|
Post by General Pang on Jul 6, 2006 18:57:29 GMT -5
The UK does the best it can after America fucked it over after the second world war. And where would the UK be without America during WWII? Last time I checked, Germany was handing them a steaming hot plate of whoop-ass, until America and the other Allied countries invaded Normandy. D-day? You're not gunna give us kudos for that? Thing is, you proudly admit you're ignorant, then go on saying how you hate Americans. How would anyone in their right mind listen to a proud ignorant person ramble about some country? That's not true Brian. The British valiantly defended their isle and completely destroyed any chance Hitler had to invade them for the time being. There was a huge air battle above the British isles but British planes destroyed the Ludwaffe's attempt to weaken up the place. Of course the British had help from people like Polish resistance fighters, who actually played a role in cracking German codes, but overall I think your statement that the Germans were handing the British their ass is inaccurate. Also before that there was the whole retreat at Dunkirk, which was very successful. The Germans did not completely destroy the British presence there; it was just accepted by the British that they couldn't and shouldn't win and that they should escape to avoid pointless loss of life. Lol that was brilliant though. In truth ignorance is a matter of interpretation however. Mortiss is not ignorant compared to some, and yet others might be out of his league in intelligence. The same goes for me, you and everybody else on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Sun Ce on Jul 6, 2006 19:20:34 GMT -5
I know that the British defended Britain and halted Hitlers chance for invasion, but really, think about it. What would have happened if America didn't invade Normandy? Would the British have held off longer, seeing how Hitler probably could beat the Russians in a one-front war?
Really, we can thank Hitler for winning that war. Russia won it for the most part, and it was Hitler's fault they were fighting.
|
|
pHEN
Soldier
~ totmacher
Posts: 260
|
Post by pHEN on Jul 6, 2006 19:24:55 GMT -5
You have the right idea, except the enslavement of nature, spreading of human waste, plotd of land, ranches, etc. As someone who empathizes heavily with nature, I think the idea of spreading human filth anymore than it is is appauling. Uh I thought I just said rebuilding of nature and reconstruction and such. "Management of Nature" Since when should nature be managed by its own illness?
|
|
|
Post by General Pang on Jul 6, 2006 19:31:04 GMT -5
I know that the British defended Britain and halted Hitlers chance for invasion, but really, think about it. What would have happened if America didn't invade Normandy? Would the British have held off longer, seeing how Hitler probably could beat the Russians in a one-front war? Really, we can thank Hitler for winning that war. Russia won it for the most part, and it was Hitler's fault they were fighting. Exactly. Between Stalin, insurgents and Britain, Germany would have gotten his ass kicked. Russia could win a won front war. They beat Germany at Stalingrad, and after that rebels like Tito, the British, the Free French and other groups could probably, eventually, defeat Hitler. I don't think the Germans would be completely destroyed, but they could not defeat so many enemies, especially the Soviets in my opinion. Also by management of nature I meant that humans should manage what they do in the world and make sure that nature doesn't get f*cked up again Mike. They should produce as much food as they consume, they should set aside boundaries that they can't go past (land just for nature) or make sure not to build too much to destroy nature. If they want to eat meat, they should breed animals at ranches or fish at hatcheries, and the y should make sure nothing they do causes an imbalance (for example they shouldn't bring animals into habitats they are not supposed to live in and they should monitor the status of animals, plant life and so on in any given area to make sure they are ok).
|
|
pHEN
Soldier
~ totmacher
Posts: 260
|
Post by pHEN on Jul 6, 2006 19:51:07 GMT -5
Sounds good thusfar, though depending on depopulation levels, that building might not be very much at all. And I'd still prefer a tribal societal system, but that's simply because I'm a tribalist.
No. No animals deserve to be bred for death. Make the humans hunt. For food, let the wild game increase and flow over the land as plentifully as they once did, as will the predators, and both will flourish on the newfound revival of nature. Only the stronger of each tribe could live, and by this naturally imposed system of eugenics evolution could continue at a comfortable pace. There are flaws in this too, though.
Moniter as in? And if they aren't ok, do what about it? Human overintervention (ae: killing predators to make prey numbers increase) tends to do more damage than good. Significantly so.
|
|
|
Post by General Pang on Jul 6, 2006 19:56:19 GMT -5
Flaws such as the dangers of over-hunting. This flaw is why humans need to reap what they sow, produce what they consume, etc. They should make the crops they want to eat, make sure that the meat they want to eat comes in plentiful numbers and so on. What I mean by "breed to eat" is that humans would breed animals to replenish nature to the status that it once was, sort of like what humans currently do in hatcheries, such as the salmon ones in Alaska, not that they would literally breed animals that they would raise and then devour. This was why I mentioned hatcheries as well. Also by monitor I mean that they would monitor each species, as well as the environment to make certain that there is not an imbalance. If there was one they could intervene to try to stop the imbalance and they could be successful in my opinion. After damaging nature enough, humans will need to intervene to repair it at first I believe.
|
|
Shang Xi
Soldier
Need something catchy, but funny here.... Nope, I got nothing.
Posts: 253
|
Post by Shang Xi on Jul 6, 2006 20:59:49 GMT -5
Just a few points in no particular order because I'm too lazy to figure who said what when:
1) Germany would have beaten the Soviets were they not also fighting in the west. 2) whoever was talking about population control is a freaking psycho. I will now disagree with everything you say based on that single statement. 3) I demand an unsafe Soviet nuclear powerplant that is dangerously understaffed with retarded monkeys be placed in every rainforest and wildlife preserve, immediately followed by a mini-Chrenobyl at each of the newly erected sites because of gross negligence on the part of the chief engineer, me. 4) I further demand thermo-nuclear devices be made available for hunting purposes. 5)And finally, I am commiting genocide on the indigenous species of North America. I will move on to other continents at a later date.
Ok, I think I've made enough blatantly intolerant comments for now.
|
|
pHEN
Soldier
~ totmacher
Posts: 260
|
Post by pHEN on Jul 7, 2006 0:37:27 GMT -5
Flaws such as the dangers of over-hunting. This flaw is why humans need to reap what they sow, produce what they consume, etc. They should make the crops they want to eat, make sure that the meat they want to eat comes in plentiful numbers and so on. What I mean by "breed to eat" is that humans would breed animals to replenish nature to the status that it once was, sort of like what humans currently do in hatcheries, such as the salmon ones in Alaska, not that they would literally breed animals that they would raise and then devour. This was why I mentioned hatcheries as well. Also by monitor I mean that they would monitor each species, as well as the environment to make certain that there is not an imbalance. If there was one they could intervene to try to stop the imbalance and they could be successful in my opinion. After damaging nature enough, humans will need to intervene to repair it at first I believe. No. And I don't feel like debating this anymore. Human intervention in nature is gayer than AIDS, and humans are NO better than any other species. They need to help breed more prey-species that have gone endangered, but nothing else. Predators will go where prey is, and if humans are UBER-depopulated (to 1/12 of their current size) and start living a celtic/native american/siberian/slavic lifestyle that may work out. But if that wouldnt than the only answer is....3><71/\/<710/\/ 0|= 7|-|3 |-||_|/\/\4/\/5...methinks....
|
|
|
Post by General Pang on Jul 7, 2006 0:54:01 GMT -5
Then I'll stop debating with you on the subject. It's highly irrelevant anyways. My god has this topic digressed from it's main purpose.
|
|
pHEN
Soldier
~ totmacher
Posts: 260
|
Post by pHEN on Jul 7, 2006 2:09:30 GMT -5
Happy 4th of July to you too Jordan! >.>
|
|
Mortiss
Captain
Unleash Hells Fire!
Posts: 469
|
Post by Mortiss on Jul 7, 2006 6:27:13 GMT -5
I know that the British defended Britain and halted Hitlers chance for invasion, but really, think about it. What would have happened if America didn't invade Normandy? Would the British have held off longer, seeing how Hitler probably could beat the Russians in a one-front war? Really, we can thank Hitler for winning that war. Russia won it for the most part, and it was Hitler's fault they were fighting. In case you didnt notice the D-Day landings were launched from britian, The British were involved just as much as the Americans were, they didnt get panned as much as the Americans (cus we didnt attack the most defended beaches) but America could not have won the D-Day landing s without Britian. Take Britain out of the Second World War and the allies would not have won, just like if you took America or Russia out the Allies would not have won. Britain even had troops fighting in the far east for fucks sake!!!!
|
|
|
Post by General Pang on Jul 14, 2006 16:38:49 GMT -5
Britian, China, America and the Soviets were the big 4 of World War II allies, although Chiang Kai-Shek was kind of a douchebag more interested in eradicating communists left and right than fighting the Axis so of those China did not contribute as much. Britain was of course important, and for that matter Canada and several of the other nations involved significantly assisted as well.
|
|
|
Post by Huang Zhong on Jul 18, 2006 3:32:48 GMT -5
Why are these four called the Allies anyway? Why are they not the Axis? Doesn't make sense... Did Germany and Japan come to a meeting with Russia, America and Britain and signed a treaty, deciding Germany and his friends were the 'Axis' and America and his friends were the 'Allies'... WHY?
|
|
|
Post by General Pang on Jul 18, 2006 4:26:23 GMT -5
Why are these four called the Allies anyway? Why are they not the Axis? Doesn't make sense... Did Germany and Japan come to a meeting with Russia, America and Britain and signed a treaty, deciding Germany and his friends were the 'Axis' and America and his friends were the 'Allies'... WHY? Germany, Italy and their other allies were the self-proclaimed axis. Mussolini came up with the term and it was adopted. The reason why China, Soviet Russia, Britain and the US aren't called 'axis' is because they didn't call themselves that! Simple as pi. >_>
|
|