Nute Gunray Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 If it weren't for Canada, Belgium would have been slightly delayed in its liberation. If it weren't for Canada, Netherlands would have been slightly delayed in its liberation. There's no such thing as the Kyoto Protocol anyhow because no one wanted to actually USE it. If it weren't for Canada, there wouldn't be a pointless and useless Global Ban on Landmines If it weren't for Canada, the Canadarm and Canadarm II wouldn't exist because an American company would have stepped up to make the arms and they would have cost slightly more because the lowest bidder wouldn't have been a Canadian company. Don't let facts or anything get in your way there chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 and if it weren't for the U.S., you'd be living in a communist state right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Wow Nute, you just countered arguments I claimed were silly in the first place. Good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Originally posted by Jem If it weren't for Africa mankind hence countries wouldn't exist. The # of 3rd world dirt crap countries would be 66% smaller, and the worlds deadliest diseases wouldn't be near as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 *Begins to have the feeling some people don't know what the meaning of silly in "silly arguments" is...* Either way, I've lived 9 years in Africa and that's a pretty dull and incompetent way to describe it. I won't get into details it would be too long and it's a "have to have been there to understand" situation. Of course I'm not saying that Africa is a wonderful magic place, it has loads of problems. But still, that's a pretty dull and incompetent way to describe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tierce Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 And the fact that they are dirt crap countries in the first place is because of imperialism and you know..random nation building..of you know..the other crappy in other way countries as the one you are currently living in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 In all seriousness, lets bring this little debate back to respectability, instead of a flame war. This whole thing started out with Jem saying the the U.S. is not the most technologically advanced country in the world. I have a few questions. First, in what way do you mean technologically advanced? Do you mean the practical application of technology, as in use in everyday life, or do you mean the very highest levels of technology, cutting edge, state of the art, covert research and development type stuff? Second, how is the United States NOT the most technologically advanced country in the world? On a different subject, money=superiority, don't fool yourselves. If you have money, and you want superiority, you can have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Sometimes I wonder what its like to pretend we live in a happy world full of gnomes, elves, and eskimos were rivers of honey flow pass lollipop trees on chocolate island. I think its more fun to shrug at the world and just go with it. If you ever swing past the fifth circle of Hell in about 70 years, give or take, give me a hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadPilot Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Nute Gunray The debt is an abstraction. The federal government could abitrarily declare all federal debts null and void and it wouldn't make any difference. Our money actually has no value, ever since we got off the gold standard. We SAY our dollar has value and gesture suggestively to our industrial and commercial (as well as military) might and pretty much say "try and say otherwise." Surely if that were the case they would have done it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 The only contries to have done that so far to get rid of their debts are third wolrd countries.... Kylilin, I will reply another day. I'm tired right now and I have a last midterm I must study for. For now I'll just tell you what I mean by technologically advanced. It's a mix of both the views you've mentioned: first of all it's how spread out and accessible technology is in a country. Second, it's the country's potential for future developpement and current status on the Hi-tech area. I think the first view is the most important and it's the one where the US is weak on. For example, let's take something we see as pretty much standard: the Internet. The US is ranked 10th in "Internet users per capital" with 590.78 per 1000 people. Iceland is first with 787.45 per 1000 people. More details on that here. In this case Iceland has a much better technology access (in this case for Internet, not in general.) Another example: Cell phones. The US is 33th with 246.68 per 1000 people, South Korea is 9th with 579.42 per 1000 people and Iceland is first (yet again) with 888.14 per 1000 people. Now that I see this I think it's safe to say that Iceland is the most technologically advanced country in the communication field. When we study it on an accessability point of view, of course. As for the High-Tech point of view, I think it's South Korea (or Japan, but I'm pretty sure it's South Korea. Honk Kong should be close too...). If we look at other fields such as clinical Medecine, Chemesrty, Biochemestry then Japan is ranked first (Both High-tech and accessibility). As for Military, there is no doubt that rhe US is first. But Japan could take their place, they have the potential. "So why don't they" you ask? Well Japan has a pacifist constitution and article 9 of that constitution states that the country renouces to war and offensif weaponry. But that might change, check it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 The only contries to have done that so far to get rid of their debts are third wolrd countries.... Kylilin, I will reply another day. I'm tired right now and I have a last midterm I must study for. For now I'll just tell you what I mean by technologically advanced. It's a mix of both the views you've mentioned: first of all it's how spread out and accessible technology is in a country. Second, it's the country's potential for future developpement and current status on the Hi-tech area. I think the first view is the most important and it's the one where the US is weak on. For example, let's take something we see as pretty much standard: the Internet. The US is ranked 10th in "Internet users per capital" with 590.78 per 1000 people. Iceland is first with 787.45 per 1000 people. More details on that here. In this case Iceland has a much better technology access (in this case for Internet, not in general.) Another example: Cell phones. The US is 33th with 246.68 per 1000 people, South Korea is 9th with 579.42 per 1000 people and Iceland is first (yet again) with 888.14 per 1000 people. Now that I see this I think it's safe to say that Iceland is the most technologically advanced country in the communication field. When we study it on an accessability point of view, of course. As for the High-Tech point of view, I think it's South Korea (or Japan, but I'm pretty sure it's South Korea. Honk Kong should be close too...). If we look at other fields such as clinical Medecine, Chemesrty, Biochemestry then Japan is ranked first (Both High-tech and accessibility). Now on the Military field, there's no doubt that the US is ranked first. But Japan has the potentiel to take their place. "So why don't they" you ask?. Well it's all because of Japan's Pacifist Constitution that clearly state on Article 9 that the country renouces war and offensive weaponry: Article 9: Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. More details on that Constitution here But all that might change because a survey reveals that 42% wish to change the article. More details on that here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 being small helps........although I am surprised that Luxemborg and monaco were not listed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by MadPilot Surely if that were the case they would have done it already. They have. Our economy is so artifical they can change things how they see fit. Didn't it strike anyone as odd that when all these companies like Enron were literally making up money the economy was functioning perfectly normal? No one noticed when they reset the stock market following 9/11 and erased a few hours of panicked selling. People are so fixated on the national debt that they'd go into some insane rage about how they just decided it was gone. If tomorrow, they sat down in a secret bunker and said "ok, the national debt is gone because we said so" and cleverly didn't tell anyone except the GAO and somehow posted that wow the taxes this year shot up huge for no real reason and the debt is gone! most people wouldn't even notice. And even if there were going to be any repercussions, they'd take so long to make themselves known that none of us would care. Besides, the government owns its massive amounts of money, which just isn't even possible. I'm lolling all the way to the bank with Jem's US MILITARY ISN"T NECESSARILY #1 BECAUSE JAPAN COULD THEORITICALLY MAKE ONE THAT'S BETTER OMG USA SUCKS. Call me when the Japanese are 12 years from fielding ****ing rail guns, robot fighters, and soldiers with active camo and synthetic muscles in their armor and 17 years from fielding plasma cannons. EDIT: they're saying 2010 on the lasers in the F-35 and AC-130 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 lasers on a cargo plane, are they trying to make them into fighters now, or just for defense? By the way, if Japan wanted to create an offensive, they would have to turn to the U.S. to buy their equipment. Unless Honda starts making tanks, they have to get them either from Soviet surplus, which in any cas ethey are outdated, or from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureAngel Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Lay off the anime references and its unlikely the Russians have anything they wont use since their economy isint doing as good as it should Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 their economy isint doing as good as it should yeah, but its the exact reason they'd be selling as much military hardware as they possibly could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Originally posted by Kylilin lasers on a cargo plane, are they trying to make them into fighters now, or just for defense? AC-130 Spectre shoots at the ground. Its got a Vulcan cannon and a 105mm cannon right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaGoaT Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 It's just a modern equivalent of the old AC-47 Spooky that they used to massacre VC's with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Originally posted by Nute Gunray Sometimes I wonder what its like to pretend we live in a happy world full of gnomes, elves, and eskimos were rivers of honey flow pass lollipop trees on chocolate island. Lucy in the sky with diamonds *da-DA da-DA da-DA da-DA* Lucy in the sky with diamonds *da-DA da-DA da-DA da-DA* Lucy in the sky with diamonds Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... Sorry, on with the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureAngel Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 please no spontaneous dumba** like replys to Kylilin: If the russians needed the weapons since they cannot afford to make many they might use older models which wouldnt be techinacly surplus. to Nute: the japanese do not have the potential to take the americans place militarily period. After their renouncing of wair it is likely that their weapons development fields have died and will have much to catch up on. Also even if they catch up in weapons technolegy they will never match americas industrial capacity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Here is my spontaneous dumbass reply: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/10/04/putin.india/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/08/russia.military/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaGoaT Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Hang on, they've sold india a bunch of su-30's and an old carrier? Surely as SU-30's are land based, they'll need SU-33's to make use of a carrier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureAngel Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 While the value of the weapons was not disclosed, officials had said prior to Putin's trip that arms deals -- including the transfer of an old Russian aircraft carrier -- could reach $1 billion. Note he said The value of the weapons was undisclosed it means that with that rusty old piece of junk they wont be worth more than Microsoft..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureAngel Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 And i suppose they would sell their old trash to 3rd world countries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Loyaltist Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 If it weren't for Africa you wouldn't have me so go home and ponder that less ye be doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.