Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

the states isnt that powerfull

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>
Author
Ajreaper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Paintballer and United States Marine

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2488
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ajreaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 6:47pm
Originally posted by munky! munky! wrote:

Originally posted by Ajreaper Ajreaper wrote:

Are you trying to say that the americans didn't send in the other countries and minority lines first, spareing the almighty americans?

Another shining example of Painttoxins utter stupidity.

Who landed on Tarawa? Iwo Jima? Utah beach? Omaha beach? canada wasnt in the pacific wars. that was just america vs japan

Munky gets 2nd most ignorant poster- Utah and Omaha beaches were on the coast of France. And Canada was an allied power so it was techinally also at war with Japan.


Who comprised the 82nd and 101st Airborne? its an americain company.. who else?

They are airborne divisions not companys.

Who landed at Anzio? Who launched the Doolittle raid? Who fought and won the battles of the coral sea & Midway? america didnt win midway. it was a tie

Hmhmhmhm lets see we sunk 3 Japenese carriers rendering the Japenese navy incapable of mounting a serious offensive threat for the remainder of the war- I'd not call that a tie by any stretch.

Who landed in North Africa? Britain mostly

Wrong again- but that's okay your good at it and I'm sure use to it.

ya Americans took the back seat on the bus in WWII, let everyone else do the fighting while we hung back- You are without a doubt the most ignorant individual to post on the forums in a very long time.


we could make a list just as long for germany, britain canada, russia and franch. i was gona include italy but they got owned...


Try to follow along your good buddy Painttoxin said "Are you trying to say that the americans didn't send in the other countries and minority lines first, spareing the almighty americans?" Which of course is a comnpletely ignorant statement and your attempting to defend it- ignorant by association you are.

Back to Top
PaINtToXiN View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaINtToXiN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 7:18pm

Originally posted by Ajreaper Ajreaper wrote:


I think that about sums it up.

If my posts seem strange it is because dial-up gives me too much time to think.

A-5, Flatilizer.
Back to Top
CarbineKid View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 19 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CarbineKid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 7:21pm
More with the stereotypes
Actually I'm half Canadien...lol. My point was not to belittle the achievements of the canuks during both world wars, but to point out that Canada is turning into a socialist country. It would seem you country is either affriad or inept when it comes to fighting in the war on teror. Remember a radioactive cloud can carry north. Oh yeah...GO HABS!!!!

Edited by CarbineKid
Back to Top
PaINtToXiN View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaINtToXiN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 7:26pm
^^Hey you know, maybe after we stumble upon the wheel, and learn about fire, we can learn climb out of our igloos, and learn of the american way! AYE! GO YANKS!
If my posts seem strange it is because dial-up gives me too much time to think.

A-5, Flatilizer.
Back to Top
Ajreaper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Paintballer and United States Marine

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2488
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ajreaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 8:05pm
LOL- there is not a thing wrong with Canadians. There nothing wrong with Canada- great country awsome place to travel to. And the Canadian governement and her people are free to choose what path Canada takes in world affairs, as are all free nations. This is about people posting absolute garbage- no one should makes this the US vs. Canada cause it ain't at all about that. If I could choose any country to share a border with it would be Canada. Any man who's drank a Moosehead can never speak ill of Canada.
Back to Top
[FI] View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 21 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 441
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote [FI] Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by PaINtToXiN PaINtToXiN wrote:

^It obviously way past your comprehension, as you are making me post this like 4 times. I said since we would lose a war to the US we would get the US by slipping over your open wide border, after your attack on Canada.  What part don't you understand, I think it is very understandable.

Nobody would have to post 4 times if you'd get it...



Edited by [FI]
Back to Top
Blue Hopper View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 841
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blue Hopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 9:13pm
Whats with all the Canadian vs. American posts. We should be busy thinking about killing osama, the KKK, and Black Panthers not each other. Canadians, Americans can't we all just get along. And besides in Canada marajuanas legal. Yey Cananda

Edited by Blue Hopper
Notice:
The views exspressed in this post do not represent that of the Tippmann Company or the Paintball community but solely the individual who type it.
Back to Top
Silent Wolf View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Grr

Joined: 26 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Silent Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 10:26pm
Well, good, now we're all getting along. Even though I live in Minnesota, I spent the whole thread arguing in Canada's favor, lol.
"I'd rather die on my feet than live a lifetime on my knees."
-Emiliano Zapata
Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 10:46pm
Originally posted by PaINtToXiN PaINtToXiN wrote:

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

1) The United States does not commit genocide. You cannot add up every non-combatant death that has been caused by the United States in out entire history (as you seem to be doing) and call it genocide.

^No, that number would probably make me cry.


Show me your statistics. Where has the United States RECENTLY killed hundreds of thousands of people?

If you could, then France, Britain, Russia, Germany, and almost every European nation would far outpace us from their earlier wars.


^Maybe, but that is called evolution, and that is why you shouldn't bring up century old wars. We are talking about now.
When exactly is "now"? You've said you don't mean in Iraq and Afghanistan alone... When is now? And I still want the statistics...
2) True, the Canadians fought in WWII... we never said they didn't. However, they were NOT the "first in and last out," nor did they contribute more than Britain or the United States.


^Are you trying to say that the americans didn't send in the other countries and minoritylines first, spareing the almighty americans?
I refer you to AJReaper's post about the Pacific Theater, and the paratroopers in Europe.
Things are a lot different now than they were in 1940. Just because your grandfathers fought in that war does not mean your country isn't cowardly now.


^Then you are saying that war makes you brave? And bychoosing peace it makes you a coward?
That's not what I meant, and you know it. If there is nothing that you are willing to go to war for... then yes, you are a coward.
"War is not the worst that a country can encounter. It is the utterly degraded state of non-patriotism that claims that nothing ever warrants a war." You can speak of your peaceful, Utopian society all you want... It's not realistic. As long as there are men, there will be war. Just because YOU don't want war, doesn't mean that you can convince your enemies of that.


^It is truley a sad day when people think that life can not go on with out war, and that afriendly world is not possible. That statement shows a lack of vision andis completly void of any hope. If you think bombs, and nuclear weaponsare a necasary part of life, that is certainly your opinion, I however invision a world united as one, where weapons are obsolete, and not needed.
To believe that it's possible for no war to occur is idealistic and ignorant. There will ALWAYS be people who are willing to start wars to advance their agenda. In the modern day, these people are the terrorists who forced the world into war. You can sit back and be peaceful, but you cannot force your neighbor to do the same. Thus, war will continue.
3) Your comment about letting the "big bully" invade is still cowardly, no matter what vision you have of some kind of delayed counterattack. You do realize that if someone had decimated your country in an invasion, sneaking an army "across the border" (no matter how wide) would be quite impossible.


^Who said anything sneaking about an army across your border, huh? Are you trying to say that your countrycan keepa terrorist individualfrom slipping across you wide border?
Oh, we're talking about terrorist activity now? And that in itself is not cowardly? Good job making yourself look worse. Now it sounds like you're saying terrorists aren't cowardly when they attack civilians to cause political stirrings. That's the only thing those individuals could do successfully.
If someone invaded the United States, I would resist. Not run away and hide, hoping that later I could do something. No, I would fight back at the first opportunity. Any patriot in a free land would. 4) I was not "bragging about our unemployment rate or homeless rate." Every country has unemployed people, and every country has homeless people, Canada included.The difference is, WE don't have to pay ridiculous taxes to cover their medical bills because they don't feel like working to get the insurance.


^Like I said, canadians like to help people, whether it is a laid off factory worker, or a diseased homeless man. I am also proud of that fact as well. Besides there are very few homeless in canada.
You seem to be forgetting about people who are just to stinking lazy to get a job, or just too dumb to spend their money on health insurance. Homeless people aren't the only ones who don't have medical insurance in the United States; there are also a lot of simply irresponsible people who don't. In fact, the United States doesn't have that many homeless people either...
5) Regarding Hitler and his camps... I stand by my statement. As someone who has taken numerous history classes, read countless books on WWII, and done much research on the topic, I can tell you that the world did not know of the concentration camps under the NAZIs. People didn't think Hitler was a good guy, but they also didn't know that he was murdering millions of people. No one found out about that until the liberating armies found the camps.


^You should also read other countries history books, you would be surpised to find the american's booksare...a little different...I wonder why...
You are assuming that I don't... Making assumptions is not a smart thing to do. I HAVE read other country's history books, and they DO have a different perspective. But the facts are still there.
6) If the United States was the "big bully," do you really think we'd be spending billions of dollars rebuilding the countries we bombed?


^ That is where you go wrong, comparing money and buildings to human lives. How much money do all those lives cost?


Again, that's not what I said and you know it. The fact is, not as many lives were taken as you make it out to have been.

If we had wanted to go in there and kill civilians and just take the oil, we would have dropped a few MOABs, and been done with it. We could already have set up new oil wells, and it would have been much cheaper. But we are the United States, and we don't do that. We bombed selective targets that were non-civilian, then rolled in to help the people. We're rebuilding, and making sure that Iraq becomes a somewhat secure environment. Oh, and before you start with your whole TV bit... I didn't get that from television. In fact, American television tries to convince us that the "conflict" (it's not technically a war) is evil, is killing millions of Iraqis daily, and is making no progress whatsoever.


^ Then what is it called when you dump thousands of bombs over a sleeping country?


Dump? Hardly. We use sophisticated, laser guided bombs now. They are capable of hitting within a meter of their target when launched from ships or planes miles away. We did not randomly level cities; pre-selected building were bombed. The bombed buildings were largely non-civilian buildings which were determined to have as little impact on civilian lives as possible (and even combatant lives as well). Granted, there are always a few that may go off target. Still, that number is small, and we did not "dump" bombs over anything.

I prefer not to base my life around falsely slanted news media. Even Fox News (the more conservative news channel) makes the conflict look like the greatest evil in recent happenings.


^You think that fox is conservative... Sometimes it takes a little reading between the lines, and watching other nations media, and webs, to find out what is really true. It takes a lot of arroganceto think that the rest of the world is wrong.


You didn't read what I said. I said Fox News Channel is MORE conservative than others (like CNN and MSNBC). Maybe I should say "less liberal." Ah, yes, let's go watch Al-Jazeera; I'm sure THEY'RE unbiased. I DO watch other countries news channels (CBC news a lot, since I don't get too many foreign channels on my basic cable). I also read foreign internet news sites. There you go assuming again.

You know Nostrdomus predicted that afterthemilenium there would be a great war from the west and east sides of the world, and it would last 100 years. He said that the third anti-christ would emerge to create these wars, but after it all a thousand years of peace would await. I know that sounds silly, who can predict the future, right, but it was still said, all I can say is hurry up and get to the peace.


I am quite familiar with that part of Nostradamus' predictions, as well as him predicting that the "iron birds" would attack the "two towers". I really don't like the implications in your post that Bush or America is the third anti-christ... We were drug into this was by terrorists, not the other way around.

Back to Top
WANNA BE View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 January 2004
Location: Zimbabwe
Status: Offline
Points: 492
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WANNA BE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 11:00pm
Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

Originally posted by PaINtToXiN PaINtToXiN wrote:

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

1) The United States does not commit genocide. You cannot add up every non-combatant death that has been caused by the United States in out entire history (as you seem to be doing) and call it genocide.

^No, that number would probably make me cry.


Show me your statistics. Where has the United States RECENTLY killed hundreds of thousands of people?

 If you could, then France, Britain, Russia, Germany, and almost every European nation would far outpace us from their earlier wars.


^Maybe, but that is called evolution, and that is why you shouldn't bring up century old wars.  We are talking about now.
When exactly is "now"? You've said you don't mean in Iraq and Afghanistan alone... When is now? And I still want the statistics...
2) True, the Canadians fought in WWII... we never said they didn't. However, they were NOT the "first in and last out," nor did they contribute more than Britain or the United States.


^Are you trying to say that the americans didn't send in the other countries and minority lines first, spareing the almighty americans?
I refer you to AJReaper's post about the Pacific Theater, and the paratroopers in Europe.
Things are a lot different now than they were in 1940. Just because your grandfathers fought in that war does not mean your country isn't cowardly now.


^Then you are saying that war makes you brave? And by choosing peace it makes you a coward?
That's not what I meant, and you know it. If there is nothing that you are willing to go to war for... then yes, you are a coward.
 "War is not the worst that a country can encounter. It is the utterly degraded state of non-patriotism that claims that nothing ever warrants a war." You can speak of your peaceful, Utopian society all you want... It's not realistic. As long as there are men, there will be war. Just because YOU don't want war, doesn't mean that you can convince your enemies of that.


^It is truley a sad day when people think that life can not go on with out war, and that a friendly world is not possible.  That statement shows a lack of vision and is completly void of any hope. If you think bombs, and nuclear weapons are a necasary part of life, that is certainly your opinion, I however invision a world united as one, where weapons are obsolete, and not needed. 
To believe that it's possible for no war to occur is idealistic and ignorant. There will ALWAYS be people who are willing to start wars to advance their agenda. In the modern day, these people are the terrorists who forced the world into war. You can sit back and be peaceful, but you cannot force your neighbor to do the same. Thus, war will continue.
3) Your comment about letting the "big bully" invade is still cowardly, no matter what vision you have of some kind of delayed counterattack. You do realize that if someone had decimated your country in an invasion, sneaking an army "across the border" (no matter how wide) would be quite impossible.


^Who said anything sneaking about an army across your border, huh?  Are you trying to say that your country can keep a terrorist individual from slipping across you wide border?
Oh, we're talking about terrorist activity now? And that in itself is not cowardly? Good job making yourself look worse. Now it sounds like you're saying terrorists aren't cowardly when they attack civilians to cause political stirrings. That's the only thing those individuals could do successfully.
If someone invaded the United States, I would resist. Not run away and hide, hoping that later I could do something. No, I would fight back at the first opportunity. Any patriot in a free land would. 4) I was not "bragging about our unemployment rate or homeless rate." Every country has unemployed people, and every country has homeless people, Canada included. The difference is, WE don't have to pay ridiculous taxes to cover their medical bills because they don't feel like working to get the insurance.


^Like I said, canadians like to help people, whether it is a laid off factory worker, or a diseased homeless man. I am also proud of that fact as well. Besides there are very few homeless in canada.
You seem to be forgetting about people who are just to stinking lazy to get a job, or just too dumb to spend their money on health insurance. Homeless people aren't the only ones who don't have medical insurance in the United States; there are also a lot of simply irresponsible people who don't. In fact, the United States doesn't have that many homeless people either...
5) Regarding Hitler and his camps... I stand by my statement. As someone who has taken numerous history classes, read countless books on WWII, and done much research on the topic, I can tell you that the world did not know of the concentration camps under the NAZIs. People didn't think Hitler was a good guy, but they also didn't know that he was murdering millions of people. No one found out about that until the liberating armies found the camps.


^You should also read other countries history books, you would be surpised to find the american's books are...a little different...I wonder why...
You are assuming that I don't... Making assumptions is not a smart thing to do. I HAVE read other country's history books, and they DO have a different perspective. But the facts are still there.
6) If the United States was the "big bully," do you really think we'd be spending billions of dollars rebuilding the countries we bombed?


 ^ That is where you go wrong, comparing money and buildings to human lives. How much money do all those lives cost?


Again, that's not what I said and you know it. The fact is, not as many lives were taken as you make it out to have been.

If we had wanted to go in there and kill civilians and just take the oil, we would have dropped a few MOABs, and been done with it. We could already have set up new oil wells, and it would have been much cheaper. But we are the United States, and we don't do that. We bombed selective targets that were non-civilian, then rolled in to help the people. We're rebuilding, and making sure that Iraq becomes a somewhat secure environment. Oh, and before you start with your whole TV bit... I didn't get that from television. In fact, American television tries to convince us that the "conflict" (it's not technically a war) is evil, is killing millions of Iraqis daily, and is making no progress whatsoever.


^ Then what is it called when you dump thousands of bombs over a sleeping country?


Dump? Hardly. We use sophisticated, laser guided bombs now. They are capable of hitting within a meter of their target when launched from ships or planes miles away. We did not randomly level cities; pre-selected building were bombed. The bombed buildings were largely non-civilian buildings which were determined to have as little impact on civilian lives as possible (and even combatant lives as well). Granted, there are always a few that may go off target. Still, that number is small, and we did not "dump" bombs over anything.

 I prefer not to base my life around falsely slanted news media. Even Fox News (the more conservative news channel) makes the conflict look like the greatest evil in recent happenings.


^You think that fox is conservative...  Sometimes it takes a little reading between the lines, and watching other nations media, and webs, to find out what is really true. It takes a lot of arrogance to think that the rest of the world is wrong.


You didn't read what I said. I said Fox News Channel is MORE conservative than others (like CNN and MSNBC). Maybe I should say "less liberal." Ah, yes, let's go watch Al-Jazeera; I'm sure THEY'RE unbiased. I DO watch other countries news channels (CBC news a lot, since I don't get too many foreign channels on my basic cable). I also read foreign internet news sites. There you go assuming again.

You know Nostrdomus predicted that after the milenium there would be a great war from the west and east sides of the world, and it would last 100 years. He said that the third anti-christ would emerge to create these wars, but after it all a thousand years of peace would await.  I know that sounds silly, who can predict the future, right, but it was still said, all I can say is hurry up and get to the peace.


I am quite familiar with that part of Nostradamus' predictions, as well as him predicting that the "iron birds" would attack the "two towers". I really don't like the implications in your post that Bush or America is the third anti-christ... We were drug into this was by terrorists, not the other way around.

 

 ^^^no one pay attention to this post ^^^

Back to Top
Paintballmaster View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 803
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paintballmaster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 11:14pm
ok...
http://new98c.mypicgallery.com/

http://badgerbadgerbadger.com/

WOOO im GOLD?!?
Back to Top
paintballman_13 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 March 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1790
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote paintballman_13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 11:23pm
Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

Originally posted by PaINtToXiN PaINtToXiN wrote:

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

1) The United States does not commit genocide. You cannot add up every non-combatant death that has been caused by the United States in out entire history (as you seem to be doing) and call it genocide.

^No, that number would probably make me cry.


Show me your statistics. Where has the United States RECENTLY killed hundreds of thousands of people?

If you could, then France, Britain, Russia, Germany, and almost every European nation would far outpace us from their earlier wars.


^Maybe, but that is called evolution, and that is why you shouldn't bring up century old wars. We are talking about now.
When exactly is "now"? You've said you don't mean in Iraq and Afghanistan alone... When is now? And I still want the statistics...
2) True, the Canadians fought in WWII... we never said they didn't. However, they were NOT the "first in and last out," nor did they contribute more than Britain or the United States.


^Are you trying to say that the americans didn't send in the other countries and minority lines first, spareing the almighty americans?
I refer you to AJReaper's post about the Pacific Theater, and the paratroopers in Europe.
Things are a lot different now than they were in 1940. Just because your grandfathers fought in that war does not mean your country isn't cowardly now.


^Then you are saying that war makes you brave? And by choosing peace it makes you a coward?
That's not what I meant, and you know it. If there is nothing that you are willing to go to war for... then yes, you are a coward.
"War is not the worst that a country can encounter. It is the utterly degraded state of non-patriotism that claims that nothing ever warrants a war." You can speak of your peaceful, Utopian society all you want... It's not realistic. As long as there are men, there will be war. Just because YOU don't want war, doesn't mean that you can convince your enemies of that.


^It is truley a sad day when people think that life can not go on with out war, and that a friendly world is not possible. That statement shows a lack of vision and is completly void of any hope. If you think bombs, and nuclear weapons are a necasary part of life, that is certainly your opinion, I however invision a world united as one, where weapons are obsolete, and not needed.
To believe that it's possible for no war to occur is idealistic and ignorant. There will ALWAYS be people who are willing to start wars to advance their agenda. In the modern day, these people are the terrorists who forced the world into war. You can sit back and be peaceful, but you cannot force your neighbor to do the same. Thus, war will continue.
3) Your comment about letting the "big bully" invade is still cowardly, no matter what vision you have of some kind of delayed counterattack. You do realize that if someone had decimated your country in an invasion, sneaking an army "across the border" (no matter how wide) would be quite impossible.


^Who said anything sneaking about an army across your border, huh? Are you trying to say that your country can keep a terrorist individual from slipping across you wide border?
Oh, we're talking about terrorist activity now? And that in itself is not cowardly? Good job making yourself look worse. Now it sounds like you're saying terrorists aren't cowardly when they attack civilians to cause political stirrings. That's the only thing those individuals could do successfully.
If someone invaded the United States, I would resist. Not run away and hide, hoping that later I could do something. No, I would fight back at the first opportunity. Any patriot in a free land would. 4) I was not "bragging about our unemployment rate or homeless rate." Every country has unemployed people, and every country has homeless people, Canada included. The difference is, WE don't have to pay ridiculous taxes to cover their medical bills because they don't feel like working to get the insurance.


^Like I said, canadians like to help people, whether it is a laid off factory worker, or a diseased homeless man. I am also proud of that fact as well. Besides there are very few homeless in canada.
You seem to be forgetting about people who are just to stinking lazy to get a job, or just too dumb to spend their money on health insurance. Homeless people aren't the only ones who don't have medical insurance in the United States; there are also a lot of simply irresponsible people who don't. In fact, the United States doesn't have that many homeless people either...
5) Regarding Hitler and his camps... I stand by my statement. As someone who has taken numerous history classes, read countless books on WWII, and done much research on the topic, I can tell you that the world did not know of the concentration camps under the NAZIs. People didn't think Hitler was a good guy, but they also didn't know that he was murdering millions of people. No one found out about that until the liberating armies found the camps.


^You should also read other countries history books, you would be surpised to find the american's books are...a little different...I wonder why...
You are assuming that I don't... Making assumptions is not a smart thing to do. I HAVE read other country's history books, and they DO have a different perspective. But the facts are still there.
6) If the United States was the "big bully," do you really think we'd be spending billions of dollars rebuilding the countries we bombed?


^ That is where you go wrong, comparing money and buildings to human lives. How much money do all those lives cost?


Again, that's not what I said and you know it. The fact is, not as many lives were taken as you make it out to have been.

If we had wanted to go in there and kill civilians and just take the oil, we would have dropped a few MOABs, and been done with it. We could already have set up new oil wells, and it would have been much cheaper. But we are the United States, and we don't do that. We bombed selective targets that were non-civilian, then rolled in to help the people. We're rebuilding, and making sure that Iraq becomes a somewhat secure environment. Oh, and before you start with your whole TV bit... I didn't get that from television. In fact, American television tries to convince us that the "conflict" (it's not technically a war) is evil, is killing millions of Iraqis daily, and is making no progress whatsoever.


^ Then what is it called when you dump thousands of bombs over a sleeping country?


Dump? Hardly. We use sophisticated, laser guided bombs now. They are capable of hitting within a meter of their target when launched from ships or planes miles away. We did not randomly level cities; pre-selected building were bombed. The bombed buildings were largely non-civilian buildings which were determined to have as little impact on civilian lives as possible (and even combatant lives as well). Granted, there are always a few that may go off target. Still, that number is small, and we did not "dump" bombs over anything.

I prefer not to base my life around falsely slanted news media. Even Fox News (the more conservative news channel) makes the conflict look like the greatest evil in recent happenings.


^You think that fox is conservative... Sometimes it takes a little reading between the lines, and watching other nations media, and webs, to find out what is really true. It takes a lot of arrogance to think that the rest of the world is wrong.


You didn't read what I said. I said Fox News Channel is MORE conservative than others (like CNN and MSNBC). Maybe I should say "less liberal." Ah, yes, let's go watch Al-Jazeera; I'm sure THEY'RE unbiased. I DO watch other countries news channels (CBC news a lot, since I don't get too many foreign channels on my basic cable). I also read foreign internet news sites. There you go assuming again.

You know Nostrdomus predicted that after the milenium there would be a great war from the west and east sides of the world, and it would last 100 years. He said that the third anti-christ would emerge to create these wars, but after it all a thousand years of peace would await. I know that sounds silly, who can predict the future, right, but it was still said, all I can say is hurry up and get to the peace.


I am quite familiar with that part of Nostradamus' predictions, as well as him predicting that the "iron birds" would attack the "two towers". I really don't like the implications in your post that Bush or America is the third anti-christ... We were drug into this was by terrorists, not the other way around.



I dont see where he said Bush or America is the third antichrist. From what I get he says there will be a third antichrist from the war.
Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 11:36pm
No, he said that the wars would be CREATED by the third anti-christ, not that he would emerge from the wars.
Back to Top
paintballman_13 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 March 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1790
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote paintballman_13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 11:38pm
O right but I still dont see where he says Bush or America is the third antichrist.
Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 11:42pm
Originally posted by paintballman_13 paintballman_13 wrote:

O right but I still dont see where he says Bush or America is the third antichrist.


Maybe it's just me "reading in between the lines." He might not have even intended that. However, I have heard a few people say that very thing, and that's the way I took his comments. If it had nothing to do with America, what would be the point of putting it in this particular thread?
Back to Top
Stingray View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
King of the Gnomes

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 907
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stingray Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2004 at 11:50pm
I've just read all nine pages, and I have two announcements to make:

1) In the War of 1812, the American intention wasn't an invasion of Canada, it was intended to be a liberation of Canada. Anybody who says that we didn't fight for independence of England should realize that we fought to remain a part of the commonwealth instead. I'm proud to be a servant of the Queen.

2) I've just wasted my time reading the most pathetic debate I've ever seen on this forum. My fellow Canadians, and my neighbors to the south, the stupidity of many of you makes me sick. I do not speak to all of you, I only speak to many of you...probably most of you. There are a lot of people who've posted in the past nine pages who should be ashamed of their inability to think before they post.

And with that, I say good day.

JIM2
Back to Top
Sammy View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 20 July 2002
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 4076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sammy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2004 at 12:37am
Yes i just read 9 pages too of a pathetic arguement. Everybody is quoting eachother and it is now confusing. I think   CANADA AND AMERICA AS EQUALS, AND LETS LEAVE IT AT THAT. Now could a mod please lock this thread
Back to Top
DirtBomb View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 July 2004
Location: Jamaica
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DirtBomb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2004 at 1:04pm

Originally posted by WANNA BE WANNA BE wrote:

Show me your statistics.

Originally posted by University of New Hampshire Department of Economics University of New Hampshire Department of Economics wrote:

"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties--civilian deaths-- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military statigists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

 

That is the first page I got...There is alot more on that page to read, but I doubt you will read much...

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html <another good one.

Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq

(ESTIMATE) TOTAL KILLED:   52,070
(ESTIMATE) TOTAL SERIOUSLY INJURED:   105,499

Most recent update:   June 24, 2004

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...



Edited by DirtBomb
Back to Top
[FI] View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 21 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 441
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote [FI] Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2004 at 2:28pm

You apparently didn't add up the numbers, did you?

One more thing...how many of them were civillians? How many were guerillas?

You don't know!

Doesn't mean much. Especially when the fact that they use thingsl ike "at least" or "estimated"

Good job on proving nothing.

Edit- At least doesn't mean anything...it means that's a general number, could be higher or lower.



Edited by [FI]
Don't believe everything you think

I can resist anything but temptation
Back to Top
DirtBomb View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 July 2004
Location: Jamaica
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DirtBomb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2004 at 2:52pm
Originally posted by [FI [FI wrote:

]

You apparently didn't add up the numbers, did you?

One more thing...how many of them were civillians? How many were guerillas?

You don't know!

Doesn't mean much. Especially when the fact that they use thingsl ike "at least" or "estimated"

Good job on proving nothing.

Edit- At least doesn't mean anything...it means that's a general number, could be higher or lower.


AMERICANS
TROOPS KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN:
100   (Jan. 2004)
SERIOUSLY INJURED: 564   (Jan. 2004)

TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ: 851   (June 2004)
SERIOUSLY INJURED: 3,018   (June 2004)

U.S. CIVILIANS KILLED IN
AFGHANISTAN [
4] AND IRAQ [37]: 41   (June 2004)
SERIOUSLY INJURED: 74   (June 2004)

AFGHANS
TROOPS KILLED:
8,000   (May 2003)
TROOPS SERIOUSLY INJURED: 24,000   (May 2003)

CIVILIANS KILLED: 3,421   (Feb. 2004)
CIVILIANS SERIOUSLY INJURED: 6,158   (Feb. 2004)


U.K. & OTHER COALITION NATIONS
TROOPS KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN:
25   (June 2004)
TROOPS SERIOUSLY INJURED: 141   (Aug. 2002)

TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ: 117   (Feb. 2004)
TROOPS SERIOUSLY INJURED: 418   (Jan. 2004)

U.K. & OTHER COALITION CIVILIANS KILLED IN
AFGHANISTAN [
14] AND IRAQ [65]: 79   (June 2004)
SERIOUSLY INJURED: 142   (June 2004)

IRAQIS
TROOPS KILLED:
30,000   (April 2003)
TROOPS SERIOUSLY INJURED: 54,000   (April 2003)

CIVILIANS KILLED: 9,436   (June 2004)
CIVILIANS SERIOUSLY INJURED: 16,984   (June 2004)

Here ya go http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html you don't need to add the numbers they do it for you, mind you that is just so far...

If you want a good nation stats comparison here ya go...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_gra_12_adv_stu_mat

or...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir

Thank You Very Much.



Edited by DirtBomb
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.