NationStates Jolt Archive

Every nation on earth has won its own independence. If Iraq was in such terrible shape the Iraqi people would have rebeled. Iraq wasn't a great place under Huessin, but whats the difference between him murdering innocent people and us?

Alan, you're back :)

Every nation on earth has won its own independence. If Iraq was in such terrible shape the Iraqi people would have rebeled.


We had a lot of help from France.

So...we should have just let Holland, Belgium, Poland, etc get rid of the Germans themselves? Sorry guys, work it out on your own. Too bad Korea, the Japanese are your problem.


Iraq wasn't a great place under Huessin, but whats the difference between him murdering innocent people and us?

Probably because we aren't doing it on purpose, and won't be as soon as they stop and give us a chance to leave.

I'm not buying into the discussion or the politics of Novo Neo here but I do find it funny that people (mods) think that banning a username will keep the user away.... :D

His threads are great though.Tremendous fun.

Now somebody disagree so the Rush Limbaugh insulting can begin. :)

IP bans work, just so long as one doesn't switch to another computer. Then it fails miserably.

Actually, for the record, when my name was banned I did go into lurking for a week or two :p

I bet he has a floating I.P. or a bunch of proxies or something.

Actually, for the record, when my name was banned I did go into lurking for a week or two :p

Why were you banned ?

If he has a floating IP I'm pretty sure you can just ban his subnet, I'm not an IT guy though so I'm not sure.

If he has a floating IP I'm pretty sure you can just ban his subnet, I'm not an IT guy though so I'm not sure.

Oh okay, but he could still evade with proxies though, right?

If he has a floating IP I'm pretty sure you can just ban his subnet, I'm not an IT guy though so I'm not sure.

Well actually an IP adress can be modified by very simple DOS commands. Or the reninstallation of an OS. And cryptograhic DLLS(programmed by me) can confuse the server and make it think I'm someone else.

Don't mess with your superior.

Totally. I have done this exact thing. Just to see how many I could get banned before they gave up... I won :D Proxies are a wonderful thing. :D

Not that I'd do it again, I'm a grown up now :cool:

Hee hee hee

Oh okay, but he could still evade with proxies though, right?
pureprivacy.com

proxify.com


there's others, I like those two the best.

Totally. I have done this exact thing. Just to see how many I could get banned before they gave up... I won :D Proxies are a wonderful thing. :D

Not that I'd do it again, I'm a grown up now :cool:

Hee hee hee

Good to know.

pureprivacy.com

proxify.com


there's others, I like those two the best.

Superb stuff, I'm writing this down - for interest only of course.

If he continues to be a problem, they'll eventually just nail down his entire ISP. They did it for the Michael Jackson spammer, but I doubt Alansyism will ever get that bad.

They deleted Neo Novo Alansyism. Why? I'd like to know, becuase it had the word "Alansyism." Is that word evil now?

They deleted Neo Novo Alansyism. Why? I'd like to know, becuase it had the word "Alansyism." Is that word evil now?

You've got a DOS.

Every nation on earth has won its own independence.
Right- that's why the Jews didn't require outside intervention to stave off Hitler, why the Palestinian people fought off said Jews (who really learned their lesson well) and why the English have no prescence or involvement whatsoever in Northern Ireland. That's why the Confederate States of America won the Civil War and why China makes no overtones of having power in Taiwan.
People are a LOT more longsuffering than they're usually given credit for. The difference between the Americans and Saddam is that Saddam would kill you if you just looked funny, whereas the Americans won't kill you unless you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They deleted Neo Novo Alansyism. Why? I'd like to know, becuase it had the word "Alansyism." Is that word evil now?

Flaming in the moderation threads I should imagine.

You've got a DOS.

I've got

2) Computers running Windows XP

1) Comp running Linux

1) Comp running NetBSD

1) Comp running my OS

They deleted Neo Novo Alansyism. Why? I'd like to know, becuase it had the word "Alansyism." Is that word evil now?

How hard is this to understand?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7498747&postcount=12

Right- that's why the Jews didn't require outside intervention to stave off Hitler, why the Palestinian people fought off said Jews (who really learned their lesson well) and why the English have no prescence or involvement whatsoever in Northern Ireland. That's why the Confederate States of America won the Civil War and why China makes no overtones of having power in Taiwan.
People are a LOT more longsuffering than they're usually given credit for. The difference between the Americans and Saddam is that Saddam would kill you if you just looked funny, whereas the Americans won't kill you unless you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Let me rephrase that qoute.

Every nation worth a rats ass. And the Jews are just whiners. Everyone has been opperessed or perescuted. GET OVER IT. And the funny thing is the US is against dictatorships, but it installs them all over the world.

How hard is this to understand?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7498747&postcount=12
that's a pretty good reason to modbomb somebody...

Let me rephrase that qoute.

Every nation worth a rats ass.

So, Northern Ireland, as a nation, isn't worth a rat's ass?

Let me rephrase that qoute.

Every nation worth a rats ass. And the Jews are just whiners. Everyone has been opperessed or perescuted. GET OVER IT. And the funny thing is the US is against dictatorships, but it installs them all over the world.
He's Baaaaaaack! (and anti-semitic!)

Can I call you Al?

And it begins. Round 1.

So, Northern Ireland, as a nation, isn't worth a rat's ass?

Who gives a fuck about any country except the United States. The rest of them can burn in Hell.

He's Baaaaaaack! (and anti-semitic!)

Can I call you Al?

Anti-zionistic. I'm tired of the hypocrisy of the Jews. They kill Palestinians every day but have the nerve to whine about an event the happened 60 years ago.

Who gives a fuck about any country except the United States. The rest of them can burn in Hell.

People that live in them, such as myself, perchance?

is it just me or does this resemble some kind of demented circus?

Let me rephrase that qoute.

Every nation worth a rats ass. And the Jews are just whiners. Everyone has been opperessed or perescuted. GET OVER IT. And the funny thing is the US is against dictatorships, but it installs them all over the world.
Worth a rat's ass, eh? Let's see who that excludes:
1. America, since they wouldn't've had a prayer without the French.
2. England, since the only revolution they ever attempted got crushed by the Romans- and it wasn't even England then!
3. France, since their revolution got overturned later and placed back under 'royal' control.
4. Russia. If not for the Germans, Lenin would have died in Switzerland.
5. Virtually every country in Africa, since without the decline of the Imperalist nations, they'd probably still be under their respective yokes.
6. Most countries not in Africa, for that matter. Come to think of it, the only country that comes to mind that successfully won its freedom without outside intervention is Haiti. Want me to keep going?

He's Baaaaaaack! (and anti-semitic!)

Can I call you Al?

And I am not anti semitic. I hate hypocrisy, that's why I hate a lot of "moralists," and Rush Limbaugh.

Anti-zionistic. I'm tired of the hypocrisy of the Jews. They kill Palestinians every day but have the nerve to whine about an event the happened 60 years ago.

I love it. Anti zionistic = hypocracy of the jews.

But he's not an anti-semite. Brilliant.

Anti-zionistic. I'm tired of the hypocrisy of the Jews. They kill Palestinians every day but have the nerve to whine about an event the happened 60 years ago.

Who gives a fuck about any country except the United States.

Seeing as how they aren't killing them in the United States why should you care?

Right- that's why the Jews didn't require outside intervention to stave off Hitler, why the Palestinian people fought off said Jews (who really learned their lesson well) and why the English have no prescence or involvement whatsoever in Northern Ireland. That's why the Confederate States of America won the Civil War and why China makes no overtones of having power in Taiwan.
People are a LOT more longsuffering than they're usually given credit for. The difference between the Americans and Saddam is that Saddam would kill you if you just looked funny, whereas the Americans won't kill you unless you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

:sniper: hmm...this is wrong in so many ways where should i start...we didnt join ww1 to help the jews and polish and whoever else was getting the wrath of hitler...in the beginning we were letting them do it all on their own with no involvment it wasnt until after the british blockade came about to prevent our cargo ships and passenger ships from reaching germany..who we were valiantly supplying before the british blockade..it was the fact that germany couldnt protect our ships from the blockade that we finally went to war with germany...and had WE not had help from russia we wouldnt of been able to overthrow hitler...the english in northern ireland...hmm...tough one because all i really know is that the irish began immigrating here right before the civil war to escape the tyranny of england power...not to fight it nor did we fight at all for them we more or less treated the irish like we treated blacks back then...with high racial prejudice....and im not going to bore everyone else with the rest of that but im sure someone other then me can agree with this...and further the facts about the last half of what u think is so true

And I am not anti semitic. I hate hypocrisy, that's why I hate a lot of "moralists," and Rush Limbaugh.

And there it is. The first limbaugh.

Keep it coming.

2. England, since the only revolution they ever attempted got crushed by the Romans- and it wasn't even England then!


Do the words 'English Civil War' ring any bells?

I love it. Anti zionistic = hypocracy of the jews.

But he's not an anti-semite. Brilliant.

Zionism and Judaism aren't the same thing. Some of the staunchest anti-Zionists I've ever met were devout Jews.

Worth a rat's ass, eh? Let's see who that excludes:
1. America, since they wouldn't've had a prayer without the French.
2. England, since the only revolution they ever attempted got crushed by the Romans- and it wasn't even England then!
3. France, since their revolution got overturned later and placed back under 'royal' control.
4. Russia. If not for the Germans, Lenin would have died in Switzerland.
5. Virtually every country in Africa, since without the decline of the Imperalist nations, they'd probably still be under their respective yokes.
6. Most countries not in Africa, for that matter. Come to think of it, the only country that comes to mind that successfully won its freedom without outside intervention is Haiti. Want me to keep going?

1. The French didn't do a damn thing until the war was almost over.

2. Roman England was a prospering civilization, why would you want it to be governed by barbaric celts.

3. But no one intervened

4. Why would you care, as a good "conservative" aren't you opposed to that "lefty nonsense."

6. They were better off under European control.

:sniper: hmm...this is wrong in so many ways where should i start...we didnt join ww1 to help the jews and polish and whoever else was getting the wrath of hitler...

World War II, perhaps?

I've got

2) Computers running Windows XP

1) Comp running Linux

1) Comp running NetBSD

1) Comp running my OS

Where did you get all these computers from?

6. They were better off under European control.

Agreed. For example, compare Rhodesia to modern-day Zimbabwe.

Zionism and Judaism aren't the same thing. Some of the staunchest anti-Zionists I've ever met were devout Jews.

What I was trying to point out is that he equates zionism with jews being hypocritical. Therefore his statement that he is not an anti-semite is facially false. (Given that he hates hypocrits and zionists).

Zionism and Judaism aren't the same thing. Some of the staunchest anti-Zionists I've ever met were devout Jews.

For once you and I agree. Jews can be opposed to Zionism, just like Germans can be opposed to Nazism.

Get it through your thick skulls!

Where did you get all these computers from?
He robbed a CompUSA I'd bet!

:sniper: hmm...this is wrong in so many ways where should i start...we didnt join ww1 to help the jews and polish and whoever else was getting the wrath of hitler...in the beginning we were letting them do it all on their own with no involvment it wasnt until after the british blockade came about to prevent our cargo ships and passenger ships from reaching germany..who we were valiantly supplying before the british blockade..it was the fact that germany couldnt protect our ships from the blockade that we finally went to war with germany...and had WE not had help from russia we wouldnt of been able to overthrow hitler...the english in northern ireland...hmm...tough one because all i really know is that the irish began immigrating here right before the civil war to escape the tyranny of england power...not to fight it nor did we fight at all for them we more or less treated the irish like we treated blacks back then...with high racial prejudice....and im not going to bore everyone else with the rest of that but im sure someone other then me can agree with this...and further the facts about the last half of what u think is so true
This is so darned funny I'm saving it. Why on earth would we have joined WW1 to stop Hitler when he wouldn't be in power until WW2? Our involvement in the war was a result of the German sinking of our ships as a result of the doctrine of unrestricted submarine warfare put forth by Hindenburg and Ludedorf. Get your wars straight before you presume to correct other people on them.
And the Irish have been coming to America since it was still an English colony- parlementarians wouldn't have been complaining "We've lost America to the Irish!" if they'd waited until the 1860's, now would they?

What I was trying to point out is that he equates zionism with jews being hypocritical. Therefore his statement that he is not an anti-semite is facially false. (Given that he hates hypocrits and zionists).

I understood what you were trying to get at. But I'm glad you understand that I am opposed to Zionism and hypocrisy, not Jews.

Agreed. For example, compare Rhodesia to modern-day Zimbabwe.

Counter-example: the Belgian Congo under King Leopold II compared to the modern day Democratic Republic of the Congo.

For once you and I agree. Jews can be opposed to Zionism, just like Germans can be opposed to Nazism.

Get it through your thick skulls!

Lol, actually we agreed twice. Check the bottom part of page 3. :p

For once you and I agree. Jews can be opposed to Zionism, just like Germans can be opposed to Nazism.

Get it through your thick skulls!
but you associated the hypocrisy o' the Jews with Zionism. If you weren't intending to sound semitic there, then you should have included the word "some." It's a wonderful word.

For once you and I agree. Jews can be opposed to Zionism, just like Germans can be opposed to Nazism.

Get it through your thick skulls!

now its liberal alansyism? how many times did they delete you man?

Counter-example: the Belgian Congo under King Leopold II compared to the modern day Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The DRC today is better than the Belgian Congo under King Leopold II?

Where did you get all these computers from?

Free. Only two of them are any good. I'm a programmer, and operating systems specialist. So I value a good computer.

World War II, perhaps?


last i recalled america went to war with germany in ww1 not 2 ww2 was america and japan

Lol, actually we agreed twice. Check the bottom part of page 3. :p

I know it's frightening.

The DRC today is better than the Belgian Congo under King Leopold II?

That is what I am saying: sure, there is unrest, but the entire population are not being systematically brutalised (as was near as makes no difference the case under Belgian rule).

last i recalled america went to war with germany in ww1 not 2 ww2 was america and japan

WHAT? The US fought Germany in both ww2 and ww1.

My god! Please go back to elementary school, your ignorance is painful to veiw without eye protection.

now its liberal alansyism? how many times did they delete you man?

I lost count. Let's see

1
2
3
4

1. The French didn't do a damn thing until the war was almost over.

2. Roman England was a prospering civilization, why would you want it to be governed by barbaric celts.

3. But no one intervened

4. Why would you care, as a good "conservative" aren't you opposed to that "lefty nonsense."

6. They were better off under European control.
1. Right, since the supplying of Valley Forge wasn't until, oh, 1789, was it.
2. It wasn't Roman England; the English did not yet exist. It was Roman Britain, peopled by the Celts. I'd want them to rule since I believe in nations being allowed to rule themselves- if you can imagine.
3. Right. And it collapsed.
4. I'm as conservative as Marx was- I just happen to believe in the truth- had the Germans not smuggled Lenin back into Russia, the revolution never would have taken place.
6. "Better off under European control"? Haiti was a SLAVE revolt! Are you honestly saying you think that the Haitians were 'better off' as slaves?

That is what I am saying: sure, there is unrest, but the entire population are not being systematically brutalised (as was near as makes no difference the case under Belgian rule).

The people are killing and torturing one another. Ever heard of the "machate genocide?" Almost every tootsie was brutally killed by the blade of a machate.

Check your facts first.

last i recalled america went to war with germany in ww1 not 2 ww2 was america and japan
What country are you from? If you say the US then I will admit that our education system is in serious need of reform.

The US entered WWI againts Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany in 1917 as a final result of a whole bunch crimes against the US.

We entered WWII against Japan after they attacked us on Dec. 7 1941.
On Dec. 8 1941 we declared war on Japan.
On Dec. 11 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on the US as per their axis of alliance with Japan
Shortly thereafter the US declared war on Germany and Italy and the game was joined.

If you don't believe me, here is a link to a good timeline.
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/1941.html

WHAT? The US fought Germany in both ww2 and ww1.

My god! Please go back to elementary school, your ignorance is painful to veiw without eye protection.
No, he's actually right. The United States never declared war on Germany in WW2. After Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan. A few days later, Hitler declared war on America.

1. Right, since the supplying of Valley Forge wasn't until, oh, 1789, was it.
2. It wasn't Roman England; the English did not yet exist. It was Roman Britain, peopled by the Celts. I'd want them to rule since I believe in nations being allowed to rule themselves- if you can imagine.
3. Right. And it collapsed.
4. I'm as conservative as Marx was- I just happen to believe in the truth- had the Germans not smuggled Lenin back into Russia, the revolution never would have taken place.
6. "Better off under European control"? Haiti was a SLAVE revolt! Are you honestly saying you think that the Haitians were 'better off' as slaves?


1. That was one minor battle

2. Weak argument

3. Yes that was a sad thing. Napoleon wasa true Liberal Fascist.

4. A millitant communist? What the hell.

6. Slavery was outlawed shortly after the Hatian revolt. In france, England, Holland, and Sweden.

No, he's actually right. The United States never declared war on Germany in WW2. After Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan. A few days later, Hitler declared war on America.

But that's not what he was saying.

im having a serious brain fart ....yes i mean ww2

The people are killing and torturing one another. Ever heard of the "machate genocide?" Almost every tootsie was brutally killed by the blade of a machate.

Check your facts first.

Lets have a look at some facts then: source Wikipedia - describing the reign of terror of King Leopold II over the Congo Free State:

"Estimates of the total death toll vary considerably. British diplomat Roger Casement's famous 1904 report set it at 3 million for just twelve of the twenty years Leopold's regime lasted; Forbath, at least 5 million; Adam Hochschild, 10 million; the Encyclopædia Britannica gives a total population decline from 20 or 30 million to 8 million."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Leopold.27s_rule

The attempted genocide of the Tutsis was primarily an event that happened in neighbouring Rwanda - where there was an estimated death toll of less than a million.

Funny how those facts seem to stack up, isn't it?

That is what I am saying: sure, there is unrest, but the entire population are not being systematically brutalised (as was near as makes no difference the case under Belgian rule).

Agreed, imperialism can be a curse, if the native population is being oppressed. But in many cases, imperialism brings prosperity, modernization, and higher standards of living to the people. And most nations that were formally European colonies are now totalitarian, nepotistic, corrupt dictatorships with severely imploded economies and widespread starvation, racial violence, etc.

At least the Congoians where productive under Belgian rule. Now they're just savages with guns, killing one another.

At least the Congoians where productive under Belgian rule. Now they're just savages with guns, killing one another.

Agreed.

1. That was one minor battle

2. Weak argument

3. Yes that was a sad thing. Napoleon wasa true Liberal Fascist.

4. A millitant communist? What the hell.

6. Slavery was outlawed shortly after the Hatian revolt. In france, England, Holland, and Sweden.
1. The SUPPLYING, not the fighting. Morale is not a minor thing.
2. Self-rule is a weak argument? How the hell is that 'weak'?
3. I'm not talking about Napoleon, I'm talking about the Revolution.
4. I'm no communist. And their militants are all over the place.
6. That's irrelevant. The Hatians were slaves, and you claimed they were better off under European rule.

Agreed, imperialism can be a curse, if the native population is being oppressed. But in many cases, imperialism brings prosperity, modernization, and higher standards of living to the people. And most nations that were formally European colonies are now totalitarian, nepotistic, corrupt dictatorships with severely imploded economies and widespread starvation, racial violence, etc.

I am not saying that imperialism is a totally poisoned chalice - one must accept that it had both beneficial and malignant effects upon those that were under its rule, but to simply claim that all African nations were better off under European imperialist rule than under self-rule is to fluff the issue.

If the Iraqi people knew how to be free-thinkers, instead of having been brainwashed by the Hussein regime, then, maybe they might have been able to rebel on their own. Alas, they were not, and we stepped right on their soil to oppress them once more.

Right- and the rulers never lived like emperors while the masses starved when the rulers were Europeans. It's an invalid comparison, as European rule utterly demolished Africa. The fair comparison would be Africa BEFORE European 'intervention'.

They were naked savages. The Europeans civilized them, and provided them with modern education and jobs.

If the Iraqi people knew how to be free-thinkers, instead of having been brainwashed by the Hussein regime, then, maybe they might have been able to rebel on their own. Alas, they were not, and we stepped right on their soil to oppress them once more.
Free-thinkers arise BECAUSE of repression, not in spite of it.

At least the Congoians where productive under Belgian rule. Now they're just savages with guns, killing one another.

Yeah, at least the Americans were productive under British rule. Then they kicked them out and within a century were just savages with guns, killing one another.

I am not saying that imperialism is a totally poisoned chalice - one must accept that it had both beneficial and malignant effects upon those that were under its rule, but to simply claim that all African nations were better off under European imperialist rule than under self-rule is to fluff the issue.

True, but today, practically every nation in Africa is a dictatorship. I can think of no exceptions.

No, he's actually right. The United States never declared war on Germany in WW2. After Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan. A few days later, Hitler declared war on America.


Congress also declared war "back" on Germany and Japan.

No, he's actually right. The United States never declared war on Germany in WW2. After Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan. A few days later, Hitler declared war on America.


Here is a timeline I found.

http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/WWII_Women/NewTimeline.html

sorry about that earlier address.

True, but today, practically every nation in Africa is a dictatorship. I can think of no exceptions.
So Mali doesn't exist?

1. The SUPPLYING, not the fighting. Morale is not a minor thing.
2. Self-rule is a weak argument? How the hell is that 'weak'?
3. I'm not talking about Napoleon, I'm talking about the Revolution.
4. I'm no communist. And their militants are all over the place.
6. That's irrelevant. The Hatians were slaves, and you claimed they were better off under European rule.

2. Self-government is purely symbolic.


"Whats the difference between one tyrant three thousand miles away, or ten thousand tyrants one mile away?"
-The Patriot

True, but today, practically every nation in Africa is a dictatorship. I can think of no exceptions.

Egypt, South Africa, Botswana,

True, but today, practically every nation in Africa is a dictatorship. I can think of no exceptions.

Or puppets of the US.

No, he isn't. Here's a newspaper from the time. On the left hand side there is an article titled "Resolutions passed without opposition in senate and house."

Right underneath the dateline it mentions the fact that the US declared war on Germany and Italy.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3ddid%2bthe%2bUS%2bdeclare%2bwar%2bon%2bGermany%2bdurin g%2bWWII%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=did+the+US+declare+war+on+Germany+during+WWII&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0109A33FB3A9FB914%26sid%3d151EF33FB3A9FB91 4%26qid%3dA5FE7E0DB43289409F06A2F6EB106647%26io%3d0%26sv%3dza5cb0db0%26o%3d0%26ask%3ddid%2bthe%2bUS% 2bdeclare%2bwar%2bon%2bGermany%2bduring%2bWWII%26uip%3da46bda8c%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dWhat%2bDid%2bYou%2bDo%2bin%2bthe%2bWar%252c%2bGrandma%253f%253a%2bTimeline%26ac%3d5%26qs% 3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d102%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.stg.brown.edu%2fprojects%2fWW II_Women%2fNewTimeline.html&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.stg.brown.edu%2fprojects%2fWWII_Women%2fNewTimeline.html&qte=0&o=0&abs=A+Timeline+of+WWII+(1939+...+The+US+Congress+passes+the+Fair+Labor+...+the+coast+of+Ireland%2c+G reat+Britain+and+France+formally+declare+war+on...&tit=What+Did+You+Do+in+the+War%2c+Grandma%3f%3a+Timeline&bin=a108354d7afb7c9f9921cc591b67a00e%26s%3d2400552358&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0109A33FB3A9FB914%26sid%3d151E F33FB3A9FB914%26qid%3dA5FE7E0DB43289409F06A2F6EB106647%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0db0%26o%3d0%26ask%3ddid% 2bthe%2bUS%2bdeclare%2bwar%2bon%2bGermany%2bduring%2bWWII%26uip%3da46bda8c%26en%3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d5%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fmyjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1
Let me clarify. The United States did, obviously, declare war against Germany. But it was only retroactive, as Germany had declared war first, this being the usually accepted definition of 'declared war'. In that sense, he's right.

They were naked savages. The Europeans civilized them, and provided them with modern education and jobs.

And he calls us hypocritical. :p

So Mali doesn't exist?

I honestly don't know much Mali, but look at the rest of Africa: Zimbabwe, South Africa, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Mozambique, the Congo, Sudan, Chad, etc.

And calls us conservatives Nazis. Someone has a little too much preteen angst. :D

They were naked savages. The Europeans civilized them, and provided them with modern education and jobs.
They brought nothing of the kind. "Civilization" hardly entails genocide.

Egypt, South Africa, Botswana,

Um...South Africa actually is a dictatorship. The racist white apartheid regime was replaced by a racist black dictatorship.

True, but today, practically every nation in Africa is a dictatorship. I can think of no exceptions.

A quick google gives the following as African countires that have held multi-party elections in the last ten years: Senegal, Gambia, Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa. I am sure there are more.

2. Self-government is purely symbolic.


"Whats the difference between one tyrant three thousand miles away, or ten thousand tyrants one mile away?"
-The Patriot
So elections aren't real and revolutions are unjustified? That runs rather contrary to the 'win your own freedom' idea you started this with.

They brought nothing of the kind.

That's absurd.

Look at Rhodesia. A beautiful, socially progressive nation with a thriving economy, almost non-existent crime, impeccable human rights, high standards of living, and racial harmony. Look at Zimbabwe. A totalitarian, rampantly corrupt dictatorship, 600% inflation, mass starvation, pervasive AIDS in the countryside, widespread racism, and genocide (against the Matabeles, whites, Asians, etc.).

A quick google gives the following as African countires that have held multi-party elections in the last ten years: Senegal, Gambia, Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa. I am sure there are more.

Do rigged elections count? If not, take South Africa off the list.

Or puppets of the US.

Or that, yes.

A quick google gives the following as African countires that have held multi-party elections in the last ten years: Senegal, Gambia, Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa. I am sure there are more.

Here's another list of African multi-party democracies:

Botswana
Egypt
Gambia
Mauritius
Senegal
Tunisia
Zimbabwe

Source: http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/curriculum/lm10/student/stuactfour.html

A quick google gives the following as African countires that have held multi-party elections in the last ten years: Senegal, Gambia, Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa. I am sure there are more.

And all of them have had civil wars in the past five years, except Maurituis.

And what percentage is that 5%?

That's absurd.

Look at Rhodesia. A beautiful, socially progressive nation with a thriving economy, almost non-existent crime, impeccable human rights, high standards of living, and racial harmony. Look at Zimbabwe. A totalitarian, rampantly corrupt dictatorship, 600% inflation, mass starvation, pervasive AIDS in the countryside, widespread racism, and genocide (against the Matabeles, whites, Asians, etc.).
Pervasive AIDS in the cities, too.
But racial harmony at gunpoint is hardly harmonious- nor is it in the least progressive. And I know far too many people who've lived in Zimbabwe to believe it was ever respectful of human rights under English rule. Racism isn't always blatant.

That's absurd.

Look at Rhodesia. A beautiful, socially progressive nation with a thriving economy, almost non-existent crime, impeccable human rights, high standards of living, and racial harmony. Look at Zimbabwe. A totalitarian, rampantly corrupt dictatorship, 600% inflation, mass starvation, pervasive AIDS in the countryside, widespread racism, and genocide (against the Matabeles, whites, Asians, etc.).


:) :) :) :) :)

Man that hit it right on the head. That's the best argument I've heard all day.

Appaluse! Bravo! Encore, Encore!

Do rigged elections count? If not, take South Africa off the list.
Hell, if rigged elections count, is there a single 'democracy' anywhere in the world you can't take off the list?

Um...South Africa actually is a dictatorship.

The CIA label it a republic in their world factbook, rather than a dictatorship. Maybe you should inform them of their error?

Hell, if rigged elections count, is there a single 'democracy' anywhere in the world you can't take off the list?

Except a few Scandnavian countries. It's sad that's a true statement...... :(

Here's another list of African multi-party democracies:

Botswana
Egypt
Gambia
Mauritius
Senegal
Tunisia
Zimbabwe

Source: http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/curriculum/lm10/student/stuactfour.html

Zimbabwe doesn't count. Opposition party members are frequently tortured, harassed, arrested, beaten, etc.

The CIA label it a republic in their world factbook, rather than a dictatorship. Maybe you should inform them of their error?

Do they label Zimbabwe a republic also?

The CIA label it a republic in their world factbook, rather than a dictatorship. Maybe you should inform them of their error?

The government labled Manuel Noreiga's regime as a "repbulic." And the Shah as "constitutional monarchy." The CIA has two labels "friends" and "enemies." That's it.

Pervasive AIDS in the cities, too.
But racial harmony at gunpoint is hardly harmonious- nor is it in the least progressive. And I know far too many people who've lived in Zimbabwe to believe it was ever respectful of human rights under English rule. Racism isn't always blatant.

Rhodesia's blacks have had voting rights since 1923. Under Ian Smith, blacks were a majority in Parliament. Blacks even had better farmland than the whites.

Except a few Scandnavian countries. It's sad that's a true statement...... :(
No, I'm afraid it's not. Unless your definition of 'Scandinavian' is a heckuva lot broader than mine, none of their records are clean either.

No, I'm afraid it's not. Unless your definition of 'Scandinavian' is a heckuva lot broader than mine, none of their records are clean either.

Finland.... uhhhhhhh. Yeah, that's about it. Oh wait, Sweden has a pretty clean record.

Rhodesia's blacks have had voting rights since 1923. Under Ian Smith, blacks were a majority in Parliament. Blacks even had better farmland than the whites.
Yes- and Catholics have had sizable chunks of the Parliament in Northen Ireland a number of times, too. That doesn't mean there's no bigotry.

Finland.... uhhhhhhh. Yeah, that's about it. Oh wait, Sweden has a pretty clean record.
Nope. Their frauds are a lot smaller and a LOT more subtle than their American counterparts, but they've both had nearly stolen elections too.

And all of them have had civil wars in the past five years, except Maurituis.

And what percentage is that 5%?

Having a civil war isn't a mark against a country, is it? Else we can argue that your country was better off under English rule.


It seems to me that yourself and Roach-Busters are arguing that under European Imperialist rule Africa was better off (when there was no democracy there), and now that the age of imperialism is over you are demanding complete democracy? Something of a contradictory position, no?

It seems to me that yourself and Roach-Busters are arguing that under European Imperialist rule Africa was better off (when there was no democracy there), and now that the age of imperialism is over you are demanding complete democracy? Something of a contradictory position, no?

All I'm saying- and I think LA is saying the same thing- is that most Africans were a lot better off during imperialism than they are today.

Do they label Zimbabwe a republic also?

No, a "parliamentary democracy", but they don't gloss over the fact that the elections are rigged by those in power - " Ignoring international condemnation, MUGABE rigged the 2002 presidential election to ensure his reelection. Opposition and labor groups launched general strikes in 2003 to pressure MUGABE to retire early; security forces continued their brutal repression of regime opponents." It is possible to be both hideously corrupt, and still have a democratic governmental structure.

Having a civil war isn't a mark against a country, is it? Else we can argue that your country was better off under English rule.


It seems to me that yourself and Roach-Busters are arguing that under European Imperialist rule Africa was better off (when there was no democracy there), and now that the age of imperialism is over you are demanding complete democracy? Something of a contradictory position, no?

Yeah it is, if it happens every few months.

And I don't demand democracy. I am a liberal fascist. I belive in dictatorship.

No, a "parliamentary democracy", but they don't gloss over the fact that the elections are rigged by those in power - " Ignoring international condemnation, MUGABE rigged the 2002 presidential election to ensure his reelection. Opposition and labor groups launched general strikes in 2003 to pressure MUGABE to retire early; security forces continued their brutal repression of regime opponents." It is possible to be both hideously corrupt, and still have a democratic governmental structure.

Whichever way you choose to cut the cake, Zimbabwe is a dictatorship, and a genocidal one at that.

Whichever way you choose to cut the cake, Zimbabwe is a dictatorship, and a genocidal one at that.

Obvisouly BWO can. He should go and live in Zimbabwe, sense it's such a nice place.

yeah :mp5:

Obvisouly BWO can. He should go and live in Zimbabwe, sense it's such a nice place.

yeah :mp5:

Point out to me where I commented about how pleasent a place it was, if you would?

My point is that despite the subversion and illegal activity of those in power, it remains legally and constitutionally a parliamentary democracy.

Point out to me where I commented about how pleasent a place it was, if you would?

My point is that despite the subversion and illegal activity of those in power, it remains legally and constitutionally a parliamentary democracy.

Not really. Read, for example, Bitter Harvest by Ian Smith. And check out some of the links on my 'Imperialism- Yay or nay?' thread.

Come to think of it, the only country that comes to mind that successfully won its freedom without outside intervention is Haiti. Want me to keep going?

You know, I think you're right. And they managed to beat off the French and the English to do it! So, according to Al's logic... All hail Haiti, the only nation on Earth worth a rat's ass... maybe even more than a rat's ass!

Random Explosions
Come to think of it, the only country that comes to mind that successfully won its freedom without outside intervention is Haiti. Want me to keep going?
You know, I think you're right. And they managed to beat off the French and the English to do it! So, according to Al's logic... All hail Haiti, the only nation on Earth worth a rat's ass... maybe even more than a rat's ass!

Eire?

6. Slavery was outlawed shortly after the Hatian revolt. In france, England, Holland, and Sweden.

Yeah.... Wonder why?

A bunch of slaves go wandering around French Saint Domingue murdering every white person they can find -- in their sleep, preferably, and with knives so as not to wake the next town with gunfire. They eliminate every white person they can find on the island.

Now, I wonder why Europeans might want to end slavery... before it could happen again?

Eire?
I thought that doesn't exist (technically)?

They were naked savages. The Europeans civilized them, and provided them with modern education and jobs.

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.

One of the features of African civilization that made them so desirable as slaves is that they already possessed farming skills that, say, Native Americans did not. They also tended to run away less than "Indians"... because they were already "civilized."

Also, if you check into the history of plantation farming in Louisiana, for example, you will find that the vitally important irrigation technology was entirely supplied by African slaves -- white immigrants had absolutely no clue how to do it.

I thought that doesn't exist (technically)?

Eh? The Republic of Ireland, certainly exists, unless I'm missing something...

You know, I think you're right. And they managed to beat off the French and the English to do it! So, according to Al's logic... All hail Haiti, the only nation on Earth worth a rat's ass... maybe even more than a rat's ass!

America, Italy, Germany, France, Russia....etc

And Hati's a piece of shit that goes into civil war every day.

Oh, if you like anarchy and "african culture" so much, move to fucking somailia.

Eh? The Republic of Ireland, certainly exists, unless I'm missing something...
I know that, but doesn't Eire refer to united Ireland?

America

Lafayette ring any bells? Also Paine could be considered instrumental in forming the idea of independence over greater status within the empire.

Italy, Germany

I understand the British were instrumental in the defeat of Napoleon.

France

Which foreign power were they enslaved by?

Russia

Helped by Germany

I know that, but doesn't Eire refer to united Ireland?

No, Eire is given as the official name of the state by the constitution, and those parts which nominally laid claim to 32 counties instead of 26 were altered in 1998 as a result of the agreement.

No, Eire is given as the official name of the state by the constitution, and those parts which nominally laid claim to 32 counties instead of 26 were altered in 1998 as a result of the agreement.
Ah, ok

Lafayette ring any bells? Also Paine could be considered instrumental in forming the idea of independence over greater status within the empire.



I understand the British were instrumental in the defeat of Napoleon.



Which foreign power were they enslaved by?


Helped by Germany

Whether Lenin was there or not the Russian revolution had already started without him, and it would have ended, without him.

Whether Lenin was there or not the Russian revolution had already started without him, and it would have ended, without him.
Didn't mean that. The fight against the Germans create a series of events that led to the Revolution.

Not withstanding. Russia didn't win its independence, as no foreign state controlled it

Didn't mean that. The fight against the Germans create a series of events that led to the Revolution.

Not withstanding. Russia didn't win its independence, as no foreign state controlled it
Yes, the russian revolution probably would have never happened had it not been for the horrendous handling of the first world war on the part of the Russian government.

LOL, Oppression!

Didn't mean that. The fight against the Germans create a series of events that led to the Revolution.

Not withstanding. Russia didn't win its independence, as no foreign state controlled it

Not correct, and correct.

The war against the Japanese, and massacre sparked the revolt.

[quote=Conmceptualists]Conceptualists
Didn't mean that. The fight against the Germans create a series of events that led to the Revolution.

Not withstanding. Russia didn't win its independence, as no foreign state controlled it[/#quote]

Not correct, and correct.

The war against the Japanese, and massacre sparked the revolt.

So, when you say "not correct, ad correct" you acre agreeing that Russia doesn't fit into your statement that "Every nation on earth has won its own independence" - as Russia was already independent at that point, yes? Despite the fact that you gave it as an example of one such?

(Aplgies fr anmy typesthat have slipped thrugh - asyu canm seebvythisunmeditedseoctinm,mykeybvardisshagged)

In other news, who else thinks that nazis suck?

Not correct, and correct.

The war against the Japanese, and massacre sparked the revolt.
You mean Dr. Zhivago lied to me? ;)

You mean Dr. Zhivago lied to me? ;)
I'm sorry, but Dr. Zhivago, well, he's...um...shall we say...unreliable? And besides that, he's...a...um...person.

You mean Dr. Zhivago lied to me? ;)

Yes

Come on repbulican scum, come and get me.