Where would the world be without the US?

and the link you sent me? well the person that created that summary obviously do not know much about English verb tenses like you

this is why you should never trust internet 100%, like i said go ask your english teacher if there is such word as "runned"

adding "ed" on past tense verbs are just idiotic

you don't write sayed, past tense for say, you write said

it's not flyed, or flied, it's flew

you don't write writed, you write wrote

there's no forgeted, there is forgot

it's lost, not losed

you won the game, you can't winned the game.

people never thinked, they thought

understanded? no such thing, it's understood

and im sure you can think of many more examples.


[edit on 18-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

trust me you dont use "run" for the past you use ran or runned
ask any one.

Originally posted by pepsi78
trust me you dont use "run" for the past you use ran or runned
ask any one.

No such word as "runned" mate, sorry. Past tense is ran, as in:

"The womble ran from the clanger" or "The athlete ran from the spikey mallet".

Lets get back to the point of the thread people,please

dude, the verb run, just like any irregular verbs, has three tenses:

run, present tense

ran, past

and run, perfect tense

Do you even know what perfect tense is? And you call yourself an English speaker when you use runned for past tense, lol!

And obviously when you can't even distinguish between present tense and present progressive tense, i would say pepsi you shouldn't comment any further on this matter due to your conspicuous lack of knowledge in English grammar.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

English is a dynamic language. "Runned" is in informal usage and can be found in mainstream publications. Some purists have hissy fits over changes in language structure, but most people accept and adopt the changes as they become common.


"I have no respect for someone who knows only one way to spell a word." -- Mark Twain.

zoso what else is there to prove in this thread?

Your statements are that "America is the protector of freedom, democracy."

Someone before posted about CIA arresting personels inside and aboard without trial. Secret prisons interrogating POW from Middle East. G.I raping Iraqui female prisoners, brutally beat up the males etc.

"Defender of the free nations all around the world."

European free nations deny any need for US to defend them. Even the Europeans themselves don't want you. Why are you still sticking around "protecting" people that don't even appreciate or like you.

"US is the keeper of capitalism and free trade."

I posted examples of how capitalism can be deleterious to the poor and the third world countries. The significance for its existence is not that important as other forms of economic systems could have easily taken its place if US has been ceased to be on the planet.

"US is a society of people with freedom, libery and justice."

Racism and injustice to blacks, massacre in Vietnam, exploiting child labour in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

"America is the most charitable nation the world has ever known."

And yet its percentage contribution of charity from its GNP is the lowest amongst developed countries.

People have already posted historical facts and figures to push down those claims. What else is there to prove?

[edit on 18-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

Originally posted by dave_54
English is a dynamic language. "Runned" is in informal usage and can be found in mainstream publications. Some purists have hissy fits over changes in language structure, but most people accept and adopt the changes as they become common.


"I have no respect for someone who knows only one way to spell a word." -- Mark Twain.

As far as i concern the Oxford or any other official English dictionaries haven't, and if you write that in an exam i don't think the teachers will "accept and adopt" that either. So how about actually typing in formal and correct English.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier

Originally posted by dave_54
English is a dynamic language. "Runned" is in informal usage and can be found in mainstream publications. Some purists have hissy fits over changes in language structure, but most people accept and adopt the changes as they become common.


"I have no respect for someone who knows only one way to spell a word." -- Mark Twain.

As far as i concern the Oxford or any other official English dictionaries haven't, and if you write that in an exam i don't think the teachers will "accept and adopt" that either. So how about actually typing in formal and correct English.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

Second that motion. I have never seen the word "runned" in any publication in England and as the birthplace of the language in question, I would be safe in assuming it is not in common usage by the people whose language it is.

Runned is not a word. If you say "runned", you sound stupid. It's like saying:

"I runned from the shop" instead of "I ran from the shop"..which sounds silly.

No matter how you try and dress it up, runned is not a word.

The OED is no longer considered an official source for American English, only British. They are considered two distinct dialects, but if you learned English as you claimed you would already know that.

Informal English is considered perfectly acceptable for internet forums and other casual communications.

And before you start criticizing other's spelling and grammar you should review your own mangled bastardization of language in previous posts.

Those who live in glass houses...

Informal English is considered perfectly acceptable for internet forums and other casual communications.

that still doesn't ignore the fact that saying "runned" makes you sound like a hill-billy....

"I done gone runned down the creek, Pa, but I can done not find it....duh-huh"

And before you start criticizing other's spelling and grammar you should review your own mangled bastardization of language in previous posts.

Not talking to me I hope......

To get Back To the Subject.

Where would the world be Without the "US"?

Well They Certainly would have to find somebody else to blame All the "World's problems" on.

Originally posted by msnevil
To get Back To the Subject.

Where would the world be Without the "US"?

Well They Certainly would have to find somebody else to blame All the "World's problems" on.

I think in that case, much of the blame would fall on us in the UK... Our colonialism and Empire, whilst it did alot of good in spreading civilisation (Africa) and laying the foundations for democracy across the planet (Look at India, the worlds largest democracy), also has caused much of the strife we see to this very day, by creating nations with conflicting ethnic groups, robbing nations of wealth and being generally unpleasant to the "darkies"....

Only difference is, we know and acknowledge that fact instead of trying to deny it or beat our chests about how faultless and "morally superior" we were.

[edit on 19/12/05 by stumason]

Not exactly, US isn't blamed for all the world's problems without reasonable consideration. American capitalism and globalisation, foreign policies since the 50s did in fact caused a lot of political, economical and enviornmental problems to the world.


[edit on 19-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

Reading from various pros and cons posts concerning this subject matter, the claims collected in the cons view are overally stronger than the pro view backed up by realiable evidence and figures. As a conclusion we can state that without the existence of US, the world would be a better place, answering the basic question of this thread.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

You are thinking to small here EUF. I started this thread to get feedback on where people thought the wold would be if the US had not existed, not to prove the US is the best or worst. There have certainly been crimes and attrocities commited by Americans, as well as every other nationality. And you claimed that the free nations, mostly europe do not want the US to protect them? Maybe they feel that way right now, but i assure you it was different in 1941-1990. And they will sure want the US around again soon when the next superpower, probably China, begins threatening free countries. It is basically about opinions, you feel the world would be better, i do not. You feel you proved this, i do not. Agree to disagree?

You need to paint a "alternative" picture in North America. For Exp. The French Conquer the English in the French-Indian War.

And Now the Hairy Armpit people Rule the world.

Cheap Wine for everybody. Hey, at least there's A French benifit to this.

(With My natural Goofiness aside, Perhaps this will guide the forum to what you want.)

Ever since the decline of Cold War in the 80s there was no authentic need for European countries to be protected by US sphere of influence anymore. The European countries recovered fast, and in 1993 formed the EU which united the European powers to be stronger than ever politically, military and economically, even on par with the US.

As for war on terrorism, the European countries can very well handle itself. The UK has its SAS, Germany has its GSG9, France has its GIGN and all the other nations possess their own individual special forces respectively.

Zoso you got it the wrong way around. With the Chinese rise to power, the one being threatened is not Europe but US. EU is now currently discussing the subject matter of lifting the arms sales ban on China which was persecuted in 1989. And who is the one that is demonstrating against this? US.

China simply needs Europe for its market, and a source to obtain more sophisticated weapons that the China cannot manufacture itself, for now anyways. The European countries have always been sick and tired of being ruled and bullied by the US, they want someone to kick Uncle Sam off the #1 pedestal, and China right now is the best man for the job.

Just two weeks ago the Chinese leader Wu paid an official visit to the European countries, strengthening the economic and military ties to France and numerous others. And boy, is US scared and threatened right now

[edit on 20-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
Ever since the decline of Cold War in the 80s there was no authentic need for European countries to be protected by US sphere of influence anymore. The European countries recovered fast, and in 1993 formed the EU which united the European powers to be stronger than ever politically, military and economically, even on par with the US.

As for war on terrorism, the European countries can very well handle itself. The UK has its SAS, Germany has its GSG9, France has its GIGN and all the other nations possess their own individual special forces respectively.

Two points I'm going to have to quibble with. Somehow I wouldn't put Germany in the list of countires that recovered fast as they are still struggling with the aftermath of reunification with the East. It is also interesting to note how much of Europes population growth has become stagnant and they rely on a huge immigrant labor pool. Take their social welfare programs taking enormous ammounts of money away from their economies and the social unrest in places like France and I don't see Europe as a smooth running all powerful place on par with the United States. Just because they are united in the EU doesn't mean they are truly a united force as they are constantly fighting over the position of prime minister of the EU and whether or not to let in new countries. I also don't understand how you can put them on par with us militarily as most of Europes armies save Britain haven't been fielded in conflict in some time and some still rely on conscripts.

Also your point that Europe has the SAS etc, so what? Just because you have counter terrorist forces doesn't mean that your handling terror great. A great example of this would be Madrid, the London Bombings and the never ending war in Chechnya.

Don't be so quick to label Europe hot #.

Europe is still suffering from the lack of labour and a low birth rate affecting its work force, that is a long term problem, give it a chance.

Germany did recovery fast after WWII, especially during the Cold War, for political reasons. Nonetheless from a war torn nation Germany established itself as the third, or forth country with the highest GNP.

7 out of the G9 are European countries, and second to US the EU possess the most advance weapons on the planet, and this is where China will buy its arms in the future. Economically the value of US dollar is dropping and the Euromark rising fast.

Despite having difficulties and problems, keep in mind that the EU is still young, it has its potential, it just hasn't reached it yet.

As for the war on terroorism, being as an American Agent47 you have no place to critisize the Spanish or British authority on the success of the Madrid and London terrorist attacks. Even with the branch of CIA spreading as far from Tokyo to Israel, from Liberia to Seoul, covering virtually the entire globe, and with the Navy SEALS or the Delta Force claiming to be the best special forces on the planet, i see no prevention for the catastrophic destruction of the Twin Towers and attack on the Pentagon itself, a symbolism emble for the American military might and power, causing more than 5 times the civilian casualties with the bombings of Madrid and London added together.


[edit on 20-12-2005 by EarthUnificationFrontier]