Now I know what it feels like to be a Microsoft Employee
-
Actually, Britain and Australia have never been invaded either. I'd suggest that if I was Saddam and I was contemplating an invasion, I'd be more worried about your Army, Navy and Air Force, than the thought that if I got through them, they'd also be some hicks with rifles to contend with. This has become silly, and it's only made me realise that just because people are obviously intelligent does not mean they will not be irrational about things they have strong feelings over. I'd suggest this discussion became silly a while ago and certainly is unlikely to result in any agreement. Which makes it a bit pointless to continue, doncha think ? Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
What history do you live in? Britian has been invaded *HUNDREDS* of times, as recently as WWII. Australian territory has been occupied by Japanese, but even so, it's generally safe because it has so little strategic or economic value to invaders during the major wars. It's not a silly argument at all. It seems your so closed minded about warfare that you think just because someone has tanks and guns, they win. That's not true at all. I did make a mistake though, we were invaded once. Pearl Harber. And while that was a very bloody affair, I think it was chosen specifically because it was mainly a military target with very little in the way of population at the time. Do discussions like this Ever result in agreement? Does that make them pointless to discuss? Are you going to tell me you didn't learn anything from it?
-
You're wrong. Look at the students in Tienimen (sp?) Square, look at the Indians peacefully resisting the British, if Mississippi Burning was historically accurate, you have examples in your own history of people with guns trying to stop people without. These people fought on because they were right, and the injustice itself gave them the will to fight. And history upholds not only their right, but their moral stand in opposing injustice without resorting to it. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
As the old saying goes, the winner writes the history books. History may uphold the morality of a peacful people that get slaughtered, but they don't live on to reproduce. Instead, the winners do and those are the people that take over the world. I may respect the Tibetan peoples choices to not resort to violence, but in so doing, they've chosen to die, and therefore allow their oppressors to wipe them out of existance. This is all irrelevant. We have reasons for the way we believe. You may not agree with them, that's fine. But to sit there and tell me that I'm wrong to believe such is just as arrogant as you claim we are.
-
But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. What did the prior president do about it? President Bush is a member of the Republican party, while the environmentalists are almost always in the opposite party, the Democrats. No matter what he does he is not going to make this group happy. Throwing money around to other countries, like the prior president did, is not a solution. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Maybe, just maybe, it is irking the world because there is finally a president that means what he says, and does exactly what he says he will do. And it scares the hell out of the countries that are receiving the funds. Wayne
"President Bush is a member of the Republican party, while the environmentalists are almost always in the opposite party, the Democrats. No matter what he does he is not going to make this group happy." Who the hell is talking about US political parties!!! I am talking about world environment! Not the US'. What you do in your (if you are a US citizen, that is) country is your problem. But when you pollute, you dont only pollute your country's environment but world's as well. Being one of the biggest pollution producer, US has the responsibility to help others in solving the problem. "there is finally a president that means what he says, and does exactly what he says he will do. And it scares the hell out of the countries that are receiving the funds." Nobody is scared of US or US President. They are scared because due to US policies their life is also being affected. And its their right, being a citizen of the world, to protest!
-
What history do you live in? Britian has been invaded *HUNDREDS* of times, as recently as WWII. Australian territory has been occupied by Japanese, but even so, it's generally safe because it has so little strategic or economic value to invaders during the major wars. It's not a silly argument at all. It seems your so closed minded about warfare that you think just because someone has tanks and guns, they win. That's not true at all. I did make a mistake though, we were invaded once. Pearl Harber. And while that was a very bloody affair, I think it was chosen specifically because it was mainly a military target with very little in the way of population at the time. Do discussions like this Ever result in agreement? Does that make them pointless to discuss? Are you going to tell me you didn't learn anything from it?
Britain was *NOT* invaded during WWII, unless you count the Battle of Britain to be invasion, and crashing planes do not an invasion force make. The Japs came to our coast in subs in WWII, but did not land. They also bombed Darwin. An invasion means people LAND, not fly over and drop bombs. Actually, I'd suggest the days of the winners writing history are over. Too many observers for that now. I guess I've learned not to bother speaking logically to Yanks about guns. :) Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
You may find the idea of overthrowing a government to be impractical, but tell that to people fighting for their rights. First off, a military is going to be loathe to fire on their own people. Second, it's been proven that low-tech can defeat hi-tech. No, we can't outrun a nuclear bomb, but it's highly unlikely that the government would use nuclear arms against itself. You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight.
"You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight" That's complete and utter rubbish. Look what happened in Belgrade in October. The only "weapon" used by the opposition there was a bulldozer. They managed to get a few flash bangs off the anti-terrorist police, but they DID NOT NEED GUNS. And they won. Cheers, Peter Pearson
-
It's not illegal to carry firearms unless you are a convicted felon. What is illegal is to carry a concealed firearm. You are also not allowed to carry any kind of firearm into a place that serves alcohol. Tell me, if it were illegal to carry a firearm, how could you transport one? You "laughed" at statistics from the CDC and the state of MA? Why? Because they don't agree with your beliefs? The fact of the matter is, there are 3x as many violent stabbings as there are violent gunshot wounds (fatal or otherwise), and your 'theory' that guns make people more brave than knives is simply false. If that were the case, gunshot wounds would far outnumber stabbings, and stabbings would be so rare as to be nearly non-existant. Don't fall prey to propoganda from your government which is trying to keep you a cowed sheep, willing to put up with any violation of your personal freedoms.
You make a lot of presumptions about what I'm thinking. The fact is that a gun doesn't require you to be next to the person you are trying to harm. That will make it a very useful tool for such people that know they can't get away with using the knife/baseball bat. As for me being a cowed sheep, or propoganda from the UK government about guns, keep your insults to yourself and come over hear and you'll realise there is no propoganda about guns over here. Stephen Kellett
-
Superiority is not something that is unique to the United States. Ask any frenchman about Brits, Ask any Brit about Australians, Ask any German about... well.. any non-german (Note: I'm german in ethnicity so I can say that ;) What it boils down to is this: What's important to you may not be what's important to others. In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have 50+% tax rates or little in the way of freedom to own firearms. We, probably rightfully, consider ourselves to be the technology incubator of the world. More technology is developed here than any other country in the world. Please don't take that as saying that other countries don't develop technology, they do. But per capita, we have a much stronger R&D ethic than most other countries. Our country was founded on the idea that if you work hard and use your brain, you can become successful. Most other countries appear (to us) to be about the status quo. As long as things stay the same, nobody cares. I have some canadian friends and I laughingly joke around with them that Candadians will sit idly by while their government does just about anything to them, unless you threaten to take away their health care. In the US, we freak out taxes or interest get raised a fraction of a percent, and bitch endlessly because our President fooled around. Hell, stuff like that doesn't even make the tabloids in the UK for their government members. Anyways. What this boils down to is that whatever country you live in, you have your own set of priorities which likely conflict with people from another country. Thus, you'll view them as ignorant and/or egotistical simply because you don't agree with their views.
Yes.Whatever you have said is absolutely true,but at the same time you need to keep in mind that America is land of immigrants.Due to the brain drain from other coutries like western Europeans(intellectual's made a bee-line since early 18th century),and this brain drain still continues from other countries like China,India,Korea,Russia etc .So,credit has to go for these nationalities,who made a significant contributions to United States. Visual Basic programmer. -------------------------------------------------- Share your thoughts..
-
You make a lot of presumptions about what I'm thinking. The fact is that a gun doesn't require you to be next to the person you are trying to harm. That will make it a very useful tool for such people that know they can't get away with using the knife/baseball bat. As for me being a cowed sheep, or propoganda from the UK government about guns, keep your insults to yourself and come over hear and you'll realise there is no propoganda about guns over here. Stephen Kellett
You are again totally ignoring the fact that medical statistics disagree with your theory that guns are "easier" to harm someone with than stabbing weapons. If you're going to continue to press this belief, you should at least try to explain why there are 3x as many violent stabbings as there are violent gunshot related injuries. Until you choose to adress the facts presented rather than ignore them, you're just talking at someone rather than having a discussion with them.
-
Yes.Whatever you have said is absolutely true,but at the same time you need to keep in mind that America is land of immigrants.Due to the brain drain from other coutries like western Europeans(intellectual's made a bee-line since early 18th century),and this brain drain still continues from other countries like China,India,Korea,Russia etc .So,credit has to go for these nationalities,who made a significant contributions to United States. Visual Basic programmer. -------------------------------------------------- Share your thoughts..
That's funny. So, because a number of brilliant scientists escaped tyranny of their home countries, we should thank those countries for their opression? Think about it. People like Albert Einstein left germany because they were being opressed, as were many of the great minds of the 19th and early 20th centuries that came to the US. India's poor econic condition drives intellectuals to the US, China's opression does the same thing, as does the former soviet unions. The fact that we are a better country for them to live in should make us thank those countries for some reason?
-
I think the problem is that Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country. This "god" like complex gives them a feeling that they can run around and do whatever they like without worries. When someone threatens or goes against what they say or believe they try to flex their muscle to get what they want. It's only natural that USA is dis-liked and their actions are examined more closely. It's the only way to keep the top dog in check :)
I lived in Germany for well over a year while attending a german university in the late '80. While I was there, many people at my rowing club told me how very different I was from the american image they had in their minds....then they would recount how while in the US or Canada, they were taken to german restaurants and how amazing old fashioned and non-German they were....The images that people create for themselves in the vacuum of real knowledge is alway amazing.