Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    This is not meant to enrage anyone, nor is it meant to offend. It is simply a good way to look at the whole situation, along with sparking discussion on both political and ethical views. ~Lindsay
    ....
    ....
    ....
    ....

    "If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier." Oh God Bless Our Soldiers, they are the key to AMERICAN FREEDOM.
    No no no no. You have got it all wrong. George Bush always mentions the word "freedom" in the BEGINNING of his speaches, not in the end. Every speach made by George always contains the word in one of the 4 first sentences, and this is ALWAYS true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Viruses especially hiv are for lack of a better term microscopically microscopic. condoms are made with holes in them. The point of a condom is not to prevent stds (although they are used for that) but to prevent pregnancey. The holes are small enough to stop sperm but not much else.
    You have neglected the following:

    1: HIV is effectively confined to the fluids. The surface tension of the water prevents it from diffusing through these microscopic holes.

    2: Even if it was possible for HIV to pass through a condom, the chances of it doing so would be decreased. You can compare this to chooking someone with a pillow. Even if oxygen does diffuse through th fabric, it does so at a much slower speed than through the air. In practice this factors causes condoms to reduces the chance that a virus will spread by several magnitudes.

    3: 1 virus particle of HIV is not enough to cause an infection. The imunity system is too agressive and would manage to destroy the infection before the viorus has multiplied enough to overthrow the boddies defences. Eaven if some HIV may pass through the condom, it would be very unlikely to cause an infection as it would be in much smaller ammounts.

    4: Your comparision between sperms and viruses is simply not valid. Sperms are among the smaller cells there is, and although viruses are very small particles, the HIV virus is only a few magnitudes smaller than a sperm. In addition sperms can move by their own force whereas viruses are lifeless and thus merely floats around in the random directions of the fluid. Thus if the fluid is stopped, so is the virus. HIV does not survive without water.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    on the contrary.. you say that it is bad of us to keep them in debt.. but its not bad of any european country to do so? Tell me thats not biased in the least bit?
    The point you made in posting the speech was that america should stop giving aid to third world countries- european countries were not mentioned. therefore I pointed out how wrong it would be for america to cut off aid when america was one of the ones to get them into debt in the first place.

    note- read before replying
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    No no no no. You have got it all wrong. George Bush always mentions the word "freedom" in the BEGINNING of his speaches, not in the end. Every speach made by George always contains the word in one of the 4 first sentences, and this is ALWAYS true.
    lol, you're a speech analysist aren't you? lol, just playing.. but yeah I know, I didn't write it, thats the way that one was written.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    The point you made in posting the speech was that america should stop giving aid to third world countries- european countries were not mentioned. therefore I pointed out how wrong it would be for america to cut off aid when america was one of the ones to get them into debt in the first place.

    note- read before replying
    Thats not what I meant.. the point in the speech was to show that americans pour thousands of dollars into other countries to give aid and what do those countries do in return? They bad-mouth us because they can't give a damn whether or not OUR economy goes to hell as long as they get their aid.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Drago. Pick up an Economics textbook. Turn to the chapter on international trade. Read. Learn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Thats not what I meant.. the point in the speech was to show that americans pour thousands of dollars into other countries to give aid and what do those countries do in return? They bad-mouth us because they can't give a damn whether or not OUR economy goes to hell as long as they get their aid.
    the USA gives less than a third of what the UK gives per capita- you are not ruining your economy by it; that's just BS- you're ruining your economy through stupid foreign policies
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    the USA gives less than a third of what the UK gives per capita- you are not ruining your economy by it; that's just BS- you're ruining your economy through stupid foreign policies

    It certainly helps. even if it's just a little bit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    the USA gives less than a third of what the UK gives per capita- you are not ruining your economy by it; that's just BS- you're ruining your economy through stupid foreign policies
    You may give more, but you also didn't have a terrorist attack that caused a stock market crash.. And I KNOW how far down the stock market is.. believe me I do.. I am an investor AND both of my parents are brokers. You want to see bad.. look at the comissions the brokers are recieving after 911. Compared to what they were making.. its bad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    You may give more, but you also didn't have a terrorist attack that caused a stock market crash.. And I KNOW how far down the stock market is.. believe me I do.. I am an investor AND both of my parents are brokers. You want to see bad.. look at the comissions the brokers are recieving after 911. Compared to what they were making.. its bad.
    errm- britain has been dogged by attacks from the IRA since 1969- thousands have been killed in the conflicts thousands more affected through losing their mother/ son etc. - but we don't start a war with Ireland- instead we have peace talks because it is obvious that only a very small minority are actively involved in the organisation.

    and yes I know how bad the stock market crash has been- my mother is an economist. we have lost at least £40k in pensions and probably more in other accounts. I still don't think there should have been a war.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    errm- britain has been dogged by attacks from the IRA since 1969- thousands have been killed in the conflicts thousands more affected through losing their mother/ son etc. - but we don't start a war with Ireland- instead we have peace talks because it is obvious that only a very small minority are actively involved in the organisation.

    and yes I know how bad the stock market crash has been- my mother is an economist. we have lost at least £40k in pensions and probably more in other accounts. I still don't think there should have been a war.
    Comparing Al quada to teh IRA is a little unfair. The IRA pretty much demand an independent northern Ireland whereas Al Qaeda seeks the destruction of ISrael and the US ( And ultimately the spred of Islam as the major power in the world). Furthermore, if I am not completely mistaken you have quite a few British soldiers down in Iraq? Il grant you that the british army has managed to respect international law and do their job in a much more professional way than their american counterparts, but you still participated in the invasion so dont come and say "it was the americans". Of course I understand that not all britains supported the war , but guess what that was not teh case in the US either. The curcial point made in the opening post here was that if you expect the US (or Britain) to pay out the ammount of money they do in foreign aid, then you cannot expect to have them sitting with their arms crossed when some multimaniac runs some propaganda through the country encouraging people to do whatever they can to murder americans. And you can specially not expect them not to strike back when something like 911 occur.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    errm- britain has been dogged by attacks from the IRA since 1969- thousands have been killed in the conflicts thousands more affected through losing their mother/ son etc. - but we don't start a war with Ireland- instead we have peace talks because it is obvious that only a very small minority are actively involved in the organisation.

    and yes I know how bad the stock market crash has been- my mother is an economist. we have lost at least £40k in pensions and probably more in other accounts. I still don't think there should have been a war.
    LMAO, I've DONE a report on the IRA.. here you go...
    ONE your country's imperialism both from today and from then, resulted in the hatered the Irish feel towards you. EDIT whereas the US didn't warrant a terrorist attack by any such means.. the only "wrong doing" we were involved in was the fact that.. oh wait.. OUR CITIZENS ARE FREE! AND MOST OF US DO NOT WORSHIP THE APPROVED OF RELIGION!!!....
    TWO according to most of the newspaper articles I had to read off of feche, and to most magazines, and books that I have read about it the IRA have backed off since your government signed an armistice with them...
    I may have more to say as it comes to me.. but as of now I think I'm done with the topic of the IRA terrorist bombings.
    oh wait..
    THREE the IRA are responsible for more terrorist bombings in their home country than they are in Great Britain.. if I am not mistaken.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    ONE your country's imperialism both from today and from then, resulted in the hatered the Irish feel towards you.
    1- most irish people don't feel hatred towards the english- only a few extremists. and yes there was imperialism- in the 1600s.

    EDIT whereas the US didn't warrant a terrorist attack by any such means.. the only "wrong doing" we were involved in was the fact that.. oh wait.. OUR CITIZENS ARE FREE! AND MOST OF US DO NOT WORSHIP THE APPROVED OF RELIGION!!!....
    umm- the american government also heavily supported the israli state (and yes I know that britain is also to blame). without that support- the state could not have continued and there would not be the mass suppression of muslims in that area, which is one of the reasons for 9/11.

    TWO according to most of the newspaper articles I had to read off of feche, and to most magazines, and books that I have read about it the IRA have backed off since your government signed an armistice with them...
    yes, in 1994- then they broke it again in 1996.

    THREE the IRA are responsible for more terrorist bombings in their home country than they are in Great Britain.. if I am not mistaken.
    umm- over 3000 people are still dead, over 8000 still permanantly crippled, and over 22,000 injured. Mostly in Northern Ireland and thus are members of great britain
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    umm- the american government also heavily supported the israli state (and yes I know that britain is also to blame). without that support- the state could not have continued and there would not be the mass suppression of muslims in that area, which is one of the reasons for 9/11.
    This becomes little bit to far fetched. You could claim that because Britain did not remove Hitler in the early 1930s he was able to spring to power and start WW2. This does in no way mean that Britain was responsible for the Holocoust. The same goes for this one. To claim that teh US "borught 9/11 on themselves" by supporting Israel is rediculous. There has been violations against palestinians , yes, but that does not justify the 9/11 atacks. Just as it would be unnacceptable to claim that it was the Arab worlds fault if Israel decided to nuke Egypt due to the support of terrorist organisations by Saudi Arabia, you cannot claim that the US support for Israel can make it the americans fault that 9/11 happened. The responsibility for the atack rests on those who planned and performed it. That these villians have come up with some fanatic justification for it does not make it the US fault.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    LMAO, I've DONE a report on the IRA.. here you go...
    ONE your country's imperialism both from today and from then, resulted in the hatered the Irish feel towards you. EDIT whereas the US didn't warrant a terrorist attack by any such means.. the only "wrong doing" we were involved in was the fact that.. oh wait.. OUR CITIZENS ARE FREE! AND MOST OF US DO NOT WORSHIP THE APPROVED OF RELIGION!!!....
    TWO according to most of the newspaper articles I had to read off of feche, and to most magazines, and books that I have read about it the IRA have backed off since your government signed an armistice with them...
    I may have more to say as it comes to me.. but as of now I think I'm done with the topic of the IRA terrorist bombings.
    oh wait..
    THREE the IRA are responsible for more terrorist bombings in their home country than they are in Great Britain.. if I am not mistaken.
    1)the protestant church was disestablished in 1869, the IRA is a recenltly modern group athlo its has its roots far deeper back in histroy
    2)the quesiton in ireland is not only one of religion that is very simplistic, As the devon land comission under Peel's 1841 to 1846 ministry, Ireland was very undeveloped and rellied heavily on farming and hence when the potato crops of 1845/6 failed and millons died it caused the resentment that led to terrorists groups like the feyenians who bombed britian in the 1860's. Ulster is more than just a religious issue as well, its a nationistic one
    3) alot of other countries/people around the world precieve Amercia to be as imperialistic as britain, after all you have interfered in far more countries than the british did with greater numbers of forces
    4)does it matter when british citizeans are killed? they are still dead for the same reasons
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    1- most irish people don't feel hatred towards the english- only a few extremists. and yes there was imperialism- in the 1600s.

    The reason most Irish do not feel hatered towards the british is because most of them are PROTESTANT SETTLERS who were placed there by an English king, and given land that was previously owned by catholic irish. don't get me wrong here.. I'm a protestant so I know all this "stuff" and I feel no hatered towards people of my own religion. But there are many reasons a great deal of the people of Ireland do not feel hatered towards the British.. one I've already mentioned but obviously there are more.. how about the fact that MOST OF IRELAND DOES belong to the irish... except for that little northern section that the english government has kept for iteslf?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    3) alot of other countries/people around the world precieve Amercia to be as imperialistic as britain, after all you have interfered in far more countries than the british did with greater numbers of forces
    Yes but do we "control" those countries still? we interfered to help those involved. And in some cases.. not as many... we intervened to help ourselves. but either way you look at it we involved ourselves to help the people who needed.. and in some cases.. asked for it. Is that not true?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Yes but do we "control" those countries still? we interfered to help those involved. And in some cases.. not as many... we intervened to help ourselves. but either way you look at it we involved ourselves to help the people who needed.. and in some cases.. asked for it. Is that not true?
    don't think that is going to stop people resenting it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    don't think that is going to stop people resenting it
    That is completely asinine.. Why would someone resent something that does good for a country. Whatever happened to the saying.. "Take the good with the bad?" I mean.. If something is detrimental to a country then it becomes excellent.. of course bad things happen.. but you can't get something good unless you get something bad right?
    "Its going to get worse before it gets better."... yes?
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.