Originally posted by Overdose
She was the one who started attacking our nation and saying how her nation was better then ours. She started it, not me.
Originally posted by creetwins
You saying we aren't a great society Trav? Your tone is hard to read sometimes. We have a lot less stress here. We're healthier. Our laws are relavent throughout the country. You do not have to worry about where you are, the rules apply everywhere, you know where you stand. Less people are murdered here. We aren't a terrorist target.
Notice that she was just pointing out some benefits to living in Canada. Can't find any America-bashing there. Though it should be fewer people, not "less". ;)
Originally posted by Overdose
Well, isn't that nice, Creetwins? No Government is perfect and for that matter, no country is perfect. Not to get into the whole "Canada vs. US" thing, but to be honest, I have hardly any respect for Canada. Yes, their laws regarding gays, and other issues I agree with. But to be honest, what have they done for the world that has made a huge positive impact on the world? I can't really think of one. What do they fight for? What they done to stop world wars? Does Canada do much of anything?
OD, you started the whole mess by being a dick to Creetwins. I am of the opinion that you owe her an apology.

Which is a lot. How much does Canada pay for peacekeeping?
Canada pays their dues.

The evidence is that their GDP is not as high as it could or should be. It's proven with other countries who have less resources and land, have a higher GDP.
That's not evidence. That's speculation! Again with the unscientific bullshit? You're good at that, you'd make a good advertiser.

Okay, well the amount of resources Canada has, equals the amount of resources Japan has. Canada has more, but they are harder to get. Japan has less, but are easier to get. That means that they are equal in terms of "resources"
That means, population of Japan: 127,417,244
Population of Canada: 32,805,041
GDP ratio of Japan: $29,391.62/person
GDP ratio of Canada: $31,184.23/person
(Can't believe I forgot about that)
Who's better now?

If they are open to new ideas and if they open up to other governments and cultures, you can industrialize much quicker.
I'd like to quote what you posted. What you bolded actually.
"Without government industrial policy Japan would still have industrialized, but perhaps not at “miracle” rates."
What kind of government can dictate industrial policy? The US certainly can't, neither can Canada.

Well, why don't they have a higher GDP? Something must be going wrong...
Or maybe you're not understanding the nuances of a GDP. Look up at the ratios that I forgot about.

And if Canada wanted to, they could take after Japan or create cities closer together. It depends on what the people of a country want to do with their land. The people of Canada choose to have their land the way it is, regardless of the "cold" part of their country. They could change it, but don't. Proving that their ratios are higher, because they choose to make less in the GDP.
You have got to be kidding me. What part of "frozen wasteland" don't you get? Why doesn't the United States have more cities in the Nevada? Why don't those damn Africans build more cities in that Sahara, it just scorches your skin off! And why the hell would Canada want to take after Japan? That would involve ditching a lot of civil rights that they hold dear.

They did so again in 1945 because we already beat Japan.
No... if you read my source a little bit farther down you'd see that the Emperor of China petitioned to stop the war when he heard of Russian agression. Because of Russian aggression, not because the United States was attacking from the south and getting closer and closer to Japan, but because the Russians decided to come in from the North. Japan was not beaten by then, and their reaction to Russian agression leads some historians to believe that Japan would have surrendered without the nuclear bomb. And my comment about 1939 was because I just recently learned that Japan had tried to invade Russia, but they were completely beaten.

Again, what world event has Canada affected to a large extent ?
Again, what world event has the United States affected to a large extent?

There were trains all around Russia shipping supplies
From or to Siberia? You keep getting more and more rediculous.

Blib, your map seems fine, but you forgest the North West part of China that Japan could have taken over, had we not gotten involved. Do you see where it says Chechnya? But a air base on the "N" or the first "C", they could have attacked cities around Moscow and Moscow itself. Not to mention they could have invaded when it was not winter conditons. You don't just have to use planes.
Borg covered this perfectly well.

I doubt it's as cold as it is in the winter.
Freezing is still freezing. Another funny thing. This time about temperatures below freezing, to humans just a bit under freezing can be just as bad as freezing to the point that the piss freezes while still in your bladder. Especially when trying to send a military campaign through terrain like that.

Blib, do you realize how much of bullshit you are spewing? The British were fighting in Europe, they had no time to fight in the Pacific. How many troops did the British send to the Pacific? Hardly the amount of the United States. Plus, we dropped the Atomic Bombs and ended the war. I say it's around 80-90%. And regardless, even if it is 70, it equals to 45%. That is ALMSOT half from ONE nation. Which is a TON for one nation to help in WWII.
I considered that a very very liberal guess. 20% seems a bit high, and 70% may have been a bit high. Russia did half the work, Britain did a rather large protion, and then the United States joined a few years late. Only to help a bit, but lose one of the largest number of people. I personally consider D-day to be too great a loss personwise that I don't understand how it can be considered a great accomplishment. I'd like to believe that there could have been better ways to do it, maybe come through Spain? The United States lost too many troops in their victories it resembled the victories of ancient history, in which if 100 of your 2000 soldiers survived it was a grand accomplishment.

I'll whine all I want. You know we do more for the world community in terms of money, help and aid.
I know people do, but unlike you I don't attribute those to the country in general. The bible belt doesn't deserve to be considered part of a freedom loving, giving country.

I think you do. If you say something is wrong, what would be better?
Maybe there is nothing better in what you're debating. Maybe the entire concept is horrible an inhumane. Let's say we're debating how best to torture this person, what would you consider the best way to go about that?

Yes, I've said it. So what? Why wouldn't Canada want to stop terrorists from killing innocent people?
Who said they don't? Who said that they would rather protect their own innocent people instead going on the offensive and possibly getting more people in danger?

So if we were to stop aids in America and hunger in America, we could just stop helping other nations who are incapable of stopping aids and hunger? Canada is capable of helping their people, but other nations are not capable, so we as a world community should help them succeed.
Ones country gets the priority. Other countries needing help means that their governments are doing something wrong. The responsibility lies in their hands. It would be nice to help them, but you have to consider your priorities and how much your own citizens will be harmed if you were to go help citizens of foriegn countries.

Sometimes to improve the world you have to interfer.
Only if it's a last resort. Only if it's because that country will cause harm to your country. Otherwise you only offer limited assistance. Nothing more.

She was the one who started attacking our nation and saying how her nation was better then ours. She started it, not me.
Incorrect. She was describing a few policies of her country, trav attacked her country and she defended it. Briefly and without insult to the United States. Then you said this peice of shit:
"But to be honest, what have they done for the world that has made a huge positive impact on the world? I can't really think of one. What do they fight for? What have they done to stop world wars? Does Canada do much of anything?"

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Canada has the 8th largest economy in the world, yet is the 35th largest country by population...they must be doing something right. :)

But they owe it to the world to do more dammit!

Oh man, another map. This one highlights where the British were stationed on the offensive against the Japanese:

http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics/82040.jpg

That Burma down there was a very fought over peice of land.

Blib, creetwins, Borg, Vile and all others who posted so many fascinating facts about Canada and the war, I have to say, you guys did an amazing amount of research...

I am blown away by your posts and your open minded approach...

Thanks for the great read and learning experience....

Cree, I honestly didn't know what they were. Thank you for telling me.

There's no shame in that. I didn't know much about it (numbers) before this thread. And that goes for tons and tons of details about the wars too, holy crap do you guys know tons about wars. Is that a guy thing? Or an American thing?:D Any way I consider myself fully updated on the wars, and thank you fellas for the maps, it helps.

And Borg, I can't find Burma on your last map I have no idea where to look *blushing*

But jeez, take a chill pill.

Nah, I don't do those anymore. I may have to go fire up the ol' bong, however.....:p

Notice that she was just pointing out some benefits to living in Canada. Can't find any America-bashing there. Though it should be fewer people, not "less".

Gah! He's right!





Incorrect. She was describing a few policies of her country, trav attacked her country and she defended it. Briefly and without insult to the United States. Then you said this peice of shit:

Hey, where's Trav been all this time anyway......?

Honestly, I've had a lot of laughs during this thread, you all are a bunch of smart cookies........

This was one of my favorites Fine, you wont listen to the facts of a GDP. Give me evidence that Canadians are lazy ass dope smoking morons. and the diagram.......hilarious!

And [blib], I can't find Burma on your last map I have no idea where to look *blushing*
Halfway down, a little to the right. It's under China and to the right of India. The Japanese were intent on keeping it and it took a lot of British and American troops under British command(till later when Eisenhower replaced the command) to take it.

This was one of my favorites
---
and the diagram.......hilarious!
Why thank you :D

Canada pays their dues.
And we still give more in aid across the world and pay for more things in the United Nations. I have a question, does every nation pay the same in dues?

That's not evidence. That's speculation! Again with the unscientific bullshit? You're good at that, you'd make a good advertiser.
If their people tried hard, they would have a higher GDP.

That means, population of Japan: 127,417,244
Population of Canada: 32,805,041
GDP ratio of Japan: $29,391.62/person
GDP ratio of Canada: $31,184.23/person
(Can't believe I forgot about that)
Who's better now?
And we have 40,000 (around) a person for the "ratio", so the United States is better then both. I think I'm reading that correctly. Proving we as a nation give more because we strive to make the most as a nation. Correct? I could very well be wrong on the 40,000 though, however I don't think I am.

Or maybe you're not understanding the nuances of a GDP. Look up at the ratios that I forgot about.
Our ratio is 40,000, proving we are better. Correct? We have less people then China, but a higher GDP...so? I suppose our people try the hardest to be able to give the most in the world...

You have got to be kidding me. What part of "frozen wasteland" don't you get?
Southern Canda is a frozen wasteland?

And why the hell would Canada want to take after Japan? That would involve ditching a lot of civil rights that they hold dear.
The fact still remains, Canada has just as much "open" and "good" land as Japan does.

Again, what world event has the United States affected to a large extent?
World War II, Cold War, Civil Wars across the world...just to name a few.

For the record, I really don't want to debate how much of an affect we had on World War II. I admit I may have been wrong on many points about World War II, but the fact is, we took out Japan almost all on our own. Yes, we had help from the British. But, we gave the most troops, planes, and ships to fight the Japanese. We defeated them at Midway, and from there on took their Aircraft Carriers in which were vital to Japan's survival. So yes, I would say without us Japan would have lived on to become a horrible Government across the world. That is a huge thing we did during World War II. I personally would say 80% of the reason Japan was defeated was because of the United States. Without us, the Japanese would have only become a more powerful nation and would have caused much more hell across the world.

I suppose I was wrong on attacking Russia from China. But regardless, even though Hitler would have been defeated, Japan would have lived on to become a horrible government without the United States. And we also made the war in Europe end a few years earlier, which is also another thing to be proud of as Americans.

I know people do, but unlike you I don't attribute those to the country in general. The bible belt doesn't deserve to be considered part of a freedom loving, giving country.
Regardless, America gives more aid then any other country.

Who said they don't?
They haven't acted on defeating world terrorism, now have they?

Who said that they would rather protect their own innocent people instead going on the offensive and possibly getting more people in danger?
Canada seems to attack our wars to fight terrorism, yet, what do they do to help terrorism? Nothing at all. If they should only worry about themselves, why do they worry about the people of Iraq? Why do they care? Why do they send aid and help other nations? If they truly cared about the world community, as many others say, they would go and fight world terrorism in which affects many innocent people.

Ones country gets the priority. Other countries needing help means that their governments are doing something wrong. The responsibility lies in their hands.
I think it lies in the worlds hands. Countries owe it to the world to make our world community better. Period. We are all on this earth and we should all fight to make it better. Just caring about our country allows other governments to take over and become horrible.

Borg

I suppose the reason I attacked Canada so badly was because I hear people in their Government attacking the United States for our war in Iraq and how bad of a nation we are. However, I see them doing nothing to improve the situation It just really bothers me that they have such a big mouth, but no action to back it up.

And I admit I was wrong on the bombing from China. But regardless of that, we still had a huge affect on not allowing Japan to become a horrible Government across the world.

Vile

I admit I was wrong on the accounts of attacking Russia from China. However, I feel you downplay the role of the United States in World War II. I admit I don't know as much about the war as you do, but I've heard many people who are experts on WWII who say we had a much larger impact on the war then you appear to give us credit for. I really can't debate your points, for I am limited on resources. But to be honest, I am somewhat confident that if I had more resources I could argue that we had a much larger roll in World War II and the fight against Hitler then you give the United States credit for. It's as if, we did nothing from the way you craft your posts. Did thousands, apon thousands of US troops die for nothing in Europe, Vile? Was the only main thing we did, D-Day? Was fighting for 3 years pointless? Did all the planes, tanks and men we gave do almost nothing? Not to mention all the money we gave the British and Russians? Personally, I think we did much more to help bring the defeat to the Germans. I'll have to do some more reading, but I hardly think you give us enough credit.

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

Personally, I think it's safe to assume America gives more aid and help to other countries then any other nation on this planet. We may have our faults, but at least we stand and try to do what is correct throughout the world. We give help to poor nations, to nations who are dealing with hunger issues, aids, and many other world issues. America is a very giving nation, and we give more then any other nation has in terms of help across the world. We are always here to lend a helping hand and for that I am proud to be an American.

I may have been too harsh on Canada, I just personally find it really sick that they attack our nation so much on actually trying to help the world community, yet I don't see them trying or doing as much as America does to help the world community.

For World War II, you can say we didn't have much of an affect in Europe, but we did against Japan. We've saved many nations from horrible Governments in the past and helped out many people who have been starving and dealing with disease. Our nation has also given many new inventions and ideas across the world.

All in all, I think America does more then our fair share to help the world community.

Originally posted by Overdose

Vile

I admit I was wrong on the accounts of attacking Russia from China. However, I feel you downplay the role of the United States in World War II. I admit I don't know as much about the war as you do, but I've heard many people who are experts on WWII who say we had a much larger impact on the war then you appear to give us credit for. I really can't debate your points, for I am limited on resources. But to be honest, I am somewhat confident that if I had more resources I could argue that we had a much larger roll in World War II and the fight against Hitler then you give the United States credit for. It's as if, we did nothing from the way you craft your posts. Did thousands, apon thousands of US troops die for nothing in Europe, Vile? Was the only main thing we did, D-Day? Was fighting for 3 years pointless? Did all the planes, tanks and men we gave do almost nothing? Not to mention all the money we gave the British and Russians? Personally, I think we did much more to help bring the defeat to the Germans. I'll have to do some more reading, but I hardly think you give us enough credit.

I think the US did a great deal to win WWII, and without our participation the outcome would have been much different. I wasn't attempting to downplay the role the US played, I was attempting to show that other countries contributed much more than we as Americans often give them credit for.

We lost somewhere around 400,000 people in WWII, while Russia lost approx. 20 million, and China another 10-15 million. The Russians were also responsible for the vast majority of casualties inflicted on the Germans. These simple facts are something we often forget here in America, and our popular media often portrays the contributions we made while ignoring Russia, and especially China. If 20 million Russians hadn't died fighting the Germans, how many Americans would have died trying to defeat Hitler?


All in all, I think America does more then our fair share to help the world community.

I would tend to agree.

Originally posted by Overdose
And we have 40,000 (around) a person for the "ratio", so the United States is better then both. I think I'm reading that correctly. Proving we as a nation give more because we strive to make the most as a nation. Correct? I could very well be wrong on the 40,000 though, however I don't think I am.

...

Our ratio is 40,000, proving we are better. Correct? We have less people then China, but a higher GDP...so? I suppose our people try the hardest to be able to give the most in the world...
Why are we comparing Canada to the U.S? Let's look at the checklist:

U.S. Pros
-Higher GDP. Proving...what, exactly?
-Better weather.
-Some beautiful scenery.
-Came out with Boston (the band)
-Internationally involved.
-No socialized medicine.

U.S. Cons
-Preemptively attacked Iraq.
-Some rather stupid laws.
-Is the birthplace of disco.

Canada Pros
-Not as high a GDP, but still absolutely respectable.
-Some beautiful scenery.
-Came out with Rush (the band).
-Actually pay their UN dues.
-Some libertarian laws (pot, gay marriage).

Canada Cons
-Socialized medicine.
-Too cold.
-They say "eh" too much.
-They're all lazy, pot-smoking bastards (according to OD, who is the undisputed expert on Canada).

By the way...

"Just as important to the Canadian identity is Canada's strong support of multilateralism. Canada is one of the world's leading peacekeepers, sending soldiers under UN authority around the world. Canadian external affairs minister, Lester B. Pearson, invented the modern concept of peacekeeping, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Canada is also committed to disarmament and is especially noted for its leadership in the Ottawa Convention to ban land mines.

"Canada has long been reluctant to participate in military operations that are not sanctioned by the United Nations, such as the Vietnam War or the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, but does join in sanctioned operations such as the first Gulf War. It was also willing to participate with its NATO allies in the Kosovo Conflict.

"Canada hosted the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Canada also seeks to expand its ties to Pacific Rim economies through membership in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC). Canada also is an active participant in discussions stemming from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Canada joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990 and has been an active member, hosting the OAS General Assembly in Windsor, Ontario, in June 2000."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Canada

Originally posted by Overdose

Canada seems to attack our wars to fight terrorism, yet, what do they do to help terrorism?

They sent troops to Afghanistan to help on the war on terrorism, but they were against the war in Iraq. Canada seems to have a lot in common with you.

Originally posted by Overdose
I suppose the reason I attacked Canada so badly was because I hear people in their Government attacking the United States for our war in Iraq and how bad of a nation we are. However, I see them doing nothing to improve the situation It just really bothers me that they have such a big mouth, but no action to back it up.

I honestly have seen very little in the news about Canada's stance on the war in Iraq. The news I see tends to be about France, the UK, and Germany. Besides, you've been criticizing the war on Iraq as long as you've been on this forum - why is it bad when Canadians do it and OK when you do it?

And we still give more in aid across the world and pay for more things in the United Nations. I have a question, does every nation pay the same in dues?
It's percentage-wise based on how much a country can afford. However, the United States is around two billion dollars in debt. Canada pays $50 million dollars a year in dues.

If their people tried hard, they would have a higher GDP.
That is still not evidence. I asked you for evidence. Give me evidence that if they "tried hard" they'd have a higher GDP.

And we have 40,000 (around) a person for the "ratio", so the United States is better then both. I think I'm reading that correctly. Proving we as a nation give more because we strive to make the most as a nation. Correct? I could very well be wrong on the 40,000 though, however I don't think I am.
First of all, you were arguing about Japan. Second of all, that still doesn't factor in resources, in which the United States has in abundance.

Southern Canda is a frozen wasteland?
Southern Canada is full of cities. But what exactly is your point regarding "build more cities"? That makes no logical sense, more cities is not going to mean more comerce.

World War II, Cold War, Civil Wars across the world...just to name a few.
World War II you've lost. Cold War was a standoff, it only benefited the United States. Firstly no Russian dictator would have actually launched a nuclear missile except for Stalin, and he wasn't in command when they had that technology. The end of the cold war was inevitable, Russia was going to colapse, dictatorships always do. And the more violent the dictatorship, the sooner. Also, Stalin's predecessors did pisspoor jobs in handling the economic system. By the late 1960s there was no actual threat of a Russian invasion, their economy wouldn't of been capable of withstanding it. The only actual threat in the latter years of the Cold War was China, but they're never factored in, it's always the "US and Russia". When China had the power, and the United States wouldn't of been able to do it alone. Civil Wars? What Civil Wars? Vietnam, complete failure(politically). I can think of Chili. Oh boy did we help there. Pol Pot was the epitome of a good guy :rolleyes:. We helped put Castro in power, and failed to get him out. With the help of the CIA a lot of horrible rightwing dictatorships either managed to stay in power, or got in power. I don't understand where you even thought we helped out in a Civil War. Besides, I thought civil wars are supposed to be between the people of a country, who gave us the right to interfere? Ah, right, our economic devil that floats over top our heads.

Without us, the Japanese would have only become a more powerful nation and would have caused much more hell across the world.
Maybe yes, maybe no. But I highly doubt they'd become more powerful than Russia or the British. I have a feeling that even without the United States if they kept pushing Russia would have gotten involved again, the war may have lasted for quite some time, but eventually Japan would have lost. That's why I consider the United States to have been important, but I don't think we either won it all on our own.

I suppose I was wrong on attacking Russia from China. But regardless, even though Hitler would have been defeated, Japan would have lived on to become a horrible government without the United States. And we also made the war in Europe end a few years earlier, which is also another thing to be proud of as Americans.
It's impossible to have made the war in Europe end a few years earlier when Russian troops were nearly at Berlin by the time of Normandy, with a force that was the size of like half the population of Germany.

Regardless, America gives more aid then any other country.
I've added up that American citizens individually donated around $1.5 million to the tsunami, Canadians around $200,000. Proportionally that's $0.006/person for Canada and $0.005/person for the United States. It would frankly be impossible to find the numbers donated for all aid, but I figure that's a pretty good guesstimate for all of them since the Tsunami was considered so much more important(and the numbers for it are the ones that show up when you just put aid contributions in google)

They haven't acted on defeating world terrorism, now have they?
They have yet to be attacked by an international terrorist group. Getting involved could open themselves up for an attack. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider that serious a threat to the citizens to be worth it. A government must look towards it's citizenry first.

Canada seems to attack our wars to fight terrorism, yet, what do they do to help terrorism? Nothing at all. If they should only worry about themselves, why do they worry about the people of Iraq? Why do they care? Why do they send aid and help other nations? If they truly cared about the world community, as many others say, they would go and fight world terrorism in which affects many innocent people.
Iraq causes reprecussions in the world diplomatic community. It was the begining of the end of the United Nations, and world wide diplomatic conditions worsened. Iraq will make diplomatic solutions even harder around the world. Not necessarily because it was Iraq that was attacked, but because of the arrogance and one-sidedness that the United States had when going into the war.

I think it lies in the worlds hands. Countries owe it to the world to make our world community better. Period. We are all on this earth and we should all fight to make it better. Just caring about our country allows other governments to take over and become horrible.
People should care. Countries shouldn't. Period.


I suppose the reason I attacked Canada so badly was because I hear people in their Government attacking the United States for our war in Iraq and how bad of a nation we are. However, I see them doing nothing to improve the situation It just really bothers me that they have such a big mouth, but no action to back it up.
So what you did was you took your lack of knowledge about Canada, your prejudiced feelings, your ignorant attitude toward the people of Canada, small sample size of people you knew from Canada and made it the whole population, and you just decided to open your mouth with insults, not knowing what you were talking about, and create a giant argument that spread to a bunch of different topics, almost all of which you were outrageously ignorant about?



I honestly have seen very little in the news about Canada's stance on the war in Iraq. The news I see tends to be about France, the UK, and Germany. Besides, you've been criticizing the war on Iraq as long as you've been on this forum - why is it bad when Canadians do it and OK when you do it?
Because he's gone to protests. :D

These debates started because I attacked Canada. Now, I'm going to reply to many points you have all brought up, as well mention many things the United States has done to help the world community, far more then any other nation has.

Personally, after doing some more research I think the US had a considerable affect of the course of the war.

The United States army participated in almost every campaign in the Mediterranean and Western Fronts from 1943 onwards. The main battles we helped in was the battle for Normandy, Nothern and Southern France, the Battle of the Bulge, Rhineland and Central Europe. As many as 60 divisions were eventually fielded. This is more then twice the size of the British, French and Canadian and other armies fighting on the Western Front. The US allowed Western Europe to be liberated without help of the Red Army, which in turn hastened the overall defeat of Germany.

The United States, with help from the British and a few other nations helped bring about the defeat of Japan. We sent the most troops, planes, and ships to defeat the Japanese. Without the United States, Japan could have grown into becoming a horrible government that would have spread chaos throughout the world. Just because Japan may not have become stronger then the Russians, does not mean they would have been easily defeated without the United States. We, almost on our own defeated the Japanese at Midway, Okinawa, Coral Sea, Destruction of Truk and Iwo Jima. Plus the battle of Guadalcanal which was a major turning point against the Japanese. All of which the US mainly fought.

All in all, showing the United States had a profound affect on World War II. We almost on our own defeated the Japanese, the other main member of the Axis and we helped free Western Europe, mainly France, and took on Hitler from the west.

"Just as important to the Canadian identity is Canada's strong support of multilateralism. Canada is one of the world's leading peacekeepers, sending soldiers under UN authority around the world. Canadian external affairs minister, Lester B. Pearson, invented the modern concept of peacekeeping, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Canada is also committed to disarmament and is especially noted for its leadership in the Ottawa Convention to ban land mines.
And without the United States paying 27% of these peacekeeping missions, they wouldn't ever occur.

The amount of money we have given in aid to the Tsunami Fund is un-matched. Our people have shown yet again, that we give the most when people need aid.

Total USG Humanitarian and Recovery Assistance Pledged: $350,000,000
Total USAID/OFDA Humanitarian Assistance Committed: $81,851,169
Total USAID/FFP Humanitarian Assistance Committed: $22,466,900
Total USAID/ANE Humanitarian Assistance Committed: $5,372,944
Total USAID/ANE Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Assistance Committed: $18,462,915
Total USDA Humanitarian Assistance Committed: $12,000,000
Total State/PRM Humanitarian Assistance Committed: $200,000
Total USG Humanitarian Assistance Committed: $140,353,928

The United States helps the most in AIDS across the world

The U.S. government has made the fight against HIV/AIDS a top priority, not only for humanitarian reasons, but because the HIV/AIDS crisis threatens the prosperity, stability, and development of nations around the world. USAID has been, and continues to be, at the forefront of the U.S. government's response in the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. USAID has funded over $3.2 billion since inception of its international HIV/AIDS program in 1986, more than any other public or private organization. USAID currently has HIV/AIDS programs in nearly 100 countries worldwide.

The United States has helped stop the spread of the Avian Influenza a horrible disease in Asia.

On May 11, 2005, the President signed an emergency appropriations bill which contained $25 million to prevent and control the spread of avian influenza. USAID is working with other U.S. Government agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of State to ensure an effective and coordinated approach to this public health and economic threat.

The United States is helping out hunger in Africa, in a large way.

* An estimated $674 million from the United States for emergency relief in Africa.
o An estimated $250 million for food aid from the Emerson Humanitarian Trust;
o $240 million for food aid from the emergency supplemental; and
o $184 million for emergency humanitarian assistance from the emergency supplemental.

All in all, proving that the United States gives the most to help out countries across the world. Our nation has the most in GDP because we work towards making it that way. It is party due to resources, but Norway has a higher GDP Per Capita then the United States and Canada, yet we have more resources. Norway has a lot of natural resources, but is a very small nation in comparison. So, resources don't make a huge impact. And China has a less total GDP then the United States, but more people. Showing that the amount of people, resources, or size of land does not make a difference in total GDP or per capita GDP. Showing once again the United States gives the most because our people strive to give the most.

Our aid around the world is unmatched, and for that I am proud of our country.

I admit I was too hard on Canada and I take back many things I've stated. However, I do think America gives more then Canada because we try harder as a people, to give more. But, I do respect many things Canada has done throughout history. I've still yet to see Canada making a huge impact on any huge world event, but I do respect what they do.

I still think that America does the most for the world because of the devotion of the American people trying to make our economy the strongest it can be. I think we help the world the most, and that for a nation that has only been around for such a short amount of time, we've done a lot. Yes, we may have our faults, but we always try to do what is the best around the world.

Canada, I'm sorry I was so hard on you. I've learned that you do, do a lot more then what I thought. I respect your nation much more now.

And Lionel, yes Canada has every right to attack our war in Iraq. But what plans do they offer to improve the situation? What plans do they suggest would be a better way to fight terrorism? What are they doing to improve the situation in Iraq? Not much. That goes for France and other nations who attack our Government.

::applauds:: :)

Much better post.

I only disagree with a few things, and most of them are only the principle.

The US allowed Western Europe to be liberated without help of the Red Army, which in turn hastened the overall defeat of Germany.
Yes, but would Berlin still have fallen? That's really all that mattered, was taking down Berlin and Hitler, the army would have dissolved after that.

The United States, with help from the British and a few other nations helped bring about the defeat of Japan.
That's all I wanted you to say. I never said that the United States wasn't a huge influence in the Pacific against Japan, just that they weren't overall. Doing half of it isn't being an overwelming or huge influence.

And without the United States paying 27% of these peacekeeping missions, they wouldn't ever occur.
Good. If funding for them colapsed maybe they'd reorganize and give the peacekeepers some power.

Tsunami aid totals to:
$631,707,856. Canadian aid totals to $80,000,000.
Canadian donation to GDP ratio: $0.078/$1
Canadian donation to population ratio: $2.44/person
American donation to GDP ratio: $0.054/$1
American donation to population ratio: $2.14/person
Not as much as we can apparently. These Canadians are donating more per person and per dollar than us Americans.

Canadian budget information (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget04/bp/bpc4ee.htm)
"This budget builds upon the 8-per-cent increase in international assistance already provided for 2004–05 in the 2003 budget, by providing an additional $248 million, or an 8-per-cent increase, for 2005–06."
"Canada announced its commitment to provide debt relief on the vast majority of Iraq’s debt to Canada, which stands at approximately $750 million. This is in addition to Canada’s contribution of up to $300 million in humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. "
"Canada will also expand its reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan by $250 million over five years from the International Assistance Envelope beginning in 2004–05. With this increase, Canada’s aid to Afghanistan since September 11, 2001, will have totalled over $616 million."

All in all, proving that the United States gives the most to help out countries across the world. Our nation has the most in GDP because we work towards making it that way. It is party due to resources, but Norway has a higher GDP Per Capita then the United States and Canada, yet we have more resources. Norway has a lot of natural resources, but is a very small nation in comparison. So, resources don't make a huge impact. And China has a less total GDP then the United States, but more people. Showing that the amount of people, resources, or size of land does not make a difference in total GDP or per capita GDP. Showing once again the United States gives the most because our people strive to give the most.
None of those influence a GDP more than another. Also, Luxemburg (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html) has the highest GDP per capita(a whole 1.47% over the US), Norway has the highest GNP per capita. GDP doesn't include money made overseas, GNP does. The formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) for the GDP is private consumption + government consumption + investment + net exports. The GDP doesn't factor in government debt, so a government can spend to collapse and their GDP will go up. Something mentioned there is that if a company makes money by poluting a river, the GDP goes up, and when the government spends money to clean that up, the GDP goes up again. Somebody should come up with a country efficiency equation that factors those things in by cancelling them out.

However, I do think America gives more then Canada because we try harder as a people, to give more.
That's impossible if Canadians give more per person and per dollar. That means that they have to work harder to get that money back than Americans do.

And Lionel, yes Canada has every right to attack our war in Iraq. But what plans do they offer to improve the situation? What plans do they suggest would be a better way to fight terrorism? What are they doing to improve the situation in Iraq? Not much. That goes for France and other nations who attack our Government.
Increasing funds to Afghanistan and the anti-terror effort by $250 million, cancelling Iraq's debt, and donating $300 million in aid and reconstruction in Iraq.

Yes, but would Berlin still have fallen?
I would say Berlin would have fallen, however it would have taken much longer for Berlin to fall. As I stated, we had 60 divisions of troops in Western Europe freeing the French and helping the British. We had more divisions then any other nation. Without the constant battles, and fights from the West, Germany could have put full power on the East and held off the Russians, not forever, but for a while. Proving we did bring about the end of the Nazis much quicker then if we had not gotten invovled.

That's all I wanted you to say. I never said that the United States wasn't a huge influence in the Pacific against Japan, just that they weren't overall. Doing half of it isn't being an overwelming or huge influence.
Blib, I've always known that the British did help us in the Pacific. However, on most every main battle in the Pacific we took the lead. Would Japan have fallen without the United States? No. Could the Russians have beat Japan? Most likely, but would Japan have allied with Germany if they were not planning on fighting the United States? Doubtful. Which means, without us I doubt Japan and Russia would have had conflict. Meaning, America almost on our own defeated the entire Japanese Empire.

Good. If funding for them colapsed maybe they'd reorganize and give the peacekeepers some power.
Maybe, but all of what Canada does through the UN is partly due to the fact that the United States gives so much money.

Tsunami aid totals to:
$631,707,856. Canadian aid totals to $80,000,000.
Canadian donation to GDP ratio: $0.078/$1
Canadian donation to population ratio: $2.44/person
American donation to GDP ratio: $0.054/$1
American donation to population ratio: $2.14/person
Not as much as we can apparently. These Canadians are donating more per person and per dollar than us Americans.
Okay, so the people of Canada may have given more "per person", however, I still firmly believe that our people work harder to make our economy strong, so we don't have to give as much per person, but we can still give more then any other nation because we work hard to make our GDP the highest it can be. Bur regardless, Blib, the United States gives the most in aid across the world then any other nation. That is something to be proud of, in general.

None of those influence a GDP more than another.
I disagree. Resources? Luxembourg hardly has any resources, for they are such a small nation. Yet, their GDP Per Capita is the largest, because their people try hard, even though they are very small. The size of ones country? Well, Luxembourg is so small, yet they have such a high GDP Per Capita. Amount of people? China has the most amount of people, yet a lower total GDP then the United States, even though China has more people then us. Showing that the people of ones nation who try to improve their GDP, makes the difference.

Americans give the most, because we try very hard to make our economy the best it can be, so we can in turn give out the most aid across the world. Yes, Norway and Luxembourg make more in terms of "Per-Capita", but both nations are small, have limited amounts of resources, and not very many people. Proving that it's the dedication of the people that matters in the end.

But something to think about. Luxembourg is so small, so they can take care of their people very easily and maintain their country very well. It's no wonder they have a high GDP Per Capita. For Norway, their GDP Per Capita is only better then ours by a small number. Showing that the US still, in all reality, has a great GDP Per Capita.

That's impossible if Canadians give more per person and per dollar. That means that they have to work harder to get that money back than Americans do.
Except we give the most in AID, in total GDP because our people strive to make the most so we don't have to give the most in a one-on-one "ratio". Our GDP Per Capita is higher then Canada's, period. We give out the most money and aid across the world, period. We have had a huge affect on WWII, the forming of the United Nations, stopping disease, hunger, slowing the spread of AIDS and many other issues across the world.

Increasing funds to Afghanistan and the anti-terror effort by $250 million, cancelling Iraq's debt, and donating $300 million in aid and reconstruction in Iraq.
Again, what plan do they offer to win the war on terrorism? Yes, they are helping with Afghanistan, but what do they offer for us to do that is better then Iraq, in terms of winning the war on terrorism?

Without the constant battles, and fights from the West, Germany could have put full power on the East and held off the Russians, not forever, but for a while. Proving we did bring about the end of the Nazis much quicker then if we had not gotten invovled.
There still would have been constant fights in the west. The British still lived.

but would Japan have allied with Germany if they were not planning on fighting the United States?
They allied in 1936(Source (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/pre-war/361125a.html)). Japan wouldn't of attacked the United States if their invasion of Russia in 1939 hadn't failed.

Bur regardless, Blib, the United States gives the most in aid across the world then any other nation. That is something to be proud of, in general.
But not a basis to judge other countries because they donate less. Since you might find that those other countries actually care more then Americans do and will take more out of their spending money than Americans do.

You didn't read a single sentence of the sources that I posted. That's not even a question. You have facts that are entirely wrong. First of all, Norway does not have a higher GDP than the United States, they have a higher GNP. That was not only said by me, but shown plainly in that first link. You researched your last post, but then you decide that you're done and know everything now? You missed the entire article on a GDP and what influences it. Now read (http://dieoff.org/page11.htm) something before you go back to looking like a dumbass. This(pdf) (http://www.redefiningprogress.org/newpubs/2004/gpi_march2004update.pdf) explains pretty much all of the shortcomings of the GDP and offers an alternative. Since I'm not sure if you're actually going to read any of these before you reply I guess I should explain them.
The GDP includes government spending on fixing people's blunders. Destroying forests makes a GDP go up, so does replanting them. If a city burns down, the GDP goes up when things are replaced. To determine economic growth only net gains should be included. That would mean that for our net economic growth, Enron didn't contribute to our economy, however the GDP went up because of it. We're in a war and spending money on that, our GDP goes up. A GDP does not accurately describe the growth, economic stability, or efficiency of a country. You cannot determine how much the citizens work through comparing GDPs or GDPs per capita. There is no standard equation for determining worker efficiency. Luxemburg has a high GDP because their government spends, spends, spends. They bring in $13.74 billion but spend $14.49 billion(Source (http://www.indexmundi.com/luxembourg/budget.html)). That will bring up a GDP.

Except we give the most in AID, in total GDP because our people strive to make the most so we don't have to give the most in a one-on-one "ratio". Our GDP Per Capita is higher then Canada's, period. We give out the most money and aid across the world, period. We have had a huge affect on WWII, the forming of the United Nations, stopping disease, hunger, slowing the spread of AIDS and many other issues across the world.
You missed the entire concept.

Again, what plan do they offer to win the war on terrorism? Yes, they are helping with Afghanistan, but what do they offer for us to do that is better then Iraq, in terms of winning the war on terrorism?
What terrorism in Iraq? We're fighting former Iraqi people and just flat out general rebels, not terrorists. Is Bin Laden in Iraq? No. He was last seen in Afghanistan, to help with the "war on terrorism" a country doesn't have to do jack shit in Iraq. Besides, you don't know what they are doing, I don't know what they are doing, the Canadian population doesn't know what they are doing. Just as you don't know what the United States is doing. We only get to hear about the FBI and CIA's blunders, not what they're actually doing. When was the last time you heard about them actually fighting terrorists? Months upon months ago. They're still doing it, we just aren't going to get any information on what.

OD - I have to be honest, you've impressed the shit out of me here. Good research and great posts. Cheers. :)

There still would have been constant fights in the west. The British still lived.
The British lived, but they were pushed far back, and mainly into their own country and the sea around their country. Germany had France, and most of Western Europe, besides the British. Without the United States fighting with the British, France may or may not have been saved. Again, we had twice as many troop divisions as any other country on the west side of Europe. Proving that we did, indeed, make it much harder for the Nazis to fight the Red Army. Germany could have held off the British, they couldn't have beaten the British, but they could have held them off. Germany could have then put all forces to fight Russia, and the outcome could have been different. The Russians eventually could have beat Germany, however, Germany had to use many troops, supplies, tanks, and planes to fight us in the west. Again, I think Germany could have held on for a lot longer, had we not gotten involved.

Our 82nd Air division bombed the Germans in Northern France.
82nd's three parachute infantry regiments and reinforced glider infantry regiment boarded hundreds of transport planes and gliders and began the largest airborne assault in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/82nd_Airborne

At the battle of Torch we landed 35,000 troops with US 1st Armored Division, 2nd Armored Division, and the 3rd and 9th Divisions and the 82nd Airborne. And then the Britsh and American troops, together, the British 78th and the American 34th Divisions - 20000 troops. Showing that we gave more then our fair share.

Without the help of America, I doubt France would have been freed, or as quickly as it was.


They allied in 1936(Source (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/pre-war/361125a.html)). Japan wouldn't of attacked the United States if their invasion of Russia in 1939 hadn't failed.
The reason the Japanese allied with Germany was because most nations, mostly the United States put pressure on the Japanese government to withdraw from China and cease the killing. The world or the league of nations were against Japanese aggression. They needed allies quickly and strong ones at that. So, they made treaties with Germany and Italy. In 1937 the United States put an oil embargo on the Japanese, which was before the war with Russia. The Japanese already hated and had strained relationships with the United States. They did have a reason to attack and fight with us, even if they had beaten Russia. They were limited on oil and they needed it.

The United States and Britain condemned Japan for its violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact but did little to stop the occupation. An inquiry commission dispatched by the League of Nations placed blame for the so-called Manchuria Incident on Japan, and in 1933 the League Assembly requested that Japan cease hostilities in China. The Japanese government instead announced its withdrawal from the league. Japanese military forces took over the Chinese province of Jehol as a buffer zone and threatened to occupy the cities of Beijing and Tianjin as well. Unable to resist the superior Japanese forces, in May 1933 the Chinese signed a truce that established a demilitarized zone between Manchuria and the rest of China.

Success in Manchuria emboldened the Japanese military to intervene in domestic politics. In February 1936 young, ultranationalist army officers staged a military insurrection in Tokyo to end civilian control of the government and put a military regime in its place. Army leaders put down the coup but in its aftermath acquired greater political influence as the country embarked on a new military buildup. In 1936 Japan signed an anti-Communist agreement with Germany, and one year later it signed a similar pact with Italy. Aggression and expansion now seemed inevitable. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566679_19/Japan.html#p345

But not a basis to judge other countries because they donate less. Since you might find that those other countries actually care more then Americans do and will take more out of their spending money than Americans do.
The people of America tend to almost, in most cases, donate more then any other nation. Not in every case, but in most cases.

You didn't read a single sentence of the sources that I posted. That's not even a question. You have facts that are entirely wrong. First of all, Norway does not have a higher GDP than the United States, they have a higher GNP. That was not only said by me, but shown plainly in that first link. You researched your last post, but then you decide that you're done and know everything now? You missed the entire article on a GDP and what influences it. Now read (http://dieoff.org/page11.htm) something before you go back to looking like a dumbass. This(pdf) (http://www.redefiningprogress.org/newpubs/2004/gpi_march2004update.pdf) explains pretty much all of the shortcomings of the GDP and offers an alternative. Since I'm not sure if you're actually going to read any of these before you reply I guess I should explain them.
The GDP includes government spending on fixing people's blunders. Destroying forests makes a GDP go up, so does replanting them. If a city burns down, the GDP goes up when things are replaced. To determine economic growth only net gains should be included. That would mean that for our net economic growth, Enron didn't contribute to our economy, however the GDP went up because of it. We're in a war and spending money on that, our GDP goes up. A GDP does not accurately describe the growth, economic stability, or efficiency of a country. You cannot determine how much the citizens work through comparing GDPs or GDPs per capita. There is no standard equation for determining worker efficiency. Luxemburg has a high GDP because their government spends, spends, spends. They bring in $13.74 billion but spend $14.49 billion(Source (http://www.indexmundi.com/luxembourg/budget.html)). That will bring up a GDP.

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $40,100. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

If you read the history of our GDP, the reason we have such a high GDP is because of our technology we as a people strive to create. And because of the household incomes that we as Americans have, that fuel our economy. Plus, the gains in labor productivity. Showing that the GDP has a lot to do with the power of the people.

You can say it does not fairly represent the economy of a nation, but if every GDP is rated in the same way as another nation, then they are all graded or determined the same way, then we can still show that the US does have the strongest economy. Do you really think the US does not have the strongest economy in the world, Blib? Regardless, every GDP is rated the same way. And out of that, our GDP is stronger and better in total income and per-capita then Canada. And do you really think Americans, throughout history, have not given more money in aid then any other nation?

What terrorism in Iraq? We're fighting former Iraqi people and just flat out general rebels, not terrorists.
I didn't say Iraq had terrorism, Blib. But what country, plan, or ideas does Canada give us to fight a better war on terrorism?

Without the help of America, I doubt France would have been freed, or as quickly as it was.
Freeing France didn't end the war.

In 1937 the United States put an oil embargo on the Japanese, which was before the war with Russia. The Japanese already hated and had strained relationships with the United States. They did have a reason to attack and fight with us, even if they had beaten Russia. They were limited on oil and they needed it.
How would attacking the United States get them oil? Russia has oil, and in an area closer to Japan than going all the way to Alaska. Russian oil reserves are just north of China. It would have been more beneficial for them to take Russia than to attack the United States. They failed. They wouldn't have attacked the United States at all if they had been sucessful in Russia. Just because they started to hate each other doesn't automatically grant a tactical advantage to a war.

The people of America tend to almost, in most cases, donate more then any other nation. Not in every case, but in most cases.
Incorrect. The people of America, individual, have a tendancy to donate less than the other developed nations.

If you read the history of our GDP, the reason we have such a high GDP is because of our technology we as a people strive to create. And because of the household incomes that we as Americans have, that fuel our economy. Plus, the gains in labor productivity. Showing that the GDP has a lot to do with the power of the people.
Again you miss what sources I posted? Everything in that piece you quoted is refuted in what I had previously posted. A GDP cannot measure what you're trying to get it to measure.

I'd like to pull one individual peice out of it though that you bolded:
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."
And this is a good thing? This in fact shows that our GDP is not supported by Americans working hard, but because of investments and spending. That's the rich getting richer off of funds they already had, not everybody working harder.

Oh and this:
"US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II."
doesn't directly influence a GDP. Nor does it say that American's GDP is because they work harder. It also doesn't claim that these technological advances were created in the United States, merely that Americans are the first to put money in and use them.

You can say it does not fairly represent the economy of a nation, but if every GDP is rated in the same way as another nation, then they are all graded or determined the same way, then we can still show that the US does have the strongest economy. Do you really think the US does not have the strongest economy in the world, Blib? Regardless, every GDP is rated the same way. And out of that, our GDP is stronger and better in total income and per-capita then Canada. And do you really think Americans, throughout history, have not given more money in aid then any other nation?
I merely said that our GDP is not just because(or even a large part) we "work harder". And again, regarding aid, not as much as we can. We don't strain ourselves as much as many other countries in our donations, we donate a small amout out of what we can handle.

I didn't say Iraq had terrorism, Blib. But what country, plan, or ideas does Canada give us to fight a better war on terrorism?
You asked what they were doing in Iraq in regards to terrorism. You mentioned terrorism and Iraq in the same sentence and even linked them together. Either you need to learn to write more coherently and be far more careful with what you say, or maybe you should just not try and back down on a failed argument as though it never existed. And as I have been saying countless times, is that terrorism should be attacked on a local basis. It's wasteful to try and rid the entire world of terrorism, it is impossible to kill it(it's an idea, not an organization). Terrorism can only be efficiently combated at a country level, if you are attacked, or determine that you might be attacked, you stop them. Otherwise it's a waste of time and resources. The only thing a war on terrorism can gain you is political capital for a time(if done well, Machiavelli would be sorely upset with our current administration).
"You cannot put a rope around the neck of an idea; you cannot put an idea up against the barrack-square wall and riddle it with bullets; you cannot confine it in the strongest prison cell your slaves could ever build."
Sean O'Casey
(Speaking of something entirely different, but the basic, literal, principle still applies)

Freeing France didn't end the war.
Freeing France and making the war on both sides of Germany made it end much quicker, then it would have. Proving that we did have a huge impact on World War II. Without our help, it would have dragged on for many more years.

How would attacking the United States get them oil? Russia has oil, and in an area closer to Japan than going all the way to Alaska. Russian oil reserves are just north of China. It would have been more beneficial for them to take Russia than to attack the United States. They failed. They wouldn't have attacked the United States at all if they had been sucessful in Russia. Just because they started to hate each other doesn't automatically grant a tactical advantage to a war.
Blib, they would have attacked the United States even if they had the oil from Russia. You, yourself stated that the Japanese wanted total control over the Pacific. We had Hawaii and Midway. They wanted that land in the Pacific, period. They still, would have attacked us.

Incorrect. The people of America, individual, have a tendancy to donate less than the other developed nations.
We give less in ratio, because we've already strived to make the most total, so we can give a less ratio, but still give the most out of any other nation.

Nor does it say that American's GDP is because they work harder. It also doesn't claim that these technological advances were created in the United States, merely that Americans are the first to put money in and use them.
Americans try to have the latest in technological advances, Blib. And because we as a people want to be strong in technology, we ourselves, influence our GDP.

I merely said that our GDP is not just because(or even a large part) we "work harder". And again, regarding aid, not as much as we can. We don't strain ourselves as much as many other countries in our donations, we donate a small amout out of what we can handle.
Yes, our GDP is affected by how hard Americans strive to push our economy. Our economic success is a direct result of the American spirit. We have less people then China, but we still make more in total GDP. Our resources are strong, but Finland has a higher GDP Per Capita then us, but less resoruces, proving that resources don't affect it as much as the people of ones country. Our people give less in ratio, because we've already strived to make the most, so we can give less in ratio, but still give the most out of any other nation.

You asked what they were doing in Iraq in regards to terrorism.
Did I? I asked what they were doing in regards to offer a better idea or plan to fight terrorism an alternative to Iraq, per-say.

You mentioned terrorism and Iraq in the same sentence and even linked them together. Either you need to learn to write more coherently and be far more careful with what you say, or maybe you should just not try and back down on a failed argument as though it never existed.
It isn't a failed argument, and just because I mentioned them in the same sentence does not mean I'm linking them. I am asking what Canada is offering in terms of a plan, to fight terrorism better, since the Iraq war, truly isn't fighting terrorism.

And as I have been saying countless times, is that terrorism should be attacked on a local basis.
I disagree. Many countries don't have the money or people to do this. So countries have to step in and help them fight the terrorsim that is in their country.

For anyone who thinks marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes, keep in mind that pot is 4x as likely to cause cancer. Or so I hear. Despite this, I do feel it should be legalized as long as we don't wind up with a world of stoners as a consequence. If you want to fuck yourself up with drugs of any kind, be my guest as long as you keep it private. I should never have to walk around town seeing kids stoned out of their mind. My roomate freshman year of college was always stoned and I found it to be very low. I know the world sucks, but it's never a good idea to escape reality with drugs. Alcohol on the other hand is actually good for your health if used in moderation, so I'm all for that.

Don't do what feels good. Do what is healthy. Life's too precious not to.

Originally posted by ComicsGn
For anyone who thinks marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes, keep in mind that pot is 4x as likely to cause cancer. Or so I hear. Despite this, I do feel it should be legalized as long as we don't wind up with a world of stoners as a consequence. If you want to fuck yourself up with drugs of any kind, be my guest as long as you keep it private. I should never have to walk around town seeing kids stoned out of their mind. My roomate freshman year of college was always stoned and I found it to be very low. I know the world sucks, but it's never a good idea to escape reality with drugs. Alcohol on the other hand is actually good for your health if used in moderation, so I'm all for that.

Don't do what feels good. Do what is healthy. Life's too precious not to.

The cancer thing is because the drug is inhaled so deeply into the bottom of the lung and then held there.

Freeing France and making the war on both sides of Germany made it end much quicker, then it would have. Proving that we did have a huge impact on World War II. Without our help, it would have dragged on for many more years.
That's not something you can say. By the time of Normandy, the Russians were nearly on Berlin. Freeing France meant nothing. That happened at pretty much the same time that the Russians were attacking Berlin.

Blib, they would have attacked the United States even if they had the oil from Russia. You, yourself stated that the Japanese wanted total control over the Pacific. We had Hawaii and Midway. They wanted that land in the Pacific, period. They still, would have attacked us.
I'd like to quote you:
"Most likely, but would Japan have allied with Germany if they were not planning on fighting the United States? Doubtful. Which means, without us I doubt Japan and Russia would have had conflict."
That's what I'm arguing. And what you said was wrong, you disproved it yourself. Now I'd like to quote out of a source that you posted:
"In 1936 Japan signed an anti-Communist agreement with Germany, and one year later it signed a similar pact with Italy."
They signed an original agreement against Communism, which meant against Russia. Was the United States leaning Communist? They were not factored in, that wasn't the point. Not only did Russia and Japan have conflict before they decided to push farther out into the Pacific, but also there was a council meeting after the Japanese Emperor learned that the Russians declared war on them and he argued for surrender based on that. While his argument failed, it of course played a rather large part in the final determination for surrender.

We give less in ratio, because we've already strived to make the most total, so we can give a less ratio, but still give the most out of any other nation.
Errr, doesn't work that way. To actually be considered a humanitarian person your donations have to increase as your wealth gains. What your claiming is that it's very very humanitarian of a rich person to give out $1,000 in donations, even if that's only a very very small portion of his profits, but it's not enough for a poor person to strive to give out $300 dollars when that makes up a considerably higher percentage of his income? Who is the better person? Who cares more? The poor person who takes a hit when he donates more, or the rich person who could throw money out a window and not feel a cent.

Americans try to have the latest in technological advances, Blib. And because we as a people want to be strong in technology, we ourselves, influence our GDP.
That by itself doesn't influence a GDP, it doesn't factor into the equation. I gave you the equation, yet you claim things outside of it anyways?

Yes, our GDP is affected by how hard Americans strive to push our economy. Our economic success is a direct result of the American spirit. We have less people then China, but we still make more in total GDP. Our resources are strong, but Finland has a higher GDP Per Capita then us, but less resoruces, proving that resources don't affect it as much as the people of ones country. Our people give less in ratio, because we've already strived to make the most, so we can give less in ratio, but still give the most out of any other nation.
Read the fucking problems regarding a GDP before you open your mouth about its wonderfulness again. You're constantly repeating crap that has been refuted, and not a single argument against a GDP have you attacked. You claim shit, yet you're not supporting it. You did a lot of research for a couple of posts ago, do you just now decide that you don't have to do any more? You cannot claim things that have no scientific backing to them. There is absolutely no scientific backing that a GDP is largely influenced by how hard their citizens work.

Did I? I asked what they were doing in regards to offer a better idea or plan to fight terrorism an alternative to Iraq, per-say.
That's not something that needs to be done. If a person disagrees with the entire principle, why would they have to offer an alternative?

I disagree. Many countries don't have the money or people to do this. So countries have to step in and help them fight the terrorsim that is in their country.
That falls under aid, which they do. That doesn't fall under creating a new plan. Besides, how many undeveloped countries are targets of terrorism? There's no motivation.

That's not something you can say. By the time of Normandy, the Russians were nearly on Berlin. Freeing France meant nothing. That happened at pretty much the same time that the Russians were attacking Berlin.
We started our fighting on the west side of Germany in 1943. The reasons the Russians were nearly at Berlin was because of our 60 divisions fighting the Germans in western europe. Had we not gotten involved, the Russians wouldn't have been nearly as close to Berlin as they were.

They signed an original agreement against Communism, which meant against Russia. Was the United States leaning Communist? They were not factored in, that wasn't the point. Not only did Russia and Japan have conflict before they decided to push farther out into the Pacific, but also there was a council meeting after the Japanese Emperor learned that the Russians declared war on them and he argued for surrender based on that. While his argument failed, it of course played a rather large part in the final determination for surrender.
Blib, you can keep arguing this. Or you can just admit, and swallow your pride, that Japan was going to attack the United States no matter what. You said that if the Japanese had beaten Russia, that they wouldn't have attacked the United States. That is wrong. They would have attacked us because they wanted total control over the Pacific. Period. We had Midway and Hawaii. War with the United States would have happened with or without Japan beating Russia.

Errr, doesn't work that way. To actually be considered a humanitarian person your donations have to increase as your wealth gains. What your claiming is that it's very very humanitarian of a rich person to give out $1,000 in donations, even if that's only a very very small portion of his profits, but it's not enough for a poor person to strive to give out $300 dollars when that makes up a considerably higher percentage of his income? Who is the better person? Who cares more? The poor person who takes a hit when he donates more, or the rich person who could throw money out a window and not feel a cent.
Actually, it does work that way. The rich person in this situation has strived to make as much money as they can. While the poor person hasn't tried, to their full potential to make the most they can. So, why should the rich person be expected to give the same in ratio, when they're already giving more then the poor person, who hasn't tried to make a lot to begin with? The rich person should not have to give the same ratio, for they have strived to be able to give a less ratio, but more money in "total", because they've strived to make the most money they can.

That by itself doesn't influence a GDP, it doesn't factor into the equation. I gave you the equation, yet you claim things outside of it anyways?
If you have strong technology, your GDP will increase because your economy will grow if you have high-technology.

Read the fucking problems regarding a GDP before you open your mouth about its wonderfulness again. You're constantly repeating crap that has been refuted, and not a single argument against a GDP have you attacked. You claim shit, yet you're not supporting it. You did a lot of research for a couple of posts ago, do you just now decide that you don't have to do any more? You cannot claim things that have no scientific backing to them. There is absolutely no scientific backing that a GDP is largely influenced by how hard their citizens work.
Maybe I am confused. I may be talking about the GNP. But regardless, we give the most because our economy is the strongest. Our economy is driven by the people of ones country, and so our people are, in many ways very giving to aid across the world.

That's not something that needs to be done. If a person disagrees with the entire principle, why would they have to offer an alternative?
If fighting the Iraq War is the incorrect way to fight terrorism, what is the correct way? I've yet to see Canada offer a "correct" way.

I disagree. Many countries don't have the money or people to do this. So countries have to step in and help them fight the terrorsim that is in their country.
Aid does not do everything to fight terrorism. You have to actually have people and many other things besides "aid" to fight terrorism.

We started our fighting on the west side of Germany in 1943. The reasons the Russians were nearly at Berlin was because of our 60 divisions fighting the Germans in western europe. Had we not gotten involved, the Russians wouldn't have been nearly as close to Berlin as they were.
No. The United States started fighting on the Western Front on June 6, 1944. It's impossible to attack on the west if there is no ground that you control over there, and France was in the hands of Germany before then. The only thing that could be done was air bombing, which was hardly effective, the bombs were too innacurate and hit more civilian targets than military.

Blib, you can keep arguing this. Or you can just admit, and swallow your pride, that Japan was going to attack the United States no matter what. You said that if the Japanese had beaten Russia, that they wouldn't have attacked the United States. That is wrong. They would have attacked us because they wanted total control over the Pacific. Period. We had Midway and Hawaii. War with the United States would have happened with or without Japan beating Russia.
I am arguing against what you claimed, and that was that if Japan was not planning on attacking the United States they would never have allied with Germany. Which is false, at the time of the alliance they were not planning on attacking the United States, they were planning on attacking Russia. And if the Japanese had succeeded in taking down Russia(which was impossible), they would have had absolutely no need to attack the United States. There were far too many other priorities, for example if Russia was taken then the Japanese would have had to take the Middle East in order to to secure a proper supply of oil, and the resistance in Europe would have had to be stopped first. Now, if Asia and Europe fell under German, Japanese and Italian control, then maybe in a decade or probably more, a full assault on the United States would have begun.

Actually, it does work that way. The rich person in this situation has strived to make as much money as they can. While the poor person hasn't tried, to their full potential to make the most they can. So, why should the rich person be expected to give the same in ratio, when they're already giving more then the poor person, who hasn't tried to make a lot to begin with? The rich person should not have to give the same ratio, for they have strived to be able to give a less ratio, but more money in "total", because they've strived to make the most money they can.
Bullshit. Frankly, it's disgusting. Even if the rich man doesn't give more percentagewise, you cannot claim that he is a better person or more humanitarian. Also, and this is something that I detest, just because this richman has a lot of money doesn't mean he strived to get it, and it doesn't mean that he actually worked hard. Did the Hilton sisters work hard? Did the Walton kids work hard? Did Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud work hard? Hell no. Wealth is not a measure of work ethic, and it's disgusting when people think it is.

If you have strong technology, your GDP will increase because your economy will grow if you have high-technology.
Maybe. Give some accurate scientific proof that says so.

Maybe I am confused. I may be talking about the GNP. But regardless, we give the most because our economy is the strongest. Our economy is driven by the people of ones country, and so our people are, in many ways very giving to aid across the world.
It doesn't matter which one you may be talking about, it doesn't apply to either of them. Give me fucking proof and actually try and disprove every arguement I have made against your claims to a GDP. I'll say it this one last time or I'm done shoveling out evidence and proof to you and watching you just shove it aside and claim that your opinon is more important, it's impossible to debate with somebody acting like a retard.

If fighting the Iraq War is the incorrect way to fight terrorism, what is the correct way? I've yet to see Canada offer a "correct" way.
Is there always a correct way to do something? Is there always a humane way to torture a person?

Aid does not do everything to fight terrorism. You have to actually have people and many other things besides "aid" to fight terrorism.
And if that's where that country comes in. It requires fiscal responsibility to do something properly, and if they're incapable of doing so then the aid is going to waste and it will be an even greater waste to do it for them.