The UN Will Decide If America Is Racist

[SUBMAN1]

WTF are they thinking? Why are they in our business anyway? Do they really want the US to pull out of the UN since they get most of their money from us? Here is where your American tax dollars are going people. Pathetic:

-S

http://boortz.com/images/united_nations_logo.gif

The United Nations has taken it upon itself to investigate the American presidential campaign. Why does the UN have such an interest in our election? Because since Barack Obama is black and will be the Democrat nominee, the United Nations wants to investigate whether racism plays a role in the presidential campaign (http://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/united-nations-will-investigate-united-states-racism).


Excuse me, but just when did the UN get the authority to become involved in our national elections?


Will this be enough to generate a groundswell of opinion against this rancid organization? Probably not, and that's sad. It's time for the UN to go .. go anywhere but on American territory.


The UN investigator will be looking "contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance" during a two week tour of the United States (and Puerto Rico). He will be talking to government leaders but also community members, academics and people working in the field of racism and discrimination (i.e.. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson). If there is anyone out there who doesn't firmly believe that the UN will issue a finding that the US electoral process is racist ... well, you need help.


Do you know we actually agreed to this? That's right. The US apparently accepted the investigation because we need to lead by example and be open to outside investigation. What a complete an utter waste of time. We are becoming a world where a black man could be the most powerful person in the world, and yet the UN insists that racism must play a part in his campaign.
http://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/united-nations-will-investigate-united-states-racism

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[August]

Ah who cares. It's just one more thing about the UN to ignore.

[DeepIron]

Let me save the UN the time and trouble: YES RACISM EXISTS IN AMERICA!

Ok, I've had my moment..

[antikristuseke]

Do you know we actually agreed to this? That's right. The US apparently accepted the investigation because we need to lead by example and be open to outside investigation. What a complete an utter waste of time. We are becoming a world where a black man could be the most powerful person in the world, and yet the UN insists that racism must play a part in his campaign.

Arent they INVESTIGATING wether racism plays a role instead of being convinced it does?
Dont get me wrong, I think it is a waste of time and money and complete bull****, but the stuff quotes is bull**** aswell.

[Platapus]

so what is my question?

The UN studies many many different things. It is one of the primary purposes of the UN.

I think people are making too much out of nothing. It is not like the UN is claiming any election fraud or anything.

The United States has one of the most open and diverse election procedures in the world. For the first time someone other than a white dude is a finalist in the competition.

Of course the UN, and many other NGOs, are going to be studying this election. Why wouldn't they?

Have we become so paranoid that someone studying us has to be bad?

Don't we want the world to study us and learn from our examples?

Much ado about nothing.

[SUBMAN1]

so what is my question?

The UN studies many many different things. It is one of the primary purposes of the UN.

I think people are making too much out of nothing. It is not like the UN is claiming any election fraud or anything.

The United States has one of the most open and diverse election procedures in the world. For the first time someone other than a white dude is a finalist in the competition.

Of course the UN, and many other NGOs, are going to be studying this election. Why wouldn't they?

Have we become so paranoid that someone studying us has to be bad?

Don't we want the world to study us and learn from our examples?

Much ado about nothing.Because their is no need of their investigation. Their is 100% chance that their finding was written before the investigation on that the US is racists, even if it is not!

What it really is, is an attempt by the UN to mess with the US election process. That is what it really is.

-S

[Skybird]

It'S stupid to reject that racism exists. and it is at least as stupid needing to have a study on it first in order to know it.

[CaptHawkeye]

Considering a ban on inter-racial marriage was only narrowly lifted by a margin of 60% to 40% in Texas, i imagine it's not going to be favorable.

It amazes me how much the American South sucks. Don't those people still think they were on the right side of the civil war?

[Ducimus]

Sadly America is VERY racist. If you see it or not, all depends on who you are, where you go, and who you talk to. If your the right color or race, you'll never know it exists.

The other month, my siginficant other made the comment that she'd sooner vote for McCain then elect a black man to the presidency. THAT comment took be completley by surpise, i was stunned. But i shouldnt be surpised, Racism has always existed here, and its never going to go away. Its deep seeded in its roots, and lurks just under the fabric of our society.

I still remember my first duty base, which was in the south. A guy in my shop one day, when it was just the two of us said, "Yeah, when we heard you was coming and read your name on the orders we thought you was gonna be black or something. But... yeah, your a'lright" That comment STUNNED me, I had no idea. At the same point i was releived that i was accepted.


But racism doesnt exist in just the south, it exists here too, and i admit, im kinda bigoted myself. (but at least i realize it) Things like this i get a kick out of because it vents my frustration:
http://lighthousepatriotjournal.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/mexifornia-license.jpg


So, yeah, UN has become "Captain obvious" in this regard. And if anyone thinks racism doesnt exist here, they must be living in a bubble.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Is there anywhere racism doesn't exist?

PD

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It'S stupid to reject that racism exists. and it is at least as stupid needing to have a study on it first in order to know it.

It is one thing to know it exists somewhere. It is another to reconnoiter the extent to which it exists.

[MothBalls]

Well, hmmm. The US has had 43 Presidents.

All of them were white males.

They're just now starting to figure this out?

[Platapus]

I still remember my first duty base, which was in the south. A guy in my shop one day, when it was just the two of us said, "Yeah, when we heard you was coming and read your name on the orders we thought you was gonna be black or something. But... yeah, your a'lright" That comment STUNNED me, I had no idea. At the same point i was releived that i was accepted.



I remember about a year ago I was purchasing yet another handgun. :)

On the state form you have to give demographic information including race. Like always I selected Hispanic. The clerk in the gun store looked at my form, looked at me and actually said "I think you made a mistake here. You need to check white".

I looked at him hard and softly asked him if he would feel more comfortable if I wore a sombrero and spoke in broken English.

If I had not already paid for the gun, I would have walked out.

I guess being a successful and educated Hispanic confused him. I guess I am a lucky Hispanic as I can evidently "pass" for a white guy. :nope:

Yeah, racism still exists in America. It is getting a lot better than it used to, but it is still there and will probably always be there.

I too have run across people in my workplace who won't vote for Obama because he is black and won't vote for Clinton because she is a woman.

Go ahead and hate Obama if you disagree with his political agenda but don't base your vote on the colour of his skin.

Go ahead and hate Clinton if you disagree with her political agendas, but don't base your vote on her sex.

Unfortunately we still grow em stupid in America. :down:

[August]

The thing is that for every fool who refuses to vote for Obama just because he's black there is another who will vote for him JUST because he IS black. I believe the vast majority of Americans will vote for the guy who they think will do the best job.

Hispanics and Blacks are just as racist as any other group of Americans, yet all too often that is ignored in this country. Whether that says something good or bad about our nation is i guess is a matter of opinion.

[Ducimus]

>>Hispanics and Blacks are just as racist as any other group of Americans,


This is true, and its also true its overlooked. Best example of that is Latino and Black street gangs bumping each other off in Los Angeles some years back. In some areas you cannot live unless your black or Latino. If your not, the local welcoming committe will let you know your not supposed to be there.

Racism is everywhere. I dont beleive there is a truly, 100% unbigoted person, the only difference between people in terms of bigotry is in how much of a bigot one person is compared to the next. Some very minorly, so minor as to be forgiveable, others the poster child of racial hatred who may as well be claiming membership in the black panthers, or various skinhead groups.

[UglyMowgli]

WTF are they thinking? Why are they in our business anyway? Do they really want the US to pull out of the UN since they get most of their money from usl (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html)
The U.S. government is by far the largest debtor to the United Nations and is falling further behind in dues payments to the UN and its affiliated agencies. As detailed in the chart below, the U.S. begins 2008 with $1.5 billion in arrears at the United Nations. The President’s proposed budget for FY 2009 will likely push permanent U.S. debt to more than $2 billion.
Yet due to the fact that the U.S. typically pays its bills to the UN one year late, by which time new bills have already come in, the result is that the U.S. is rarely less than $2 billion behind in its payments to the United Nations. Click here (http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/resources/us-arrears-to-un-summary-3-2008.pdf) to view a presentation on U.S. debt to the UN.

source : http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/growing-us-debt-to-the-un.html

[HunterICX]

:hmm:

Ah...great now...knowing this is beeing investigated which will costs awefully lot of money to do the reports and then the conclusion is the same what we all know already.

We know, but we dont care as Racism is all over the world....

HunterICX

[August]

WTF are they thinking? Why are they in our business anyway? Do they really want the US to pull out of the UN since they get most of their money from usl (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html)
The U.S. government is by far the largest debtor to the United Nations and is falling further behind in dues payments to the UN and its affiliated agencies. As detailed in the chart below, the U.S. begins 2008 with $1.5 billion in arrears at the United Nations. The President’s proposed budget for FY 2009 will likely push permanent U.S. debt to more than $2 billion.
Yet due to the fact that the U.S. typically pays its bills to the UN one year late, by which time new bills have already come in, the result is that the U.S. is rarely less than $2 billion behind in its payments to the United Nations. Click here (http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/resources/us-arrears-to-un-summary-3-2008.pdf) to view a presentation on U.S. debt to the UN.

None of which changes the fact that we contribute more to the UN than any other country and iirc that's not including the all that prime Manhatten real estate the UN building is sitting on with is worth billions in itself.

As far as I and ever increasing numbers of my countrymen are concerned we'd be happy if our UN budget were zero and we kicked that nest of thieves and spies from our shores.

[TDK1044]

They should be investigating corruption within their own organization instead of wasting their time and money on a useless venture such as this.

[Letum]

Wit till you hear the conclusions before you lambast the investigation.

The UN investigation into racism in Japan makes for uncomfortable reading.

[TDK1044]

The UN was a corrupt, toothless waste of space the day it was formed, and nothing has changed.

[bradclark1]

It's as simple as this: There will be no racism when there is no world.
It's human nature. What matters is at what level that racism is. There is going to be prejudice against any difference from your norm. Any thoughts different than that and you are living in la-la land. Color is just one. Then you have gender, financial, class, political, blah, blah, blah.
Let the UN investigate. Big whoopdy-do.

[Letum]

It's human nature.

Speak for your self.
It's not in my nature.

[bradclark1]

It's human nature.

Speak for your self.
It's not in my nature.
Sure it is. The question is how much. Little or lots.

[Letum]

It's human nature.
Speak for your self.
It's not in my nature. Sure it is. The question is how much. Little or lots.

:shifty: You are calling me a racist?

[bradclark1]

It's human nature.
Speak for your self.
It's not in my nature. Sure it is. The question is how much. Little or lots.

:shifty: You are calling me a racist?
I'm not going to argue about it. Call it what you want. Everyone has prejudice against whats different. You might swing totally another way to try and prove you aren't but it just proves you are.

[Skybird]

Brad is right, in that the basis for racism probably is in our genes, and derives back to a time when every strange apeman appearing at the horizon was a potential thread to the survival of your tribe and a potential enemy for the tribe'S waterhole. It is a genetically impßlemented habit that makes us prefer those people that we know, that we grew ip with, and in that way consider to be like ourselves. That explains why physical differences are so important for most people, and why nevertheless children of different origin do not easily become racist to each other when they grew up in their childhood over longer time.

So, despite "racism" (which was a survival strategy, originally) being in our genes, the real point is that man has the ability to become aware of it, and actively refuse to allow that pattern remaining active. In other wors: man can learn not to be racist, man can be educated and raised not to be racist, and man has the self-reflection and mind to reason why he does not want to be racist.

Needless to say that ideolgies again can turn you into a racist.

[Letum]

I suppose there's strong scientific proofs and studies to back this statement.
No doubt there are many studies that show that the vast majority of people show racial preference.

One that springs to mind is the reaction times in shooting simulators when police are
presented with images of black and white males holding either telephones or guns.

But a "vast majority", however vast, does not speak for everyone.

Human natures are not hard to overcome. There are many abhorant things that are
in human nature, but not in a decent man's mind or actions.

[Letum]

Ahh! An online version of the reaction times experiment!

Faaaaaar from scientific, but interesting none the less
http://backhand.uchicago.edu/Center/ShooterEffect/

[kurtz]

I suppose there's strong scientific proofs and studies to back this statement.
No doubt there are many studies that show that the vast majority of people show racial preference.

One that springs to mind is the reaction times in shooting simulators when police are
presented with images of black and white males holding either telephones or guns.

But a "vast majority", however vast, does not speak for everyone.

Human natures are not hard to overcome. There are many abhorant things that are
in human nature, but not in a decent man's mind or actions.

Yes but these are subconscious reactions which can be measured by measuring the eye's iris reactions when shown pictures of people of other races, you can try and ignore it or you can even overcompensate but it is there.

[STEED]

We all know the UN lives up it's own ass. ;)

[Letum]

I suppose there's strong scientific proofs and studies to back this statement.
No doubt there are many studies that show that the vast majority of people show racial preference.

One that springs to mind is the reaction times in shooting simulators when police are
presented with images of black and white males holding either telephones or guns.

But a "vast majority", however vast, does not speak for everyone.

Human natures are not hard to overcome. There are many abhorant things that are
in human nature, but not in a decent man's mind or actions.
Yes but these are subconscious reactions which can be measured by measuring the eye's iris reactions when shown pictures of people of other races, you can try and ignore it or you can even overcompensate but it is there.

I don't doubt that.
People react diffrently to the familiar and unfamiliar.

No doubt you get similar results when you present people with pictures of violins and
doors or any other kind of object.

That does not mean they are biased to one or the other.

[kurtz]

I hate to sound contrary but yes it does, when people like something their Iris opens when they don't it closes, you can't help that, you can help how you deal with that reaction but it's something you have. Even stranger even black males don't like black males.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpUSElgJcyI

Not a scientific assesment perhaps...

[HunterICX]

We all know the UN lives up it's own ass. ;)

;) Aaah, a answer we all can agree with

HunterICX

[Letum]

I hate to sound contrary but yes it does, when people like something their Iris opens when they don't it closes, you can't help that, you can help how you deal with that reaction but it's something you have. Even stranger even black males don't like black males.

Liking or disliking something does not make you racist either.

Show me 100 pictures of women and 100 of men and no doubt my iris will give away a
preference for female faces. I also, like everyone else, have ascetic preference that
includes skin tone.
Likewise I have strong cultural preferences.

Aesthetic, cultural and other such preferences are certainly not racism.

You can hate the look of Asian faces, despise rice and cartoons with large eyes,
but that doesn't make you a racist.
It is only racism when you dislike these things because they are of the Asisn race
and believe that your preferences are an objective, non-relative assessment. Only
then will you base other other judgements on your preferences.

[antikristuseke]

The thing is that for every fool who refuses to vote for Obama just because he's black there is another who will vote for him JUST because he IS black. I believe the vast majority of Americans will vote for the guy who they think will do the best job.

Hispanics and Blacks are just as racist as any other group of Americans, yet all too often that is ignored in this country. Whether that says something good or bad about our nation is i guess is a matter of opinion.

This about sums it up.

[Letum]

The thing is that for every fool who refuses to vote for Obama just because he's black there is another who will vote for him JUST because he IS black. I believe the vast majority of Americans will vote for the guy who they think will do the best job.

Hispanics and Blacks are just as racist as any other group of Americans, yet all too often that is ignored in this country. Whether that says something good or bad about our nation is i guess is a matter of opinion.
This about sums it up.

Seconded.

Err...I mean..."thirded"(?)

[bradclark1]

I suppose there's strong scientific proofs and studies to back this statement.
I'm sure you can find all sorts of information on the web. The short answer is it's genetics. The longer answer is I've spent a lifetime dealing with people of different cultures, races, ethnicities, class and whatever. Work with diverse groups for a long time at ground level and use your eyes you just see patterns.

[Tchocky]

21% of Clinton voters in the Kentucky primary admitted that race affected their vote.
I think that's worth looking into.

[bradclark1]

You can hate the look of Asian faces, .................but that doesn't make you a racist.
I beg to differ. You hate the look of Asian faces you have colored(pun intended) your view. You hate something you will treat it differently. You are prejudiced so you are racist.

[Letum]

21% of Clinton voters in the Kentucky primary admitted that race affected their vote.
I think that's worth looking into.

Heh, that surprises me.
I wonder how many Obama supporters had gender as an issue. :hmm:


Is the UN investigating racist voters or racism in the democratic institution?

I mean, everyone is entitled to vote based on race, not politics if they want to. That's
how democracy workes, even if it is sometimes hard to swallow.

[August]

I mean, everyone is entitled to vote based on race, not politics if they want to. That's how democracy workes, even if it is sometimes hard to swallow.

This.

[TteFAboB]

Will the investigation be performed by white people or black people? Obviously, before any such investigation can be made the investigators themselves must be investigated to make sure no racist bias interferes, and if found, be eliminated to make sure the results are pure scientific blood.

The investigation of the investigators should be performed by a board of racially equal investigators: 50% white, 50% black, and 50% Spanish.

If no consensus is reached, the findings, whatever they are, must be declared racist. If consensus is reached, it's still racist as **** but then again this is like Obama's race to President: if he wins, he's the first black President, it's all thanks to his race and his race must be glorified; if he looses it was due to racism. Racism is inescapable in both races, I mean, cases.

[Letum]

You can hate the look of Asian faces, .................but that doesn't make you a racist. I beg to differ. You hate the look of Asian faces you have colored(pun intended) your view. You hate something you will treat it differently. You are prejudiced so you are racist.

I beg to differ with your differing.

You can dislike a skin colour without disliking the race that typically has it.
Race is not the same as skin colour.

Just because I dislike the colour of some someones skin, it does not mean I am prejudiced
against their other attributes.
In the same way that I do no make pre-judgements about someones ability to cook
based on my dislike of the clothes they ware, I do not make pre-judgements about
any attribute a person has based on my dislike of the tone of their skin.

I very much dislike heavily tanned skin. That does not mean I make any other
judgement about someone who has heavily tanned skin before i have the relevant
information to make other judgements.
I don't think heavily tanned skin is in any way objectively in-superior or that I can tell
anything about a person from how aesthetically pleasing I find them.

[mrbeast]

The UN was a corrupt, toothless waste of space the day it was formed, and nothing has changed.

So this would be the 'corrupt, toothles waste of space' that the USA is a pivotal founding member of, that has arguably prevented another world war, successfully intervened in Korea etc etc.....

[Red Heat]

In Portugal we are only racists...AGAINST "skinheads" only! :lol:

[sunvalleyslim]

"Can't we all just get along", Rodney King after the Los Angeles riots in 1992.........

[JHuschke]

Our money is going there..hmm, well money goes somewhere don't it? What about the mexicans taking our jobs? :hmm:

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.epica-awards.com/pages/results/2007/finalists/print/images/20_03052_001_UN_soldier.jpg

[Stealth Hunter]

The UN was a corrupt, toothless waste of space the day it was formed, and nothing has changed.

So this would be the 'corrupt, toothles waste of space' that the USA is a pivotal founding member of, that has arguably prevented another world war, successfully intervened in Korea etc etc.....

Intervened in Korea, but failed in Vietnam.:roll:

Either way, do you really think the North Koreans and Chinese haven't considered launching another offensive on South Korea? Of course they have. If they wanted to, they could march over them without a problem. Hell, the Chinese alone could rule the world if they wanted to. They're the largest army on the face of the planet and they're devoted to serve their government.:88)

This is a song we've heard many times before from the mouths of UN supporters. They fact is, they're incompetent, ineffective at just about every goal they've ever set, and waste the money of the people on pointless **** like this.:shifty: They're a joke. They meet with ambassadors and shake hands, they start stupid arguments that might as well be about the weather (wouldn't be that much of a change), and they wave a flag around like they're the saviours of the world, like they've actually done something for all of mankind.:rotfl:

Almost forget, they brandish a military that never uses the weapons they're supplied with.:roll: Makes a hell of a lotta sense, doesn't it (especially when they're being attacked; Rwanda ring a bell?)?:nope:

Please also elaborate on the ". . .etc etc etc . . ." part of your post. I'm really interested in finding out what else they've done that's useful.

[bradclark1]

You can dislike a skin colour without disliking the race that typically has it.
Race is not the same as skin colour.
Go to south LA and try that concept out.

[Captain Vlad]

On the state form you have to give demographic information including race. Like always I selected Hispanic. The clerk in the gun store looked at my form, looked at me and actually said "I think you made a mistake here. You need to check white".


While it's still evidence of bad stuff, he might've been trying to help you out if the forms you were filling out were for licensing or something...

I wouldn't have checked the box 'white' if I weren't...though that's complicated for me as there is no box for Heinz 57:D...but a lot of people would, and you were his customer...

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The UN couldnt find its own ass without a map.

[Iceman]

From the "creationist" pov...the human "nature" is to do evil..to lie, cheat ,steal ,kill ...be racist...this is the personal battle a "born again" follower of Christ deals with every day...putting to death the fleshly nature to let the spirit thrive....indeed since Adam and Eve it is in our nature to err....or for the Athesists...since caveman time. :)

Revelation 22
[11] He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
[12] And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
[13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
[15] For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

[bradclark1]

From the "creationist" pov...the human "nature" is to do evil..to lie, cheat ,steal ,kill ...be racist...this is the personal battle a "born again" follower of Christ deals with every day...
Well Iceman, if I felt I had to deal with that everyday I guess I'd look for help too. Good luck in your quest.

[TDK1044]

The UN was a corrupt, toothless waste of space the day it was formed, and nothing has changed.

So this would be the 'corrupt, toothles waste of space' that the USA is a pivotal founding member of, that has arguably prevented another world war, successfully intervened in Korea etc etc.....


:rotfl:

[kurtz]

Is there anywhere racism doesn't exist?

PD

Well not here;

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=148954&in_page_id=34

[antikristuseke]

The UN couldnt find its own ass without a map.
I doubt the UNs map reading abilities

[Cohaagen]

For a country supposedly so hostile to the UN, America sure done luuuurve it when it needs to press through things like the White House-sponsored UN Convention On Psychotropic Drugs (which kickstarted the global narcotics trade and forced the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on an unwilling NHS), or neuter the Kyoto Treaty (they'll still be yelling "Global warming is a liberal Commie Jew myth!" with the water up around their necks). And, of course, when they need 'em onside for an illegal invasion in the hydrocarbon-rich degenerate states. America's state-sanctioned face of decent, hardworking, non-gang-related Black America, Coal-on Powell (yes, that's how they pronounce it) worked overtime on that one.

Still, never mind all that there hee-haw. Time come when them steely-eyed blue-bonneted faasceests gonna come down the ranch in the white pick-ups to take yer guns away and smash up yer stills. Y'all liberal faggots better hope your local John Birch Society representative is on hand to steady yer aim and gird yer nerves against the N-Dubya-O. Aim for the windshields, fellers!

[August]

For a country supposedly so hostile to the UN, America sure done luuuurve it when...

Y'know there are over 300 million of us. As difficult as it is for you to imagine it, you have to expect we have at least some differences of opinion amongst ourselves...

[Cohaagen]

Y'know there are over 300 million of us. As difficult as it is for you to imagine it, you have to expect we have at least some differences of opinion amongst ourselves...

Of course, just as there are many, many Britons who opposed the Iraq invasion, the Northern Rock bailout, who oppose the creeping surveillance state and abdication of individual freedoms, etc. But since either resistance has been so anemic, their invective so frail, and protest so ineffectual as to be laughable, they are not deserving of consideration or worthy of referral. As long as the most enlightened level of debate in the States is still on the level of "liberals" and "conservatives" slinging turds at each other I don't see why either should be regarded with anything but contempt and derision.

As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to sit on their fat dimpled orange-peel arses in a NASCAR T-shirt jamming corncobs and ribs into their straining mandibles while debating furiously on an internet forum about why USS Iowa should never have been put in reserve".

[August]

Y'know there are over 300 million of us. As difficult as it is for you to imagine it, you have to expect we have at least some differences of opinion amongst ourselves...
Of course, just as there are many, many Britons who opposed the Iraq invasion, the Northern Rock bailout, who oppose the creeping surveillance state and abdication of individual freedoms, etc. But since either resistance has been so anemic, their invective so frail, and protest so ineffectual as to be laughable, they are not deserving of consideration or worthy of referral. As long as the most enlightened level of debate in the States is still on the level of "liberals" and "conservatives" slinging turds at each other I don't see why either should be regarded with anything but contempt and derision.

As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to sit on their fat dimpled orange-peel arses in a NASCAR T-shirt jamming corncobs and ribs into their straining mandibles while debating furiously on an internet forum about why USS Iowa should never have been put in reserve".

That is an interesting opinion. It probably reflects why Scotland was conquered by the English. :p

[bradclark1]

Coal-on Powell (yes, that's how they pronounce it)
Actually it's not. It's pronounced "Coal-in". I have no idea what the rest of your statement is about.
Ribs and Nascar is better than boiled sheep's stomach filled with the heart, liver and lungs served with neeps and tatties and throwing short telephone poles while dressed in a skirt so there.

[Cohaagen]

A pretty pathetic attempt at baiting on the level, and exactly in the style, of a Youtube comment. Scotland and England were initially united by James VI, a Scottish monarch. Even then, your comment doesn't make much sense. Still, it's a bit much to expect that level of historical literacy from the land of "we saved your ass in double-ya-double-ya-two", etc.

You'll get no rise out of me by insulting Scotland - the place is a dump. Cretins and hubris-filled balloons to a man with the oil running out fast. I'm British, mate. Blinkered patriotism may be an after-school sport in the US, but it doesn't do well over here.

I always think people'd understand America much better if they all spoke Spanish - you know, the crass, overt, overdone patriotism; the ubiquitous flag-waving, the failed, faded egalitarian ideals; the crude militarism and frothy-mouthed reactionary sentiment. I suppose it's Britain's vanity in assuming that an inherited language belies a shared history. With Spanish as the official language, we'd be much quicker to associate La Republica Estados Unidos with the rest of the overgrown banana republics with a concocted social mythology.

[August]

A pretty pathetic attempt at baiting on the level, and exactly in the style, of a Youtube comment. Scotland and England were initially united by James VI, a Scottish monarch. Even then, your comment doesn't make much sense. Still, it's a bit much to expect that level of historical literacy from the land of "we saved your ass in double-ya-double-ya-two", etc.

You'll get no rise out of me by insulting Scotland - the place is a dump. Cretins and hubris-filled balloons to a man with the oil running out fast. I'm British, mate. Blinkered patriotism may be an after-school sport in the US, but it doesn't do well over here.

I always think people'd understand America much better if they all spoke Spanish - you know, the crass, overt, overdone patriotism; the ubiquitous flag-waving, the failed, faded egalitarian ideals; the crude militarism and frothy-mouthed reactionary sentiment. I suppose it's Britain's vanity in assuming that an inherited language belies a shared history. With Spanish as the official language, we'd be much quicker to associate La Republica Estados Unidos with the rest of the overgrown banana republics with a concocted social mythology.

Are you under any illusions that we care?

[NEON DEON]

A pretty pathetic attempt at baiting on the level, and exactly in the style, of a Youtube comment. Scotland and England were initially united by James VI, a Scottish monarch. Even then, your comment doesn't make much sense. Still, it's a bit much to expect that level of historical literacy from the land of "we saved your ass in double-ya-double-ya-two", etc.

You'll get no rise out of me by insulting Scotland - the place is a dump. Cretins and hubris-filled balloons to a man with the oil running out fast. I'm British, mate. Blinkered patriotism may be an after-school sport in the US, but it doesn't do well over here.

I always think people'd understand America much better if they all spoke Spanish - you know, the crass, overt, overdone patriotism; the ubiquitous flag-waving, the failed, faded egalitarian ideals; the crude militarism and frothy-mouthed reactionary sentiment. I suppose it's Britain's vanity in assuming that an inherited language belies a shared history. With Spanish as the official language, we'd be much quicker to associate La Republica Estados Unidos with the rest of the overgrown banana republics with a concocted social mythology.

Are you under any illusions that we care?

Our friends from across the pond are a bit cranky today.:yep:

[Platapus]

Are you under any illusions that we care?


We care about his opinions precisely as we do about yours.

This is simply a forum for people to post their opinions and for other people to post their opinions.

Opinions are like farts

Every ******* has em
They all stink
In polite society, it is often better to keep em to yourself :rotfl:

[nikimcbee]

So,if the UN finds racism here, what are they going to do about it?:rotfl:

Put smurfs here to monitor us?:rotfl:

The UN is nothing more than an overpaid debate club. They have no teeth, so who cares what they find. I suggest they start their search in the bayous of Louisiana, they'll have fun there.:up:

[August]

Are you under any illusions that we care?

We care about his opinions precisely as we do about yours.

This is simply a forum for people to post their opinions and for other people to post their opinions.

Opinions are like farts

Every ******* has em
They all stink
In polite society, it is often better to keep em to yourself :rotfl:

Some opinions are stinkier than others Platapus. That does not mean they all have merit.

[Letum]

So,if the UN finds racism here, what are they going to do about it?:rotfl:

Put smurfs here to monitor us?:rotfl:

The UN is nothing more than an overpaid debate club. They have no teeth, so who cares what they find. I suggest they start their search in the bayous of Louisiana, they'll have fun there.:up:

It is this kind of "to hell with what other nations think about us" attituide that has given
the US a very poor reputation for good deplomacy.

[nikimcbee]

So,if the UN finds racism here, what are they going to do about it?:rotfl:

Put smurfs here to monitor us?:rotfl:

The UN is nothing more than an overpaid debate club. They have no teeth, so who cares what they find. I suggest they start their search in the bayous of Louisiana, they'll have fun there.:up:

It is this kind of "to hell with what other nations think about us" attituide that has given
the US a very poor reputation for good deplomacy.

At this point, I wouldn't argue with that. But what is their goal? They'll do their study, find racism, then what? They'll issue their report: We found racism in the US. Then, they'll go study something else. At the most, it will give the true believers in the UN something to talk about at lunch.

As someone from the UK, you should know how much someone from the US likes to be pushed around by a foreign power. (don't take this personally, no malice intended) But if you don't, see Lexington Green 1775:up: .

[Letum]

So,if the UN finds racism here, what are they going to do about it?:rotfl:

Put smurfs here to monitor us?:rotfl:

The UN is nothing more than an overpaid debate club. They have no teeth, so who cares what they find. I suggest they start their search in the bayous of Louisiana, they'll have fun there.:up:
It is this kind of "to hell with what other nations think about us" attituide that has given
the US a very poor reputation for good deplomacy.
At this point, I wouldn't argue with that. But what is their goal? They'll do their study, find racism, then what? They'll issue their report: We found racism in the US. Then, they'll go study something else. At the most, it will give the true believers in the UN something to talk about at lunch.

As someone from the UK, you should know how much someone from the US likes to be pushed around by a foreign power. (don't take this personally, no malice intended) But if you don't, see Lexington Green 1775:up: .
Take a look at the UN report in to raceism in Japan. (2005(?))
There where almost no equality laws in Japan at all and plenty of buisnesses had
"No Forigners" signs out side. Many of these things are still happening and it is still
hard for non-Japanease in Japan, but the UN report was an embaresment for Japan
internationaly, but less so nationaly. Shortly after the report the government
reacted by trying to pass an anti-racism law that failed in parlament sevral years
before. Again, it failed to pass, but a handful of smaller measures did.

Certinaly one UN report is not going to change something as culturaly deep as racism
overnight. No one is claiming that, but it does provide another voice asking for
change.

Fixes are difficult, slow and take more than one factor. If the UN sat by and did
nothing; there would be a crime!

[nikimcbee]

So,if the UN finds racism here, what are they going to do about it?:rotfl:

Put smurfs here to monitor us?:rotfl:

The UN is nothing more than an overpaid debate club. They have no teeth, so who cares what they find. I suggest they start their search in the bayous of Louisiana, they'll have fun there.:up:
It is this kind of "to hell with what other nations think about us" attituide that has given
the US a very poor reputation for good deplomacy.
At this point, I wouldn't argue with that. But what is their goal? They'll do their study, find racism, then what? They'll issue their report: We found racism in the US. Then, they'll go study something else. At the most, it will give the true believers in the UN something to talk about at lunch.

As someone from the UK, you should know how much someone from the US likes to be pushed around by a foreign power. (don't take this personally, no malice intended) But if you don't, see Lexington Green 1775:up: .
Take a look at the UN report in to raceism in Japan. (2005(?))
There where almost no equality laws in Japan at all and plenty of buisnesses had
"No Forigners" signs out side. Many of these things are still happening and it is still
hard for non-Japanease in Japan, but the UN report was an embaresment for Japan
internationaly, but less so nationaly. Shortly after the report the government
reacted by trying to pass an anti-racism law that failed in parlament sevral years
before. Again, it failed to pass, but a handful of smaller measures did.

Certinaly one UN report is not going to change something as culturaly deep as racism
overnight. No one is claiming that, but it does provide another voice asking for
change.

Fixes are difficult, slow and take more than one factor. If the UN sat by and did
nothing; there would be a crime!

You mean like the action they took in darfur?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darfur/

[Cohaagen]

Are you under any illusions that we care?
Not really - political bullying, ignorance of the world at large and unilateral action have become the defining characteristics of American behaviour abroad since the end of WWII.

Just like the US Navy "didn't care" to clear up the 6000 tonnes of toxic waste they dumped at the bottom of the loch outside my house during their 30-year tenure. Pretty poor behaviour after we graciously allowed them to use it, turning our obscure backwater into the most heavily-targeted nuclear bullseye in the world. They even managed to squirm out of footing the £5,000,000UKP bill for the MoD contractors who eventually did clear up their garbage.

[August]

Are you under any illusions that we care?
Not really - political bullying, ignorance of the world at large and unilateral action have become the defining characteristics of American behaviour abroad since the end of WWII.

Just like the US Navy "didn't care" to clear up the 6000 tonnes of toxic waste they dumped at the bottom of the loch outside my house during their 30-year tenure. Pretty poor behaviour after we graciously allowed them to use it, turning our obscure backwater into the most heavily-targeted nuclear bullseye in the world. They even managed to squirm out of footing the £5,000,000UKP bill for the MoD contractors who eventually did clear up their garbage.

Oh well, you still owe us for all that tea you allowed to be dumped into Boston harbor. Don't think we've forgotten that...

[TDK1044]

The UN will spend millions of Dollars and a considerable amount of time producing a huge report stating that racism exists in the USA.

No sh*t, Sherlock! Next case!

[Tchocky]

I'm still bitter about Pangaea separating.

Therefore all of you are wrong.

[STEED]

The UN will spend millions of Dollars and a considerable amount of time producing a huge report stating that racism exists in the USA.

No sh*t, Sherlock! Next case!

And America will stick to fingers up to the UN and say, "Screw you ass whore." ;)

Case closed. :smug:

[August]

Here in the US we don't do the two finger salute thing. Just one is enough for us colonists...:p

[STEED]

Here in the US we don't do the two finger salute thing. Just one is enough for us colonists...:p

OK, just the one. :rotfl:

But if you need two I'm your man. :D

[August]

Here in the US we don't do the two finger salute thing. Just one is enough for us colonists...:p
OK, just the one. :rotfl:

But if you need two I'm your man. :D

Thanks! :D

When I came back from Germany I tried the two finger version but I must have did it wrong because people just didn't get the message... :rock:

[DeepIron]

You're charging the study before it even began, what's wrong, you're affraid that they could tell something that you would know is true but that you don't want to hear ?I was listening to a number of radio columnists and commentators the last few days about this UN dude from Senegal...

Even though all the commentators had different points of view, one thread was common in all discussions: This dude doesn't do POSITIVE reviews. In all the countries he's "investigated" his reports have always been negative, sometimes bordering on the "ultra-negative". The general consensus is that the US report will be no different.

So much for unbiased research...

[kurtz]

Here in the US we don't do the two finger salute thing. Just one is enough for us colonists...:p
OK, just the one. :rotfl:

But if you need two I'm your man. :D

Thanks! :D

When I came back from Germany I tried the two finger version but I must have did it wrong because people just didn't get the message... :rock:
Did you do it right?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1880919&op=2&o=all&view=all&subj=2214862074&aid=-1&oid=2214862074&id=762575525

[August]

I was listening to a number of radio columnists and commentators the last few days about this UN dude from Senegal...

Even though all the commentators had different points of view, one thread was common in all discussions: This dude doesn't do POSITIVE reviews. In all the countries he's "investigated" his reports have always been negative, sometimes bordering on the "ultra-negative". The general consensus is that the US report will be no different.

So much for unbiased research...
I don't know the guy, but saying that a report is biased because it's negative seems a bit stretched isn't it ? :)

It's not just a single report is the point i think Mikhayl.

[bradclark1]

Just like the US Navy "didn't care" to clear up the 6000 tonnes of toxic waste they dumped at the bottom of the loch outside my house during their 30-year tenure. Pretty poor behaviour after we graciously allowed them to use it, turning our obscure backwater into the most heavily-targeted nuclear bullseye in the world. They even managed to squirm out of footing the £5,000,000UKP bill for the MoD contractors who eventually did clear up their garbage.
Under a NATO agreement, the British government is responsible for decontaminating military bases in the UK abandoned by allied forces. Also the loch has nine shipwrecks on the bottom but not sure how old or who's ships they are but I wouldn't think they were U.S. ships.
Levels of radioactive contamination in the loch are extremely low. The report of a survey carried out by the defence radiological protection service and the US Navy in 1992 concluded that there is no public radiological hazard associated with the debris, or its removal. These conclusions have been confirmed by subsequent annual surveys. The Navy was present from 1962 to 1992 and it is doubtful the loch was clean before that time.

[Cohaagen]

Radiological hazards were never presented as an issue - the matter was so politically sensitive that all materials were very well managed. It was the rest of the US Navy's crap (heavy metals, PCBs, oil drums, asbestos, etc) that was the problem:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320720.200-cold-war-waste-fouls-the-clyde.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/59532.stm

I'm also aware of the arrangement that puts the onus on MoD for cleaning up this guff. No doubt USN awareness of this contributed to SUBRON 14's unrivalled enthusiasm for dumping just about every type of waste imaginable over the gunwales - I recall they even found a sailor's skeleton amongst the trash.

The Clyde has been an inhabited waterway for over a thousand years, so that there are wrecks on the bottom is no surprise. However, we aren't talking about the odd Clyde puffer - we are talking about military waste thoughtlessly turfed overboard in the full knowledge that they had no obligation to do anything about it come the inevitable backlash. Given the US military's unenviable record for crapping in the nest - the situation with ruins and artefacts in Iraq being the latest case - I'm not really surprised.

I honestly don't know what else to say about your response, except that it stands as little but a clear-cut textbook example of the kind of attitude that people all over the word, regardless of location, creed, language, have come to expect from the US and in particular it's armed forces - namely, the "so what?" attitude of an arrogant, ignorant bully. Your inference of more or less "well dude, it might not have been all that clean when we got there, so we may as well chuck all this **** over the side anyway", is about the most galling thing I've ever heard. Maybe the navy just got homesick and wanted to turn the Holy Loch into Lake Michigan?

Hey, the RN still have a dozen or so old nuke subs rusting away that we don't know how to dispose of - how about we just dump them in Boston harbour?

[August]

Radiological hazards were never presented as an issue - the matter was so politically sensitive that all materials were very well managed. It was the rest of the US Navy's crap (heavy metals, PCBs, oil drums, asbestos, etc) that was the problem:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320720.200-cold-war-waste-fouls-the-clyde.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/59532.stm

I'm also aware of the arrangement that puts the onus on MoD for cleaning up this guff. No doubt USN awareness of this contributed to SUBRON 14's unrivalled enthusiasm for dumping just about every type of waste imaginable over the gunwales - I recall they even found a sailor's skeleton amongst the trash.

The Clyde has been an inhabited waterway for over a thousand years, so that there are wrecks on the bottom is no surprise. However, we aren't talking about the odd Clyde puffer - we are talking about military waste thoughtlessly turfed overboard in the full knowledge that they had no obligation to do anything about it come the inevitable backlash. Given the US military's unenviable record for crapping in the nest - the situation with ruins and artefacts in Iraq being the latest case - I'm not really surprised.

I honestly don't know what else to say about your response, except that it stands as little but a clear-cut textbook example of the kind of attitude that people all over the word, regardless of location, creed, language, have come to expect from the US and in particular it's armed forces - namely, the "so what?" attitude of an arrogant, ignorant bully. Your inference of more or less "well dude, it might not have been all that clean when we got there, so we may as well chuck all this **** over the side anyway", is about the most galling thing I've ever heard. Maybe the navy just got homesick and wanted to turn the Holy Loch into Lake Michigan?

Hey, the RN still have a dozen or so old nuke subs rusting away that we don't know how to dispose of - how about we just dump them in Boston harbour?

You're certainly welcome to try....

[Schroeder]

You're certainly welcome to try.... Well, isn't that exactly the problem? If anyone would do that in your country you would surely kick his butt. But why doesn't it bother some people here that this was done by US forces in another country? Don't get me wrong, things like that have also been done by other forces (the Soviets for example left quite a mess behind when they left the former German Democratic Republic and didn't care much for that either) and I don't want to start a "bashing America" post now. I just wonder that some people here seemingly think that it is o.k. to dump poisonous waste somewhere in a foreign country.
That just feeds again to the wide spread prejudice of the ignorant American.:-?

[Stealth Hunter]

Seems like the English more recently have upped their stereotypes on the Americans. You know, I met one on IMDB the other day who tried to claim the light bulb was a British invention? And apparently, the British also invented the computer, the submarine, airplane, machine gun, and telephone...:roll:

[Sailor Steve]

Seems like the English more recently have upped their stereotypes on the Americans. You know, I met one on IMDB the other day who tried to claim the light bulb was a British invention?
Well, the first incandescent light bulb was made by Humphrey Davy in 1802. Edison made the first practical one.

And apparently, the British also invented the computer
Charles Babbage, London, 1834.

the submarine
William Bourne, 1578. He never built his, but Dutchman Cornelius van Drebbel's 1620 boat was very similar to Bourne's design.

airplane
William Henson is credited with the first design for a fixed-wing powered aircraft in 1842. He and partner John Stringfellow never got their steam-powered machine to fly, but the design was sound and would have flown with a better engine.

machine gun
Hiram Maxim was born in America, but emigrated to England and was a British citizen when he perfected the first portable machine gun. He also invented the mousetrap.

and telephone
Alexander Graham Bell was just the opposite: born in Scotland, emigrated to Canada, moved south and was a U.S. citizen when he made the first working telephone.

:roll: indeed.

What was the question again?

[Sailor Steve]

Well, isn't that exactly the problem? If anyone would do that in your country you would surely kick his butt. But why doesn't it bother some people here that this was done by US forces in another country? Don't get me wrong, things like that have also been done by other forces (the Soviets for example left quite a mess behind when they left the former German Democratic Republic and didn't care much for that either) and I don't want to start a "bashing America" post now. I just wonder that some people here seemingly think that it is o.k. to dump poisonous waste somewhere in a foreign country.
That just feeds again to the wide spread prejudice of the ignorant American.:-?
This American agrees. One of the biggest problems we have, relations-wise, is our tendency to ignore the whole "Do unto others" thing. We went into Iraq citing their refusal to obey UN orders, but when the UN ordered us to wait we just laughed.

[bradclark1]

Well I'll have to agree with the "hubris-filled balloons". You describe yourself quite nicely.
"Your inference of more or less" is your inference not mine so gall all you want. My reference to not being clean has to do with the loch being used as a British submarine base during double-ya-double-ya-two. You know, the war we saved your(yo) ass in. I'm sure they were all tree huggers back then and properly disposed of contaminates and scrap metals along with the odd landing craft or two let alone the two sunk submarines floating around there in the Clyde.
But yes it was all US Navy people that dumped all the gangways, pontoons and soda cans along with all the pcb's and what have you. All 150 locals that worked at the base knew nothing about it did they? They must have made them look the other way when they did the dastardly deeds.
If you looked through the information available one Mr Devine proudly bugled that he worked for the navy for twelve years "processing" waste into the water. All those locals working at the dock and dry-docks refitting subs with all those nasty chemicals didn't have a clue about what happened with them once they were done with them, it was all those evil U.S. Navy people making them dump it into the water.
So I guess what I'm saying is you have the gall to plead the locals being deaf, dumb and blind when it was in all probability the locals doing the "actual" dumping. But they knew nothing of it or what, they didn't know it was bad stuff? Yes the navy was wrong doing/allowing it but don't plead the innocent bleeding dupe job. I think there is more than enough blame to pass around. So if you want to whine about arrogant, bullying Americans crapping in your nest look at who is doing the actual crapping.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, the first incandescent light bulb was made by Humphrey Davy in 1802. Edison made the first practical one.

The difference being that Davy's never went into major circulation or actually made a difference in lighting.

Charles Babbage, London, 1834.

Wrong by technical standards. The first actual computer, that was similar to Babbage's, was invented by the Greeks thousands of years before. It could do mathematical calculations, calculate planetary movements, and even map constellations. I'm referring of course to the Antikythera Mechanism.

William Bourne, 1578. He never built his, but Dutchman Cornelius van Drebbel's 1620 boat was very similar to Bourne's design.

True, but both Drebbel's design and Bourne's design were simply bells towed by a boat. Basically, they were diving bells, and the diving bell had been in existence for quite some time (it was said that one was made of glass during Alexander the Great's rule, and he was lowered beneath the sea to experience the invention; true or not--well, hard to answer). What we can be certain of is that diving bells had been in use before the 16th century.

William Henson is credited with the first design for a fixed-wing powered aircraft in 1842. He and partner John Stringfellow never got their steam-powered machine to fly, but the design was sound and would have flown with a better engine.

A kite basically with a steam engine attached.:rotfl: Fact is, designs like this had been in existence before. Never made, but they were in existence (1830's "house plane", for instance; preposterous idea, but it was still a fixed-wing craft with an engine). Either way, the other simple fact is that it didn't fly. The first actual fixed-wing flying machine was invented by the Chinese in 559 AD. It was just a kite with a fixed-wing design, like William Henson's (save for the engine), but the difference here is that the Chinese design actually flew.

Hiram Maxim was born in America, but emigrated to England and was a British citizen when he perfected the first portable machine gun. He also invented the mousetrap.

True, although I was referring to Fathullah Shirazi's design for Akbar the Great during the 1500's (first one that used gunpowder, though the "balls" were cannon balls, not musket balls; bullets are totally out of the question for that design, however). I'll credit them with that.

Alexander Graham Bell was just the opposite: born in Scotland, emigrated to Canada, moved south and was a U.S. citizen when he made the first working telephone.

True for the modern telephone. I was thinking of Kung-Foo-Whing's design during the 900's AD (little more than tubes, however, that one yelled through; not really a phone at all!:rotfl:).

[nikimcbee]

Seems like the English more recently have upped their stereotypes on the Americans. You know, I met one on IMDB the other day who tried to claim the light bulb was a British invention? And apparently, the British also invented the computer, the submarine, airplane, machine gun, and telephone...:roll:
Ha, I've met Russians, that claimed they invented all this stuff:rotfl: :roll: .

[Stealth Hunter]

Seems like the English more recently have upped their stereotypes on the Americans. You know, I met one on IMDB the other day who tried to claim the light bulb was a British invention? And apparently, the British also invented the computer, the submarine, airplane, machine gun, and telephone...:roll:
Ha, I've met Russians, that claimed they invented all this stuff:rotfl: :roll: .

I think the funniest one I heard was from a man from India who claimed that the boat was invented by their people!:rotfl: As if. Those dogs couldn't make a proper sandwich if they wanted to.:rotfl:

[Cohaagen]

bradclark1- You'd do yourself a huge favour by just stopping now. I know you probably think that you're cooking up some that'll-show-'em ballbusters to zing the opposition, but by attempting to defend the indefensible you simply continue to dig an enormous hole for yourself and confirm the very mentality that leads to this kind of thing in the first place.

Fact is, all that crap at the bottom of the loch wouldn't be there without the USN. Whether they got the odd native to help out is immaterial. The waste was generated by them and dumped on their watch. You have turned one man into an excuse for three decades of systematic dumping. And yes, in my experience civilians do tend to follow the orders of those in uniform, especially if their jobs depend on it. "150 locals" employed at the base includes everyone from clerks and cleaners to the guy who used to have the Dunkin' Donuts stand at the old pier. I suppose you'd all have them as toxic waste dumpers?

As for the Royal Navy submarines lost in the Clyde - these were tragic accidents that resulted in the loss of all hands, and where possible they were salvaged. Are you really trying to compare the two? Jesus wept.

Nice job at coming over as an arrogant ass, though.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Seems like the English more recently have upped their stereotypes on the Americans.

Well, everything I've seen from the UKers so far as been backed up. :-?

[Tchocky]

I'll join this nationalism pissing-contest, the first US Navy was built by an Irishman, who taught in my hometown :)

[bradclark1]

Nope, fraid not. I'm not ballbusting and I'm not defending. I'm putting the blame where it belongs, on both sides. Acting the persecuted windbag doesn't change that fact.
I haven't turned one man into anything but an example to show that the locals were not deaf, dumb and blind as you inferred. There was no armed guards ready to shoot those that refused to dump. Now you seem to insinuate that they would have been fired if they didn't dump. Out of 150 locals probably 80 to 90 or more would have worked on the docks to include the Dunkin Donuts man. I'm sure that such modern conveniences as the telephone did exist and all it would have taken was an indiscreet phone call or two to get all sorts of attention drawn to the dumping.
What is the difference between unsalvaged wrecks and the dumping of scrap metal? You can write a litter ticket for the scrap.
Nice job at coming over as an arrogant ass, though.
Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. You set the example for all to go by.

[SUBMAN1]

bradclark1- You'd do yourself a huge favour by just stopping now. I know you probably think that you're cooking up some that'll-show-'em ballbusters to zing the opposition, but by attempting to defend the indefensible you simply continue to dig an enormous hole for yourself and confirm the very mentality that leads to this kind of thing in the first place.

Fact is, all that crap at the bottom of the loch wouldn't be there without the USN. Whether they got the odd native to help out is immaterial. The waste was generated by them and dumped on their watch. You have turned one man into an excuse for three decades of systematic dumping. And yes, in my experience civilians do tend to follow the orders of those in uniform, especially if their jobs depend on it. "150 locals" employed at the base includes everyone from clerks and cleaners to the guy who used to have the Dunkin' Donuts stand at the old pier. I suppose you'd all have them as toxic waste dumpers?

As for the Royal Navy submarines lost in the Clyde - these were tragic accidents that resulted in the loss of all hands, and where possible they were salvaged. Are you really trying to compare the two? Jesus wept.

Nice job at coming over as an arrogant ass, though.Chill - Either you need to do something else for a bit, or go take some valium. Way too worked up man. Just a conversation.

And the USN didn't do you any favors or anything. How about this, you pay for our men and equipment losses in coming to your defense, and we clean up your stuff? Sound fair? I can guess who's bill is going to be the larger! :D

-S

[Cohaagen]

What is the difference between unsalvaged wrecks and the dumping of scrap metal? You can write a litter ticket for the scrap.
(sigh)

Okay. I'll spell it out country simple, making every allowance I can since there seems to be a cultural misunderstanding here:

1) Two WWII submarine wrecks in the Clyde estuary (not the Holy Loch), HMS Vandal is the only one whose name immediately springs to mind. Accidently lost with all hands in tragic circumstances. Now a protected wreck under Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 since there are 37 dead sailors within her hull. It is illegal to dive on or disturb the wreck in any way. Same goes for the carrier, HMS Dasher.

2) Estimated 6000 tonnes of military waste (4500 tonnes since recovered), piled 30ft high in places, including toxic materials (not "scrap metal") dumped in shallow waters over the course of 30 peacetime years rather than find some way to dispose of it responsibly. Asbestos fibre, wiring and cable (lots of it), lead piping, drums of various oils and sludge, pontoons, boilers, domestic waste, plastics, railings, gas bottles, chemical fire extinguishers, forklifts, etc.

Things becoming clearer?

Oh, the only reference I can find to a "Mr Devine" is a statement made in the local paper by Greg Devine who lives along the road in Sandbank.

"I worked with the American Navy for 12 years and used to take waste to be processed over the water"

("over the water" = the mainland, or perhaps the Gareloch)

There is no mention of his being involved in any dumping. In fact, I cannot find one source that references local contractors being asked to take part in the dumping.

The quote also appears online, in that illustrious oracle, Scottish Socialist Voice:

http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.net/back%20issues%2002/issue103.html

What you've done is subtitute the word "into" for "over". He was talking about transporting waste by boat over to the mainland for processing there. Somehow in your mind this became evidence of corrupt, co-opted locals enthusiastically despoiling their own waterways.

Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. You set the example for all to go by.

Wow, what a wit we have here. H.L. Mencken look out. I am rubber, you are glue, Guybrush.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Stealth Hunter: My only point is that British claims are as valid as anyone's, since, as the great British scientist Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants." I will agree that if they want to lay sole claim to any of them, they're full of hot air. But that's true of just about anybody. The Wrights made the first practical airplane, but their version was ultimately a dead end. Glenn Curtiss is the true father of American aviation. There's always somebody somewhere who is willing to pick up where others left off.

Oh, and Bourne's design and Drebbels invention were not diving bells towed by boats; they were manned submersible boats rowed by oarsmen.

[bradclark1]

I'll concede for the stellar Mr Devine. Over is not in. I was unaware of bodies still on the sub.

Now you take that very long list of scrap, toxics, landing crafts, and garbage in general that covered two thirds of the loch that was dumped over thirty years and tell anyone that has the slightest trace of grey matter in between their ears that the locals didn't know a thing about it nor had a hand in any of it? In fact you even point to how ludicrus that zero knowledge excuse is. How can an estimated 6000 tons of military waste, piled 30ft high in places get there with no one seeing? Thats what you expect people to believe? Ray Charles could see that you have spread the manure a little thick. Of course you won't find one reference for local contractors taking part in the dumping. Would you own up to it when you find out how toxic the loch was?

Like I have said there is enough blame to go around due to action or inaction when all one would have to do is make a simple phone call to the MOD, Enviro groups(if they were around back then), newspaper, or anti-navy/nuke groups that regulary protested. Yes the United States Navy was the main culprit and nobody can deny that but locals do share a part of that responsibility. If I were a judge I would say it was an 80/20 split.
Wow, what a wit we have here. H.L. Mencken look out.
Yes, this is our own little Monkey trial.

[Cohaagen]

Now you take that very long list of scrap, toxics, landing crafts, and garbage in general that covered two thirds of the loch that was dumped over thirty years and tell anyone that has the slightest trace of grey matter in between their ears that the locals didn't know a thing about it nor had a hand in any of it? In fact you even point to how ludicrus that zero knowledge excuse is. How can an estimated 6000 tons of military waste, piled 30ft high in places get there with no one seeing? Thats what you expect people to believe? Ray Charles could see that you have spread the manure a little thick.

Because it's a hundred odd feet UNDERWATER. Did you think we were talking about 30ft mounds of waste piled up on the shore? Can you see underwater?

And no, rec diving was strictly prohibited when the USN was there, so no local divers to report on it. Strictly no fishing either, so no echo sounding either. As long as they held the lease, they effectively controlled the entire stretch of water.

If I were a judge I would say it was an 80/20 split.

And if I were a judge I'd ask for some evidence before coming to a judgement. It's sort of a fundamental thing for judges. So far your only source has been proved bogus. The fact that you have convinced yourself that the local community, entirely complicit in your story, somehow kept it zipped for thirty years (for what? maximum shock value?) just doesn't wash - especially since you can't come up with a shred of proof to back up your pet conspiracy theory. Have you got anything to elevate your argument above the level of sophist mud-slinging? Something that conforms to Occam's Razor perhaps?

[bradclark1]

Because it's a hundred odd feet UNDERWATER. Did you think we were talking about 30ft mounds of waste piled up on the shore? Can you see underwater?

My turn to sigh. [Sigh] You think 6000 tons of waste was dumped at night when nobody was around? Just on weekends? The navy had lookouts to make sure no civilians were around? I'll tell you what, I'll bend to your wisdom and you tell me how the navy dumped 6000 tons of waste with the locals being none the wiser.
And if I were a judge I'd ask for some evidence before coming to a judgement. It's sort of a fundamental thing for judges. So far your only source has been proved bogus. The fact that you have convinced yourself that the local community, entirely complicit in your story, somehow kept it zipped for thirty years (for what? maximum shock value?) just doesn't wash - especially since you can't come up with a shred of proof to back up your pet conspiracy theory. Have you got anything to elevate your argument above the level of sophist mud-slinging?
Ok. I'll bend again. All the locals that worked the docks were very stupid not to mention deaf, dumb and blind. Thats your theory for them having no knowledge of the dumping? And no, I haven't slung any mud let alone be devious about it. In fact I'm trying to make the locals look somewhat more intelligent than you are trying to project because I don't think people can be that thick-witted.
Something that conforms to Occam's Razor perhaps?
How much simpler could it be? Or is simplicity the ultimate sophistication for you.

If we can't get beyond that I believe the limits have been reached.

[Stealth Hunter]

@ Stealth Hunter: My only point is that British claims are as valid as anyone's, since, as the great British scientist Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants." I will agree that if they want to lay sole claim to any of them, they're full of hot air. But that's true of just about anybody. The Wrights made the first practical airplane, but their version was ultimately a dead end. Glenn Curtiss is the true father of American aviation. There's always somebody somewhere who is willing to pick up where others left off.

I can respect that conclusion.:yep:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I am rubber, you are glue, Guybrush.

That pig-shaped bush frightens and confuses me.

[Cohaagen]

6000 tonnes dumped over 30 years works out at about half a tonne a day average. Not a great deal, except when taken cumulatively.

Housing around the loch is sparse. One side has a few houses, the other has a small housing estate - which housed navy personnel and their families.

Doesn't really seem much point going on, I agree, since you are entirely incapable of grasping the very simple fact that dumping toxic waste, any kind of waste, in a host country is generally considered a Bad Thing and something of an insult. First you deny that the USN bears any responsibility then, incredibly, you try and shift the blame onto the local residents, though you have yet to provide any evidence of complicity or even foreknowledge.

But it's not just those dang sneaky natives at the Holy Loch, there's the irreperable damage to archaeological sites in Iraq (the ruins of Babylon in particular), dumping of toxic chemicals in Germany causing contamination of water tables, the South Korean bases so filthy even the Korean government doesn't want them back (dumping formaldehyde into rivers? Medals all round...), the truly appalling state of bases in the Phillipines and Panama, etc, etc. The US military sure does have to deal with some sneaky folks around the world who don't keep an eagle eye on their local American bases.

Heck, maybe if the Vietnamese had been a bit more on the ball they wouldn't have so many congenital deformities from all that Agent Orange?

My original point was about how US governments tend to pick and choose which aspects of international agreements suit them and ignore the rest, likewise the UN, and remain totally unaccountable with regards to their transgressions. All you've done is reinforce this view of Americans as arrogant, hypersensitive flag-suckers.

[bradclark1]

Doesn't really seem much point going on, I agree, since you are entirely incapable of grasping the very simple fact that dumping toxic waste, any kind of waste, in a host country is generally considered a Bad Thing and something of an insult. First you deny that the USN bears any responsibility then, incredibly, you try and shift the blame onto the local residents, though you have yet to provide any evidence of complicity or even foreknowledge.

Oh let me see here. Lets scroll back a little to jar your memory a little shall we:

"Yes the navy was wrong doing/allowing it"
"I'm not defending. I'm putting the blame where it belongs, on both sides."
"Yes the United States Navy was the main culprit and nobody can deny that"
"there is enough blame to go around due to action or inaction"
"If I were a judge I would say it was an 80/20 split."

Saying the locals bear 20% responsibility is not shifting blame, it's putting it where it belongs. You have yet to come up with a logical excuse of how 6000 tons can be dumped with the locals being none the wiser.
there's the irreperable damage to archaeological sites in Iraq (the ruins of Babylon in particular)
Coalition forces crushed some paving stones with tanks (oh dear) and filled sandbags with precious archaeological fragments(normally thats called dirt). Yes thats some irreparable damage all right. How dare military operations cause so much destruction. Notice there is no mention of whose armed forces were there? Seeing as they were under Police command I kind of doubt they were American forces but rather Iraqi forces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4177577.stm
They have a nice link there however to a story about looted artefact's being found in London though.

You'd have to be more specific about Germany and contamination of water tables. If I stood in my front yard and tipped a half of cup of oil on the ground I've contaminated the water table. If I shot a bullet into the ground I've dumped toxic materials in the ground. Having served a total of nine years at different bases in Germany I can probably bet your life that that is the type of contamination we are talking about. We are very eco-friendly in Germany and the Germans make sure we are. Unless you can quote specifics I would have to think there is a little hubris in the air.
Lets look at Korea. "Oil from the Yongsan 8th garrison’s base has contaminated the soil and water." Yongsan is the main depot for all armed forces in Korea. All those storage tanks, I'm sure there is some contamination. Have you visited any petroleum store facilities in the UK? I'm sure you will find some contamination. What else? "In May 1998, a ruptured pipeline at the Mt. Rackun military base polluted a large section of a South Korean forest conservancy area."
Not much to prevent that from happening. It was cleaned up.
I'll stop there as I can only come to the conclusion that you are trying to make mountains out of speed bumps. You'll have to find some other subject to defend the world against the evil empire over as you've fallen flat on your face here.
My original point was about how US governments tend to pick and choose which aspects of international agreements suit them and ignore the rest,
What part of "you are responsible for base clean up" don't you understand? Tough, I know but thats the international agreement. You just have to "suck it up" as they say. Just trying to project the image as the arrogant American with that statement you understand.
All you've done is reinforce this view of Americans as arrogant, hypersensitive flag-suckers.
I covered the arrogant in the sentence above. I'm not sure what I've been hypersensitive about and I don't know what a flag-sucker is so I can't really respond.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Come on guys, lets ease up here, please