EBSB52 0 #76 July 13, 2005 Quote Re-read what I said. You think that I called you a Nazi? Well using that logic then I called you a Communist as well. I guess one cancels the other out and we're back to square one again! .....Go figure Don't get sucked into this. Ron will leave hits and then look for ways he can adjust other people's meanings to somehow victimize his character. I was using the term, "Nazi" as a metaphor; you were using it more analagously - nothing directed at anyone, but it distracts the subject, which is the intention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #77 July 13, 2005 Quote Damn, I just couldn't resist....... I think people slam the US because in part they don't understand it, in part the US does nothing to help its public image (Not that it doesn't do anything, it just doesn't publisise the good within the US or what it does outside for good) and in part because the US is empire building and belives that it has the answer to the worlds problems in its own form of economic governance and democracy which it tries mostly in good faith to export to people and cultures that neither want or need it. I think people slam the US because in part they don't understand it, In some instances, but I slam it because I know it well. The us was one of 8 countries to kill kids until 6 months ago. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates, run by corps for profit. The US has one of the highest rates of homeless, whilehaving amongstthe most filthy rich. DO I need to go on? If I were to talk about medical care exclusivity then we could open a whole new chapter. and in part because the US is empire building and belives that it has the answer to the worlds problems in its own form of economic governance and democracy which it tries mostly in good faith to export to people and cultures that neither want or need it. Great point.... one word, ETHNOCENTRICITY. It means forcibly pushing your ethnicity off on other countries/people. Just ask the American Indians what they think of it (hint: Indian schools). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #78 July 13, 2005 Quote Damn, I just couldn't resist....... I think people slam the US because in part they don't understand it, in part the US does nothing to help its public image (Not that it doesn't do anything, it just doesn't publisise the good within the US or what it does outside for good) and in part because the US is empire building and belives that it has the answer to the worlds problems in its own form of economic governance and democracy which it tries mostly in good faith to export to people and cultures that neither want or need it. Another way to look at it is the US just gets tired of being milked time and time again by the same countries. Perhaps the US has elected to stop throwing money at the problem and to actually solve it by exporting our democracy and economic system. The alternative would be for us to cut off all foreign aid, but then we would get flamed for that too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #79 July 13, 2005 Quote but you don't see Americans slamming England do you? Yes. Regularly actually. Quote Or constantly harping on Canada He he yeah, all the time. Quote unlike how the two seem to get off slamming the US The UK and Canada don't slam the US. The countries citizens may hold the US to account on a few things they're not happy about. The countries citizens may express discontent about some US policies. That I find perfectly acceptable. Like it or not US policies effect these two countries and we've a right to gripe about them sometimes. And yeah, sometimes citizens of these two countries slam the US. What can I say - there are asshats the world over. Quote The US gives more than many other countries...But then people bring up how its not as much as "X" country per GDP. I think that's a fair comment don't you? Is not the %GDP a better comparator of how generous a country is? If bill gates gives $100 to charity that's far less generous than a 10 year old kid who gives their $50 life savings to charity. Quote Why do others jump all over the US even when it gives so much? I dunno. Any giving's good and I personally won't "jump all over" any country who gives to charity. I would take issue with any country/person getting a hard on over themselves and saying they're really generous based on the pure $ amount though rather than the % GDP/earnings. As I point out above, % GDP is simply a much better comparator. The US is a big country... of course it's going to give more than a small country. The only way to level the field and get a useful comparative figure is to use %'s. That's simple maths/science. The reason some people have a problem with US giving is not because they feel it's not enough. It's because the US holds itself up as a really generous country when by the only truly telling comparator (% GDP) it often falls way down the list. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone bragging that the US is the most generous country on the planet. It happened again after the Tsunami, quite a lot. They then start shouting at people the moment it's pointed out to them that really it's not... in fact far from it... in fact usually the Japs beat them even on a pure $ figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #80 July 13, 2005 LOL.... You Yanks are always slagging us and Canadians off! if not about our food then its our teeth or our gun laws and saying the Canadians are not doing anough on the 'War on terror'. yes the US gives out alot but what does the world see? Hollywood! Like it or not the majority of the world is uneducated and alot of people belive that what they se on TV and on films is what America is really like, loose morals, violence and a nation without God. I'm not saying thats what its like, I'm saying thats how America portrays itself overseas. 'How does that differ from people in other countries thinking they know better than the US how to handle the US problems?' Other countries don't invade America kill tens of thousands of your people, depose your government install a puppet government and run America for you.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #81 July 13, 2005 Quote If bill gates gives $100 to charity that's far less generous than a 10 year old kid who gives their $50 life savings to charity. It's really somewhere in the middle.' If I spend everything I make each week at the DZ and manage to save $50 one week and give it to charity, by your reconning I gave 100% of my net worth. If you take 30 years to amass $1 Million dollars and gave $100,000 to charity (3 years of effort and saving and scrimping), then by your logic you'd be the cheapskate in comparison only giving 10% of your net worth. it's never that simple, is it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #82 July 13, 2005 No, exactly. It's somewhere in the middle. Most things are. If I'd said "every penny she'd ever had" instead of "life savings" it would have been a purer analogy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #83 July 13, 2005 Quote Don't get sucked into this. Ron will leave hits and then look for ways he can adjust other people's meanings to somehow victimize his character Right, just like when you say "The US is a POS" means you really love it? Quote I was using the term, "Nazi" as a metaphor; you were using it more analagously - nothing directed at anyone, but it distracts the subject, which is the intention. If I say your arguments are like a NAZI...That would be an attack. I would think you would know an attack. OH kinda like you whole last post to me....."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #84 July 13, 2005 Quote Quote Don't get sucked into this. Ron will leave hits and then look for ways he can adjust other people's meanings to somehow victimize his character Right, just like when you say "The US is a POS" means you really love it? Quote I was using the term, "Nazi" as a metaphor; you were using it more analagously - nothing directed at anyone, but it distracts the subject, which is the intention. If I say your arguments are like a NAZI...That would be an attack. I would think you would know an attack. OH kinda like you whole last post to me..... Right, just like when you say "The US is a POS" means you really love it? That makes no sense. If I say your arguments are like a NAZI...That would be an attack. Who said your arguments are Nazi-like? No one. OH kinda like you whole last post to me..... You're such a victim.... what inthere was an attack? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #85 July 13, 2005 Quote I think that's a fair comment don't you? Is not the %GDP a better comparator of how generous a country is? If bill gates gives $100 to charity that's far less generous than a 10 year old kid who gives their $50 life savings to charity. Which does more good...The 100 bucks or the 10? Quote The only way to level the field and get a useful comparative figure is to use %'s. That's simple maths/science. Why do you even feel the need to compare? Its like saying, "Yeah, your 100 million is nice, but not really". Its amazing that no matter what the US does....People jump all over it. For one I would rather NOT send aid all over the world and help our citizens....But that makes me a bad man."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #86 July 13, 2005 Quote US foreign war policy is oten cowardly, especially from the perspective of the other countries. I don't see how you can say that. America is the country that is sacrificing lives of it's military members to take-on the terrorists head-on in Iraq and Afghanistan. America is the country with military serving all around the world, in places like Japan, South Korea and Germany, to restrain the ambitions of evil rulers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #87 July 13, 2005 Quote Who said your arguments are Nazi-like? No one. Quote Your attitude is one that has become standard issue amoungst the Republican Americans since 9/11. No doubt it was the same arguement used to persecute those who objected to the treatment of the Jews in Nazi germany and the cromes of the Soviet state as well. Do you even read any posts? Quote You're such a victim.... what inthere was an attack? Man do you even know what you write or does the hate just spew out by itself? Quote Don't get sucked into this. Ron will leave hits and then look for ways he can adjust other people's meanings to somehow victimize his character That is an attack on my character...God its so sad that you think its not that its funny."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #88 July 13, 2005 Quote Quote US foreign war policy is oten cowardly, especially from the perspective of the other countries. I don't see how you can say that. America is the country that is sacrificing lives of it's military members to take-on the terrorists head-on in Iraq and Afghanistan. America is the country with military serving all around the world, in places like Japan, South Korea and Germany, to restrain the ambitions of evil rulers. The old "the war on terror is being fought in Iraq" gambit. Seems I recall Iraq had not much to do with terrorists until we went in there. The reason I recall for invading Iraq, as clearly stated by the President in his address to the nation in January 2003, was to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #89 July 13, 2005 Jeez - you guys, this is not even an interesting fight you're having!!!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #90 July 13, 2005 Quote The old "the war on terror is being fought in Iraq" gambit. Seems I recall Iraq had not much to do with terrorists until we went in there. The reason I recall for invading Iraq, as clearly stated by the President in his address to the nation in January 2003, was to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction. OK Kallend, I've let you get away with this long enough. Here's Bush Speech from March 19, 2003. Quote President Bush Addresses the Nation The Oval Office President's Remarks 10:16 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense. To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed. The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people. I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people. I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done. Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail. May God bless our country and all who defend her. WMD's were only mentioned once. Freeing the Iraqi People four times. These are the reason Bush gave for going to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #91 July 13, 2005 Quote WMD's were only mentioned once. Freeing the Iraqi People four times. These are the reason Bush gave for going to war. Ouch, thats gotta sting. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #92 July 13, 2005 Quote Normal, but you don't see Americans slamming England do you? Or constantly harping on Canada unlike how the two seem to get off slamming the US....Why? Um, dude? You may have missed it, but the UK and Canada are pretty much the US's two staunchest allies.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #93 July 13, 2005 Quote Quote The US gives more than many other countries...But then people bring up how its not as much as "X" country per GDP. I think that's a fair comment don't you? Is not the %GDP a better comparator of how generous a country is? If bill gates gives $100 to charity that's far less generous than a 10 year old kid who gives their $50 life savings to charity. I strongly disagree. If you want to really change something for the better, you're best off to spend some time building up your resources so that you can make contributions of larger absolute value. In the final analysis, the true value of the contributions is going to determine their efficacy. The relative value to the giver isn't terribly relevant. Look at it this way. Say you are a high school student, and you want to change a law that you find terribly unjust. You could drop out of high school, get a minimum wage job, and spend the rest of your life giving half of your (minimum wage) income to that cause. Or, you could finish high school, go to college, and go to law school (during which time the guy who dropped out could deride you as "not doing anything"). Then, you could throw a much larger chunk of change, as well as some personal expertise at the problem. By identifying the most efficient way to create the change, you are more likely to actually get the change made. You may not have the luxury of feeling superior about your personal sacrifices in the interim, but you are a hell of a lot more likely to actually make a difference.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #94 July 13, 2005 Quote You are doing little else but demonstraiting a complete lack of knowledge about WWII in general. Germany was beaten by the Russians, not by anyone this side of the Rhine. The Russians accounted for 80% of German losses... the Western Allies accounted for a mere 700,000 or so kills compaired to the Soviet total of going on 3 million. In addition to this, Germany could never have mounted or sustained an invasion of the UK - go read up on the results of the exercises conducted by Sandhurst in relation to Operation Sea Lion and note the outcomes... and note the fact their exercises by nescesity ignored the massive naval superiority enjoyed by the RN and assumed a zero RAF presence. On the contrary, it's not just about the viability of operation Sea Lion (which the Germans never properly anticipated and were never geared up for), there was the long Battle of Britain and the siege by the wolkpacks. There was continual resupply of Britain by America, and help with radar and sonar development which kept Britain viable and then of course the direct massive intervention for the final European invasion, openning the second front Stalin begged the Allies to open. But let's assume that the American's hadn't gotten involved at all and the Soviets had marched all the way to Paris, (taking your claim at face value). What you're really saying is we'd all be speaking Russian by now if it wasn't for the Americans. Here's the scoreboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties Using your philosophy, the Soviets apparently lost the war by a massive margin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #95 July 13, 2005 Quote Using your philosophy, the Soviets apparently lost the war by a massive margin. I dunno. Total number of people who died seems like a pretty good yardstick for measuring who "lost" a war.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #96 July 13, 2005 Quote Quote Using your philosophy, the Soviets apparently lost the war by a massive margin. I dunno. Total number of people who died seems like a pretty good yardstick for measuring who "lost" a war. Nonetheless a flawed one, it does highlight the dichotomy given the earlier claim that the Soviets won the war by virtue of the casualties they inflicted on the Germans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #97 July 14, 2005 Wrong speech. I specifically mentioned the January (SOTU) speech. Remember, the one with yellowcake from Niger in it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #98 July 14, 2005 Quote Wrong speech. I specifically mentioned the January (SOTU) speech. Remember, the one with yellowcake from Niger in it. Nope. You have repeatedly said the main reason we were given for going to war was because SH had WMDs. You have gone on and on and on ad nauseum in more threads than I can count. I would say the reasons given on the eve of the war are the reasons. 4 mentions of liberating the Iraqi People and only 1 mention of WMDs. I'd say that trumps what was said over 2 months prior to going to war in a SOTU Address. You have been overwhelmingly wrong for quite some time. Hey you said it in another thread, sometimes intelligent people are wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #99 July 14, 2005 Quote Quote Using your philosophy, the Soviets apparently lost the war by a massive margin. I dunno. Total number of people who died seems like a pretty good yardstick for measuring who "lost" a war. I guess, but in VN we had a 6-7:1 kill ratio, so I guess we won even tho we quit.... I think there are bigger losers in the war / no winners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #100 July 14, 2005 Quote Jeez - you guys, this is not even an interesting fight you're having!!! Hi John Your right But it is very . They stopped discussing the origional topic on the first page. But what the hell it's SC so carry on folks R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
