h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I believe a "couple" refers to the number "two"...as I'm not too hot on dates and numbers, I use rough indicators.

It's not my job to educate your ignorant behind.

If you want to debate, then you bring the knowledge. If you can't be bothered, then why be so suprised when fella's like cl make you look stupid?

Yeah, wow, you're not great with dates or numbers, there's a shocking revelation.

1800 the US was holding a great wealth of power over the rest of the world?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

war of 1812: UK kicked the crap out of us.

OOOH you really burned me badly. I will watch out for you in the future.

OK, so now pick a new rough time estimate that the US was dominating the world.

dave

If I want to debate you, I should bring the knowledge? That's not a debate then, that's me lecturing you. Which is actually a pretty fair description of whats going on. So, what chapter of history do you want me to "debate" you on tomorrow?

Since when was I referring to the early years of the US? I was merely talking about Vietnam. I am perfectly aware of the base history of what is now the United States...

Houston, we have a comprehension problem.

Too funny.

no comprehension problem. Read your statment:

"Considering the great wealth of power that the United States has held over the rest of the world for the past couple of centuries,"

I've interpretted it correctly. You can't even own up to the fact that you just made an ass of yourself. See you tomorrow Sluggo.

dave

Ah. I never make an ass out of myself.

You really shouldn't make fun of people's online names, Captain Oblivious, it really isn't kosher.

And you really shouldn't pick at slight imperfections of posts, god knows you are all over the map with your drivel. IMHO Sat meant during the majority of the last two hundred years, and you can't even decide what a *couple of centuries* means for gods sake.

*that's me lecturing you* is probably the funniest thing you've said so far. You couldn't lecture anyone here if you were granted another brain cell. Once again, back up what you say with something other than *everyone knows that...*

Let's set up the perameters here, OK? Who contributed the most to WW II in your opinion? Answer that, then we can talk.

"IMHO Sat meant during the majority of the last two hundred year"

WRONG WRONG WRONG AGAIN.

You people really have no idea. It's pathetic, what a waste of time arguing history with people who don't about anything before 1930.

The US wasn't a major power until AFTER WWII.

Why can't either of you own up to the fact that you HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT U.S. HISTORY?

dave

I know plenty.

Dave, have you heard of the proverb "Empty vessels make the most sound"?

I didn't mean to imply that the US was a constant *major* power...just a *wealth* of power: in resources and politics (and in terms of world history, the last two hundred years or so have been penultimate when it comes to their stance in the world). If you cannot distinguish between the two, it might be of some use to your piddling little excuse for an intellect to shut your mouth, and actually read the posts. Somewhere, someone is having communication problems...perhaps I should simplify my language. I keep forgetting I am speaking to someone who has never studied history in great depth...

Oh, and there's no need to shout. Commandeer a little respect and dignity willya?

"Considering the great wealth of power that the United States has held over the rest of the world for the past couple of centuries,"

wrong. Wrong.

Still wrong.

Not becoming correct. No chance of becoming correct.

Yep, still wrong.

dave

Actually, there is a chance of it becoming correct - it might be correct if you were to say it 150 years from now. Maybe. But saying it now is...

*drumroll*

STILL WRONG!!!

*da da*

dave

It's nice to see that you're admitting that the US had little or no effect in World War I, or Teddy Rooseveldt failed with the Russo-Japanese war and at San Juan hill. Etc., etc., etc. Just a big bunch of losers until the 1940's, then? Good to know.

Now if you'll answer my question and stop dancing around the playground we can get on with this.

I'm not wrong AT all.

Power can be held over others without them knowing it.

The land that is the United States was bound to be cultivated into a superpower. Oil, farmland, somewhat even weather. Inhabitants that could be defeated easily. European countries that were easily discarded. I never said it was anything but a "wealth of power" - be it hidden or growing or existing. From the original discovery of the landscape of America by white people, it has ALWAYS been something greater than the homelands of the people who discovered it. And it's certainly never been more powerful than it is now.

Now can we get back to the original debate? Or have you discarded it, owing to your recent forays into the OED's definitions of "battle" and "attack"?

You answer my question first...I've been asking you to justify your INCORRECT model for sometime now. You've never even acknowledged the posts. When you stop dancing around that question, I'll answer yours.

dave

What the heck is this "INCORRECT MODEL" all about?

I doubt cl is incorrect, especially in regards to your slack and blatently subjective knowledge of history.

Saturnine, please take your nonsensical braying elsewhere. You have added neither fact nor logic to this discussion. If you wish to comment constructively, or intelligently, by all means do so. But if you're just going to make posts about how great cl zoomer is, what are you adding to the discussion?

dave

1- I stand by my statement that Russia contributed the most to the war effort of World War II. I back up that statement with facts.

2- In that they did in fact contribute the most, suffered the most, expended the most , and drained the Axis' resources the most, they in that sense could be said (ironically) to have won the war.

3- What you consider to be my *model* are actually facts, something I have never seen posted by you here.

Now answer the question.