Log in

View Full Version : Can you kill a man??



revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 17:44
Every revolution at the start asks for sweat and blood

the sweats easy to provide its the blood that s the problem

Whos blood are you going to shed for the revolutoin?

Will you kill your fellow brother human being for what you believe in
just because he does not agree with you and opposes you.

All I want to know is one mans life more important than a revolution
or otherwise.

What do you think??



Note:people who follow Gandhi and martin luther king need not post here
I know your views

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 17:46
I think that the biggest thing that you guys need to understand is that there is no revolution, and there will be no revolution.

revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 17:48
And why do you think there will be no revolution

BOZG
27th April 2004, 17:51
All I want to know is one mans life more important than a revolution or otherwise.

Class interests and thus humanity as a whole are far more important that a single life and if that life needs be removed to protect the interest of humanity, then so be it.

Pedro Alonso Lopez
27th April 2004, 17:54
In modern capitalist societies especially developed ones like Europe or North America etc. the masses have become so middle class, have so damn much that the idea of revolution is long dead except amongst idealists. Its a sad truth but thats my honest opinion.

The only politically murder I would advocate is the threat of fascism which was getting desperate. The only good fascist is a dead one.

revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 17:55
Class interests and thus humanity as a whole are far more important that a single life and if that life needs be removed to protect the interest of humanity, then so be it.

Alas easy to say that my dear friend but

When you kill a man you start a disastourous sequence of events that eventually culiminate in your own downfall

When you kill a man you also the sow the seeds of your own destruction

BOZG
27th April 2004, 17:57
I do not believe in karma, nor in fate.

revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 17:59
Then so be it
You are what you believe you are.

BOZG
27th April 2004, 18:02
I am what I think I am.

revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 18:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:32 PM
I am what I think I am.
So is everyone else on this world

If a man believes with his whole heart and mind
nothing is impossible

The future belongs to gandhis clones

The cycle of karma even if you dont believe in your conscious
state you know
deep within(sub conscious)that

You will reap what you sow

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 18:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:48 PM
And why do you think there will be no revolution
Because for a revolution to occur you need popular support. You don't have it, especially in America, which pretty much dictates the direction of the world. you don't even really have "minority support".

Americans love capitalism. They hate communism. The world is emerging as capitalist, not communist. People are more interested in individual freedom and self-determination, not dictatorships.

I'm sorry to break it to you guys, but you are a misguided few.

revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 18:16
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 11:40 PM

Because for a revoluton to occur you need popular support. You don't have it, especially in America, which pretty much dictates the direction of the world. you don't even really have "minority support".

Americans love capitalism. They hate communism. The world is emerging as capitalist, not communist. People are more interested in individual freedom and self-determination, not dictatorships.

I'm sorry to break it to you guys, but you are a misguided few.
My friend I don t stand either for imperialism or communism

What I know is

That whenever there is an increase in evil,misery,suffering in this world

There will be a revolution again and again


Nothing last s forever
Whether its the age of goodness or age of evil

this is a cycle,neverending


All you got to decide is whose side youa re on

evil or good

BOZG
27th April 2004, 18:20
So is everyone else on this world

No they are what I think they are and what I perceive them to be.

revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 18:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:50 PM

So is everyone else on this world

No they are what I think they are and what I perceive them to be.
you are nothing to them
what you think of them does not
affect them

Mr. White
27th April 2004, 18:27
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 27 2004, 06:10 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 27 2004, 06:10 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 05:48 PM
And why do you think there will be no revolution
Because for a revolution to occur you need popular support. You don't have it, especially in America, which pretty much dictates the direction of the world. you don't even really have "minority support".

Americans love capitalism. They hate communism. The world is emerging as capitalist, not communist. People are more interested in individual freedom and self-determination, not dictatorships.

I'm sorry to break it to you guys, but you are a misguided few.[/b]
Americans are only conserned about there own freedom, they will do anything to accomplish that.

americans only live there world, and willl do anything to protect that world.

And in that process americans they are ready to go to war and refuse to sign a childrens rights contract, ect....

Sorry to break it to you but america is just a rotten apple. Even the world is getting tired of the american bullsh*t.

revolutionindia
27th April 2004, 18:29
White is right

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 19:30
White has a good point, but those are the breaks, kids.

Osman Ghazi
27th April 2004, 19:38
Capitalism will inevitably destroy itself. It is a plain and simple fact. If the whole world were like America, their entire economy would collapse.

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 19:44
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 27 2004, 07:38 PM
Capitalism will inevitably destroy itself. It is a plain and simple fact. If the whole world were like America, their entire economy would collapse.
Osman, that is a plain and simple prediction, not a fact. There is a huge difference.

Osman Ghazi
27th April 2004, 20:05
No, it really isn't. No system lasts forever, and the only cause of its destruction could be internal, therefore capitlaism will destroy itself.

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 20:24
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 27 2004, 08:05 PM
No, it really isn't. No system lasts forever, and the only cause of its destruction could be internal, therefore capitlaism will destroy itself.
Again, a prediction, one that could easily be argued against, not a fact.

By definition, predictions of future events cannot be fact. If America has not fallen, it can not be said as an absolute fact that it will fall.

lucid
27th April 2004, 20:28
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 27 2004, 08:24 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 27 2004, 08:24 PM)
Osman [email protected] 27 2004, 08:05 PM
No, it really isn't. No system lasts forever, and the only cause of its destruction could be internal, therefore capitlaism will destroy itself.
Again, a prediction, one that could easily be argued against, not a fact.

By definition, predictions of future events cannot be fact. If America has not fallen, it can not be said as an absolute fact that it will fall. [/b]
Dude, you need to turn the logic down a little. You're going to lose him.

IPkurd
27th April 2004, 20:29
Mr.White tells the truth, people in the UK are not like the americans there not blind patriots liek alot of americans who feel what ever there government doe is the right thing to do just because they say so.

lucid
27th April 2004, 20:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:29 PM
Mr.White tells the truth, people in the UK are not like the americans there not blind patriots liek alot of americans who feel what ever there government doe is the right thing to do just because they say so.
Told ya, not only did you lose him you are confusing other libs on the board.

DaCuBaN
27th April 2004, 21:29
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 27 2004, 08:24 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 27 2004, 08:24 PM)
Osman [email protected] 27 2004, 08:05 PM
No, it really isn't. No system lasts forever, and the only cause of its destruction could be internal, therefore capitlaism will destroy itself.
Again, a prediction, one that could easily be argued against, not a fact.

By definition, predictions of future events cannot be fact. If America has not fallen, it can not be said as an absolute fact that it will fall. [/b]
That only works if humanity will exist for all eternity - which it wont. the USA hasn&#39;t been around all that long in the scale of things, so it&#39;s not unreasonable that it will be around for many years to come but it&#39;s totally preposterous to think it even COULD last for ever. It may outlive all of us, it may not. It&#39;s a pointless argument in all honesty and I really don&#39;t know why you made it... It can be said as absolute fact that america will one day fall, as one day our sun will die out and all life will end on earth. Are you now going to tell me you can see the great United States of Imperialism lasting that long? the romans didn&#39;t, we britains didn&#39;t.... so where&#39;s the evidence for that going to come from? There&#39;s gallons of it showing that the american empire will fall. <_<

Invader Zim
27th April 2004, 21:34
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 27 2004, 08:24 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 27 2004, 08:24 PM)
Osman [email protected] 27 2004, 08:05 PM
No, it really isn&#39;t. No system lasts forever, and the only cause of its destruction could be internal, therefore capitlaism will destroy itself.
Again, a prediction, one that could easily be argued against, not a fact.

By definition, predictions of future events cannot be fact. If America has not fallen, it can not be said as an absolute fact that it will fall. [/b]
Yeah but probablity is some disaster, war famine or plaugue will eventually topple the beast. it did to the British and that was the largest, most powerful, most technologically advanced (compaired to its contempories) and richest empire of all time, and topple she did.

DaCuBaN
27th April 2004, 21:37
Yeah but probablity is some disaster, war famine or plaugue will eventually topple the beast. it did to the British and that was the largest, most powerful, most technologically advanced (compaired to its contempories) and richest empire of all time, and topple she did.

nah it never really toppled. Hell half the people here still think we ARE the british empire, that we deserve to rule the world and that we are somehow &#39;better&#39; and more &#39;civilised&#39; than the rest <_< :rolleyes:

*EDIT* and I guess that&#39;s why so many in this forsaken pit believe so vehemontly in the &#39;special relationship&#39; :angry:

Besides.... we&#39;ve still got the falklands :D :P

IPkurd
27th April 2004, 21:53
Told ya, not only did you lose him you are confusing other libs on the board.

Nah im not lost at all, if any of the righty people here did talk logic then maybe my mind would of wondered somewhere else.

Hello there lucid, havn&#39;t seen you before, nice to meet you :)

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 21:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:34 PM
it did to the British and that was the largest, most powerful, most technologically advanced (compaired to its contempories) and richest empire of all time, and topple she did.
That is arguable, Enigma.

I think that one could just as easily argue that the United States today is more powerful than the old British empire. This is obviously true in an absolute sense, but also in comaparison era-to-era and among the contemporaries of the time.

DaCuBaN
27th April 2004, 21:58
I don&#39;t think the US is comparably more powerful than the empire on which the sun never set, on the biggest navy ever to grace the planet. Or more powerful than the Roman empire? if you&#39;re talking comparison then in all honesty there is none

Invader Zim
27th April 2004, 22:04
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 27 2004, 09:54 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 27 2004, 09:54 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 09:34 PM
it did to the British and that was the largest, most powerful, most technologically advanced (compaired to its contempories) and richest empire of all time, and topple she did.
That is arguable, Enigma.

I think that one could just as easily argue that the United States today is more powerful than the old British empire. This is obviously true in an absolute sense, but also in comaparison era-to-era and among the contemporaries of the time. [/b]
Well economically the US is not, the East India trading company is the largest corporation of all time, just as an example. The british economy was supported by an entire empire, to trade with, and basically dominated any market she chose to. If she didn&#39;t then she would take what she wanted and effectivly rape a country. Take China, they refused to buy our opium because of what it did to their people, so the british got their fleet and basically said trade or die. The Chineese refused so the British bombarded an entire city, and made the Chinesse change their mind.

Militarily, well I dont think we need to go into the Navy, the example of what kind of power that the british wielded is clearly shown above, and the willingness to use it in rather petty circumstances.

Land, well the british empire, was the empire where the sun never set, it was day light at, at least one part of the empire at anyone time.

Technologically, well the british were so much more advanced than everyone else it was unbelievable. The US doesnt really have that many techological advantages over the rest of the western world, just more money to use it.

sh0cker
27th April 2004, 22:06
If he would attack me first I could&#33;

But otherwise, hard..

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 22:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:58 PM
I don&#39;t think the US is comparably more powerful than the empire on which the sun never set, on the biggest navy ever to grace the planet. Or more powerful than the Roman empire? if you&#39;re talking comparison then in all honesty there is none
What are you talking about? The US Navy is the largest Navy to ever grace the planet by any measure. Thousand&#39;s of more gross tons of displaccement and 10&#39;s of thousands of more sailors.

DaCuBaN
27th April 2004, 22:15
but we&#39;re making COMPARISONS here - world population has increased somewhat since the times of British naval supremacy so you&#39;re point was always a given anyway. Not to mention ships have gotten bigger, so again another given, not to mention a large proportion of britains power was wielded in the era of wooden vessels, so again your argument on displacement is another given.

Keep em coming ;)

In all honesty I was going to remove my post though - Enigma made pretty much exactly the same point as me much better.

Raisa
27th April 2004, 22:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:44 PM

Will you kill your fellow brother human being for what you believe in
just because he does not agree with you and opposes you.




Usually it is because they are opressing you and you need to defend yourself not bacuse of his "opinion". You&#39;s hope none of us here were such blood thirsty savages. Opinion is one of those things, where if you are so right, open your hands to them and let them see.
Slaves should kill their masters, the Jews should kill the Nazis....or you may as well kill yourself. That is more of an issue of self defense.
I dont believe in simply violence or non violence. There is more to a revolution then just a fight. It is also a renissance.
We got to be rational ...there is a time and a place for every thing.

DaCuBaN
27th April 2004, 22:18
I guess I should answer the question here as well rather than just nit-picking :P :rolleyes:

Can you kill a man? I believe we are all capable of that task. Could I kill a man? I say no now, but put in the situation I would probably defend myself and become that which I despise.

Raisa
27th April 2004, 22:18
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 27 2004, 08:05 PM
No, it really isn&#39;t. No system lasts forever, and the only cause of its destruction could be internal, therefore capitlaism will destroy itself.
What if by the time you wait for it to destroy itself...it already destroyed the world?

Invader Zim
27th April 2004, 22:25
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 27 2004, 10:12 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 27 2004, 10:12 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 09:58 PM
I don&#39;t think the US is comparably more powerful than the empire on which the sun never set, on the biggest navy ever to grace the planet. Or more powerful than the Roman empire? if you&#39;re talking comparison then in all honesty there is none
What are you talking about? The US Navy is the largest Navy to ever grace the planet by any measure. Thousand&#39;s of more gross tons of displaccement and 10&#39;s of thousands of more sailors. [/b]
Ohh I doubt it. The British policy was to have twise as many ships as the next leading power, and considering that many nations had large empires, this meant a lot of ships. You must also consider how much more powerful these things were than what britains contemperies were using.

On this site I counted 41 one ships alone: -

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/navyships/navyship.htm

The US by comparison today was not nearly as powerful as Britain was, not even close.

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 22:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:04 PM
Well economically the US is not, the East India trading company is the largest corporation of all time, just as an example. The british economy was supported by an entire empire, to trade with, and basically dominated any market she chose to. If she didn&#39;t then she would take what she wanted and effectivly rape a country.


Take China, they refused to buy our opium because of what it did to their people, so the british got their fleet and basically said trade or die. The Chineese refused so the British bombarded an entire city, and made the Chinesse change their mind.

Militarily, well I dont think we need to go into the Navy, the example of what kind of power that the british wielded is clearly shown above, and the willingness to use it in rather petty circumstances.

Land, well the british empire, was the empire where the sun never set, it was day light at, at least one part of the empire at anyone time.

Technologically, well the british were so much more advanced than everyone else it was unbelievable. The US doesnt really have that many techological advantages over the rest of the western world, just more money to use it.

Well economically the US is not, the East India trading company is the largest corporation of all time, just as an example. The british economy was supported by an entire empire, to trade with, and basically dominated any market she chose to. If she didn&#39;t then she would take what she wanted and effectivly rape a country.

Yes the East India company was large, but the US has much more economic influence over the world than even the British did with east india, it is just that the US does it across many large corporations instead of one dominant one. We also trade and dominate any market we wish. We also dominate any market we wish. We simply do it by more subtle force, such as leveraging economies of scale, sometimes, just as the brits did, with war (middle east).


Militarily, well I dont think we need to go into the Navy, the example of what kind of power that the british wielded is clearly shown above, and the willingness to use it in rather petty circumstances.

Yes, but even comparatively, the US Navy is much larger, and much, much faster, thean the British navy was. Basicallly, the US can have a carrier battlegroup, a force equal to most nations entire Army/Navy/and Airforce combined within 3
days. The Brits didn&#39;t have anything close to that capability even back then.


Land, well the british empire, was the empire where the sun never set, it was day light at, at least one part of the empire at anyone time.

Agreed, but the US boasts the same colonization, but it is done more economically with global enteprise and geopolitically (puppet governments) than with actual land holdings. Believe me, it could simply assimilate land, but it is the economic benefit that matters, and that is what the US yields. On top of this, the USA rules space, being the only nation to ever step on the moon, and having the vast majoriity of satelites in orbit and space expeditions completed. The importance of having the major foothold and lion&#39;s share of this frontier cannot be understated.


Technologically, well the british were so much more advanced than everyone else it was unbelievable. The US doesnt really have that many techological advantages over the rest of the western world, just more money to use it.

How can you say that? The US is easily and obviously the most technologically advanced antion on earth. In the 20th centurty alone we gave the world the vast majority of revolutionary inventions, including things like the airplane, the TV, the radio, the telephone, the assembly line, the PC, (I know the 1st "computer" is credited to a brit, but I am taking the "PC", which did for people and computers what the printing press did for books and people), the internet, and the artificial heart. Not to mention that the US is on top of the biggest emeging sciences such as biotechnology,nontechnology, and genetic engineering. You are 100% wrong on this one, Enigma.


It is really hard to compare empires from different eras like this.

DaCuBaN
27th April 2004, 22:55
How can you say that? The US is easily and obviously the most technologically advanced antion on earth. In the 20th centurty alone we gave the world the vast majority of revolutionary inventions, including things like the airplane, the TV, the radio, the telephone, the assembly line, the PC, (I know the 1st "computer" is credited to a brit, but I am taking the "PC", which did for people and computers what the printing press did for books and people), the internet, and the artificial heart. Not to mention that the US is on top of the biggest emeging sciences such as biotechnology,nontechnology, and genetic engineering. You are 100% wrong on this one, Enigma

Sorry let me get this out

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Telephone - Alexander Graham Bell - a SCOTSMAN in the UK
Television - Vladimir Kosma Zworykin - a RUSSIAN albeit in America
Aeroplane - George Cayley - a YORKSHIREMAN in the UK (wright brothers were merely first in the air - http://www.the-aeroplanes-inventor.co.uk/Main.htm
Internet - Tim Berners-Lee - an ENGLISHMAN in the UK http://www.able2know.com/forums/about16989.html

as for space? well the commies beat you there matey, and the europeans are trying damn hard to catch up.

Sorry :rolleyes: :D

DaCuBaN
27th April 2004, 22:59
It is really hard to compare empires from different eras like this

Not really.... as far as technology goes you simply compare the gulf between the best at the time and the worst... Britian were top dog by an absurd margin up until the turn of the 20th century when her rivals began to catch up, but the gulf between the top dogs then was still bigger than what the US has over her enemies now.

I don&#39;t see the difficulty to be honest

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 23:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:15 PM
but we&#39;re making COMPARISONS here - world population has increased somewhat since the times of British naval supremacy so you&#39;re point was always a given anyway. Not to mention ships have gotten bigger, so again another given, not to mention a large proportion of britains power was wielded in the era of wooden vessels, so again your argument on displacement is another given.

Keep em coming ;)

In all honesty I was going to remove my post though - Enigma made pretty much exactly the same point as me much better.
I agree, but by that rationale it will be hard to argue in either empires favor at all, because in comparisons of relative eras we are tralking such different times with regards to economics, communication, geo-politics, almost everything.

I could hand out "given&#39;s" to you all day too, such as how many fewer nations there were back then, and a smaller, less educated, highly aboriginal and somewhat primitive population of the world made spreading an empire easier.

Its all relative

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 23:18
Originally posted by Enigma+Apr 27 2004, 10:25 PM--> (Enigma @ Apr 27 2004, 10:25 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 10:12 PM

[email protected] 27 2004, 09:58 PM
I don&#39;t think the US is comparably more powerful than the empire on which the sun never set, on the biggest navy ever to grace the planet. Or more powerful than the Roman empire? if you&#39;re talking comparison then in all honesty there is none
What are you talking about? The US Navy is the largest Navy to ever grace the planet by any measure. Thousand&#39;s of more gross tons of displaccement and 10&#39;s of thousands of more sailors.
Ohh I doubt it. The British policy was to have twise as many ships as the next leading power, and considering that many nations had large empires, this meant a lot of ships. You must also consider how much more powerful these things were than what britains contemperies were using.

On this site I counted 41 one ships alone: -

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/navyships/navyship.htm

The US by comparison today was not nearly as powerful as Britain was, not even close. [/b]
The US has at least 4 times as many ships as the next leading Naval power today (still Britain, I think).

Maybe you don&#39;t realize, but the US navy is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge. There are 100&#39;s and 100&#39;s of ships in the US Navy, and the US Navy is the only power ever to have anuclear aircraft carrier. One carrier airwing outdoes most nation&#39;s whole airforce. How can anything in the old british empire compare to that?

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 23:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:55 PM

Telephone - Alexander Graham Bell - a SCOTSMAN in the UK
Television - Vladimir Kosma Zworykin - a RUSSIAN albeit in America
Aeroplane - George Cayley - a YORKSHIREMAN in the UK (wright brothers were merely first in the air - http://www.the-aeroplanes-inventor.co.uk/Main.htm
Internet - Tim Berners-Lee - an ENGLISHMAN in the UK http://www.able2know.com/forums/about16989.html

as for space? well the commies beat you there matey, and the europeans are trying damn hard to catch up.

Sorry :rolleyes: :D
Oh my gosh, you have lost all semblance of credibility. Are you realy that disillusioned? Or are you just deperate to discredit America for what historians and records have already established?


Telephone - Alexander Graham Bell - a SCOTSMAN in the UK

Incorrect, sir. He was an American citizen of scottish decent who invented the telephone (and telegraph) in America with American reources and with an American Patent. How do you figure he was a scotsman in the UK? Dude, you are just desperate now. How exactly do ypu attribute the telephone to anyone but the USA?



Television - Vladimir Kosma Zworykin - a RUSSIAN albeit in America

Incorrect again, sir. American Philo Farnsworth, sir: http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist...farnsworth.html (http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/farnsworth.html)


Aeroplane - George Cayley - a YORKSHIREMAN in the UK (wright brothers were merely first in the air -

LOL, dude, now you are truly being asinine. Did you even go to this site? It is just a webpage set up by some joker, not official or substantiated in any way. This stupid, stupid, stupid article suggests that this guy invented the airplane in 1795? What did he power it with? Steam engines were just being invented, and they were way to heavy for an aircraft. You actually bought this? No pictures, no 1st flight, just some dude on crack with a web page in his basement. Every aviation historian knows that the Wright brothers flew the 1st airplane. By thew way, you know, it is a funny thing, they consider "1st in the air" pretty important when you&#39;re inventing the fucking airplane&#33;&#33;&#33; It is amazing what you found to refute 100 years of aviation history. Someone call the Guiness book&#33;&#33;&#33;

Freakin&#39; Idiot


Internet - Tim Berners-Lee - an ENGLISHMAN in the UK http://www.able2know.com/forums/about16989.html

This one I&#39;ll at least give you an Iota of credit. However, the WWW is not the internet. The internet is the derivative of the US governments defense intelligence network, a computer network system developed for communication and command/control in case of nuclear holocaust. Mr. Berners Lee Piggybacked the internet and used it to install the WWW, which is merely a subroutine of the INTERNET, an American invention.


Seriously, DaCuBaN, you need to educate yourself better.

Capitalist Imperial
27th April 2004, 23:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:59 PM

It is really hard to compare empires from different eras like this

Not really.... as far as technology goes you simply compare the gulf between the best at the time and the worst... Britian were top dog by an absurd margin up until the turn of the 20th century when her rivals began to catch up, but the gulf between the top dogs then was still bigger than what the US has over her enemies now.

I don&#39;t see the difficulty to be honest
Being the only superpower, the US enjoys a larger margin over her nearest competitor than any empire ever has, especially economically and militarily.

DaCuBaN
28th April 2004, 00:09
are you just deperate to discredit America for what historians and records have already established?

well history is written by the winners - western civilization - so we can&#39;t take what&#39;s written as gospel ;)

http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/inventor/bell.html

A pioneer in the field of telecommunications, Alexander Graham Bell was born in 1847 in Edinburgh, Scotland

I&#39;ll admit I wasn&#39;t aware he did it in america - thanks for the heads up

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae408.cfm

Zworykin is usually credited as being the father of modern television. This was because the patent for the heart of the TV, the electron scanning tube, was first applied for by Zworykin in 1923, under the name of an iconoscope. The iconoscope was an electronic image scanner - essentially a primitive television camera. Farnsworth was the first of the two inventors to successfully demonstrate the transmission of television signals, which he did on September 7, 1927

so he was the first to show it publicly. That still leaves the patent firmly in the hands of the russian...

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/cayley.htm
http://aerodyn.org/People/cayley.html
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/WrBr/inventors/Cayley.html
still think cayley didn&#39;t do it? what about Leonardo Da Vinci? Bear in mind the aeroplane is not defined by being POWERED.

as for the net, yes Arpanet came first, but what many regard as &#39;the internet&#39; is the hypertext transport protocol. But you are quite correct- it is defined as networks using TCP/IP so as it&#39;s a US invention i&#39;ll back down on this one ;)

I&#39;m stalwart on the rest though

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 00:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:55 PM
as for space? well the commies beat you there matey, and the europeans are trying damn hard to catch up.

Sorry :rolleyes: :D
by the way...


as for space? well the commies beat you there matey, and the europeans are trying damn hard to catch up.

They won that sppace battle, we won the space war. After they made it into orbit 1st, we caught up, surpassed them, got to the moon, created the space shuttle, are leading the international space station project, and now put a vehicle on Mars. The USSR orbiting a man 1st is sooooo irrelevant now. As for the Europeans, idf the beagle is any indicator of how you are trying to "catch up", well, lets just say that we&#39;re not worried.

So it is I who must say sorry to you, dude. :D

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 00:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:09 AM

are you just deperate to discredit America for what historians and records have already established?

well history is written by the winners - western civilization - so we can&#39;t take what&#39;s written as gospel ;)

http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/inventor/bell.html

A pioneer in the field of telecommunications, Alexander Graham Bell was born in 1847 in Edinburgh, Scotland

I&#39;ll admit I wasn&#39;t aware he did it in america - thanks for the heads up

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae408.cfm

Zworykin is usually credited as being the father of modern television. This was because the patent for the heart of the TV, the electron scanning tube, was first applied for by Zworykin in 1923, under the name of an iconoscope. The iconoscope was an electronic image scanner - essentially a primitive television camera. Farnsworth was the first of the two inventors to successfully demonstrate the transmission of television signals, which he did on September 7, 1927

so he was the first to show it publicly. That still leaves the patent firmly in the hands of the russian...

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/cayley.htm
http://aerodyn.org/People/cayley.html
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/WrBr/inventors/Cayley.html
still think cayley didn&#39;t do it? what about Leonardo Da Vinci? Bear in mind the aeroplane is not defined by being POWERED.

as for the net, yes Arpanet came first, but what many regard as &#39;the internet&#39; is the hypertext transport protocol. But you are quite correct- it is defined as networks using TCP/IP so as it&#39;s a US invention i&#39;ll back down on this one ;)

I&#39;m stalwart on the rest though
I guess we&#39;ll agree to disgree. But I am right, you know. ;)

The TV is pretty controversial. I wo&#39;t argue on that one, there are many different versions of who truly invented it.

The airplane, I stand firm on. We have to talk in terms of powered flight here, not a glider. The essence of flight is in the ability to actually climb through the air and gain altitude and defy gravity. That is why powered flight is the true cornerstone of aviation history. Thus, the Wrights are the founding fathers.

We can split the difference on the internet.

DaCuBaN
28th April 2004, 00:19
LOL sounds good to me
and btw ty... you&#39;ve been one of the most reasonable capitalists I&#39;ve ever argued with. Most are just total assholes :rolleyes:

I guess the same could be said for my side though <_< :D

dark fairy
28th April 2004, 02:04
this is a toughie because i wouldn&#39;t kill someone for not thinking the same way i this because that would bring a wave a genocide... but i do believe that i am plenty capable of killing a human being under the "right " reasons... meaning i just loose it... :unsure: and i feel terible but it is the truth

Don't Change Your Name
28th April 2004, 02:30
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 05:46 PM
I think that the biggest thing that you guys need to understand is that there is no revolution, and there will be no revolution.
Probably the same thing kings and priests used to think hundreds of years ago.


Because for a revolution to occur you need popular support. You don&#39;t have it, especially in America, which pretty much dictates the direction of the world. you don&#39;t even really have "minority support".

So? There was a time when your beloved politicians would offer money to anyone who killed an anarchist, but of course we must hide that...we can&#39;t allow the next capitalists crisis to "bring back those red bastards". And a revolution doesn&#39;t need "support": a revolution will just happen when the situation allows for it. Nobody said it was going to be now. Attemps for a revolution aren&#39;t such a usual thing, they don&#39;t happen everyday. And if you think that capitalism will go on forever then you are ignoring lots of things.


Americans love capitalism. They hate communism. The world is emerging as capitalist, not communist. People are more interested in individual freedom and self-determination, not dictatorships.

Both characteristics you mentioned are a typical fallacy of capitalism, and the "not dictatorships" bit shows that you are very ignorant towards all those "communist freedom-hating totalitarian" ideas. I&#39;m sure that in the same way you say "Americans love capitalism", germans said "Germans love national-socialism and our fuhrer" and russians said "Russians love comrade Stalin", and of course monarchs would claim that "people love those chosen by God". God "loves you" but then kills you if you don&#39;t obey his stupid rules, Big Brother is "great" unless you disagree with the order he imposes. It&#39;s just a matter of brainwashing and populist propaganda.
And by the way how can "Americans" hate "communism", if they hardly ever seem to know much about it? :rolleyes:


I&#39;m sorry to break it to you guys, but you are a misguided few.

And you are from the misguided many. Brainwashed weak dumbass. :lol:

Touchstone
28th April 2004, 03:08
Capitilist, you are seriously wrong. EVERY nation in history has fallen in time. There is no immortal nation or political party. Rome was probably the best example. Huge empire, but it had a spectacular fall. There is one thing immortal. It is slowly being degraded though. Ideas. Have you read 1984? That is what the United States is coming to. On a side note though, you are a very reasonalble capitilist. Anyway, of course I could kill a man to support my politics. I would do It without resentment and remorse. I&#39;m a radical Anti-Nazi. I would kill any Nazi, any day of the week. I am a Radical Anti-KKK. I would kill any member any day of the week.

DarkAngel
28th April 2004, 03:15
In a cappie world its easier to pay the killer, and look the other way...

synthesis
28th April 2004, 04:56
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 27 2004, 11:10 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial &#064; Apr 27 2004, 11:10 AM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 05:48 PM
And why do you think there will be no revolution
Because for a revolution to occur you need popular support. You don&#39;t have it, especially in America, which pretty much dictates the direction of the world. you don&#39;t even really have "minority support".

Americans love capitalism. They hate communism. The world is emerging as capitalist, not communist. People are more interested in individual freedom and self-determination, not dictatorships.

I&#39;m sorry to break it to you guys, but you are a misguided few.[/b]
Communism was, at one time, a very popular alternative when the U.S. economy was less regulated. During the 30&#39;s, for example, radical leftism had a great deal of popular support.

The only way for Roosevelt to save capitalism from popular revolt was to institute socialistic measures like the Wagner Act so as to placate the labor movement. Some historians wonder whether the American society would have lasted until the recovery that WWII provided had Roosevelt not destroyed laissez-faire economics in order to save capitalism as a social system.

In my opinion, a laissez-faire economy, with no safety net, minimum wage, healthcare, et cetera, would be incredibly conducive to a socialist revolution.

When Marx predicted that capitalism would create the conditions for its own defeat (much as feudalism paved the way for its own destruction and for capitalism) he failed to take into account the tendency of the bourgeoisie to install socialistic measures just in time to save the system as a whole.

revolutionindia
28th April 2004, 05:14
[/QUOTE]Capitalist Imperial,Apr 28 2004, 04:13 AM][QUOTE=Enigma,Apr 27 2004, 10:04 PM] Well economically the US is not, the East India trading company is the largest corporation of all time, just as an example. The british economy was supported by an entire empire, to trade with, and basically dominated any market she chose to. If she didn&#39;t then she would take what she wanted and effectivly rape a country.[QUOTE]

East india company brings back old memories
the East India company raped and plundered my motherland.

For 200 years they tortured and tormented a great nation

They left us culturally,economically battered when we finally

got them kicked out of the country

All it took was one man gandhi to bring an empire to its knees.

And thus began the downfall of a supposedly great nation


I have neither forgotten and neither could i forgive them
because
you forgive those who ask for forgiveness
The brithishers did not.
They thought they are doing us a favor and all that

white mans burden shit


I think all african and asian nations should come together and kick

british and american ass

Its payback time.

DaCuBaN
28th April 2004, 05:18
It wasn&#39;t just Britain - the entire European set were as bad as each other - we were merely the most &#39;succesful&#39;

And if it helps, on behalf of the peoples of Britain I offer our apologies to the peoples of all former colonies excepting the now United States of America (aha&#33; :P ) for all mistreatment and suffering caused by the occupying forces of our nation. We hope that given time we may regain your respect.

Seriously though, we limeys do have a lot to answer for - we have to be one of the worst symbols of imperialist power ever. In all honesty I am totally ashamed of my heritage.

revolutionindia
28th April 2004, 05:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 10:48 AM
It wasn&#39;t just Britain - the entire European set were as bad as each other - we were merely the most &#39;succesful&#39;

And if it helps, on behalf of the peoples of Britain I offer our apologies to the peoples of all former colonies excepting the now United States of America (aha&#33; :P ) for all mistreatment and suffering caused by the occupying forces of our nation. We hope that given time we may regain your respect.

Seriously though, we limeys do have a lot to answer for - we have to be one of the worst symbols of imperialist power ever. In all honesty I am totally ashamed of my heritage.
the apology is accepted
I do forgive you and you alone

but I would prefer a apology
from the pompus queen of england in whose name
all this was done.

Its easy to forgive but forgetting 200 years of
imperialism is not so easy.

I think you one of the few britishers who would
apologize

The majority still belong to the white mans burden club

In fact
I remember
When a british general fired on a peaceful meeting in jallianwala bag
h,India
He killed 100&#39;s of innocent women and children.
All the british did was transfer hiim back to england
where he was given a hero&#39;s welcome

The public collected money and he ended up a richer person

He was avenged when a sikh youth from india assasinated him in the
later years
.The youth was hanged

Rasta Sapian
28th April 2004, 05:42
It seems to me that Americans in general ( not to offend the masses of fat sheep )
are way to consumed in being at the centre of the universe and how big there military is&#33;

This is quite sad, really, when the rest of the world seems ready to accept peace for the future, with a 1 world mentality. We still have Americans out there looking for world domination, I feel sorry for the educated americans who are deamed as capitalist pigs for just the thoughts of a few angry and disturbed egomaniacs out there :(

This was already disscussed, the fact of another impirialist downfall, history has proven this time and time again, from england, to rome, to greece, macedonia, persia, etc.

In this new age, America will really either have to wake up and smell the fresh air, or join the history books ;)

peace yall

Invader Zim
28th April 2004, 06:45
As I am aware the current RN has 102 ships, the US navy has 295, and I can guarantee that the british navey was far larger than the modern day Navy.

295 is not 4 times larger than 102.

Komit
28th April 2004, 07:11
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 28 2004, 12:10 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 28 2004, 12:10 AM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 10:55 PM
as for space? well the commies beat you there matey, and the europeans are trying damn hard to catch up.

Sorry :rolleyes: :D
by the way...


as for space? well the commies beat you there matey, and the europeans are trying damn hard to catch up.

They won that sppace battle, we won the space war. After they made it into orbit 1st, we caught up, surpassed them, got to the moon, created the space shuttle, are leading the international space station project, and now put a vehicle on Mars. The USSR orbiting a man 1st is sooooo irrelevant now. As for the Europeans, idf the beagle is any indicator of how you are trying to "catch up", well, lets just say that we&#39;re not worried.

So it is I who must say sorry to you, dude. :D [/b]
Russia Continues to Surpass Americans in the Space Race
01/30/2004 16:55

Cosmonauts May Soon Add Another One to the Russian Space List of Firsts

On July 25, 1969, many Americans watched their televisions in awe as astronaut Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and said, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Americans were amazed at what advances in technology had produced: a man on the moon. Ticker tape parades greeted returning astronauts. America had proven itself a leader in the space race.

Lately, some have begun to suggest that this was not the case at all; some people have suggested that America never made it to the moon and that it was
just an illusion made with trick photography. Bart Sibrel is one of those people. He made a video called, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon," in which he provides much documentation to suggest that man has yet to walk on the moon. Is this possible? Could have America faked the entire moon landing?

On first thought, it might sound ludicrous for many--to think that man has not walked on the moon. After all, it would require such a grand conspiracy that, certainly, someone who was privy to such information would have spoken. Nevertheless, there are those who are skeptical of this moon-walking.

Surprisingly, some of the ideas presented by them are not as preposterous as they might sound. Based on surveys, it has been estimated that between 6 and 20 percent of Americans do not believe a man actually walked on the moon. Are 6-20 percent of Americans fools, or are they a little brighter than the rest?

In order to fully understand the claim that man did not walk on the moon, the events leading up to this event that most Americans consider an historic fact must be re-examined and scrutinized. We must go back in time, when the space race between Russia (or the Soviet Union, as it was known then) first started. By doing this, I feel that you will better understand the arguments both for and against the claim of man walking on the moon.

What I present here may shock many fellow Americans, as we generally view our nation and its space exploration program as being, by far, superior to that of all other nations. After all, we were the first nation to have "a man walk on the moon" (or so we believe). While this might possibly be true that America was the first nation to have a man walk on the moon (though there is evidence to suggest otherwise). As difficult as it may be for many to admit, this appears to be the only "first" America had in the great space race.

If we are to be honest, during the "space race" from the late-1950s until the time American astronauts were to have walked on the moon, Russia was utterly devastating America. This was probably both due to the fact that Russians were highly educated and the fact that, with Russia&#39;s strict Communist leadership at the time, failure was not an option. And Russia&#39;s society encouraged intelligence, whereas America&#39;s society has beenencouraging a host of things--such as artying and irresponsibility--none of which promoted intelligence.

In 1957, America was astonished, as was the rest of the world, when it was discovered that a Russian satellite, Sputnik, had gone into outer space. People were absolutely amazed that such a device made it into outer space. Not only was the scientific community of America in awe, but so too was the American military, who were greatly concerned about Russia having the ability to put such a device in outer space.

Later that year, Russia again made a first, when a small dog, Laika (which means "barker"), was launched into outer space. This again sent shockwaves throughout the world. Americans heard about this and were astonished that a dog went into outer space. This dog was actually put into orbit, and unfortunately died 6 hours later while in space, not being able to withstand the rigors involved.

Meanwhile, in 1957, while America stood shocked at Russia&#39;s progress, America attempted to launch its own satellite into outer space. This was meant to show the Russians that America too was a contender in the space race. A satellite was to accompany the rocket, which had been tested for stress. America felt everything was prepared. But the rocket blew up at the launch pad, never leaving the ground. It was an international embarrassment.

In 1959, trying to copy what Russia had done two years prior, America was finally getting an animal into outer space. A couple of monkeys went up only 300 miles for just 15 minutes total. This, of course, was a far cry from the orbit in which the Russian dog was put two years previous. However, the monkeys did return alive.

While America was sending rockets up for 15 minutes in 1959, Russia was again making shockwaves when its satellite Luna-1 flew by the moon. Later in 1959, the Russian satellite Luna-2 reached the moon&#39;s surface and left national symbols of the then-USSR. Again in 1959, the satellite Luna-3 made another first for Russia, when it took pictures of the far side of the moon, transmitting these pictures back to Russia.

Russia also had the first space probe to circle the earth.

A couple years later in 1961, Russia then became the first country to have a man orbit the earth, Yuri Gagarin, who road aboard the space craft Vostok. This again astonished the international community, who were surprised that such a feat never tried before could be accomplished. While the Russians were orbiting the earth, the American Alan Shepard was launched just 115 miles into space, not even going close to the distance Russia&#39;s dog had traveled two years prior; and he landed in the Atlantic Ocean 15 minutes later. Meanwhile, Russia again had nother first in 1961, when its interplanetary probe Venera-1 was launched to Venus.

In 1962, America became the second country to have a man of its own in orbit around the earth, John Glenn. Parades greeted John Glenn when he returned. Due to his notoriety, he later became a U.S. Senator because Americans care more for celebrity status than fit politicians.

President John F. Kennedy at this time said America would have a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. He was later assassinated in 1964, leaving his dream of having a man on the moon to be fulfilled by others.

In 1962, Russia was the first nation to have two rockets with cosmonauts in outer space at the same time. It was known as the first "formation flying" in space when the two manned spacecraft, Vostok-3 and Vostok-4, traveled near each other in unison.

In 1963 Russian cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space. She was aboard the Vostok-6. Not only was this significant by the fact that she was a woman, but she was also just a regular person, who had worked at a textile factory. So she was also the first public citizen in space, not being the typical cosmonaut.

In 1964, trying to duplicate what Russia had done back in 1959, America launched the Ranger VII, which took pictures of the moon and then crash-landed into it. Nevertheless, it did send some interesting images of the moon, close-up images that attracted a great deal of curiosity to Americans, who might have only been able to have seen such images if Russia had shared theirs.

In 1964, Russia became the first nation to have launched two satellites, Elektron-1 and Electron-2, while just using one rocket.

In 1965, tragedy struck when the American rocket Atlas blew up on the launch pad, causing incredible damage. This terrible event sent a chill up many potential astronauts&#39; backs. It re-emphasized the importance of safety precautions. Some feel that this accident was not quite that--that it may have very well have ended that way due to some astronauts not wanting to go along with a plan; in short, some feel they were assassinated by their very own government. It is not known what evidence such thoughts are based on, however, if any.

Russia too had a disaster related to safety at a different time, in which many engineers died. This had occurred several years prior. Nevertheless, over the years, Russia has shown itself to be much, much safer in its space flights and landings than America.

In the year that America&#39;s rocket was smoldering on the launch pad, on March
18, 1965, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov took the first space walk, a ten-minute
tethered excursion outside Voshkod 2. On June 3, 1965, Edward White II is the first American to walk in space on Gemini 4, though not as far out in>
Latest News
Russia Continues to Surpass Americans in the Space Race
The truth about modern day America
Powell: first lies, now arrogance
World Economic Forum: Clearing up after Bush
The End of Freedom
space. He stayed out for 22 minutes.

In 1966, Neil Armstrong and other astronauts went in space aboard the Gemini VIII and Agina. They met amid outer space and docked. Later, a malfunction with Armstrong&#39;s rocket caused him to return to earth prematurely, but fortunately no one was injured.

Meanwhile in 1966, Russia became the first nation to have an unmanned space probe, the Lunar IX, to actually land softly on the moon. It transmitted pictures from its surface back to earth. Also in 1966, the Venera-3 became the first spacecraft to reach the surface of Venus. National symbols of the USSR were left there. In 1966, Russia had the first satellite put in orbit around the moon, the Lunar X space probe.

In 1967, Russia had the first two unmanned spacecrafts that automatically met in space then docked and undocked.

Also in 1967, tragedy struck three American astronauts who died while sitting inside a rocket. Their capsule burst into flames. The reason why it caught fire is largely unknown; it is thought to have started as the result of a spark of unknown origin that was somehow able to ignite the extremely well-insulated fuel tanks. Again, some feel that there may be more to this incident than we currently know.

In 1968, Russia&#39;s unmanned rocket Zond-5 became the first to travel around the moon and return back to earth unscathed. Russia was the first to have a manned spacecraft orbit the earth, Vostok, several years prior. Russia had already showed the world that it was the first to have an unmanned spacecraft, the Lunar IX, softly land on the moon, and now it showed the world that it could even have an unmanned spacecraft circle the moon and return, with Zond-5.

Why didn&#39;t Russia then send up a man on one of its spacecrafts to the moon?
It would have seemed simple enough. I&#39;ll get to this later.

1969 - Again, Russia had another first: The first docking of manned spacecraft (Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5), and crew transfer from one spacecraft to the other through open space.

1969 - Still another first for Russia occurred: The first formation flying of three manned spacecraft, Soyuz-6, Souyz-7 and Soyuz-8, during which they maneuvered relatively close to each other, with ground facilities providing simultaneous support for the three spacecraft.

Meanwhile, in America, the end of the decade was approaching. The late-President John F. Kennedy&#39;s dream was becoming just that: a dream. Violence gripped America, with the war in Viet Nam and racial riots across America&#39;s cities. America&#39;s leaders were desperately looking for "heroes"--some people to keep the public&#39;s minds off of the problems at home. America was looking for something to distract Americans from the failing policies. America&#39;s leaders wanted to show the world that its insane policies were a match to the highly educated Russians and their orderly society. While America&#39;s wars at home and abroad were causing much turmoil, America desperately needed some "pride"--anything for which to be
proud.

Russians had wanted to go to the moon. However, there were many concerns
with safety. The Van Allen Belts released a deadly radiation that could easily fry a person to death. Plus, the moon is 250,000 miles away--quite a distance. While I&#39;m not familiar with how fast the rockets were, traveling at 1,200 miles per hour, it would be approximately a 20-day journey each way, provided there were no problems. Even at 2-3 times that speed, it would still be a difficult journey. The amount of fuel required would be staggering, with the added weight of people, food, air, supplies, etc. Yet somehow, these rockets managed to go much, much faster in a zero atmosphere with nothing with which to propel? Perhaps, the speed is possible, yet one cannot deny the deadly radiation rays out in space known as the Van Allen Belts.

One cosmonaut who was sent in far outer space reportedly experienced the Van
Allen Belts harmful effects firsthand. According to various sources, while he left white, he came back black; he was cooked to a crisp due to the harmful radiation. This was despite heavy shielding to dissipate any rays, which did no good. Those who knew about this incident were reportedly devastated.

Then, suddenly, out of nowhere, as Americans and the rest of the world stood
in front of their televisions, two astronauts stepped on the moon in 1969. Up until then, America was putting people about 400 miles away in orbit--far away from the harmful Van Allen Belts. But suddenly Americans made it into outer space--landing and walking on the moon--250,000 miles away, no less?

In 1965, the U.S. made a fake moon landscape, which was used for testing a space vehicle. Some have suggested the scenery for the moon landing was faked. Could this have been it?

Russia seemed to continue to have "firsts"--except for the moon landing. On
April 19, 1971, they had the first Space Station. The Soviets launch Salyut 1, the first orbiting space station. Salyut 1&#39;s original crew reportedly died during re-entry on June 30, 1971. Georgi Bobroeolski, Vladislav Volkov, and Victor Patsayev had spent a new record of 23 days in outer space.

It wasn&#39;t for two more years that the first American Space Station--May 14, 1973--was developed. The first American space station, Skylab, is damaged during launch. The first of three crews arrive 11 days later for a 28-day stay. They make in-orbit repairs and set records for time spent in space.

Russia had the first woman, Svetlana Savitskaya, to participate in a space walk on July 17, 1984. With her partner, Vladimir Dzhanibekov, she conducted welding experiments for over three hours outside the Soviet space station Salyut 7. Savitskaya had become the second woman to fly in space during a Soviet mission in 1982.

There were all these "firsts" by Russia. Yet Russia has yet to land a man on the moon? Why? While people seldom hear about it, nor do they listen even if so, Russian Cosmonaut Boris Volynov has gone on record saying that he does not believe that Americans landed on the moon. It seems he is far from the only one to think this way. Indeed, it is doubtful he is the only cosmonaut to feel this way.

Further, one astronaut--Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon--has confirmed some doubts. This is not to say that he supports the contention that man did not land on the moon. He is an astronaut, after all. He probably enjoys the notoriety. And you have to wonder if some of the past astronauts might have been given the death sentence for planning to go on record about such things? Or were there merely some bad "accidents"? Whatever the case may be, Armstrong is getting older. And he does seemingly admit that something is amiss.

Indeed, there is definitely something wrong here. If you take a moment to view video footage of the moon landing by U.S. astronauts from back in the 1960s, you&#39;ll notice that the dust kicked up by astronauts immediately settles down, just as if it was sand on the beach. Yet we all know that not only does the moon have less gravity, but it also has zero-atmosphere. Therefore, the moon dust should travel further given the force and little to counteract it. Yet, for some strange, unexplained reason, the moon dust resettles back to the ground at the same gravitational rate of 32 ft./sec. as the earth.

In a letter I received back from the astronaut Armstrong, which asked him about this strange fact of the same gravitational pull on both the moon and earth, the response I was sent surprisingly admitted that, yes, the gravitational pull should be different. Of course, Armstrong didn&#39;t come right out and admit that this was the case. That might be the death sentence for him--similar to what 3 other U.S. astronauts experienced in the 1960s when their simulated rocket mysteriously blew up during a ground test? Oh, it was just an accident? It makes you pause for a moment.

Now, of course, it looks like the race to Mars has begun. U.S. President George W. Bush has stated that, perhaps, man will walk on Mars by the year 2020. Bush stated that NASA may send astronauts to the moon again so that they may experience the effects of space travel shortly before sending them to Mars.

But if you look at the facts, you really have to wonder: Has man made it to
the moon yet?


so my friend don&#39;t be that proud of yourself and your fucked up country,because even the things you did concerning space were a result of CIA spies which are ofcourse everywhere but another time for that,so yeah read the article and then tell me who won what,the only thing the americans have done b4 the russians is put that robot on mars which i admit is very good progression,and i wonder why every take off to the space station or whatever reason is done from russia or kazakhstan,the only one they launched from usa columbia crashed hahaha

lucid
28th April 2004, 13:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:15 AM
In a cappie world its easier to pay the killer, and look the other way...
Wanna go out for some fried chicken?

Professor Moneybags
28th April 2004, 14:55
All it took was one man gandhi to bring an empire to its knees.

And all it took was Nehru to ice him and turn the country to Stalinism. The good old days, eh ?


but I would prefer a apology
from the pompus queen of england in whose name
all this was done.

The "queen" was only a princess at the time, wise guy. Shows what you know.


Its easy to forgive but forgetting 200 years of
imperialism is not so easy.

Perhaps knowing the fact that the people who did it are actually dead and have been for some considerable time might put you well on the road to recovery.


I think you one of the few britishers who would
apologize

The majority still belong to the white mans burden club

Apologise ? I don&#39;t think he&#39;s that old, so how can he be responsible ? Are you going to blame him for something his ancestors did to yours ? That&#39;s as bad as judgment based upon skin colour and nationality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


In this new age, America will really either have to wake up and smell the fresh air, or join the history books

That presupposes that someone will be left to put it there.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 16:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:14 AM


I think all african and asian nations should come together and kick

british and american ass

Its payback time.
Anytime you feel froggy, go ahead and jump cowboy.

We&#39;ll be more than ready.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 16:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:45 AM
As I am aware the current RN has 102 ships, the US navy has 295, and I can guarantee that the british navey was far larger than the modern day Navy.

295 is not 4 times larger than 102.
ok its about 3x as large, a difference which is merely academic

and 295 modern warships are much, much more powerfull anc capable than

2950 wooden men o&#39;war

even relatively speaking.

Touchstone
28th April 2004, 16:54
The combined forces of Asia, Africa and Russia could kick america&#39;s and britans lilly white butts. Due to superior tactics, and almost two thousand years of warfare stratagy.

El Che
28th April 2004, 16:54
Moneybags,


Perhaps knowing the fact that the people who did it are actually dead and have been for some considerable time might put you well on the road to recovery.


Imperialism is a, very real, present day reality.


Apologise ? I don&#39;t think he&#39;s that old, so how can he be responsible ? Are you going to blame him for something his ancestors did to yours ? That&#39;s as bad as judgment based upon skin colour and nationality.


There is such a thing as historical debt.

Touchstone
28th April 2004, 17:04
Question, who said that imperialism is dead? Whoever did was ignorant of the UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA&#33; We are a imperilist nation.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 17:05
But if you look at the facts, you really have to wonder: Has man made it to
the moon yet?

Uh, no one really wonders that. They have.

This is about the 100th "America never landed on the "moon " conspiracy theorist I&#39;ve had the displeasure of encountering. You can check the archives on this padge on how every little bit of that article is easily refuted. I&#39;m not going to do it again.

Is modern anti-Americanism really getting so desperate that you guys are buying into this kind of crap?

I&#39;m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that even most leftists concede that this is crap


so my friend don&#39;t be that proud of yourself and your fucked up country,because even the things you did concerning space were a result of CIA spies which are ofcourse everywhere but another time for that,so yeah read the article and then tell me who won what,the only thing the americans have done b4 the russians is put that robot on mars which i admit is very good progression,and i wonder why every take off to the space station or whatever reason is done from russia or kazakhstan,the only one they launched from usa columbia crashed hahaha


Per the article, how can I take anything it says as legitimate when the main body of text has to do with suggesting that the American moon landing was a farce? That alone compromises any credibility that the article suggests to posses.

The current launches to the ISS are done from Russia because the US allowed russia to play that role. The funny thing is, even most of Russia&#39;s contributions ti the ISS are actually funded by the US anyway. The US is by far the largest contributor to the international space station in terms of money, modules, and leadership. Launches of retrievable capsules with old "3 stage, one-use" rocket technology are relatively simple and old-hat for the US, but they are effective, so we allow the Russians to do that.

There is no way that you are going to legitimately argue that Russia even comes close to the USA in current space capability. Besides, if you buy into that article you submitted at all, I wouldn&#39;t waste my time arguing with someone as delusional as you anyway.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 17:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:54 PM
The combined forces of Asia, Africa and Russia could kick america&#39;s and britans lilly white butts. Due to superior tactics, and almost two thousand years of warfare stratagy.
:P :D :lol:

LOL, LOL, what an idiot.

I would love to see Africa&#39;s contributions to that war.

Russia and Asia would be decimated beyond recognition within 1 month.

We would spare Africa, though, as it would never have been a threat in the 1st place.

By the way, even russians admit that their tactics suck. (the old soviet union philosophy, anyway.

Butrt hey, if they want to die for their nation, we&#39;ll be happy to accomodate them.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 17:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:54 PM
The combined forces of Asia, Africa and Russia could kick america&#39;s and britans lilly white butts. Due to superior tactics, and almost two thousand years of warfare stratagy.
:P :D :lol:

LOL, LOL, what an idiot.

I would love to see Africa&#39;s contributions to that war.

Russia and Asia would be decimated beyond recognition within 1 month.

We would spare Africa, though, as it would never have been a threat in the 1st place.

By the way, even russians admit that their tactics suck. (the old soviet union philosophy, anyway).

But hey, if they want to die for their nation, we&#39;ll be happy to accomodate them.

Asia? been there, done that. We enjoyed a 10:1 kill ratio

GUTB
28th April 2004, 17:42
Comrades, take it easy. The historic processes that have led to the rise of American imperealism are well-documented, and its severe crisises are also apparant. The War on Terror is a desperate struggle for a sick, broken social-political order to maintain itself against a capitalist crisis. Unemployment in the US is exploding while, at the same time, trading activity is on the rise thanks to a massive inflation of the money supply which has only very recently been curbed. The crisis is not something that happened overnight, but a gradual process that has been developing for decades. In the next 10 years we&#39;ll see the crisis enter a hot stage of visisble social unrest and disintigration unless the ruling class gives massive concessions to the working class, there will be an uprising. That uprising may or may not end up being Communist, it could, as long as US comrades do their job and politisize the masses.

Capitalism drives itself relentlessly into conflicts with the working class in order to chase the ever-shrinking margin of profit. And inspite of the massive struggle perpetrated by the Americans elite against the working class, there would have been a general union shut-down of the nation by now if the current American union leadership weren&#39;t traitors, but all unions tend to be eaten by the ruling system in time. But regardless of that, the time will come when the rulign elites will face the choice of bowing to pressure of the working class for cocnessions, like they did during the Great Depression, or they will see revolution. Plain and simple.

And finally, the American workers are not "middle class". They are working-class who are facing ever-decreasing wages, work conditions and quality of life standards. Because they are the highest-paid workers in the world, the elites will seek to "equalize" their labor with that of the poorest workers. This nonsense of "middle class" and the laughable insistance of the ruling-class comissars of calling the marginalized American worker "middle class" only works for so long under certain conditions. It works fine to elivate the American worker to "middle class" when the American worker enjoys high wages, good work, good benifits, strong union protections and job securtiy. This illussion is shattered the insant the real world of capitalism enters the picture, of course. One cannot refer to one&#39;s self as "middle class" when one&#39;s unemployment benifits are gone and there is no job in sight and it becomes a struggle to support the basics of life. His is already the reality for a huge number of Americans, and this number is growing rapidly.

Invader Zim
28th April 2004, 17:55
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 28 2004, 04:47 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial &#064; Apr 28 2004, 04:47 PM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 06:45 AM
As I am aware the current RN has 102 ships, the US navy has 295, and I can guarantee that the british navey was far larger than the modern day Navy.

295 is not 4 times larger than 102.
ok its about 3x as large, a difference which is merely academic

and 295 modern warships are much, much more powerfull anc capable than

2950 wooden men o&#39;war

even relatively speaking. [/b]
Nope, because while everyone else had ships of the like, IE your third rates, etc. The british were using Iron Clads, and in time dreadnaughts etc. The british were Navely considerably more powerful because we simply had a different league of ships, to everyone else.

The US however does not have technology as substancially higher, to be as effective as the british were.

And my estimate for the number of ships the empire had is sadly mistaken, grossley mistaken: -

"By early 1914 the Royal Navy had 18 modern dreadnoughts (6 more under construction), 10 battlecruisers, 20 town cruisers, 15 scout cruisers, 200 destroyers, 29 battleships (pre-dreadnought design) and 150 cruisers built before 1907."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWnavy.htm

Thats 422 ships, when the empire was at the height of her power (ironically also the point when she was just about to fall), which is far in excess of the US fleet even today.

And compairing modern ships to these old ships is stupid, but these old ships in their day were just as, if not more superior (by comparison) than the US&#39;s navey today.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 18:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:55 PM
The US however does not have technology as substancially higher, to be as effective as the british were.


Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?

Having the only Carrier air-wing with true and full ground-strike capablilty is not substantially higher?

Give me a break.

It also seems that you can make relative comparisons between eras in your favor, but when I do, it is stupid and makes no sense.

This argument is going in circles.

Funky Monk
28th April 2004, 18:39
I think i remember hearing that America had the first ironclad

Invader Zim
28th April 2004, 18:42
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 28 2004, 06:25 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 28 2004, 06:25 PM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 05:55 PM
The US however does not have technology as substancially higher, to be as effective as the british were.


Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?

Having the only Carrier air-wing with true and full ground-strike capablilty is not substantially higher?

Give me a break.

It also seems that you can make relative comparisons between eras in your favor, but when I do, it is stupid and makes no sense.

This argument is going in circles. [/b]
Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?

Yeah, true, but the british have them, the Russians (if they haven&#39;t sold them), etc. What I am saying is that by comparison the technological advantages the US navey has now are not as substancially high as what the british navey enjoyed, at its peek.

It also seems that you can make relative comparisons between eras in your favor, but when I do, it is stupid and makes no sense.

And all you seem to be able to do is to take ships from 100 years ago and say, ohh they are not as good as modern day ships. Well obviously, but you just fail to take into account that Britains contemprories were far less advanced. The US does not have that advantage.

Case closed.

Touchstone
28th April 2004, 18:49
America did have the first ironclad. But Britan sunk it

Invader Zim
28th April 2004, 18:51
Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 28 2004, 06:39 PM
I think i remember hearing that America had the first ironclad
nope, the first ever true iron clad ship was french, the LA GLOIRE. People confuse Ironclad barges with actual ironclads.

The first iron built steam ship with a propeller was a British, in the early 1840&#39;s I believe.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 18:56
Originally posted by Enigma+Apr 28 2004, 06:42 PM--> (Enigma @ Apr 28 2004, 06:42 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2004, 06:25 PM

[email protected] 28 2004, 05:55 PM
The US however does not have technology as substancially higher, to be as effective as the british were.


Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?

Having the only Carrier air-wing with true and full ground-strike capablilty is not substantially higher?

Give me a break.

It also seems that you can make relative comparisons between eras in your favor, but when I do, it is stupid and makes no sense.

This argument is going in circles.
Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?

Yeah, true, but the british have them, the Russians (if they haven&#39;t sold them), etc. What I am saying is that by comparison the technological advantages the US navey has now are not as substancially high as what the british navey enjoyed, at its peek.

It also seems that you can make relative comparisons between eras in your favor, but when I do, it is stupid and makes no sense.

And all you seem to be able to do is to take ships from 100 years ago and say, ohh they are not as good as modern day ships. Well obviously, but you just fail to take into account that Britains contemprories were far less advanced. The US does not have that advantage.

Case closed. [/b]
Actually, Enigma, I don&#39;t think that either the Brits nor the Russians have nuclear carriers, that is my point.

And as far as Navies go, US contemporaries are in fact significantly less advanced, more than you care to concede. Nowadays, the outside of a ship is no indicator of its true capabilities. It is the systems within the ships, communication, fire control, and command/control that make the US navy so potent (along with size, of course).

Case still open, sir.

Touchstone
28th April 2004, 18:57
I didn&#39;t know that...hmmm....anyway

GUTB
28th April 2004, 18:57
Capitalism has already gutted the high-tech industry in the US, and is currently destroying the research industries as well.

The sad, pathetic fact for US imperealism is that it is so advanced, so sick, so warped that it&#39;s even unloaded the very means of its impereal enforcment onto world&#39;s free-trade zones and "trade" partners (read: dumping grounds for US agro-business, sweatshops and industrial coolies) -- ie, ecenomic colonies -- that if a revolutionary Asia decided to cut off the Pacific, the US arms industry would not have the high-tech components for the various weapons systems as they are practically all made outside of the US to exploit cheap labor.

But it doesn&#39;t even need a revolution -- all it takes is for a sizable block of capitalist powers to simply decide that they no longer want to purchase US dollars. If that happens, the entire fiscal empire collpases, and the US will be plunged into complete ecenomic and social collpase.

I find it ludicrous in the extreme to hear people talk about the US, with it&#39;s constantly turmoiled history of just a few hundred years as some sort of endless bulwark of prosperity and stability. It just flies in the face of reality, and the last 100 years of its existance.

Invader Zim
28th April 2004, 19:08
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 28 2004, 06:56 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 28 2004, 06:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2004, 06:25 PM

[email protected] 28 2004, 05:55 PM
The US however does not have technology as substancially higher, to be as effective as the british were.


Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?

Having the only Carrier air-wing with true and full ground-strike capablilty is not substantially higher?

Give me a break.

It also seems that you can make relative comparisons between eras in your favor, but when I do, it is stupid and makes no sense.

This argument is going in circles.
Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?

Yeah, true, but the british have them, the Russians (if they haven&#39;t sold them), etc. What I am saying is that by comparison the technological advantages the US navey has now are not as substancially high as what the british navey enjoyed, at its peek.

It also seems that you can make relative comparisons between eras in your favor, but when I do, it is stupid and makes no sense.

And all you seem to be able to do is to take ships from 100 years ago and say, ohh they are not as good as modern day ships. Well obviously, but you just fail to take into account that Britains contemprories were far less advanced. The US does not have that advantage.

Case closed.
Actually, Enigma, I don&#39;t think that either the Brits nor the Russians have nuclear carriers, that is my point.

And as far as Navies go, US contemporaries are in fact significantly less advanced, more than you care to concede. Nowadays, the outside of a ship is no indicator of its true capabilities. It is the systems within the ships, communication, fire control, and command/control that make the US navy so potent (along with size, of course).

Case still open, sir. [/b]
Actually, Enigma, I don&#39;t think that either the Brits nor the Russians have nuclear carriers, that is my point.

Perhaps not surface ships, but I know for a fact that we and the Russians both had subs which do, which simply makes the argument irrelevant. Anyway our airforce is perfectly capable of dropping nuclear weapons, which very much levels the playing fields. The british in the late 1890&#39;s early 1900&#39;s most certainly did not have anyone with such an equaliser.


Case still open, sir.

Hardly, you concluded (inaccruratly) that the US is currently more powerful a force than anyother empire, dispite the fact that the british conquered more land, had more money, a better economy, substancially more advanced technology than her opponents in comparison with the US which does not really, and Britain had an even larger Navey than the US possesses even today, and that british navy was just as, if not considerably more, technologically advanced (compaired to the rest of the world) than the US Navy is today (in comparison to the rest of the world).

As I see it your entire argument has collapsed in tatters, and I fail to see why you are being so stubborn. Patriotism is so blinding.

DaCuBaN
28th April 2004, 19:52
Nuclear Carriers and emerging stealth ships are not substantially higher technology?


really? (http://www.lowobservable.com/shipwor.htm) I don&#39;t see the stars and stripes anywhere... nor here (http://www.canit.se/~griffon/diverse/miltech/stealthships.html)

I think the point that&#39;s trying to be made is that you are viewing your own country with somewhat rose tinted glasses - the USA is by no means more powerful now in relation to her contemporaries than the British Empire was in it&#39;s day.


And as far as Navies go, US contemporaries are in fact significantly less advanced, more than you care to concede. Nowadays, the outside of a ship is no indicator of its true capabilities. It is the systems within the ships, communication, fire control, and command/control that make the US navy so potent (along with size, of course).


I was under the impression that the small swedish navy (http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/swedish_navy.htm) was considered the most &#39;advanced&#39; in the world. Though this was 5-6 years ago now, I don&#39;t know how they compare, so any linkage would be appreicated.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 19:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:08 PM

Hardly, you concluded (inaccruratly) that the US is currently more powerful a force than anyother empire, dispite the fact that the british conquered more land, had more money, a better economy, substancially more advanced technology than her opponents in comparison with the US which does not really, and Britain had an even larger Navey than the US possesses even today, and that british navy was just as, if not considerably more, technologically advanced (compaired to the rest of the world) than the US Navy is today (in comparison to the rest of the world).


But you say this like you were absolutely correct in your assertions, and I was wrong, which is not the case.

I made a very good case as to how the US, even comparatively, has a stronger economy and ven wider-spread colonization than the brits did, I provided concrete examples of America&#39;s technological prowess compared to the rest of the world.

Enigma, you have a tendancy to claim victory in our debates when in fact the argument is still open and active.

Anti-Americanism is so blinding.

DaCuBaN
28th April 2004, 20:04
anti-americanism is intimating racism/nationalism - if you please it&#39;s anti imperialism. I bicker this much with the bastards on this side of the pond too :rolleyes: :D


I made a very good case as to how the US, even comparatively, has a stronger economy and ven wider-spread colonization than the brits did, I provided concrete examples of America&#39;s technological prowess compared to the rest of the world.


I think whats trying to be said is that you are not making enough of a relative comparison you look at the facts and figures and because the US simply has more now, you assume that it had comparably more - which is not the case.

World Population (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762181.html) has tripled since 1950 - I don&#39;t know the facts for 1900 (which is as good a date as any to take as the &#39;height&#39; of the British Empire) so by all means enlighten me

Invader Zim
28th April 2004, 20:10
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 28 2004, 07:55 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 28 2004, 07:55 PM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 07:08 PM

Hardly, you concluded (inaccruratly) that the US is currently more powerful a force than anyother empire, dispite the fact that the british conquered more land, had more money, a better economy, substancially more advanced technology than her opponents in comparison with the US which does not really, and Britain had an even larger Navey than the US possesses even today, and that british navy was just as, if not considerably more, technologically advanced (compaired to the rest of the world) than the US Navy is today (in comparison to the rest of the world).


But you say this like you were absolutely correct in your assertions, and I was wrong, which is not the case.

I made a very good case as to how the US, even comparatively, has a stronger economy and ven wider-spread colonization than the brits did, I provided concrete examples of America&#39;s technological prowess compared to the rest of the world.

Enigma, you have a tendancy to claim victory in our debates when in fact the argument is still open and active.

Anti-Americanism is so blinding. [/b]
and I was wrong, which is not the case.

I am afraid it is, though I imagine that your stubborness will stop you ever being able to admit that you are wrong.

I made a very good case as to how the US, even comparatively, has a stronger economy

Where? And i will point out again that britain&#39;s east india trading company was the largest company of all time, not to mention that Britains industrial might was absolutly second to none.

and ven wider-spread colonization than the brits did

How does the US have wider colonisation that Britain who colonised a 1/5 of the worlds land surface? I would love to see you argue that.

I provided concrete examples of America&#39;s technological prowess compared to the rest of the world.


Well if you want to see what the british did: -

http://inventors.about.com/library/invento...h_inventors.htm (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_british_inventors.htm)

From Penesilin to Television all british. And yes Television invented by John Baird, who created the first television.

Anti-Americanism is so blinding.

Its nothing to do with anti-americanism, I will admit when the US made some achivement, I wont deny that they are the most powerful today, but they most certainly are not the most powerful ever. That place is taken by Britain, because it owned a 1/5 of the world and had the largest navy ever contructed and was decades in advance of everybody else. Its that simple.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 20:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:04 PM
World Population (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762181.html) has tripled since 1950 - I don&#39;t know the facts for 1900 (which is as good a date as any to take as the &#39;height&#39; of the British Empire) so by all means enlighten me
Goiod point, DaCuBan, but this actually helps my argument.

DaCuBaN
28th April 2004, 20:24
considering we are making relative comparisons I fail to see how that helps your argument in any form whatsoever

Nas
28th April 2004, 21:08
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 05:46 PM
I think that the biggest thing that you guys need to understand is that there is no revolution, and there will be no revolution.
eventually , there would be a revolution , get over it
i&#39;ll make sure you see a revolution in your lifetime ;)

as for as the first question , a revolution is really a war , and in a war if you do not choose to kill them , they will probably choose to kill you

Raisa
28th April 2004, 23:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:18 AM

Seriously though, we limeys do have a lot to answer for - we have to be one of the worst symbols of imperialist power ever. In all honesty I am totally ashamed of my heritage.
I dont think anyone here doesnt have at least a little to be "ashamed" of in their heratage. But we have to move on, because that was not us, or even us back than, that was infact stupid leaders. So the struggle remains in the same place, just like Karl Marx says. The working man really has no nation.

Capitalist Imperial
28th April 2004, 23:39
Originally posted by Nas+Apr 28 2004, 09:08 PM--> (Nas @ Apr 28 2004, 09:08 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 05:46 PM
I think that the biggest thing that you guys need to understand is that there is no revolution, and there will be no revolution.
eventually , there would be a revolution , get over it
i&#39;ll make sure you see a revolution in your lifetime ;)

as for as the first question , a revolution is really a war , and in a war if you do not choose to kill them , they will probably choose to kill you [/b]
I won&#39;t hold my breath. ;)

DaCuBaN
28th April 2004, 23:44
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 28 2004, 08:20 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 28 2004, 08:20 PM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 08:04 PM
World Population (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762181.html) has tripled since 1950 - I don&#39;t know the facts for 1900 (which is as good a date as any to take as the &#39;height&#39; of the British Empire) so by all means enlighten me
Goiod point, DaCuBan, but this actually helps my argument. [/b]
would you care to elaborate as to how this assists your argument? I fail to see how comparing the fact that the UK had more ships that were bigger and better than those around them in 1900 (excepting the Bismarck of course, though the RN still sank it) despite the lower levels of population than now compared to the US?

revolutionindia
29th April 2004, 04:33
This thread has gone way out of what it was meant for

But after listening to the americans

I am sure

I can kill imperialists

I will be doing a favor and

relieving them of their misery

RedAnarchist
29th April 2004, 12:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:21 PM
The working man really has no nation.
That is so true. Together, without the capitalist borders that divide us, the workers will unite without nationality. We are not Americans, or British, or Chinese or whatever, we are human beings. Citizens of this most beautiful planet that every day capitalism exploits, abuses and damages.

Capitalist Imperial
29th April 2004, 15:41
And as far as Navies go, US contemporaries are in fact significantly less advanced, more than you care to concede. Nowadays, the outside of a ship is no indicator of its true capabilities. It is the systems within the ships, communication, fire control, and command/control that make the US navy so potent (along with size, of course).


I was under the impression that the small swedish navy (http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/swedish_navy.htm) was considered the most &#39;advanced&#39; in the world. Though this was 5-6 years ago now, I don&#39;t know how they compare, so any linkage would be appreicated.[/QUOTE]
The swedish navy is advanced, and very advanced for a small coastal Navy, but by no means more advanced than the US Navy

Those ship designs they have use stealth technology, which is different from a fully stealth ship like the sea shadow. http://www.lowobservable.com/Ships.htm

Capitalist Imperial
29th April 2004, 15:42
Originally posted by DaCuBaN+Apr 28 2004, 11:44 PM--> (DaCuBaN &#064; Apr 28 2004, 11:44 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2004, 08:20 PM

[email protected] 28 2004, 08:04 PM
World Population (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762181.html) has tripled since 1950 - I don&#39;t know the facts for 1900 (which is as good a date as any to take as the &#39;height&#39; of the British Empire) so by all means enlighten me
Goiod point, DaCuBan, but this actually helps my argument.
would you care to elaborate as to how this assists your argument? I fail to see how comparing the fact that the UK had more ships that were bigger and better than those around them in 1900 (excepting the Bismarck of course, though the RN still sank it) despite the lower levels of population than now compared to the US? [/b]


Because the US is competing in a arena with at least 4 times the people, higher technology, and more capable enemies than the brits did, (Germans, Japaneze, Soviets, China) and we are still dominant as an empire

revolutionindia
29th April 2004, 15:44
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 29 2004, 09:12 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 29 2004, 09:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 28 2004, 08:20 PM

[email protected] 28 2004, 08:04 PM
World Population (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762181.html) has tripled since 1950 - I don&#39;t know the facts for 1900 (which is as good a date as any to take as the &#39;height&#39; of the British Empire) so by all means enlighten me
Goiod point, DaCuBan, but this actually helps my argument.
would you care to elaborate as to how this assists your argument? I fail to see how comparing the fact that the UK had more ships that were bigger and better than those around them in 1900 (excepting the Bismarck of course, though the RN still sank it) despite the lower levels of population than now compared to the US?


Because the US is competing in a arena with at least 4 times the people, higher technology, and more capable enemies than the brits did, (Germans, Japaneze, Soviets, China) and we are still dominant as an empire [/b]
The bigger they are the better these ships sink
when you blow them up.

Damn all this ship talk

Capitalist Imperial
29th April 2004, 15:47
Obviously, revolutionindia knows very little about warships.

cubist
29th April 2004, 15:48
isn&#39;t it just, who gives a fuck whos the bigger prick war is wrong

Capitalist Imperial
29th April 2004, 17:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:48 PM
isn&#39;t it just, who gives a fuck whos the bigger prick war is wrong
War is an extension of politics, and to say it is always wrong is incorrect and highly oversimplifying the concept.

lucid
29th April 2004, 17:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:48 PM
isn&#39;t it just, who gives a fuck whos the bigger prick war is wrong
Go drop some acid and stare in the mirror for a while ya dumb burnout.

Osman Ghazi
29th April 2004, 19:20
Why don&#39;t you go jack off your dog you fucking redneck.

lucid
29th April 2004, 19:23
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 07:20 PM
Why don&#39;t you go jack off your dog you fucking redneck.
While that might be considered entertainment in Canada it is considered nasty in the US.

Actually, a little dog DNA in the human gene pool might help canada out.

Osman Ghazi
29th April 2004, 19:56
While that might be considered entertainment in Canada it is considered nasty in the US.

Actually, a little dog DNA in the human gene pool might help canada out.

You seem to forget that leftists don&#39;t care if you insult their country because only morons are patriotic.

"If you would be happy, then believe. If you would be a disciple of truth, then inquire" Nietzche

ÑóẊîöʼn
30th April 2004, 08:53
mmm, the fires of battle, the stench of freshly spilled blood, the roar and din of combat- oh sorry, what I meant to say is, I believe war is good, nay beneficial.
But only if it between two equally matched opponents with no particular advantage over another, and both sides agree to fight.

American warfare has none of these noble qualities.

Professor Moneybags
30th April 2004, 09:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:53 AM
mmm, the fires of battle, the stench of freshly spilled blood, the roar and din of combat- oh sorry, what I meant to say is, I believe war is good, nay beneficial.
But only if it between two equally matched opponents with no particular advantage over another, and both sides agree to fight.

American warfare has none of these noble qualities.
The goal of war is to resolve a confict, not to provid a "good, fair fight" for your entertaiment.

ÑóẊîöʼn
30th April 2004, 09:11
So you don&#39;t a couple of rounds of hand grenade hot potato is a good way of solving arguments?

cubist
30th April 2004, 15:53
Go drop some acid and stare in the mirror for a while ya dumb burnout.

once again lucid your insight to the mind of a leftist is fantastic, take your head out of your ass and you may see the real world, asides from that burn out? how when where and why?


again what job do you have and do you do any work?

cubist
30th April 2004, 15:55
WAR RESOLVES CONFLICT

Priceless,

fighting for peace is like fucking for your virginity,

Capitalist Imperial
30th April 2004, 16:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:53 AM
mmm, the fires of battle, the stench of freshly spilled blood, the roar and din of combat- oh sorry, what I meant to say is, I believe war is good, nay beneficial.
But only if it between two equally matched opponents with no particular advantage over another, and both sides agree to fight.

American warfare has none of these noble qualities.
One is well advised not to enter a battle unless they know that they are significantly stronger and better than their opponent. One should enter a battle knowing that he has already won.

I am paraphrasing, but this is a fundamental concept of "The Art of War", the definitive book of military strategy.

This is war, an extension of politics, not "The Wide World of Sports"

"Nobility" and a "fair match up" are completely irrelevant in warfare. Utter domination and significant tactical advantage are the goals in combat.

Put down the "Braveheart" DVD and get real.

However, the US has been in, and won, plenty of wars in which we were evenly matched or even outmatched.

Osman Ghazi
30th April 2004, 19:33
Name one. And not the war of independance, that was won by France.

DaCuBaN
30th April 2004, 19:49
well then required reading time folks - Sun Tzu&#39;s the Art of War (http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html)

&#39;The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one&#39;s deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.&#39;

and most importantly

&#39;All warfare is based on deception&#39;

I really loved this text to be honest. Some interesting comparisons can readily be taken from it. That and there&#39;s some right tripe in there too ;)

Capitalist Imperial
30th April 2004, 20:05
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 07:33 PM
Name one. And not the war of independance, that was won by France.
Oh please, dude, get serious.

I suppose we never landed on the moon, either

and did france actually invent the assembly line and airplane too?

your Vehement Anti-Americanism is making you make stupid statements.

Raisa
30th April 2004, 22:12
Originally posted by lucid+Apr 29 2004, 07:23 PM--> (lucid @ Apr 29 2004, 07:23 PM)
Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 07:20 PM
Why don&#39;t you go jack off your dog you fucking redneck.
While that might be considered entertainment in Canada it is considered nasty in the US.

Actually, a little dog DNA in the human gene pool might help canada out. [/b]
Oh please man...their just a border away.

DaCuBaN
30th April 2004, 22:15
and you share the same gene pool anyway.... of which a tiny percent could actually be called &#39;american&#39;. The rest if you remember only even got over there a few hundred years ago. As if nationalism wasn&#39;t bad enough you&#39;re actually getting it wrong

Lucid you simply don&#39;t have a clue it seems... You&#39;ve got to learn that EVEN WHEN PROVOKED you shouldn&#39;t flame back.

Osman Ghazi
30th April 2004, 22:37
So you&#39;re trying to tell me that America could have won if it wasn&#39;t for the fact that Britain went to war with France and Spain? That&#39;s retarded. You think Britain couldn&#39;t have crushed a tiny rebellion in a backwater province?

Capitalist Imperial
1st May 2004, 00:06
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 10:37 PM
So you&#39;re trying to tell me that America could have won if it wasn&#39;t for the fact that Britain went to war with France and Spain? That&#39;s retarded. You think Britain couldn&#39;t have crushed a tiny rebellion in a backwater province?
No, the help was important, but the French didn&#39;t win on their own accord, and the Continental Army&#39;s use of Native Ameircan gureilla tactics and their strategically advantageous defensive posture was a huge contributing factor.

Invader Zim
1st May 2004, 23:46
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 07:33 PM
Name one. And not the war of independance, that was won by France.
I dont know how you come to that conclusion, the fact that the british army obstinatly insisted that they would not reinforce the troops sufficently, seems a far more likley reason.

mysticofthewest
2nd May 2004, 00:00
This brings to mind the joke Why are there so many trees in Paris?
Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

Osman Ghazi
2nd May 2004, 00:56
Well the factors that led to the Treaty of Paris are these:

1) Britain was at war with their American colonies and then for some stupid reason they decided to provoke war with the French by firing on some of their ships. This also embroiled them in war with Spain and as if that wasn&#39;t enough, the year after that they decided to declare war on the Dutch too. This meant that they could have no hope of any concentration of troops as they had to fight in the Americas, Africa and India. Also, it forced them to leave a considerable portion of their navy to defend Britain from a French invasion.
2) The only reason that they could sustain any sort of war effort was that A) they were given a million dollars by a French king who was out to revenge the Seven Year&#39;s War and B) they were given tons of arms and ammunition by the French government.
3) Still, even with that huge supply of arms, they were dished out one defeat after another and in fact, they won only one major battle on their own, Saratoga (which actually wasn&#39;t all that major except in morale terms). In the great victory at Yorktown, more than half the troops were French and the only reason that he knew about Cornwallis&#39; weakness was because of French intelligence work.
4) The only reason the British capitulated in the end was because the war with France was too costly to maintain and France had made an agreement with the U&#036; that they wouldn&#39;t make any seperate peace without the other&#39;s consent. They also knew that the only terms America would accept was independence, so they sued for peace with America to end the war with France and in the end, the Americans betrayed the French and made a seperate peace behinf their back.

Either way, the French got revenge for the loss of Quebec in the Seven Year&#39;s War but the bankruptcy caused by helping the American&#39;s eventually led to the French Revolution.

So, considering all these facts, the logical conclusion would be that the American War of Independence was won by the French, not the Americans.

Arminius
2nd May 2004, 06:48
Originally posted by XPhile2868+Apr 29 2004, 12:50 PM--> (XPhile2868 @ Apr 29 2004, 12:50 PM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 11:21 PM
The working man really has no nation.
That is so true. Together, without the capitalist borders that divide us, the workers will unite without nationality. We are not Americans, or British, or Chinese or whatever, we are human beings. Citizens of this most beautiful planet that every day capitalism exploits, abuses and damages. [/b]
There is no such thing as "humanity".

Osman Ghazi
2nd May 2004, 12:57
There is no such thing as Arminius.