same old stan

[Lachlan]

Carry on.. Its quite entertaining. Just give Canada back its gold and shut the door.
We be fine in the long term and regarding your Lincoln quote, I believe it to be true nd the FO stage of FAFO is just getting started.

Come and get it. Tell Trudeau to lead the charge.

come on now dman, you know he stepped down. He'd decided he'd ruined Canada enough and is now gonna retire in some log cabin somewhere with his millions of dollars and his own private maple syrup lake.

But once C.U.M is formed we'll be the biggest nation on earth. You could see the size of our C.U.M from the moon itself! It will be so strong too! All the other nations will envy how strong and rich C.U.M is.

[Lachlan]

What's your problem : I'm agreeing with you! Go home, look after No1 and stop pretending the rest of the world matters. America First!

Just be aware that will only apply in America. Why should the rest of the globe place your intersts first? Why place our interests second to yours? You don't place yourself second, why should we?

You complain about helping others and when we say, 'Then don't!' ...you start complaining we ain't grateful enough for the help you don't want to give us! Make up your mind!

What's your problem? Do you not understand I am talking about how we have been treated prior?

And don't try to flip this. So many foreigners are whining and moaning about the US finally prioritizing our own interests.

are you so incapable of understanding my point? I'm not against helping. I just expect that our allies return the favor, and show gratitude. That's it. But if there gonna act like you, and insult us and whine and moan, then let em rot.

I also never even said crap about the globe placing our interest first. But it sure as hell would be nice if our "allies" gave us more support and gratitude. And I can just as easily flip the question on you! why should america place the globes interest first? Why should our allies get better treatment then we give ourselves? Notice how you don't really have any real rebuttals? You just keep saying go home, we don't want your help acting as if you are some representative of all the foreign people. You're not. Tons of people are happy and grateful to get our help and return it. They should get it. I support that. I don't support helping people like you who act like whiny ungrateful arses who insult us when they don't get their way. Do you understand my point now, or should I try to explain it in a way that even a child can understand?

One thing I agree with Trump about is that Europe for the past 30 years has not pulled it's weight militarily since the USSR collapsed. From what I understand in the 80's and 90's the British, French and western European countries had enough weapons and personnel to halt or delay any attacks by the Russians but now even with NATO expanded with current stockpiles of ammunition and weapons NATO without any American support would probably get pushed all the way out of the Baltic States and parts of Poland and Turkey pretty easily.

Europe should have realised in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia or in 2014 when they invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine that Russia was a danger but they didn't bother to start rearming till 2022 when Russia fully invaded Ukraine. Now it will take till 2030 to 2035 for Europe to be anywhere near prepared for a full scale war.

I should say though I don't think anyone realized how many artillery shells a real modern war would still use.

[Lachlan]

people don't wage wars just for poops and giggles Leo. Not usually anyway. There almost always tends to be some sort of motive or reason behind it. A common one is to take something from another group of people. Another is to enforce your will and values on others, such as religious wars or wars of differing cultures. Sometimes it's wars to get rid of an enemy who wishes you harm. There are benefits to wars. Less people mean less competition for resources, economies tend to do well for a while due to increased demand for certain materials and weapons. Hell, Rome literally almost never had peace, as war was a vital part of their economy-they kept expanding and conquering new lands. War's can also be to defend your home from invaders, or to invade a hostile neighbor who plans you harm.

Now, war is nasty but sometimes, it's needed either to claim more land to expand, defend your countries interests, etc. Though, there are stupid wars, or wars that are entirely selfish. A roman emperor once declared war on Poseidon and the sea for example. There was also a war over a bucket, and I believe a war almost erupted over a pig between America and either Canada or Britain. Maybe both.

I think in this day and age wars are increasingly less good for countries to get into. I mean there is a reason since WW2 why wars have become smaller and more localized. Globalization makes countries interconnected and interdependent meaning far more consequences for you if you declare war on someone.

I know you probably don't mean this but Putin declared war on Ukraine and previously fought Georgia around 2008 to "expand" and gain more land. Are you saying those wars needed to happen?

[Lachlan]

Oh, and you have seen these nukes? Does your uncle work at Nintendo too? Let me guess, you've gone on special tours to military bases and your secret lovers with an unknown 6 star general who tells you about the super mega nukes the US has that can wipe out galaxies? If not, and you haven't seen these nukes either, then you're literally just making crap up in your imagination. What you're gonna tell me about the death lasers the US has in satellites next?

A single detonation cannot wipe out half the population. You are completely insane or just plain stupid if you actually believe there is a nuke of that caliber I mean for fox sake, the russians literally made the Tsar Bomba 50 megatons instead of 100 because they were worried about it punching a hole in the ozone layer. Plus, 3 times stronger? Boy, don't talk about crap you clearly don't know jack crap about! I'm no expert on the subject, but even I know that most modern nukes are at least dozens if not hundreds times stronger then the ones used in ww2 hell the Tsar Bomba, AGAIN the biggest nuke ever tested was thousands of times stronger. half the population didn't drop dead from it. And to say that radiation from the nukes in ww2 have spread through most of the earth? Are you one drugs or something? I mean, maybe like super trace amounts that are harmless, but at that point, it's not even an anything to talk about. You realize that radiation in small doses isn't really that bad right? That's what they use in cancer treatments. Or xrays. Hell bananas technically are slightly radioactive, you ever drop dead eating one?

A nuke's radiation really only impacts the local area. There's a reason why after we nuked japan, the ones who suffered were the people who survived the blast. None of the radiation did any damage to America.

Please, before you go spouting these inane thoughts, do a quick google check to make sure you're not spewing a bunch of crap. There's no real excuse to be this ignorant while acting like you know better. This is just depressing man.

You are partially right in that nukes are not as powerful as Leo says. However, we don't really know how many people would die in a nuclear war. Most estimate at the low-end hundreds of millions as in 600 to 800 million at least and higher end estimates being 3 or 4 billion.

You are also right in that technically the radiation won't directly kill you, however what it would do is decrease agricultural yields indirectly especially in the countries directly hit by radiation. That would cause severe food shortages and people would starve meaning a lot of people indirectly killed. The effects of radiation, nuclear fallout and dust most studies estimate would be far worse in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere. Good news for me lol because I live in Australia so I would be all good.
Another thing is technically yes nukes impact a relatively small area directly but being exposed to small amounts of radiation constantly after a nuclear exchange would slightly elevate your risk of cancer and shorten your lifespan so ultimately still technically not good for you.

[Leo]

also Leo, I just did a quick google search just to verify.

Does Nagasaki still have radiation?
AI Overview
No, Nagasaki does not have dangerous levels of radiation today; radiation levels have returned to normal background levels, safe for human habitation.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Initial Radiation:
Following the atomic bombing, residual radiation was present, but it decayed rapidly.
Current Levels:
Today, radiation levels in Nagasaki are comparable to the natural background radiation found worldwide and are considered safe.
Reasons for Safety:
The bombs were detonated high above the ground, leading to minimal ground contamination and rapid decay of most radioactive materials.
Long-term Effects:
While the bombings caused immense suffering and long-term health effects, the radiation levels themselves are no longer a significant concern.


Took me 5 seconds. That's it. I don't know about these japanese fishing problems, but didn't they have a nuclear reactor disaster after ww2? Feel like that's more likely the cause then the nukes.



Edit-
Again, just looked it up. The fish that was radioctive was from a nuclear power plant incident, not the nukes back in ww2. Again. This took me a simple google search. Leo, do me and yourself a favor, and the next time you want to make a claim, take just, 5 seconds. 5 seconds to google it to make sure you are not spewing a load of crap.

Notice how the AI said it didn't have "dangerous" amounts. Meaning of you live there today you probably won't get cancer. What it didn't mention is that biological material stores radiation much longer than inanimate objects. There are trees in the area that were alive when the nuke went off and to this day can still be measured as highly radioactive. If someone were to climb on of those trees, or worse, cut one down and try building with the wood, it could cause problems. While the Fukushima disaster did also cause a ton of radiation problems, that makes 3 nuclear disasters on one island in a single century. It is hard to know which one is responsible for the fish problem or much of the leftover radiation. Because that's the thing, radiation RADIATES. It moves. Nuclear radiation is so strong it takes an incredibly long time to decay. It can reach great distances without losing much potency. There have been theories that the fish problem was not actually caused by the fukashima disaster but rather the Hiroshima and Nagasaki disasters, as the radiation finally "bounced back" and took a second sweep of the area after traveling all the way across the ocean and bouncing off adjacent coastlines. On, and thanks for reminding me. We don't know what kind of long term effects these will have. Obviously anything getting nuked is not a good thing and is gonna cause a lot of problems. Even the military just testing nukes has devastating impacts on the wildlife and inhabitants around it, which is of extremely questionable ethics already.

But the whole point of me bringing this up wasn't to say that we should all be fearing for our lives. My point was that war in general doesn't have positive outcomes for many involved. If you were living in the US during WWII and not working at Pearl harbor, your life was for the most part directly unaffected. But if you were living in Japan you got the short end of the stick. And we were the only ones with nukes back then. Now all major military powers have nuclear weapons, and they have tons and tons of them. Even North Korea has nukes. Nuclear warfare is not something we should ever be willing to risk unless we all decide that we don't wanna exist anymore and feel it's appropriate to take all the plants and animals with us.

I don't know why being pro-peace or anti- war is considered naive or cowardly. There are many solutions to our problems, but war has too many side effects to ever be worth it. Sometimes it is unavoidable, yes. But it's been a pretty long time since we've had an unavoidable war. Most of the wars we've been a part of have been the US sticking their noses in where they weren't welcome in the name of global domination or seizing resources. I'm wondering if y'all would be eager to fight in a war for Joe Biden

[Dmanwuzhere]

There is an allegation from Tucker Carlson that Ukraine has been selling some of our provided weapons on the black market
I want to see how that accusation turns out
I mean it is obvious Zedumsky wants the money to keep coming in but selling our aid on the market could lead to some nasty stuff

Seriously you believe stuff that puppet says? He is so pro-Russian he is willing to make a multitude of false statements regarding Ukraine while only saying good things about Russia. There is a reason why he is one of a dwindling number of western journalists inside Russia. He's a Putin ally. I'm also sad that you buy into the conspiracy theory that there were secret labs in Ukraine. It shocks me to see Americans like you who at least from most of your comments seem to support Russia (more) a country who invaded one if it's neighbors and started one of the most major wars since WW2 compared to Ukraine the country that was actually invaded in 2014 and then again in 2022.

And China didn't have labs funded with US dollars either... it was all above board just another Biological Threat Reduction Program right?
There's no way it would be used to create viruses that our "enemy" would be in control of... right?
I mean, if we let our enemy do that, we certainly wouldn't let our allies, right? Especially neighboring the Democrat's favorite boogieman.
Well, the following is from our embassy there soooooooo... nope no USA-funded labs in Ukraine. Glad you set me straight

United States of America, Department of State
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine
|
Notice: Assistance for Ukrainians Evacuated to Poland Assistance in Poland...
[Skip to Content]
Visas


U.S. Citizens Services

Our Relationship
Business
Education & Culture

Embassy



News & Events
Biological Threat Reduction Program
Home | Embassy | U.S. Embassy Kyiv | Sections & Offices | Defense Threat Reduction Office | Biological Threat Reduction Program
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases.  The program accomplishes its bio-threat reduction mission through development of a bio-risk management culture; international research partnerships; and partner capacity for enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures. The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats.

What is it exactly you are trying to say? I'm confused as to what you are saying. Australia has labs which are used for disease research. Are you saying just because we have labs that are capable of doing research on diseases that means we produce biological weapons or research them? From what I understand you have no evidence of labs that produce biological weapons, just that Ukraine has labs and maybe some were partially funded by NATO countries. It's not unusual for countries to cooperate in building infrastructure and other such things.[/quote]

Yes our govt funded labs around the world are all earmarked as biological threat reduction labs including the one we had our worldwide problem escape from.
Now we have a track record of gain of function aka biological warfare testing being conducted in other nations because we could not do it here without crazy amounts of oversight.
I don't think it's coincidental we are having strains of biological diseases pop up.
once we have a track record of them being released in China.
While at this point that is 100 percent a conspiracy theory, we were lied to by the folks in charge of the work being done,
Liars tend to lie multiple times on multiple issues and since those liars tried to cover up our involvement concerning the "accidental leak" it stands to reason there are more levels of deceit than we know.
It's been proven throughout history by all nations that those who want control of people do the foulest chit.
This globalist agenda currently being pushed means all types of countries can be involved in this chit.
Australia and Canada had total control during the pandemic to degrees that were shocking and they were pushing everything the CDC and US leaders were pushing.
I think that was by design.

[Dmanwuzhere]

also Leo, I just did a quick google search just to verify.

Does Nagasaki still have radiation?
AI Overview
No, Nagasaki does not have dangerous levels of radiation today; radiation levels have returned to normal background levels, safe for human habitation.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Initial Radiation:
Following the atomic bombing, residual radiation was present, but it decayed rapidly.
Current Levels:
Today, radiation levels in Nagasaki are comparable to the natural background radiation found worldwide and are considered safe.
Reasons for Safety:
The bombs were detonated high above the ground, leading to minimal ground contamination and rapid decay of most radioactive materials.
Long-term Effects:
While the bombings caused immense suffering and long-term health effects, the radiation levels themselves are no longer a significant concern.


Took me 5 seconds. That's it. I don't know about these japanese fishing problems, but didn't they have a nuclear reactor disaster after ww2? Feel like that's more likely the cause then the nukes.



Edit-
Again, just looked it up. The fish that was radioctive was from a nuclear power plant incident, not the nukes back in ww2. Again. This took me a simple google search. Leo, do me and yourself a favor, and the next time you want to make a claim, take just, 5 seconds. 5 seconds to google it to make sure you are not spewing a load of crap.

Notice how the AI said it didn't have "dangerous" amounts. Meaning of you live there today you probably won't get cancer. What it didn't mention is that biological material stores radiation much longer than inanimate objects. There are trees in the area that were alive when the nuke went off and to this day can still be measured as highly radioactive. If someone were to climb on of those trees, or worse, cut one down and try building with the wood, it could cause problems. While the Fukushima disaster did also cause a ton of radiation problems, that makes 3 nuclear disasters on one island in a single century. It is hard to know which one is responsible for the fish problem or much of the leftover radiation. Because that's the thing, radiation RADIATES. It moves. Nuclear radiation is so strong it takes an incredibly long time to decay. It can reach great distances without losing much potency. There have been theories that the fish problem was not actually caused by the fukashima disaster but rather the Hiroshima and Nagasaki disasters, as the radiation finally "bounced back" and took a second sweep of the area after traveling all the way across the ocean and bouncing off adjacent coastlines. On, and thanks for reminding me. We don't know what kind of long term effects these will have. Obviously anything getting nuked is not a good thing and is gonna cause a lot of problems. Even the military just testing nukes has devastating impacts on the wildlife and inhabitants around it, which is of extremely questionable ethics already.

But the whole point of me bringing this up wasn't to say that we should all be fearing for our lives. My point was that war in general doesn't have positive outcomes for many involved. If you were living in the US during WWII and not working at Pearl harbor, your life was for the most part directly unaffected. But if you were living in Japan you got the short end of the stick. And we were the only ones with nukes back then. Now all major military powers have nuclear weapons, and they have tons and tons of them. Even North Korea has nukes. Nuclear warfare is not something we should ever be willing to risk unless we all decide that we don't wanna exist anymore and feel it's appropriate to take all the plants and animals with us.

I don't know why being pro-peace or anti- war is considered naive or cowardly. There are many solutions to our problems, but war has too many side effects to ever be worth it. Sometimes it is unavoidable, yes. But it's been a pretty long time since we've had an unavoidable war. Most of the wars we've been a part of have been the US sticking their noses in where they weren't welcome in the name of global domination or seizing resources. I'm wondering if y'all would be eager to fight in a war for Joe Biden

You aren't pro-peace or anti-war you are pro Hamas which by the declaration of their agenda is pro-war
they want genocide they just don't have the power to make it happen

[Meliva]

people don't wage wars just for poops and giggles Leo. Not usually anyway. There almost always tends to be some sort of motive or reason behind it. A common one is to take something from another group of people. Another is to enforce your will and values on others, such as religious wars or wars of differing cultures. Sometimes it's wars to get rid of an enemy who wishes you harm. There are benefits to wars. Less people mean less competition for resources, economies tend to do well for a while due to increased demand for certain materials and weapons. Hell, Rome literally almost never had peace, as war was a vital part of their economy-they kept expanding and conquering new lands. War's can also be to defend your home from invaders, or to invade a hostile neighbor who plans you harm.

Now, war is nasty but sometimes, it's needed either to claim more land to expand, defend your countries interests, etc. Though, there are stupid wars, or wars that are entirely selfish. A roman emperor once declared war on Poseidon and the sea for example. There was also a war over a bucket, and I believe a war almost erupted over a pig between America and either Canada or Britain. Maybe both.

I think in this day and age wars are increasingly less good for countries to get into. I mean there is a reason since WW2 why wars have become smaller and more localized. Globalization makes countries interconnected and interdependent meaning far more consequences for you if you declare war on someone.

I know you probably don't mean this but Putin declared war on Ukraine and previously fought Georgia around 2008 to "expand" and gain more land. Are you saying those wars needed to happen?

Yeah if Russia's goal was to expand. Doesn't mean I support or agree with it, but if Russia wants to expand it's border, it has 2 main options. Invade someone in a war and take more land, or buy land from someone. If they want Ukraine's land specifically, I don't see the latter being possible, so to get that land, they'd need to declare war. Now, I don't agree with them trying to take it, I think they got plenty of land, but if their goal is to expand, then yeah, only way I can see them doing that is to take land in a war.

Don't mistake me saying why something may be needed, as to me saying that it's a good thing. Wars have often been fought to expand. If you want more land, and no one is willing to just give or sell it to you, and you don't know where to find more or there is no free land available to settle, taking land in a war is probably the only option you got left. Or do what China's been doing and try making new islands .

[Meliva]

Leo. Please. Stop digging. Or just use google to actually fact check yourself before sticking your foot in your mouth.

It says it isn't dangerous amount, and that's it's returned to normal background levels. You do realize that radiation is present in everyday life don't you? Who am I kidding of course not, otherwise I don't think you'd be spouting this nonsense. Can't even be arsed to take 5 seconds to google a damn thing.

Radiation levels following a nuclear explosion decrease rapidly initially, with a significant drop within the first few days, but radioactive materials can persist for years, even decades, depending on the isotopes involved.

Decades. That's not good. But can you guess how long its been since the nukes were dropped Leo? I'll give you a hint, It's the word at the start of this paragraph. And again, radiation in organic matter isn't that bad if it's in small amounts.

Fukushima happened a little over a decade ago, and most of the radiation levels are going back to normal, with a few exceptions. Give it another decade or two, and it will be the same level as the rest of the world.

And you really believe that radiation from ww2, travelled for literal decades, bounced back, and hit it Japan again and that's partly what's causing some of the current problems? What kind of crack are you smoking? I think flat earthers have more sense than you if you truly believe that.

And again, I already told you that even all out nuclear war, would not wipe out all life on earth. Life has survived worse crap then whatever we can currently dish out.

[Lachlan]

Yes our govt funded labs around the world are all earmarked as biological threat reduction labs including the one we had our worldwide problem escape from.
Now we have a track record of gain of function aka biological warfare testing being conducted in other nations because we could not do it here without crazy amounts of oversight.
I don't think it's coincidental we are having strains of biological diseases pop up.
once we have a track record of them being released in China.
While at this point that is 100 percent a conspiracy theory, we were lied to by the folks in charge of the work being done,
Liars tend to lie multiple times on multiple issues and since those liars tried to cover up our involvement concerning the "accidental leak" it stands to reason there are more levels of deceit than we know.
It's been proven throughout history by all nations that those who want control of people do the foulest chit.
This globalist agenda currently being pushed means all types of countries can be involved in this chit.
Australia and Canada had total control during the pandemic to degrees that were shocking and they were pushing everything the CDC and US leaders were pushing.
I think that was by design.

What do you mean we had "total control" during the pandemic?