Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / New world Europe Vs US

New world Europe Vs US
03:03:31 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Dakarius:

Japan, is the military superpower ;)
or was that technopower?


03:06:13 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Technologicly it's a super power and Economicly.


04:07:22 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sorra:

Lady Lacewing

Report


12/3/2007 10:29:37 AM

"The world (hopefully) will be a better place."

With China at the top?  Probably not.

"Anyway, human rights and all that stuff doesn´t have that much to do with China becoming a superpower, the most important reason for its growth is the existence of one sixth of the world´s population inside its borders)."

It plays a role.  Other than raw manpower, China also still has a lot of its natural resources while other countries are beginning to exhaust theirs, or are being heavily pressured to reduce pollution and harm to the environment which in turns hurts profits.

"And still they cant control third world nations (even with the help of the mighty superpower England)."

I would like to see any democratic country try and "control" Iraq.  The reason I say democratic is because it would be all too easy to go in and start shooting everyone and anyone who might pose a threat, or dump a million troops in Baghdad with no armor and insufficient training.  Except America is trying to go the life-saving, expensive, and minimal-troop route which is pretty much what the people of any democratic country would expect.

 

LOL, China is not the one bombing countries with absolutely no proof of anything except the fact that they are of a different colour and religon. You Messed up Iraq really really bad. Worse then it ever was. And please dontgive me that BS that "they were already living like that" because no they were not. The avrage amarican has no clue of the history of Iraq. They think..Saddam=Bad=we need to bomb. They put Saddam in power in the first place. When he decided not to attack iran (like asked by the U.S.A) and instead to attack Kuwait (a country that was on very bad terms with Iraq) The U.S decided that it was time to bomb him.

Thats why the MAJORITY of Iraqis KILL Amarican Soilders because they messed up there country. And i dont want to hear "there only soilders there not making the choices onlyfallowing them" because the insurgents are only fallowing orders to, yet they still get killed.

They lived better when under Saddam. Yes he may have gassed his own people (in retrabution for an attempted take over) But atleast there was order, atleat every night, families could put FOOD in there childerns stomachs. Atleast there was a police force to keep the law in place. Atleast tthen children would go to school. Now amarica has *beep*ed that up. For what, the security of it's own people whitch was never under threat in the first place. Bull*beep*, alot of people in amarica think they are BETTER then anyone else and have the right to SCREW up millions of peoples of lives all on a guess.

 

And dont give me that "it's bushes fault" because you people voted for him TWICE. I understand the first time, not knowing what he's about and all, but the second, thats just *beep*ING DUMB.

 

That is why i really have no problem with amarican soilders fighting and getting KILLED in iraq.

IF some one had invaded amarica and this happened, i would be completely on amaricas side,without question,but now, im completely against it.

You people feel pain when one of your soidlers die, a son is lost. It is the same feeling for the other side. Except teh differenc eis, your in there country unjustly.


16:18:41 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Might:

I think Sorra is a undercover terrorist.



As you can see he is spreading obvious propaganda. What a *beep*...


17:44:58 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Killer:

What propoganda?
 I wouldn't say that any choice of rulers is particurarily brilliant at any time, and Bush probably cheated at any rate in the election. I couldn't believe so many people would vote for him, but still, he's got a point.


18:20:05 Dec 4th 07 - Lady Lacewing:

" You Messed up Iraq really really bad. Worse then it ever was. And please dontgive me that BS that "they were already living like that" because no they were not."

Iraq was no utopia to begin with.&nb*beep*erica has been trying to rebuild the country since the invasion, but it's not easy when terrorists keep bombing buildings all over again.

"The avrage amarican has no clue of the history of Iraq. They think..Saddam=Bad=we need to bomb."

So the typical European is an expert on Middle-East history and is fully informed on the history of Iraq?  Doubt it.  You're falling into a stereotype here.

"Thats why the MAJORITY of Iraqis KILL Amarican Soilders because they messed up there country. "

Proof?  Evidence?  I'm pretty sure the majority of the Iraqi population are victims to both American bullets and Iraqi bombs and would prefer the absence of both.

"They lived better when under Saddam. Yes he may have gassed his own people (in retrabution for an attempted take over) But atleast there was order, atleat every night, families could put FOOD in there childerns stomachs. Atleast there was a police force to keep the law in place."

Don't forget that the Iraqi people cheered when American troops entered Baghdad and threw down Saddam's regime.  If you are trying to justify Saddam as being a just leader, you should have absolutely no problem accepting what Bush has done as being justified.

"And dont give me that "it's bushes fault" because you people voted for him TWICE. I understand the first time, not knowing what he's about and all, but the second, thats just *beep*ING DUMB."

The political environment in 2004 was different than it is now.&nb*beep*erica was not nearly as exhausted from the Iraq war and Bush's standing was much higher.

And it's always easy to call someone an *beep*.  In retrospect.

"That is why i really have no problem with amarican soilders fighting and getting KILLED in iraq."

Suppose you lived under a harsh dictatorship where your family was gassed and your friends shot, and you have no choice but to submit to the government or be tortured and killed.  Should I be fine with that?  Not my problem, and if my country were to go to war wouldn't we be there "unjustified?"

Should America have been "fine" with Hitler exterminating the Jews?  Wasn't their problem either.

I would have hoped you'd have had at least a BASIC humanity about you in which you desire no one gets killed at all.  But I see you actually do want to see Americans die.

@Killer, given there are only two main candidates per American election, it's not hard to earn at least a %45 of the vote.


18:39:56 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

"Thats why the MAJORITY of Iraqis KILL Amarican Soilders because they messed up there country. "

Back in my day the word majority meant more then 50%. Now a days it seems to mean 3%.


18:52:05 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Killer:

Oh yeah, forgot about that... Still, he shouldn't have got that many. And by the way, the Americans used around 4,000,000 pounds of uranium in Iraq. That's a hell of a lot. There was no need to radiate the country. See here: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm

Whatever about justifiying going into the country with ordinary bullets...


19:04:34 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Kassius Son of Rome:

isnt most of the uranium spent, i.e used fer tank armament?


19:12:44 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Erunion Telcontar:

Marching into Iraq in the first place was the right thing to do. The yanks did it for the wrong reasons, but Saddam needed to go. However, since then the Americans have made themselves disliked, even hated by some of the local populace. At first they were liberators, now they are being seen as occupiers, which is why most of the insurgents are fighting them. They should have left earlier and had a more stable government in place.
No, not having put a great deal of thought into the subject, I do not know how it should have been done, I do know, however, that it should have been done, somehow. Even if it was impossible, the least the American soldiers could have done is to change their attitude, been less arrogant and antagonistic, and far less trigger happy. Those are my thoughts, not hard proven facts. Correct me if I'm wrong on anything here.


19:20:15 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Kassius Son of Rome:

amen to trigger happy


20:11:06 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Aben V:

Should America have been "fine" with Hitler exterminating the Jews?  Wasn't their problem either.

From my basic learning of European history in my JC, I noted that America only entered  WWII AFTER pearl harbour.

Untill then (Befor the Axis where seen as a threat) America was happy to contain the war to simply Europe.


20:18:38 Dec 4th 07 - Sir Iwasfrozen V:

[edit] Potential superpowers

     People's Republic of China     Republic of India     European Union


Academics predict the possible rise of new superpowers in the 21st century, mentioning three possible superpower candidates. Whether the People's Republic of China, India or the European Union will be future superpowers is a matter of ongoing debate.

[edit] European Union

The European Union has been called an emerging superpower by academics.[35][36][37][38] T.R. Reid,[39] Andrew Reding[40] and Mark Leonard,[41][42] believe that the power of the European Union will rival that of the United States in the 21st century. Leonard cites several factors: the EU's large population, large economy, low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and certain EU members states' high quality of life (when measured in terms such as hours worked per week).[43] The military spending of the European Union's Member States, when aggregated, is by far the second highest in the world, and two Member States—the UK and France—hold nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers, with the ability to project force in almost any region of the world. Certain reforms, as proposed in the Reform Treaty, likely to take effect in 2009, aim to provide the Union with a more powerful High Representative for foreign policy, an External Action Service and a human president, who will reside over the European Council. On the other hand Laurent Cohen-Tanugi[44] states that the EU as a whole has consistently suffered from a growth deficit vis-a-vis the US, high unemployment, and public deficits even while most member states of the EU lagged substantially behind the US in R&D investment, technological innovation, and, since 1995, productivity gains.

[edit] People's Republic of China

The People's Republic of China receives almost continual coverage in the popular press of its potential superpower status,[45][46] and has been identified as a rising or emerging economic and military superpower by academics and other experts.[47][48][49][50] Professor Shujie Yao of Nottingham University has said "China will overtake the United States to become the world's largest economy by 2038 if current growth rates continue", and that China's GDP will overtake that of Japan by 2017 or 2018, and Germany's by 2008. Professor Yao thinks that "under an optimistic scenario", "China could become a real superpower in 30 years time".[51]

Geoffrey Murphay's China: The Next Superpower argues that while the potential for China is high; this is fairly perceived only by looking at the risks and obstacles China faces in managing its population and resources. The political situation in China is too fragile to survive into superpower status according to Susan Shirk, writing in China: Fragile Superpower.[52] Other factors that could constrain China's ability to become a superpower in the future include: limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability and the environment.[53]

[edit] India

Newsweek, and the International Herald Tribune join several academics in discussing India's potential of becoming a superpower.[54][55][56]

China and India rising to superpower status is not inevitable, according to scholars such as Professor Pranab Bardhan, Chief Editor of the Journal of Development Economics, who suggest that millions mired in poverty and ineffective government prevent China or India from rivaling the U.S. or the E.U. any time soon.[57]Founder and President of the Economic Strategy Institute and former counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan Administration Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr. has embraced the notion being put forth that "It is going to be India's century. India is going to be the biggest economy in the world. It is going to be the biggest superpower of the 21st century".[58]


[edit] Russia

Occasionally, Russia is suggested as a potential candidate for achieving superpower status in the twenty-first century. According to Steven Rosefielde of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Russia intends to "reemerge as a full-fledged superpower," and "contrary to conventional wisdom, this goal is easily within the Kremlin’s grasp, but the cost to the Russian people and global security would be immense" (Rosefielde 2005:1). Rosefielde further argues that "Russia has an intact military-industrial complex...and the mineral wealth to reactivate its dormant structurally militarized potential," and that "supply-side constraints don’t preclude a return to prodigal superpowerdom" (Rosefielde 2005:9).

Alexander Golts of the St. Petersburg Times argues that Putin's confrontations with the US on nuclear issues are in pursuit of regaining superpower status for Russia.[59]

However, some argue that Russia's current social and political difficulties and its lacking material and institutional capabilities means that Russia is not likely to achieve a status above that of a "great power" in the near future. As Barry Buzan, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, states:

Russia is the least likely candidate for (re)promotion to superpower. Indeed, it remains a plausible candidate for further demotion into the ranks of big regional powers alongside India and Brazil. To achieve promotion back to superpower status would require Russia to stage a miraculous across-the-board recovery from the very severe economic, political and status shrinkage that followed from the implosion of the Soviet Union...Russia's problem is the huge disjuncture between its status needs and its economic and military weakness. Except for nuclear weapons, the massive military legacy from the Soviet Union has largely decayed...Aside from its nuclear weapons, and its enormous political geography, Russia does not really have the material capability to sustain even its great power status, which is consequentially something given by its peers than taken by right...Therefore, and even though its position has improved a bit since the nadir of the 1990s, Russia is too weak to bid for superpower status during the foreseeable future.[60]

For these reasons, Buzan argues that it is unlikely that Russia will attain superpower status anytime soon.

Russia is often considered to be an energy superpower and a nuclear superpower due to its large nuclear *beep*nal

Sources. Wikipedia.


20:23:07 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Kassius Son of Rome:

well thats quite a mouthfull


20:24:08 Dec 4th 07 - Sir Iwasfrozen V:

lol, if your going to argue, do it right. =)


20:24:42 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Kassius Son of Rome:

who said i was arguing? i agree with most of it


20:37:17 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Doggy:

The US should leave Iraq because they can't afford to stay. The US's supposed military uberosity is fiction since they can't afford to use it. The senate won't approve any more spending on it.

A lot of funding for Iraq and other occupancies going on today (the coal-producers in south america for example) are coming from fund-raising targeted at those who have something to gain (energy producers who want cheap oil and coal). The US is dead, only its corporations are left and even they are failing. It's military is basically a privately-owned militia at this point shared by citizens with money.


20:53:15 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Dragonfly:

pls the corporations are going global there is no thing as an "american corporation''
that isnt a marketing/ public relations  tag


21:22:51 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Killer:

Even if it was spent, it would still be radiating slightly, I think... Even if it was only a tenth used for shooting, and I'd say it's much more, it is a still a lot.


21:26:00 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Kassius Son of Rome:

i doubt that as even if it was just alpha rad then the operators would probably be in close enough to be pretty badly affected, anyway if the military were lettin ther soldiers in so much danger the press would have a field day


22:53:59 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Something's wrong with my computer sorry.


23:05:56 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Should America have been "fine" with Hitler exterminating the Jews?  Wasn't their problem either.

From my basic learning of European history in my JC, I noted that America only entered  WWII AFTER pearl harbour.


The reason we didn't enter WW2 until then was for 2 reasons. The first reason we didn't want to get involved in something that wasn't our problem(at the time Europe seemed to be a bunch of war mongers which is remeniscent of what's happening right now so shut up ) and the second reason was because when we got involved  in WW1 we got hit by the great depression because of Europe. We were worried that after what happened the first time then the second time our Economy would be completely destroyed. Even after we joined 90% of our Army was not sent towards Japan who were the greatest threat to us but towards Germany who we considered the greater evil.

Oh and by the way European Union=JOKE

There my computer wasn't working a couple of seconds ago.


23:14:24 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sorra:

Iraq was no utopia to begin with.&nb*beep*erica has been trying to rebuild the country since the invasion, but it's not easy when terrorists keep bombing buildings all over again.

You shouldent have gone there in the first place. It was better befor.

So the typical European is an expert on Middle-East history and is fully informed on the history of Iraq?  Doubt it.  You're falling into a stereotype here.

Well, It was not Eurpou who put Saddam in Power in the first lace. America Put him in power (yep it's true look it up) and when he decided not to listen to america anymore and not attack Iran again, but instead attack kwait because there was a problem betwen those 2 countries, thats when america decided that Saddam was no more use. You guys GAVE him Chemical Wepones to use on iran and he destroyed them all like asked by the UN weponesinsprectores (look it up). He was gassing people forever and you dident care until he stopped listening to you guys, thats when this came up "OMG he's gassing people...We better go Bomb him" (look it up)

 

Don't forget that the Iraqi people cheered when American troops entered Baghdad and threw down Saddam's regime.  If you are trying to justify Saddam as being a just leader, you should have absolutely no problem accepting what Bush has done as being justified.

I never tryed to justifiy that Saddam was a good ruler. Infact he's not. He was a very bad and evil man. However, thae fact remains that the avarge Iraqis life was BETTER UNDER SADDAM then now. Here is what teh UN had to say about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16035086/

The political environment in 2004 was different than it is now.&nb*beep*erica was not nearly as exhausted from the Iraq war and Bush's standing was much higher.

And it's always easy to call someone an *beep*.  In retrospect.

First off, he was clearly showing hostlities towards iraq and you still re-electd him. So it only matters when the U.S is starined from the war. You dont think of the effects it would have on others? Secondly...You saying bush is not an ass?

Suppose you lived under a harsh dictatorship where your family was gassed and your friends shot, and you have no choice but to submit to the government or be tortured and killed.  Should I be fine with that?  Not my problem, and if my country were to go to war wouldn't we be there "unjustified?"

He was very bad, i am not deabting that. I am saying that the U.S shouldnt have went in Iraq. And if they did, they should have had a better plan of action. on avarage it was better under Saddam.

Should America have been "fine" with Hitler exterminating the Jews?  Wasn't their problem either.

"America only entered  WWII AFTER pearl harbour.

Untill then (Befor the Axis where seen as a threat) America was happy to contain the war to simply Europe."

I would have hoped you'd have had at least a BASIC humanity about you in which you desire no one gets killed at all.  But I see you actually do want to see Americans die.

I do, Iv always wanted no one to die. If iraq was never invaded, all this would not have happened. But for you to ask someone to only feel sorry for amaerican soilders dieing, is pathetic. It would be better if no one died and that would oly be possible if america never went into iraq.

Mr. Sigheart

Report


12/4/2007 1:39:56 PM
"Thats why the MAJORITY of Iraqis KILL Amarican Soilders because they messed up there country. "

Back in my day the word majority meant more then 50%. Now a days it seems to mean 3%

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/29/iraq.poll/

55% is a majority


23:23:33 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Might:

55% of the people interviewed with was probably 100 handpicked.


23:32:12 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sorra:

Mr. Might

Report


12/4/2007 11:18:41 AM

I think Sorra is a undercover terrorist.



As you can see he is spreading obvious propaganda. What a *beep*...

 

And might, your just a loser. Even though i may disagree witg Lady Lancewing and some others, atleast i respect them because they are puting some intellectual points into the conversation. They may have a different view but that dosent make them bad in any sense. However, what you said was just plain dumb. That did not generate any  intellectual covesration. If i had reacted the wrong way, it would have just caused a whole lot more problems and added fuel to the fire. But im not as pathetic as you seem to be. Im not going to retaliate by hurlling back nasty presoanl attacks on your self. Grow up.


23:35:39 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Your way to gullible if you believe the load of propaganda that CNN is, it is the most propoganda filled channel on the news right now(proven fact).  Also while I'm at it let me just say I have an unfavorable view on France right now..... GASP I'M A SUICIDE BOMBER AND TRYING TO KILL THE FRENCH PEOPLE!!!


23:35:59 Dec 4th 07 - Mr. Sorra:

Mr. Might

Report


12/4/2007 6:23:33 PM

55% of the people interviewed with was probably 100 handpicked.

 

Yes Might, It's a conspiracy to derail you from the truth. They new you would read this in the future so they went out and handpicked 100 people so they could prove you wrong and get the better of you. 

It's all a  conspiracy Might, It's all  conspiracy. Now put on your tin-foil hat and wait for the aliens to come.

lol


00:13:32 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Might:

OMG THE ALIENS!


03:44:52 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Dakarius:

The ignorance that permeates this thread is staggering.


03:45:19 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Dakarius:

The ignorance that permeates this thread is staggering.


03:46:42 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Why is that Dakarius and who exactly is this ignorance directed toward?


04:21:28 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Dakarius:

Read through some of these posts, many are completly based on oppinion, and little fact. Much based on "fact" is from questionable sources. Some of these posts aren't even logical. To name a few producers of this half baked crap: Sorra, Might, Killer, Doggy, and ET (though he knows he didn't care to look up his info)
No offense guys, but please, spend time doing research* on the topics you debate before trying to argue your side. I admit that I am not the first authority on this topic, but I can easily spot uninformed oppinions, innadiquetly formed ones, and complete bs pulled off the top of someones mind.

*research entails more than looking something up on wikipedia


04:24:20 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Yay I wasn't included in the half baked crap people ^.^


04:25:10 Dec 5th 07 - Lady Lacewing:

"You shouldent have gone there in the first place. It was better before."

Here enters an interesting philosophical debate.  Which is more important to a person, Freedom or Security?  If you have one, you need to sacrifice some of the other.

It is a very American ideal that freedom is the utmost important quality.  (Ie, "Give me liberty or give me death.")  Therefor it might be morally right to go invade a country that doesn't have much freedom and grant its people a democracy. 

But there are two major problems.  The first is America never really asked the Iraqi people if they wanted American troops to rid them of Saddam, the decision was made for them.  (But even if the Iraqi people had wanted to, could they have done it on their own?)

The second problem is that all this freedom stuff is strictly idealist, and will not work in the real world the way it sounds in a speech or on paper.  Simply put, you can't just force an Americanized system of democracy into a country and culture that is very unlike America.  The Iraqi people don't share the emphasis on freedom that America does.  Many people wanted Saddam gone, but a significant smaller population can agree on what to do now.

'Well, It was not Eurpou who put Saddam in Power in the first lace."

No, but it largely Europe's fault because of colonization in the Middle East.&nb*beep*erica is just an instance of unrest between the Middle East and Europe/America, turmoil is nothing new.

"First off, he was clearly showing hostlities towards iraq and you still re-electd him. So it only matters when the U.S is starined from the war. You dont think of the effects it would have on others? Secondly...You saying bush is not an ass?"

The Iraq war only began a year earlier, and after a succesfull war in Afghanistan.  Yes, it was too soon to feel the strain.  Sad?  Yes.  But that's politics.  And no, I do think Bush is an ass.

" I am saying that the U.S shouldnt have went in Iraq. And if they did, they should have had a better plan of action. on avarage it was better under Saddam."

Occupying Iraq was no easy task to plan and relatively unprecedented.  And whether or not life was "better" under Saddam goes back to the whole freedom vrs security debate.

"America only entered  WWII AFTER pearl harbour."

Yes, but as Sigheart pointed out, American troops primarily went to Europe to fight Hitler.  The jewish people in concentration camps were released before America finished the war with its original agressor.

"I do, Iv always wanted no one to die. If iraq was never invaded, all this would not have happened. But for you to ask someone to only feel sorry for amaerican soilders dieing, is pathetic. It would be better if no one died and that would oly be possible if america never went into iraq."

Life always seems easier when you sit in your own little bubble.  But when something comes and pops that bubble (ie the World Trade Tower attacks) you have no choice but to realize there is a world out there, and it may be out there to come back for you later.

No, I am not saying America is the only place that has had its bubble popped.  It's just that America has the money and the power to go out and do something, unlike the EU which stalls and gets nothing done.  (You seen Star Wars III:  Revenge of the Sith?  It's like that.  Lucas ain't that creative :p)


04:31:30 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

No, I am not saying America is the only place that has had its bubble popped.  It's just that America has the money and the power to go out and do something, unlike the EU which stalls and gets nothing done.  (You seen Star Wars III:  Revenge of the Sith?  It's like that.  Lucas ain't that creative :p)

While I agree with most of your post I just thought I'd center in on this part. Thank god someone see's just how much the EU is a joke. They could be a superpower (not that it's likely, there's just way to many problems with it). But they'll never be a superpower in anything more then on paper if they don't get a backbone.


18:13:09 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Erunion Telcontar:

*Glares*
Dak, my post is by no means half baked crap! It's three quarters baked! At least! I'm insulted! :P


18:42:02 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Aben V:

Mr.Sighert: The reason we didn't enter WW2 until then was for 2 reasons. The first reason we didn't want to get involved in something that wasn't our problem(at the time Europe seemed to be a bunch of war mongers which is remeniscent of what's happening right now so shut up ) and the second reason was because when we got involved  in WW1 we got hit by the great depression because of Europe. We were worried that after what happened the first time then the second time our Economy would be completely destroyed. Even after we joined 90% of our Army was not sent towards Japan who were the greatest threat to us but towards Germany who we considered the greater evil.

Like I said America couldn't give a Dam about the millions of innocent people killed in the Holocost.


20:26:19 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Might:

Aben, at that time America didn't even know about Germany killing Jews by the millions.


20:46:34 Dec 5th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Aben V: The Holocaust wasn't even known about until after Normandy when we found the first concentration camp you *beep*. Hitler made them seem like wartime villages to us.


05:14:28 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Sorra:

Mr. Sigheart

Report


12/5/2007 3:46:34 PM
Aben V: The Holocaust wasn't even known about until after Normandy when we found the first concentration camp you *beep*. Hitler made them seem like wartime villages to us.

But america did know about the  Polish Warsaw Ghetto .


05:21:14 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

Again all we knew about it was that they were Wartime Villages, perhaps with prisoners but they were working for Germany and did not seem to be treated badly. This was the image Hitler sent to the world, as such we found nothing wrong with it. There were rumors of it but no substantial proof of it happening to back it up until after Normandy. We also suspected that they weren't being nice to the prisoners but we never suspected genocide nor anything approaching genocide .Don't continue with this arguement because it's a lost cause.


08:13:55 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Sorra:

Why are we arguing about WWII again? I thought this was about iraq?

Lol


17:06:51 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Kassius Son of Rome:

well it WAS bout having a new world but its gone a teeny bit off track


17:57:28 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Killer:

This was originally in the suggestions forum for having people from Europe and other places fighting against the U.S., or some other combination. You can see it's a really good idea...


19:35:41 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Dragonfly:

OMG really cant belive that the situaltion still hasnt cahnged and some people still think the exact same things if not more..
I honostly have to say i disagree with all of for example lacewings
starting 'facts'/axioma's so whatever she makes of those ofc could be logical if you asume all those thing are true. but like i said i desagree with your ''facts'' adn i also disagre with most other people who share your view/ you television channels and other propaganda methodes (and yes people from the same countries have the same of those wich is why i say this instead of useing the word ''americans''.)

if i read your post all i can say is..
no i dont think america brings freedom but the opposite. and think the opposite in many more things.
I also cant understand nationalism in the way that you some people somehow feel offended when someone says the military kills people. like (in my piont inoncent even who where forced to adapt to the war zone by resorting to violence themselves(wich is still a very small persentage of all the people who still suffer from it)...
my problem is the thing done in the name of america and those thing you dont really know about. even if to some war is something normal or simple dont know what it really is.. and it cant be explained with just words amybe you should one try to see what is going on (not that its ez with ''american'' (another group useing that name) media coverage who only scares  you with terrorists(/moslims) who if they use violence seem to do it for no understandable(for no human) reason.


22:13:25 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Aben V:

Europe will have an army it is in the proposed stages.

When made it will be secound only to china in power.

If you don't believe me check this out.

http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=79&sid=998


22:37:54 Dec 6th 07 - Mr. Sigheart:

A few things wrong with your statement.

A. When I press on that like I go to  a place called Army Ranks and Ensignia's which has nothing to do with armies.

B. America is the strongest Military Power.

C. Europe has proposed above what 100 ideas? How many have gone past the proposal stage and then later bee completed? 0. Great track record there.


00:28:33 Dec 7th 07 - Lady Lacewing:

Dragonfly, I rarely watch television, let alone news channels like Fox or CNN.

Also, I am not stating facts so much as pointing out the philosophy behind the Iraq war.  If you would like to provide a counterarguement and prove me false, feel free.

Furthermore, I make no claim as to whether America's invasion was justified or not, or right or wrong, etc.


13:47:59 Dec 7th 07 - Mr. Dragonfly:

ow ok but in my piont of vieuw that philosophy has already been preached for probably even more then for god these few years and i really dont see how repeating it even more would help or anything.
exept maybe point out that it makes people think more ''positive'' about war.


21:11:16 Dec 13th 07 - Sir Iwasfrozen VI:

*Ahem* waterboarding *Ahem*


[Top]  Pages:  (back) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (next)

Login
Username: Don't have an account - Sign up!
Password: Forgot your password - Retrive it!

My bookmarksOld forum design


- close -
  Copyright © 1999-2024 Visual Utopia. All rights reserved. Page loaded in 0 seconds. Server time: 11:17:40 PM