Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Since the BS-level was so high, I will only respond to a couple things you said, cellardoor6.

At 7/30/07 07:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Created a democracy in 2 countries where democracy never before existed, and in the process actually kept civilian casualties way lower than any other military endeavor of such a large magnitude.

You call Iraq a democracy? I nearly laughed out loud when I read this, but then again, my sense of humor is kind of black. Hundreds of people are dying every month trying to use their freedom of though. Women can't go out of their houses without burqas and they can't drive car; if they do, they risk being killed. It wasn't that way during Saddams rule, despite what CNN wants you to believe.
A good idea could be reading one of the many iraqi sources, for example Bagdad Burning, a blog by a young iraqi woman living in bagdad, http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/.
And even if we asumed that Saddams rule was even worse, that doesn't make Iraq a democracy. Actually, I don't think anything can make Iraq a democracy within a decade or two, and every month that the US stays will probably add a year to that time.

Assisted Israel, a democracy, against the blood thirsty Palestinians who are ACTUALLY the ones intentionally massacring innocent people.

First off: Israel isn't that big of a democracy. For example, freedom of speech is very limited there. Secondly, the building of the israeli wall is a severe violation of the human rights. It cuts innocent palestinians source of income, food, and health care. Causing harm and suffering to innocents for a political purpose; now that's terrorism.

A legitimate

NO!

military detention center in which mindless imbeciles created conspiracy theories about, and take it as a fact that it's some evil place, even though there is no proof of what they claim.

Except for countless reports from witnessess, both former prisoners and former guards, and except for the fact that it violates international standards by NOT LETTING INDEPENDENT HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS OR THE UN HAVE ANY VIEW INTO WHAT HAPPENS THERE.
Why hide what happens if nothing happens?
Guantanamo is severely undermining the basics of a democracy, the very thing the US uses as an argument to keep it open.

- Secretly transported prisoners to torture camps...

With the aid of several countries who were fully aware of it.

That doesn't make it better, you know.

how is this good? the US government is a terrorist government itsef. how is it helpful?

Haha you're so fucking retarded.

Well, the fact is that the only country found guilty of the crimes that constitute terrorism in the war tribunal of Haag is USA, if you didn't know that.

- Is at the forefront of intelligence on terrorism, providing the intelligence that has lead the the capture of terrorists in several other countries.

The war on terrorism has become a holy crusade, a racistical purge of those deemed not worthy of being human. If the US leads the war on terrorism, and is the cause of captures and arrests, then that's just another argument against the US. To quote Europol:
"Half of all the terrorism arrests (In europe 2006) were related to Islamist terrorism."
and
"Altogether 498 attacks were carried out in the EU in 2006."
"Along with the failed terrorist attack that took place in Germany, Denmark and the UK each reported one attempted terrorist attack in 2006."
So, although only 0,6% of the terror attacks were made by islamists, 50% of the arrest were on islamists. Does that sound just to you? Think of the many civilians arrested on false grounds.

---

At 7/30/07 05:42 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

You call Iraq a democracy? I nearly laughed out loud when I read this, but then again, my sense of humor is kind of black. Hundreds of people are dying every month trying to use their freedom of though. Women can't go out of their houses without burqas and they can't drive car; if they do, they risk being killed. It wasn't that way during Saddams rule, despite what CNN wants you to believe.

Uh... the death toll has nothing to do with it.

How the fuck can it NOT be a democracy when they VOTED on their NEW government?

First off: Israel isn't that big of a democracy. For example, freedom of speech is very limited there.

Better than Palestine...

Causing harm and suffering to innocents for a political purpose; now that's terrorism.

Because we can somehow equate that with genocide... sure thing, pal.

Why hide what happens if nothing happens?

Why is it that people only use that statement when it fits their political views?

Guantanamo is severely undermining the basics of a democracy, the very thing the US uses as an argument to keep it open.

What do you want to do?

Seperate all of the insurgents into seperate prisons across the United States?

EXCELLENT IDEA!

So, although only 0,6% of the terror attacks were made by islamists, 50% of the arrest were on islamists. Does that sound just to you? Think of the many civilians arrested on false grounds.

Interesting... yet you and Europe bitch about the US and it "taking away rights".

---

At 7/30/07 05:19 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Testament to this is the fact that Iraq has adopted the British model of training officers from Sandhurst and not America's

Holy shit!

No wonder they're having such a hard time.

That's what we need to fix! We can't let the British train these people, they'll lose for sure.

Btw, good job on fulfilling the stereotype of the arrogant, borderline xenophobic American. I suggest if you want people to stop bitchign at America you do your bit to not live up to the stereotypes.

Well, considering Britian went into iraq based on their own intelligence and are trying to withdrawl despite only receiving 37 deaths so far this year, i'd certainly say they're pansies.

---

At 7/30/07 04:57 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: This type of thing just breeds more resentment towards Americans.

Right on the button there.

But Brown shot down Cameron in a really funny way so I can't say he's a usless politician yet.

---

At 7/30/07 05:50 PM, Memorize wrote: Holy shit!

No wonder they're having such a hard time.

That's what we need to fix! We can't let the British train these people, they'll lose for sure.

Very good, you can throw a blatant insult at my nation without actually addressing the point I raised = ) Give yourself a cookie.

Well, considering Britian went into iraq based on their own intelligence and are trying to withdrawal despite only receiving 37 deaths so far this year, i'd certainly say they're pansies.

37 deaths which shouldn't have happened as we should have sorted the problem out by now. This is an American led mission, the burden falls upon you to fix it. After all, you don't need us really do you? You do all he 'heavy lifting' in the world don't you? What does it matter if the British troops pull out? What damage can it do? After all, we're just there to stand there and look pretty = )

---

At 7/30/07 06:12 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Very good, you can throw a blatant insult at my nation without actually addressing the point I raised = ) Give yourself a cookie.

Oh, I did.

37 deaths which shouldn't have happened as we should have sorted the problem out by now. This is an American led mission, the burden falls upon you to fix it.

There's that irresponsibility again.

America = The world's scapegoat.

In this case: Britain.

After all, you don't need us really do you? You do all he 'heavy lifting' in the world don't you?

Yeah.

What does it matter if the British troops pull out?

Well... it does show their cowardice.

What damage can it do? After all, we're just there to stand there and look pretty = )

*pretty* much.

I kid, I kid.

There's no reason to bitch about 37 deaths in 7 months when the US takes 566 in 7 months.

Wow, that really does look like you guys are giving a half-assed effort.

---

At 7/30/07 06:48 PM, Memorize wrote:

What does it matter if the British troops pull out?

Well... it does show their cowardice.

Yes, and you've been in iraq for how long? It must be nice to have more soldiers than body bags.

What damage can it do? After all, we're just there to stand there and look pretty = )

*pretty* much.

I kid, I kid.

There's no reason to bitch about 37 deaths in 7 months when the US takes 566 in 7 months.

Wow, that really does look like you guys are giving a half-assed effort.

Well then stop trying to shoot us or blow us up before we actually get to fighting the war and we'll consider sending more.

---

At 7/30/07 06:48 PM, Memorize wrote: There's that irresponsibility again.

America = The world's scapegoat.

In this case: Britain.

That comment was actually just to counter what had been said before, I don't actually think that. I think we need to stay in Iraq as we've fucked it up so its our duty to fix it again.

Well... it does show their cowardice.

Of the troops themselves or of the Government? Important distinction to be made here. I know a few people in the armed forces, and they are some of the bravest people I know. So please tell me you are actually drawing a distinction between the people who want out, and the Tommy's in Iraq who are more than happy to continue doing their job.

There's no reason to bitch about 37 deaths in 7 months when the US takes 566 in 7 months.

When you compare it like that, then yes it does look petty, but those 37 people, and also the 566 Americans shouldn't be dead. If the whole thing had been planned properly, then we wouldn't be in this situation, or having the argument probably.

Wow, that really does look like you guys are giving a half-assed effort.

Meh, I guess, though it boils down partially to numbers, you have more there due to having a bigger army in general so you would lose more, and also the areas. The ones under British control are relatively stable I believe. We're doing our job, it's just we're either doing it better than you are or our job is easier = )

---

At 7/30/07 06:58 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 7/30/07 06:48 PM, Memorize wrote:

Meh, I guess, though it boils down partially to numbers, you have more there due to having a bigger army in general so you would lose more, and also the areas. The ones under British control are relatively stable I believe. We're doing our job, it's just we're either doing it better than you are or our job is easier = )

You hold parts of Southern Iraq.

Thats like taking controll of the Kurdish areas, saying how peacefull and contained they are, and then proclaiming it a victory.

I mean, anytime you army wants to help with Baghdad, there welcome to.

---

At 7/30/07 06:58 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

That comment was actually just to counter what had been said before, I don't actually think that. I think we need to stay in Iraq as we've fucked it up so its our duty to fix it again.

ok ok.

I'll stop.

Of the troops themselves or of the Government? Important distinction to be made here. I know a few people in the armed forces, and they are some of the bravest people I know.

I never talk that way about soldiers.

When you compare it like that, then yes it does look petty, but those 37 people, and also the 566 Americans shouldn't be dead. If the whole thing had been planned properly, then we wouldn't be in this situation, or having the argument probably.

Even if this wasn't planned properly (not saying it was), the death toll is still extremely low on average and people should be happy enough about that.

The death toll wouldn't be an issue at all if we found Saddam WITH WMDs rather than him planning on rebuilding his program.

Meh, I guess, though it boils down partially to numbers, you have more there due to having a bigger army in general so you would lose more, and also the areas.

Too true.

The ones under British control are relatively stable I believe. We're doing our job, it's just we're either doing it better than you are or our job is easier = )

Psh, I don't see you guys covering Baghdad, violence central, Iraq.

---

At 7/30/07 07:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Thats like taking controll of the Kurdish areas, saying how peacefull and contained they are, and then proclaiming it a victory.

Did you miss the part where I specifically said ' our job is easier'?

I even included a smiley so that people would know that I wasn't being serious when I said ' we're doing a better job'.

---

At 7/30/07 07:09 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 7/30/07 07:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Did you miss the part where I specifically said ' our job is easier'?

Apparently.

I even included a smiley so that people would know that I wasn't being serious when I said ' we're doing a better job'.

I'm sorry, my understanding of smileys must be behind yours.

---

At 7/30/07 07:05 PM, Memorize wrote: I never talk that way about soldiers.

Good man = )

Even if this wasn't planned properly (not saying it was), the death toll is still extremely low on average and people should be happy enough about that.

When compared to world Wars 1+ 2, 'Nam and some other wars yes, but this is a new era of asymmetric warfare. The fact that two of the most powerful nations in the world have had over 600 deaths in 6 months by a bunch of ill equipped, badly trained, psycho's shows something is going wrong, and that's why people complain about the deaths. In the combat situation, most people see it as a David Vs Goliath, with us being the Goliath, and we don't like it when David hits us with his sling.

The death toll wouldn't be an issue at all if we found Saddam WITH WMDs rather than him planning on rebuilding his program.

Agreed, if we had a form of validation for the war then the death toll would be irrelevant.

Psh, I don't see you guys covering Baghdad, violence central, Iraq.

That's because we're cowards afraid of doing any heavy lifting :P Or possibly because the US hasn't asked us to send more troops there. You guys are in charge of the mission, and we only do what we're told pretty much.

If Bush asks, I'm sure Brown would be more than happy to oblige.

---

At 7/30/07 07:11 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I'm sorry, my understanding of smileys must be behind yours.

No worries, it's an advanced skill only picked up by delving into the faggotry that is General. I spend far too much time in there.... = \

---

This is another argument about why the US is not to be liked because it took military occupation in iraq.

This is why i hold the biggest grudge when you idiots spammed my jfk thread into being removed... it adressed this issue most eloquently.

---

At 7/30/07 02:27 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/30/07 01:57 PM, Memorize wrote: One of them being: What have we done or said that would warrant a UN inspection?

Giving Saddam chemical weapons and intelligence during the war with Iran.

Which several other countries did, including your country, Canada.

You gave Saddam the weapons,

So did several other countries including CANADA!

You make it out to be as if the US was the only country to do so, never minding that the US was only the 11th largest provider. The USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all gave more weapons to Iraq in both dollar value, as well as the percentage of arms imports Iraq received. Several other countries whose stupid citizens criticize the US for this, including YOUR country, provided Iraq weapons as well. Yes, Canada provided Iraq weapons, but due to your country's lesser ability to do so, you Canadians can ignore it and put all the blame on the US as you love to do.

Either that or the more reasonable explanation for your nonsense is that you're just repeating what you heard that you have no clue about, entirely oblivious of what your country does, and how hypocritical you actually are.

and you just wanted them back. You knew full well what the weapons were going to be used for, gassing and killing thousands of Iranians.

Thousands of Iranian military personnel.

Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils. Iraq was preventing the spread of Iran's Islamic Revolution, which was seen as the much more serious threat to the Middle East than Iraq.

What about the fact that you invaded Iraq without UN consent, actually in defiance of the UN.

Yeah.. because the countries that blocked the invasion all had interests in Iraq. Russia, Germany, and France blocked the action because they all illegally profited from Iraq. Hello? Oil for Food Scandal? The people in the UN that blocked the action did so because they were trying to protect themselves, the other countries that were against it but didn't hold veto powers were simply pawns.

Or just simply the fact that you maintina the worlds largest stockpile of chemical and biological weapons as well as nuclear weapons,

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, that would actually be Russia.

In fact, they still have a biological weapons program, the US doesn't, the US stopped developing them in 1969.

as well as are actively pursuing the creation of smaller nuclear weapons that you can actually use without destroying a whole city.

Yes, how dare the US pursue smaller nuclear weapons that cause less collateral damage!?!

; you just love to be wrong don't you JOS?

---

At 7/30/07 03:05 PM, Demosthenez wrote: HOLY SHIT.
Hey JoS, did you know that Canada has virtually no military because the USA does all the heavy lifting for you?

Are you refering to heavy lift capabilities. There are only a handful of countries with heavy lift capablities, the rest hitch a ride or rent from private companies. That does nto mean we have no military. Canada is one of the largest contributers to the mission in Afghantistan, and is taking an offensive role rather that the sit where it is safe role many other countries have taken. Our contributions to Afghan. free up US troops for Iraq.

But again, lets continue on this naive line of discussion. Lets continue blasting the USA for things that happened 30 years in the past and that have absolutely no reference to today

Actually the US giving weapons to Iraq has alot of bearing on the current world, given the fact that you would not be in Iraq at the moment had you not given them the weapons.

I am very well aware that world is not built on sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. I know that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I am very much a realist, not some hippy Marxist or Idealist. Sometimes people have to die for something, but as much of a tool in foriegn policy the military is, it shoudl nto be our only tool, and only a fool would you force as the first option.

You fucking idiots should be happy the USA doesnt extract tribute from your nations like Athens did of their supposed "allies" of old. We dont even ask your nations to do much of anything yet we get shit on all over by you fags anyways.

Yes, we shoudl all bow down the glory that is yoru nation.

NEWSFLASH: YOU DON'T OWN THE WORLD.

Maybe France should extract tribute from you for helping you gain your independence from Britian, or have you already forgotten that.

---

At 7/30/07 05:47 PM, Memorize wrote: How the fuck can it NOT be a democracy when they VOTED on their NEW government?

Well, if voting is the only thing that counts, then I'd say Hitlers germany was also a democracy. But most historians still claim Hitler as a dictator... Not to speak of the endless number of one-party fake democracies throughout Africa.
Democracy isn't only being able to vote, it also includes the freedom of thought, speech, and press. Without knowledge of a choice, that choice is impossible.

First off: Israel isn't that big of a democracy. For example, freedom of speech is very limited there.

Better than Palestine...

That doesn't make it democratic.

Causing harm and suffering to innocents for a political purpose; now that's terrorism.

Because we can somehow equate that with genocide... sure thing, pal.

Yes, we can. In the same way we can compare the inhumane treatment of slaves and prisoners in gulag with genocide.

Why hide what happens if nothing happens?

Why is it that people only use that statement when it fits their political views?

As I said, there are international standards and laws that the US doesn't give a fuck about, without explaining why. At the same time, reports come from several different sources that torture is being used therein. There are witnessess. Tenths, maybe hundreds of them. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/eng AMR510512007
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENG AMR511492006

Guantanamo is severely undermining the basics of a democracy, the very thing the US uses as an argument to keep it open.

What do you want to do?

Close it (or make it a real prison, open for international inspection), and let everybody there get a fair trial that meets international standards before being sentenced to real punishments. Unless you want to free them, of course.

Seperate all of the insurgents into seperate prisons across the United States?

EXCELLENT IDEA!

First of all let them stand trial, and get some proof of actual crimes. Just living near poor people who see their chances in the american bountys on unnamed terrorists shouldn't be enough to get your life destroyed.

So, although only 0,6% of the terror attacks were made by islamists, 50% of the arrest were on islamists. Does that sound just to you? Think of the many civilians arrested on false grounds.

Interesting... yet you and Europe bitch about the US and it "taking away rights".

Yes, because the US, and of course part of europe, are making your holy crusade so that thousands of people suffer. I think you know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the patriot you are you should, since the US once was a major force FOR human rights. Human rights are, if you can't figure it out, rights you have as a human being, despite anything else. You don't have to be an american or european to have them, despite what many people think.

---

It's really only a democracy if there's a general consensus that it is a democracy.

ignore the fact that the constitution was voted on, iraq is an anarchy. [The bad kind]

---

At 7/30/07 05:19 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 7/30/07 03:05 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Why dont all you fags just blame the USA for AIDS, killing the Lindbergh baby, and starting WWI while we are at it. I mean, we are the current incarnation of evil on the planet, worse than Saddam, worse than Iran, worse than al Qaeda, worse than Hizbullah, worse than Hitler probably to if he was still alive. Ohh, cant forget Genghis Khan, he was probably better than us too.

Did you know that you blowing off like this only makes you look like an idiot?

Actually what he said is a pretty reasonable, although highly sarcastic, assessment of the typical view people have of America. It's based purely on irrational bias, if the US does something good, you'll take credit for it. But when there is an equally prevalent negative, you'll distance yourself from the US and point your finger at the US and "OMG THE US IS SO EVIL".

Right now, even though your country's foreign policy is basically identical to the US, you have the audacity, and - in fact - total ignorance to criticize the US while leaving your country virtually blameless. You're unaware that the fact the US gets more negative attention than your country is simply because the US has more ability, more power, more influence. The US has more power to facilitate the goals in the foreign policy that YOU share, and that YOU benefit from, yet YOU distance yourself from conveniently due to your country's lesser ability, lesser capabilities, etc..

Your country is universally perceived to be America's lapdog. This allows you to avoid criticism for things that you do, because the US does it. If a man does something you don't like, why yell at what appears to be his poodle? Same case applies here.

Did you know the UK has virtually no military because the USA does all the heavy lifting for them?

Did you know that our troops actually go over to America to train yours?

Did you know that our troops go over to the UK to train yours as well, because that's what NATO countries do? Did you know that the only reason you said what you just did is because you've only learned what Brits WANT to learn? Did you realize you just claimed something as if it meant some sort of superiority of British forces, all while you're ignoring that the opposite is also true?

Did you know that the training your military receives is actually NOT at all better than it is in the US military? Did you know that the only way Brits pretend this is by emphasizing British SAS special force and comparing them to REGULAR military units in the US, all while ignoring the fact that the US has SEVERAL Special Forces groups that are equally as trained as SAS, yet the US has WAY more of them, and have better technology equipping them?

The US has equally trained, yet MORE numerous Special Forces. It's ridiculous when Brits entirely ignore the existence of US special forces and think the only US military personnel that exist are the 18 year old kids in Infantry units, rolling around in Humvees in Iraq.

You have more troops, and you have better technology, that doesn't make them superior though as training in any form of combat is paramount.

Actually the US is superior to the UK in ever single conceivable aspect.

In fact, your country is dependent on the US! It's hilarious when stupid Brits suggest they have anything over the US. Your country's military can't even operate without the US. All of Europe (Including your country) depend on the US for GPS, your only access to satellite navigation and guidance is via AMERICAN provided-GPS. Your country, along with the rest of Europe is trying to develop an independent GPS-like system called GALILEO, but it's basically a TOTAL failure, in fact it was HACKED by American college students.

The whole European Union of 27 countries (which includes your country) with its 500 million people, only has 10% of the military capabilities the US has even though the military expenditure is half that of the US, and the US only has 300 million people. Now, you might say "well we're less militaristic" but the fact is, this is only because the US PROTECTS Europe. European countries have the luxury not to be militaristic when the US is their scapegoat. It just makes it pathetic when the criticize the country that allows them to not be militaristic, for being militaristic.

Now as for your country individually, your country doesn't even have an independent nuclear deterrent (not mentioning the fact that everything else your military has depends on the US basically). All the nukes and nuke delivery systems that your country has DEPEND ON THE US. They were manufactured in the US, they are OWNED by the US, the US only leases them to you. Your parliament admits this.

All the nukes inside of your country are controlled by the US Airforce. The ones you have on nuclear submarines are the Tridents that are leased to you, and are almost entirely dependent on the US in order to function because they rely on weather and gravitational data, GPS coordinates, US-provided maintenance and repair.

Your country's military is pretty much a joke without the US.

Have a nice day, kthxbai

---

At 7/30/07 07:53 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

Well, if voting is the only thing that counts, then I'd say Hitlers germany was also a democracy.

Until he proclaimed himself fuhor (or however the hell you spell it).

You're oversimplifying everything about Iraq.

But most historians still claim Hitler as a dictator... Not to speak of the endless number of one-party fake democracies throughout Africa.

Yes. He was elected. Then he became dictator.

Democracy isn't only being able to vote, it also includes the freedom of thought, speech, and press. Without knowledge of a choice, that choice is impossible.

Interesting. They made the CHOICE to vote. They actually have freedom of the press and thought now.

But, there are people who wish to disturb that. that still doesn't exclude the fact that they have a new government and more freedom (especially in the Media part) than they ever did under Saddam.

That doesn't make it democratic.

Fine.

Want to be nit-pick?

The US isn't a democracy either.

It's officially called a democratic republic or a constitutional republic.

Yes, we can.

Haha, well... you can. But you're a nut.

In the same way we can compare the inhumane treatment of slaves and prisoners in gulag with genocide.

So... bums living on the street of the US is like having to succumb to inhumane treatment like slaves... and genocide...

Sure thing, pal.

As I said, there are international standards and laws that the US doesn't give a fuck about, without explaining why.

Sure.

But you fail to realize 1 very important thing: The UN is a failure.

It wasn't at first, but it is now. Remember the league of Nations created (and quickly fell aprt) after WWI?

Yep. It's kind of like that, only this time the UN is plague'd with scandals and failure. They've been using US money to buy and ship anti-american propoganda and books to North Korea.

Remember the "food for oil' scandal?

At the same time, reports come from several different sources that torture is being used therein. There are witnessess.

Lol.

Amnestry.org.

Yeah, that's not full of bias.

Close it (or make it a real prison, open for international inspection), and let everybody there get a fair trial that meets international standards before being sentenced to real punishments. Unless you want to free them, of course.

Guess what. It's been inspected several times. And no abuse was found.

Unless you actually believe a Koran can fit down the hole of a toilet. But if you do, then you must live in some alternate world of physics.

First of all let them stand trial, and get some proof of actual crimes.

Eh... no.

We haven't done that until after the war since... the civil war actually.

Why should we start now with people who blend in with the civilian population and who could go back and fight for the enemy again?

Yes, because the US, and of course part of europe, are making your holy crusade so that thousands of people suffer.

Haha, wow.

You really a fucking nut.

I like how you included "parts of Europe". I'm damn sure you're talking about how your nation can "do no wrong", right?

Trying to play everyone else off as the scapegoat?

I think you know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the patriot you are you should, since the US once was a major force FOR human rights.

How about: Fuck you.

And i'm more of a patriot than you'll ever be.

You're weak.

---

...wtf
.
what the hell did i miss? like flame wars 3?
.
ill get back to this

---

Because we all know the true measure of what country is superior is who has bigger guns. Its like saying that the guy with the biggest dick must be the best.

If the US is so great why does it not rank number 1 in terms of human welfare? I will just compare you to the UK in a few categories, if I compared you to Canada, Norway or several other countries it would just be totally unfair.

infant mortality rate
UK 5.01/1000
US 6.37/1000

Life expectancy
UK 78.7
US 78

HIV rate
UK 0.2%
US 0.6%

Obesity rate
UK 23%
US 31%

earn less than 50% of media income
UK - 12%
US 17%

Gini Index (the higher the number the more unequal income is distributed)
UK 36
US 40.8
No other member of the G-8 breaks 40, not even russia. Most countries who break 40 are in latin America, Africa and east Asia. Rwanda and Ethopia score better than you do.

You spend by far the most money on health care per capita, but you have higher infanty mortality rates, lower life expectancy and you don't have national health care, people generally need an HMO (most poeple do not qualify for medi-care in the US, while the UK and most of the developed nations offer universal healthcare to everyone). If you are so kickass then please explain this.

Oh I forgot though you have more nukes so its all okay.

---

At 7/30/07 01:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/30/07 09:23 AM, bcdemon wrote: No, he's actually correct, Bush proved that before USA invaded Iraq, by threatening a sovereign nation with war in order to coerce the government. That's terrorism my friend.

How is us threatening a sovereign nation with war in order to coerce the government any worse than the UN not stepping up to make Saddam Hussein comply or answer for the 17 Un Security Council Resolutions that he violated?

Well umm, lets see. By threatening a sovereign nation with war in order to coerce the government you are committing an act of terrorism, and following through with such a threat is another act of terrorism, state sponsored terrorism mind you, but still terrorism. Whereas the UN not doing anything against a sovereign nation is nowhere close to terrorism. I understand you're just trying to derail the conversation, maybe it helps you sleep better at night, I don't know.

OH, that's right, we actually followed through on our threat. Shame on us.

Yes you did follow through with your terrorist threat, and by doing so, you have caused the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people. Terrorism at its finest.

---

At 7/31/07 12:24 AM, JoS wrote:

Life expectancy
UK 78.7
US 78

oo, by .7.

Want a cookie?

HIV rate
UK 0.2%
US 0.6%

US Population: 300 million.
UK population: 60 million.

And the UK has what? 3 or 4 nations in one?

Obesity rate
UK 23%
US 31%

Not our fault you're poor.

earn less than 50% of media income
UK - 12%
US 17%

Their poverty line is set lower than ours.

Gini Index (the higher the number the more unequal income is distributed)
UK 36
US 40.8

Once again, I refer you to the population!

No other member of the G-8 breaks 40, not even russia. Most countries who break 40 are in latin America, Africa and east Asia. Rwanda and Ethopia score better than you do.

Russia: Socialist.
US: Capitalist.

I believe I made that point.

You spend by far the most money on health care per capita, but you have higher infanty mortality rates, lower life expectancy and you don't have national health care, people generally need an HMO (most poeple do not qualify for medi-care in the US, while the UK and most of the developed nations offer universal healthcare to everyone). If you are so kickass then please explain this.

Ever heared of the 60's?

And once again, I refer you the population comparison!

Out of those 3 itty bitty nations with the population of a mere 60 million, YOU GUYS CAN HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.

Not to mention, they're not exactly bordering anyone who's rushing to skip over the border...

---

At 7/31/07 12:24 AM, JoS wrote:
You spend by far the most money on health care per capita, but you have higher infanty mortality rates, lower life expectancy and you don't have national health care, people generally need an HMO (most poeple do not qualify for medi-care in the US, while the UK and most of the developed nations offer universal healthcare to everyone). If you are so kickass then please explain this.

Oh I forgot though you have more nukes so its all okay.

Why are you blaming the entire u.s? seriously, if you want to question why we don't have U.H.C and a decent healthcare system just point your finger at the republicans..
if we had less bitch ass whining from pompous asses who think most of that money will siphone to the poor and not benefit them and everybody else in general we wouldnt have the crises.

.. : ]

'tis all..

and we do have bigger guns you really are living underneath our umbrella in a way

---

At 7/31/07 12:34 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Well umm, lets see. By threatening a sovereign nation with war in order to coerce the government you are committing an act of terrorism, and following through with such a threat is another act of terrorism, state sponsored terrorism mind you, but still terrorism.

Eh... no.

Then again, with your position on siding with the insurgents who blow people up, that statement isn't exactly suprising.

Do I really need to list the multiple reasons for outing Saddam?

Whereas the UN not doing anything against a sovereign nation is nowhere close to terrorism.

...

Wait... so the US goes in to stop Saddam from comitting genocide ect., and we're the terrorists. Yet when the UN does nothing, they're not to blame?

HOLYSHITWTF!??!

Yes you did follow through with your terrorist threat, and by doing so, you have caused the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people. Terrorism at its finest.

Let's see. Apparently I do need the list!

Saddam:
-Attempted assassination of former president Bush.
-Attacking a US allied nation.
-Torture and Rape rooms.
-Genocide.
-Crimes against humanity.
-Violating UN peacefire treaty.
-Illegal missles.

Ok... you're a wackjob.

---

If the US is so great why does it not rank number 1 in terms of human welfare?

Cause our government doesn't really care about other countries?

I think average Americans are more caring than the stereotype though, we gave a shit ton in the Tsunami relief. Showed compassion that not many believe we have. :)

The US is just an Empire in a long series of Empires. It's turn to fall will come too.

Just remember this Aesop fable when you think about the US:

http://www.mtannoyances.com/?p=749

Not sayin anyone has to agree, or like us, or anything, just mull it over.

---

At 7/31/07 12:37 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

if we had less bitch ass whining from pompous asses who think most of that money will siphone to the poor and not benefit them and everybody else in general we wouldnt have the crises.

Wait... you bitch about the way our government is currently run, yet you want the government to control the healthcare industry with the population of over 300 million people while they lose tens of thousands per classroom in the school system.

Great thinking.

That'll sure work.

And once again, I would like to point out that Universal Healthcare wouldn't really work with our sized population. The reason why Canada gets away with it is because they have the population of 30 million.

The UK is nothing more than multiple nations acting as one and they conjure up a grand total of 60 million.

Yeehaw!

---

Yes you did follow through with your terrorist threat, and by doing so, you have caused the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people. Terrorism at its finest.

"It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well, and look up to those who make no concessions."

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

If you're smart, you'll look up the quotes, read the author, and find the comparisons between them and America's current situation.