Old 21st March 2003, 14:05   #41
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
That's exactly what I'm sick of. If we stand by, we get accused of supporting dictators. (Supporting a country run by a dictator is not the same thing as supporting the dictator.) If we don't stand by, we get accused of being war-mongers. You guys need to decide what you want, because as it stands right now, we can't do anything to please you. (Which is the main reason I don't really give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.)
YES supporting goverments who violate human rights, economicaly and millitary ARE supporting dictorships

To make me, and i think the most of the world happy, is not realy that difficult - you just need

- Not to support dictorships because of strategic interrests, or
prioritise economic interrests over human rights.

- Not take unilaterely action - without the approval of the United Nations security council, hence legalising unilateral pre emptive strikes to the rest of the world.

- Play a bigger role fighting the poverty that causes most conflicts - i can't remember the exact numbers but im certain that EU, Australia and Japan spends more than tripple the amount in percent of GDP to 3rd world aid. (i can look it up if you don't believe me)

- Stop being arrogant
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2003, 14:07   #42
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
- Stop being arrogant
*nods*

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2003, 15:59   #43
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH

- Stop being arrogant
*laughs loudly*

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2003, 16:00   #44
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Fickle
*laughs loudly*
what's funny? oh, i get it! you think you're special!

you're not

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2003, 18:08   #45
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
YES supporting goverments who violate human rights, economicaly and millitary ARE supporting dictorships
I said COUNTRY. I did not say government. Giving support to the people of a country, providing money with the expectation that it will go to the people is not the same thing as supporting the government.

Quote:
- Not to support dictorships because of strategic interrests, or
prioritise economic interrests over human rights.
No one seems to be bitching about France supporting Saddam right now, so don't give me that crap. You guys all want to watch out for your own interests, but you get all in a fuss when the US does the same.

Quote:
- Not take unilaterely action - without the approval of the United Nations security council, hence legalising unilateral pre emptive strikes to the rest of the world.
I honestly don't care much about the UN security council. The UN is almost completely worthless. I mean, come on. Look at who they put on the human rights committee. It's like they are intentionally trying to be funny.

Quote:
- Play a bigger role fighting the poverty that causes most conflicts - i can't remember the exact numbers but im certain that EU, Australia and Japan spends more than tripple the amount in percent of GDP to 3rd world aid. (i can look it up if you don't believe me)
1. Poverty does not cause conflicts.
2. I also seriously doubt that those numbers are correct, and I'd like to see some actual statistics.
3. You guys need to decide what you want from us. Don't tell me that we should be dumping more money into other countries if you don't want us to be getting involved in foreign affairs.

Quote:
- Stop being arrogant
I'm not arrogant. I know what I'm talking about, and I'm willing to argue my points. You might not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm arrogant.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2003, 18:16   #46
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
No one seems to be bitching about France supporting Saddam right now, so don't give me that crap. You guys all want to watch out for your own interests, but you get all in a fuss when the US does the same.
i believe that the governments who were anti-war were looking out for their beliefs. at least some of them (and lets stop isolating the french, eh?). i think i said this before, but i almost see this war as apologetic by the US - trying to put right what they did wrong before.

Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
I honestly don't care much about the UN security council. The UN is almost completely worthless. I mean, come on. Look at who they put on the human rights committee. It's like they are intentionally trying to be funny.
i still have faith in the UN. the human rights commitee thing was fairly farcical, though. but what's the problem with a worldwide council of countries? where's the disadvantage to it?


Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
1. Poverty does not cause conflicts.
poverty leads to trying to account blame for it. when countries have been seen to "meddle" in the area, they get the blame. also - people who are well-off have a lot less reason to complain, whether you like it or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
3. You guys need to decide what you want from us. Don't tell me that we should be dumping more money into other countries if you don't want us to be getting involved in foreign affairs.
this is fair point, i've often wondered what's going on with that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
I'm not arrogant. I know what I'm talking about, and I'm willing to argue my points. You might not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm arrogant.
that wasn't directed straight at you, now was it? i suppose it could be interpreted as such, but it was more of an american governmental thing. there are a lot of arrogant people about in all nations. we (the world) could do with a lot less of it.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2003, 18:26   #47
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
i believe that the governments who were anti-war were looking out for their beliefs. at least some of them (and lets stop isolating the french, eh?). i think i said this before, but i almost see this war as apologetic by the US - trying to put right what they did wrong before.
I single out France because they were the most vocal. Yet their actions are a self-oriented as ours.

I have no problem with that. Don't misunderstand. I believe that France should look out for its own interests. I just don't like it when America is demonized for follwing its self-interest.

Quote:
i still have faith in the UN. the human rights commitee thing was fairly farcical, though. but what's the problem with a worldwide council of countries? where's the disadvantage to it?
There is no disadvantage. I just don't think they are really worth much. They've done some useful things, but most of the time, they sit on their hands because no one wants to commit to anything.

Quote:
poverty leads to trying to account blame for it. when countries have been seen to "meddle" in the area, they get the blame. people who are well-off have a lot less reason to complain, whether you like it or not.
I suppose that's partly true. I don't really see that as a cause though. Rather, it's more of a scapegoating. America isn't responsible for the poverty of other countries.

Quote:
that wasn't directed straight at you, now was it? i suppose it could be interpreted as such, but it was more of an american governmental thing. there are a lot of arrogant people about in all nations. we (the world) could do with a lot less of it.
Actually, I misunderstood that one. I thought it was being directed at me specifically. My bad.

I agree that America is probably a bit overly arrogant. Like you said, though, there's a lot of that in all nations.

Those who condemn us for being arrogant are hypocrites. At least we accept that we are arrogant. Many other countries call us arrogant, while still considering themselves the most important country in the world. (Need I single out France again, or Germany, or even the UK?)

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2003, 00:32   #48
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
i believe that the governments who were anti-war were looking out for their beliefs. at least some of them (and lets stop isolating the french, eh?). i think i said this before, but i almost see this war as apologetic by the US - trying to put right what they did wrong before.
um. France is not fighting for what it thinks is right. It's fighting for it's almost exclusive oil supply. France, Germany, and Russia have all bought massive quantities of oil from Saddam, the French even gave him practically his entire "Air Force". The Germans Built his bunkers. I'm not sure what Russia did, probably supplied the vodka.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2003, 13:15   #49
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
I said COUNTRY. I did not say government. Giving support to the people of a country, providing money with the expectation that it will go to the people is not the same thing as supporting the government.
I know what you said, but im saying you are/have been supporting dictorship goverments, like Iraq, South Vietnam, Chile and Panama

Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
1. Poverty does not cause conflicts.
2. I also seriously doubt that those numbers are correct, and I'd like to see some actual statistics.
3. You guys need to decide what you want from us. Don't tell me that we should be dumping more money into other countries if you don't want us to be getting involved in foreign affairs.
1. Ok, we're probably never going to agree on that - but in my book it does

2. Aid to third World countries

This was the only statistics i could find, but i guess it proves my point too.

EU: 31.873 mio USD
US: 6,878 mio USD
JP: 9,958 mio USD

Source: Eurostat,
(sorry i can't give url, we have full database acces from my school, which costs money)

[edit] - statistics from caltech

[/edit]

3. Im not saying you should't get involved with foreign affars, infact you should - the US are after all the worlds only remaining superpower. I just dislike the way you do it, and have done it in the past. (and please no WW1 and II shit - that's not what im refering too)
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2003, 22:52   #50
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
I don't believe we are currently supporting any oppressive dictatorships. It's possible that I'm wrong, though. If we are supporting oppressive dictatorships, then be against such support.

Interesting statistics. It's entirely possible that they are true. Of course, if you calculate the total given, rather than percentage, I believe it would look a bit different. I'm not really bother by the fact that we don't give all our money to foreign aide. Maybe that makes me a bad person. Meh.

I'm not totally happy with our foreign policy, but I really don't think our actions against Iraq are wrong.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2003, 23:03   #51
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
look at the first statistics
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2003, 23:34   #52
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
I don't see what you mean. The first one is 1992. The second one is 2000. Both are percentages. Neither is a hard cash amount.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 09:14   #53
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
2. Aid to third World countries

This was the only statistics i could find, but i guess it proves my point too.

EU: 31.873 mio USD
US: 6,878 mio USD
JP: 9,958 mio USD

Source: Eurostat,
(sorry i can't give url, we have full database acces from my school, which costs money)
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 10:15   #54
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Ah. I missed that. Just as you apparently missed the fact that that's a decimal point in the EU number . . .

Also, the EU is NOT a country, so that number's irrelevant, even if that decimal point is a typo (and it probably is).

I do have some serious doubt as to the validity of those statistics, though. I don't believe Japan's GDP is high enough that their amount would end up being higher than the US's. (Assuming those percentage numbers are correct.)

edit: No, those numbers are wrong (if the percentages are right). The CIA factbook says that the United States GDP is about three times as high as Japan's. (Japan has a much higher GDP than I expected.) But as you can see from the graph, Japam is not giving out three times as high a percentage (not quite), even when using the 2000 statistics. And they are certainly not giving out enough that their contributions would be 50% higher than America's.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 16:27   #55
667
Member
 
667's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 78
Send a message via AIM to 667
Quote:
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordian." - Norman Schwartzkopf
I agree.

Just a question, where does foreign aid come into a picture of the US going to war with a country who never recieved any foreign aid from us? And if you want to ask me, the only problem with the United States of America, besides the corrupt government, is the media.

Quote:
- Stop being arrogant
Fuck that! And how am I supposed to believe you're so fucking humble?


[edit]Sorry. I forgot to type the rest of a sentence.[/edit]
667 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 17:15   #56
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
It was related to US foreign policy in general

I believe poverty and hunger couses conflicts, george don't....

Anyway, george, if you're interrested i went to the CIA world factbook and checked the economic aid (ODA) and GDP columns of some selected countries, and did a percentage calculation by hand....

Japan
ODA, $9.1 billion (1999) (1999)
of total GDP $3.55 trillion
Rough percentage 2.5% of GDP

Denmark
ODA, $1.63 billion (1999)
of total GDP $155.5 billion
Rough percentage 1.06% of GDP

France
ODA, $6.3 billion (1997) (1997)
of total GDP $1.54 trillion
Rough percentage 0.40% of GDP

United Kingdom
ODA, $4.5 billion (2000)
of total GDP $1.52 trillion
Rough percentage 0.29% of GDP

Germany
ODA, $5.6 billion (1998)
of total GDP $2.184 trillion
Rough percentage 0.26% of GDP

Australia
ODA, $894 million (FY99/00)
of total GDP $528 billion
Rough pecentage 0.16% of GDP

Canada
ODA, $1.3 billion (1999) (1999)
of total GDP $923 billion
Rough percentage 0.14% of GDP

US
ODA, $6.9 billion (1997) (1997)
of total GDP $10.082 trillion
Rough percentage 0.068% of GDP

Also I don't agree that the EU number is irrelavant, i think it's great for statistical purposes, because it EU are an enitity quite similar to that of the United States.

[EDIT]

- the graph is probably based on different statistic indicators than that of Eurostat

- This entry refers to net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows

[/EDIT]

Last edited by ertmann|CPH; 23rd March 2003 at 17:35.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 19:08   #57
Windude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: secret
Posts: 289
These are the things that America has Vetod. see whos a fucker now.

1972: Israel condemned for killing hundreds of people in syria and lebanon in air raids

1973: Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories

1979: End to all military and nuclear collabiration with apartheid. Arms embargo against south africa to be strengthend. Support for the oppressed under apartheid. Cessation of the nuclear arms race. Return of all inhabitants expelled by israel. Israel to desist from human rights violations. Inquiry into the living conditions of the palestinians in occupied territories. Protection of developing countries' exports. Push to improve human rights and fundamental freedoms. Opposition to intervention in the internal or external affairs of states. Call for UN conference on women. Rights of developing countries in multinational trade talks to be safeguarded.

1983: Fifteen resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics and international law.

theres loads more, if i get the time i'll write them up later

but now how do you lot feel about the french

<<<will give head for food-stamps>>>

Windude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 19:09   #58
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
i was going to mention those...

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 21:11   #59
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Anyway, george, if you're interrested i went to the CIA world factbook and checked the economic aid (ODA) and GDP columns of some selected countries, and did a percentage calculation by hand....
Ok. I just sucked. I completely missed that info in the factbook. You're right about the foreign aid.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2003, 22:51   #60
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
no worries

But it realy doesn't serve a purpose, if i can't convince you that poverty is a source of conflict.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 02:18   #61
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by Windude
These are the things that America has Vetod. see whos a fucker now.

1972: Israel condemned for killing hundreds of people in syria and lebanon in air raids

...

theres loads more, if i get the time i'll write them up later

but now how do you lot feel about the french

Uh. I still think their women need to shave their legs. (shudder)

Israel and Palestine need to get thier shit together, and I think we could all agree on that.

But what has the US supported vs the French. You talk as if thier so goddamned untouchable in thier logic, and yet this is the same country that thought WW2 was going to be on horses and set battlefields. Despite the picture you paint, these people, the inventors of several wonderful methods of torture, are not all out for humanitarianism. They don't want to lose thier peice of the pie.

I need a speel chequor

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 03:25   #62
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by Windude
1972: Israel condemned for killing hundreds of people in syria and lebanon in air raids
I don't really know all about the Israel issues, but I do know that it's not all Israel. They aren't bombing just for kicks. They and the surrounding countries (and the Palestineans) need to work something out.

I don't know about this specific issue, but it's entirely possible that Israel was not in the wrong in that particular case.

Quote:
1973: Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories
Same as above . . .

Quote:
1979: End to all military and nuclear collabiration with apartheid. Arms embargo against south africa to be strengthend. Support for the oppressed under apartheid.
The apartheid in South Africa should not have been supported. I don't think anyone denies that.

Quote:
Cessation of the nuclear arms race.
What's the point of things like that? The nuclear arms race was between the US and the USSR. The UN shouldn't have bothered to get involved.

Quote:
Return of all inhabitants expelled by israel.
Israel has the right to determine who it wants to exile.

Quote:
Israel to desist from human rights violations.
I'm not sure what human rights violations Israel commited. If they were violating human rights, then they should have been stopped. I'll agree to that.

Quote:
Inquiry into the living conditions of the palestinians in occupied territories.
I don't think the living conditions were exactly secret. Why the inquiry?

Quote:
Protection of developing countries' exports.
Perfectly acceptable to veto that, depending on what exactly "protection" entailed.

Quote:
Push to improve human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Perfectly acceptable to veto that, depending on what exactly was to be changed.

Quote:
Opposition to intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
Well, everyone wants to get into our external affairs, so I don't really know why you care that that one didn't pass . . .

Quote:
Call for UN conference on women.
What the hell for? Where's the conference on men? Veto.

Quote:
Rights of developing countries in multinational trade talks to be safeguarded.
Also depends on what this entails. If it cripples developed countries from competing, then definitely veto.

Quote:
1983: Fifteen resolutions about apartheid
Apartheid is wrong. Everyone agrees.

Quote:
nuclear arms
The UN comes up with a lot of stupid resolutions about nuclear arms. We're perfectly within our rights to veto.

Quote:
economics and international law.
You can't throw out blanket comments like that. Economics and international law includes damned near everything. You can't be surprised that the US refused to pass some resolutions. Hell, the UN wants to take away guns. You can't expect the US to support something like that.

Quote:
but now how do you lot feel about the french
I don't care that the French vetoed. That's their right. (I don't actually think they belong on the committee, but that's an entirely different matter.) I care that the French stated that they will veto any military action against Iraq. They completely killed any chance of diplomacy.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 04:51   #63
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Diplomacy is dead. Long live Diplomacy.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 12:38   #64
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
I don't care that the French vetoed. That's their right. (I don't actually think they belong on the committee, but that's an entirely different matter.) I care that the French stated that they will veto any military action against Iraq. They completely killed any chance of diplomacy.
the US killed any chance of diplomacy when they decided, six months ago, that they were going to attack iraq. there was never any chance for another outcome.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 13:27   #65
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Agreed zootm. The whole point of a second resolution was to authorise millitary action. If it didn't authorise it then the previous ones were enough and there was no need for a second. France are well within their rights to say that when it is completly clear what the intention of any such resolution would be. Saying it killed diplomacy is completly backwards. There was diplomacy and it was working quite well, the inspectors were making a lot of progress.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 15:15   #66
Wizard
Senior Member
 
Wizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 181

http://giveitback.net/
Wow, and I thought I've seen it all. Human intelligence has now reached its greatest level (so far...)

edit: The display of IQ continues: http://www1.union.edu/~knowlesm/antifrench.html
Wizard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2003, 15:19   #67
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Wizard

http://giveitback.net/
Wow, and I thought I've seen it all. Human intelligence has reached a greater level
hurrah! a real one (i think). i saw a couple of "joke" ones, i was looking for some idiot who would start a real one.

and i thought the "freedom fries" thing was petty -

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th March 2003, 00:38   #68
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
the US killed any chance of diplomacy when they decided, six months ago, that they were going to attack iraq. there was never any chance for another outcome.
Not true. If there had been some sort of real push from the UN to make Iraq disarm, I think we might have not attacked. The thing was, the UN was unwilling to say, "disarm, or we'll attack." It was only "disarm", which doesn't carry any real meaning.

Of course, that says nothing about the fact that the Iraqi's want this war. I have no problem with our actions, because the Iraqi people want Saddam gone, too.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2003, 12:29   #69
pkchukiss
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Singapore, South East Asia
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Curi0us_George
I disagree. My country stands for the right to have (and voice) one's own opinion. Part of voicing one's opinion involves having conflict woth others' opinions. But there's no reason why I should be happy that anyone has a differening opinion. I have to grant everyone the right to have their own opinions, but that doesn't mean that I have to enjoy other people or their opinions. I don't even have to be civil to others.

I wouldn't be civil to someone who thought that child pornography should be legalized. I would make my feelings of disgust quite obvious.

I never said that America was popular. That's just life.
You Americans should be ashamed of yourselves. You dare say that you have the freedom of speech, yet you do not respect the diversity of opinion, anyone who deviates from your so-called "gospel truth" would be lamblasted, and basically shunned by you.

What a mockery that makes to your First Amendment. I beg of you, please remove that Amendment, you are mocking your founders, your fore-fathers, and everything that the US had once stood for.
pkchukiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2003, 19:16   #70
aeturnis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
hey france, support us or dont support us. who fuckin cares, i dont. france can do whatever the hell it wants. just dont ever ask us for help again. you may have saved our asses during the revolutionary war, but we more than paid you back in WWII. then we sent money to help rebuild. so, dont ask for any more favors, and we want our money back. plus interest.
aeturnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2003, 21:56   #71
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
what money?

And France will hardly ever be in a sitution where it needs US millitary support again, with the european intergration going on.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2003, 21:19   #72
aeturnis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
good for them. they wont ever need us again, and we wont need them. as for the money, how bout the money we LOANED france to help rebuild after WWII, and have very graciously never asked to have repayed. if they disagree with us, thats thier perogative, and i quite frankly dont care. but if they want to get so worked up about it, we'll take our money back, and shut down trade with them. there isnt very much that france imports to us, and everything they do, we can get elsewhere
aeturnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2003, 21:35   #73
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
How the Marshall Plan Worked

Set up for a limited period of four years, 1948 - 1952, the ERP operated through a counterpart fund. The money contributed by the U.S. included currency for loans, but went primarily (70 percent towards the purchase of commodities from U.S. suppliers
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch.../marshall.html

Besides those money were given to avoid Western Europe turning to the soviet union, something the goverment of the time, wanted to counter at allmost any price. Not to be gracious.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2003, 23:41   #74
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
i think it's worth pointing out that "we don't need them, they don't need us" is exactly the isolationist attitude that makes people stereotype americans as dicks.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2003, 00:54   #75
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
word zootm....

may i just remind you that 20% of US imports comes from the european union...

but go ahead, start a tradewar with europe too
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2003, 17:51   #76
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
i think it's worth pointing out that "we don't need them, they don't need us" is exactly the isolationist attitude that makes people stereotype americans as dicks.
You hate us when we get involved, you think we're dicks when we are isolationists.

WHAT THE FUCK IS IT YOU WANT?

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2003, 18:39   #77
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
You often don't get involved with other people, you do it yourself which is isolationist.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2003, 19:52   #78
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
right Britain and Australia are really just our colonies in this Iraq thing, they're not with us, just near us. Really not even in the same room when you think about it, right? Bullcookies.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2003, 22:29   #79
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
I can't prove anything offcourse, but i'm certain that the only reason britain is involved in that war is to nurse it's alliance with the United States.

Australia - i don't have a clue what they're doing there - but probably the same as the brits.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2003, 04:51   #80
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
God forbid they actually agreed. They're just tied to us. We're dragging them kicking and screaming into war? Again, Bullcookies.

(cookies again. Where do I go without cookies?!)

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump