| Author | Comment | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 19 Mar 2004
18:27 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | SWEAR, stupid broswer crashed and erased my post...so it's quite a bit shorter than before. Started new thread too.
"Do you have any chinese people in your class? I do. One girl in my class said her parents immigrated recently, and then her brothers went over to here, then her, and then her grandparents. Why do you think there are chinese people at your school-and more than 1/3 of them immigrated recently?"
Yes, I have chinese people in my class. I know far more chinese people than you. I go to chinese school. I can speak the dialect of chinese that immigrants from mainland china would speak enough to have a conversation. In short, I can make a more qualified estimate than you. Number of immigrants I know from the last year is 0. Number of immigrants I know from the last 3-4 years is 2, and they're from TAIWAN, not China. Very few people are recent (last 1-2 years) immigrants from China, certainly far from 33%.
Basing your experience on one person and making an assumption about the % of recent immigrants in a race is completely ridiculous. It is too small of a sample size to contain accuracy. It's like asking two people whether they'll vote for Bush or Kerry, one says Bush and one says Kerry, and then saying that the vote will be 50% and 50% in fall. It's like if I met two Americans, found they were utter idiots, and then proceded to say EVERY American is an idiot.
Btw, how "recently" did this girl immigrate? Because if she really was a very recent immigrant, she'd be in ESL (English Second Language) classes, no immigrant from china or taiwan (where they teach english too) i know or know of through friends hasn't been in ESL.
"Sure they do. And I know that. But is there army full of volunteers, smart people like ours?"
Many of these smart people aren't really volunteering, but joining the armed forces out of economic NECESSITY. Many people in this country can't afford the full price of college, most people get loans, but many also join the armed forces. Under scholarship programs, you can have your college tuition completely paid for, and in return, you give the United States a period of service in the military, and then you are on active reserve. Military is not equal. A disproportionate amount of the military is black, and from the middle or lower class. Military is their best chance of climbing the social ladder.
"They[China] cannot become one[a superpower] unless those people are free."
I'd like you to >>PROVE<< that without freedom, a nation can't become a superpower. Nations that were not democratic, but were superpowers:
Rome (dictatorship mostly), Colonial Britain (monarchy), Russia (communist), Nazi Germany (fascist)
And I think people are more free than you think. The main restrictions are on political free speech. In fact, if you saw the streets of Bangkok (longest city name in the world) in democratic Thailand and Beijing/Shanghai in China, you'd see that the Thais live far more wretched lives than the people under communist rule. Also, there aren't restrictions on allowing more power to go to the country, so communism and superpower are not mutually exclusive.
Further, have you ever heard of the COLD WAR? It involved two SUPERPOWERS, United States (democratic/replubican) and Russia (pure communist). United States main competitor for being the sole superpower of the world was a state were people weren't free, that seems to say that countries that aren't free can still be superpowers, eh?
China has a hugely growing economy. Ample manpower, plenty of intelligent people (china consistently gets some of the best scores on the Internation Mathematical Olympiad http://imo.math.ca/results/CRBY.html). It's military is growing more powerful, it's space program is growing. Also, China occupies one of the Permanent Seats in the United Nations council.
" Have you guys ever heard the saying "Quality, not quantity"? Totallly applies to the situation at hand. While China may have the largest army, the U.S. has the best trained army in the world. The skills and armament that the army/navy/air force/marines of the U.S. has surpasses that of China exponentially"
How could you measure if the United States army is exponentially, or merely linearly more powerful than China's? There is no way. The United States army is definately more powerful than China's. However, China is in the process of modernizing their forces (they recently had training on a modern navy with France).
However, to be a superpower, China's army doesn't have to be able to defeat the United States. The definition of a superpower is:
"A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc."
China is powerful, and through the UN and its trade (US imported $150 billion of goods from china), and has some influence, and is a strong nuclear power (3rd most nukes). An ally that it doesn't dominate, but strongly influences would be North Korea, and economically, China has power over much of Southeast Asia.
If you don't consider China a superpower, what would you say is the #2 superpower in the world then? | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 19 Mar 2004
22:03 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I was going to question the logic of the Chinese kid in the class until I saw your post S.
Just one more thing, calcfreak said something about that the US's army is smarter. Why is that? Do you think the Chinese are dumber than America? Or are you jealous that china may actually rival the US's world dominance.
But I do also detect a looping argument on the side that considers china a non-superpower... 'you must be a republic to be a superpower'. | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
15:29 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | The United States has the best army ever. Who cares if it's not the largest. It's the best.
"Btw, how "recently" did this girl immigrate? Because if she really was a very recent immigrant, she'd be in ESL (English Second Language) classes, no immigrant from china or taiwan (where they teach english too) i know or know of through friends hasn't been in ESL."
She immigrated when she was 5 years old. She is very cool and goes to my church. And no, she's not in ESL. She is Chinese. She immigrated. You are obviously very ignorant to think those things.
"Nations that were not democratic, but were superpowers:
Rome (dictatorship mostly), Colonial Britain (monarchy), Russia (communist), Nazi Germany (fascist)"
But did they stay a super-power? No.
"Why is that?"
Cause we are volunteers, eager to help our country.
"Do you think the Chinese are dumber than America?"
No.
BTW, I'm getting tired of reading your ridiculously long posts.
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 21-Mar-04 00:30] | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
16:44 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | >"Nations that were not democratic, but were superpowers:
>Rome (dictatorship mostly), Colonial Britain (monarchy), Russia (communist), Nazi Germany (fascist)"
>But did they stay a super-power? No.
Rome=1000+ years
UK (Britain)=Time as monarchy: 500+ years
Russia=Communism+Monarchy: 500+ years
Germany=Monarchy+Fascism: 500+ years
US=republic: 228 years
All of your examples prove our point, thanks.
And the most technology/trained army isn't necessarily the best. Look at WWII, as one example, Germany, a powerful army (and the most technology advanced) got killed by the Russian army. Why? Because Russia was determined, and had a enormous amount of man power.
| calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
16:47 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Look, enough abou China. If you want to support a country where people are not happy, then go ahead! I want to prove my point on abortion.
I was surfing the internet, and heres what I found:
Not only are babies, even at or near birth, being killed every day in America, this bastion of human rights, but their organs are also being harvested and sold on the black market!!!! They are being dissected, sometimes while still alive, and sold piece by piece.
Ears for $75 a pair; arms and legs, $150; a brain for $999, tax not included. That's right; it's called the "unholy harvest." The rotten, mean-faced, clipped-haired abortionists, our present-day fascist jackboots, are selling baby parts and making millions of dollars in their factories of death.
Companies such as Opening Lines of Kansas City, Missouri, are making even more millions. If you want an "unprocessed" baby, it's $70. Do you want the baby's bone marrow? $250. Do you want the baby's eyes? $75. A spinal column will run $850. If you want an intact embryonic cadaver, it will cost you $400. Their brochure reads, "Fresh Fetal Tissue Harvested and Shipped to Your Specifications...Where and When you need it!"
It's becoming a huge business. And some of this money is being funneled to the Clinton-Gore machine. We were told women in politics would bring us compassion. Yet Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is the loudest cheerleader for this infanticide. I pray to God there is a hell. Anybody who supports partial-birth abortion, anybody who supports the sale of fetal body parts in the name of choice, should rot in hell a thousand years. We're living in a psychedelic world and a psychedelic country. It makes me feel like we're living in Nazi Germany. But even the Nazis didn't sell the body parts.
Don't support abortion-have I made my point? I think so!
| allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
18:08 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Please supply the websites, and try to keep in mind there are quite alot of people with imaginations who can post just about anything on the Internet.
And if it's on the black market, what will banning all abortions do? The 'black market' doesn't really follow the laws.
And I don't believe there is a hell, which frees me of ethical and moral restrictions.
And I can't find 'opening lines' website.
[Edited by allynfolksjr on 21-Mar-04 03:11] | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
18:46 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "One girl in my class said her parents immigrated recently, and then her brothers went over to here, then her, and then her grandparents. Why do you think there are chinese people at your school-and more than 1/3 of them immigrated recently?"
"She immigrated when she was 5 years old. She is very cool and goes to my church. And no, she's not in ESL. She is Chinese. She immigrated. You are obviously very ignorant to think those things."
I said if she really was a "recent" immigrant, she would be in ESL. But if you truly are a senior (you claim so), that would mean she immigrated THIRTEEN YEARS AGO. You call thirteen years ago RECENT??????
"Cause we are volunteers, eager to help our country."
Maybe a few people are, or you are. But in fact, a majority of America DOESN'T want to risk there life for their country. The United States has been having trouble recruiting enough people in recent years, because armed forces wages can't compete with other jobs.
"But did they stay a super-power? No."
United States has only been a world power for about 90 years, and a superpower for about 50. It is very probable someday in the future the United States will be surpassed another country (maybe europe will fully unify under EU or china/india). America as a superpower hasn't even lived as long as Britain's reign. You have no way of knowing whether the "Great Democratic Experiment" will last as long as Rome.
"Look, enough abou China. If you want to support a country where people are not happy"
There are plenty of non-free, non-democratic countries that are in far worse condition than China. Thailand is democratic, but they sell children into prostitution, everybody is very poor.
"It's becoming a huge business. And some of this money is being funneled to the Clinton-Gore machine. We were told women in politics would bring us compassion. Yet Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is the loudest cheerleader for this infanticide"
There is hasn't been a Clinton-Gore machine since 1996 election, so what are you talking about??? And by "this infanticide" about Barbara Boxer, that means she supports abortion, not the selling of body parts (but the article purposely clouds that)
yup, I was right, plagiarism, after some google searching, you can read most of Savage's thoughts (and Calcfreak's post) right here http://www.paulreveresociety.com/bodyparts.html
This thing about the selling of bodyparts is all over the internet. However, I have yet to see a non-biased site that discusses it as a reason against abortion. Every site on google that has the thing about price for bodyparts is a dedicated Christian site or strong anti-abortion. Btw, if there really are brochures out, and even the city is known, why haven't the police arrested the people in charge already?
People also sell drugs that ruin lives/kill people, drugs are even illegal already. Heck, cars kill loads and loads of people, same with alcohol, let's ban those two.
"The rotten, mean-faced, clipped-haired abortionists, our present-day fascist jackboots, are selling baby parts and making millions of dollars in their factories of death."
Now that I read it, and know it's plagiarism, I can see clearly it's not you language. It's just an attempt to generalize and attack abortionist.
Now, if you want to talk about anti-abortion consider this:
A female teen isn't married, has sex, gets pregnant. She could a) abort, or b) have the child.
a) She aborts, life goes on pretty much as usual, she goes to college, after a number of years gets married to someone at the same soci-economic level (college graduate, has decent job), has kids. 1 baby dies, but she lives a good life and her remaining kids have a good life and future.
b) She has the baby. Now, she's too young to know the responsibility of taking care of a baby, and she has academic responsibilities. She has to waste hours everyday caring for it, costs of feeding it are considerable. She gets married as a teen, and in the next few years, there's a greater than 50% chance she will divorce. Most people who have teen pregnancies don't go to college, there's not enough time, and the costs of raising a baby and going to college are very high. So now, more likely than not, she's single, has no college degree, and has a child to raise. Her future has been ruined, the kid will grow up in a poor family, if she marries someone at the same socio-economic level (high school diploma if lucky), they'll be poor, and have even more kids. End result, at least one future ruined, poor, and a family that is unhappy. All children will probably go to a poor school, which also damages his/her future. One baby ruins a whole group of people.
The ability to have a happy (and likely to last much longer) marriage, a much brighter future for myself, and a much brighter future for any remaining kids, would make the one abortion justifiable.
[Edited by spiral on 21-Mar-04 07:29] | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
20:59 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | I have one thing for Calcfreak.
The United States may have the best army in the world, but that doesn't guarantee anything. God is in control of this world, Mr. Religion, and He decides who wins and who doesn't.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
21:56 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I'm sure thats why he decided to let the USSR, back in the 1950's-1989, a country that bans all religions, become the second most powerful contry in the world.
BTW: I know thats a run on sentence. | Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 20 Mar 2004
22:06 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | who says he makes things look good at first glance when he decides who wins?
---
-Barrett A | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
14:55 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | I can't talk sense into you anymore.
First off, Michael Savage would agree with me that using his non-copyrighted stuff is what he would want me to do. Second, it's not biased. He is awesome, that guy knows lies from truth.
I agree with EVERYTHING he says! Know, all you liberals out there trying to ruin our country, by killing our children-LISTEN UP!
STOP trying to put words in my mouth, STOP dissing your country, and listen:
Go toMichaelSavage.com and listen to his radio show. He turns bad liberals into smart conservatives.
Spiral-you make me sick. You're one of those chinese people who thinks China is better thatn America cause theyir parents moved here for a reason-a reason that they never experinced: That china is a foul, dirty, rotten place!!!!!!!!
You liberals have a mental disorder! Dr.Savage can cure it! He has a Ph.D in nutrition, so he IS REALLY a Doctor. Listen to him-he'll set you straight.
Savage has a radio show, 4-6 o'clock. It's the number one drive-time show in the nation. | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
14:55 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | LBA is not the coolest-lose the avatar, it's a lie. | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
14:56 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Spiral-you LOSER!!!!!!!!
You are so SCERWED UP! SPIRAL I HATE YOU SO MUCH !!!!!
YOU LOSER SPIRAL! YOU Freaking LOSER! | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
15:55 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Left you speechless? No duh. I hope you just learned alot of people around here hate you. I already decided to start a "I hate spiral club", where we wil monitor your actions on this site and make fun of you.
E-mail me for the web address link people! | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
15:56 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "First off, Michael Savage would agree with me that using his non-copyrighted stuff is what he would want me to do. Second, it's not biased. He is awesome, that guy knows lies from truth."
Haha, not biased, that's a pretty funny joke. If you consider awesome, fine by me, but non-biased, hahahahahaha. If he had his way, women wouldn't even vote, America would be all white.
"all you liberals out there trying to ruin our country, by killing our children-LISTEN UP!"
hmm...i haven't killed any children yet, since criminals (like murderers) are forbidden from voting, i guess liberals can't control the course of the nation.
"STOP trying to put words in my mouth, STOP dissing your country, and listen:"
Point me some quotes where I have dissed my country of residence?
"Spiral-you make me sick. You're one of those chinese people who thinks China is better thatn America cause theyir parents moved here for a reason-a reason that they never experinced: That china is a foul, dirty, rotten place!!!!!!!!"
Where did I say China is better than America? I've been to china several times, have YOU ever been to china???? I highly doubt it.
In any case, my parents didn't immigrate to the United States from China, they immigrated from Hong Kong (British colony at the time), to Britain (for school), and then immigrated to United States (for jobs). They're not even from mainland china. Btw, Hong Kong is a GREAT place for a lot of things (sometimes prices in America are better), super metropolitan, high-tech, and it's a more sustainable city, you don't even need to drive to get around, too bad my next trip isn't going to be for at least a year.
Btw, i'm curious, do you even know the difference between Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China (Mainland), and the Republic of China (Taiwan)?
"You liberals have a mental disorder! Dr.Savage can cure it! He has a Ph.D in nutrition, so he IS REALLY a Doctor. Listen to him-he'll set you straight."
And what does nutrition have to do with mental disorders and psychotherapy/psychology??
"Savage has a radio show, 4-6 o'clock. It's the number one drive-time show in the nation."
everyone else can listen, no thanks.
"Left you speechless? No duh. I hope you just learned alot of people around here hate you. I already decided to start a 'I hate spiral club', where we wil monitor your actions on this site and make fun of you."
just putting in a post to prevent you from editing profanities.
"LBA is not the coolest-lose the avatar, it's a lie."
Your link to "Your picture" in your profile isn't you, it's a lie, lose that.
"Spiral-you LOSER!!!!!!!!...You are so SCERWED UP! SPIRAL I HATE YOU SO MUCH !!!!!...YOU LOSER SPIRAL! YOU f**kING LOSER!"
Interesting...you went to (try to) refute my points, and then a minute later suddenly had a mood swing/psychotic breakdown??? Anyways, neither flaming nor profanity is allowed on the boards, if you're going to debate, keep a civil tone.
[Edited by spiral on 22-Mar-04 01:00] | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
16:48 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | "Your link to "Your picture" in your profile isn't you, it's a lie, lose that."
IT's ME!!!!!! How much you wanna bet?
Anyways, I've made that site.
I hate you fuking MF! | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
17:10 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | You know, calling those who don't agree with you 'bad liberals' or people who have 'mental disorders' doesn't really make us want to listen to you. Definitely not agree with you.
Something else, try not to guess why people are saying stuff, because you seem to be usually wrong.
And, of course, if you're going to post multiply times in a row, use the 'edit' button.
One more thing: Saying that China is powerful and it rivals the US in the world stage isn't 'dissing'. It's being realistic, if you can't acknowledge the truth, don't resort to general attacks to those who might think differently than you.
| BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
18:52 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Wow. That was quite a response from calcfreak.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
19:51 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | It was. | Digital
Guardian
Posted: 21 Mar 2004
22:33 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Please state one simple, objective reason, especially after what I talked to you about last time, why I should not ban you right now. | dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 22 Mar 2004
09:13 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | I have one: he is one of two or three people that actually post in my thread.
Man, CG, you make me n\angry. You argue from without ANY facts to back you up. Your signature is inflammatory. Why shouldn't "Johnny" have two mommies? what's wrong with that? You seem to delight in making as many enemies as possible with your stupid and unsupported/unsupportable arguments. I don't mind it if you argue on the side of Bush, or against gay marriage, but please do so INTELLIGENTLY, without resorting to insults and your massive superiority complex! You were almost banned once for your outright LIES, that you continued even after faced with the facts. Now you are acting purposely hateful, ignorant, and inflamatory. If you were banned, maybe the rest of us could debate in peace. | zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 22 Mar 2004
11:18 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Calcfreak, you DO NOT have to use curse words to prove something.
If the images on that site ARE yours like you are saying, then prove it. You know that cursing is NOT allowed on this site and will not do anything for you except getting you banned, unless that's what you are looking for. Besides, if the pictures were yours why would you start cursing in defence? Unfortunately, you're still back to yourself like previous times and this time we won't be able to do anything for you Calcfreak. Sorry, but you chose this yourself...
You will be banned untill we decide what to do with you...
Btw CF, you may email me if you actually have something to say for yourself and appeal this.
[Edited by zkostik on 23-Mar-04 05:24]
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 22 Mar 2004
16:32 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Saying that China is powerful and it rivals the US in the world stage isn't 'dissing'. It's being realistic"
That statement isn't true, it's true that China is a rapidly rising superpower that in the next century could very likely overtake the United States would be realistic, it isn't a rival yet.
I agree completely with you Dysfunction. But if calcfreak leaves debating, I can't refute his non-logical statements, which is quite amusing. | Digital
Guardian
Posted: 22 Mar 2004
17:29 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Have all the fun you want S, but remember BF's sig.
"I have one: he is one of two or three people that actually post in my thread."
Technically that is not objective, and thats not reasonable. If I can relate to anything in your threads I'll try and post up.
Right now I'm half-way to being tired and asleep. At these times, I'm not serious and not not-serious. Its kind of like fuzzy logic. Get it? I didn't think so. Off to happy land I go!
Edited fo content
[Edited by Digital on 23-Mar-04 02:36] | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 22 Mar 2004
20:49 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I use the word rivals as in this analygie: 'The West County Middle School JV basketball team rivals The Duke Basketball team'.
As in, I use rivals to describe any match-up/competition/two or more sides in a match up.
Maybe if you ban calcfreak for a couple of months, maybe until June, he'll shape up. | Digital
Guardian
Posted: 22 Mar 2004
22:53 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | In two stressed words, "HIGHLY UNLIKELY."
PS, I don't know HTML. | Chasicle
Probe
Posted: 22 Mar 2004
23:11 GMT
Total Posts: 6 | Go Germany. a little late for the reply, but germany did not get the crap kicked out of them by the russians. the russians sucked, their army sucked, the only thing they had going for them was the winter when the germans attacked was early and of course germany was fighting 15 other countries at the same time and managed to take over all of mainland europe. i'm not a nazi, but i do defend their status in world war II times. They could have kicked the trash out of anybody if it was a one on one war. Die Deutsche Nation ist ja eine gute und wenn Jemand sagt das sie keine gute Nation ist, diese Person hat keine Ahnung | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
01:12 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | When did we say the Germans got killed by Soviets? In both World War I and World War II, Russians received the most casualities of all nations fighting the war.
"the only thing they had going for them was the winter when the germans attacked was early"
Germans were overly optimistic in their ability to crush the Russian troops rapidly. Although the Germans were fairly successful at driving back the Soviet army, the Soviets used scorched earth. Besides the early winter, Russians had superior tanks.
"They could have kicked the trash out of anybody if it was a one on one war"
United States had more production power and Germany couldnt' have attacked the United States effectively across an Ocean. Also Britain's had far more battlecruisers and battleships than the Germans, and could have defeated the Germans at sea. | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
07:37 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | "Russians had superior tanks."
Germany had vastly superior tanks, the panzer 1&2's were being pulled from the front lines, and being replaced with the Tiger tanks, which were better than anything russia had, with the noteble exception of the JS (Stalin) tank. Russia simply had more tanks than germany, and germany pulled most of it's tanks back to the western front.
| dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
09:15 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | ""I have one: he is one of two or three people that actually post in my thread."
Technically that is not objective, and thats not reasonable. If I can relate to anything in your threads I'll try and post up."
That was just a joke. He needs to either shape up or he should be banned.
The germans made the same mistake as the French hadover a century before. Russia, while somewhat inferior intechnology and supplies (many of their soldiers were sent into battle unarmed), had several advantages:
1. Superior manpower
2. Fighting for their country, on their own terrain
3. Were able to cut off German supply lines, and eventually surroud the German army.
4. Germans were fighting a war on to fronts; Russia was only fighting Germany except for brief skirmishes with Japan.
Now, about China: It doesn't matter how infeior their military is or their government. They have a FAR larger army, though I will admit theyt have inferior training and supply. Hoiwever, this army could never attack the U.S. for the simple reason that China has very little navy to transport said troops here. HOWEVER, China does possess a very large number of nuclear weapons. Granted, we have many more, but they have much more than enough to kill every person in the U.S. | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
09:23 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Hmm, I look at it kind of like this...
There were these three people (the rulers of Germany, Italy, and Japan) who decided they would take on the world. It never occured to them that the world would be stronger.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
18:14 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Yes, you're right dysfunction, as long as the US Navy continues at it's current superiority, a invasion is unlikely.
The US has 12 carriers (10 nuclear), compared to the worlds 12 carriers (1 nuclear, 2 re/building. Bonus Question: What other country has a nuclear carrier???). The US also has a 3:1 cruiser superiority.
The only area of concern is the submarine situation. Diesel sub's are becoming MUCH more quieter, and is a heck of alot cheaper than a nuclear one, in both technology and resources. Also, current projections show the US will need to double it's submarine force in the next 2 decades to keep up with world changes.
However, Sub's can't transport an invasion army.
>"4. Germans were fighting a war on to fronts; Russia was only fighting Germany except for brief skirmishes with Japan."
Actually in the middle stage of WWII, germany was fighting on much more than 2 fronts, the 3rd major one is africa, with many minor skirmashes (In fact, the Graff Spee was sunk (Actually scuttled) in South America).
| Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
20:11 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | Right on Calcfreak!! do another rave, that was beautiful and true to a point. Spiral, if you quote this i swear... :dead:
"HOWEVER, China does possess a very large number of nuclear weapons. Granted, we have many more, but they have much more than enough to kill every person in the U.S."
Ummmm...during the last nuclear arms check we did, the US had nearly ten times as many nukes as china, if not more. Suuure, they could kill us if we wanted, but we could kill the whole world if we wanted. that makes no difference if they could kill us, but if they did start firing nukes, the next dawn China would see would be blood red, i guarantee it, and so would Michael Savage :sunglasses:
bbl to post,
Lunchbox
[Edited by Lunchbox on 24-Mar-04 05:12] | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
20:37 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | It sickens me how easily you talk about nuclear war. You obviously have no idea how a real one would happen.
"Right on Calcfreak!! do another rave, that was beautiful and true to a point. Spiral, if you quote this i swear..."
First off, it appears Calcfreak was banned. Second, why would you threaten to swear if Spiral quoted that?
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
20:50 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | The only nightmare I have is nuclear war. The 'deterrence' theory is just that, a theory. One of these days some country will think it can actually 'win' a nuclear war.
Nuclear arms will only become more of a problem in the future, as warfare becomes more automated. A computer receiving incorrect data could launch a ICBM strike automatically, with no human intervention.
And if there is ANY medium to large nuclear strikes, the worldwide consequences will be widespread and in the ensuing panic, the rate of nuclear explosions will be exponential, until there will be no humans or computers to trigger another 'reprisal'.
Did this post make sense?
| Digital
Guardian
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
21:05 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | You summed up M.A.D. | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 23 Mar 2004
22:00 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Germany had vastly superior tanks, the panzer 1&2's were being pulled from the front lines, and being replaced with the Tiger tanks, which were better than anything russia had, with the noteble exception of the JS (Stalin) tank. Russia simply had more tanks than germany, and germany pulled most of it's tanks back to the western front."
T-34 tanks were superior to the German tanks; however, Russian didn't produce enough to seriously damage Germany. However, Germany did a much better job of deploying their tanks in metal battalions, althought that did little good once winter occurred.
"Right on Calcfreak!! do another rave, that was beautiful and true to a point. Spiral, if you quote this i swear..."
I haven't seen many beautiful raving lunatics, but that's just me. How true is a point? Btw, unfinished threats are awefully cliché.
"Ummmm...during the last nuclear arms check we did, the US had nearly ten times as many nukes as china, if not more. Suuure, they could kill us if we wanted, but we could kill the whole world if we wanted. that makes no difference if they could kill us, but if they did start firing nukes, the next dawn China would see would be blood red, i guarantee it, and so would Michael Savage"
Wow...you advocate the United States destroying the world? Do you actually that firing all the arsenals of nukes is a viable means of defeating other countries? Victory doesn't matter when you're dead.
"Nuclear arms will only become more of a problem in the future, as warfare becomes more automated. A computer receiving incorrect data could launch a ICBM strike automatically, with no human intervention."
I agree. I think the biggest threat not from computers, is the common spread of nuclear weapons, because that will take place much sooner than automated silos. The proliferations of nuclear weapons seems to be a catch-22, if nations are unable to get them, they don't feel safe, and in consequence can act more agressive. When they can acquire nuclear weapons, now everybody else has to fear whowever the crazy guy in power is. | dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 24 Mar 2004
09:11 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | The deterrence theory is based on a flawed assumption. It assumes that any person in control of nuclear weapons will act arationally and never use them, knowing that to do so would be suicidal. However not all leaders or soldiers in control of such weapons will always be rational. Suicide bombers do not care if they die; sdo long as they kill enemies with them. That same mentality is prevalent in much of southern Asia. Saddam Hussein obviously has no WMDs, but if he had, he probably would have attacked the U.S., knowing that he had nothing to lose.
@Lunchbox: I can't believe that you actually think world annhilation is accepotable military policy. It is deeply wrong for any country to have such destructive weapons (in my view, it is morally wrong for anyone to possess weapons of any kind at all, being a pacifist, but that's just me). No one has the right to put the lives of civilians on the line according to the whims of government leaders. | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 24 Mar 2004
14:42 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Saddam Hussein obviously has no WMDs, but if he had, he probably would have attacked the U.S., knowing that he had nothing to lose."
The CIA head actually stated CIA conclusions were that Saddam Hussein would never use WMD, except under one conditions, if he was attacked by the United States. Iraq's longest range warheads were also under 90 miles, very very far from the United States, scuds are unrealiable.
"Suicide bombers do not care if they die; sdo long as they kill enemies with them. That same mentality is prevalent in much of southern Asia."
uh...not really, the only places that suicidal bombing is relatively common is Russia's Chechen rebels (North Asia), and Israel (Middle East). The main place you will end up with crazy leaders are dictatorships or during military rule, South America and Africa have had much more civil strife than Asia in the last century. | poodlelover911
Marine
Posted: 26 Mar 2004
12:01 GMT
Total Posts: 26 | This is calculatorfreakCG speaking:
"Right on Calcfreak!! do another rave, that was beautiful and true to a point. Spiral, if you quote this i swear... "
I will:
LunchBox, you rule man!!!!
EVeryone else, Freak OFF!
| allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 26 Mar 2004
13:37 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Well, D, I guess I was right, he did find a way around the blocking. CF, did you realize that Washington State has laws against online hurssasment, and you could be in legal troble, including being sued? | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 26 Mar 2004
14:26 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Perhaps I need a new sig... Something like "Idiots never give up" maybe.
Calcfreak, stop. You are not doing anything that will help you. If you think insulting everyone with asterisks makes you feel cool, then you have serious problems.
[Edited by BullFrog on 26-Mar-04 23:29]
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 26 Mar 2004
15:49 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | <sarcasm>wow, intelligent post calcfreak.</sarcasm>
"Perhaps I need a new sig... Something like "Idiots never give up" maybe."
I was just thinking...which is more dangerous, proliferation of stupid ideas or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Of course, the worse would be both of them together. | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 26 Mar 2004
17:59 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | I think that as long as the people with Weapons of Mass Destruction can keep their cool, it shouldn't be too bad... It's the people who aren't very right in the head that should be worried about.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 28 Mar 2004
17:49 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | Proliferation of stupid ideas CREATES proliferation of weapons of mass detruction. Speaking of which, if we're so worried about the few Iraq MIGHT have, why not worry about our 8,634 tactical nuclear warheads, EASILY enough to annhilate global civilization? | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 28 Mar 2004
18:21 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | We control those ones, so there's no need to worry about them. It's the ones that can be used against us that are to be worried about.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 28 Mar 2004
18:43 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | in other words - the ones controlled by unstable people. I don't mind stable countries having them so much since the chances of a war against them are much lower than they used to be.
---
-Barrett A | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 28 Mar 2004
18:54 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Um, who said that the US is totally against using nuclear warheads. I seem to recall that our doctrine was almost changed to allow tatical nuclear strikes against conventially impervious targets.
Although that idea was struck down, it could easily resurface, and be approved.
I read on friday that Australia believes that al-quida has aquired nuclear warheads.
Edit: I hate to think what would have happened if WWII was delayed 1-5 years, with germany and japan aquiring nuclear arms would have had dire conquencenes.
Note: Sorry about the bad spelling, I can't spell at all, and my IE spell checker doesn't work with opera.
[Edited by allynfolksjr on 29-Mar-04 04:58] | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 28 Mar 2004
21:46 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Proliferation of stupid ideas CREATES proliferation of weapons of mass destruction"
nah, stupid people can't make complex weapons. And they're as likely to kill themselves in the process
The United States was thinking of creating mini-nukes recently. | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 29 Mar 2004
07:24 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | 'Mini-nukes'=tatical nuclear weapons. |
|
