109 Forum Posts by "The-Toller"
*Le sighs* It sucks that Russia freakin' won... Damn you ex-commies and your 'comrades'! *shakes my fist towards the east* Almost all of the songs that me and my friends didn't liked got high placings while many of the ones we liked got low relatively placings.
I'm also sorta miffed that Sweden didn't get a higher placing... Was our entry really that bad? I know the singer looks scary and that I might be a bit biased, but I actually thought it was one of the better entries in the entire contest.
At 5/24/08 06:16 PM, SBB wrote: - What the fuck was up with that Swedish guy? lol
He's a famous comedian in Sweden. So he was just joking around^^ (if you're talking about the blond guy who presented the Swedish votes).
First choice: Norway or Denmark - Because they have almost the same language and culture as my country.
Second choice: Germany, Britain or the Netherlands - Because they seem like interesting countries and in the case of Britain I already know the language.
Third choice: Hmmm... Canada I think - Because Canada seems fairly similar to my own country.
At 12/9/07 11:26 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:At 12/9/07 06:27 PM, Haag wrote: I live in Sweden. It was 200 years since we last went to war.Plus the highest suicide rate in the world. Yay! :P
Add free healthcare and that you are getting payed to go to college and you got a pretty nice country to live in.
Wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou ntries_by_suicide_rate
And directly from the source: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevent ion/suicide_rates/en/index.html
Think its because during WW2 the Germans were viewed as liberators since they liberated Estonia from the Russians? I'm not sure if the Germans did the same horrible stuff to the Estonias as they did to let say the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians also thought the Germans as liberators sincce they hated the Russians. But then the Germans started to slaughter the Ukrainians and steal their food. So the Ukrainians started to fight the Germans. Some fighted only the Germans while others fighted both Germans and Russians alike.
You could send soldiers to search the suspected houses instead of simply blowing them up?a. we don't need to- as i said we can check houses from the air. a house which we see a rocket coming out of is bomb- that simple.
If you used ground troops you could save both buildings essential to the Lebanese and civilians.
do you really think we can get ground forces in the middle of Lebanon without getting them killed?!
In my opinion its better that soldiers die then civilians. Its the soldiers' job to die and kill the enemy. While civilians should be kept out of it as much as possible.
I'm talking about Lebanese infrastructure... So Lebenese people should suffer because criminals happen to use the same bridges, roads e.t.c. as they are?it's not nice to say but... yes. they didn't stop Hezbollah when they had the chance. now we must... and that what we got to do in order to stop Hezbollah
I'm not so sure about that... by the looks of it not everyone agrees that the Lebanese goverment cooperated with the Hezbollah and think that they only lacked the resources and training needed to take care of the terroristgroup.
You walk a very dangerous path. If the attack on Lebanon turns into a humanitarian disaster because Isreal targeted bridges, powerplants e.t.c. Isreal's reputation is going to sink to the bottom. If you're not careful you might loose the US's support.
You're going to have to learn the same lesson the US has learned: only make a mess if you're prepared to clean up after yourself... I mean the US have been in Iraq and Afgahnistan for how many years?
I'm pretty sure most people would rather be offended then living in constant fear of being bombed?no. because for the religouse jews pig's greez is as bad as it is for muslims (and we also have no intantion to harm the rights of innocent israeli muslims. not all muslims are terrorists u know.
I'm starting to think Isreali's like fighting :S You're prepared to kill innocent civilians just to kill a few terrorists but you're not willing to temponarilly offend a few muslims to perhaps save both Isreali and arab lives?
Tell the muslims they're excused from military service or put them in a unit that doesn't use it if they have something against it? I mean I've heard about Jews who have been excused from military service for religous reasons...
At 7/21/06 09:32 AM, Shayel wrote: sorry... I forggot a part of the message..
At 7/21/06 08:04 AM, shiri_c wrote:Power plant=ê×àê ÛÕ×Power plants- I don't know what that is sorry lol
At 7/21/06 08:47 AM, The_Toller wrote:And neither will civilians, goods or other things essential to the Lebanese.Civiliance can go by choppers- whitch are smaller and therfor can't be use for transporting big amounts of weaponry
I don't think that would be very practical. Is there even any companies that would be willing to set up helicopter services? Also one of the problems are that helicopters can't carry allot of stuff which will make it very hard for Lebanon to import things they need.
BTW have Isreal even managed to find a plane carrying weapons or is that just an assumtion/precaution from Isreal's side?
How do they know which houses harbours terrorists and which don't?Israeli intelligence is one of the best in the world. for this particular mission the IDF mainly use UAV's
UAV?
And civilians won't be able to use them either.Unfortunatly civils and the Hezbollah uses the same infrastructure such as roads, bridges etc. so if we want to hurt Hezbollah infrastructure it will damage civils too, we have nothing to do about it.
You could send soldiers to search the suspected houses instead of simply blowing them up?
BTW does anyone know if Isreal is going to repay Lebanon for all the structual damage they've done just like the US did to Iraq?Do Hezbollah intend to pay for houses it destroy? Israel practicaly has no money for itself. we can't pay for the Hezbollah infrastructure we had to destroy because THEY started a war.
I'm talking about Lebanese infrastructure... So Lebenese people should suffer because criminals happen to use the same bridges, roads e.t.c. as they are?
When/if you manage to remove Hezbollah the damages should be repaired.
lol... no one puts pig greez nowhere... it is not kosher and will hurt religious jews as well... and it's not practical .
I'm pretty sure most people would rather be offended then living in constant fear of being bombed?
Perhaps its not practical but I'm sure some simillar but less messy method could be developed. I stand by my opinion that its impossible to win by brute force, the terrorist's fighting spirit has to be broken down.
At 7/21/06 09:01 AM, shiri_c wrote: For all the "how do they know" qustions, we're watching them and see from where the rocket has been sent\lunched.
It's more easy to lunch (is that the word?) a katyusha than other rockets so people can do it easily.
Aren't Katyushas mobile? So couldn't they simply park their Katyusha launcher next to an innocent family's house then simply drive away before the missle/artillary shell hits?
and about all the "it's not the innocent citizens fault" stuff, that's the consequences. as I said before, every war has its victims.
Well you have to ask yourself: is it worth risking hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilian lives to achieve the goal you're reaching for?: A temponary solution for a very long term conflict? If it had been Lebanon that had fired the missles at you and kidnapped and if you invaded Lebanon then you could tell with a 90% certainty that the conflict would have ended after Lebanon's defeat then it might have been worth it... But in this situation you'll have a temponary stop to the missle launches at best.
Has anyone got any statistics how many people that die because of the rocket attacks on average every day?
about what you said with buses - never heard of it and never saw it and I ride the buses alot. you just enter and pay, that's all.
*shrugs* saw it on the news a few years ago. They might have stopped it or the method might be used in a limited area.
And for the repaying things I don't have a clue but hey, they won't repay us for our homes which they hit. that's cuz they do it on purpose.
but again, I don't know about that.
It wasn't Lebanon that fired rockets into your country, it was a small criminal organization that did it. Besides by not paying you're only punishing the civilians. The terrorists and goverment will be able to get the things they need somehow.
At 7/21/06 08:04 AM, shiri_c wrote: Power plants- I don't know what that is sorry lol
A powerplant produces electricity.
Airports - so Iran and Syria won't be able to pass new weapon and rockets as they always did.
And neither will civilians, goods or other things essential to the Lebanese.
Homes- The Israely army only bombed homes which they knew for sure that the people living inside are helping the Hezbollah to hide rockets. Siriously.
How do they know which houses harbours terrorists and which don't?
Schools - The Lebanons knew nobody would bomb schools because it's a school... so they did what? Hide there rockets too. So we bombed those places with the rockets.
Again how do they know that?
Bridges- So they won't be able to pass to the border with syria and bring more weapon.
And civilians won't be able to use them either.
Office buildings - The Hezbollah offices.
again how do they seperate an ordinary office building from a "Hezbollah" office building?
Resorts- dunno what that is sorry lol
I think he talks about tourists resorts - hotels, beaches where tourists swim e.t.c.
Gas stations and fuel tank so they won't have gas and fuel for they're tanks which lunch the rockets.
and it also makes it impossible (or at least much harder) for civilians to flee from the war zones.
BTW does anyone know if Isreal is going to repay Lebanon for all the structual damage they've done just like the US did to Iraq?
Personally I don't think this invasion is really going to solve anything. You can't destroy terrorism, at least not with brute force. You have to take away their will to fight. I read a while ago that Isreal had tried putting pig grease (I think it was) on their busses to stop the terrorists from blowing them up. If I remember the branch of Islam the terrorists belonged to believed that being in contact with a pig (or parts of a pig) when you died would stop you from going to heaven. I think the only way for Isreal to stop terrorism is to take away the terrorists' place in heaven. I'm not entirely sure how this should be done though (perhaps by dipping bullets e.t.c. in pig grease?) All I know is brute force will most likely only create more recruits for the terrorists orginazations.
At 5/18/06 10:01 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: Swedes are stupid.
Everyone knows that
We're smarter then Norwegians at least. We don't go around being conquered and/or being controlled by foreign nations every five seconds.
At 5/18/06 02:35 AM, Tome89 wrote: But well, Sweden is one hell of a boring country with bad weather, dumb blondes, fat kids and stupid people.
Plus our trance producers only make gay music.
And swedes in general are more annoying the clock crew.
I'm moving to Greece.
People are not even meant to live in this cold-ass climate.
Speak for yourself! According to me Sweden has a perfect climate. Wouldn't want to live in any other country. I wouldn't want to live in any of the southern countries where it feels like you live in a freakin' sauna!
Anyway back to the point. Yes did read about that guy before... apperently he was going to visit Sweden to protest but I'm not sure if he decided not to come or if the newspaper decided not to give him any publicity because I didn't find any articles about him.
At 4/26/06 08:59 PM, YankeeFli wrote: It's better then having another recession or depression from the forced energy equivalents of the Kyoto
Its better to have a short ecconomic low then to risk long term consequnces. We roughly know what will happen if the industries would be forced to improve themselves enviormentally. But we have no idea how serious the damage would be if we wouldn't force them to change.
Forced enviormental treaties are the safe way out while treaties with "voluntary" rules gamles with the future of humanity and Earth.
Personally I think its just a way to gain votes and to fool people that cares about the future and the enviorment that these countries actually doing something actively.
I mean... when have you ever heard of a Chinese enviormental program??
Plus, we already have more countries seeking to join this, including Russia and Canada.
So?
You simply can't apply energy withdrawl from economies that are dependent on it.
The kyoto deal wanted to have lower demands on developing countries until they become industrialised countries with a decent standard of living. Something America was against.
Suicide rates are highest in Sweden. I'm sure that has something to do with a complete lack of purpose: everyone is guaranteed the same results, so what's the point?
http://www.who.int/m..ide/suiciderates/en/
Actually Sweden only have a slightly higher suicide rate then the US. But other countries for example Belguim and France have higher suicide rates. I would say that both American and Sweden have pretty average-below average suicide rates.
At 3/8/06 09:55 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:At 3/8/06 09:44 AM, The_Toller wrote: Its one thing that I'm curious about Christianity(sp?): Is it more important to follow the god's laws in the bible or to believe in god?Neither. The only way one is a Christian is to believe in Christ as one's savior, so neither qualifies.
Who is the most Christian of these two:
Person nr 1: A person who believes in god but believes the bible to be corrupted and written by humans (therefore the bible he doesn't believe the bible to be the word of god)?
Person nr 2: A agnostic/atheist that follows the rules of the bible because he feels that they are good moral rules to follow?
The Bible was written by God through man's hand--if you don't believe the Bible, then you don't truly believe in Jehovah (or any other specific god taught by teachings), you're just a deist.
Hmm true I guess... but the part that you do not truely believe in Jehovah is debatable since as both Jews and Muslims believe that they worship the same god as Christians and they both have different rules then Christians.
What about the different Christian churches? They all seem to have different rules and opinions on what god wants? Are they all true Christians as long as they use the bible as guideline?
As for person #2: "For by faith are you saved, not of works lest any man should boast."
There's murderers in heaven, there's philanthropists in hell. Again, the fundamental tenet of Christianity and one's salvation is that you accept Christ as a Savior and repent of your sins. If you don't do that, no amount of morality can save you.
Okay... so both things are equally important?
Its one thing that I'm curious about Christianity(sp?): Is it more important to follow the god's laws in the bible or to believe in god?
Who is the most Christian of these two:
Person nr 1: A person who believes in god but believes the bible to be corrupted and written by humans (therefore the bible he doesn't believe the bible to be the word of god)?
Person nr 2: A agnostic/atheist that follows the rules of the bible because he feels that they are good moral rules to follow?
I would start a 10 hour diplomatic dialog with her trying to convince her to lay down her bomb.
Ok but seriously. I would order the gunner to shot if she comes any closer. Then I would have someone shout at her in Arabic that she should stay away.
But if it seemed like I wouldn't have time for that and if I trusted the gunner I would probably tell him fire but preferably only to wound if possible.
At 3/2/06 05:01 PM, Monocrom wrote: Since this topic deals with the issue of America never having existed, you could argue that it means that Britain never would have created the American colonies in the first place. No American colonies to begin with = no one to supply the British Home-nation during W.W.2.
Well there's no good reason why they wouldn't have colonized America since they still would have colonized Canada... Of course unless it was colonized by some other nation first: I think the only possible candidates that would be Spain, the neatherlands and France. If France or the Neatherlands (unlikly since they were relativly small) would be the ones that had colonized America then the UK would still have convoys sent to them since both these nations were allies to Britain during WW2.
As for W.W.2. never taking place at all if America didn't exist; I agree with you! ........... Hitler and his Army would have marched across Europe unopposed! He would have conquered the entire Continent without W.W.2. ever taking place! Thus, as I pointed out above, Jews would no longer exist because Nazi Germany would rule the world.
Go read the history books. WW2 started in 1939 when Germany attacked Poland, one of the Allies which forced The rest of the Allies to declare war on Hitler and Germany. This was before America was a Allied member. So yes WW2 might have taken place without America's existance, that is if the Triple Entente (UK, France, US, Russia) had still won WW1 without America's existance.
The entente's victory in WW1 was one of the major reasons for WW2. Which is why America's non-existance could have caused WW2 to never happen.
As for Germany winning the war...
1. I fail to see how they could have won the war, they would continue to be bogged down in Russia, constantly being hitted by Partisans. At the same time resistance would increase in mainland Europe. Hitler's manpower would constantly decrease and eventuelly he would run out of men and resources. Germany had like 7-9 million soldiers and they would have to spread them out over the entire European continent plus the Soviet union just to be able to keep control of everything! It would be a playground for rebels! Sure allot of people would die but Hitler would still lose.
2. Hitler never intended to rule the world after WW2. He only wanted Europe and the oil fields in Russia basically.
3. As for Japan... Japan were never really a threat for Europe except for its colonies... But I guess after the Soviet union and Europe would have recovered after Germany's occupancy then they would probably deal with Japan if they were considered a threat.
Is it really that suprising considering the majority of the forum writers are Americans?
I'm sure there would be allot more European/asian/whatever politics if some other nationality held the majority.
Try to create a topic about Swiss domestic politics for example, then see how long it survives... I bet it won't survive that long. There aren't enough Swiss people on this site to fuel the discussion. But there's more then enough Americans to go around.
At 3/2/06 02:01 AM, Monocrom wrote:
You're forgeting about America's lend-lease policy. America supplied the British with millons of dollars worth of military hardware and equipment during W.W.2. At the end of the war, America decided to forget about all of the money that Britain owed. Those British colonies you speak of were supplied with equipment from America. Britain would have fallen easily, once France was conquered, without the much-needed help from America.
He's talking about British colonies in America. They would help supply mainland Britain the same way America supplied Britain during the real WW2. So Britain would still have had supplies from their colonies even without the American nation.
Of course you could argue that if Britian had lost their American colonies to Spain for example then they might have a problem.
But then again you could also argue that there never would have been a WW2 if America never existed. Anything could have happened if the US never would have existed because there's an almost infinite amount of things that could be affected by America's non existance.
What do you expect? Democracy and colorful flowers? They're China for christ's sake... China's goverment suxxors.
Looks like the Isrealis have decided to do something to counter the anti-semantic drawings that's being published in Arab magazines:
They do it by arranging a conest to see which Isreali can draw the best anti-semantic cartoon.
Personally I think its a interesting way of dealing with it... it sure beats "blow stuff up" approach some people have when they get offended.
So what's your thoughts on this?
At 2/20/06 04:46 PM, The_Tank wrote: Yes you did concuer Norway and Sweden,
Yup, before that tough we were in a Union where the ruler were elected among the nobles by nobles. Some Swedes didn't like this however since the Danes were dominating the union at the moment. So people started to rebell against the Danes and in 1520 Denmark conquered Sweden and executed one of the anti unionist leaders: Sten Sture the younger and his party of around 100 nobles/clergy in the Stockholm bloodbath. But in 1521, Gustav Ericsson, a young rebel who managed to escape from a Danish prison managed to gather a small army of peasants in Dalarna (an area in northwestern Sweden). He also manage to convince the province of Leipzig (in "Germany") to support him with mercenaries. He was elected King of Sweden by the people of Dalarna and took the name Gustav Vasa (Gustav I) http://en.wikipedia...i/Gustav_I_of_Sweden
After two years of fighting the Danes where out of the country and after that he was elect king for real. So Denmark never held Sweden for a very long time...
At 2/20/06 05:03 PM, The_Tank wrote:At 2/20/06 04:53 PM, drah wrote: okay, this is going off topic.Youv'e got it half right, you lost Norway because you lost the Napoleanic wars, but you disn't lose Sweden because you didn't have Sweden. Sweden sided with the victors of Russia and England in the war, and was given Norway from Denmark as a victory splendor.
what i heard was that we lost norway since we supported napoleon, and the swedish said "us too!" and broke free.
man we need more history lessons.
Sounds correct... You seem to know more then the average non-scandinavian about Scandinavian history... have you been reading on Wikipedia or have you read any books about it?
At 2/18/06 10:18 PM, Imperator wrote:But yeah, the article admits that it wasn't so much as a national blunder as a PR blunder--it really only hurt his presidency, and not much else.Well the whole lying in front of court and Impeachment was kinda a national blunder. I guess you could say it put America in a negative impression for the rest of the world. I mean, if our president had no qualms about lying in court, he certainly wouldn't have a problem lying to foreign dignitaries.......
But that's kinda a stretch....No, it wasn't the kinda national blunder the rest are.
I think that at least in Europe's eyes, the real blunder was that Clinton's private life became a national issue and the Americans made such a big deal out of it, not that he lied in court. The issue should have been strictly been a business between Clinton and his wife.
Just because he lied when he was asked about a private matter (that were none of the American people's business) Doesn't mean he wouldn't have told the truth if he would have been asked something that was actually vital for the nation or that he would lie to foreign diplomats.
At 2/3/06 12:25 PM, MatthewTheLion wrote: Here's a story:
A Christian was preaching against the sin of homosexuality at a "Gay Pride Parade". When the attendants (homosexual and heterosexual alike) saw this, they beat the shit out of him. The Christian is now in a hospital, and in critical condition.
So tell me this:
So who commited the hate crime?
a) The Christian
b) The people who nearly killed him
How about posting a source so people that people can look at? So people can discuss it properly?
Personally I thought that the drawings were terrible and that they shouldn't even have published. But the muslims reaction was even worse then the drawings themselves. Read in the newpaper today that the journalists had apologised for the pictures, but apperently that wasn't enough for the muslims. Now they want the journalists to be punished and then they want a new apology from the Danish goverment. Personally I think these demands are insane. The protesting muslims have also taken out their anger on Norway and Sweden for some reason (they probably don't know the difference between the countries so it might be a mistake) What's even worse, one group have even putted a price on the journalists' heads.
Why can't middle eastern muslims take it cool like the muslims in Denmark? According to the newspaper the majority of the Danish muslims just thought the argument should be putted aside.
Oh and for those wondering the newspaper I took the information from was Metro Stockholm: http://www.metro.se/..20060201_A_Metro.pdf
The paper is in Swedish though so most people won't understand it.
Helped the allies during ww2...
.
.
.
That's about everything that I can think that has influenced my country.
You are only proving my statement correct. NATO failed once WWII started because its job was to prevent wars. After WWII and the failure of NATO the UN was formed, and the US were the major leaders in getting this done. At least read what I have said before automatically assuming I am wrong because I am American then spitting out the same basic thing I have just said in less detail.
NATO was formed 1949, AFTER WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
I think you're thinking about the league of nations: http://en.wikipedia...ki/League_Of_Nations
League of nations failed when WW2 started and was abolished shortly after the war... NATO was created after WW2 and it still exists.
Or are you just messing around?
1. UK experience in city and industry building helped my country (and others) to create "modern" cities and industries of our own. (France and Germany also provided some inspiration)
2. Gave my forefathers, the vikings, the oppurtunity to pillage for booty! :D (BOOTY! BOOTY! BOOTY!) Ok it was mostly Norwegian and Danish vikings that pillaged England, but I'm sure there were some Swedish ones as well.
3. Helped indirectly saving us during WW2 (my country wasn't under a direct threat of the Germans)
aaaand my lazyness strikes again... can't figure out something more right now that the UK has made that has affected my country.
Hmmm... these are the things I can think of right now.
1. Helped saving us from the Germans (ok the German didn't invade us, but I guess its not impossible that they would have if the war would have gone their way) and probably saved us from the Soviets during WW2.
2. Gave us weapons (the sidewinder missle for example) and some other stuff during the cold war. I guess this could both be a good and a bad thing since it sort of created a dependence to the US but at the same time we were sure we got some of the, if not the best weapons.
3. A whole bunch of products, tv shows e.t.c.
There probably are some other things but I'm too lazy to think of them right now...
