Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

you did the right thing.

What is so amazing about the USA it's just a lucky country i dont know why you all think its absolutly amaing. WHAt the fuck have you done which is so utterly amazing??????????

I ment IRA has nothing to do with AMerica not
America has nothing to do with america

Wooops triple post!! sorry

At 9/26/06 07:43 PM, djx2d wrote:

At 9/26/06 02:59 PM, GunsAreDrawn wrote:

They started a war based on a terrorist attack which is most likley set up by themselves, to get a reason to go into the middle east once again and try to strengthen their oil resouces.

"Set up by themselves?" Yeah, we crashed planes into the WORLD Trade Center and killed 3000 of our citizens so our President could start a war. Completely sensible.

um accualy it was set up by the masions... there in eurpoe mostly but also in the USA...they also controll al quida and the ira... and some of the maifa

Your not seriously linking Al Quida and the IRA you wierd little twat!
The America have absolutly nothing to do with america or Muslims.

At 9/26/06 07:40 PM, djx2d wrote: america > every other country...

thast why we are called " land of the free" " home of the brave" " super power" "richest country" ( as defined income per captia)

england is just land of bad teeth

I've only ever hered,

America land of the fat ignorant cunts with to much fucking money

you cant really compare green day to Led zepllin, Jimi hendrex or the Beatles.

I would love to go to america, I think alot of people just think americans are a but brainwashed to think america is the greatest country ever which alot of people find a bit scary. But I wouldn't say thats true.

how do they work

just get a job and rent somewere, dont run away into mexico.

At 9/24/06 08:06 PM, Placebo wrote: I have to disagree. America has a lot of diversity in dialect as well, so I wouldn't say that Britain has more than America.

America has a huge diversity, But Britain really does have more because the english language originated in England and have had a much longer history of dialect development.

Also In england the grammar, vocabulary and pronounciation change dramatically throughout. More than that of America.

At 9/24/06 07:58 PM, Amerwiccan wrote: Yes, yes you do. But that's mostly because Brits never really come to American and America never really goes to the UK

Huge amounts of British go to america and huge amounts of americans come to Britain.

At 9/24/06 07:46 PM, Zerok wrote: It's funny that your whole point is shed light on stereotypes while your opening sentence oozes of the very same ignorance.

fair enough, i didn't mean that i ment alot of americans do seem to see it like that in my eyes. I'm Not being steriotypical It's just from experience

Americans generally have higher pitched voices i thought. Probably just that kid.

Do americans really think the whole of Great Britain speak with the same Accent.

I'm always hearing people talk about British Accent as if there is the one Accent throughout the British Isles. It seems Americans think the whole of the United Kingdom speak like the queen.

I would like to say that Accents and Dialects are much much more diversed in the United Kingdom than they are in America due to a much longer history of dialect development in the English speaking areas of Great Britain and Ireland.

Firstly theres England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales which all Blatently very different.
But also within them are many different accents and Dialects.
In England for example someone from Newcastle (in the North of England) probably speaks as different to London (south) as America does to Australia.

Americans seem to think everyone in Britain are all middle upper class snobs.
And somehow forget the Magority of Britain who aren't.
Its like thinkin everyone in america talked like 'Frasier'

I went to america once and a shop assistant asked me where abouts in australia i was from!!!

I told her I was English and she replied 'you sound australians'
I wanted to say atually MATE australians fuckin sound like me.
Because australia was colonised by convicts from around my area a couple of hundred years ago.
(no offense to any aussies)

This has probably been said many a time before but it does piss me off.

At 9/23/06 06:49 PM, Indigo wrote: I can't stand Lee Evans, he irritates the fuck outta me.
Jimmy Carr is my favorite, some my friends say he's reminds them of me.
I like Peter Kay too, but he's waay over rated.

Jimmy carr isn't funny.

Peter kay is quality
And Billy Connoly
And Bill Bailey

Lee Evans

At 9/21/06 05:14 PM, defactoidZERO wrote:

At 9/21/06 05:04 PM, Jizzlebang wrote: If England has had a female Prime Minister, why shouldn't the U.S have a female President?

Because England isn't as testosterone-fueled as the US. They're not as neck-deep in conflict as the US, either. It also should be noted that the English are very used to looking up to a woman as their ruler, even if she is merely a figurehead.

Margret Thatcher probably had more testosterone than President Bush and Tony Blair put together.
She was priminister in The Falklands and 1st Gulf war Sent the S.A.S on to those iranian cunts and she nearly got assinated by a bomb.

And To be honest i think the queen has as much power over England as she does over canada. Last time the Royal family had any say it was a King.

stop whining

I agree with you, Britain should stop licking americas arse as well.
But whatever happens, Muslims are gonna fuck up the whole world anyway.

I think 16 is a right stupid age to drive. America must have so many crashes and shit.

In Britain you get all the 16 yr old twats pissing about on there little shitty 50cc 's
If they could drive It would be mayhem.
17 is a better age, bit more mature, left school.

Maybe america will lower the drinking age to make up for it.

At 9/20/06 12:32 AM, ASYLUM13 wrote: there is North, Central, and South America.
We are North America
Africa is South
and i forgot what Central was....

USA name is the United states
we are a country made up of states
that's like saying the UK don'k have a real name
UK stands for United Kingdom
you can guess the rest i hope.....

United Kingdom isn't a country. Its the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.

And Great Britain isn't a Country either its three countrys. England, Scotland and wales.

At 9/8/06 07:37 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Eh the revolutionary war was silly. The Americans didnt use the rules of engagement and hid behind trees and buildings. The British had a sense of civilized warfare that had them all out in the open in formation while American units hid in villages and forests wearing camo instead of uniforms.

There were no rules of engagement back then, there were no international rules of law. Also, British troops murdered and massacred large amounts of innocent colonists. The Brits were so cowardly that they went from town to town, village to village, and killed all American males from ages 10-50 and raped their mothers, wives, and sisters, then you want to question the conduct of the Americans during the revolutionary war??? You're pathetic.

It wasn't cowardlyness, Theres no way you can call the British Infantry. The Difference between The british Army and many other armys at the time was they wern't conscript and they wern't volounteres who loved there country. They were Murderers, Rapists, Theives, And They either Joined the army to escape poverty or were givin the choice after commiting a crime to either die on the gallows or join the army! So althrough the Army was made up of the Scum of the earth it was infact the best of the time and the most fiercom. (I'm not saying all the army was like that) But Alot were, they were the low of the low. And the British officers were extremely strict with men, Floggings and hangings. If caught breaking laws.

At 9/8/06 07:02 PM, _holly_ wrote: If Britain was fighting america in Britain we would of used Gurrelia warfare,
Which is extremely effective, but you need to no the land, like the amerians did.

Britain won other wars in foreign territory during those days. Britain put down numerous rebellions in India. The Indians knew their land and the brits defeated them

Indian's didn't use Gurrelia tactics generally. They were highly trained troops alot if them.

In that era bright uniforms were used because the battles were so smoky and impossible to see, you were as much threat from your own side as you were for your enemy. The British didn't fight in line out of pride or anything, thats how to fight and many battles in the war of independence, The British won. they suffered the huge losses in ambushes when they were on the march. They were hugely outnumbered.

That is true.. Except the Brits were not outnumbered in any of the conventional battles between the Continental Army and the British Army. The Brits were much more numerous and had much better equipment. SO American civilian with no training had to do something to take away the benefits the Brits had. So the Americans adopted ambush tactics and sniping. American troops usually would try and kill with marksmen, which they did well and this caused a collapse in the British chain of command in numeroud battles, leading to US victory.

The British were Outnumbered mostly. The battles were sometimes British Victorys, sometimes American Victories. The american army wasn't the problem it was 90% of america fighting back. Which is fair enough. In spain The spainish army was shit but the people killed more french than the British did.
All armys had Marksmen, they were called skirmishers.

They had to wait for supplies to get over from britain.

The Brits had a constant supply and reinforcement. Tts not like they would get supplies from Britain then have to wait for more supplies to come all the way from Britain again, there was a constanty train of supplies in the atlantic ocean between Britain and America. So at any given moment a ship returning from Britian would be arriving in America, while others were still in Britain or in the middle of the ocea. You are just proving you don't think very 3 dimensionally!!!

They had very Limited supplies, That would be how you would wan't it But the British Navy was concerned with more urgent problems in Europe.

The British had the Best Infantry in the world, But No Infantry can fight against ambushes and Gurellia tactics. It wasn't the american Army which defeated the British, no way, Look up some of the stats on the battles, Britain absolutly decimated many battles. It was the american people,

You are pretty much correct there to some extent. But the US Army did gain some victories over the Brits, and usually the Continental Army and the Militias of American civilians would coordinate attacks. The Continental Army would engage Brits in an open fight, then the Militias would be used to attack their supply train and their flanks, or used to snipe their commanders while the Brits were focused on the task at hand.

Of course they did. clever tactics-- used many times before all over the world.

But don't write off the US victory as just gorilla tactics and ambushes. Because thats what Special Forces such as the SAS and Navy SEALs do today. Special warfare IS gorilla tactics, its just the modern equivelant of it and is therefore considered more dignified by narrow minded people. The only difference between the SAS and the Taliban is that the SAS is better trained, better equiped, and doesn't target innocent civilians for their purposes. The acts of gorilla war are no less cowardly or unfair when the SAS, or any other special forces group uses it.

I won't Gurellia tactics and ambushes are an excellent tactic. Which many times in the past have killed more people than battles. I wasn't the one to talk against Gurrelia tactics it was the person before me. In WW2 the British Home guard were trained to use Gurrelia tactics in case of a german invasion, it's common sense.

Overall The revelotunary war, Of course it was a great Victory, I have no right to say it wasn't . Its the single most important event in American History.

But people who say america ruled Britain in the war of Independence are very Narrow minded, and Ignorant. Britain had Bigger wars in India and france at the time. Risk of Invasion.

You Reppelled the super power of the time.

But So have Many other countries in the past, including not so long ago, Vietnam.(please don't go bollockin on about that again, Yes it was sort of a victroy, but not really)

Its very hard to control a country which is completly against you. If not impossible

At 9/8/06 07:37 PM, Onizero wrote: That comment ends the Mexican thing. But what about UK?

What about the UK?

At 9/8/06 06:26 PM, Humbucker740 wrote:

The United States of America is a unique name in itself. No one else is made up of united states, as i have already pointed out. Umbungo? What? Why not call cheese pears? It pertains to our continent. We are united states ON AMERICA.

Mexico is also A United states of america

Its like naming france 'a country of europe' (in a very small sense)

Or it's like calling the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom of europe.

At 9/8/06 06:08 PM, Draconias wrote: The US is a world superpower. We get to choose whatever name we want, and we're going to give common names to everyone else, too.

People aren't stupid. Common names have already been worked out for every single country. This isn't a politics issue, this isn't even an issue.

Suppose it's not really, but i just thought it was a sensible question and you tend to get more sensible people here. I wasn't dissing america. I just wondered.

Of course you can choose what ever name you want so can any country ignorant super power or not. I just wondered why you gave it that paticulal namer, why not the United states of Umbungo.

Mexico is the United mexico states. And its In america so its also a united states of america.
But they also have there own name

and
What do you mean give common names to everyone else???

I just thought it was strange,
why doesn't U.S.A have a proper name then like Mexico or canada?

At 9/8/06 05:09 PM, Hamslice wrote: Like England, Great Britain, The British Isles?

England is England

Britain is England and wales

Great Britain is England wales and scotland

United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland

And British Isles are all the islands around it, there also part of United kingdom or maybe even Great Britain, i'm not sure

At 9/8/06 04:54 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: But the USA isn’t technically a county.

Like the UK (There’s more than one United Kingdom in the world), / Britain (refers to the land mass, not the country) is a union of states.

But Scotland, Wales and England all are reall countrys, thats my point.
Were a Union of countries, america is a Union of states which makes up a country But the countrys name is not atually a very good one.

Mexico Is another United States of the Continent of america.

Obversly when someone says the US, United states, america or the states we all no what country there talking about, but atually they could be talking about any country.

Mexico Are United states and there in America (United Mexico states)

So Mexico is really another United states of america. except it also has a proper name.

America could mean any country from south america, central america or north america. But the United states of america generally has adopted the name.

when i was 10 an me an my mates went up the american base which is near us an nick all there stuff. Fuckin US squaddie wives coming out shoutin 'fuckin english' lol
gd days, gd days