I have a cure for america regaurding missile attacks (or attacks in general)

[Tr0n]

And we're half French.

I feel bad for you...

 

[dream431ca]

I'm just glad I'm not a redneck..they get more abuse than the french :x

 

[Tr0n]

I'm just glad I'm not a redneck..they get more abuse than the french :x

Yea true...but most of that crap is a bunch of stereotypical bullshit.Theres nothing wrong with being a country boy.

 

[Viperidae]

I feel bad for you...

Ahh... ce n'est pas aussi pire qu'on pense.

 

[MadHatter]

And we're half French.

Not all of you.

 

[MadHatter]

Ahh... ce n'est pas aussi pire qu'on pense.

Ignorez-le. Les français sont bons et la France est un grand endroit.

 

[bliink]

Ignorez-le. Les français sont bons et la France est un grand endroit.

j'aussi!, j'aussi!
Je souhaite parler français avec vous, cependant, le google est quelque peu imprécis

 

[aeroripper]

Okay i'm gonna lunge into the fray... first of all:

he said the canadians burned down the whitehouse, which is wrong. the british (i.e. redcoats) did. they even jacked madisons dinner. and america isnt just english, its pennsylvania dutch, irish, east european, and basically anything. many settlers didnt consider themselves so much british, as they did "protestant, catholic, puritan, opressed, etc." after the declaration of independence was created we stopped being british.

edit: i forgot the most important of monroes doctrines.. nonintervention.

You seem to know your history, now tell me what happens when somebody like bush keeps getting more and more power (patriot act, patriot act II, victory act... etc)

Giving up our god given rights != more security, just more control
What is absolutely essential that people realize is something like the patriot act is GROSSELY undermining our bill of rights and without a bill of rights, we as citizens, might as well be dead in the eyes of our government (think expendable and easily confused cattle).

my country is better than your country though

Now you've stepped into the realm of nationalism, worked for hitler\stalin... why can't it work for us? So while cheney is screaming that a nuclear attack on our cities is "not a matter of if, but when" yet the adminstration keeps saying that we are safer then we were on 9/11 then i call that a flat out lie. We've seen the way bush and his adminstration runs things and so has the world. Get ready to start hearing the march of soldiers footsteps down the streets, and then we can show the world why our country is better than theirs...

 

[MadHatter]

j'aussi!, j'aussi!
Je souhaite parler français avec vous, cependant, le google est quelque peu imprécis

Google?

 

[bliink]

Google?

yes! www.google.com

 

[Tr0n]

Google is my friend.

 

[aeroripper]

I want to oogle at my noodle

 

[MadHatter]

yes! www.google.com

Oh, ah, I thought you meant google as in something other than the site.

 

[bliink]

Oh, ah, I thought you meant google as in something other than the site.

quelque chose plus... adulte eh? lol :E

 

[Viperidae]

Google = horrible translater. Babelfish is worse. Try translating 'Bah bah bah bah bah, I'm loving it!' to German, then back to English in Babelfish. It comes out as 'Bah bah bah bah bah, it likes!'

Yikes!

 

[MadHatter]

quelque chose plus... adulte eh? lol :E

Oui, je ne peux pas retenir mes pensées sales. :imu:

Me and my gutter mind. :smoking:

 

[bliink]

Oui, je ne peux pas retenir mes pensées sales. :imu:

Me and my gutter mind. :smoking:

cela amuse plutôt

 

[Homer]

Everyone hates the US military until they need its help.

Maybe if there was a single other nation on the planet capable of projecting any real power other than China(Who you DO NOT want to be the most powerful nation on earth)...

 

[Steve]

I'm just glad I'm not a redneck..they get more abuse than the french :x

yeah, dude..people HATE us...but we HATE the french even more than anybody, so we're happy!

 

[The Dark Elf]

yeah, dude..people HATE us...but we HATE the french even more than anybody, so we're happy!

The French aren't _that_ bad.. I still like Paris, nice place to visit for a weekend.

 

[Icarus]

The French aren't _that_ bad.. I still like Paris, nice place to visit for a weekend.

I'd actually like to vist Paris, kinda hard to do with the biases though

 

[ZeeM]

heres a thought, maybe because national security is a top issue to americans. maybe because unlike your country we actually get attacked by terrorists. maybe we now need to finish the job in iraq and afghanistan.

if your stupid goverment ever stops attacking every country on their way and being so arrogant you wouldn`t need that. and stop calling ppl stupid.

And when he says American he of course means goverment, not ppl...

 

[Icarus]

if your stupid goverment ever stops attacking every country on their way and being so arrogant you wouldn`t need that. and stop calling ppl stupid.

And when he says American he of course means goverment, not ppl...

If you want to get political, go on the politics board...keep it away from here

 

[burner69]

Please stop saying "America saved you asses in the second world war". You did it because the Japanese dragged you into it.

And Britain ain't much better (I'm from England by the way) we only got involved when Germany invaded some where where we got coal from (I can't remember the place but should be able to find out if you want to).

War is sick, we only get involved when we feel we have to, and it solves problems by killing people who have differing views.

And America's space program, although a good idea, does have it's down side as dream pointed out.
The nuclear arms race was started by America to drain the resources of other countries; America is a rich country - I won't go into why, we all know that it was founded on rather nasty grounds (Britain is the same, I'm not flaming, I'm stating fact) and it's hold on third world countries is sick, you do know how much money they make from third world countrues don't you? But anyway - nuclear arms race was started by America. They knew that everytime they bought a nuke, countries like Russia would buy one too to stay on top. Eventually these countries ran out of money leaving America the top nuclear power.

Stop shouting abuse at people making points against your government, they deserve it, as do others.

And the Afgan war was the biggest farce I have seen in my life. Many innocents died so America could find a head to have on a stick from 9/11. Now that country has been left to die after we (america, UK, and others) invaded and left it to pick up the pieces. When bush didn't catch OBL he tried to link Saddam with him, then tried to say he was a major world threat, and when all that was found to be BS you just said "he was a bad man". Go to war on one premise, come out the other side on another. Crock of crap. If that is your idea of war solving problems you are misguided.

And people who are saying "Ah we helped you in WW2, we shouldn't have, see how you'd do." Don't dare say that. Your country men died for a cause you probably weren't even alive during. Respect them, don't drag them into a ****ing debate about American politics.

Thank you

 

[burner69]

And mods, yes, could you please move this to the politics board? As it clearly is politics

cheerz

 

[Icarus]

Please stop saying "America saved you asses in the second world war". You did it because the Japanese dragged you into it.

And Britain ain't much better (I'm from England by the way) we only got involved when Germany invaded some where where we got coal from (I can't remember the place but should be able to find out if you want to).

War is sick, we only get involved when we feel we have to, and it solves problems by killing people who have differing views.

And America's space program, although a good idea, does have it's down side as dream pointed out.
The nuclear arms race was started by America to drain the resources of other countries; America is a rich country - I won't go into why, we all know that it was founded on rather nasty grounds (Britain is the same, I'm not flaming, I'm stating fact) and it's hold on third world countries is sick, you do know how much money they make from third world countrues don't you? But anyway - nuclear arms race was started by America. They knew that everytime they bought a nuke, countries like Russia would buy one too to stay on top. Eventually these countries ran out of money leaving America the top nuclear power.

Stop shouting abuse at people making points against your government, they deserve it, as do others.

And the Afgan war was the biggest farce I have seen in my life. Many innocents died so America could find a head to have on a stick from 9/11. Now that country has been left to die after we (america, UK, and others) invaded and left it to pick up the pieces. When bush didn't catch OBL he tried to link Saddam with him, then tried to say he was a major world threat, and when all that was found to be BS you just said "he was a bad man". Go to war on one premise, come out the other side on another. Crock of crap. If that is your idea of war solving problems you are misguided.

And people who are saying "Ah we helped you in WW2, we shouldn't have, see how you'd do." Don't dare say that. Your country men died for a cause you probably weren't even alive during. Respect them, don't drag them into a ****ing debate about American politics.

Thank you

Did you not see me telling you people to stop?

Take it to the politics board

 

[burner69]

And mods, yes, could you please move this to the politics board? As it clearly is politics

cheerz

No I must have missed that

 

[MadHatter]

Some people are just adamant to a level of stupidity.

 

[burner69]

I'm giving an opinion.
I'm more than aware that things aren't black and white, but how can you defend one stand point while giving the plus side to others?

If Bush started being like that no one would listen. "Well Iraq might have WMDs, we're really not sure. If they have, and have the ability and desire to use them on us, he MUST be removed (a point I would agree on). But then again, the information I have is not great, and is open to interpretation. Perhaps this will all be a big mistake."

I'm arguing a point I believe in, I leave it to the pro-bush people to fill in the gaps. That's what a debate is. That's what this is.

 

[gh0st]

You seem to know your history, now tell me what happens when somebody like bush keeps getting more and more power (patriot act, patriot act II, victory act... etc)

Giving up our god given rights != more security, just more control
What is absolutely essential that people realize is something like the patriot act is GROSSELY undermining our bill of rights and without a bill of rights, we as citizens, might as well be dead in the eyes of our government (think expendable and easily confused cattle).
bush isnt getting more powerful, the federal government is simply gaining the powers necessary to prosecute criminals (i dont think you know what the patriot act is, you just tie it with losing your rights - a very left notion) and defend the country. you can either view it as a conspiracy or see it for what it is. ive actually read the entire document. even though it was a bitch, its really not as bad as people make it out to be.

Now you've stepped into the realm of nationalism, worked for hitler\stalin... why can't it work for us? So while cheney is screaming that a nuclear attack on our cities is "not a matter of if, but when" yet the adminstration keeps saying that we are safer then we were on 9/11 then i call that a flat out lie. We've seen the way bush and his adminstration runs things and so has the world. Get ready to start hearing the march of soldiers footsteps down the streets, and then we can show the world why our country is better than theirs...

i said i was kidding. its the same thing about my signature... its all satire, calm down. cheneys statement is true, terrorists seek to undermine our defenses all the time, eventually we will miss - thats just war.

Please stop saying "America saved you asses in the second world war". You did it because the Japanese dragged you into it.

youre right. would you have done differently? this proves my point of isolationism, something europe has taken away from us.

And America's space program, although a good idea, does have it's down side as dream pointed out.
The nuclear arms race was started by America to drain the resources of other countries; America is a rich country - I won't go into why, we all know that it was founded on rather nasty grounds (Britain is the same, I'm not flaming, I'm stating fact) and it's hold on third world countries is sick, you do know how much money they make from third world countrues don't you? But anyway - nuclear arms race was started by America. They knew that everytime they bought a nuke, countries like Russia would buy one too to stay on top. Eventually these countries ran out of money leaving America the top nuclear power.

even if what you claim is true.. which it isnt, there are many more causes to the space program and nuclear arms race than just beating the soviets.. which you should also be glad of.

america founded on nasty grounds? enlighten me.

And the Afgan war was the biggest farce I have seen in my life. Many innocents died so America could find a head to have on a stick from 9/11. Now that country has been left to die after we (america, UK, and others) invaded and left it to pick up the pieces. When bush didn't catch OBL he tried to link Saddam with him, then tried to say he was a major world threat, and when all that was found to be BS you just said "he was a bad man". Go to war on one premise, come out the other side on another. Crock of crap. If that is your idea of war solving problems you are misguided.

many innocents died, but the afghani's have obviously accepted and embraced democracy (wrapped up their first democratic election). afghanistan left to die? we still have thousands of troops there, and are giving billions of dollars in aid. they have a government now. they havent been left to die, youre just pulling stuff out of your ass. the iraq war was the result of faulty - yet unignorable - evidence linking saddam with obl. war solved the problem of saddam.

And people who are saying "Ah we helped you in WW2, we shouldn't have, see how you'd do." Don't dare say that. Your country men died for a cause you probably weren't even alive during. Respect them, don't drag them into a ****ing debate about American politics.

i never said we shouldent have... in fact, im glad we did. people forget all too easily. i've met a lot of european folks alive during ww2, and none of them have nearly the hate of america that their offspring do. and yeah, a lot of my countrymen did die, several from my family. i dont disrespect them.

 

[burner69]

youre right. would you have done differently? this proves my point of isolationism, something europe has taken away from us.


america founded on nasty grounds? enlighten me.


many innocents died, but the afghani's have obviously accepted and embraced democracy (wrapped up their first democratic election). afghanistan left to die? we still have thousands of troops there, and are giving billions of dollars in aid. they have a government now. they havent been left to die, youre just pulling stuff out of your ass. the iraq war was the result of faulty - yet unignorable - evidence linking saddam with obl. war solved the problem of saddam.


i never said we shouldent have... in fact, im glad we did. people forget all too easily. i've met a lot of european folks alive during ww2, and none of them have nearly the hate of america that their offspring do. and yeah, a lot of my countrymen did die, several from my family. i dont disrespect them.

I don't know if I'd have done it differently, just that some people were talking like America rushed in and saved our asses because they felt they had to.

Brittish Colonists landing in America killed the natives to steal their land. Then used the survivors as slaves, whom they did not need to pay, so the country could rapidly expand. You wouldn't be the only country to do so, don't get me wrong, but I believe that makes my point.

Here is the state of Afgan http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/108363_afghaned.shtml

Faulty evidence for war should be thoroughly scrutinised before mobilising troops. Evidence that he MAY have had WMDs was not evidence that he planned to use them. He had no reason to.

You should be, and I'm sure are, very proud of your family. My relatives fought too.

Thank you for having a reasonable debate with me. Something some people on here seem incapable of.

 

[Death.Trap]

Oui, je ne peux pas retenir mes pensées sales. :imu:

Me and my gutter mind. :smoking:

Yes, I cannot retain my dirty thoughts.




How close was that?

 

[gh0st]

Brittish Colonists landing in America killed the natives to steal their land. Then used the survivors as slaves, whom they did not need to pay, so the country could rapidly expand. You wouldn't be the only country to do so, don't get me wrong, but I believe that makes my point.

indian slaves... that didnt happen. relations with the indians were tense from the beginning (the iroqouis, pontiacs rebellion and so on) but ive never heard of us enslaving them, since we didnt even begin enslaving blacks in large number until the late 1700's. the process of land going back and forth is the result of many treaties, and yes - of military might. technically they did attack us first, and set the tone for GB's whole colonization effort.

Here is the state of Afgan http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/108363_afghaned.shtml

the Bush administration has increased its attention to the needs there with plans for spending more on aid and reconstruction.

i never said it was perfect, but its getting there. these things do take time.

Faulty evidence for war should be thoroughly scrutinised before mobilising troops. Evidence that he MAY have had WMDs was not evidence that he planned to use them. He had no reason to.

i'm sure it was thoroughly scrutinized. i dont know, i wasent there, i can only assume that it was. the evidence was that he not only had them but was selling them etc etc whatever. of course he had reason to, the man is no friend of the united states

You should be, and I'm sure are, very proud of your family. My relatives fought too.

i'm not just proud of my family, i'm proud of any american (or soldier anywhere) who fights for his country. brave men profit a nation more than the cleverist of speakers <--rtw

Thank you for having a reasonable debate with me. Something some people on here seem incapable of.

usually people are saying that about me. but.. the feelings mutual.

 

[burner69]

indian slaves... that didnt happen. relations with the indians were tense from the beginning (the iroqouis, pontiacs rebellion and so on) but ive never heard of us enslaving them, since we didnt even begin enslaving blacks in large number until the late 1700's. the process of land going back and forth is the result of many treaties, and yes - of military might. technically they did attack us first, and set the tone for GB's whole colonization effort.


the Bush administration has increased its attention to the needs there with plans for spending more on aid and reconstruction.

i never said it was perfect, but its getting there. these things do take time.


i'm sure it was thoroughly scrutinized. i dont know, i wasent there, i can only assume that it was. the evidence was that he not only had them but was selling them etc etc whatever. of course he had reason to, the man is no friend of the united states


i'm not just proud of my family, i'm proud of any american (or soldier anywhere) who fights for his country. brave men profit a nation more than the cleverist of speakers <--rtw


usually people are saying that about me. but.. the feelings mutual.

I was under the impression that they enslaved the natives. If I'm wrong then fair enough, though it does not make it okay to kill them. Even if they did strike first, remember, it was on their soil. Brittish colonists were an invading force. And remember it was essentially Britains who did this - so I'm kinda arguing against my country here as well - so I'm not bias

I think the Afgan situation could have been handled a lot better, waiting a while before attacking Saddam (I'll come back to this point later) would have helped, as it would have left more resources open to helping the country we just invaded. I hope bush does take the idea of afgan seriously. I really do.

Saddam not being a friend of the US (despite being put there by america) is no reason to declare war with him. I'm making the point that evidence that was clearly not great resulting in a war means there can be doubt cast over exactly HOW scrutinised it was. I'm sceptical because America really needed something to show after 9/11 - Saddam fits that too easily (especially when Bush was telling his people that Saddam was helping OBL etc)

Anyone who is willing to risk their lives for what they believe in deserves the highest possible respect from everybody.
Though clever speakers have got us very far.
Martin Luther
Ghandi

 

[gh0st]

I was under the impression that they enslaved the natives. If I'm wrong then fair enough, though it does not make it okay to kill them. Even if they did strike first, remember, it was on their soil. Brittish colonists were an invading force. And remember it was essentially Britains who did this - so I'm kinda arguing against my country here as well - so I'm not bias

then they were conquered.. imperialism prevails.

I think the Afgan situation could have been handled a lot better, waiting a while before attacking Saddam (I'll come back to this point later) would have helped, as it would have left more resources open to helping the country we just invaded. I hope bush does take the idea of afgan seriously. I really do.

i agree, things didnt go perfectly. waiting before attacking saddam would miss the chance to possibly get obl, which bush wouldent want to miss. the taliban harbored these people and were warned fairly before we attacked them. bush does take the idea of afghanistan seriously, thats why t hey now elect their own presidents.

Saddam not being a friend of the US (despite being put there by america) is no reason to declare war with him. I'm making the point that evidence that was clearly not great resulting in a war means there can be doubt cast over exactly HOW scrutinised it was. I'm sceptical because America really needed something to show after 9/11 - Saddam fits that too easily (especially when Bush was telling his people that Saddam was helping OBL etc)

this is your opinion and iw ont change it. id isagree with it though.

Anyone who is willing to risk their lives for what they believe in deserves the highest possible respect from everybody.
Though clever speakers have got us very far.
Martin Luther
Ghandi

youre right, but men like julius ceaser and macarthur also got us very far.

 

[MadHatter]

Yes, I cannot retain my dirty thoughts.




How close was that?

Precise.

 

[burner69]

then they were conquered.. imperialism prevails.

A comment I strongly disagree on. Suggesting just because you're stronger you have the 'right' to kill people is verging on evil.

i agree, things didnt go perfectly. waiting before attacking saddam would miss the chance to possibly get obl, which bush wouldent want to miss. the taliban harbored these people and were warned fairly before we attacked them. bush does take the idea of afghanistan seriously, thats why t hey now elect their own presidents.


this is your opinion and iw ont change it. id isagree with it though.


youre right, but men like julius ceaser and macarthur also got us very far.

I don't see how leaving Saddam would miss the chance to get OBL. The opposite infact, as it was believed he was in Afgan.

It seems Bush has a nack of doing a half-arsed job at things; Afgan a prime example. Elections there are good, but running water would be pretty cool too. He should not be allowed to do such things if he has such a half-arsed way of going about it.

Looks like we need good fighters and good speakers!

 

[MadHatter]

A comment I strongly disagree on. Suggesting just because you're stronger you have the 'right' to kill people is verging on evil.

I wouldn't exactly say they had the right to kill them either. But, the Brits had every right to conquer them and get away with it. In this world, the strong rule over the weak. The natives just happened to be the weak. It's common law of nature. You can complain about it all you want, but nature doesn't give a crap. Survival of the fittest.

 

[burner69]

I wouldn't exactly say they had the right to kill them either. But, the Brits had every right to conquer them and get away with it. In this world, the strong rule over the weak. The natives just happened to be the weak. It's common law of nature. You can complain about it all you want, but nature doesn't give a crap. Survival of the fittest.

Unfortunately, you're right.

But I wonder, did nature count on us evolving the Neo-Cortex?

 

[MadHatter]

Unfortunately, you're right.

But I wonder, did nature count on us evolving the Neo-Cortex?

I'll admit I don't know what the neo-cortex does, but I know it has to do with the cerebral cortex. Explain? I like learning new things.

As for nature counting on us to develop certain things. Well, I wonder if nature counted on humans to develop racism lol.