The Nobel Peace prize goes to Barack Obama

[213374U]

US has the largest economy

Uh, so? That's a macroeconomic indicator. It says nothing about living standards.

 

 

and the fastest growth rate in the developed world.

No. We aren't accepting invented or imaginary statistics as evidence, m'kay?

 

Oh, wait. Those that have greater growth rates than the US aren't "developed", right? How shrewd.

[I want teh kotor 3]

..Hussein wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda.

No, he was exactly unfriendly to them. AQ's an equal opportunity sort of group, they hate infidels, Shia and the wrong sort of Sunnis, including Saddam's brand of secular Sunnism light- you wouldn't find Christians in AQ's cabinet. There has never been any credible evidence of significant links between AQ and Saddam for the simple reason that Saddam knew that AQ was as dangerous to him as the US, Iran or anyone else. He was, however, pretty friendly with Hamas as they have no real pretensions towards pan-arab worldwide caliphatism and no ability to put that into action even if they did.

 

 

And if you think all of the various extremist Islamic organizations and leaders wouldn;t join together if it gave them a legitimate chance to take down the US, you're just misguided. I admit that the alliance wouldn;t last long, but I highly doubt that it would not have been made if it could conceivably succeed.

[Wrath of Dagon]

US has the largest economy

Uh, so? That's a macroeconomic indicator. It says nothing about living standards.

 

 

and the fastest growth rate in the developed world.

No. We aren't accepting invented or imaginary statistics as evidence, m'kay?

 

Oh, wait. Those that have greater growth rates than the US aren't "developed", right? How shrewd.

So? That's for 2008, the year of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. You need to look over a longer period of time. Most of the growth in US took place from between about 1983 and 2007. Another indicator, I'm pretty sure we consume more resources per capita than any other country by far.

[Humodour]

US has the largest economy

Uh, so? That's a macroeconomic indicator. It says nothing about living standards.

 

 

and the fastest growth rate in the developed world.

No. We aren't accepting invented or imaginary statistics as evidence, m'kay?

 

Oh, wait. Those that have greater growth rates than the US aren't "developed", right? How shrewd.

So? That's for 2008, the year of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. You need to look over a longer period of time. Most of the growth in US took place from between about 1983 and 2007. Another indicator, I'm pretty sure we consume more resources per capita than any other country by far.

 

Just how ignorant are you mate? Pretty much any Asian country has had higher average economic growth than America over the past 30 or so years, as well as a bunch of other countries around the world. How much longer do you plan to make up figures on the spot to support your bogus claims?

 

As for incessant resource consumption - you're bragging about that? You're honest to god bragging that your country is more wasteful than anywhere else?

[alanschu]

On that one issue WoD is correct, Finland did lose the Winter War- saying otherwise is like saying that Germany won WW1 because on paper the allies had a huge numerical advantage, control of the seas, and surrounded Germany, so just getting a chunk of Prussia lopped was actually a victory all things considered.

 

The goal of fighting Germany was never the total annexation of Germany or Prussia.

 

Germany's goals of fighting World War 1 was most definitely not a defensive war to prevent total annexation of their country.

 

 

In the end the soviets took pretty much exactly what they wanted to do by territorial exchange right at the beginning and that's pretty much it (plus the rights to use/ build a naval base on one island without sovereignty transfer, iirc).

 

The Soviets weren't even sure what they wanted to do, consistently changing the internal propaganda for the invasion of Finland based on the results of the war. Initially the goal was to free the working class Finns from their oppressive fascist leaders. Except, when the working class Finns were rallying around the leadership of the Finnish government, so that didn't really work anymore. At this point the propaganda changed from freeing the oppressed working class Finns to building a safety net around Leningrad, as the Western Imperialists were using it to springboard an invasion in the Soviet Union (based on intelligence that France and England were looking to supply Finland, but were unable to due to blockades. The motives continued to change throughout the cold war.

 

From a land perspective, the Soviets gained land. But lost international prestige and were generally embarrassed of the whole incident (though we can be thankful, because the ****tiness of the Red Army made it obvious that the purges had greatly compromised its ability to wage war...something that was probably better to find out against the Finns rather than the Germans). But if you want to tell the Finns that they lost the war, have at it. At best it was a minor strategic victory, but it was really more of a (to borrow from Wikipedia) an interim peace. But when you go into a country with the aim of showing off your power and ability with the intent of telling the Finns they'll have to relocate elsewhere, and your propaganda Minister has to rework the speeches to tell the people that really all they want to do is create a buffer zone for Leningrad from the Western Imperialist, things start to become shady. While Khrushchev admits that despite every advantage, their victory was really a moral defeat, the Finns celebrate the soldiers of the Winter War and the efforts they did to stop the Red Army from taking over their country.

 

 

If I make plans to go into a country with my vastly superior army, intent on kicking its inhabitants out and fully annexing it, and all I settle with is a piece of land, I'd consider that a strategic defeat. Especially when it comes on the heels of attempting to show the world how awesome you are. Like the Battle of Kursk where many debate whether or not it could be a German Tactical Victory, there's no argument that it was a Soviet Strategic Victory (and a decisive one at that).

Edited October 14, 2009 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

That isn't what happened though- the Soviets presented the Finns with a land exchange proposal which was very nearly approved and which actually gave Finland more territory than the USSR, prior to the war, and after the war took pretty much exactly what they asked for in that agreement, just without giving any territory in exchange. If it wasn't the USSR/ Stalin there wouldn't be any question over what their aims were and whether they'd achieved them- there really wasn't much at all stopping them from setting whatever terms they wanted in either the Winter or especially the Continuation War.

 

Everything else is immaterial, yes they lost more men, yes they annoyed the French and British (I'm sure Uncle Joe was literally shaking at the prospect of having Chamberlain write him a strongly worded rebuke) but they did exactly what they set out to do. There really isn't any other definition of winning a war.

 

And if you think all of the various extremist Islamic organizations and leaders wouldn;t join together if it gave them a legitimate chance to take down the US, you're just misguided.

They wouldn't under any real world circumstances because they are far more complex than just 'down with the USA' and have far more complex goals, some of which are contradictory with each other. AQ's for example are basically (1) reestablish Caliphate (2) destroy heretical sects (=Shia and moderate Sunnis) (3) convert rest of world to Islam. Point (2) is directly inimical to both Hezbollah and Iran, as they well know.

[HoonDing]

Simo H

[213374U]

There's also no doubt that the Soviets could have conquered all of Finland if they had wanted to in either the Winter or Continuation Wars

I was under the impression that Stalin had needed every last men he had to defend the USSR proper. If he had pressed on during the Winter War and a fraction of the Red Army was deployed over Finland, would Barbarossa have turned out as it did?

 

Hypothetical scenarios sure are fun.

 

 

So? That's for 2008, the year of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. You need to look over a longer period of time. Most of the growth in US took place from between about 1983 and 2007.

I'm starting to believe that Hurlshot's assessment was spot on. That's for 2008 and 2009. When you're talking about "growth rate", the data I presented IS what you are referring to. Data from the 1950's or any other period is, well, outdated. Essentially what you are banging your chest about nonstop is that "the US is the biggest economy". So. ****ing. what. You also waste the most money on a standing military which, thanks to a BRILLIANT political leadership, can't beat a bunch of shepherds hidden in mountain caves.

 

How about you present some numbers yourself, instead of making stuff up and squirming when presented with the real thing, you pathetic tool.

 

 

Another indicator, I'm pretty sure we consume more resources per capita than any other country by far.

An indicator only of your fatness.

 

[Gorgon]

Simo H

[Walsingham]

Surely the standard for win must take some account of relative size. If I got in a fight with Mike Tyson and didn't die and broke his face up a bit I'd consider that a win even if I had to be carried out.

 

I certainly think the Finns did a tremendous job bot strategically and operationally, and showed great national and individual courage in the winter war.

 

However, I really can't remember what this has to do with Barack Obama.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Just how ignorant are you mate? Pretty much any Asian country has had higher average economic growth than America over the past 30 or so years, as well as a bunch of other countries around the world. How much longer do you plan to make up figures on the spot to support your bogus claims?

That's why I said developed countries, obviously developing ones will have a much higher growth rates in % terms, since they're starting with very little. Here, you can play around with this: http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeye...th-by-country-3 Actually Australia has a higher growth rate, but then you're higher on the free market index too somehow. This also helps put things in perspective: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=348

As for incessant resource consumption - you're bragging about that? You're honest to god bragging that your country is more wasteful than anywhere else?

I wasn't bragging, I'm just saying it's one indication of the standard of living.

[Lare Kikkeli]

I wasn't bragging, I'm just saying it's one indication of the standard of living.

 

Well kind of, but it mostly just shows how wasteful you are.

[213374U]

That's why I said developed countries, obviously developing ones will have a much higher growth rates in % terms, since they're starting with very little. Here, you can play around with this: http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeye...th-by-country-3 Actually Australia has a higher growth rate, but then you're higher on the free market index too somehow. This also helps put things in perspective: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=348

I suppose you aren't very good with colours, either. Either that, or you're implying that countries such as Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Israel and Spain (rofl) aren't "developed". Pretty neat how you keep redefining everything so things appear to support your claims when all evidence points to the contrary.

 

 

I wasn't bragging, I'm just saying it's one indication of the standard of living.

It's not. It's just another macroeconomic indicator. Have you studied those in school yet?

 

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-res...riable-351.html

 

Since I know you no longer bother to check the links (to save you the headache, perhaps?) I'm going to point out how Trinidad & Tobago, Bahrain, Qatar and a few more have a higher energy consumption (in kilograms of oil equivalent) per capita than the US. Does that indicate higher living standards in those countries?

[Zoraptor]

Surely the standard for win must take some account of relative size. If I got in a fight with Mike Tyson and didn't die and broke his face up a bit I'd consider that a win even if I had to be carried out.

But you considering that a win is not strictly irrelevant as by any objective measure he still won, if he was World Champion at the start he would still be at the end, and you would not no matter how courageous you may have been. You may get respect for being plucky, but you don't get points for it.

 

There are arguments for giving points for 'moral victories' under certain circumstances, but they really need some sort of other context to frame them. Colonel Frost et al at Arnhem in WW2, fighting off thousands of Tiger equipped Germans with a few hundred light infantry past the point at which they ought to have been relieved could be considered a victory despite ultimately losing, but only because they should not have been needing to hold for that long if the rest of Market-Garden worked, and only in the context of an operation that ultimately failed.

 

However, I really can't remember what this has to do with Barack Obama.

He's a communist, and so was Stalin? We've yet to see a birth certificate proving Obama isn't Finnish?

[Guard Dog]

We've yet to see a birth certificate proving Obama isn't Finnish?

 

Come to that we have also yet to see one that proves he's an American.

[Guard Dog]

Had to get that one in, could not resist.

[Killian Kalthorne]

We've yet to see a birth certificate proving Obama isn't Finnish?

 

Come to that we have also yet to see one that proves he's an American.

Yes we have.

[Purkake]

[Guard Dog]

We've yet to see a birth certificate proving Obama isn't Finnish?

 

Come to that we have also yet to see one that proves he's an American.

Yes we have.

What do God and Barack Obama have in common? Neither has a birth certificate!

 

What's the difference between God and Barack Obama? God doesen't think He's Barack Obama!

 

I got a million of em.....

 

If you can't laugh at arrogant, naccissistic, self important and utterly humorless dirt bags like Obama who can you laugh at?

 

*For the record, I am not a "Birther" I'm sure if he really was born in Kenya Hillary Clinton would have founf the proof and gleefully exposed it during the campaign*

Edited October 14, 2009 by Guard Dog

[Theseus]

[Walsingham]

I tell you what... we'll trade you. You take Brown we'll take Obama.

[Guard Dog]

I tell you what... we'll trade you. You take Brown we'll take Obama.

Thats not fair. You're going to have to throw in a few cases of Bass and all of the players from the Manchester United for our World Cup team.

[Guard Dog]

News flash everyone, 50% of Americans do not like Barack Obama and want him gone in 2012.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_index_history

 

I know I voted against him and sure as hell will vote against him in 2012 no matter who runs. He, and the political philosophy he represents, scares the heck out of me.

[Purkake]

So this was not an elaborate attempt at trolling?

 

Do hate his communism too?

[Guard Dog]

So this was not an elaborate attempt at trolling?

 

Do hate his communism too?

More like an attempt at humor. And he's not a communist, but in terms of "American" politics his socialisim meter is definitely in the red.

 

 

Hmmmm no pun intended there.