Europe NOT the US is to Blame For the Issues of Today!!!!!

The three cities (is it called empire of the cities) Washington dc , vatican city in Rome london city in London. Each have their own flag ,laws and constitution. It's weird I don't claim to understand this. Does anyone else ?
I was listening to CBC radio last summer and there was a court case in Washington DC the woman was not allowed to use the word rape for what happened to hear or forced sex. She was only allowed to use the word sex. When I was listening to this I thought WTF?
These three cities are seperate and distinct from the countries their in. I never really understood how this worked. Anyone? Aqpparently Washington is the military city, London the financial, and Vatican city the religious. This may or may not be off topic.

Originally posted by dampnickers

Again, I will re-state, as you clearly missed the point.

I AM NOT a european. I am an ANGLO-SAXON. What part of that are you unable to read? Is it beacuse I am using the primitive language called English?

As for suggesting a 'race was more powerful than another' where do you get that from? Did you read someone elses post? I have not said, nor will ever say that any one race is better than another. I did say that the 'geo-political region called europe' is made up of different RACES. The Francs, the Gauls, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, and so on. Did you miss this?

As for being responsible for giving the EU legitimacy 'myself' as you put it, was I not the one asking you to stop calling it 'Europe'? Did you miss that point too? The Irish, as you rightly pointed out, 'stood up to the powers' and voted no. However, if the British had been given the vote too, they would equally have voted no. What you fail to grasp is that we have been denied the vote. Any attempts at organising rallies, are usually ignored by the media, even when these rallies have tens of thousands of people. So do not blindly state that the British have 'given in' or 'never bothered to try'. Only a fool that never bothered to check facts would make such a claim, and I do not wish to think of you as such.

Further, there were no insults. Much of what I have written, is logical, reasoned, and fact based.

I am sure that if you have a logical and reasoned counter, you will post it here.

'America is only involved now because of financial interests'? Are you mad? My god man! America has had a financial interest from the year 1776! What part of politics do you not understand? Financial interest is part of a nations politic. You are not the most learned of youngsters if you cannot see this basic fact. It doesn't matter if a nation is five-thousand years-old or five minutes, it has a financial interest. It doesn't matter how that interest is served, in most cases, as long as it IS served... It is how many nations become rich and powerful... how do you think the USA became rich and powerful in the first place? By being benign and peaceful all the time or cunning and beligerent when it suited?

You are not throwing direct insults but talking down to me as if I am stupid as your statement above

I am using a primitave language called English

as to say I dont understand what you are saying. Maybe I am not however. That is the bad part about reading print sometimes points can be missed. As far as race you mentioned this above...

Oh, that's right the 'declaration of independance'... it suddenly turned you into a different, more superior, enlightened race overnight. Grow up!

Now that that is out of the way Ill get to my rebuttal as you knew was coming.

Now as far as the American financial interests in the 1800s which is the time frame I am referring to now how many wars did the US fight. The banks did finance these wars and they did make money no doubt but this isnt what steered these wars.

War of 1812 with Britain which can be debated whether this was for financial gains or not. The US gained nothing from this war. England and France were at war and the British put on restrictions which the US thought was illegal. On top of that the capturing of American merchants on the high seas. (That is really the only financial aspect.)

Mexican American war which was really for land (Texas) But a lot of the land we got from Mexico we actually bought from them and also we controlled Mexico but gave it all back. If that was a war for finances we really made out bad there didnt we?

Civil War. This was for finances for sure. To big of a story to dig deep but this is for finances.

This is not a war but the Louisiana Purchase. Instead of going to war to get a huge chunk of land once again we bought it.

Spanish American War which was for finances. US won some territories.

Otherwise in 100 years the US was only in 4 wars. 2 of them debatable on cause and the other 2 no doubt the cause.

But here is the thing the US SETTLED these issues. The issues in the 20th century started by the European interests were not settled and left to be settled by the US today. The banks are loving the fact these arnt settled and keep it this way so they can make more money. Yes the powers that be are getting paid WELL for these issues. But these issues were started not by us.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by Swingarm


Even if it is slightly off topic, I am sure that there is something in this issue.

I for one would be very interested to hear, and read, more about the case you just described.

I have been aware for sometime about London being the 'financial capital', as it has been described that a lot lately. In addition, I am equally aware of the Vatican City's status as 'religious capital'.

However, I must admit that I was ignorant of Washington... I shall have to dig further into this issue. Thanks for the information.

Back to topic though, if these three cities are 'capitals' of various facets of society, I am sure that its structure must have some influence on many of the worlds woes at present.

Originally posted by dampnickers

1) 'I choose to believe'... you have already lost the battle. You are clearly blinded by 'patriotism' and not surrounded with historical fact and OBJECTIVITY!

I am sorry young sir, but you clearly have NOT done your homework, or you would really have a strong grasp on history. You really would know that whilst some banks refused the 'rebels' credit to begin with, many banks didn't refuse and made HUGE profits by funding BOTH SIDES in the war.

As a result of your blind patriotism and lack of objectivity I cannot continue this debate. Not in good faith at least.

I find it rather distasteful, that you are unable to see that you have not checked facts, have not done any real and objective study of historical FACT, and as such cannot make reasoned or logical arguments in support of your, oft wild, claims.

I havent lost anything. The fact is king George tried getting us to get off our interest free currency we had over here so the bank of England could shove their currency that had interest down our throats and make a fortune of the people over here. That is a historical fact. No greedy American bankers there. America wanted off the grips of the bank controlled interests and wanted away from the big taxes that came with it. Are things over here this way now? No not at all we now are controlled by the same people who control you but this is not what was intended of our founding fathers. If you think this then YOU need to check your history.

I want you to tell me who financed the Rebels. Who financed us. I can tell you and Ill tell you there are only really 2 strong sources that it. Not many like you say just 2. Also the Hessians fought with the British not the Americans once again check your history.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

Originally posted by mybigunit
But here is the thing the US SETTLED these issues. The issues in the 20th century started by the European interests were not settle and left to be settled by the US today. Yes the powers that be are getting paid WELL for this settlement.

So the 'europeans' started the war in Vietnam did they? The 'europeans' started the Mujahadin fighting the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80's and 90's did they? Do the 'europeans' fought proxy wars all over the world did they?

The USA have a long history of war, and war mongering.

Fact, young sir, and objectivity are two tools that you should carry with you at all times.

At this point in time, I think you are carrying 'truth' and 'patriotism'. Neither are good for you, or this conversation.

I could go on all night, but it is late here, and I have something interesting going on... so I shall say good night to you on this post...

Originally posted by Swingarm
The three cities (is it called empire of the cities) Washington dc , vatican city in Rome london city in London. Each have their own flag ,laws and constitution. It's weird I don't claim to understand this. Does anyone else ?
I was listening to CBC radio last summer and there was a court case in Washington DC the woman was not allowed to use the word rape for what happened to hear or forced sex. She was only allowed to use the word sex. When I was listening to this I thought WTF?
These three cities are seperate and distinct from the countries their in. I never really understood how this worked. Anyone? Aqpparently Washington is the military city, London the financial, and Vatican city the religious. This may or may not be off topic.

I have actually thought about this myself. Kind of cool others think about this also. I agree and I do feel that there is something to this. Would make for a good debate.

Originally posted by Freeborn

Originally posted by solo1

I mean really !
A Rag Tag Army beat the Mighty British at the height of their power

A popular mis-conception.
The US army consisted of regular and irregular French forces and thousands of German mercenaries as well as US and Native Americans.

The British were highly stretched due to wars on other fronts.

The simple logistics of sending an Army to deal with the rebels would have
exposed Britain elsewhere, so we used a bit of British ingenuity, allowed the US their phyrric victory but still controlled the country and got the wealth.
Who were the losers there?

[edit on 31/7/08 by Freeborn]

yet as they signed the treaty it was the King's demands agreed to?
Listen to yourself ,your just repeating what you are told.

The Victorious do the Demanding the losers do the groveling.
Go read the treaty! and look at the demands agreed to

you want me to believe you won the war yet
1) The British never left , were never pushed out of America ,they only retreated to the Canadian border.

2) the King demanded and the Americans groveled

3)a Rag tag band of misfits beat the Mighty British

don't be daft

the Terms of the king were granted ,you pay your tribute today,
The FEd and IRS are not Federal entities . The earnings go to English banks
even today.

Apologists ! = American History
Henry Ford "All of History is Bunk"
Please come back with a counter if you can




[edit on 31-7-2008 by solo1]

Originally posted by dampnickers

So the 'europeans' started the war in Vietnam did they? The 'europeans' started the Mujahadin fighting the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80's and 90's did they? Do the 'europeans' fought proxy wars all over the world did they?

The USA have a long history of war, and war mongering.

Fact, young sir, and objectivity are two tools that you should carry with you at all times.

At this point in time, I think you are carrying 'truth' and 'patriotism'. Neither are good for you, or this conversation.

I could go on all night, but it is late here, and I have something interesting going on... so I shall say good night to you on this post...

Yeah France was over there first. Look into the first indochina war. We became the hired guns. Vietnam was a war for finance as the banks made a fortune. As far as Russia I dont think I ever linked Russia with Europe. Last I knew but Im not a smart man Russia is part of Asia.

All of the wars of the 20th century were for the banks to make a mint. This we are agreeing on and if I am coming off as the banks have nothing to do with wars then read my very first post. Im saying which countries France & UK with the financial interests causes these issues and then ran and left the US to sweep up the mess (Of course with banks making a ton of money in the mean time) Whether is the US or the UK the banks are still making a mint. But people of the UK and France DO NOT have the right to blame us for the issues we face today. Thank the banks and thank your governments that represent you for starting the messes then looking to us to finish them.

Also if you think talking DOWN to me is going to give you an upper hand like you are some older wiser man you are quite mistaken. i can debate history all night. Honestly I probably have forgotten more than you know.

Goodnight? We start getting a debate going and you run? Are you running to grab your history books so you can check my facts?



[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

Here are the flags on the cities plus one short video snip from the video Ring of power which you may find interesting

Flag
washington


Flag vatican
city


Flag london city

short video

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

Looking at the flags it's intersting how there is one sword, two keys and three stars

There are actually 3 short videos I played # 2

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by mybigunit


You said it yourself that you are "not a smart man"....

Russia is part of Asia? What history book are you looking in for that information?

Last time I checked, Russia is a part of 'europe'. At least according to the 'current affairs' sources I have been reading.

However, the Russians (white and red) stretch across a nation that covers a portion of 'eruope' and 'asia'. So, as you can see, it has nothing to do with which continent you are on, rather the perception one has been force fed or coerced into believing as fact.

Also, if you were as well read as you claimed, regarding history, you would understand that the Vietnam war was not just about finance for the banking sector, but the Arms industry... who made billions out of that? AMERICAN arms dealers.... No, wait, you'll be sure to tell me that British arms dealers and British banks were the ones responsible. Or was it the French? I cannot remember...

As Solo1 said:

Apologists ! = American History
Henry Ford "All of History is Bunk"
Please come back with a counter if you can

reply to post by dampnickers


I think maybe MBU is suggesting that the USA is merely a British corporation. If not I will.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

Originally posted by dampnickers
reply to post by mybigunit

 

You said it yourself that you are "not a smart man"....

Russia is part of Asia? What history book are you looking in for that information?

Last time I checked, Russia is a part of 'europe'. At least according to the 'current affairs' sources I have been reading.

However, the Russians (white and red) stretch across a nation that covers a portion of 'eruope' and 'asia'. So, as you can see, it has nothing to do with which continent you are on, rather the perception one has been force fed or coerced into believing as fact.

Also, if you were as well read as you claimed, regarding history, you would understand that the Vietnam war was not just about finance for the banking sector, but the Arms industry... who made billions out of that? AMERICAN arms dealers.... No, wait, you'll be sure to tell me that British arms dealers and British banks were the ones responsible. Or was it the French? I cannot remember...

Yup American and Russian arms dealers made some money no doubt. So did the American and European International bankers. But Vietnam is not an issue today either is it. It was an issue 40 years ago. It was started by France and finished by Us. When I said Im not a smart man I was being sarcastic...you know ha ha funny?

As far as Russia being Asia or Europe it depends on what you want to believe. I promise you though Russia will be part of the Asian Union and not the European Union when the crap starts to fly.

Also the issues of Today that I am referring to if you read the original post is the Middle East ie Iran, Iraq, and Israel/Palestine. We can go war by war though if you would like. Im up for giving a history lesson. These are the issues that is causing the Europeans to dog on Americans they way you guys do.



[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

Originally posted by Swingarm
reply to post by dampnickers

 

I think maybe MBU is suggesting that the USA is merely a British corporation. If not I will.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

In a sense yea I guess you can say that...or a European Corporation. It is the European banks that took us over in 1913 not just the bank of England. Then again it may all root back to the bank of England who knows. I sometimes feel the people behind the curtain are out of Switzerland and not France or England.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

Originally posted by Swingarm
Here are the flags on the cities plus one short video snip from the video Ring of power which you may find interesting

Flag
washington


Flag vatican
city


Flag london city

short video

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

Outstanding videos
The first I have seen of them

Please watch the short video above. King James signed the Virginia charter in 1606, making the us a British colony. After Independence the 1783 treaty specifically states the King of England is the prince of USA. Watch the video for the rest.

Originally posted by mybigunit

Originally posted by Swingarm
reply to post by dampnickers

 

I think maybe MBU is suggesting that the USA is merely a British corporation. If not I will.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Swingarm]

In a sense yea I guess you can say that...or a European Corporation. It is the European banks that took us over in 1913 not just the bank of England. Then again it may all root back to the bank of England who knows. I sometimes feel the people behind the curtain are out of Switzerland and not France or England.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

Well, for someone that has a lot of 'feelings' and 'beliefs' about these so-called facts of yours, you do not seem to have a very good grasp of the issues at hand.

Make no mistake, I am not being derisory toward you here, but I am making a valid point.

At no time, during this conversation, have I allowed my personal sense of patriotism or 'feelings' to come into play. I have reasoned, both logically and factually. However, you have made it clear that you have taken personally most of what I have said, despite the suggestion that I was not being 'personal'.

I would surmise that you are relatively young, and whilst that isn't a bad thing, it does not do you any favours at present.

I would suggest that you should read, read anything you can get your hands on about history. Make reasoned and rational judgement (and only experience can give you those skills, not patriotism, instinct or emotion) about what you read. Be logical, methodical and OBJECTIVE.

One final point, and again this is not to be derisory of you personally, try to develop your level or articulation. At present it does you more dis-service than credit. I do not claim to be an expert with English, but I do try to use it as much as my current level of skill allows. A well developed use of language allows you to really get your arguments out there, easily, quickly, and ensures the maximum number of people understand you too.

Good luck, and I look forward to debating with you in the future - even if we do disagree completely on the current topic.

True we are the easy target for criticism, but I agree with R-evolve's clever allegory;

The nail that sticks out the furthest is always the first to be hit.

As an American (and rather proud of our true nature) I want to thank Mybigunit for bringing this long overdue sentiment to the table.

When your debate ends, you will have avoided including a very important component. Trade.

In essence we are debating the genuinely malignant conduct (Imperialism) that seems to accompany "Capitalism" wherever it goes. I will not invite debate about whether the evil is inherent in the system or a simple exploit that certain segments of society seize to become dominant. It is irrelevant to the fact that it is a very real component in all the historical references you've explored.

Political, Diplomatic, and Military dominance has traditionally been used to establish and maintain trade terms favorable to the dominant party. The inequities of our profit oriented culture lends itself to rampant exploitation of resources, people, and circumstance.

I think pretty much every person knows that any given population will tolerate repressive exploitation or forced 'cultural' models for a finite amount of time. Eventually change will occur, it is an inevitability.

We are very conscious of 'past,' collective and otherwise. But in reality, there are no differences between us other than those we create. I am no profound mystic, but it is a reasonable assertion that our differences exist because we choose to hold to them, the details are irrelevancies.

All the cultures that adopted a unrestrained political system failed to coalesce. Only those who adopted a political model which embraces ideology have found support from a minority. The interactions of States in history has been effected by a minority. This is because true Democracy is not socially inclusive and a minority cannot affect the majority.

That these powerful minority groups have exercised agendas in keeping with improving their own lot is not too far fetched a theory. All of the faults and foibles between states are not between the citizens of the state. They are fueled by the minority and their agenda's alone.

Since it appears evident that the powerful minorities - some call 'the elite' - transcend national boundaries, I propose that the fault cannot be confined to the particular state the minorities happen to engage, instead the 'fault' lies deeper.

"Blaming America" among all the conniving duplicitous States in the world is as illogical as "Blaming Bush" despite the fact that the Senators and Congressmen failed to stop him.

Sadly, when the common man embraces angst against another country, he is engaging in the lowest form of patriotism. The kind that leaders love the most, the kind that doesn't ask the hard questions' it just follows. But even then, in a nation full of such people, the root and source of the hatred comes - not from direct knowledge. It comes from what they have come to accept as true, and not necessarily what is true. What the people hold to be true is what their leaders tell them, presumably.

reply to post by dampnickers


Ill keep this simple. You call my facts so called facts. I want you to show me one statement that I have made that isnt true. Show me one please. Any historical reference just one.

Articulation I admit is a weak point of mine. I know we agree on more than what you think but my way of showing it is not good so Ill concede this to you. But this does not make my facts false.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by mybigunit]

so is it europes fault that the british and the US both agreed to give isareal to the jews ,pushing the palastinians out of a home causeing more tension in that region?

funny enough it was the US who had the final say on this.

was there answer yes because the US main christian donomination is evangelists and they beleive for christ's second coming all the jews must live in isreal?