Canada RULES!

[IronParrot]

thrawn96, if you're going to insult Canada, do it here so you don't pollute the rest of the board... and I don't pollute it either when I paint this place with your blood, so to speak...

[bmilder]

Well I'm not sure it rules necessarily... ;)

Can you give proof? :p

[IronParrot]

Yes, I CAN give proof.

Webster's (which is American) defines "rule" as "to mark lines on with or as with a ruler; to mark (a line) thus"

Well, the Canada-US border serves to mark the straight line that is the 49th parallel. Therefore, Canada rules - and it rules a very long stretch of land, too.

[thrawn96]

This you might of heard of. Maybe I'll take one of the lyrics and put it in my sig.

BLAME CANADA

Time's have changed
Our kids are kids are getting worse
They wont obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!

Should we blame the government?

Or blame society?

Or should we blame the images on TV?
Heck No! Blame Canada

Blame Canada

With all their beady little eyes
And flappin heads so full of lies

Blame Canada
Blame Canada

We need to form a full assault

It's Canadas fault!

Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the darn cartoon
And now he's off to join the Klan!

And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to @#%$ myself!

Well, blame Canada

Blame Canada
It seems that everythings gone wrong
Since Canada came along

Blame Canada
Blame Canada

Theyre not even a real country anyway

My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer it's true
Instead he burned up like a piggy on a barbecue
Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?

Heck no!

Blame Canada
Blame Canada

With all their hockey hubbabaloo

And that bitch Anne Murray too

Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun
must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before someone thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus

[thrawn96]

34 REASONS CANADA SUCKS!

1. They think they are superior because they have penguins.
2. The so-called words "eh" and "aboot".
3. They have polar bears.
4. That @#%$in national health care @#%$.
5. Those funny hats with the flaps. (What the @#%$ are those called.)
6. They're too far north for the Mexicans to go there.
7. Quebec. (What went wrong? I think it was those @#%$in frogs that took over.)
8. Regina
9. Molson Beer
10. They canceled The Kids in the Hall.
11. Alanis Morrisette
12. Celine Dion
13. Shania Twain (She's a hotty, but her music sucks)
14. Crash Test Dummies
15. Fuel
16. Steppenwolf
17. kd Lang (giving good looking lesbians a bad name)
18. Canadian football
19. Hockey
20. Their pennies look just like ours. (bastards like to copy Americans)
21. What's with the @#%$in Maple Leaf?
22. The fact that they have "Mounties".
23. They can't speak either French or English correctly.
24. The fact that they think they are their own country (We all know it's the 51st state.)
25. They have too many eskimos.
26. They know more about our country than we do.
27. The phrase, "The Great White North".
28. It's full of left over draft dodgers from the Vietnam War. (Pussies)
29. Their army couldn't invade a LA High School.
30. We haven't officially invaded and sold their land to Disney.
31. Robert Goulet
32. Peter Jennings
33. Tom Brokow
34. Their infatuation with the British Monarchy.

[thrawn96]

Top Ten Reasons to Nuke Canada
1: Canada is the most useless country when it comes to war. They never help in any hostile situation. It is never heard on the news, "Canadian troops advanced today into a situation that is escalating out of control."

2: We have been in many history classes and have never heard of Canada helping in Vietnam or Desert Storm.

3: We're not sure, but we don't think they have a Navy or Air Force.

4: If we nuke Canada, the only thing we will lose is the expensive drink "Clearly Canadian."

5: Canada also happily provides us with its immigrants. I mean hell, we've already got those weirdos coming in through the Mexican border, from Cuba, and Puerto Rico. I think we have enough.

6: Canada copied us and got professional sports. They can't come up with anything theirselves.

7: We were suprised when we saw this. The infamous and popular Canadian Bacon pizza topping is not even made in Canada. That is really pathetic.

8: We would just like to add, the Raspberry flavor of "Clearly Canadian" tasted nothing like raspberries.

9: You've heard of all those cars that are made in Canada. They're uhh...

10: And for the tenth reason, it would be cool, they wouldn't even see it coming. I mean we haven't even used one on someone since the 40's, and they're all just getting rusty, and if we're gonna pay our hard earned tax dollars for these things, we damn well better use them. So who's the best target? Canada!

Reasons NOT to Nuke Canada
No reasons presented yet

[arynetrek]

" 5: Canada also happily provides us with its immigrants. I mean hell, we've already got those weirdos coming in through the Mexican border, from Cuba, and Puerto Rico. I think we have enough."

i'm beginning to think your anti-Canada thing is all a joke, but immigrant-bashing is just plain cruel. people come up from central & south america because they don't want to get shot in the streets, & if they think that they can have a better life here, then i for one welcome them. whatever happened to the "land of opportunity?" america sure isn't perfect, but it's preferable to death in a gutter. besides, many immigrants end up doing the very necessary but unpopular jobs that most american's wouldn't touch.

As for Mexico, that country has a huge gap between the rich & poor. These people coem to the US because they want to get a better job so they can feed their children. Cuba - hey, i wouldn't want to live under communist rule either. Puerto Rico - THEY'RE A US TERRITORY!

aryne *

[juntel]

Reason to NUKE the US (and only one needed):

They've got too many people so bigotted (see the above posts!) they will want to nuke everyone else!

So nuke the US before it nukes the world.

No other reasons needed.

But of course that's no solution.
Too many good people would be nuked at the same time.

And given enough time, Celine will win the (above) bigots hearts...

Signed JUntel... one of "those" frogs mentionned above...

[bmilder]

It's mostly a joke...

Also, I'm sure he didn't make up those lists and got them from some site. In any event, I don't want this to turn into a board-wide flamefest, so please keep all anti- and pro-Canadian comments in this thread for the time being. IP intended this when he made this thread. I will delete or edit most of the the anti-Canadian comments in other threads so they don't get clogged up.

Any attempts to revive this in another thread will be swiftly dealt with and penalties may be given out. There is really no reason to bash other countries that are so similar. Also, there are plenty of Canadian and British members here and we don't want to offend them. Personally, I prefer the United States, but that's because I was born here! It was really just luck that you were born in the U.S. too, and other people were probably born in the countries that they prefer. The United States is more populous and richer than the countries mentioned, but Canada has more area and if GB hadn't colonized the New World, we wouldn't be here (forgetting for a second the Revolution :p )

It is quite pointless to stereotype tens of millions of people, and not polite to do so on a public board that contains such members. It's ok to have a little friendly rivalry between citizens of different nations, stress friendly. But to get to the point where people get offended is unacceptable.

Canada obviously isn't as known for its military exploits as the United States is, but WWII was more than 50 years ago. From their other posts, I guess Canada contributed to the war effort too, like many other countries, but was not as visible or as involved as the U.S.

Recall that the U.S. and Canada share the longest undefended border in the world. We're friendly, neighboring nations. There's no reason why we shouldn't act that way.

This thread remains open for the time being but it will be closed if things get too bad.

[juntel]

In this thread, I took everything before "Top Ten Reason to NUKE Canada" as a joke, nothing more.

But that particular post... Let's not forget that in other words it means "Top Ten Reasons to KILL Canadians".

It's still a joke, I agree, but of very bad taste.

I have a good sense of humour... but it has its limits. Let the posters read what they write (or paste) before posting.

I won't go any further.
I've said what I wanted to say.

[thrawn96]

Ben was right, I got all those lists from other websites.

[thrawn96]

http://www.canadasucks.com/images/c1.jpg

[thrawn96]

Ben actually does like these posts:

gregl58716 (12:37:46 PM): did u like my canadian disses?
bmilder (12:38:04 PM): well i tend to agree with them but i don't think it's appropriate for entmoot :-P
gregl58716 (12:38:15 PM): :-P
gregl58716 (12:38:23 PM): but u thought they were funny?
bmilder (12:39:08 PM): somewhat
gregl58716 (12:39:19 PM): and u agree with them?
bmilder (12:40:54 PM): well i do agree that the u.s. is superior to canada :-P
bmilder (12:41:06 PM): i've even made small anti-canada jibes at ironparrot's board ;-)
gregl58716 (12:41:30 PM): lol

[bmilder]

That doesn't mean I liked them. As I said before, due to the fact that I'm American, I like the U.S. better than Canada. However, that doesn't mean I want to nuke them, or that I want to post strong anti-Canada stuff all over the board!

[Eruve]

As an American citizen who is married to a Canadian citizen and who lives in Canada (in Quebec, no less, with all the "frogs"; I'm even married to one), I'd just like to point out that it's possible to think both places rule.

[IronParrot]

Don't close this thread yet! I'm replying to those top 10 lists one point at a time!

[IronParrot]

First of all, South Park is a JOKE. In fact, Matt Stone and Trey Parker are Canadian.

Now, in reply to "34 REASONS CANADA SUCKS!" which I didn't take seriously, but I'm going to respond to anyhow.

"They think they are superior because they have penguins."
We don't have penguins.

"The so-called words "eh" and "aboot".
We don't actually say "aboot", and we don't use "eh" any more than Americans do (and trust me, Americans use it more than you would realize). Of course, there's Newfoundland, but that's another issue entirely and if I mentioned it I'm going to have a Newfie flame me for stereotyping them.

"They have polar bears."
Does that mean we suck?

"That @#%$in national health care @#%$."
Actually, the national health care system only serves to provide and allocate funding to the subsystems which are largely managed by the provincial governments. The provinces have most of the power. If you get the opportunity, read about something called Bill 11 in the province of Alberta - it was hot news a month or two ago and had to do with this issue.

"Those funny hats with the flaps. (What the @#%$ are those called.)"
I have a hunch you're referring to Stetsons. It's a tradition of the mounted police, just like turbans are a tradition of Sikhs. Actually, recently there was an issue about whether a Sikh in the RCMP would wear a Stetson or a turban... the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the turban.

"They're too far north for the Mexicans to go there."
You'd be surprised how many Mexicans are in Canada. Not as many as there are in the United States, percentage-wise, but still a lot.

"Quebec. (What went wrong? I think it was those @#%$in frogs that took over.)"
That's juntel's playground.

"Regina"
You've never been there.

"Molson Beer"
Must have confused that with "34 reasons Canada rules!" Make sure you're typing in the right list next time.

"They canceled The Kids in the Hall."
Awww, poor sweet baby. In the States, ABC pulled Reboot off their lineup and pissed off all the American CG fans. Same deal.

"Alanis Morrisette"
"Celine Dion"
"Shania Twain (She's a hotty, but her music sucks)"
et al. with the music...
First of all, music is a matter of taste. I don't like their music either... but does that have anything to do with them being Canadian? If you're going to bash Canada based on the music that comes out of it, bash music of the true Canadian sound. Spirit of the West, Tragically Hip, Great Big Sea, et al. (Then you'd REALLY be asking me to rain death on you...)

"Canadian football"
Aww... unhappy with the fact that all the American CFL franchises collapsed two years ago?

"Hockey"
Again, you confused it with the "34 reasons why Canada rules" list.

"Their pennies look just like ours. (bastards like to copy Americans)"
They're both made of copper, and they are roughly the same dimensions. Big deal! And if you think the origin of the copper penny design was American, think again.

"What's with the @#%$in Maple Leaf?"
The same thing that's with your beloved Stars and Stripes.

"The fact that they have "Mounties"."
Yes, we've already established that you don't like Stetson hats. That's really your problem, not ours.

"They can't speak either French or English correctly."
Here's a stereotype about Americans on the same level of (im)maturity as your little comment about language. Americans can't speak English correctly, and they can't speak French period! (Note: I'm not serious here, just sarcastically noting what a blatantly immature and unfounded assumption this is)

"The fact that they think they are their own country (We all know it's the 51st state.)"
States don't have their own Constitutions.

"They have too many eskimos."
We have no eskimos at all. I believe you are referring to the Inuit. And as for them... we don't have a whole lot of them either.

"They know more about our country than we do."
That's a good thing for us, and a bad thing for you.

"The phrase, "The Great White North"."
Aww... have a problem with it because you don't know how to pronounce it or something?

"It's full of left over draft dodgers from the Vietnam War. (Pussies)"
Actually, they weren't draft dodgers. It's just that Canada didn't participate because the government knew that the American foray into the situation was a completely pointless effort that was a waste of human life. A pity the States didn't have that kind of foresight.

"Their army couldn't invade a LA High School."
That's what's sad about L.A. high schools.

"We haven't officially invaded and sold their land to Disney."
Again, your problem, not ours.

"Robert Goulet
Peter Jennings
Tom Brokow"
1. Don't shoot the messengers
2. Don't shoot the countries they belong to, either.

"Their infatuation with the British Monarchy."
The same British Monarchy we've been getting rid of for the last 133 years? Please.

My response to "Top Ten Reasons to Nuke Canada" will follow...

[Finlandril Far Seer]

Quote from thrawn96:
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Top Ten Reasons to Nuke Canada
1: Canada is the most useless country when it comes to war. They never help in any
hostile situation. It is never heard on the news, "Canadian troops advanced today
into a situation that is escalating out of control."
__________________________________________________ _____________________

I guess you must have slept through most of your history classes. Vimy Ridge? Dieppe? Those names ring a bell?

Sheesh.

Finlandril Far Seer
"Proud to be a Canadian... pass me another beer."

[thrawn96]

That list wasnt mine! I regret trusting that stupid website with the list of why canada sucks! i went back to check if it had an email adress to tell them wat idiots they were. Oh well, i guess i just made a complete ass of myself. :p

[bmilder]

Actually IP, while well intentioned, a portion of your post is inaccurate. In fact, all 50 states in the United States have their own State Constitution, so having a constitution does not mean you're a separate country! ;)

[thrawn96]

See, IP, I knew some of those were wrong. HA!

[Finlandril Far Seer]

No problem thrawn96!

I was not offended by the fun you poked at Canada and, indeed, I thought some of it was quite humourous. I was merely shedding some light on the perception that Canada has no military history of which to speak. Quite the contrary. In fact, your White House was once pink (if I remember correctly) and was later painted white for a visiting French dignitary after a small force of Canadians torched it. :D

OK, OK, so most of the force was British, but they were Britons from Canada!

Finlandril Far Seer

[IronParrot]

Oops, with that constitution thing, I was referring to a different document... don't remember exactly what I was going to say, but... how would you classify the British North America Act (1867)? Because that's what I'm referring to. Not the Constitution. Sorry.

Finally taking on that nuke thing...

"Canada is the most useless country when it comes to war. They never help in any hostile situation. It is never heard on the news, "Canadian troops advanced today into a situation that is escalating out of control."
Others here have already mentioned Vimy Ridge and Dieppe. Also, we took down Juno Beach on D-Day, one of the five beaches at Normandy. Today Canadians are still celebrated in the Netherlands with a national holiday, because it was the Canadian armed forces that liberated them in the Second World War. Then there's also the many peacekeeping operations where Canadian leadership was absolutely essential. It was Lester Pearson, former Canadian Prime Minister, who (before he became PM) founded peacekeeping and first employed it in relieving tensions in the Suez Canal in, I believe it was 1957. Want more examples?

"We have been in many history classes and have never heard of Canada helping in Vietnam or Desert Storm."
In fact, those are the ONLY two examples of Canada not getting involved - Vietnam because it was pretty damn foolish anyway, and the U.S. made a pretty big mistake in getting involved; and although Canadians didn't participate in Desert Storm, they contributed to the Gulf War through playing a large role in operations conducted by the United Nations.

"We're not sure, but we don't think they have a Navy or Air Force."
Canada has some of the most advanced naval technology in the world, though our fleet is small. And as for the air force... which country do you think served as the main Allied air force training ground in World War II? (It was primarily for the British Commonwealth, but they played a BIG role...)

"If we nuke Canada, the only thing we will lose is the expensive drink "Clearly Canadian.""
I'm laughing too hard at this one to make a counter-argument. This one isn't even worth the effort.

"Canada also happily provides us with its immigrants. I mean hell, we've already got those weirdos coming in through the Mexican border, from Cuba, and Puerto Rico. I think we have enough."
YOU guys didn't have several boatloads of Chinese immigrants being smuggled in on the Pacific coast last year.

"Canada copied us and got professional sports. They can't come up with anything theirselves."
A Canadian invented basketball. And of course there's hockey.

"We were suprised when we saw this. The infamous and popular Canadian Bacon pizza topping is not even made in Canada. That is really pathetic."
That's not a problem with Canada, that's a problem with the marketing "geniuses" at Pizza Hut.

"We would just like to add, the Raspberry flavor of "Clearly Canadian" tasted nothing like raspberries."
Again, how is this a problem with the nation of Canada?

"You've heard of all those cars that are made in Canada. They're uhh..."
Ten bucks says your parents have a Japanese-manufactured car. (In all likelihood, they do.)

"And for the tenth reason, it would be cool, they wouldn't even see it coming. I mean we haven't even used one on someone since the 40's, and they're all just getting rusty, and if we're gonna pay our hard earned tax dollars for these things, we damn well better use them. So who's the best target? Canada!"
There's something called "disarmament" going on right now that you probably haven't heard of.

So in summary, NONE of the reasons you provided justify nuking Canada. Oh, and secondly, even if you tried to nuke us you'd fail in doing so, because of our missile defense system that the United States relied on heavily during the Cold War.

[Eruve]

And just another point about the health care system. A few days ago the newspaper her printed up the UN ranking of countries according to their health care systems. Canada didn't do great, it was 30th. But the US was 37th.

[noldo]

What was number 1?

[Eruve]

I think it was Japan with Switzerland at number 2.

[noldo]

Oh. Japan rules.

[thrawn96]

Why do you bitch about a mere couple boatloads of illegal immigrants, when we get dozens of boatloads of aliens ever day? They come illegally from the Orient, Mexico, and Cuba. And then there are the countless amount legal immigrants coming off the boat every minute. And you bitch about a couple aliens?

There's a difference between Japanese cars and Canadian cars. First of all, Japan has been a kick ass country ever since they got on our good side after WWII. Japanese food is great, they have awsome technology, and they're just plain cool. Plus, foriegn-made goods are always better than American-made goods (except for Canadian-made goods). And yes, my parents own a Toyota.

[juntel]

IP, let's not forget these are children we're talking to. ;) :p

They have been brainwashed in thinking it's better to make a war than to prevent one.

The greatest warriors are those who act so they do not need to fight.

[IronParrot]

To paraphrase Asimov - violence is the last resort of the ignorant...

[arynetrek]

while we're on the subject of Japan (sort of)...

japanese food is awesome, so is Vision of Escaflowne (a REALLY GOOD anime).

sorry - just had to say it -

aryne *

[thrawn96]

Ok, time to make peace with IP. I was thinking of a way to do this for a while. This will only work if IP decides to go along with it. The plan will make both of us probably go out unhappy, but at least we'll be at peace.

We each must make a list of 5 things that suck about our country and 5 things that are good about the other person's country.

Once IP agrees, I'll go first, or he can go first. It doesnt matter, but I wont go until he does. Hopefully this will bring total peace between me and the rest of the board. I've already made peace with Tater.

[IronParrot]

Peace? Were we ever at war?

Okay. I'm in a rush to go right now so I'll come back and post mine later on tonight... you can go first if you want to but it doesn't matter to me...

[thrawn96]

Ok...
5 Good Thing About Canada
1. Chris Jericho (wrestler)
2. that big mall you have
3. Kittie (rock band)
4. Niagra Falls
5. Hockey

5 Things that Suck About America
1. Rednecks
2. Illegal aliens
3. American-made appliances
4. Our scandalous politicians
5. North Dakota

[IronParrot]

U.S.A. Positives:

- John Philip Sousa and all those catchy march tunes
- The universities (I might be going to one of them someday)
- More interesting tourist attractions
- Aircraft carriers
- Easier to order stuff online

Canada Negatives:

- Our dollar is worth less than yours
- Canadian citizens don't qualify for American game shows
- No major league baseball (our two teams don't really count)
- Too much French-English disunity
- Too economically dependent on the U.S.

[juntel]

...I remember canadian contestants on "The Price Is Right"
...but that was a long time ago...

[Fat middle]

wow, i´m impressed!

Greg can´t be no more an Elven Warrior. he´s an Elven Peacemaker :p

[etherealunicorn]

Well-done, guys! You both gave a good effort, though technically I have to take some exception to the redneck statement :)

Redneck is an example of something that was not originally derogatory, but has become so through common use. But hey, it takes all sorts to make a world, right?

[Darth Tater]

Very nice.

[thrawn96]

Well, I dont think the peacemaker thing would work. I dont thinks it'll be long until I cause more trouble at the board. Today, I'm at peace. Tomarrow, nobody knows. :p

[Fat middle]

hmmm, it sounds as the calm before the tempest... ;)

[etherealunicorn]

I should have noted this before, but I will do that now. I wanted to think this over a bit before I responded.

Nukes. Yeah, the US might not have used one in 50 years(in a combat situation--nuclear testing went on for awhile after WWII) but the use was poorly thought out and most unnecessary. We did not have to bomb Japan and if you think nuking anyone is a desirable state, take a long, hard look at the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, once Fat Man and Little Boy completed their work. To top it off, the US still owes the people of Bikini big time, since these people were displaced from their home and sent to a far inferior island, where they still exist to this day. I am most afraid that the US is going to pay for its ill-advised use of nuclear power at some point in the future. These things have not been forgotten.

I also reccommend for your perusal a documentary called Trinity and Beyond. This covers all of the nuclear tests performed by the US following WWII(plus some WWII footage). Once you see the awesome power of these things, then you tell me if it still looks like a desireable state. Make no mistake, if some country is ever stupid enough to really let go with these dreadful things, there will be no turning back and no second chances. I don't want to live in that world, and anyone who does is flat-out a fool.

I hate those things, but they are here now and must be dealt with. Personally, I wish every last one of them would be taken offline and neutralized, but I don't think that will happen until some genius figures out a new and better way to finish off a few million lives.

About the bombing of Japan: I believe this was unneccessary and actually aimed at the USSR. Sure, Japan was still fighting, but its armies were defeated and its cities were smashed. Japan was on the point of surrender and since the Nazis were defeated (and they were the real threat, make no mistake about that) the overpowering need for a nuke was lessened. Now the first nuclear bomb explosion happened on July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo, NM. This one might be defended. After all there had been a lot of time and money sunk into the Manhattan Project and you might as well see if the thing will work.

Now the Washington thinkers rationalized that Japan had to be bombed because they would never surrender unless they were actually invaded and that then the death toll would be higher. Does this sound really reasonable? It doesn't to me. My god, the Japanese are not stupid people and it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the fat lady has sung. But we forget that the real enemy of the US at the end of WWII were the Soviets, our allies (or at least this was the perception--it may not have been factual yet).

I have an interesting argument by Asimov on this subject but it is rather long, so I will not post it unless the general consensus is to view it (which is cool, whichever is preferred). I know that it rambles a bit, but it couldn't really be helped, I guess. Certainly I mean no offense to anyone else with my opinion, so please accept it in the spirit of friendly debate, as it was intended.:)

Have a nice day,
EU

[Jonce]

Being British I don't know much about Canada but surely having it full of French can't be good.
I should know France is only 30 miles from our cost and since the channel tunnel weve been invaded by the frog munching Frenchies (and they always beat us at soccer).
Other than I think Canada is a nice country. :)

Joncehttp://web.tiscalinet.it/giuntina/faccine/ani_smiles.gif

[IronParrot]

It's not full of French around here. Just in Quebec.

etherealunicorn, I don't have time to discuss the nuke thing with you right now, so I'll summarize my opinion on it so you can prepare for when I write up a full response tonight... my opinion is that while I support disarmament today, the nukes WERE necessary to put an end to the war. Details shall follow later tonight, hopefully.

[etherealunicorn]

I won't say that my opinion is the only one, certainly. :)

Looking forward to it;)

[thrawn96]

I have some details too...

First of all, the Japanese are not one to surrender easily. After the Nazis surrendered, Japan was stil fighting hard. There were two possibilities for the US to end the war.
1)Send in troops, cause thousands of American and Japanese casualties, extend the year several more years.
2)Nuke them, no American casualties, war ends quickly.
I think anyone would choose choice two. Sure, maybe the effects of radiation poisoning were bad, but atomic bombs were new and not much was known about the effects. I agree with IP that the only way to end the war was the nuke.

[juntel]

I agree with unicorn.

It is one thing to end the war with fewer american casualties; quite another to do it by killing civilians, even though the cities had army structures within them.

A demonstration of the power of the bomb without casualties (or very few) would have done.
Make a dent in Mount Fuji or something...

But hey... wouldn't have had their guiney pigs to test the effects on radiation burns etc... if they had done that. They had to have subjects to study, in case one day the soviets had the bomb and attacked the US; they had to have some medical expertise...

[Quickbeam]

OK, a few facts:

1) Japan was not 'at the point of surrender'. They had declared their intention to fight to the last man, woman and child RATHER than surrender, to take as many of the allies with them as possible before they were defeated. A demonstration would NOT have convinced them, and would only have alerted them to our intentions and given them a better chance of intercepting our planes.
2) A conventional assault was also being planned at the same time the nukes were being prepared. It was estimated that it would require approximately 1,000,000 allied casualties to invade and conquer Japan by conventional warfare, with 2-3,000,000 Japanese casualties occurring in the process.
3) By using the nukes instead, we reduced our casualties to effectively zero, and Japan's to less than 300,000. At the same time, Japan realized that we could take out all of them if necessary without them taking ANY of us with them, so there was absolutely nothing to be gained by continuing the war. So LOTS of lives were saved ON BOTH SIDES by Truman's decision to go with the nukes, and the war ended much sooner than it otherwise would have.
Nuclear weapons and their effects are indeed horrible beyond description. I don't like the fact that they were used. I wish there had been a better alternative. But the thing about war is that there frequently ARE no good alternatives, only less bad ones. Dropping the nukes was the least bad alternative available in August of 1945, and doing it was the right thing.
In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima, a local radio talk show host here in Wisconsin devoted his program to a discussion of the event. One of the callers was a former soldier who had been in the Pacific theater in 1945, and who was going to be part of the invading force had Truman chosen the conventional warfare option. The invasion was going to occur in waves. This soldier had been scheduled to be part of the first wave. The Army was anticipating 100% casualties in the first THREE waves, with some soldiers finally starting to get through the Japanese defenses on the fourth wave. In other words, had Truman chosen not to drop the nukes, this man, and many others like him, would have come home in boxes. There are many people alive today - the American soldiers whose lives were saved, and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren - who would not be here had Truman not made the decision he did. It was moving to hear this man tell his story, and it reinforced even more my belief that the nuclear bombs - as horrible as they are - were in fact the right way to go in that situation. And I hope and pray that such a situation will never happen again.

[Darth Tater]

Oh boy, this is a topic I get really upset about. I'm embarrassed and even feel guilty knowing we dropped those atomic bombs. Us, the US, a world leader, and the only nation to ever make use of their atomic bombs. How shamefull is that? Extremely. We took the cowards way out, and there's no way around that. First of all, destroying military instillations was worth a try, something we wouldn't give it. The worst part is though that we didn't just drop one nuke, we dropped two. That wasn't necessary. Quickbeam, you list the casualties as 300,000. First of all, that's too many, but sadly these things happen in war. Unfortunately, that's not all the casualties. Think of all the people who, because of the radiation, are living out a misserable existance and being treated often worse then dogs. Think of what it's done to our environment, just think how many more people the aftermath of the nukes may kill. And don't try to tell me we didn't know. We didn't care! America wanted to get this over with, and I'm sure they could have learned so much more about the nukes and realized how dangerious they were if they actually put the effort in!

[etherealunicorn]

Tater, that is much the way I feel about it, but you put it more succinctly.:)

I think that the ghosts of those 2 bombs are going to come back to haunt us one day. I don't know why I feel that way, but I have that nagging suspicion.

I will have to go over that Trinity info again before I can give the information that I would like to here, so bear with me if I have little to go on for now.

As I understand it, though, Einstein and some of the other researchers who worked on the theory of the things had deduced from the mathematics what the end result of a detonation would be, right down to the radiation effects and suchlike. I don't know if this is so or if this knowledge ever made it to those who decide on where and when a weapon is to be used, but if it IS true, then those people showed a grievious disregard for the consequences.

About a year ago I saw part of a program in which a film team went back to Bikini to film. Unfortunately I managed to miss most of this but I did catch some footage shot in the waters of the lagoon and I thought "these people have really got some big brass ones". Here they were, no wetsuits and certainly no radiation gear, swimming in water that absorbed god only knows how much fallout from all of the tests that were done there. Every level of the food chain on this once-lovely atoll is poisoned and will probably stay that way for a long time. I would not have set one toe in that water or indeed on that atoll without heavy protective gear.

I cringe to think of a world in which we all may have to face such a thing. I don't think that even now we fully comprehend the magnitude of the effects of these detonations. People have a way of taking the short-term view of things but this can often be more harmful in the long-term.

In this light, I think disarmament is a good thing. However, to use an analogy I ran across in a book: I have a nice six-shooter, worthy of any Texan(lol). And if I take three bullets out, you might feel that since I have less ammunition I am safer to be around (despite that this analogy makes me look like a real freak, I am staying with it ;) ). However, if I point it at you with only 3 bullets in the weapon, do you feel safer?

[Darth Tater]

"Every level of the food chain on this once-lovely atoll is poisoned and will probably stay that way for a long time"

I'd think forever.

[thrawn96]

Tater and unicorn, are you paying attention? You seem to be intent on hugging trees, but you don't realize what would have happened if the bombs werent dropped. Millions more American and Japanese would be DEAD. Yes, I feel guilty that we are the only country to have used a nuke, but it was necesary. It's one of those things you don't want to do, but you have to in order to make things work out.

[etherealunicorn]

Sorry, I just don't buy that

[Quickbeam]

Just to clarify:
I said less than 300,000. The estimates of the total casualties of the two bombings vary. According to my source, Estimates for Hiroshima range from 80,000 to over 200,000, and Nagasaki from 39,000 to 74,000. I took the high estimates and kind of rounded it up just to pre-empt any accusations of underestimating the casualties. Even the highest estimate is still dramatically lower than the the casualties that would have occurred in a conventional invasion, and I didn't want anything to distract from that point.
I respect the feelings of those of you who disagree on this issue, but you really need to get past the emotion-based revulsion over nuclear weapons. I share that revulsion, but I refuse to allow it to prevent me from using my intellect and logic.
Try to think of it this way: forget about the nukes for a moment and imagine that the two options for casualties (3-4 million combined, vs less than 300,000, all of the enemy) both involved conventional warfare. Which one would you choose? Obviously you'd take the option that would result in far less casualties. Now ask yourself: why should the analysis be different when that option involves nuclear weapons? Minimizing the casualties is the important thing. HOW that is accomplished shouldn't matter.
One more point, for those of you who insist that we should have conducted some kind of demonstration first, or targeted only military installations. As you have correctly pointed out, we didn't just use one bomb. We used two on two different cities. Why? Because even after the first one, the Japanese STILL weren't convinced to surrender! You must realize that in light of that fact, the idea that anything less than what we did could have persuaded them to give it up is terribly naive.

[juntel]

Japanese naval defense was out.
Ditto aerial defense.
The americans were successfully making air raids, like what was done in germany.
I wouldn't want to doubt what you said about the planned waves of attack on japan, but the air raids were too successfull to be replaced by an army/marines attack.

anyways... the truth is that we will never know what would have happened if a demonstration had been done instead of the actual civilian drop.
It seems they only had two bombs at the time (uranium based for hiro, and a plutonium based for naga). How bout a demo with one bomb, and the other as backup for an attack? Well, they were concerned about the possibility of a malfunction...

the debate will ever go on i guess...

(and that's not the first debate at Entmoot that will ever go on...)

[anduin]

I think that when Tater said that 300,000 were too many, I think he meant that that was too many people to lose their life in that way....or any way for that matter, not that your figures were inaccurate.

I can never seem to decide where I stand on this issue. I agree with both sides, but maybe more so towards the side of necessity. I agree that it shouldn't matter HOW the goal was accomplished....except for the environmental consequences. But then again, I feel like a monster if I think that way....if I think that "HOW" doesn't matter. I guess it's damned if you do....damned if you don't. Like always, I am at a lost when it comes to this debate. One thing however, that creeps into my mind is Pearl Harbor. I obviously wasn't alive back then, but my parents were and I have asked them about it. They remember it all too well. Think about what it would be like if another country attacked a part of the United States...say Puerto Rico, a US territory not unlike Hawaii at the time. Hell, the Japanese almost wiped out our Navy in that area and brought us into the war by that attack. Sure the US wouldn't have stayed out of it for long (we never can), but they bombed our soil. (No comments on the fact that we took those islands over from someone else.) Does this justify using the A-bomb? Does it make us any better than Hitler? I just don't know, and I don't think that I ever will. :(

[Quickbeam]

Hitler was a completely evil person who slaughtered millions in an attempt to conquer the world and wipe out an entire race. We dropped those bombs in an effort to put a final end to the war that Hitler started. That effort was successful, and resulted in far more lives saved than lives lost. There is NO way a rational person could suggest that our use of those bombs put us in the same category as Hitler.
It's all right to have questions and reservations about what the US did with the A-bombs. However, you CAN know that we and Hitler are not anywhere close to being on the same moral plane. Please try to move beyond the emotion, and at least release yourself from that part of your burden, dear friend Anduin. It grieves me to know that you suffer over this more than necessary.

[anduin]

Busted! ;) I must admit that I don't really think that way, I was just asking more so for effect. Bear in mind that it was 2:30am and I was a little better than coherant at the time. I was trying to finish the post and that came to mind. Sorry, I should have been more responsible and not have exaggerated. I do however thank you for your sincere concern, dear friend Quickbeam. :D

Back to the Pearl Harbor thing......out of curosity, ask your parents, grandparents what they remember about Pearl Harbor, ask especially anyone that was in the Navy at the time or in the Navy at all. I am just curious because my Dad was a career Navy man and served through WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and he was pretty passionate (as is my mother) about that attack and about the wars that we fought in general. Tater, I especially extend this task to you and anyone that was not around during any of the wars that our country fought in which the draft was initiated. Try to get a feel for what our country was like during WWII when brothers, fathers, and uncles were called to duty, gas was rationed, air-raid drills were practiced, metal was s****ped, factories were replenished with mothers, daughters, and aunts. It was unlike anything that I or you could possibly fathom. Now think what you would give at that time for the whole thing to just end.....for your life to return to normal and for your families to come home....for YOU to come home.

[thrawn96]

My grandfather was in the Navy for over 20 years. During the war, he fought in several battles against the Japanese in the Pacific. If the nuke hadn't been dropped, he might have been one of the first waves to invade Japan, and I never would be here today.
After the war, my grandfather was a lawyer for the Navy. He was station in Japan for three years (where my mother lived and my aunt was born), and in Rhode Island (where they still have a house we visit every summer). And later, he worked in the Pentagon (where my mom got a summer job when she was in high school).
I know for a fact my grandfather was proud to fight for this country and probably agreed with the dropping of the bombs. Tater, do you have any relatives who fought in WWII? If so, I think you should talk to them. Same to you, unicorn.

[bmilder]

Truman made the correct decision. It was not honorable for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor unprovoked either. They brought us into it. Now another side discussion is: did FDR have prior notice of the attack and choose to ignore it to give us an excuse to go into the war?

Better that we used the atomic bomb than they used it on us. In war, the object is to kill as many as possible of the enemy while sparing as many of your soldiers as possible in order to win. I believe the use of the bomb achieved this goal.

[Fat middle]

Yankees go home! :p

i´m sure you´ll understand that not all peoples think like you. "they", "us" those words have little sense because it depends of the side where you´re looking from.

the object of war cannot be to kill as many as you can. if war has an object that has to be to end as fast as possible. that´s the only line of argumentation i can understand for the attomic bomb.

[anduin]

Yankees go home!

Mike lived in Zaragosa for four years in the early 80's because both his parents were stationed there with the US Army. He told me why US troops were stationed there, but I've kinda forgotten.... something about Franco (??) being overthrown, Spain joining NATO and as part of the agreement having to have US troops stationed there. (Please correct me if I am wrong. It has been awhile since he told me and he was only 9-13 when he lived there, so he may have remembered wrong.) Anyhow, he has a picture of a building with that phrase spray-painted on it. From living outside of the US, especially with the military, he has a good grasp on why most of the world dislikes Americans. Living my entire life in the same state and never venturing out of the country (except to Canada and last month to Holland) I had no idea how the rest of the world perceived Americans....and it never occured to me that anyone would resent having American troops on their soil. I always assumed that people would be grateful to have America butting into their affairs. And I think most US citizens believe this too. We grow up learning that America is the biggest and the best, that we are the answer to everyone's prayers, that we are the police of the planet. But we live in a bubble. We are a contained society, separated and protected from the rest of the world by oceans east and west, and friendly neighbors north and south. We don't worry about entire armies invading our land or trying to take over. We live for the most part wallowing in wealth. I can't tell you how shocked I was to expericence some of the things that Mike talked about while living in Europe, when we went to Amsterdam. It was also the first time I felt what it was like being a foreigner, even though a lot of the people there were foreigners to Holland.....they were still European. I am not sure really where I am going with all of this and if I don't stop now, I could go on forever. I have being thinking about all of this for awhile now and even more so since we returned from our trip.....I have been needing to get some of it off my chest. So I congratulate you if you have stayed with this post. :)

[Fat middle]

wow! that was a very good autocriticism exercise :)

i couldn´t have said it better.

yes, not all ppl sees americans as americans do. not that in Europe we hate americans; i think most of ppl sees americans as "good friends": we admire their athletes, we like Star Wars and their cinema in general, we learn English (and i must recognize that´s not because of Shakespeare) and we´re more familiar with them than with any other country (i guess that´s because of Hollywood mainly)...

... but we have our own sport heroes, we have our own cinema (well, Spanish cinema is not that well, but France, Italy and England have very good cinema), we have our own language, and our own history: centuries and centuries of history.

I think those things are what make us laugh when we see your President Clinton (or any of his predecessors) talking of US as the world savern and the guardians of peace. Yes you have the best army and you can be powerfull allies, but you will always be you and we, we. Your interests will never be the same of us. And we´d like to deal with our own affaires although finally would have to be helped by you. :)

[thrawn96]

Actually, our army isn't as great as it used to be. It's pretty weak compared to the other branches of military. Why do you think there are so many advertising campaigns and signing bonuses right now?

[Darth Tater]

Here I go again:

This year in school I had a class thought by two of the most brilliant people in the world. We spent the year studying history and our world while thinking about everything without the "We and They" lense in our eyes. We and They is what we dubbed the concept of biases, prejudices, Americanization, etc all rolled into one, and it was incredible. I no longer look at the world as "We": white Americans of the middle class with a computer in the house and well educated, and "They": everyone else. Because this bias is mostly gone from my mind, at least when I try, I feel I can give my opinion in this little debate in the most honest and open way possible for me.
Quickbeam, you list numbers that are irelevant. The results of those bombs go on forever, not only because of all the unborn children and grandchildren (that's normal war, sadly), but because they were atom bombs, which don't give up. You also make the Japanese look stupid. Sure, the army didn't care about the people, that's usually how it works. Quite frankly I think they'd mind having a lot of military stuff destroyed more then all the population that didn't help the war effort.
My father fought in Vietnam, I know more about that then he really ever wanted to discuss, to be sure, so I won't push more. WWII I know about from first hand accounts as well, and I still think the bomb was wrong, understandable why we dropped them, yes, but still not acceptable. I will understand it, I try to forgive, but I will NEVER accept it.

[anduin]

Welcome back Tater! :)

Hollywood. FM, that is right where I left off. Government propaganda machine.

[Quickbeam]

Once again, Tater, I respect your opinion and don't think less of you for it. I just refuse to be spooked by the fact that we used nuclear weapons. Your position would hold water only if our use of the bombs had kicked off a new age of nuclear warfare. Fifty-five years have passed, and no one has used those kind of weapons again, perhaps in part because the world saw the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was something no rational person would ever want to repeat. But the circumstances at the end of WWII were also unique, because it was the only situation where only one country HAD nuclear weapons. There was no threat of reprisal for what we did, as there would be for anyone who used such weapons now. It would be very hard to imagine a set of circumstances arising today where the use of nuclear weapons would be the best option. Under those circumstances, to me the lives that were saved are by far the most important apsect of the end of WWII. The WAY those lives were saved and the war was won is secondary to me. I wish it wouldn't have HAD to happen, but I don't regret that it did.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Now you're talking to the right boy. I did a complete term paper on nuclear bombs.

First, 300 000 persons killed in the first wave! Almost as much killed by the radiation in incredible suffering.

Then you think nobody used them after that!?! AH let me laugh out loud that one.

2000 more test were conducted since Alomogordo (Trinity test). On that 700 are from the US. The "power" of the Hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were 12 and 10 kilotons(kt) of TNT. Now standard for nukes are 1 mt(megatons)... 100 times nagasaki. During the cold war, there was enough nuke to kill EVERYONE on the planet 10 times!!!

The soviet even tested a nuke that was 56.8mt... 56800 kt!!!

But then, the radiations that comes from those 2 bombs are there for at least 250 years, cause they were small.

But I must however agree that this was probably the best way to end that war. That's sad. But then the japs were just too stubborn to let it go.

Anyway to come back to canada, yes i am a frog. Say what you want but you didn't make peace with me. :) Anyway, would you nuke Canada, that's what would happen: Power would be cut for you and for us for a couple of days, all electronics thingys would be destroyed on a radius of about 2000 km. Then the wind would carry half of the radiation particules onto YOUR territory, and you would suffer the radiactive winter as we would.

Anyway, if you are to nuke Canada, I don't mind only if you direct that on anglo-Canadian and spare us from Québec...(we could even help you in the process...) :D

[Darth Tater]

I like this guy, he has the info I wanted
One thing though, the term japs is very dissrespectfull.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Sorry, didn't meant any offense by calling Japaneses "Japs"
Where I live, it's not really considered disrespectfull so I didn't tought I could offense someone with that. In fact, I was in kind of a hurry, so I just started to use short terms...

As they say Mea Culpa

I'll try to watch my tongue... :)

[Quickbeam]

When I said 'no one has used those kind of weapons again', I meant 'used them as a weapon'. Obviously there have been many tests, but nuclear weapons have not been used by one party against another to cause death and destruction since Nagasaki. That was all I meant. Sorry I didn't say it more clearly.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Nobody has used them since Nagasaki as a weapon... that's true.

But it doesn't mean were not close to a new use of it. Remember last year (Or was it 2 years ago?) India and Pakistan each developped nuclear tech. They respectively made 6 and 5 nuclear testing. Those two country are at war!!!

At least, it's far from here!

:(

[juntel]

Salut ti-gars!
Ca s'rait difficile de nuker les anglos du Québec sans nous nuker aussi!
De toute façon, on les aimes trop nos anglos... non?

[IronParrot]

"Ca s'rait difficile de nuker les anglos du Québec sans nous nuker aussi!"
That, juntel, is what we call a lose-lose situation. :p

[thrawn96]

In English, please?

[juntel]

thrawn, we were just saying that you were right all the time, but that it was hard for us to admit it.
So we say it in french...

[IronParrot]

Er, yes, that's exactly what juntel was saying.

[anduin]

juntel!! OMG that was funny! :rollin:

[etherealunicorn]

Here is some background information that I thought all you ents out there may be interested in. Some of the highlights of the nuclear weapons age;)

-Operation Sandstone, Eniwetok(200mi W of Bikini). This tested technologies to enable doubled yields from the same amount of plutonium, increasing efficiency and the ability to stockpile. 3 events, among them shot Yoke, of 49 KT. This new design rendered the Fat Man implosion device obsolete (by 194:cool: .

-Sandia, in 1949, brings assembly-line techniques and mass production to nuclear arms (and btw, many of the employees were women).

-August, 1949, 1st detonation by USSR

-Operation Greenhouse(gotta love that name :) )- four shots in 1951 on Eniwetok, of which 2, to me, were notable:
shot Item, 45.5 KT and first test of the tritium boosting principle
shot George, 225 KT, the first thermonuclear event

-Ivy-Mike, 10 megatons, first full-scale test of a hydrogen device, marking the entry into the thermonuclear age. This shot swept the test islands clean, leaving only a deep crater

-Castle-Bravo-largest device used in US atmospheric testing; it significantly increased its' projected yield by two and a half times, to 15 megatons. This test released large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere, exposing and contaminating numerous servicemen, native islanders and the crew of a japanese fishing boat(the fact that I think the latter were spooks is beside the point). This event brought the idea of fallout firmly to the public attention.

-Operation Wigwam, 500 miles off the coast of San Diego, to test effects of a submarine detonation on submarines. This event was only 30 KT, but still larger than Fat Man.

1956-1st aircraft-deliverable, high-yield US device-3.8 megatons. The Soviets already could deliver such a device by bomber.

-Operation Plumbbob, 24 tests in Nevada, including the Hood event, the largest atmospheric detonation OVER THE US-74 KT, at 1500 feet. Some of the footage I have seen of this event seems to suggest that the DOD put soldiers on the ground during this one to accelerate its' training in the effects of nuclear warfare, although I cannot confirm this. Also there was the Ranier event, which was the first fully-contained underground event by the US. 3KT, but at 790 feet below Ranier mesa it was sufficient to vaporize rock into a molten bubble 100 feet wide. After the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, underground testing was the only permissible sort, which also conveniently hid further testing from prying eyes.

1957- high altitude tests Teak and Orange, which were carried aloft by von Braun's Redstone rocket(see, it carried more than Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom). Teak yielded 3.8 megatons and created a violent magnetic disturbance in the atmosphere that silenced radio transmissions for nearly 8 hours and damaged electrical circuits from Hawaii to New Zealand.

1961- USSR's 57 megaton Monster Bomb. This horror was based on a design for a 100 megaton aircraft-deliverable weapon.

Operations Dominic, Nugent and Styrax. Nearly 100 tests in all, many results of which, using the Polaris and Swordfish missiles, are still classified, but are known to have been in the multi-megaton range, dropped from B-52s.

And just to make your day a little more surreal, my husband just gave me this tidbit that he ran across. Now I do not advocate that you get involved with the petition that this site is pushing (after all, that would be a personal thing for each of you, and none of my business), but some of the statistics are just charmingly grim: you enter your zip code and the site generates a listing of all of the weapons (and their country of origin) that are known to be trained on your community. I make no guarantees for the validity of this data, but I will guarantee that a look at the yields of your particular piece of Heavy Metal will make you shiver. For those who are interested in checking out this link, here it is:
www.protectamericansnow.com/showzipinfo.cfm

As far as my personal opinion of these things goes, I don't like them. I feel this way because it seems that those who use these things have not given them the proper respect and responsibility from day one. There are so many instances of unexpected effects apparent in the testing data. And now that old governments are falling and new ones rising, I am afraid that these choice nasties are going to fall into the wrong hands. I fear that if these things are ever used in anger again, we will wish that a few million more dead in WWII had been all we had to deal with. The US is currently the only nation to have wielded the nuclear weapon in anger. Regardless of how necessary or unnecessary this may have been, I do not think that this act will be forgotten. Had I been on the receiving end of Fat Man and Little Boy, I don't believe that I could ever forget that my nation had been so humbled. And in some way or another, I would want revenge. I don't say that the Japanese are gunning for us now, don't get me wrong. But I find it hard to believe that we will now be made to pay for this act at some point in the future. Call it Karma, call it fate, call it whatever you want, this is what I believe.
And as far as the charge of tree-hugging goes: since none of us and certainly none of our weapons of mass destruction would be here had we not had such a grand and splendid Earth to give us birth, you bet I'm a tree-hugger. If we damage our Mother Earth irreparably, we will not have to wait for the revenge of a mere nation: our world will take care of the job in short order and we will have the chance to walk the same path as that walked by the dinosaurs.

Have a nice day :)

[juntel]

cars, electronics, etc...
that's their revenge...

(oh, and also those weird manga's, including pokémon...)

[arynetrek]

"If we damage our Mother Earth irreparably, we will not have to wait for the revenge of a mere nation: our world will take care of the job in short order and we will have the chance to walk the same path as that walked by the dinosaurs." i agree - ever heard of the Gaia theory?

as for nukes, i'm not going to get into whether the 2 used on Japan were necessary or not, but the idea of them bothers me. they don't just kill the band of enemies they're designed for, they also kill many more through the fallout. their pollution in the groudn & air (which all nations share) lasts for centuries (or longer) & affects all of us, as well as the plants & animals we share this planet with. as a couple of people have already said, sometimes it is necessary to kill a lot of soldiers quickly to end a war, but i don't think it's necessary to do so in such a destructive way. and i don't think it's necessary to condemn innocents to radiation poisoning or burning
in the flashfires.

aryne *

[Shanamir Duntak]

Well said...

2 Juntel: Ce qui me dérange, c'est les immigrants qui apprenent l'anglais et ne se forçent jamais pour apprendre le français. Et en plus de ça ils viennent te dire de leur parler en anglais, dans ton pays, ta province! Le pire c'est Ã* MTL

HA HA HA! I laugh at all those who cannot understand what I've said! :p learn french!

And that's why Canada Rulez (In fact it does not... QuÉbEc RULEZ!!)

[IronParrot]

Hey, I'm from WESTERN Canada and I know what you just said...

Oh, and out of interest - Quebec has its own immigration policy separate from the rest of Canada's, right?

[Shanamir Duntak]

Not sure about that honestly. I've been told that immigration policy is federal and not provincial. Maybe I'm wrong too...

Where are you from exactly??? BC, Alberta? North Territories? :) (What's the new name anyway?)

[Eruve]

The new Territory is called Nunavut...

Quebec does have something of it's own immigration policy, as I know from experience. I've lived here on a student visa and am now a landed immigrant. While an immigrant in either of these two situations has to go through the process with the federal government, Quebec has a say in the matter as well. There is a separate form you fill out and the provincial government can approve or disapprove, and I believe effectively keep someone from immigrating to Quebec, at least directly. I imagine if someone got rejected by Quebec, they could go somewhere else at first and then move to Quebec (talking about a landed immigrant here). As far as I know Quebec is the only province with this power.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Ah... ok...what did you study?.. if that's not too personnal

[Eruve]

I studied French, what else? I have a BA in French language and literature from McGill.

[Shanamir Duntak]

It's really off-topic but anyway it will be closed soon...

Why did you want to learn french??? It's really hard to learn with all those stoopid grammar exceptions and bizzare syntax.

Would I have the choice, i would study latin, not french!

[IronParrot]

I would have preferred Latin to French too. I really want to learn Latin. However, Latin isn't offered at my school, and I have to take a second language to satisfy IB diploma programme requirements... so I took French.

Oh well, French has its uses. So maybe all of them have to do with either a) writing lines for butlers and waiters in plays, and b) flirting recklessly. At least, those are the two I've discovered.

[Shanamir Duntak]

LoL...

Speaking with french-speaking persons is another one. :p

I love latin 'cause of it's origins. I always loved mediavel times too. I'm just borned 900 years too late :(
Latin could give me a lot of knowledge and the possibility to read OLD stuff one day!

Anyway, CANADA RuLeZ! :lol:

[IronParrot]

The beaver is a truly proud and noble animal.

[juntel]

Yup, it DESERVES to be on every of our nickels.
*Snif*

[Shanamir Duntak]

Beaver is my totem animal...
And that's true.

But I prefer the frog... :p

[emilsson]

Hey, Shanamir Duntak, I´m born 900 years too late as well :) . I´d love to learn latin one day. The Mediaval time is just great in every aspect.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Except for plagues, lack of good medecine, feudal wars and minor stuff... it's true.

I'm currently doing my own chainmail, I hope they create that time-machine soon now... :D

[Johnny Lurker]

(which is really the most interesting part of this discussion...)

I wonder why so many people are willing to decry the "atrocity" of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet no one seems to get riled up about the firebombing of Tokyo...

[juntel]

The air raids on Japan even before tha a-bombs did make more material damage then the a-bombs themselves, true.

I did touch on this, perhaps too briefly, in one of the posts (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardgeneralmessages.showMessage? topicID=427.topic&index=54) in this thread.

[emilsson]

Good point about the Middle Ages. But the knights make up for the existence of plauges and wars etc. :)

A time machine would be great. :)

[Eruve]

Just take whatever the antidote is for bubonic plague with you in your time machine. Probably you won't get as sick as everyone else because you're immunized against things like small pox and other diseases. Just watch out for the water and rotten meat!

[juntel]

Hmmm.. I wonder what kind of diseases we would bring them though, even though we're "cleaner".

Maybe it would be as disastrous as european's germs for natives in the americas a long time ago.

I wonder if today's strains would be lethal if brought back... and also how it would affect us in the future... I mean in the future of that past, which is today... I mean... well... I hope you know what I mean :)

[Shanamir Duntak]

You've seen back to the future last week didn't you juntel?
Yeah... you're probably right about that one. But you must be infected to bring some disease. But just imagine cold virus. This little darn *?$$? grows stronger every year and develop resistence as we develop immunity to it. Imagine this little boy in the 1100' He could easyly kill everyone jsut cause they aren't protected.

Anyway, emilsson, you'Re so right about the knights. But don't imagine they were as civilised as we depict them. Most were a little like Texans :p

Women were considered reproductive tools, men were gross and they applied the law of the strongest.

And just think about duels. Where God was supposed to decide and judge the income of the fight to let win the right. Suppose a stronger rival kills his daughter, accuse you of doing it, defy you to a duel, then kills you 'cause he's fastest, stronger. God decided you killed her and now everybody despise you and your funeral are somehow not as cool.

But understand me, I may be realistic about it, I would gladly depart there anytime was the "$%?$&&%(*&% time machine ready!!! :D

[emilsson]

When it comes deep down to it, the Middle Ages is better because at that time it wasn´t geeky to wear brown robes ;) .

I read a lot on this subject. So I´m fully aware of the romanticising of the knights. For some reason Swedish historians have lately started to look again at this period and have discovered that there´s a lot of prejudices surrounding it.

[juntel]

Didn't you know...?
Those were white robes they wore.
It's just that they didn't have all the hygienic facilities we have today... ;)

[Shanamir Duntak]

At least when you're alone you can always talk to your robe... after some months, it becomes alive...

[emilsson]

juntel, :lol: .

*emilsson turns sideways and looks at her robe*

Hmm, looks like it has moved a little since yesterday ;) .

[Elanor]

I almost went to Canada this summer, but it didn't work with my schedule. Too bad.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Almost went to States this summer but didn't work with my will! :p

[gdl96]

Remember this?
I can be compared to beer:
We're both the cause of, and solution to, all of live's problems.

I quote fat middle from this thread:
"wow, i´m impressed!

Greg can´t be no more an Elven Warrior. he´s an Elven Peacemaker "

Just another reason to vote for me!

[Gilthalion]

I have to admit, this was a great thread.

So what have you done for us lately? Hmmmmmmm?

(Aside from getting this election started, I mean...)

[chogall]

This message was cancelled by its author.

[gdl96]

Well, Gil. I actually haven't done a lot lately. My creativity level may be higher than yours ever will be, but it still takes time to let genius ideas grow inside of me. Whenever I have free time, I just let my mind wander around, going from thought to thought. That's how I got most of my famous threads started. But this process takes time and cannot be forced. Everyday on my walk home from school, I let my mind wander around. I come up with some interesting things, but wouldn't really work here. Although, I always can easily find ways to stir up controversy and create lots of discussion. Take this whole election thing. I thought of it. And now look what has happened. Also, maybe it's not that popular, but it definately made some contrversy, the Mets vs Yankees thread (go yanks!!). I promise, even if I'm not elected president, that I will keep Entmoot alive with my creative and controversial ideas!!