Ingrate of the year award

**leejo** · 08-31-2004, 04:57 PM

Ok, I'm sure this article will be unpopular with some, and I guess I'd be curious to know your thoughts countering the writer's claims, but my main point in posting this is the astonishing (to me) things that came out of the Iraqi soccer team's mouths.

from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20040831.shtml

This year's Ingrate of the Year Award goes to...
Dennis Prager
August 31, 2004

Of all the ugly human traits, ingratitude -- the refusal to acknowledge the good that has been done for us -- is probably the ugliest.

Yet its awfulness is only exceeded by its ubiquity. In fact, it is ingratitude that characterizes much of the world's -- including many Americans' -- attitude toward the United States.

Think about it. Without America:

The world would collapse into economic and moral chaos. Cruelty and economic depression would dominate the planet. Vast unemployment and social dislocation would ensue, followed by various forms of secular and religious totalitarianism.

No one would stop the Chinese from conquering Taiwan.

No one would come to Israel's aid when Iran and other Muslim states attempted to destroy that country.

No one would come to South Korea's aid as North Korea invaded and probably prevailed over South Korea, making it a formidable Stalinist force in East Asia.

Japan would rearm and probably seek nuclear weapons to counter emboldened Korea and China.

Russia would probably recommence imposing its will on its neighbors.

Islamic terrorism would increase exponentially -- everywhere, including inside Europe -- as its only real opposition disappeared.

It is American idealism coupled with its dominant economic and military power that alone prevents evil from drowning the world. The many fools of the Left who devote their lives to curbing American power -- from those who manage editorial pages and the news media, to the academics who warn generations of students against American power, to leftist billionaires like George Soros -- do not understand this.

The world's nations should be thanking God or whatever they believe in for America. Instead, most of them celebrate the United Nations, which actually abets evil and increases human suffering.

To highlight this phenomenon, I propose giving an annual Ingrate of the Year Award to some particularly ungrateful group, country, organization or individual.

In most years, South Korean politicians, journalists and students win the award without much competition. It is, after all, difficult to match their level of ingratitude.

Tens of thousands of Americans died and many more were maimed in order to keep the southern half of the Korean peninsula from falling under one of the most grotesquely cruel regimes in human history. And American troops remain in South Korea to protect it from an invasion by the psychopaths who run the North Korean concentration camps. Yet South Korean journalists, politicians and students vie with one another to see who can most articulately condemn America. If there is a national parallel to South Korean ingratitude to America, I am unaware of it.

But this year, those South Koreans must share the Ingrate Award with the Iraqi Olympic soccer team.

Remember that under Saddam Hussein, not only were Iraqis not free, athletes were singled out for torture. It was Uday Hussein, the sadistic sociopath son of Saddam, who headed the Iraqi Olympic Committee, and it was his policy to torture -- real torture, not American detainee abuse -- Iraqi athletes who did not perform successfully in international competitions.

Yet, when asked about their newfound freedom, the Iraqi athletes showered contempt on the country which, through tremendous human and monetary sacrifice, made it possible for them to compete in Athens after being banned from international competition in the last years of Saddam and Uday's rule.

Ahmed Al-Samarri, Iraq's Olympic Committee president, acknowledged this when he said: "Women's sports started from ground zero here because of the previous regime, which had abused many, many girls who wish to practice or join sports."

Yet, the one Iraqi woman athlete at the Athens Olympics, Ala'a Jassim, told American reporters that the American invasion of Iraq "was a very bad idea."

Likewise, Ahmad Manajid, a midfielder for the Iraqi soccer team, when asked about a pro-Bush ad that shows the Iraqi soccer team playing as free men, asked reporters, "How will he (Bush) meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women?" According to Sports Illustrated, he added that he would be killing Americans in Iraq if he were not playing soccer.

"There is so much hate on this team for America," said Bernd Stange, the German who coached the Iraqi team until he resigned in July.

One great lesson of American history is that one does good in this world because it is right to do good, not because the recipients will be grateful. We Americans must therefore never judge the rightness of our actions on how much gratitude or censure we receive. So long as we remain the most blessed country on earth, it is our duty to do as much good as we can. In fact, if we don't, we will cease to be blessed.

But the ingrates still deserve the contempt of decent people.

Geisha · 08-31-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20040831.shtml
<...> Russia would probably recommence imposing its will on its neighbors.

Islamic terrorism would increase exponentially -- everywhere, including inside Europe -- as its only real opposition disappeared. <...>

[quote taken from link, these are not leejo's words]

Well, I'm not totally sure I should even touch this, and I think most of this has already been discussed to death elsewhere, but these two sorta stick out to me.

I don't know that Russia, even now, has the economic stability to really enact a war of conquest. They're having enough trouble with the bits they still have. I mean, I guess that's how Rome stayed stable for so long, by taking all the malcontents from the most recently conquered place and using them to conquer new places, but I don't think Russia or any of the former Soviet countries could really FUND that right now.

I also don't see "Islamic" terrorism increasing exponentially if the US suddenly folded up and pursued an isolationist policy. Aren't most of those groups protesting our involvement in the rest of the world? Wouldn't our lack of involvement satisfy some of them? I agree that some groups would both take heart from "winning" and step up their campaign to attacking the next Most Hated Group on their list (e.g. the Jewish, the Evil Imperialistic Brits, or even Those Other Heretical Muslims), but "exponentially" is a pretty strong term. Well, at least I think it's *intended* to be a strong term in this context. I suppose since the exponent isn't specified you could use a -2 or 0.3 and then the whole argument is moot...

**TheFeniX** · 08-31-2004, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Japan would rearm and probably seek nuclear weapons to counter emboldened Korea and China.

What? Why the Hell would they do that? They make more by having people alive to buy all their cheap electronics.

Russia was pathetic even during the Cold War. Democracy has only made it worse for them. They had a sub-standard military and were only able to match us in numbers, not it technology. Weren't most of the tanks counted as part of their army hold-overs from WW1 and 2? Easy pickings for Abrams. I think I also remember reading a while back that most of their nukes couldn't even reach America. In a conventional war, we would have waxed them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree these Iraqies should praise whatever God they pray to for us sacrificing our lives to pull them out of the crapper. But the world got along without America for Eternity - 200 years. We're the lesser of many evils, and I'm glad it's us in charge.

**CingularDuality** · 09-01-2004, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

It was Uday Hussein, the sadistic sociopath son of Saddam, who headed the Iraqi Olympic Committee, and it was his policy to torture -- real torture, not American detainee abuse -- Iraqi athletes who did not perform successfully in international competitions.

Horrible article, and the part that pisses me off the worst is quoted above. To imply that what happened in an American run prison was not "real torture" is simply ignorant.

Not to mention that the whole reason why our countrymen are fighting and have died over there is so that this soccer team can express themselves exactly the way they are doing... Ingrates? Yeah. So what? That's freedom speaking.

Turbinator · 09-01-2004, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Ok, I'm sure this article will be unpopular with some, and I guess I'd be curious to know your thoughts countering the writer's claims, but my main point in posting this is the astonishing (to me) things that came out of the Iraqi soccer team's mouths.

from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20040831.shtml

This year's Ingrate of the Year Award goes to...
Dennis Prager
August 31, 2004

Of all the ugly human traits, ingratitude -- the refusal to acknowledge the good that has been done for us -- is probably the ugliest.

Yet its awfulness is only exceeded by its ubiquity. In fact, it is ingratitude that characterizes much of the world's -- including many Americans' -- attitude toward the United States.

Think about it. Without America:

The world would collapse into economic and moral chaos. Cruelty and economic depression would dominate the planet. Vast unemployment and social dislocation would ensue, followed by various forms of secular and religious totalitarianism.

No one would stop the Chinese from conquering Taiwan.

No one would come to Israel's aid when Iran and other Muslim states attempted to destroy that country.

No one would come to South Korea's aid as North Korea invaded and probably prevailed over South Korea, making it a formidable Stalinist force in East Asia.

Japan would rearm and probably seek nuclear weapons to counter emboldened Korea and China.

Russia would probably recommence imposing its will on its neighbors.

Islamic terrorism would increase exponentially -- everywhere, including inside Europe -- as its only real opposition disappeared.

It is American idealism coupled with its dominant economic and military power that alone prevents evil from drowning the world. The many fools of the Left who devote their lives to curbing American power -- from those who manage editorial pages and the news media, to the academics who warn generations of students against American power, to leftist billionaires like George Soros -- do not understand this.

The world's nations should be thanking God or whatever they believe in for America. Instead, most of them celebrate the United Nations, which actually abets evil and increases human suffering.

To highlight this phenomenon, I propose giving an annual Ingrate of the Year Award to some particularly ungrateful group, country, organization or individual.

In most years, South Korean politicians, journalists and students win the award without much competition. It is, after all, difficult to match their level of ingratitude.

Tens of thousands of Americans died and many more were maimed in order to keep the southern half of the Korean peninsula from falling under one of the most grotesquely cruel regimes in human history. And American troops remain in South Korea to protect it from an invasion by the psychopaths who run the North Korean concentration camps. Yet South Korean journalists, politicians and students vie with one another to see who can most articulately condemn America. If there is a national parallel to South Korean ingratitude to America, I am unaware of it.

But this year, those South Koreans must share the Ingrate Award with the Iraqi Olympic soccer team.

Remember that under Saddam Hussein, not only were Iraqis not free, athletes were singled out for torture. It was Uday Hussein, the sadistic sociopath son of Saddam, who headed the Iraqi Olympic Committee, and it was his policy to torture -- real torture, not American detainee abuse -- Iraqi athletes who did not perform successfully in international competitions.

Yet, when asked about their newfound freedom, the Iraqi athletes showered contempt on the country which, through tremendous human and monetary sacrifice, made it possible for them to compete in Athens after being banned from international competition in the last years of Saddam and Uday's rule.

Ahmed Al-Samarri, Iraq's Olympic Committee president, acknowledged this when he said: "Women's sports started from ground zero here because of the previous regime, which had abused many, many girls who wish to practice or join sports."

Yet, the one Iraqi woman athlete at the Athens Olympics, Ala'a Jassim, told American reporters that the American invasion of Iraq "was a very bad idea."

Likewise, Ahmad Manajid, a midfielder for the Iraqi soccer team, when asked about a pro-Bush ad that shows the Iraqi soccer team playing as free men, asked reporters, "How will he (Bush) meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women?" According to Sports Illustrated, he added that he would be killing Americans in Iraq if he were not playing soccer.

"There is so much hate on this team for America," said Bernd Stange, the German who coached the Iraqi team until he resigned in July.

One great lesson of American history is that one does good in this world because it is right to do good, not because the recipients will be grateful. We Americans must therefore never judge the rightness of our actions on how much gratitude or censure we receive. So long as we remain the most blessed country on earth, it is our duty to do as much good as we can. In fact, if we don't, we will cease to be blessed.

But the ingrates still deserve the contempt of decent people.

Guess again

, they would not waste time with them, all of the republics, with exception for khazahstan and maybe ukraine, were taking more then giving.

Turbinator · 09-01-2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geisha

Well, I'm not totally sure I should even touch this, and I think most of this has already been discussed to death elsewhere, but these two sorta stick out to me.

I don't know that Russia, even now, has the economic stability to really enact a war of conquest. They're having enough trouble with the bits they still have. I mean, I guess that's how Rome stayed stable for so long, by taking all the malcontents from the most recently conquered place and using them to conquer new places, but I don't think Russia or any of the former Soviet countries could really FUND that right now.

I also don't see "Islamic" terrorism increasing exponentially if the US suddenly folded up and pursued an isolationist policy. Aren't most of those groups protesting our involvement in the rest of the world? Wouldn't our lack of involvement satisfy some of them? I agree that some groups would both take heart from "winning" and step up their campaign to attacking the next Most Hated Group on their list (e.g. the Jewish, the Evil Imperialistic Brits, or even Those Other Heretical Muslims), but "exponentially" is a pretty strong term. Well, at least I think it's *intended* to be a strong term in this context. I suppose since the exponent isn't specified you could use a -2 or 0.3 and then the whole argument is moot...

Russia can find funds for that if it needs to, but its not in Russian nature to attack. Other republics I highly doubt it that they have funds.

Turbinator · 09-01-2004, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

What? Why the Hell would they do that? They make more by having people alive to buy all their cheap electronics.

Russia was pathetic even during the Cold War. Democracy has only made it worse for them. They had a sub-standard military and were only able to match us in numbers, not it technology. Weren't most of the tanks counted as part of their army hold-overs from WW1 and 2? Easy pickings for Abrams. I think I also remember reading a while back that most of their nukes couldn't even reach America. In a conventional war, we would have waxed them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree these Iraqies should praise whatever God they pray to for us sacrificing our lives to pull them out of the crapper. But the world got along without America for Eternity - 200 years. We're the lesser of many evils, and I'm glad it's us in charge.

Fenix i like u, but check the facts first

, T80 Rivled ur abrahms, T94 surpassed it.
T72 was in production and development about same time as Abramhs. In terms of number of tanks up until early 90's russians had more tanks then Nato and US combined, and im talking about T72-T94 models, not T34 from WW2. Air force during cold war, technologically was in certain areas better then US. Fighter jets(SUkhov) capable of transatlantic flights without refueling, MiG29 was a serious issue for F18's. US - only bombers were capable of that distance. Thats why US navy came up with carriers.
In terms of nukes, ICBMs were deloped by russians

, so guess again there

.

They still have more nukes then US, even now

**=DdogG=** · 09-01-2004, 09:04 AM

first, I think a lot of that original artical was a "what if the us had NEVER gotten into world affairs. Korea Would have all ben run by the North, China Would have..... Russia WOULD have....... some are from today though.... terrorism. It is confusing because there is no delineation between historical changes and current ones.

as for soviet military might, # of tanks is really irrelevant since no soldier would step foot on enemy territory in a nuclear war. for the migs.... they might have been an equal for the f18, but the f14 or f16 would be a better match would it not? not to mention the fact that america already had all the stealth bombers and fighters that are publicly known about today. the new f22 now supercedes all other aircraft for fighter dominance, so us>you again. j/k

I will agree that Soviet Russia had the manpower and technology to compete with america of the '80's but the did not have the economy to fund it. thus the reason for the nuclear accidents. the russian war machine could not provide the needed upkeep for their aging inventory. thus their armed forces were in essence staking their lives on duct tape.

**DudeMan** · 09-01-2004, 09:24 AM

i would just like to say as much as a nation would like to hype its self up, america is relativly new, and the world before it was not in complete dissaray.

that is soo arrogant its just bloody crap, and i would not be so damn smug, because china will be the next super power. thats right the next superpower, that position has changed hands over generations before. and yet another arrogant statemnt would be to suggest it will never change hands again.

damn the author of that article is soo up his own backside its mad.

sure lets hae these very well known sports stars (in iraq) say praise bush in the face of militia over iraq looking for figureheads of the new republic, then put them on tele and try to make them puppets.

ffs i will not condemn these words, and what happened to freedom of speech, they are entitled to that opinion, whether anyone else agrees or not.

were there not demonstrators in america campaiging at the heart of the cuban missile crisis to stop the embargo on cuba.

now they have egg on thier face as it was probably a policy that prevented full blown nuclear war. but they were allowed their opinion all the same.

**TheFeniX** · 09-01-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbinator

Fenix i like u, but check the facts first

, T80 Rivled ur abrahms, T94 surpassed it.

Digging around is bringing up squat on the T-94. But I was able to find an effective kill range of 3000 meters for the M1A1.

Quote:

In terms of number of tanks up until early 90's russians had more tanks then Nato and US combined, and im talking about T72-T94 models, not T34 from WW2. Air force during cold war, technologically was in certain areas better then US. Fighter jets(SUkhov) capable of transatlantic flights without refueling, MiG29 was a serious issue for F18's. US - only bombers were capable of that distance. Thats why US navy came up with carriers.

Unfortunately, google is only giving me web-sites with hair-brained ideas about espionage. But I'd like to see where you got your information from.

Quote:

In terms of nukes, ICBMs were deloped by russians

, so guess again there

.
They still have more nukes then US, even now

Developing something doesn't mean you have more of them. Also, having more nukes doesn't mean all of them are combat capable (as in hit a target half-way around the world).

It still stands that Russia was getting smacked down by an army already spilt on three sides (Germany) and with less than 10% the equivalent land-mass.

**Wolfie** · 09-01-2004, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbinator

Air force during cold war, technologically was in certain areas better then US. Fighter jets(SUkhov) capable of transatlantic flights without refueling, MiG29 was a serious issue for F18's. US - only bombers were capable of that distance. Thats why US navy came up with carriers.

Really comparing apples to oranges. The reason that Russian Sukhov fighters have further range is because they carry fuel pods. If they got into combat, they would either have to drop them or die (the fuel pods make the plane sluggish compared to those that don't carry them normally, like the F-14 and F-16). If they are forced to drop the fuel tanks, then they are out of luck if they are too far from base (as they don't have the capability to refuel in midflight). If US jets engage at ranges further than the ranges of their internal fuel tanks, they can request an airborne refueling to get back to base.

In a fight, having more fuel than your opponent is not an advantage if the fuel causes your plane to be more sluggish and respond slower.

Turbinator · 09-01-2004, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Digging around is bringing up squat on the T-94. But I was able to find an effective kill range of 3000 meters for the M1A1.

Unfortunately, google is only giving me web-sites with hair-brained ideas about espionage. But I'd like to see where you got your information from.

Developing something doesn't mean you have more of them. Also, having more nukes doesn't mean all of them are combat capable (as in hit a target half-way around the world).

It still stands that Russia was getting smacked down by an army already spilt on three sides (Germany) and with less than 10% the equivalent land-mass.

On T-94's look deeper, do more thorough searches. Info i got was in books, western books

, not only but it confirms with eastern books too heh, so must be legit

In terms of nukes russia does have more of them, and it had nothing to do with the statment that Russia developed ICbm's.

Turbinator · 09-01-2004, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =DdogG=

first, I think a lot of that original artical was a "what if the us had NEVER gotten into world affairs. Korea Would have all ben run by the North, China Would have..... Russia WOULD have....... some are from today though.... terrorism. It is confusing because there is no delineation between historical changes and current ones.

as for soviet military might, # of tanks is really irrelevant since no soldier would step foot on enemy territory in a nuclear war. for the migs.... they might have been an equal for the f18, but the f14 or f16 would be a better match would it not? not to mention the fact that america already had all the stealth bombers and fighters that are publicly known about today. the new f22 now supercedes all other aircraft for fighter dominance, so us>you again. j/k
I will agree that Soviet Russia had the manpower and technology to compete with america of the '80's but the did not have the economy to fund it. thus the reason for the nuclear accidents. the russian war machine could not provide the needed upkeep for their aging inventory. thus their armed forces were in essence staking their lives on duct tape.

True raptor pwns ALL now

Turbinator · 09-01-2004, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Unfortunately, google is only giving me web-sites with hair-brained ideas about espionage. But I'd like to see where you got your information from.

lol

Books, and online as well

Turbinator · 09-01-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

i would just like to say as much as a nation would like to hype its self up, america is relativly new, and the world before it was not in complete dissaray.

Excellent point

08-31-2004, 04:57 PM	#1 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,523	Ingrate of the year award Ok, I'm sure this article will be unpopular with some, and I guess I'd be curious to know your thoughts countering the writer's claims, but my main point in posting this is the astonishing (to me) things that came out of the Iraqi soccer team's mouths. from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20040831.shtml This year's Ingrate of the Year Award goes to... Dennis Prager August 31, 2004 Of all the ugly human traits, ingratitude -- the refusal to acknowledge the good that has been done for us -- is probably the ugliest. Yet its awfulness is only exceeded by its ubiquity. In fact, it is ingratitude that characterizes much of the world's -- including many Americans' -- attitude toward the United States. Think about it. Without America: The world would collapse into economic and moral chaos. Cruelty and economic depression would dominate the planet. Vast unemployment and social dislocation would ensue, followed by various forms of secular and religious totalitarianism. No one would stop the Chinese from conquering Taiwan. No one would come to Israel's aid when Iran and other Muslim states attempted to destroy that country. No one would come to South Korea's aid as North Korea invaded and probably prevailed over South Korea, making it a formidable Stalinist force in East Asia. Japan would rearm and probably seek nuclear weapons to counter emboldened Korea and China. Russia would probably recommence imposing its will on its neighbors. Islamic terrorism would increase exponentially -- everywhere, including inside Europe -- as its only real opposition disappeared. It is American idealism coupled with its dominant economic and military power that alone prevents evil from drowning the world. The many fools of the Left who devote their lives to curbing American power -- from those who manage editorial pages and the news media, to the academics who warn generations of students against American power, to leftist billionaires like George Soros -- do not understand this. The world's nations should be thanking God or whatever they believe in for America. Instead, most of them celebrate the United Nations, which actually abets evil and increases human suffering. To highlight this phenomenon, I propose giving an annual Ingrate of the Year Award to some particularly ungrateful group, country, organization or individual. In most years, South Korean politicians, journalists and students win the award without much competition. It is, after all, difficult to match their level of ingratitude. Tens of thousands of Americans died and many more were maimed in order to keep the southern half of the Korean peninsula from falling under one of the most grotesquely cruel regimes in human history. And American troops remain in South Korea to protect it from an invasion by the psychopaths who run the North Korean concentration camps. Yet South Korean journalists, politicians and students vie with one another to see who can most articulately condemn America. If there is a national parallel to South Korean ingratitude to America, I am unaware of it. But this year, those South Koreans must share the Ingrate Award with the Iraqi Olympic soccer team. Remember that under Saddam Hussein, not only were Iraqis not free, athletes were singled out for torture. It was Uday Hussein, the sadistic sociopath son of Saddam, who headed the Iraqi Olympic Committee, and it was his policy to torture -- real torture, not American detainee abuse -- Iraqi athletes who did not perform successfully in international competitions. Yet, when asked about their newfound freedom, the Iraqi athletes showered contempt on the country which, through tremendous human and monetary sacrifice, made it possible for them to compete in Athens after being banned from international competition in the last years of Saddam and Uday's rule. Ahmed Al-Samarri, Iraq's Olympic Committee president, acknowledged this when he said: "Women's sports started from ground zero here because of the previous regime, which had abused many, many girls who wish to practice or join sports." Yet, the one Iraqi woman athlete at the Athens Olympics, Ala'a Jassim, told American reporters that the American invasion of Iraq "was a very bad idea." Likewise, Ahmad Manajid, a midfielder for the Iraqi soccer team, when asked about a pro-Bush ad that shows the Iraqi soccer team playing as free men, asked reporters, "How will he (Bush) meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women?" According to Sports Illustrated, he added that he would be killing Americans in Iraq if he were not playing soccer. "There is so much hate on this team for America," said Bernd Stange, the German who coached the Iraqi team until he resigned in July. One great lesson of American history is that one does good in this world because it is right to do good, not because the recipients will be grateful. We Americans must therefore never judge the rightness of our actions on how much gratitude or censure we receive. So long as we remain the most blessed country on earth, it is our duty to do as much good as we can. In fact, if we don't, we will cease to be blessed. But the ingrates still deserve the contempt of decent people.

09-01-2004, 09:04 AM	#8 (permalink)
=DdogG= Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ennis, TX Age: 31 Posts: 1,607	Re: Ingrate of the year award first, I think a lot of that original artical was a "what if the us had NEVER gotten into world affairs. Korea Would have all ben run by the North, China Would have..... Russia WOULD have....... some are from today though.... terrorism. It is confusing because there is no delineation between historical changes and current ones. as for soviet military might, # of tanks is really irrelevant since no soldier would step foot on enemy territory in a nuclear war. for the migs.... they might have been an equal for the f18, but the f14 or f16 would be a better match would it not? not to mention the fact that america already had all the stealth bombers and fighters that are publicly known about today. the new f22 now supercedes all other aircraft for fighter dominance, so us>you again. j/k I will agree that Soviet Russia had the manpower and technology to compete with america of the '80's but the did not have the economy to fund it. thus the reason for the nuclear accidents. the russian war machine could not provide the needed upkeep for their aging inventory. thus their armed forces were in essence staking their lives on duct tape. __________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. -Harlan Ellison If all else fails: "rm -rf /"

09-01-2004, 09:24 AM	#9 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: Ingrate of the year award i would just like to say as much as a nation would like to hype its self up, america is relativly new, and the world before it was not in complete dissaray. that is soo arrogant its just bloody crap, and i would not be so damn smug, because china will be the next super power. thats right the next superpower, that position has changed hands over generations before. and yet another arrogant statemnt would be to suggest it will never change hands again. damn the author of that article is soo up his own backside its mad. sure lets hae these very well known sports stars (in iraq) say praise bush in the face of militia over iraq looking for figureheads of the new republic, then put them on tele and try to make them puppets. ffs i will not condemn these words, and what happened to freedom of speech, they are entitled to that opinion, whether anyone else agrees or not. were there not demonstrators in america campaiging at the heart of the cuban missile crisis to stop the embargo on cuba. now they have egg on thier face as it was probably a policy that prevented full blown nuclear war. but they were allowed their opinion all the same. __________________ The Queen "Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life," *Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community* TheFeniX "Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links