAR PEOPLE!!!
We are FORCED to interject ourselves because we are the lone superpower! With that responsibility comes failures and succeses. We're not perfect, but were also not the sole reason why the world is the way it is!! America cant hold every countries hand and teach them how to grow into a modern progressive country. Its not feasible to think that we could or should either!! If anything we go out of our way to try and help as much as we can!!
If anything we need to stay humble and not get ahead of ourselves! Take care of our own, and fight the good fight when it is right to do so(ie war on terror)!! NEVER EVER back down to defeatist thought just to captiulate to our enemies to avoid conflict!! That is a LOSING proposition in the long run! All it does is allow the enemy to get stonger and have a stonger will to fight us (perseption of weakness)!!!
Either way GOD BLESS THE USA and ALL who support her!!!
Why should we bow down to the EU??
When your saying that the USA is not listening to worldly opinion I assume you mean Europe (outside of europe there is China, who dissents (doesnt support the USA) due to them wanting to be a lone superpower on their own right so they have their own agenda, same for Russia). I also assume the issues we seem un-united are on the current war on terror. Well son. . . the USA doesn't capitulate and or negotiate with terrorists, we have decided to FIGHT THEM!! Which by the way is a GOOD THING! We have tried going the euro route of negotiations for years!!! It hasnt worked OBVIOUSLY! So we (USA) are trying a new approach that the euros dont care for. They are still our "friends" and we still value their opinion, but we have to do what we have to do to protect our own civilians.
Israel is in the same boat as the USA on this issue, either way were (USA/Israel) "dammed if we do, and dammed if we don't", thats just the way the world works. It aint going to change until Europe suffers a major attack by terrorists, then and ONLY then will they perhaps join our team and come in for the big WIN!!
ps sorry if my point is unfinished.
Yeah lord knows how badly we raped and pillaged the assets of Yugoslavia Korea Vietnam Somalia etc etc..Nicholas Lnagdon wrote:
any wars american gets into is not for the good of that countries people, there will be some economic gain there, anything else would be preposterious.
well you probably would have had to win in vietnam. there is always some gain when you go to war. and dont give me the crap they feed you about human rights, why arent you in the congo if your country cares so much about human rights.
If you proportion payments to GDP or per capita, USA isn't even in top 20 financier list. Also during 90's USA skipped payments for UN for seven years, and owes about 1,7 billions.dubbs wrote:
We give more resources to the UN then any other nation.
The US suffers from a condition where it thinks that they can solve the worlds problems, thats why they get involved. They honestly believe that with their intervention things will get better. You can sit and shout about the situation in Iraq and how its "all about oil"; its not. And to say, and/or think, it is a gross simplification of the situation. Whilst i don't have the history degree or even 2 years in college, i seem to remember that all historical events can be broken down into long-term and short-term causes, i.e. oil may have been a factor (or even a large factor) but it isn't the sole reason and there are plenty of other reasons why the US and her allies went.
Back on topic, and a question; which other country has a strong view of right and wrong, the military might to enforce that view, the economic power to maintain that might and the general support of the population to use military force? China maybe, but i can only really think of the US.
Call on the UN instead? The UN takes too long to act and when it does "act", its usually will a moral or economic sanction, rather than military force. We have seen time and time again that economic sanctions usually bring suffering to the poorest people only (who were the very people the UN was trying to help) whilst the dictator sits in his palace, drinking champagne laughing at the stupidity of it all. We as westerners do not have the political willpower to economically starve a dictator into surrender (remember to think of the children) and as a result, the only surefire way of bringing about the changes that westerners demand is through military might.
Personally i think Blair is a tit, but i also think that he honestly and genuinely agrees with what Bush is doing and as a result offers his support (and as a consequence the support of the UK). And to Poe who said he'll be out on his ear in a week; i don't think so. I wish he would go but he'll be there for a few years yet.
Back on topic, and a question; which other country has a strong view of right and wrong, the military might to enforce that view, the economic power to maintain that might and the general support of the population to use military force? China maybe, but i can only really think of the US.
Call on the UN instead? The UN takes too long to act and when it does "act", its usually will a moral or economic sanction, rather than military force. We have seen time and time again that economic sanctions usually bring suffering to the poorest people only (who were the very people the UN was trying to help) whilst the dictator sits in his palace, drinking champagne laughing at the stupidity of it all. We as westerners do not have the political willpower to economically starve a dictator into surrender (remember to think of the children) and as a result, the only surefire way of bringing about the changes that westerners demand is through military might.
I disagree that Blair is hanging on his every word. Could it be that he and Bush both see the problem the same way and agree on the course of action to take? That Blair simply believes that he and Bush can accomplish the common agenda together easier than separately?ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
The only person worse than a retard for a president is to have a douchebag lapdog named Blair hover over his every word ready to answer to his demands.
Personally i think Blair is a tit, but i also think that he honestly and genuinely agrees with what Bush is doing and as a result offers his support (and as a consequence the support of the UK). And to Poe who said he'll be out on his ear in a week; i don't think so. I wish he would go but he'll be there for a few years yet.
Last edited by Jainus (2006-08-04 06:13:00)
So the intention of a conflict is determined after its over? Tell me youre retarded enough to believe we went to Vietnam for money? Dont forget all that oil we got off Yugoslavia. America doesnt have to launch a full scale war to help Africa and that is not true for Iraq wich had the 4th largest military in the world (something the UN couldnt handle) We should probably do more to prevent situations like Rwanda and im sure we could do more than we are now. The UN and NATO can handle Africa and when it becomes too much then we will.
SELF PROCLAIMED SUPERPOWERLib-Sl@yer wrote:
Let see when ur the worlds only superpower and everyone blames u for EVERYTHING then u kinda have to force urself into conflicts
I think we will see Africa getting fiddled with when the USA and friends allows them free trade and affords them the same rights as most. ATM, their is no gain in Africa as western cooperations find most countries in Africa too dangerous. Its stuffed full of natural resources rich for the pickings, its just way too unstable. Too many civil wars raging and not enough easily controlled dictators. Go Mugabe Go!!!!!Nicholas Langdon wrote:
well you probably would have had to win in vietnam. there is always some gain when you go to war. and dont give me the crap they feed you about human rights, why arent you in the congo if your country cares so much about human rights.
Its been advised and suggested by many US "think tanks" Lobbyists, paper writers, etc, that if Africa was stabilized and united with free trade, along with its cheep work force and abundant natural resources, could emerge as a supper power. Thats why the well established economic countries are shitting themselves. Sure look at the hysteria surrounding China's rise to supper powerdom. China and Africa could easily become the dominate powers of the next Milena. If we don't blow ourselves to shit first.
What im trying to say is its like "a kid with one tooth left looking through a window of a sweet shop wanting the sweets so bad, but knowing it might start rotting that last tooth leaving no teeth and having to get your food liquidized for the rest of your live" not a great analogy I know, I'm in a funny mood this morning.
Just so that we dont get confused here:ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
So the intention of a conflict is determined after its over? Tell me youre retarded enough to believe we went to Vietnam for money? Dont forget all that oil we got off Yugoslavia. America doesnt have to launch a full scale war to help Africa and that is not true for Iraq wich had the 4th largest military in the world (something the UN couldnt handle) We should probably do more to prevent situations like Rwanda and im sure we could do more than we are now. The UN and NATO can handle Africa and when it becomes too much then we will.
Iraq had the 4th largest armed forces in the world up and until year 1991. I dont pretend to know the exact size of their military before the 2003 invasion, but these pages give an idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … med_forces
I much prefer life in the easy lane,,,such as drinks at the local pub and lotz of time at the beach looking at tourists with casual attitudes having a good time LOLstryyker wrote:
False sense of dominance
bring on happy go lucky people with a good attitude to life and easy times...........
Last edited by hilltop2bit (2006-08-04 06:39:36)
What I found interesting about Lebanon is that the UN seems to be more caught up in assigning blame.
actually, no. But sure - let's play that up. Present disputing arguements please. It shall amuse me.Widow_Warrior wrote:
SELF PROCLAIMED SUPERPOWERLib-Sl@yer wrote:
Let see when ur the worlds only superpower and everyone blames u for EVERYTHING then u kinda have to force urself into conflicts
Classic fault of humanity. We need someone/thing to blame. Without it, we can't progress past it. It's sad and small, but it's truth. A person can do this, but we as a global people can not.Pug wrote:
What I found interesting about Lebanon is that the UN seems to be more caught up in assigning blame.
Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-08-04 17:48:38)
america is the world super power... lets see which country can beat it, then i would say its notPuckMercury wrote:
actually, no. But sure - let's play that up. Present disputing arguements please. It shall amuse me.Widow_Warrior wrote:
SELF PROCLAIMED SUPERPOWERLib-Sl@yer wrote:
Let see when ur the worlds only superpower and everyone blames u for EVERYTHING then u kinda have to force urself into conflicts
resources are more than just paymentsPekkaA wrote:
If you proportion payments to GDP or per capita, USA isn't even in top 20 financier list. Also during 90's USA skipped payments for UN for seven years, and owes about 1,7 billions.dubbs wrote:
We give more resources to the UN then any other nation.
further proof that statistics are made up and can be 100% correct, yet completely opposite eachother.
Its no secret that the British armed forces is the best in the world , and we are 1 of the smallest as well , America calls itself a superpower , but it is 1 of the worlds biggest countries , so if you ask me , just because you have a bigger population , hence more soldiers , does not mean you are a superpower. But one thing the us does seem to be good at , is friendly fire. Besides if you go back to the 60s/70s you got you're asses handed to you in Vietnam , now thats a lesser country . Also i read on the Internet that the us has a habit of printing money, just because you can , lol free money . Just 1 more thing if you think you are a superpower , then fucking start acting like 1 , its the Americans fault that your fucking the world up with you're dirty big v8s , the us counts for around 70% of the worlds pollution , what with all the rednecks there with there clapped out old pickups . So i say to all Americans oil is no good when you have completely fucked the world up . check the link out , i wouldn't want to be ruled by him http://www.crapville.com/video_holder.asp?ID=686
peace out
hmmm let me see there was something else ,,, oh yes somallia , a third world country , they fucked you up aswell . WE GOT A BLACK HAWK DOWN , WE GOT A BLACK HAWK DOWN
peace out
hmmm let me see there was something else ,,, oh yes somallia , a third world country , they fucked you up aswell . WE GOT A BLACK HAWK DOWN , WE GOT A BLACK HAWK DOWN
Last edited by Widow_Warrior (2006-08-05 08:44:16)
THAT'S your rebuke? "We'd be more powerful if we had more people!" Well no shit, Sherlock. That being said, I'd still put American war tech against British war tech 1:1 and expect an American victory, but that really isn't the point.
You just entirely defeated your own arguement. You came out with an unequivocated and unsupported boast which was completely out of context and went on to say that we are a superpower only because we're larger. Then you degenerate into pollution BS and make a pathetic effort at evoking a meaningless response with dredging up Vietnam and Somalia?
Furthermore, you tell us to "act like a superpower" while complaining about all the ways we assert our global authority and general power.
I've never said we do any of those things right, but the fact is we are able to assert such authority. That does not make it right or just or correct. However, that DOES mean, ipso facto, that we are a super power.
Try again.
You just entirely defeated your own arguement. You came out with an unequivocated and unsupported boast which was completely out of context and went on to say that we are a superpower only because we're larger. Then you degenerate into pollution BS and make a pathetic effort at evoking a meaningless response with dredging up Vietnam and Somalia?
Furthermore, you tell us to "act like a superpower" while complaining about all the ways we assert our global authority and general power.
I've never said we do any of those things right, but the fact is we are able to assert such authority. That does not make it right or just or correct. However, that DOES mean, ipso facto, that we are a super power.
Try again.
Puck has a point Widow, you say for us to act like a super power...well, what do you think we are doing when we act as security buffers between Bosnia and Kosovo, or while we make the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power and attempt to secure Iraq for the innocent civilians, or when we decided to step into Vietnam and help the problems there. Do I need to continue with conflicts where the U.S. attempted to act as a super power and help or should I stop there?
In the case of Vietnam and Somalia, yeah, we lost a black hawk and a few men in Somalia, but look at the actual record of lives lost of both sides, or "K/D ratio" if you will. I believe we lost somewhere around...15 men, and fought off an entire city while killing 1000+ hostile enemies. I say hostile enemies because most were militia groups and some citizens, not an actual army, who attempted to fight against us....and before you say some retarded stuff about how we killed civilians, take a look at the U.S. rules of engagement.
As for Vietnam, dude...we were fighting an enemy we couldnt even see, in a new environment. This was our first war against an enemy that concealed itself within the citizen population *cough* Iraq insurgency *cough*.
Furthermore, I would like to see any countries actual military fight the U.S. Remember the first Gulf War? Iraq had the 4th largest army at the time, and look where it got them. And remember, just because you read on the internet that the U.S. prints money just because it can, doesnt mean its true. Im not saying our government does, because I dont know, but the internet is the "all truth knowing master of the universe".
In the case of Vietnam and Somalia, yeah, we lost a black hawk and a few men in Somalia, but look at the actual record of lives lost of both sides, or "K/D ratio" if you will. I believe we lost somewhere around...15 men, and fought off an entire city while killing 1000+ hostile enemies. I say hostile enemies because most were militia groups and some citizens, not an actual army, who attempted to fight against us....and before you say some retarded stuff about how we killed civilians, take a look at the U.S. rules of engagement.
As for Vietnam, dude...we were fighting an enemy we couldnt even see, in a new environment. This was our first war against an enemy that concealed itself within the citizen population *cough* Iraq insurgency *cough*.
Furthermore, I would like to see any countries actual military fight the U.S. Remember the first Gulf War? Iraq had the 4th largest army at the time, and look where it got them. And remember, just because you read on the internet that the U.S. prints money just because it can, doesnt mean its true. Im not saying our government does, because I dont know, but the internet is the "all truth knowing master of the universe".
Last edited by {BMF}*Frank_The_Tank (2006-08-05 10:57:07)
what he ^^^ said too.