Patriotism

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:05 PM']I didnt have time to read the whole thread, so hopefully i'm not beating a dead horse.
How do you know God does not favor America? He has showered blessing upon blessing on our country. in 200 years we went from peons to the greatest nation ever. Prove your point
[right][snapback]610155[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


the very fact you would say that we are the greatest nation ever pretty mush invalidates your opinion, in what way are we the greatest Nation ever?

[ardillacid]

Sorry, I didn't mean moral values. Economically is one way. we have a GDP of like 8 trillion, the largest in the world. Our military is the highest tech, and most well funded. our military budget, if i am not mistaken, is greater than the whole world's combined. in these ways we are the greatest

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:29 PM']Sorry, I didn't mean moral values. Economically is one way. we have a GDP of like 8 trillion, the largest in the world. Our military is the highest tech, and most well funded. our military budget, if i am not mistaken, is greater than the whole world's combined.  in these ways we are the greatest
[right][snapback]610180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Not than has ever been, not even in those ways, we can bearly hold on to Iraq and afghanastan, we are nothing compaerd to the British Empire of the 19th century. Now could we take them in a fight Yes, but we are no where near as superior to the rest of the world as the were.

And I don'tthink our military budget is bigger than everyone elses combined, but it is certianly the biggest.

[ardillacid]

The British lost to us, didn't they? And after us, soon other colonies followed suit. They didn't even have to deal with suicidal maniacs who would rather blow themselves up than look at us. Plus the British had the luxury of fighting people who actually declared war, not coward who won't fight a real war.

We are holding onto afganistan and irag perfectly. we have not even lost 2000 soldiers, rather small, considering the endless numbers that died in WWII.

Yes we are more superiour than they were. We have beaten Britain (more than once.), France, Spain, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, and so many others it would be superfluous to name them all. Look at Omar khadafi. just the threat of war makes him disarm. we took an entire country (irag) in a matter of days. The only wars we lose are because of the media constantly attacking our nation. (see viettnam which we never lost a battle, yet lost the war) We have virtually defeated communism.

"The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for almost half of the world total...."
[url="http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp"]http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...de/Spending.asp[/url]

[Noel's angel]

I agree with RandomProddy on this one. America's view on Irish nationhood is irrelevant. And America ISN'T God's 'favourite' country-who cares who 'great' the American army is when it has killed thousands of innocent people. True, it isn't the only one, but I'm not the one claiming that God loves my country better than everyone else's. America should stick to solving problems in their own country instead of giving money to terrorists so as they can kill innocent men such as Robert McCartney, then turn around and meet with the victim's family as if they were being the 'saviours'. The British and Irish governments shouls tick to trying to resolve the problems in Ireland themselves instead of allowing George Bush and his band of merrymen to come in pretending to know what the situation is really like

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:49 PM'] I long for the good old days when Sinn Fein actually worked for Catholic social justice
[right][snapback]609683[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'd find that humorous if it wasn't such a slander against Catholicism.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:49 PM']I actually think it ought to be something the Irish in Ireland are proud of, that we are almost the only ones not defeated by the American melting pot and still care about the place of our ethnic origins after so many generations.
[right][snapback]609683[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Question for the forum: What language is the above sentence in?

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 08:05 PM']Rely I don't think so we have been funding Irish rebellion for over a hundred years now, when The IRA needs money, they can always find money in america, ALWAYS. sounds pretty relevant to me.
[right][snapback]609739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'll tell you what is relevant.

After the events of 9/11 the Star-Spangled Banner is played by royal troops at the changing of the guard in London in a gesture of solidarity, then Tony Blair, one of the first people to fly to the US after the attacks, got a standing ovation for addressing Congress days after the attacks and is later awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Weeks after the attacks, British cruise-missile armed nuclear submarines join in an attack on targets inside Afghanistan whilst we send the Paras and the SAS (world's best special forces) to help hunt down Al-Quaeda. Then, after having done all that, we bust a gut helping the US to secure an international coalition against Iraq and, against all odds, desperately seek a second resolution (unfortunately to no avail). Just to make sure of our alliance, we send 45,000 servicemen and women to Iraq and almost flawlessly take Al Basrah.

Just in case you don't know, let me point out that Ireland is a neutral country, is not a member of NATO and Sinn Fein was against the actions in Afghanistan.

And in case anyone is still under some illogical veil:

"Many Americans would be unaware of the negative attitudes toward their country in Ireland. A Sunday Independent poll published in mid-December, 2001, revealed that 67% of respondents did not approve of the way George W. Bush was conducting the war in Afghanistan. Three days later, Niall O'Dowd, a linchpin of support for the Irish peace process in the United States, noted what had grown into "rabid American bashing in Ireland" and cited a survey by the Eurobarometer agency which showed 56% in Ireland opposing the use of Irish airports for American supply planes.

(By mid-February, 2003, and a new war, an Irish Times poll revealed that 63% disapproved of the offer of Ireland's airports to the US in the absence of any final UN Security Council resolution backing a war on Iraq, and [b]49% would be opposed to the offer of airports even if the Security Council passed such a resolution.")[/b]

Basically americans spend millions on terrorists who back-stab their american supporters and attack one of america's closest allies, whilst millions of americans continue to hone allegiance to a country that wouldn't help it in a time of war.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:23 PM']anyway, I'm almost positive she's no fan of the current IRA
[right][snapback]609771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good guess, and I'm a he btw

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:37 PM']Fan or not it is simply ignorant of reallity to say that  " What America thinks of Irish nationhood is irrelevant." It is american Money that funded irish Nationhood, it is American Money that continues to support it, That IS relevant.
[right][snapback]609779[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's not really anything to do with you though..

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 07:10 AM']The British lost to us, didn't they?
[right][snapback]610209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well we colonized the place so we really lost to ourselves

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 07:10 AM']And after us, soon other colonies followed suit.
[right][snapback]610209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually the Empire got bigger afterwards.

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 07:10 AM'] They didn't even have to deal with suicidal maniacs who would rather blow themselves up than look at us.
[right][snapback]610209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We still have about 8,000 soldiers in Iraq.

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 07:10 AM']we took an entire country (irag) in a matter of days. 
[right][snapback]610209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Britain holds the unique honour of winning the shortest war in history, which we won after 38 minutes. If you are trying to impress a Brit about military skill you still have a way to go yet

Edited June 13, 2005 by RandomProddy

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 12:10 AM']The British lost to us, didn't they? And after us, soon other colonies followed suit. They didn't even have to deal with suicidal maniacs who would rather blow themselves up than look at us. Plus the British had the luxury of fighting people who actually declared war, not coward who won't fight a real war.

We are holding onto afganistan and irag perfectly. we have not even lost 2000 soldiers, rather small, considering the endless numbers that died in WWII. 

Yes we are more superiour than they were. We have beaten Britain (more than once.), France, Spain, Russia, Germany,  Austria, Italy, and so many others it would be superfluous to name them all. Look at Omar khadafi. just the threat of war makes him disarm. we took an entire country (irag) in a matter of days.  The only wars we lose are because of the media constantly attacking our nation.  (see viettnam which we never lost a battle, yet lost the war) We have virtually defeated communism.

"The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for almost half of the world total...."
[url="http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp"]http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...de/Spending.asp[/url]
[right][snapback]610209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Okay first lets get some things straight I said the 19th century not the 18th and we did not "defeat" Britian in 1783, we defeated one army with the French fleet helping us. What caused Briatian to let us go was a simple cost benifit analysis, our little war was costing too much money and trade, and they other concerns on the continent. We lost the War of 1812, we did not win a single battle until New Orleans and that was after the war was over. The British gave us good terms because they needed to fight Napolean nothing more. Getting us out of the War ment they didn't have to continue to defend Canadas borders At that time we where still concidered "upstart colonies" and not a priorities. As Late as the !870's Britian had serious people discussing the Reconquest of America and it is not far fetched that they might have been able to do it. Now by 1870 it would have been a nasty bloody war but with the resources of India and the rest of the Empire She probably could have done it, but agian it just wasn't worth it.

Now as to the guerrillas fighting in Iraq and Afghanastan, there is nothing Cowardly about them, nothing. Blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is not Cowardly, it is suicidal and might very well send you straight to Hell but itis not cowardly. Oh and al' quida( sp?) did declare war, something I will remind you WE haven't done in 64 years. While I agree with you that the media blows our losses way out of proportion ( we haven't lost more than in a major divisional engagment of WWII) it is a reflection of our lack of Will. The Average American is a pansy who gets all bent out of shape that we lost 10 or 20 men who volenteered to go and fight. Our mothers cry that there little boy didn't sign up to fight people. A 19th century british mother would have slaped her around. Furthermore , while we have had relativly few losses it has been with overwelming force, force the britsh oof the 19th Century would have felt absurd, many forces consisted of a few hundred or at the most a few thousand men, 12 or 15,000 men was concidered a Major army, and was ussually able to stomp anyone who opposed them.

By the way we have never fought either France nor Russia. France we did have a bit of shooting with in the late 18th century but we didn't really do all that well with it, I mean our ships did respectably but we lost more than we won. And we have never Faced Russia in a shooting war, if you mean the the Soviets we had to resort to economic tricks to bankrupt them into submission precisely because we knew we couldn't win a shooting war.

[quote]The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for [color=red]almost half of the world total[/color]...."[/quote]

Almost half is not more than everyone else, and the fact that there are no numbers here is very telling that this is probably a less than reliable source.

Edited June 13, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jun 13 2005, 04:26 PM']I'd find that humorous if it wasn't such a slander against Catholicism.
Question for the forum: What language is the above sentence in?
I'll tell you what is relevant.

After the events of 9/11 the Star-Spangled Banner is played by royal troops at the changing of the guard in London in a gesture of solidarity, then Tony Blair, one of the first people to fly to the US after the attacks, got a standing ovation for addressing Congress days after the attacks and is later awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Weeks after the attacks, British cruise-missile armed nuclear submarines join in an attack on targets inside Afghanistan whilst we send the Paras and the SAS (world's best special forces) to help hunt down Al-Quaeda. Then, after having done all that, we bust a gut helping the US to secure an international coalition against Iraq and, against all odds, desperately seek a second resolution (unfortunately to no avail). Just to make sure of our alliance, we send 45,000 servicemen and women to Iraq and almost flawlessly take Al Basrah.

Just in case you don't know, let me point out that Ireland is a neutral country, is not a member of NATO and Sinn Fein was against the actions in Afghanistan.

And in case anyone is still under some illogical veil:

"Many Americans would be unaware of the negative attitudes toward their country in Ireland. A Sunday Independent poll published in mid-December, 2001, revealed that 67% of respondents did not approve of the way George W. Bush was conducting the war in Afghanistan. Three days later, Niall O'Dowd, a linchpin of support for the Irish peace process in the United States, noted what had grown into "rabid American bashing in Ireland" and cited a survey by the Eurobarometer agency which showed 56% in Ireland opposing the use of Irish airports for American supply planes.

(By mid-February, 2003, and a new war, an Irish Times poll revealed that 63% disapproved of the offer of Ireland's airports to the US in the absence of any final UN Security Council resolution backing a war on Iraq, and [b]49% would be opposed to the offer of airports even if the Security Council passed such a resolution.")[/b]

Basically americans spend millions on terrorists who back-stab their american supporters and attack one of america's closest allies, whilst millions of americans continue to hone allegiance to a country that wouldn't help it in a time of war.
Good guess, and I'm a he btw
It's not really anything to do with you though..
Well we colonized the place so we really lost to ourselves
Actually the Empire got bigger afterwards.
We still have about 8,000 soldiers in Iraq.
Britain holds the unique honour of winning the shortest war in history, which we won after 38 minutes. If you are trying to impress a Brit about military skill you still have a way to go yet
[right][snapback]610610[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Randomproddy-- I am not argueing wether or not the Rebellion in Ireland is currently just or not, I am saying that the Fact that American money supports it makes what American's think about Irish nationhood very relevent.

P.S. The Brits won a battle in Basra even after they had run out of ammo and could not get support--- how, a bayonet charge, and not just one, but charging from house to house until the had fought there way out of the area, the killed or wounded enough of the enemy that the enemy withdrew. this was in 2003-- No Random I'll never question british troops courage or skill. It is the British people at large that I wonder about.

Edited June 13, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:41 PM']It is the British people at large that I wonder about.
[right][snapback]610641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Same here

Edit: Just to point out, I don't have anything against the Irish people, just some of the politics. As a gesture, I'll point out one interesting thing. One of the first regiments that got into Iraq was the Irish Guards [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Guards"]Link[/url] [url="http://www.army.mod.uk/irishguards/"]Link[/url]

Edited June 13, 2005 by RandomProddy

[Ellenita]

[quote]"The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for almost half of the world total...."[/quote]

Money which could be spent better elsewhere!

The build up of military hardware results in other countries trying to follow suit - example - Iranian journalist on TV today saying 'why shouldn't we have a nuclear bomb, Israel has one, Pakistan has one and they aren't questioned about it'.

A lose, lose situation....

[quote]we took an entire country (irag) in a matter of days[/quote]

Don't know how many times we've got to say this, but US troops were not the only ones fighting in that war.....or still stationed out there. :angry:


[quote]It is the British people at large that I wonder about.[/quote]

*faints* Something we have in common Don John!

[Aloysius]

Sinn Fein is about 100 yrs old... when I say good old days I'm referring to before my time. at least according to the Irish history books I've read, they started out all about Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, and Michael Collins was strongly influenced by G.K. Chesterton. The party nearly died when was it? around the sixties? Anyway, then when they rebuilt they rebuilt dabbling in marxism and socialism and ever since it's been downhill. where is my slander of Catholocism?

btw, the American patriotism expressed here by some posters does not necessarily represent the views of the staff and management of the PM screenname Aloysius. I'm about loving your country and your culture... LOVING it, whether or not you agree. When the question is whether you agree with it, that gets into nationalism. And I'm a bit of a micro-nationalist... because modernist nations just don't work well. They're all too sociallist for me, even the U.S. Not to mention they're all full of usurers. I'm a micronationalist... small city states and such. I wanna get myself a little city state.

[ardillacid]

[QUOTE]Okay first lets get some things straight I said the 19th century not the 18th and we did not "defeat" Britian in 1783, we defeated one army with the French fleet helping us. What caused Briatian to let us go was a simple cost benifit analysis, our little war was costing too much money and trade, and they other concerns on the continent. [/QUOTE]

And that is not a victory?

[QUOTE]We lost the War of 1812, we did not win a single battle until New Orleans and that was after the war was over. The British gave us good terms because they needed to fight Napolean nothing more. Getting us out of the War ment they didn't have to continue to defend Canadas borders At that time we where still concidered "upstart colonies" and not a priorities. As Late as the !870's Britian had serious people discussing the Reconquest of America and it is not far fetched that they might have been able to do it. Now by 1870 it would have been a nasty bloody war but with the resources of India and the rest of the Empire She probably could have done it, but agian it just wasn't worth it.[/QUOTE]

And that is not a victory?

[QUOTE]Now as to the guerrillas fighting in Iraq and Afghanastan, there is nothing Cowardly about them, nothing. Blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is not Cowardly, it is suicidal and might very well send you straight to Hell but itis not cowardly. Oh and al' quida( sp?) did declare war, something I will remind you WE haven't done in 64 years. [/QUOTE]

Officially no, but is it necessary?

[QUOTE]While I agree with you that the media blows our losses way out of proportion ( we haven't lost more than in a major divisional engagment of WWII) it is a reflection of our lack of Will. [/QUOTE]

Or the will of about half of America.

[QUOTE]The Average American is a pansy who gets all bent out of shape that we lost 10 or 20 men who volenteered to go and fight. Our mothers cry that there little boy didn't sign up to fight people. A 19th century british mother would have slaped her around. Furthermore , while we have had relativly few losses it has been with overwelming force, force the britsh oof the 19th Century would have felt absurd, many forces consisted of a few hundred or at the most a few thousand men, 12 or 15,000 men was concidered a Major army, and was ussually able to stomp anyone who opposed them.[/QUOTE]

could they wipe every nation off the face of the earth several times over with a few bombs?

[/QUOTE][QUOTE]By the way we have never fought either France nor Russia. France we did have a bit of shooting with in the late 18th century but we didn't really do all that well with it, I mean our ships did respectably but we lost more than we won. And we have never Faced Russia in a shooting war, if you mean the the Soviets we had to resort to economic tricks to bankrupt them into submission precisely because we knew we couldn't win a shooting war.[/QUOTE]

Yes, indeed I referred to the Cold War. Though no shots were fired, I deem it still was a war, though not in the strictest sense of the word.

If they couldn't beat us in an arms race with no shots, who is to say they would have beat us in an arms race with fighting simultaneously.

I admit, France we did not fight. I was wrong. it was late. I wanted to be able to prove my point, and i apologize. ( although i could be a nitpicker here and say we fought vichy france in ww2.)

[QUOTE]Almost half is not more than everyone else, and the fact that there are no numbers here is very telling that this is probably a less than reliable source.[/QUOTE]

Did you go to the link? Apparently not, but here you have your numbers.

[QUOTE]The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2006 is $441.6 billion.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] * For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
* For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
* This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Global military expenditure and arms trade form the largest spending in the world at over $950 billion in annual expenditure, as noted by the prestigous Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SPIRI), for 2003. Furthermore:[/QUOTE]

The website is chalkfull of these numbers if you want them.

I apologize for being slightly off on my calculations, but it was off the top of my head, and I was still nearly right.

DJ, I think we hijacked the thread, maybe time to move elsewhere?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:17 PM']
And that is not a victory?[/QUOTE]

That is not defeating the British no, that is the British lettting us go.


[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:17 PM']
And that is not a victory?[/QUOTE]
Definantly not, let me repeat We didn't win a single major battle. They burned our Capital, you certianly didn't see us on Breistish soil burning thier cities, we where to busy getting stomped, Napolean caused them to have to leave us alone, We, had bvery ltittle to do with it.

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:17 PM']
Officially no, but is it necessary?[/QUOTE]

Well I think so yes, butthat aside you where the one complaining about our eemies not declaring war.


[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:17 PM']
Or the will of about half of America.[/QUOTE]

No i think more than that, Bush didn't win because of the War, many who voted for him dispite the war.
[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:17 PM']
could they wipe every nation off the face of the earth several times over with a few bombs?[/QUOTE]

Well first that is a measure of technology nothing more, Technology which is not unique to us mind you.( and even if that is possible which is debatabel it would require thousands of bombs) But certianly the British fleet reprecented as much technological superiority over most of the world as does our nuclear arsenal. But a much better question would be could they impose there will upon Nations more effectively than us, I think the answer is yes, We cannot fight 5 or 10 little wars all over the world and still face down another major country, more than that The could Impose there desires on others, the ability to obliterate a nation is nothing compared to the power to makethem do what you will, Britian of the 19th century directly controled almost a 1/3 of the entire Earth that is Power unsurpassed in all of history

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:17 PM']
Yes, indeed I referred to the Cold War. Though no shots were fired, I deem it still was a war, though not in the strictest sense of the word.

If they couldn't beat us in an arms race with no shots, who is to say they would have beat us in an arms race with fighting simultaneously./QUOTE]

Well NATO didn't think we could win which is why we had as part of our doctrine the liberal use of Nuclear weapons. Tac nues for everyone! No we could not beat them and once the Nukes started to fly well no one would have won that one.

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:17 PM']
I admit, France we did not fight. I was wrong. it was late. I wanted to be able to prove my point, and i apologize. ( although i could be a nitpicker here and say we fought vichy france in ww2.)[/QUOTE]
That wouldn't be nitpicky that would have been silly. I'm glad I don't have to respond to such nonsense.



P.S. the Stalkholm peace institute is not a reliable source for matters of military spending, they have an anti-military agenda --maybe Janes defence weekly.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[ardillacid]

I do not have time right now to reply to all, but there are tons of sites on military spending if you look. I'll reply to the rest tomorrow

[url="http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml"]http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml[/url]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 13 2005, 11:52 PM']I do not have time right now to reply to all, but there are tons of sites on military spending if you look. I'll reply to the rest tomorrow

[url="http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml"]http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml[/url]
[right][snapback]611110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Now you see thatis a reliable source. I still would like some numbers, Is this because of the trading value of money or is this in [i]real [/i]terms. Still it is interesting.