GUNWOUNDS Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 'They'll never talk to us, so we'll never talk to them.'Actually i believe it has been attempted in the past... you have to draw the line eventually or is perpetual headbutting your idea of progress?
Dunenewt Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 tthough britain and canada put in about 35% and the french resistance and russia did another 35% and the US gave that final 30% Actually it was a lot less percentage from the US. D-Day was only 40% US.
Anathema Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 If the Globe was standardized or united then nobody would fall behind or be alienated.
jeff2429 Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 WAR America has fought without Europe = Vietnam lost that one.America pulled outa this war mostly becuase of politics.
Kiyouta Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Kerry :'( TALK ABOUT KERRY!!! NOT BUSH or World War 2!!God you see this is it!! NO wonder he lost the election. We can't even discuss how much of a loser he is lol.
thomas Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 American version of history appear to be slightly diferent to Britains. ::)All those movies where hollywood rewrite history and give you the impression that they won all the wars!!! :)Guns you amase me sometimes. ;) Taliban supported andtrained by America Shaddam and Ba'ath party supported and supplied by America.WAR America has fought without Europe = Vietnam lost that one.and who's pulling who's ass out of the fire in Iraq !!! >:(I doubt it, britain are the ones that secured victory's first step over germany and vietnam was only "lost" because the people weren't happy. Just remember america has never lost a war, ever.vietnam was only a conflict, a war is only a war if congress approves before-hand. . .
VigilVirus Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Kerry :'( TALK ABOUT KERRY!!! NOT BUSH or World War 2!!God you see this is it!! NO wonder he lost the election. We can't even discuss how much of a loser he is lol.It's not about how much of a loser he is, it's about how stupid and naive the majority of americans really are. And you wonder why foreigners bash the american education system. See it fail!We as americans seem to want to give rights to an unborn piece of meat and deny the rights to those of a different sexual preference. Now that's really fucked up. The people who truly believe that should be ashamed of themselves as human beings.
Davidu Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Well, China is a good example, even if I meant Global standardisation. GUN, we cannot put aside CULTURE and RACE because these are some of the things that define us as individuals. I don't want a cultureless, raceless, spiritualLESS (jez!!) country. I want a coutry with an identity, where the minorities can live toghether with the people of the country. And yes, the greatest breakthroughs were made during periods of war, or when the countries competed each other. WWII started from diesel engines and wood aicraft and ended in rocket technology. The cold war CREATED the space race. Only for that matter alone I would like the spirit to continue.It will be necessary to unite when we'll encounter the first alien race. Until them we should compete peacefully and evolve.
Dante Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Its futile views like this that cause stagnation. "Lets talk to them despite the fact that they want our heads on a platter". Atleast force gets something accomplished. It may not bring peace but it will bring obedience and that is enough for now.Violence begets violence. Force means more force, and more force, and more force... Negotiation does the job slower, but it makes a better deal of it. Obedience = fear = resentment = violence ∞.Hamas is dedicated to terrorism ... no negotiation... its quite simple i dont see how you are unable to grasp the concept.No... no, you wouldn't. Considering that you seem to hold exactly the same viewpoint and appear to be unable to concieve the prospect that maybe if one keeps talking for long enough someone will listen. Even if they don't, it proves that you are capable of such an act, tried the peaceful route, etc. And if they still refuse, then back off and stop causing problems. Some things are just impossible. I am sure you can think of a few things... such as you becoming straight, or dukeleto becoming a christian, or emprworm becoming a socialist. Certain things will not come to be. And negotiation with terrorists is one of them.Hostages can be freed by negotiation. Negotiation got Israeli and Palastinian leaders to shake hands, once. Negotiation ended violence in Europe after the Second World War when it had been simmering for over two hundred years. Negotiation attempts to satisy both parties without bloodshed. Violence attempts to satisfy one party with bloodshed. The choice appears obvious to me, but not apparantly to others. Actually i believe it has been attempted in the past... you have to draw the line eventually or is perpetual headbutting your idea of progress?When in power, hold your position and sooner or later the enemy will grow tired of attacking and attempt to negotiate. Sooner or later. Giving in before that merely speaks of mental weakness and ineptitude. Before the Second World War, we drew the line at invading Poland. But then, we weren't in power.As far as the ancient Chinese were concerned, the world consisted only of China and a few bordering lands inhabited by barbarians. Stability eventually resulted in stagnation. And think about it, some of the greatest achievements were concieved in very unstable situations: pencilline (WW1 I think), atom bomb (WW2), space satelites (cold war) etc. True. "Necessity is the mother of invention," after all.I doubt it, britain are the ones that secured victory's first step over germany and vietnam was only "lost" because the people weren't happy. Just remember america has never lost a war, ever.First landing on French soil in the first wave of attacks on Hitler's Europe were British. The Americans (including General Patton) were still in Britain at the time, guarding decoys. ...What about the civil war? Technically America lost that as well as won it. Meh, I'm splitting hairs. The USA has never lost a war simply because all the countries that have the manpower and resources to take it on have been on the other side of the world. You think the Cold War would have stayed cold if California and the USSR shared a border? That and the USA is both big and young. It occupies half a continent, who'd be mad enough to take that on? (Apart from Pearl Harbour, but that was a silly mistake. If Japan hadn't done that, America would have stayed out, most likely). And of course it never existed back in the times when an empire that large was unmanagable. It hasn't been around long enough to lose a war.vietnam was only a conflict, a war is only a war if congress approves before-hand. . ."Yes, we invaded, killed, bombed, fought, were killed, bombe, fought in return; but it wasn't really a war because we don't say so." ???It's not about how much of a loser he is, it's about how stupid and naive the majority of americans really are. And you wonder why foreigners bash the american education system. See it fail!We as americans seem to want to give rights to an unborn piece of meat and deny the rights to those of a different sexual preference. Now that's really fucked up. The people who truly believe that should be ashamed of themselves as human beings.I really miss your posts in Fanfiction. :)
Dunenewt Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Just remember america has never lost a war, ever.Apart from the war against obesity...sorry...just couldn't resist.
thomas Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 First landing on French soil in the first wave of attacks on Hitler's Europe were British. The Americans (including General Patton) were still in Britain at the time, guarding decoys. ...um, that's irrelavent to what I said. I wasn't clear but I meant to say that I doubt that american history books are off as was implied by someone here. and by the US constitution (and accurate history books), vietnam is a conflict like bosnia and panama. regarding the civil war it wasn't america verse america, it was america verse the confederate rebels, like russia and chechnya, except that in this case the rebels were alot stronger in numbers.
exatreide Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 Tell those who had their fellow soldiers die beside them that it wasnt a war, you know thats bullshit as much as i do scy. If militaries clash, its a war.
thomas Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 I know, but our "government" fails to reconize it as so, and so I can say that we've never lost a war, but the 56,000+ including dennis holm tell something differantbut that's besides the point, america has still never lsot a war (technically, but we did get our ass handed to us in one long "conflict")
Wolf Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 I would still like to know how the Allied powers would have won World War II without American intervention. In December 1941/early 1942, when America entered the war, the Axis was at its height; the Germans controlled North Africa, all of Europe save for Britain and Spain.
nemafakei Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 I don't know if it would have been possible - certainly it would not have been without non-military support.Bear in mind, though, preparations for re-invasion were underway before the US joined in, and the tide had by then been turned.But this is going well offtopic.
nemafakei Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 "Every single American who voted for Bush ... deserves to be shot"Bombed. It's more apt.
VigilVirus Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 The fact that gay marriage ban was passed in all 11 states it was up for a vote shows that as americans we may not completely agree on a president, but hey, a huge majority of us hate gay people! What a fucking joke. I mean, what exactly is so bad about gay marriage? For the people who think it destroys the "sanctity of marriage" and "their children's minds", get the hell over it. No one's forcing your child to be gay, it's a choice he or she makes for himself/herself (or it is just how he or she is, both are possible). As for the sanctity of marriage...what sanctity of marriage? More than half the marriages end in divorce in US, people usually marry for reasons other than love or wanting to be with the other person "forever" (money, lust, popularity, pregnancy, duty). How is that for sanctity of marriage? There are of course still many couples that do end up happily. And I'm sure, if those are the couples you ask, they'll say that they don't care that gays marry - more power to them. The reason why Bush was re-elected is the same as the reason why gay marriage was banned in eleven states - ignorance and narrow-minded view of life of more than half of America. Good job, dumbshits.
DRFsimmsy Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 The election? The rhetoric flooding television is unbelievable; it makes us think this election was the beginning of the end of the world. "It's in your hands!" they trumpeted. This neurotic paranoia filtered down through conversation, where any number of people berated me for voting Nader. "You're going to let the evil empire just happen!" A friend of mine once said he would never give credence to the political opinion of any musician he respected, because, as a musician, he knew that any good musician had to spend so much time on music as to exclude study of politics. I now feel this way about anyone who has a job. They simply do not have time for an informed opinion. Kerry wouldn't have changed America. Bush won't change America. America's course, on the 500 year scale, is already determined and neither candidate will change it, because what's required to change it is so unpopular among the dutiful heads at jobs that it will never be elected in any form. This is why great leaders lie their way to power in democracies; they recognize that telling the truth is an offense and thus an election loser. Bush's environmental policy is terrible; so is Kerry's. Both give lip service to the environment, sign some legislation saving another strand of trees for the next 99 years, and continue to allow rampant overpopulation, pollution and overuse of resources including animals. They may care, but we'll never know. The fact is that to state the level truth on this issue will get anyone voted out of office. One of the major complaints at George W. is that he's a "fascist," and is revoking civil rights across America. I have news for you: Clinton (a Democrat) did more for revoking your civil rights than Bush did, and without Clinton's start, Bush would not have had the foundation upon which to build. Your civil rights went away the day you made government arbitrator of "good" and "bad" opinions. You now cannot have them back, because in order to do so you have to make the unpopular statement that we will tolerate any view, including that of al-Qaeda, neo-Nazis, radical Greens, and others who wish to destroy our way of life. That way of life is what this election was destined to maintain regardless of who won. We all go to jobs for too long and come home to many tasks. Money is our only goal, and our way of penalizing those who go out of line. We have no connection to nature and think that a few more billion-dollar studies, government programs and television campaigns will actually "change" environmental, social, racial and economic problems. In other words, we just don't get it. Most of us still believe that our civilization is the product of all civilizations before it, and through some ultra-simplification of Darwin, therefore "the best." We view life before technology as ignorant, pathetic, disgusting, oppressive. We see technology and morality as the forces lifting us out of a primal scum of human failure toward a distant Utopia. And if we just check the right boxes on the vote cards, we'll get closer! That is a television-watcher outlook. There on the sofa, it comes down to one single choice. Click the correct button, you're a hero - you get a puppy biscuit. Click the wrong one, and no one says anything but everyone hints that you're a bit Neanderthal. But it all comes down to clicking the right buttons, moving us closer to Utopia. This election meant nothing because people were being elected to roles in the system. The system itself wasn't up for criticism. The system isn't something simple like "conservativism," but something complex, like the idea that human must rule over nature with technology and thus, lacking any external checks and balances, expand recklessly. And in the process, lose its courage and spirit internally, and begin rewarding mediocrity instead of excellence. We're breeding ourselves into a race of button-pushing clones. We have depleted our fish supplies, our natural wood, our wild animals, and pour pollution into earth, air and sea at record rates. Our population is now such that in another generation we'll have to cannibalize what's left to survive. And of course, when that becomes obvious, our remaining energy will be devoted to internal warfare. The election is a fantasy show for button-clickers; the real issue at hand is that your species is failing and it has constructed a political, social, moral and economic system to perform elaborate denial of that fact. You want to make a difference? Clear the system-logic from your head and stop worrying about the puppet show of this election.
Megashrap Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 "Every single American who voted for Bush ... deserves to be shot"Bombed. It's more apt.
thomas Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 "every german that allowed hitler to come to power should be shot"yet we all know that that shouldn't be done, think nema . . .
DRFsimmsy Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 The sooner American society begins to crumble the better (it's going to happen sooner or later anyway). Therefore I commend those who voted GW Bush for showing such foresight.
Dante Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 and by the US constitution (and accurate history books), vietnam is a conflict like bosnia and panama. regarding the civil war it wasn't america verse america, it was america verse the confederate rebels, like russia and chechnya, except that in this case the rebels were alot stronger in numbers. Conflict between countries = war. What exactly is the difference?A friend of mine once said he would never give credence to the political opinion of any musician he respected, because, as a musician, he knew that any good musician had to spend so much time on music as to exclude study of politics. I now feel this way about anyone who has a job. They simply do not have time for an informed opinion. Are you saying that they should just give up and not vote, thereby allowing the rich and the powerful to take over their lives in an extreme right wing society? Or maybe that they should all quit their jobs and live in pseudo happiness? If people don
Andrew Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 Look at how much Bush loves America! hehe.Bush's One-Finger Victory SalutePick the 56k or 200k.
Recommended Posts