Unequal Distribution

[Morning Calm]

http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/globalissuesoverview/overview2/DevelopmentNew.htm

Poverty

Although poverty has been dramatically reduced in many parts of the world, a quarter of the world's people remain in severe poverty. In a global economy of $25 trillion, this is a scandal - reflecting shameful inequalities and inexcusable failures of national and international policy. UNDP Human Development Report 1997

Half the world's people live on less than $2 a day. World Bank, "Global Poverty Measures 1987-1998 and Projections for the Future," 1999.

1.2 billion people live on less than $1 per day. World Bank, "Global Poverty Measures 1987-1998 and Projections for the Future," 1999.

Together, South Asia, East Asia and South-East Asia and the Pacific have more than 950 million of the 1.3 billion people who are income-poor. UNDP Human Development Report 1997

Women and Poverty

Millions of women in developing countries live in poverty. The feminization of poverty is a growing phenomenon. Women are still the poorest of the world's poor, representing 70 percent of the 1.3 billion people who live in absolute poverty. When nearly 900 million women have incomes of less than $1 a day, the association between gender inequality and poverty remains a harrowing reality.

UNIFEM, Strengthening Women's Economic Capacity

Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, produce half of the world's food, and yet earn only 10% of the world's income and own less than 1% of the world's property.

World Development Indicators, 1997, Womankind Worldwide

Education

Today, there are still 125 million children who never attend school. Another 150 million children of primary age start school, but drop out before they can read or write. Sixteen countries in sub-Saharan Africa (with almost half of Africa’s 6-11 year-olds) have suffered a decline in enrolment rates. Today, sub-Saharan Africa accounts for one-third of the total out-of-school population. On current trends, it will account for three-quarters of the total in 2015.
One in four adults in the developing world – 872 million people – is illiterate, and the numbers are growing.

Global inequalities in the provision of education are enormous. Today, a child in Mozambique can expect to go to school for two to three years, with luck. A five-year-old European or North American child can expect to spend 17 years in formal education.

Girls account for two-thirds of the children not in school. Despite government commitments to close the gender gap, it is widening in many countries. For example, Ethiopia has one of the lowest rates of enrolment in the world, and one of the largest gender gaps. Fewer than one-third of 6-11 year old boys and one-tenth of girls are in school. In many schools in the developing world, the treatment of girls is tantamount to a system of apartheid.

Oxfam UK - Education Now Campaign- the issues

Debt Crisis

The debt burden is the biggest single barrier to development in the Third World, the most powerful tool that western nations use to keep whole countries in bondage.

It is estimated that the Third World pays the developed North nine times more in debt repayments than they receive in aid. Africa alone spends four times more on repaying its debts than it spends on health care.

DebtChannel.org - OneWorld.net - Beginner's guide to debt

Structural Adjustment Programs, or SAPs, have particularly affected the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, whose economies are already the poorest in the world.

SAPs consist of measures designed to help a country repay its debts by earning more hard currency - increasing exports and decreasing imports. In a few countries SAPs appear to have had some good effect; in most they have worsened the economic situation. In all countries applying SAPs, the poor have been hit the hardest.

Jubilee USA Network - A Beginner's Guide to the Debt Crisis

In 1997 the foreign debts of ‘developing’ countries were more than two trillion (million million) US dollars and still growing. The result is a debt of $400 for every man, woman and child in the developing world – where average income in the very poorest countries is less than a dollar a day.

New Internationalist - Issue 312 "Debt"

Inequality

“The assets of the 200 richest people in 1998 were more than the total annual income of 41% of the world’s people.

UNDP Human Development Report 1999

Three families – Bill Gates, the Sultan of Brunei and the Walton family – have a combined wealth of some $135 billion. Their value equal the annual income of 600 million people living in the world’s poorest countries.

World Development Movement. WDM in Action, Winter 1999, Rebecca McQullan (article)

Global Inequality - Inequality between countries

The richest 20% of the world population now receives 150 times the income of the poorest 20%.

UNDP Human Development Report 1992

The richest one-fifth of the world:
• Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%.
• Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%.
• Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%.
• Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%.
• Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%.

UNDP Human Development Report 1998

The richest 20% of the population now receives 150 times the income of the poorest 20%.

UNDP Human Development Report 1992

The bottom line for poverty and incomes: The share of the poorest 20% of the world's people in global income now stands at a miserable 1.1%, down from 1.4% in 1991 and 2.3% in 1960. It continues to shrink. And the ratio of the income of the top 20% to that of the poorest 20% rose from 30 to 1 in 1960, to 61 to 1 in 1991 - and to a startling new high of 78 to 1 in 1994.

UNDP Human Development Report 1997

The income gap between the richest fifth of the world's people and the poorest fifth, measured by average national income per head, increased from 30 to one in 1960, to 74 to one in 1997.

Human Development Report, United Nations Development Program, 1999.

Inequality within countries

Within nations, the income gap has been growing as well. Russia now has the world's greatest inequality, with the richest 20% having 11 times the income of the bottom 20%. Income inequalities have also grown dramatically in China, Indonesia, Thailand, other East and South-East Asian countries, and in the industrialized countries, especially Sweden, Britain, and the United States.

"The State of the World," Stephen R. Shalom

The richest 1 percent of Americans earned as much after taxes as the poorest 100 million; in 1977 the top 1 percent only (!) had as much as the bottom 49 million. The poorest 20 percent are making less today in real terms (adjusting for inflation) than they were in 1977.

"The State of the World," Stephen R. Shalom, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Food & Hunger

826 million people remained undernourished in 1996-98

UN Food and Agriculture Organization - State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000

Hunger continues to plague an estimated 793 million people around the world, including 31 million in the U.S. Hunger kills. Every day, 24,000 people die from hunger and other preventable causes. Nearly 160 million children are malnourished worldwide.
Oxfam America - Hunger Fact Sheet

Almost 800 million people—about one-sixth of the population of the world's developing nations—are malnourished. 200 million of them are children.

Bread for the World (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)

Health

880 million people lack access to basic healthcare, and 1.3 billion lack access to safe drinking water. 17 million people die each year from curable diseases, including diarrhea, malaria and tuberculosis. 5 million of these people die due to water contamination.
Oxfam America - Fact Sheet

Each day in the developing world, 30,500 children die from preventable diseases such as diarrhea, acute respiratory infections or malaria. Malnutrition is associated with over half of those deaths.

Bread for the World (UNICEF, World Health Organization)

[WJWheels]

.....and your point is??? There's a reason some civilizations have been around for eons and yet have not figured out how to build a 2 story building. They're fucking idiots! They've been swallowed up by the more advanced for centuries and that pattern will probably continue.

[bob]

Your immigrant relatives were one of those idiots.

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by bob
Your immigrant relatives were one of those idiots.

ROFL -- OWNED

[WJWheels]

Sorry... my relatives/ancestors came from places comprised of many years of multi-story buildings..... even paved streets! Your ignorant comments show yours to be lacking such civilities. ;)

[bob]

If they were doing so well why the fuck did they come here - admit it they were losers and could not make it in their own country.

I would bet they were escaping the potato famine. :p

[WJWheels]

Hmmm.. interesting question.. and I really don't know the answer. Maybe they just wanted to kill indians.;) I do have an aunt that traced the family tree back through U.S. Grant. My heritage is German, English, Irish, French, & Italian. All traces show my family to be here through at least 7 generations.

[bob]

Ah.... a Mut - that explains alot. :D

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by bob
I would bet they were escaping the potato famine. :p

ROFL

[Alan]

I think his relatives were rather smart to get the fuck out of there so that he could continue to be one of the big consumer statistics mentioned in MC's post.

[drisley]

I wish some of the socialists who write that stuff would take the time to pose solutions. And I don't mean take from Americans and redistribute the wealth because that is the wrong thing to do. If you reward the people who don't produce and punish those who do, and do that on a global scale, you will plunge this whole civilization into a new dark ages.

There are reasons for the above statistics, but its not always something you would agree with, probably.

[WindeC]

Originally posted by WJWheels
Hmmm.. interesting question.. and I really don't know the answer. Maybe they just wanted to kill indians.;) I do have an aunt that traced the family tree back through U.S. Grant. My heritage is German, English, Irish, French, & Italian. All traces show my family to be here through at least 7 generations.

Oh shit...we got relations with US Grant as well...

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by drisley
I wish some of the socialists who write that stuff would take the time to pose solutions. And I don't mean take from Americans and redistribute the wealth because that is the wrong thing to do. If you reward the people who don't produce and punish those who do, and do that on a global scale, you will plunge this whole civilization into a new dark ages.

There are reasons for the above statistics, but its not always something you would agree with, probably.

Numberous of solutions and proposals have been offered to many first world nations, especially to the US. The problem is that the nation state is only primarily concerned with domestic affairs. Interests in global affairs are limited to what the nation state can gain from it, or if they threaten the security of it's nation.

[drisley]

Since you seem to follow this stuff so much, what kind of solutions do these folks propose?

[WindeC]

I for one do not believe that the US should have to support the world. They can get off their lazy asses and start working. I hate this AID crap of ours. If morning calm wants to help out, he/she can always go over there and maybe motivate them.

[Alan]

Originally posted by Morning Calm
Numberous of solutions and proposals have been offered to many first world nations, especially to the US. The problem is that the nation state is only primarily concerned with domestic affairs. Interests in global affairs are limited to what the nation state can gain from it, or if they threaten the security of it's nation.

As it should be...

[drisley]

I have no problem with international aid, as long as it is not a giveaway with no responsbility. I think part of being successful as a nation is the responsibility to help other lands get that way. So, I have no problem with that. But, the international socialists who would probably agree with what I just said will then turn around and slam any effort for us to ask for responsbility when we give away money. The US should not be daddy, giving away money. All that will do is create a world-wide dependent class. MC wonders why so many people throughout the world live in poverty or are starving - its not because we're not giving away enough money, its because nobody has gone in, kicked them in the ass, and teach them to fend for themselves. The left thinks its cold-hearted to do that, I think its cold-hearted to do anything but.

[dazeandconfused]

The reality is in most underdevoloped countries it doesn't essentially matter how hard you work there are no oportunaties avalible for even the hardest workers. That being said money that goes to aid is usially spent very ineffectivly and it is as much the givers as the recievers fault.

With effective spending i belive the problem is a simple as educate the people and then give them the initial financial requierments to use that education. Also governments are spreading themselves too thin and are with elements of cooperation better results could be obtained and/or less money could be spent for similar results.

[jessho]

The problem is that the nation state is only primarily concerned with domestic affairs. Interests in global affairs are limited to what the nation state can gain from it, or if they threaten the security of it's nation.

It's like borrowing money from a parent, they will get involved with your affairs or not loan the money. Expecting anything different is a childish expectation.

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by dazeandconfused
The reality is in most underdevoloped countries it doesn't essentially matter how hard you work there are no oportunaties avalible for even the hardest workers. That being said money that goes to aid is usially spent very ineffectivly and it is as much the givers as the recievers fault.

With effective spending i belive the problem is a simple as educate the people and then give them the initial financial requierments to use that education. Also governments are spreading themselves too thin and are with elements of cooperation better results could be obtained and/or less money could be spent for similar results.

This is a good point. This is suppose to be the function of the IMF. Unfortunately, the IMF didn't do enough research on the many of the countries that loaned money to and started to enforce certain regulations on government administrations that really didn't know what to do with all this money in the first place. After panic sets in, money is pulled from here and there, all efforts of something you were trying to establish or built is abandon. That's why you see all these huge unfinished buildings, bridges, or other large projects that are funded by the government.

[Alan]

That's a tough issue. How do you get money to a country that has very little opportunity to pull itself out? If the US or a large corporation goes over there and contracts chreap labor, really the only thing that many of these countries have to offer, they get accused of exploitation. If the corporation were to pay the exact same wage as they would a US worker then the corporation would not need to go over there in the first place. You cannot just give them stuff. There is no advantage for anyone in that.

[Morning Calm]

Alan

This is an extremely difficult issue and that is why no one has found an answer to it yet. One of the things that must first be established is the political organizations, or simply the government. Most of the problems, if not all of the problems are found there. The problem is that the IMF or World Bank is not set up to solve fundamental government/organizational problems. They are all capitalists that are good at making money, but not very good on advising one on how to hold an election or the fundamentals of democracy because they are totally in conflict with eachother.

[Alan]

You're right. I partly think that many countries resent having to change to qualify for such aid but the reality is that their current state of government is not working. Why would some dictator living in the lap of luxury want to give up power so that the people can eat? If they were forced to change to a deomcratic system the current powerbase would be eliminated right away. Somehow it all gets turned into the rich western countries exploiting the less fortunate.

[Morning Calm]

For awhile, we were actually going in the right direction. Cold war was over, Nation-state was dying, boarders were becoming more transcendant, mass media flowed free knowledge and the ability to express yourself, and rich dictators couldn't hide or cover up the dirty little shit their families had been doing to a country for hundreds of years.

But recent events such as the Iraq war has tighened up the feeling of you against me again. The labeling of the Axis of Evil, the denouncement of the UN, corrupt TNC, short sightedness of the world bank and IMF, the call to arms from the US asking for combantant troops, the re-establishment of a country under a capitalist flag, and the list goes on and on.

We know now that sooner or later, capitalism will tear down the walls of dictatorship and that a pure socialist idea does not work. We also know that direct intervention requires responsiblity and that doing nothing is inhuman. But we must turn away from the thinking that the person with the most money is smarter and always right. We must open our ears and learn to eat food without a spoon and fork. If we truely believe in democracy, then we must forfeit our options if majority disagrees with our stance.

[bob]

A combination of capitalism and socialist ideas works best at this point in time for many western countries.

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by bob
A combination of capitalism and socialist ideas works best at this point in time for many western countries.

But do you think that western countries are ready to embrace such an idea? I suppose alot of European countries seem to be doing this as well as our northern neighbors, but they seems to be paying an awful amount of tax. My Danish buddy pays over %50 tax.

:eek:

[Lucifer]

An Austrian friend said to me years ago: "Yes, we pay 50% in taxes but that's not too bad. We are assured of good education , health care, and a pension to retire on. The government will supply us with an apartment we can afford. Since we don't need to save and worry about those things we can enjoy life and spend our money on consumer goods and living well"

[Morning Calm]

...but they have one hellva time keeping the immigrates out.

:lol:

[WJWheels]

Did you mean "immigrants" or "ingrates" or a combination thereof?

[Lucifer]

Most of those third world countries used to live on sustainable farming. Then the "developed" countries ripped off their land and made them peons working on foreign owned plantations. Then modern agriculture made them redundant.

Now its our turn. As manufacturing and office jobs are first automated then moved offshore we get a taste of their problems.
To say "I'm ok. I have a job" is like the guy sitting on the stern rail of the Titanic watching all the people in the water and saying "That's not my problem"

Science Fiction stories used to paint two versions of the future.
1. Machines and robots did all the work while people walked around gardens wearing togas and saying wise things. (Utopia)
2. Machines and robots did all the work. A few people live like gods in high towers while the majority live like sewer rats in hellish slums. (Player Piano, Blade Runner etc)

Guess which one we are headed for?

[WindeC]

MC, the ONLY way everyone would be happy if one country, one person ruled the entire world.

[Lucifer]

Originally posted by WindeC
MC, the ONLY way everyone would be happy if one country, one person ruled the entire world.
I volunteer! I couldn't do a worse job than the dickheads who run most countries now.

[bob]

Originally posted by Lucifer
I volunteer! I couldn't do a worse job than the dickheads who run most countries now.

Don't cry for me Argentina.....

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by WindeC
MC, the ONLY way everyone would be happy if one country, one person ruled the entire world.

statement of the year!

[bob]

WindeC, is an example of a mind that would not be a terrible thing to waste. :)

[dazeandconfused]

Originally posted by Alan
If the US or a large corporation goes over there and contracts chreap labor, really the only thing that many of these countries have to offer, they get accused of exploitation. If the corporation were to pay the exact same wage as they would a US worker then the corporation would not need to go over there in the first place. You cannot just give them stuff. There is no advantage for anyone in that.

The reality that you have there is you end up shiping people from here over there and then paying them big bonuses where many are making in the hundred thousands and end up paying the workers quite small amounts of money per year. Most of the money that comes out still ends up going to corrupt governments and government officials in bribes. The net increace in wealth in the country is quite insignificant compared to the money that is being put in.

[dazeandconfused]

Originally posted by Morning Calm
But do you think that western countries are ready to embrace such an idea? I suppose alot of European countries seem to be doing this as well as our northern neighbors, but they seems to be paying an awful amount of tax. My Danish buddy pays over %50 tax.

:eek:

Add up health care, user fees and education costs and it starts looking better. People are also less likely to steal because of poverty.

[dazeandconfused]

Originally posted by WindeC
MC, the ONLY way everyone would be happy if one country, one person ruled the entire world.

It's impossible to make everyone happy. A global country would only change the problem to something else.

[bob]

Originally posted by dazeandconfused
It's impossible to make everyone happy. A global country would only change the problem to something else.

I am not so sure. It could legally rid the world of WindeC. :)

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by dazeandconfused
Add up health care, user fees and education costs and it starts looking better. People are also less likely to steal because of poverty.

I guess it's pretty cool if you live in Manitoba, but if you live on Ontario it might not be a nice. I don't know much about Canadian economics but don't you have like only three economic regions in the huge massive country of yours? I think one of them want to become an atonomous region or something right? Viva la french fries and my gravy on top!

[bob]

Give Canada a break. What if you had to start "CIVILIZATION III" with nothing but forest and tundra for 20 moves in every direction.
They did ok. :D

[dazeandconfused]

Originally posted by Morning Calm
I guess it's pretty cool if you live in Manitoba, but if you live on Ontario it might not be a nice. I don't know much about Canadian economics but don't you have like only three economic regions in the huge massive country of yours? I think one of them want to become an atonomous region or something right? Viva la french fries and my gravy on top!

The seperatist movment is dieing in Quebec, there is a new one imerging in Alberta. The philosophy behind it is "we are too conservative to be Canadain". The reality is that as a country we are not much more liberal then the US. It was actually the Europeon countries that I was talking about. Canada has a reasonable high GDP per capita. You also have to remember we are the biggest country in the world and we have a population similar to California.

[Glorified Ape]

Originally posted by Morning Calm
I guess it's pretty cool if you live in Manitoba, but if you live on Ontario it might not be a nice. I don't know much about Canadian economics but don't you have like only three economic regions in the huge massive country of yours? I think one of them want to become an atonomous region or something right? Viva la french fries and my gravy on top!

Three economic regions? What do you mean?

As far as autonomy, Quebec sovereignty has been a problem but its largely in decline now that they've elected a liberal provincial government rather than the sovereignist party.

We've got numerous economic sectors - oil in Alberta, logging in BC and Quebec, electricity in Quebec, fishing (damaged by overfishing) in the Maritime provinces, mining all throughout the Canadian Shield including nickel, uranium, copper, etc. In Ontario, you have fruit farming/wine in the Niagara region and corporate industry in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver (elsewhere too, but those are the primary urban areas).

Toronto, just as an aside, is supposedly the most diverse city on earth and Canada in general is considered the inventor and primary innovator of multiculturalism.

And we have the world's largest fresh water reserves... something that's going to become EXTREMELY important in the coming years. All in all, we came out pretty lucky - we've got more natural resources than 99% of the globe and an international reputation for tolerance and constructive contribution. Our primary cultural and political drawback, which is also a big economic bonus, is that we're stuck sitting on top of the US. They're handy to sell our drugs to, though.

[Glorified Ape]

Originally posted by dazeandconfused
The seperatist movment is dieing in Quebec, there is a new one imerging in Alberta. The philosophy behind it is "we are too conservative to be Canadain". The reality is that as a country we are not much more liberal then the US. It was actually the Europeon countries that I was talking about. Canada has a reasonable high GDP per capita. You also have to remember we are the biggest country in the world and we have a population similar to California.

We're second biggest - Russia's still the first. Alberta's "separatist" movement is just a bunch of whining little maggots who wouldn't separate but think they can use it as a blackmail tactic like Quebec did. If they want Republican politics, let them fuck off down to the states. I'm damned sure I don't want the fucking republican Albertans in Canada and I'm definitely not alone. We should deport the fucking cocksuckers down to the states where they'd feel more comfortable. Goddamned bible thumping social luddites.... they're wannabe Texans busy hanging from the US' balls. Ignorant little jackasses.

[WindeC]

Originally posted by Glorified Ape
We're second biggest - Russia's still the first. Alberta's "separatist" movement is just a bunch of whining little maggots who wouldn't separate but think they can use it as a blackmail tactic like Quebec did. If they want Republican politics, let them fuck off down to the states. I'm damned sure I don't want the fucking republican Albertans in Canada and I'm definitely not alone. We should deport the fucking cocksuckers down to the states where they'd feel more comfortable. Goddamned bible thumping social luddites.... they're wannabe Texans busy hanging from the US' balls. Ignorant little jackasses.

Ouch...someone didn't get their oatsies this morning.

[Glorified Ape]

Originally posted by WindeC
Ouch...someone didn't get their oatsies this morning.

Yeah... maybe I was a bit harsh. I just don't take nicely to people who are clearly and consciously trying to fuck my country up beyond all recognition. Stupid Westerners... we should have put them under the authority of the federal government.

[drisley]

You sound exactly like some if the right-wing isolationists in this country, Ape. you're becoming what you despise. ;)

BTW, I thought Canadians were Westerners by definition.

[Glorified Ape]

Originally posted by drisley
You sound exactly like some if the right-wing isolationists in this country, Ape. you're becoming what you despise. ;)

BTW, I thought Canadians were Westerners by definition.

Er... in a global context, yes we're westerners. I was speaking in a Canadian context.

And how do I sound like a right-wing isolationist? I realise that I was harsh in my condemnation of Western Canada... I just find them so obnoxious. That being said, they have a right to say what they want. The problem is that they're trying to destroy Canada's tradition of tolerance, multiculturalism, and social democracy. Society can't progress when it's being pulled down by religious freaks and corporate interests.

[runawaytrain]

Eveyone expects the US to feed and defend and build other countires. Who help us become who we are today? No one we did it all on our own. How come the UN doesn't step in andhelp build these countires? why because half of the UN is made up of these fucked up backwards governments.

[Glorified Ape]

Originally posted by runawaytrain
Eveyone expects the US to feed and defend and build other countires. Who help us become who we are today? No one we did it all on our own. How come the UN doesn't step in andhelp build these countires? why because half of the UN is made up of these fucked up backwards governments.

Jackass. You didn't build your fucking country by yourself. You wouldn't even have won your own fucking civil war if it hadn't been for the British. You wouldn't have even won your independence if it wasn't for the French.

LEARN YOUR FUCKING HISTORY. The UN DOES help other countries - they just don't fucking invade them under the bullshit auspices of "helping" them.

Want to know why people were busy dropping the WTC? Because of ignorant comments like yours. People like yourself facilitated and inspired 9/11. Stop thinking of yourself as the 'end all and be all' of the fucking world. Stop trying to present yourself as some ultimate example - you're far fucking from it. You're an example of capitalism and egotistism gone wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy fucking wrong.... and that's ultimately what has led to your success - a disregard for anyone but yourselves and a willingness to kill, exploit, and fuck over anyone you possibly could. Under those morals, anyone could succeed - the difference is that most Western countries try to hold themselves to some degree of decency. You? You tossed decency out the window when it conflicted with self-interest. You sicken the globe... one can only rejoice in the fact that you're busy wiping yourselves out at a higher rate than any other Western country. With a little help from terrorists, maybe you'll finally come to your senses.

:fucking irate:

[bob]

Ouch. That chainsaw response cut a bit deep. ;)

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Glorified Ape
Jackass. You didn't build your fucking country by yourself. You wouldn't even have won your own fucking civil war if it hadn't been for the British. You wouldn't have even won your independence if it wasn't for the French.

LEARN YOUR FUCKING HISTORY. The UN DOES help other countries - they just don't fucking invade them under the bullshit auspices of "helping" them.

Want to know why people were busy dropping the WTC? Because of ignorant comments like yours. People like yourself facilitated and inspired 9/11. Stop thinking of yourself as the 'end all and be all' of the fucking world. Stop trying to present yourself as some ultimate example - you're far fucking from it. You're an example of capitalism and egotistism gone wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy fucking wrong.... and that's ultimately what has led to your success - a disregard for anyone but yourselves and a willingness to kill, exploit, and fuck over anyone you possibly could. Under those morals, anyone could succeed - the difference is that most Western countries try to hold themselves to some degree of decency. You? You tossed decency out the window when it conflicted with self-interest. You sicken the globe... one can only rejoice in the fact that you're busy wiping yourselves out at a higher rate than any other Western country. With a little help from terrorists, maybe you'll finally come to your senses.

:fucking jealous: There ya go glape.... I at least put your rant in the proper color. :D

[SARGE]

Either has a bee in his bonnet or needs a good bm. That's alot of vile for one post.

[WJWheels]

Specially coming from a "yuk-yuk" canuck, who without U.S. coattails, would still be living in a log hut and subsisting on fish & moose meat. :D

[Glorified Ape]

Originally posted by bob
Ouch. That chainsaw response cut a bit deep. ;)

Yeah... just disregard the entire post... I was pissed drunk and severely pissed off 'cause I'd just stubbed my foot quite painfully. Forget I said any of that, my apologies. :D

[Morning Calm]

No, I understand why you were pissed bro. runawaytrain's comment was more like a runawayfreighttrainofbullshit. Obviously, he didn't read the first post of this thread. ;)

[bob]

Runnawayflame has a nack in pissing one off without even trying. :D

[Morning Calm]

Originally posted by runawaytrain
Eveyone expects the US to feed and defend and build other countires. Who help us become who we are today? No one we did it all on our own. How come the UN doesn't step in andhelp build these countires? why because half of the UN is made up of these fucked up backwards governments.

Now that I read his post more closely, it's funny. He pokes every soft point that would piss someone like Grape off.

LOL

[Glorified Ape]

Originally posted by Morning Calm
Now that I read his post more closely, it's funny. He pokes every soft point that would piss someone like Grape off.

LOL

Indeed... especially when someone like Grape is full to the tits with booze. It was just more ignorance than I was capable of tolerating without blowing up. I gotta get my temper under control... especially when drunk.

Originally posted by WJWheels
Specially coming from a "yuk-yuk" canuck, who without U.S. coattails, would still be living in a log hut and subsisting on fish & moose meat. :D

What you base this on, I have no idea. And where the hell did "yuk-yuk" come from? We have more natural resources than a country our size could ever hope to use... Your primary utility is as a consumer of our goods. If you didn't buy them, however, someone else would. You're ultimately replaceable so don't flatter yourself, sweetheart. Oh wait... no.. we need you for oranges, that's right. :rolleyes:

[bob]

My lemon tree has about 300 and the orange tree has about 100.
I do like those pine nuts - can you send me some? LOL

[runawaytrain]

[quot]Jackass. You didn't build your fucking country by yourself. You wouldn't even have won your own fucking civil war if it hadn't been for the British. You wouldn't have even won your independence if it wasn't for the French.[/quote]

Britain Abandons the South

Meanwhile, the Union had won a major diplomatic battle. Since the beginning of the war, the Confederacy had had a naval officer, James D. Bulloch, in Britain to buy or contract for cruisers to raid Northern commerce. In 1861 and 1862, Bulloch had managed to acquire and equip several ships. In 1862 he contracted through third parties with the British shipbuilding firm of Laird Brothers for two rams, or ironclads, which he believed would be able to sweep Northern commerce from the seas and destroy the trade from the Atlantic seaports of the Union.

Charles Francis Adams, the Union minister to Britain, knew very well that the rams were intended for Confederate service. Time after time, Adams warned the British government of the destination of the rams and demanded that their delivery be prevented. He could get no promise. The British government, however, had decided to prevent departure of the vessels and, on October 9, 1863, seized the ships. Bulloch sadly reported to the Confederate secretary of the navy: “No amount of discretion or management on my part can effect the release of the ships.” Thereafter the Confederacy could no longer hope for aid from Europe.

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I hardly consider this to be a major factor in us winning the civil war with the south.

The french did not play a large roll in the war until around 1780 and before then they help mainly consisted of training troops. In 1778 our little navy was winning small put impressive battles against the British in their own waters. And if you did your research you will find the French had their own reasons for fighting the British (sugar fields).

And further research you will find

After six futile years of warfare, the British Parliament was not willing to support a new military campaign. The British public would not accept new taxes, and many people were demanding reform of the political system. The British ministry gave up hope of suppressing the rebellion.
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

You make it sound like they were the major causes for us winning our wars WRONG

Typical of people who hate the US