Are you proud to be American?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

if China or the UK or Russia could afford it, they would. and China will soon be able to afford it, and will be projecting its force wherever they can. trust me on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

if China or the UK or Russia could afford it, they would. and China will soon be able to afford it, and will be projecting its force wherever they can. trust me on that.

+1
People keep confusing capacity with motivation. Many countries would not hesitate to enslave us if they could. But they can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PROUD AMERICA, 41 Miles Per Gallon
A 2006 study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year.

Another study found that Americans drink an average of 22 gallons of beer a year.

That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles per gallon.

Please, next time you cite "Car Talk," at least acknowledge that this wasn't your own joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

if China or the UK or Russia could afford it, they would. and China will soon be able to afford it, and will be projecting its force wherever they can. trust me on that.

That's a heck of a rationalization. No one is as big as us so their restraint doesn't count.

For the record, china's army is 2.3 million, which is 800,000 more than us. They are sufficient in nearly every category of military equipment except aircraft carriers (1) and their nuclear capability is "only" about 200 weapons. I think they could get pretty active if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PROUD AMERICA, 41 Miles Per Gallon
A 2006 study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year.

Another study found that Americans drink an average of 22 gallons of beer a year.

That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles per gallon.

Please, next time you cite "Car Talk," at least acknowledge that this wasn't your own joke.

+1 Ripping off Click and Clack is unacceptable, even in this armpit of a forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

if China or the UK or Russia could afford it, they would. and China will soon be able to afford it, and will be projecting its force wherever they can. trust me on that.

+1
People keep confusing capacity with motivation. Many countries would not hesitate to enslave us if they could. But they can't.

Wow, with that belief I guess you can justify anything we do. So why even bother pretending about restraint?

Have you ever wondered why most embassies in our country have little or no security, while all of our buildings require barricades and bomb proof glass? You can walk up to the Swedish Embassy and go in. The last embassy I visited had not even plugged in its metal detector.

Guess what? No one wants to enslave or destroy those countries. Their defense is to not make enemies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

if China or the UK or Russia could afford it, they would. and China will soon be able to afford it, and will be projecting its force wherever they can. trust me on that.

+1
People keep confusing capacity with motivation. Many countries would not hesitate to enslave us if they could. But they can't.

Wow, with that belief I guess you can justify anything we do. So why even bother pretending about restraint?

Have you ever wondered why most embassies in our country have little or no security, while all of our buildings require barricades and bomb proof glass? You can walk up to the Swedish Embassy and go in. The last embassy I visited had not even plugged in its metal detector.

Guess what? No one wants to enslave or destroy those countries. Their defense is to not make enemies.

No their defense is the US, actually. Other countries fear the US when thinking about attacking others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

if China or the UK or Russia could afford it, they would. and China will soon be able to afford it, and will be projecting its force wherever they can. trust me on that.

+1
People keep confusing capacity with motivation. Many countries would not hesitate to enslave us if they could. But they can't.

Wow, with that belief I guess you can justify anything we do. So why even bother pretending about restraint?

Have you ever wondered why most embassies in our country have little or no security, while all of our buildings require barricades and bomb proof glass? You can walk up to the Swedish Embassy and go in. The last embassy I visited had not even plugged in its metal detector.

Guess what? No one wants to enslave or destroy those countries. Their defense is to not make enemies.

No their defense is the US, actually. Other countries fear the US when thinking about attacking others.

Uh, they seem to attack us with some frequency. So that logic is out the window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i apologize for nitpicking, but isn't the PP who is limiting to the last 75 years the same one who said "where else in the 10,000 years of recorded civilizations ..."? Actually, perhaps the difference between 75 and 10,000 is more than a nit. BTW, what recorded civilizations go back 10,000 years???

This is just rhetorical, since the other PP was actually limiting to the past century anyway, so don't feel a need to respond. The 10,000 exaggeration did not bother me until the fuss over the 75.

ugh. try to follow along dimwit. 10,000 years of history was an exaggeration. I'm happy to limit it to 3,000. Is that better? Over all of recorded history, when one country had hegemonic power (even regionally), they have always been not shy about exercising that power in expanding, conquering and oppressing others. The examples are countless. Roman, Greek, Persian, French, British, Mongols, Russian, Saxons, Mayans, Aztec, Incans, etc etc etc. The USA has been in that category for say the last 75 years, that was the point. We did not invade Canada in 1952, we invaded Canada in 1812.

I would like to point out again that the Roman Empire went 200 years without war.

Also despite China's immense size, I don't think it has expanded its territory in any significant way since 1950, which was just a few short years after the revolution, and the territory it annexed had been part of the former chinese empire. China's military activity is almost exclusively contained to its own region and the countries which border it. We can't say the same, that's for sure. You may not like what they do and why, but when was the last time you saw China drop troops into South America?

I'm not sure how a country in the Western Hemisphere, which puts nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia, can call its military policy restrained. I'm not sure how a country which invades nations half way around the world is restrained. In what part of human history has any country felt that its vital interests extended 12,000 miles away from its border?

We are a highly interventionist country. That's not restraint.

if China or the UK or Russia could afford it, they would. and China will soon be able to afford it, and will be projecting its force wherever they can. trust me on that.

+1
People keep confusing capacity with motivation. Many countries would not hesitate to enslave us if they could. But they can't.

Wow, with that belief I guess you can justify anything we do. So why even bother pretending about restraint?

Have you ever wondered why most embassies in our country have little or no security, while all of our buildings require barricades and bomb proof glass? You can walk up to the Swedish Embassy and go in. The last embassy I visited had not even plugged in its metal detector.

Guess what? No one wants to enslave or destroy those countries. Their defense is to not make enemies.

No their defense is the US, actually. Other countries fear the US when thinking about attacking others.

Uh, they seem to attack us with some frequency. So that logic is out the window.

The frequency is much lower than it would otherwise be. Also US allies are much less likely to be attacked.

[Anonymous]

look, being #1 in a democracy sucks. you are the target. you have a bullseye on your back. that is why we are a target. why would anyone want to bomb the Finnish embassy??

and of course China will start to build more aircraft carriers. Russia would like to, but I doubt they have the money. your military protects your strategic and economic interests. is this PP I am debating with breathing the same air as the rest of us? I am pragmatic. Yes, we are active but yes, we show restraint. That may confuse you but not me. Because of our size and wealth, we have interests in every square inch of this planet. A lot of that interest is forced upon us because of the vacuum since WWII. but its not like we are taking advantage of that activity to loot others and enrich ourselves. if anything, it is making us poorer. I think many of us realists would WELCOME the EU and China becoming more counterweights, so we could ratchet down the world policeman role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:look, being #1 in a democracy sucks. you are the target. you have a bullseye on your back. that is why we are a target. why would anyone want to bomb the Finnish embassy??

Remind me again, why that makes this a pleasant place to live?

We're a target because we're arrogant fucks. The Finns never bothered anyone, whether or not they have the capacity to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:look, being #1 in a democracy sucks. you are the target. you have a bullseye on your back. that is why we are a target. why would anyone want to bomb the Finnish embassy??

Remind me again, why that makes this a pleasant place to live?

We're a target because we're arrogant fucks. The Finns never bothered anyone, whether or not they have the capacity to do so.

Oh yes they did
Once upoon a time the border was just a stones throw from leningrad. Stalins landgrab when he attcked finland is explaine partiaally with a need to secure the border.
And that is not the one and only time russia has wanted that land.
The cold war did not make life easy for the small nations inbetween. When big men play politics others must just pay the prize.

[Anonymous]

I don't necessarily feel proud, b/c I did not do anything to be born this way. I just was born, and I was an American. Why be PROUD of that?

However, I do feel lucky to be an American, or, rather, I feel lucky to live in a democratic society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't necessarily feel proud, b/c I did not do anything to be born this way. I just was born, and I was an American. Why be PROUD of that?

However, I do feel lucky to be an American, or, rather, I feel lucky to live in a democratic society.

You are not PROUD? Well, if you aren't, you'll be hearing from PATRIOTS really soon.