NationStates Jolt Archive

Putin Demands Santa Claus Turn Over Elves, Toy Factory, Flying Reindeer ('http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2113289,00.html')

Well, shit - I could make the argument that since the rest of the Earth is connected to the United States, the other countries in the world are really just extra states in the US.

Is Putin just making an oil grab, or is he high on paint thinner today?

Shouldn't the First People who live up there in the northern wastes have something to say about ownership of natural resources?

Or is Putin just being clever, by seizing potential oil reserves where essentially no one lives (no occupation necessary, no insurgents, etc)?

If it's uninhabited, we should launch nuclear weapons against the North Pole, contaminating it with radiation, in order to prevent Russia from seizing the terrority, thus precluding it from obtaining access to the vast petrol reserves.

"Frankly I think it's a little bit strange," Sergey Priamikov, the international co-operation director of Russia's Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St Petersburg, told the Guardian. "Canada could make exactly the same claim. The Canadians could say that the Lomonosov ridge is part of the Canadian shelf, which means Russia should in fact belong to Canada, together with the whole of Eurasia."

That's awesome.

Russia first made a submission in 2001 to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf, seeking to push Russia's maritime borders beyond the existing 200-mile zone. It was rejected.

But the latest scientific findings are likely to prompt Russia to lodge another confident bid - and will alarm the US, which is mired in a 13-year debate over ratification of a UN treaty governing international maritime rights.

The Law of the Sea Treaty is the world's primary means of settling disputes over exploitation rights and navigational routes in international waters. Russia and 152 other countries have ratified it.

But the US has refused, arguing it gives too much power to the UN. If the US does not ratify it, Russia's bid for the Arctic's energy wealth will go unchallenged, proponents believe.


Well, it looks like unless the US gets off it's high horse and ratifies the UN treaty, Russia could get away with claiming the North Pole Oil fields, as otherwise there is no viable way of settling the legal disputes.

Well, shit - I could make the argument that since the rest of the Earth is connected to the United States, the other countries in the world are really just extra states in the US.

Eh- no. The economic zones appear to be determined via Russia's geographic/geological borders. What this is doing is saying that those borders are -physically, mind you- somewhere else than was previously believed. As such, two hundred miles out from their physical border would now be further than before- over an area where previously there was no political claim.

You might be able to find some ground to expand the US's territorial waters, but...

If it's uninhabited, we should launch nuclear weapons against the North Pole, contaminating it with radiation, in order to prevent Russia from seizing the terrority, thus precluding it from obtaining access to the vast petrol reserves.

:rolleyes:

You win the very prestigious NSG Award: Stupidest Post of the Day Reward.

The region would technically be inhabited, as there is wild life in the Arctic. There may be people living there, though it is unlikely. The animals, however, still count as inhabitants. We are already destroying enough of the planet with our asinine environmental policies. We don't need to speed up global warming.

Well, it looks like unless the US gets off it's high horse and ratifies the UN treaty, Russia could get away with claiming the North Pole Oil fields, as otherwise there is no viable way of settling the legal disputes.
John Bolton's head asplodes.

That's awesome.

I propose a new thread. No comment from Canadian Government on possibility of World Domination.

I propose a new thread. No comment from Canadian Government on possibility of World Domination.

:eek: Weird Al was right!

The region would technically be inhabited, as there is wild life in the Arctic.

What's more important: some caribou or stopping Russia from extending its filthy tentacles to envelop the North Pole in its frigid grasp? The geo-political power which Russia would gain runs contrary to the US's (and the world's) best interests; we must stop them from attaining such an economic boon at any cost, especially if that cost is measured in worthless animals.

If it's uninhabited, we should launch nuclear weapons against the North Pole, contaminating it with radiation, in order to prevent Russia from seizing the terrority, thus precluding it from obtaining access to the vast petrol reserves.

You used to be better

Isn't it possible that Canada has similar connections? I'd rather them have it than Russia any day.

:rolleyes:

You win the very prestigious NSG Award: Stupidest Post of the Day Reward.

The region would technically be inhabited, as there is wild life in the Arctic. There may be people living there, though it is unlikely. The animals, however, still count as inhabitants. We are already destroying enough of the planet with our asinine environmental policies. We don't need to speed up global warming.

Aren't you forgetting about nuclear winter? This could be the perfect way to stop global warming!

If it's uninhabited, we should launch nuclear weapons against the North Pole, contaminating it with radiation, in order to prevent Russia from seizing the terrority, thus precluding it from obtaining access to the vast petrol reserves.
This post is made of fail. If you are going to try and be Mr. Contravertial neo-con, at least put some damned effort into it and do something believable. This is just stupid beyond imagination.

Aren't you forgetting about nuclear winter? This could be the perfect way to stop global warming!
http://www.pynthan.com/vri/nwaos.htm

Shouldn't the First People who live up there in the northern wastes have something to say about ownership of natural resources?
Since when has being a first people counted for anything when their was natural wealth to seize?

What's more important: some caribou or stopping Russia from extending its filthy tentacles to envelop the North Pole in its frigid grasp? The geo-political power which Russia would gain runs contrary to the US's (and the world's) best interests; we must stop them from attaining such an economic boon at any cost, especially if that cost is measured in worthless animals.

Yours is not the only opinion. That Russia might extend its geopolitical influence obviously terrifies you, but I can't seem to bring myself to care. Specifically though, since my morbid curiosity has been piqued, What makes it run contrary to the world's interests?

As for stopping them "attaining such an economic boon at any cost", can you even hear yourself? What the hell does that at any cost even mean?

This post is made of fail. If you are going to try and be Mr. Contravertial neo-con, at least put some damned effort into it and do something believable. This is just stupid beyond imagination.

I am not trying to be Mr. Controversial. Indeed, I am simply expressing my ideas on this topic, and I find them to be quite reasonable. I accept that you may differ; however, I urge to debate me openly and honestly instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks which demonstrate your inadequacy at debate.

What's more important: some caribou or stopping Russia from extending its filthy tentacles to envelop the North Pole in its frigid grasp? The geo-political power which Russia would gain runs contrary to the US's (and the world's) best interests; we must stop them from attaining such an economic boon at any cost, especially if that cost is measured in worthless animals.

Right now, I'd say the animals. I have a thing against destroying the planet. We only have one, and frankly, I'd like this planet to stay around for a while.

Further, I'd say that the USA's foreign policy runs contrary to world interest with its lack of regard for the environment and foreign sovereignty. It is a greater threat than Russia's ambitions to secure petrol reserves.

http://www.pynthan.com/vri/nwaos.htm

Yeah. Not only would it massively reduce temperatures, there'd be too few humans left to raise them much for quite a while.

What makes it run contrary to the world's interests?

We have already seen the results of Russia obtaining too much power. It subjugated various nations and annexed them into its evil empire, slaughtered millions of people, and wreaked havoc upon entire countries and their economies. Now, the problem with a resurgent Russia is that authoritarianism seems to be once more prevailing, endangering weak, neighboring states. Also, its foreign policy is exceedingly loose and dangerous for international security. For example, it is supplying Iran with crucial nuclear technology, aiding it in its frightening quest to obtain nuclear weapons.

What the hell does that at any cost even mean?

In this case, it only refers to some animals which inhabit the North Pole.

Right now, I'd say the animals. I have a thing against destroying the planet.

What detrimental effects did the various nuclear weapons tests until now have on the environment (and there have been dozens of them)? Do you honestly believe that one more will have such a devastating impact? It will only have a minute effect upon the world, too small to be noticed in the US or Russia.

We've exploded nuclear devices over and over again in Nevada. Why can't we do it in the North Pole at least once?

(Snip idiocy) ...quest to obtain nuclear weapons.

Aren't "quests" supposed to be righteous and so on? When someone says "quest" in a book, it's usually the hero. o_O

We've exploded nuclear devices over and over again in Nevada. Why can't we do it in the North Pole at least once?

Because Nevada isn't the same as the North Pole? Not to mention the fact that Russia probably wouldn't be too happy about us nuking the region, and the fact that they have nuclear weapons capable of wiping us out?

We've exploded nuclear devices over and over again in Nevada. Why can't we do it in the North Pole at least once?

Nevada is your territory. The North Pole isn't. Unless you'd be fully ok with the rest of the world turning every uninhabited area in the US into glass, quit that line of thought.

I am not trying to be Mr. Controversial. Indeed, I am simply expressing my ideas on this topic, and I find them to be quite reasonable. I accept that you may differ; however, I urge to debate me openly and honestly instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks which demonstrate your inadequacy at debate.
I'm not trying to debate with you. I'm pointing out that you simply can't be taken seriously any more, because it's just getting more silly and pointless each time. If you want to have a debate, quit with the bull first. You can have a debate without trying to create controversy.

Wy do you bring up santa cluas, when you know he's not real.

Wy do you bring up santa cluas, when you know he's not real.
Because he is. In fact, there's a whole army of Santas up there::eek:

http://santarchy.com/wp-content/images/santa_ray.jpg

Because Nevada isn't the same as the North Pole?
They both start with an "N", don't they? That's close enough for me.

Because Nevada isn't the same as the North Pole? Not to mention the fact that Russia probably wouldn't be too happy about us nuking the region, and the fact that they have nuclear weapons capable of wiping us out?

Although the geographical areas are distinct, the environmental effects are the same (completely negligible). Furthermore, the concept of MAD will prevent Russia from responding in kind, given that it has no legal claim to that particular region of the North Pole and no interest in starting a nuclear war with a superior nation.

The Russkies will just get piss drunk and shoot each other up like they always do.

Because he is. In fact, there's a whole army of Santas up there::eek:

http://santarchy.com/wp-content/images/santa_ray.jpg

it's just ppl in cheap costumes. or do you claim they actually own flying reindeer and all the other jazz?

I'm pointing out that you simply can't be taken seriously any more, because it's just getting more silly and pointless each time..

You cannot establish such a premise unless you can defeat me in an honest debate and prove that my viewpoint is "silly." However, you have proven both unwilling and unable to do so; therefore, it is you insinuations which are both unfounded and trollish in nature. Just because you think you're the center of the universe and everybody who disagrees with you is "silly" doesn't make it so -- there are people who have conflicting views with you on this forum. The sooner you drop your puerile stance and learn to accept this fact, the sooner you can honestly debate them and people will start taking you seriously. However, as things currently stand, you are unworthy of my attention.

How about solving this without resorting to trying to prove who has the bigger..... missiles.

Although the geographical areas are distinct, the environmental effects are the same (completely negligible). Furthermore, the concept of MAD will prevent Russia from responding in kind, given that it has no legal claim to that particular region of the North Pole and no interest in starting a nuclear war with a superior nation.
A simple but of common sense here: it's going to take more than a few test nukes to render the North Pole uninhabitable, even if it were possible.

*snippage*

I say let 'em go for it.

Russia is...

1. Not idealogically inclined to motivate it's people into suicide terrorist attacks.
2. Fully aware of the principles of MAD

Now let's look at oh, say, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East.

Guess who I'd rather get my oil from.

Besides, there just might be some nice contracts out there for European and American energy companies. Despite the article, the logistics and infastructure necessary to drill in such a remote location aren't simple or easy, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Russia extend such an "olive branch" in order to speed up the process of getting at the oil.

It's the difference between 5-10 years and 20-30 years before seeing any kind of return on the operation. They may choose to go it alone, but if they're determined to get at the oil quickly, that's one of the best ways to go about it.

Of course, now that Russia has done it, I'm betting the other Arctic countries are going to be doing a little more exploring of their own. :p

So if the US doesn't give the UN more power, there' pretty much nothing stopping Russia from getting a whole lot bigger...

Well that's interesting...

Nevada is your territory. The North Pole isn't. Unless you'd be fully ok with the rest of the world turning every uninhabited area in the US into glass, quit that line of thought.

If they do so, we will retaliate in kind. We need to show the world who's boss by imposing our will upon it. Showing signs of weakness and yielding to Russia's expansionist ambitions will only encourage further such behavior in the future. The domino theory somewhat applies to this situation: as long as we back down from hard-line stances, Russia will simply keep advancing, gaining more and more of an edge each time. This must be prevented, whatever the cost. However, a nuclear response does not seem very probable.

A simple but of common sense here: it's going to take more than a few test nukes to render the North Pole uninhabitable, even if it were possible.

It is already pretty hard to live there though.

A simple but of common sense here: it's going to take more than a few test nukes to render the North Pole uninhabitable, even if it were possible.

I'm not talking about the entire North Pole, but rather the areas where commercial oil drilling is economically viable. If they want the rest of that frozen wasteless, it's fine by me given that it is worthless.

I am not trying to be Mr. Controversial.

Yeah. You are. You're trolling. That's what you do.

We need to show the world who's boss

Try to do that and the last thought you all will ever have will be "We aren't the boss.".

We need to show the world who's boss by imposing our will upon it.

You know, I remember the same "America was made God of the world after the Cold War" speech from MTAE. You're regurgitating your own trolling now?

You cannot establish such a premise unless you can defeat me in an honest debate and prove that my viewpoint is "silly." However, you have proven both unwilling and unable to do so; therefore, it is you insinuations which are both unfounded and trollish in nature. Just because you think you're the center of the universe and everybody who disagrees with you is "silly" doesn't make it so -- there are people who have conflicting views with you on this forum. The sooner you drop your puerile stance and learn to accept this fact, the sooner you can honestly debate them and people will start taking you seriously.
You aren't here for honest debate. All you've done is create controversy, period. If you want an honest debate, you're more than welcome, but put a little thought in first, for something that you can honestly debate.

However, as things currently stand, you are unworthy of my attention.
As you wish.

If you want an honest debate, you're more than welcome, but put a little thought in first.

Ah, but I do. If my arguments are so fallacious and ridiculous as you claim, then it should be easy to refute them. However, given that no such refutation is forthcoming from either you or anyone else, the logical conclusion is that you thesis is flawed. My arguments are sensical and completely reasonable.

Ah, but I do. If my arguments are so fallacious and ridiculous as you claim, then it should be easy to refute them. However, given that no such refutation is forthcoming from either you or anyone else, the logical conclusion is that you thesis is flawed. My arguments are sensical and completely reasonable.

No. I'd give my reasons but it's not worth my time because they'll be ignored and they're obvious. Slightly happier now? Didn't think so.

I'm not talking about the entire North Pole, but rather the areas where commercial oil drilling is economically viable. If they want the rest of that frozen wasteless, it's fine by me given that it is worthless.
Nevada test site: 3,500 km². Has not been rendered useless by being used as a nuclear test site for 50 years. Area for drilling (from article): 460,000 km² underwater. You'll find that there's a big difference between the scale of Nevada and what you're planning, and that doesn't take the fact that the radiation would die down quickly anyway.

It is already pretty hard to live there though.
MTAE wants to render it so that it's impossible to drill for oil there.

So if the US doesn't give the UN more power, there' pretty much nothing stopping Russia from getting a whole lot bigger...

Well that's interesting...

Indeed. Unless the US finally ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty, there is absolutely no framework in which the US can call on the UN to investigate the territorial claims Russia is making.

But of course, the UN secretariat want to rule the world, steal all your tax dollars, and take away your guns! They've got Black helicopters circling DC and everything!

EDIT: w00t! 1000th post!

Ah, but I do. If my arguments are so fallacious and ridiculous as you claim, then it should be easy to refute them. However, given that no such refutation is forthcoming from either you or anyone else, the logical conclusion is that you thesis is flawed. My arguments are sensical and completely reasonable.

I make claim X.
No one refutes claim X.
Therefore, X is true.

How cuuuuuuuute.

No. I'd give my reasons but it's not worth my time because they'll be ignored and they're obvious. Slightly happier now? Didn't think so.

I have not yet ignored a single on-topic post directed to me. The real motive for not posting your reasons is that they are either non-existent or invalid.

Therefore, X is true.

Opinions cannot be true or false; they can only be valid or invalid. They can only be invalid if there exists a logical refutation which disproves the opinions. None has been provided. As such, my opinion is currently valid (and, by extension, reasonable).

Ah, but I do. If my arguments are so fallacious and ridiculous as you claim, then it should be easy to refute them. However, given that no such refutation is forthcoming from either you or anyone else, the logical conclusion is that you thesis is flawed. My arguments are sensical and completely reasonable.
Whenever anyone does, you ignore it and come up with something just as ridiculous. We spend pages and pages refuting your arguments 'till kingdom come, and assume that means you're right.

If they do so, we will retaliate in kind. We need to show the world who's boss by imposing our will upon it.

Could you just finally stop with your silly "My country is king of the world" attitude already. It's kind of ridiculous.

Opinions cannot be true or false; they can only be valid or invalid. They can only be invalid if there exists a logical refutation which disproves the opinions. None has been provided. As such, my opinion is currently valid (and, by extension, reasonable).

If your argument is that nuking the arctic is a good idea then I really don't see how refuting it is necessary as it is so outlandish it refutes itself.

Nevada test site: 3,500 km². Has not been rendered useless by being used as a nuclear test site for 50 years.

What do you mean that it has not been rendered useless? Can people walk through the nuclear test site without experiencing any adverse reaction?

Area for drilling (from article): 460,000 km² underwater.

No, that's not what the article said at all. I shall quote directly from the article: "But yesterday Russia signalled its intention to get even bigger by announcing an audacious plan to annex a vast 460,000 square mile chunk of the frozen and ice-encrusted Arctic." That is, the entire chunk (not just the economically viable oil-drilling region) spans 460,000 square miles. I don't know where you got the square kilometers from.

Could you just finally stop with your silly "My country is king of the world" attitude already. It's kind of ridiculous.

We are not the "king of the world" but rather its sole superpower. As such, we enjoy certain luxuries that are not available to other countries and have a wide leash to mold the world to our will.

If your argument is that nuking the arctic is a good idea then I really don't see how refuting it is necessary as it is so outlandish it refutes itself.

It certainly is outlandish, but also completely valid. Refute it or cease with the mindless claims that it is somehow ridiculous or wrong.

Opinions cannot be true or false;

You said it was an argument, now you're saying it's just your opinion.

They can only be invalid if there exists a logical refutation which disproves the opinions. None has been provided. As such, my opinion is currently valid (and, by extension, reasonable).

Pure sophistry. But that's the key of your trolling style, is it not, MTAE?

You said it was an argument, now you're saying it's just your opinion.

All arguments are based upon certain axioms which are assumed but cannot be logically proven. Thus, all arguments stem from opinions and are predicated upon them. Of course, all this is useless semantical tripe; it doesn't really matter.

But that's the key of your trolling style, is it not, MTAE?

See, you quoted me, but referred to another poster who has been banned for a while. That's peculiar.

If it's uninhabited, we should launch nuclear weapons against the North Pole, contaminating it with radiation, in order to prevent Russia from seizing the terrority, thus precluding it from obtaining access to the vast petrol reserves.

Colonel Flagg would love you.

All arguments are based upon certain axioms which are assumed but cannot be logically proven.Thus, all arguments stem from opinions and are predicated upon them.

axiom =/= opinion

Care to try again, this time without the stupid?

See, you quoted me, but referred to another poster who has been banned for a while. That's peculiar.

Gosh, and this is the first time anyone's done it, too! Let us pretend to ponder this together so we can pretend we both don't know what's going on.

Reading FaG's statements makes me want to support Russia even more. If that is the way America wants to act, then I would sooner support Russia. At least it's not deliberately going out of its way to impose its own moral policies sovereign nations simply because they are so caught up in their own little egotistical universe.

Deliberately nuking a region just to spite another? Child pettiness is that that is. It's nothing more than trying to initiate a grand-scale pissing contest.

So no-one wants to bother debating Russia's claims to the North Pole or the extension of the UN's powers? Everyone is giving Freedom's "nuke 'em" statement way too much attention.

axiom =/= opinion

Sure it is. All axioms are, by definition, opinions, since they are fundamental aspects of a viewpoint which are irreducible and cannot be proven.

Gosh, and this is the first time anyone's done it, too! Let us pretend to ponder this together so we can pretend we both don't know what's going on.

Your biting sarcasm might be humorous if not for the fact that it is completely misguided.

It certainly is outlandish, but also completely valid. Refute it or cease with the mindless claims that it is somehow ridiculous or wrong.

You are admitting that your idea is "out there" to say the least and you still want some kind of proof that you are wrong? How about the simple fact that using nukes on our planet is an incredibly stupid idea?

So no-one wants to bother debating Russia's claims to the North Pole or the extension of the UN's powers? Everyone is giving Freedom's "nuke 'em" statement way too much attention.

Russia can make those claims. After all, Canada has substantial Arctic claims and no one's getting their undies in a bunch over it. And you never know what us sinister canucks are planning next. *nods*

If it's uninhabited, we should launch nuclear weapons against the North Pole, contaminating it with radiation, in order to prevent Russia from seizing the terrority, thus precluding it from obtaining access to the vast petrol reserves.

American Mentality ITT.

"Nuke it all!"

You are admitting that your idea is "out there" to say the least and you still want some kind of proof that you are wrong? How about the simple fact that using nukes on our planet is an incredibly stupid idea?

The idea of democracy and representation was "out there" in the past, but it is a tenaciously guarded value among Americans today. I'm not comparing my ideas to fundamental freedoms, but I am saying that the outlandishness of an idea does not affect its value or validity. Also, using nuclear weapons do not have such terribly detrimental consequences, as there have been dozens of nuclear weapons tests conducted without any noticeable environmental results.

The idea of democracy and representation was "out there" in the past, but it is a tenaciously guarded value among Americans today. I'm not comparing my ideas to fundamental freedoms, but I am saying that the outlandishness of an idea does not affect its value or validity. Also, using nuclear weapons do not have such terribly detrimental consequences, as there have been dozens of nuclear weapons tests conducted without any noticeable environmental results.

Yeah... comparing democracy to the casual use of nuclear weapons... I'm sure that as far as outlandish ideas go these two are on the same level. :rolleyes:

And Im sure that the effects won't be that detrimental... except that you want to use them to make the land useless for humans to take advantage of the oil there. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c88/EasyPrey/DontFeedTheTroll.jpg

Ok kids, we all know MTAE's schtick by now. Put him on your ignore list and be done with it.

And Im sure that the effects won't be that detrimental... except that you want to use them to make the land useless for humans to take advantage of the oil there. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Locally, it will have a harshly detrimental effect: that's the entire point. However, there will be virtually no global environmental ramifications. As I previously stated, the only region affected will be a part of the North Pole. If you're planning on going on a vacation there, you'll have to cancel your booking. Other than that, there will be no problems.

We are not the "king of the world" but rather its sole superpower. As such, we enjoy certain luxuries that are not available to other countries and have a wide leash to mold the world to our will.

Do your views always contradict themselves like this? You think you don't control the world yet you don. This is just too funny.

Russia can make those claims. After all, Canada has substantial Arctic claims and no one's getting their undies in a bunch over it. And you never know what us sinister canucks are planning next. *nods*

If I remember correctly, Canada is currently involved in a dispute with Denmark over an underwater oil reserve that may be in our territorial waters or theirs. Having the UN treaty ratified by the USA would speed up the inevitable process of carving up the Arctic for resource exploitation. As it is now, we seem to be going at it in a piecemeal and disorganised fashion.

If I were running the USA, I would ratify the treaty, then use my substantial sway over the UN to have the interpretations of the treaty work out in my favour.

Reading FaG's statements makes me want to support Russia even more. If that is the way America wants to act, then I would sooner support Russia. At least it's not deliberately going out of its way to impose its own moral policies sovereign nations simply because they are so caught up in their own little egotistical universe.

Deliberately nuking a region just to spite another? Child pettiness is that that is. It's nothing more than trying to initiate a grand-scale pissing contest.

QFT.

Do your views always contradict themselves like this?

If you read his drivel long enough, yeah. That's the problem with trolls, their "beliefs" don't stand up to logic and are usually inconsistent as hell. Just whatever gets the best rise today.

Reading FaG's statements makes me want to support Russia even more. If that is the way America wants to act, then I would sooner support Russia. At least it's not deliberately going out of its way to impose its own moral policies sovereign nations simply because they are so caught up in their own little egotistical universe.

Deliberately nuking a region just to spite another? Child pettiness is that that is. It's nothing more than trying to initiate a grand-scale pissing contest.

You win the thread. (Nods)

their "beliefs" don't stand up to logic and are usually inconsistent as hell. Just whatever gets the best rise today.

I challenge you to name one belief of mine that does not stand up to logic (and don't claim religion does not) or that is inconsistent. Also, note that Swilatia posted a gravely flawed view: that only kings can bend the world to their will. That is patently false.

If you read his drivel long enough, yeah. That's the problem with trolls, their "beliefs" don't stand up to logic and are usually inconsistent as hell. Just whatever gets the best rise today.

I know. Just asking him to give him a hard time. I bet he won't be able to give a good answer.

I know. Just asking him to give him a hard time. I bet he won't be able to give a good answer.

A good answer to what? Your illogical babbling? I've got news for you: you don't need to be king of the world in order to bend the world to your will. It's not that difficult a statement to comprehend.

I challenge you to name one belief of mine that does not stand up to logic (and don't claim religion does not) or that is inconsistent. Also, note that Swilatia posted a gravely flawed view: that only kings can bend the world to their will. That is patently false.

I said nothing about what kings can and can not do. It should have been obvious to you that it was an idiom, which was used to describe how you feel that your country is higher then everyone else and therefore entitled to do whatever it wants with the other countries.

Locally, it will have a harshly detrimental effect: that's the entire point. However, there will be virtually no global environmental ramifications. As I previously stated, the only region affected will be a part of the North Pole. If you're planning on going on a vacation there, you'll have to cancel your booking. Other than that, there will be no problems.

You use of the qualifier "virtually" really makes me feel good about the future of the planet if we start casually flinging radioactive material around simply because of the belief that individual usage isn't really "that bad".

I said nothing about what kings can and can not do. It should have been obvious to you that it was an idiom, which was used to describe how you feel that your country is higher then everyone else and therefore entitled to do whatever it wants with the other countries.

We are "higher" than other countries by virtue of our military and economic prowess. Using those, we can bend the world to our will. However, we are but one nation; we do not have dictatorial powers nor do we control all other nations.

We are "higher" than other countries by virtue of our military and economic prowess. Using those, we can bend the world to our will.

.....assuming the rest of the world doesn't achieve sufficient unity to 'fight back'

.....assuming the rest of the world doesn't achieve sufficient unity to 'fight back'

I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords. We've had it too good for too long!

.....assuming the rest of the world doesn't achieve sufficient unity to 'fight back'

Our will is noble, just, and right. Only evil nations will fight against us.

We are "higher" than other countries by virtue of our military and economic prowess. Using those, we can bend the world to our will. However, we are but one nation; we do not have dictatorial powers nor do we control all other nations.

And people wonder why there exist an incredible amount of Anti-Americanism in the world. This post demonstrates why that is.

This post is ripe with arrogance, the kind of mind-numbing arrogance that causes people to resent another. The genre that makes us withdraw any respect or courtesy because we see the source as being unworthy of it because they are too busy tooting their own horn.

I must confess, your last statement makes me laugh. You don't control other nations? Puppet regimes anyone?

Our will is noble, just, and right. Only evil nations will fight against us.

YAY perfect troll reply. Its like a work of art really ;)

Our will is noble, just, and right. Only evil nations will fight against us.

If by "noble" you mean "for the nobility" (er, the rich, in the US's case), "just" and "evil" in the sense that Bush uses the words (pro-US and anti-capitalist or not bending to America's will, respectively), and "right" as in the political right (capitalist), then exactly.

You don't control other nations? Puppet regimes anyone?

Before making inane comments, at least read my posts. I claimed that we do not control all other nations. Of course, we don't directly control a single nation nor do we have "puppet regimes" installed in any nation, but that's a different matter.

We are "higher" than other countries by virtue of our military and economic prowess. Using those, we can bend the world to our will. However, we are but one nation; we do not have dictatorial powers nor do we control all other nations.

Given that we can and do use that military and economic prowess to hurt other nations I would say that we certainly feel that we run the world.

Our will is noble, just, and right. Only evil nations will fight against us.

Roflcopter! That deserves its own sig.

I'm not talking about the entire North Pole, but rather the areas where commercial oil drilling is economically viable. If they want the rest of that frozen wasteless, it's fine by me given that it is worthless.

Unless this claim is really about outflanking the proposed US missile shield in the Czech republic. Submarines not being as attractive as they were back in the Cold War, therm paranoid rooskies might want a missile platform with a line of sight to Britain France and the US.

Did you think of that? Before you took the media analysts' interpretation at face value and prescribed pre-emptive nuclear strike? And what if it's just a bluff?

Would you recommend the same thing in Antarctica if Australia was to claim it's protectorate as Australian territory? Look at a map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antarctica.jpg) of antarctica before you just say "oh you can have it."

There may be oil or other resources there, and there is certainly an awful lot of frozen fresh water.

Our will is noble, just, and right. Only evil nations will fight against us.

See, now I know that your thread in Moderation is baseless, you can't honestly believe this. You are obviously trolling.

Would you recommend the same thing in Antarctica if Australia was to claim it's protectorate as Australian territory? Look at a map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antarctica.jpg) of antarctica before you just say "oh you can have it."

I bagsies Antarctica for Victoria!

See, now I know that your thread in Moderation is baseless, you can't honestly believe this. You are obviously trolling.

We are a nation with a proud tradition of democracy and our goal is to spread the freedom which we enjoy to the rest of the world. Nations such as Iran and North Korea, which are opposed to our noble stance, are indeed "evil" just as the USSR was. The same applies to the former "axis of evil." Unless you think that Geroge W. Bush is also a troll, you might want to rethink several of your comments.

Isn't it possible that Canada has similar connections? I'd rather them have it than Russia any day.

Are you kidding me? We can't even keep Greenland off Hans Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island).

Unless you think that Geroge W. Bush is also a troll, you might want to rethink several of your comments.

George W. Bush is the MTAE of the real world.

Unless you think that Geroge W. Bush is also a troll, you might want to rethink several of your comments.

He lives under a bridge and gets tricked by billygoats. What more evidence do you need?

we enjoy certain luxuries that are not available to other countries and have a wide leash to mold the world to our will.

Try.

Our will is noble, just, and right. Only evil nations will fight against us.
*SIGHS*

Can't you just give it up, even for a single day?

Anyone against the will of America isn't automatically "evil" and the citizens of the US have done some terrible things in its time.

At least try a bit harder.

He lives under a bridge and gets tricked by billygoats. What more evidence do you need?

Wasn't he reading about goats on 9/11?

Our will is noble, just, and right. Only evil nations will fight against us.

Define evil. go on.

Never mind. I'm pretty sure you define it as anyone that does not like america.

we can bend the world to our will.

Try.

We are a nation with a proud tradition of democracy and our goal is to spread the freedom which we enjoy to the rest of the world. Nations such as Iran and North Korea, which are opposed to our noble stance, are indeed "evil" just as the USSR was. The same applies to the former "axis of evil." Unless you think that Geroge W. Bush is also a troll, you might want to rethink several of your comments.

Since nearly the entire world seems to disagree with our methods I have no choice but to question the nobility of our cause. When you are the only one who seems to think you are some great moral authority I'd say you are in trouble. The U.S. has done a good job isolating itself internationally despite what you may say about our freedom spreading goals.

*SIGHS*

Can't you just give it up, even for a single day?

Anyone against the will of America isn't automatically "evil" and the citizens of the US have done some terrible things in its time.

At least try a bit harder.

And to think a dozen posts ago he was daring people to find a logically flawed belief of his. :D

We are a nation with a proud tradition of democracy

Nonsense, you're beginners with an elected monarch :p

and our goal is to spread the freedom which we enjoy to the rest of the world.

And Ghenkis Khan just liked to ride a horse. Whatever you say, sheriff.

Nations such as Iran and North Korea, which are opposed to our noble stance, are indeed "evil" just as the USSR was. The same applies to the former "axis of evil." Unless you think that Geroge W. Bush is also a troll, you might want to rethink several of your comments.

*pats arm consolingly*
The difference between you and GWB is that he has lot of power, and advisers to tell him what to say, whereas you are a poster on an online forum.
George W. Bush is a far better troll than you. Don't take it too hard.

And to think a dozen posts ago he was daring people to find a logically flawed belief of his. :D

He should remember that old saw of being careful what you wish for.

*nods*

We are a nation with a proud tradition of democracy and our goal is to spread the freedom which we enjoy to the rest of the world.
1) Not really
2) You're wasting your time. If democracy isn't the current state of affairs in a nation, it's for a good reason. See Iraq.
Nations such as Iran and North Korea, which are opposed to our noble stance
...

You are aware that Iran was actually willing to go along with the US in the War on Terror until Rumsfeld told them in no uncertain terms that he didn't want their help.

The troubles in Basra are basically self-inflicted. Nice work there.


As for North Korea, it's in a shitty state at the moment, and has very few chums at all left. Even China's pretty angry with it at the moment.
are indeed "evil" just as the USSR was.
Excellent use of speech marks to show that your argument is indeed complete gash by proving that it has no logical base at all.

Wasn't he reading about goats on 9/11?

Was he really? Outstanding!

What's more important: some caribou or stopping Russia from extending its filthy tentacles to envelop the North Pole in its frigid grasp? The geo-political power which Russia would gain runs contrary to the US's (and the world's) best interests; we must stop them from attaining such an economic boon at any cost, especially if that cost is measured in worthless animals.

Why would it harm the world if Russia got an economic boost? Are you afraid that your throne in the US will have less power?

Why would it harm the world if Russia got an economic boost? Are you afraid that your throne in the US will have less power?

There is a certain tone to his posts that suggest that.

Why would it harm the world if Russia got an economic boost? Are you afraid that your throne in the US will have less power?

He'll prolly say no, and give you some bullshit contrating opinion. However, if you read his previous posts, it will become more clear that the answer is yes.

"Frankly I think it's a little bit strange," Sergey Priamikov, the international co-operation director of Russia's Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St Petersburg, told the Guardian. "Canada could make exactly the same claim. The Canadians could say that the Lomonosov ridge is part of the Canadian shelf, which means Russia should in fact belong to Canada, together with the whole of Eurasia."

Canada annexing Eurasia...:eek:....hmmm....:D

Was he really? Outstanding!

Yep, he was reading "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of kids.

Damn those goats!

Canada annexing Eurasia...:eek:....hmmm....:D

Look out! Canadian-isng the world one frigid hell out at a time! :)

Here's my answer to FreeDumb's garbage. If we launch nukes at anything, Russia will assume it's for them and launch in return.

End of story.

I have just forever defeated any pro-nuclear launch statement that anyone will ever make.

Don't bother debating, I've already defeated you.

I've never seen a troll as idiotic as you. Your opinions aren't real,
not even a "Rightwinger" like you claim to be would think that Nuking the North Pole is a good idea.

No one would ever think that causing nuclear war is a solution, no one would think that the flooding of every coastal city in the world is a good thing. You are just a troll who, if tomorrow your computer exploded, the world would be a better place.

Just a pathetic loser
Think you're so cool because you're an annoying prick.

Get a life.

http://www.pynthan.com/vri/nwaos.htm

Damn did you read through this article? This was an interesting bit from it:


How It Almost Happened
An experimental test of the nuclear winter hypothesis nearly happened in 1971. At a diplomatic reception in Moscow, a Soviet diplomat approached an American diplomat and asked him "Would the United States stand by if we launch a nuclear attack on China?" The American immediately said, "No, we most certainly would not stand by!" The Russian was a little taken aback by this immediate and emphatic reply, and said "Perhaps you should check with your superiors on this." The American said, "I will, but I know what their answer will be!"

The purpose of the Russian's question was to remove the ambiguity that arose after the split between the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic of China as to whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella, which protected all countries not in the Soviet camp, now extended to protect China. By his reply, the American said that it did. The Soviet Union was then in an advanced stage of preparation for a nuclear attack on China's military and industrial facilities, which would also have caused the death of at least 300 million Chinese. A few weeks later, a higher-level Russian official asked the same question of a higher-level American official and got the same answer. Finally, Leonid Breshnev asked the same question of Henry Kissinger. He got the same answer, and decided not to go through with it. Shortly thereafter, the Chinese found out how the U.S. saved them from nuclear attack, and on April 6, 1971, they invited the U.S. ping-pong team to Peking. The rest is history.

This was probably the closest the world has come to a nuclear war since 1945, and it would not have involved nuclear detonations on the territory of the U.S. or its allies. The yield of the detonations would likely have exceeded 300 megatons, which would have been sufficient to cause at least a mild nuclear winter. However, we would not have been prepared at that time to study it properly.

Ah, but I do. If my arguments are so fallacious and ridiculous as you claim, then it should be easy to refute them. However, given that no such refutation is forthcoming from either you or anyone else, the logical conclusion is that you thesis is flawed. My arguments are sensical and completely reasonable.

What possible motivation could he have for taking the time to refute them? It's not like there's any danger of anyone but you believing them.

Are you kidding me? We can't even keep Greenland off Hans Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island).Well, it's not Greenland, it's the Evil Empire of Denmark which at the moment are also in control of Greenland. And hopefully we're gonna keep that piece of rock, not about to give another natural resource away (A norwegian foreign minister got the danish foreign minister drunk and tricked him into accepting Norways claims of sovereignty over a large, oil-rich area.) Maybe I shouldn't have said that, now you know how to defeat us, just get our ministers drunk. :rolleyes:

We should just share the profits, our flags are the same colour, and neither of us are taken serious by the rest of the world anyway. A very nice offer from a dane, especially since you don't even have military ships capable of traversing the straits. Not every day that Denmark has military superiority.:D

Santa's in Finland. Period.

Santa's in Finland. Period.

Where can you see Santa?
Only in Lapland
Come to lapland, we've got Santa

Santa's in Finland. Period.

Finland, Finland, Finland,
The country where I want to be,
Pony trekking or camping,
Or just watching TV.
Finland, Finland, Finland.
It's the country for me.

You're so near to Russia,
So far from Japan,
Quite a long way from Cairo,
Lots of miles from Vietnam.

Finland, Finland, Finland,
The country where I want to be,
Eating breakfast or dinner,
Or snack lunch in the hall.
Finland, Finland, Finland.
Finland has it all.


You're so sadly neglected
And often ignored,
A poor second to Belgium,
When going abroad.

Finland, Finland, Finland,
The country where I quite want to be,
Your mountains so lofty,
Your treetops so tall.
Finland, Finland, Finland.
Finland has it all.

Finland, Finland, Finland,
The country where I quite want to be,
Your mountains so lofty,
Your treetops so tall.
Finland, Finland, Finland.
Finland has it all.

Finland has it all.

;)

Locally, it will have a harshly detrimental effect: that's the entire point. However, there will be virtually no global environmental ramifications. As I previously stated, the only region affected will be a part of the North Pole. If you're planning on going on a vacation there, you'll have to cancel your booking. Other than that, there will be no problems.

Virtually no global ramifications?
I wonder how long it would take for much of that former ice (newly melted to water) to refreeze afterwards.

Y'see, ice reflects radiation from the Sun back into space. Less ice = more radiation staying our atmosphere = global warming gets worse.

And to make matters worse, it's a positive feedback mechanism in which the melting of the ice merely exacerbates the problem as more and more ice melts.

We shouldn't do anything that could have any effect upon the North Pole.

Are you kidding me? We can't even keep Greenland off Hans Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island).

http://www.freehansisland.com/hansisland-bannerii.png

In honor of this thread veering off a cliff.