Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Why some of you guys r so racist? Especially u germans such a haters everywhere.. sick.
Re: Does loki cheat in clanwars/funwars?
Poland simply gets no respect around the world...Germany might be hated, but at least it's respected.
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 19:38 Poland simply gets no respect around the world...Germany might be hated, but at least it's respected. This. I might not be a huge fan of Germany, but I can respect them. But what the hell has Poland done?
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 20:26 JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 19:38 Poland simply gets no respect around the world...Germany might be hated, but at least it's respected. This. I might not be a huge fan of Germany, but I can respect them. But what the hell has Poland done? You were probably masturbating during history lessons if you don't known that..
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 19:38 Poland simply gets no respect around the world...Germany might be hated, but at least it's respected. Reason?
nobody hates germany now.... as for what poland has ever done... hello? remek? renegade and remek go together like ant and dec or religion and war... you could have one without the other but i don't think anyone would see the point
Hate is a strong word, yet there are only few regions where the majority of the citizenship holds a favorable view on Germany. Ireland, Scotland, Croatia, a good share of muslim countries, perhaps Japan and a few others in that area come to mind, but that's about it. I'm not saying the poor Germans have to battle prejudice, however, I do sometimes strategically reveal myself as either German or American when meeting new people. I really don't know why Poland gets so little respect. Perhaps because Warsaw isn't in the same league as Prague and Budapest. Perhaps because Polish women aren't considered as pretty as Czech women and better known as housekeepers. Perhaps there weren't enough significant Polish figures in history, inventors, entrepreneurs. Perhaps it's because not many have heard of Polish culture, food or significant exports. Perhaps its because they seem far more bitter and unable get over WW2 than the Jews, even though many Polish nationals happily participated in the Holocaust, which left 6 million Jews murdered, while Poland simply got invaded and turned into a war zone by Germany and Russia - just like hundreds of other countries in history. Perhaps the Polish flag looks too damn cheap...I really don't know, the only times Poland appears in the media is when they whine about either Germany or Russia or act ungrateful towards the EU.
i can sweep away your entire post with one word remek
That guy was a weirdo...never posted much in forums or said much in ts - seemed like a good guy, nonetheless.
fair point. y'know, they didn't teach me a single damn thing about world war one in school. i learned more about it from blackadder... so sad. there wasn't MUCH about world war two either, they basically just said hitler was a racist. meanwhile the bible myths are taught with the same certainty as what we were told in geography, for example...
Spoony wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 16:07 fair point. y'know, they didn't teach me a single damn thing about world war one in school. i learned more about it from blackadder... so sad. there wasn't MUCH about world war two either, they basically just said hitler was a racist. meanwhile the bible myths are taught with the same certainty as what we were told in geography, for example... Huh, you know, come to think of it, hardly ANYTHING about WW1 is ever taught. Pretty sure a good lot of schools end up teaching WWII before WWI (if they teach about WWI atall). I mean yeah, WWII was definitely a good lot more important in terms of technology developed and was a general turning point for the entire world, but WWI set the stage for WWII- you'd think they'd teach it first to set an understanding as to WHY Germany was the way they were in WWII... people seem to think Germany just suddenly become super assholes and were the devil, lol.
Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. Germany, however, was entirely responsible for WWII.
my high school taught ww1 and ww2 equally, and pretty big sections each.. sucks to be you guys
RadioactiveHell wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 15:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. Germany, however, was entirely responsible for WWII. Yeah, you're right. Russia should have just left it's allies to suffer and die without fulfilling the terms of their treaties. I like how Germany is only mobilizing to defend it's ally but Russia is always the big bad aggressor. That's so 1950s of you. For the record, Russia already had close ties with most of the nations in the Balkans almost a century prior. My homeland of Bulgaria was liberated from the Turks with the help from the Russians. They don't need to attack anything to "gain control of the straits", unless you mean attacking Turkey in which case probably, but nobody likes Turkey anyway so nobody would have cared.
Dover wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 23:55 RadioactiveHell wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 15:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. Germany, however, was entirely responsible for WWII. Yeah, you're right. Russia should have just left it's allies to suffer and die without fulfilling the terms of their treaties. I like how Germany is only mobilizing to defend it's ally but Russia is always the big bad aggressor. That's so 1950s of you. For the record, Russia already had close ties with most of the nations in the Balkans almost a century prior. My homeland of Bulgaria was liberated from the Turks with the help from the Russians. They don't need to attack anything to "gain control of the straits", unless you mean attacking Turkey in which case probably, but nobody likes Turkey anyway so nobody would have cared. LOL, only reason Russia defended Bulgaria was to defeat the Turks and get control of the straits. Why else would Russia come to Bulgaria's defense?
RadioactiveHell wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 00:19 Dover wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 23:55 RadioactiveHell wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 15:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. Germany, however, was entirely responsible for WWII. Yeah, you're right. Russia should have just left it's allies to suffer and die without fulfilling the terms of their treaties. I like how Germany is only mobilizing to defend it's ally but Russia is always the big bad aggressor. That's so 1950s of you. For the record, Russia already had close ties with most of the nations in the Balkans almost a century prior. My homeland of Bulgaria was liberated from the Turks with the help from the Russians. They don't need to attack anything to "gain control of the straits", unless you mean attacking Turkey in which case probably, but nobody likes Turkey anyway so nobody would have cared. LOL, only reason Russia defended Bulgaria was to defeat the Turks and get control of the straits. Why else would Russia come to Bulgaria's defense? Because of close cultural ties? The Russians adapted their language, alphabet, and some cultural customs from ancient Bulgaria. Slavs look out for each other. Also, again, nobody likes the Turks.
Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 02:23 RadioactiveHell wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 00:19 Dover wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 23:55 RadioactiveHell wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 15:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. Germany, however, was entirely responsible for WWII. Yeah, you're right. Russia should have just left it's allies to suffer and die without fulfilling the terms of their treaties. I like how Germany is only mobilizing to defend it's ally but Russia is always the big bad aggressor. That's so 1950s of you. For the record, Russia already had close ties with most of the nations in the Balkans almost a century prior. My homeland of Bulgaria was liberated from the Turks with the help from the Russians. They don't need to attack anything to "gain control of the straits", unless you mean attacking Turkey in which case probably, but nobody likes Turkey anyway so nobody would have cared. LOL, only reason Russia defended Bulgaria was to defeat the Turks and get control of the straits. Why else would Russia come to Bulgaria's defense? Because of close cultural ties? The Russians adapted their language, alphabet, and some cultural customs from ancient Bulgaria. Slavs look out for each other. Also, again, nobody likes the Turks. ...and nobody ever gave a shit or will give a shit about Bulgarians. Bulgaria's only significant export is cheap feta, true story.
Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 02:23 RadioactiveHell wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 00:19 Dover wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 23:55 RadioactiveHell wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 15:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. Germany, however, was entirely responsible for WWII. Yeah, you're right. Russia should have just left it's allies to suffer and die without fulfilling the terms of their treaties. I like how Germany is only mobilizing to defend it's ally but Russia is always the big bad aggressor. That's so 1950s of you. For the record, Russia already had close ties with most of the nations in the Balkans almost a century prior. My homeland of Bulgaria was liberated from the Turks with the help from the Russians. They don't need to attack anything to "gain control of the straits", unless you mean attacking Turkey in which case probably, but nobody likes Turkey anyway so nobody would have cared. LOL, only reason Russia defended Bulgaria was to defeat the Turks and get control of the straits. Why else would Russia come to Bulgaria's defense? Because of close cultural ties? The Russians adapted their language, alphabet, and some cultural customs from ancient Bulgaria. Slavs look out for each other. Also, again, nobody likes the Turks. LOL, pan slavism was cover for Russia to invade. You can't just invade a country because you want more territory, that would have looked bad in the eyes of the Russian people as well as in the eyes of Europe. ...You dont think that Russia actually cared about Bulgaria, right? So again, the country most directly at blame for the outbreak of WWI is Russia.
SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 08:21 LOL, pan slavism was cover for Russia to invade. You can't just invade a country because you want more territory, that would have looked bad in the eyes of the Russian people as well as in the eyes of Europe. ...You dont think that Russia actually cared about Bulgaria, right? If this were true, then either Russia would have kept the territory it captured, or a puppet government would have been installed. Neither happened, therefore you're full of shit. After all, If all Russia was after was more territory, why would they then give away all their hard-won earnings while expecting nothing but gratitude in return? SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 08:21 So again, the country most directly at blame for the outbreak of WWI is Russia. You must be channeling the spirit of Reagan. That's the only explanation I can come up with that would make you hate Russia so much as to ignore blatant facts.
Seems like Fuzzy McDoublechin is pestering another thread with his ignorance. Last time it was philosophy, now it is history. This dummy actually believes the Russian Czar's gave a shit about fucking Bulgaria (lol) when all of a sudden he had the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austro-Hungary fighting him abroad with the Bolsheviks attempting to topple him at home. Why is this guy still posting? He should've realized by now that not a single person wants him around, let alone sticks up for him. SMH...this guy manages to combine bad looks, a shitty personality and poor intellect - archetype of a misfit.
A cheater does not deserver his topic turning into a serious political discussion.... Goz "THE SPLITTER" Goztoe is needed here!
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 10:26 ignorance...history...Russian Czar's gave a shit about fucking Bulgaria (lol) when all of a sudden he had the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austro-Hungary fighting him abroad with the Bolsheviks attempting to topple him at home. World War 1 - Bolshevik Revolution: 1914-1917, Czar Nicholas II the Martyr Bulgarian liberation: 1877-1878, Czar Alexander II the Liberator Pot kettle black, eh? You're confusing two Czars forty years apart and calling me ignorant about history. Take your head out of your ass long enough to proofread what you write before you post it for all to see.
Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 11:33 SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 08:21 LOL, pan slavism was cover for Russia to invade. You can't just invade a country because you want more territory, that would have looked bad in the eyes of the Russian people as well as in the eyes of Europe. ...You dont think that Russia actually cared about Bulgaria, right? If this were true, then either Russia would have kept the territory it captured, or a puppet government would have been installed. Neither happened, therefore you're full of shit. After all, If all Russia was after was more territory, why would they then give away all their hard-won earnings while expecting nothing but gratitude in return? Wow, I thought you actually had some idea of what you were talking about until I read this. ...Russia didnt capture any territory because they were stopped by Austria and Britain before they reached Constantinople. Because of this, Russia didn't give in during the next crisis, over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand. As I mentioned before, after the assassination, it seemed that it was just going to be a small scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs, but Russia intervened, as Nicolas II felt he had given in too many times. Russia began mobilizing for war, without declaring war, and as a result Germany, in defense of its own national security and its ally Austria, began mobilizing for war as well. Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 11:33 SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 08:21 So again, the country most directly at blame for the outbreak of WWI is Russia. You must be channeling the spirit of Reagan. That's the only explanation I can come up with that would make you hate Russia so much as to ignore blatant facts. ...So you are saying its a blatent fact that Russia would go to war w/ the Ottoman's to help out BULGARIA for nothing in return? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:44 ...Russia didnt capture any territory because they were stopped by Austria and Britain before they reached Istanbul. You're either misreading my post or intentionally ignoring it. If this were the only reason to go to war, why not keep the terratory they won (Everything up until Istanbul)? SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:44 Because of this, Russia didn't give in during the next crisis, over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand. As I mentioned before, after the assassination, it seemed that it was just going to be a small scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs, but Russia intervened, as Nicolas II felt he had given in too many times. Russia began mobilizing for war, without declaring war, and as a result Germany, in defense of its own national security and its ally Austria, began mobilizing for war as well. Mobilizing for war is not the same thing as starting a war. Don't confuse the two. One might make a case that Serbia started the war since it was a Serb that assassinated Ferdinand. One might argue it was Austria for antagonizing Serbia in the first place. Most likely, one would say it was Germany since they were the first of the major participants to actually declare war on another and attack. However, one cannot blame Russia for starting the war on the basis that they prepared to have one (And rightly so, since they had war declared upon them soon afterward). SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:44 ...So you are saying its a blatent fact that Russia would go to war w/ the Ottoman's to help out BULGARIA for nothing in return? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Tell me this then, Mr. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, what did they get in return?
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 13:39 Pathetic. Is this what it's come to? You're throwing a party because of a typo on my behalf? I obviously meant Serbia, we're talking about slavic brotherhood excusing Russia's pivotal role in WW1, remember? Nobody gives a shit about Bulgaria, so stop name-dropping it in this thread just because you've made a silly argument - make a Bulgaria thread if you have to and perhaps I'll write a pity post. You realize the Czar clearly hadn't anticipated the extent of the war he had just started, right? Let's see if this dweeb manages to rewrite history in the same way he reshaped philosophy... JohnDoe tries to save face, part 2. How do you typo Serbia into Bulgaria? The "S" and the "B" are nowhere near each other on the keyboards. Nor are the "E" and "U", nor the "L" and "R". I suppose you expect me to believe it's a coincidence you typoed the word "Bulgaria" when the four preceeding posts mention Bulgaria not Serbia? Ditch the bullshit.
Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 15:43 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 13:39 Pathetic. Is this what it's come to? You're throwing a party because of a typo on my behalf? I obviously meant Serbia, we're talking about slavic brotherhood excusing Russia's pivotal role in WW1, remember? Nobody gives a shit about Bulgaria, so stop name-dropping it in this thread just because you've made a silly argument - make a Bulgaria thread if you have to and perhaps I'll write a pity post. You realize the Czar clearly hadn't anticipated the extent of the war he had just started, right? Let's see if this dweeb manages to rewrite history in the same way he reshaped philosophy... JohnDoe tries to save face, part 2. How do you typo Serbia into Bulgaria? The "S" and the "B" are nowhere near each other on the keyboards. Nor are the "E" and "U", nor the "L" and "R". I suppose you expect me to believe it's a coincidence you typoed the word "Bulgaria" when the four preceeding posts mention Bulgaria not Serbia? Ditch the bullshit. Exactly, I typed the word Bulgaria because the four preceding posts mention Bulgaria, when we should be talking about Serbia. You're probably going to tell me that you've never mixed up people's names, right? Pathetic...you can't come up an intelligent argument, so you jerk off to typos instead. Sucks looking like a dweeb and not having the brains.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 13:57 Exactly, I typed the word Bulgaria because the four preceding posts mention Bulgaria, when we should be talking about Serbia. You're probably going to tell me that you've never mixed up people's names, right? Pathetic...you can't come up an intelligent argument, so you jerk off to typos instead. Sucks looking like a dweeb and not having the brains. Coninuing to attempt to save face. Appearances are that important to you, eh? If you weren't talking about Bulgaria, then why write this: Toggle Spoiler JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 10:26 Seems like Fuzzy McDoublechin is pestering another thread with his ignorance. Last time it was philosophy, now it is history. This dummy actually believes the Russian Czar's gave a shit about fucking Bulgaria (lol) when all of a sudden he had the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austro-Hungary fighting him abroad with the Bolsheviks attempting to topple him at home. Why is this guy still posting? He should've realized by now that not a single person wants him around, let alone sticks up for him. SMH...this guy manages to combine bad looks, a shitty personality and poor intellect - archetype of a misfit. in which you try to refute what I'm saying. That isn't consistent with you making an entirely different point about an entirely different country. Just ditch the bullshit.
ITT: Dover attempts to argue intelligently (lol) with a (in this case, hilarious) troll.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:12 ITT: Dover attempts to argue intelligently (lol) with a (in this case, hilarious) troll. You can't just ignore the trolls, GEORGE. That means they win.
Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:55 SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:44 ...Russia didnt capture any territory because they were stopped by Austria and Britain before they reached Istanbul. You're either misreading my post or intentionally ignoring it. If this were the only reason to go to war, why not keep the terratory they won (Everything up until Istanbul)? Because Russia did not want to be seen as aggressive in the eyes of Britain and Austria. Essentially, in a world where alliances meant everything, they wanted to avoid isolation. Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:55 SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:44 Because of this, Russia didn't give in during the next crisis, over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand. As I mentioned before, after the assassination, it seemed that it was just going to be a small scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs, but Russia intervened, as Nicolas II felt he had given in too many times. Russia began mobilizing for war, without declaring war, and as a result Germany, in defense of its own national security and its ally Austria, began mobilizing for war as well. Mobilizing for war is not the same thing as starting a war. Don't confuse the two. Uh, if I were Germany, I would be worried if the country next door, who I am not on great terms with, starts massing troops at my boarder. Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:55 One might make a case that Serbia started the war since it was a Serb that assassinated Ferdinand. One might argue it was Austria for antagonizing Serbia in the first place. Most likely, one would say it was Germany since they were the first of the major participants to actually declare war on another and attack. However, one cannot blame Russia for starting the war on the basis that they prepared to have one (And rightly so, since they had war declared upon them soon afterward). As I've said before, before the intervention of Russia, it seemed that it would be a small-scale war between Serbia and Austria. And yes, you can blame Russia for mobilizing for war before declaring it. Thats pretty stupid on their part, as they basically preempted Germany into declaring war. Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:55 SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:44 ...So you are saying its a blatent fact that Russia would go to war w/ the Ottoman's to help out BULGARIA for nothing in return? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Tell me this then, Mr. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, what did they get in return? We've been over this before. The Russian's wanted access to the Straits, and thats why they helped the Bulgarian's defeat the Turks. The only reason they wernt able to seize the Straits is because of the intervention of Britain and Austria.
SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:18 Because Russia did not want to be seen as aggressive in the eyes of Britain and Austria. Essentially, in a world where alliances meant everything, they wanted to avoid isolation. If that were the case, why launch the war without international support in the first place? It's one or the other. You can't have it both ways. SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:18 Uh, if I were Germany, I would be worried if the country next door, who I am not on great terms with, starts massing troops at my boarder. And a proper response would be to mobilize as well and prepare for some kind of defensive action. An improper response would be to preemptively declare war and attack first, yet that's just what Germany did. SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:18 Thats pretty stupid on their part, as they basically preempted Germany into declaring war. No they didn't. Nobody forced Germany's hand. They could have kept their troops on their side of the border in defense and everything would have been cool. You're just trying to find some kind of way to incriminate Russia because of some impotent rage you have toward the country. SoQRadio wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:18 We've been over this before. The Russian's wanted access to the Straits, and thats why they helped the Bulgarian's defeat the Turks. The only reason they wernt able to seize the Straits is because of the intervention of Britain and Austria. You're saying what they WANTED to get. I'm asking what they DID get. The war was a success on Russia's part, and I find it hard to believe that the only thing that would keep them from accomplishing their goals is a foreseeable predictable political situation that they no doubt prepared for.
Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 14:01 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 13:57 Exactly, I typed the word Bulgaria because the four preceding posts mention Bulgaria, when we should be talking about Serbia. You're probably going to tell me that you've never mixed up people's names, right? Pathetic...you can't come up an intelligent argument, so you jerk off to typos instead. Sucks looking like a dweeb and not having the brains. Coninuing to attempt to save face. Appearances are that important to you, eh? If you weren't talking about Bulgaria, then why write this: Toggle Spoiler JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 10:26 Seems like Fuzzy McDoublechin is pestering another thread with his ignorance. Last time it was philosophy, now it is history. This dummy actually believes the Russian Czar's gave a shit about fucking Bulgaria (lol) when all of a sudden he had the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austro-Hungary fighting him abroad with the Bolsheviks attempting to topple him at home. Why is this guy still posting? He should've realized by now that not a single person wants him around, let alone sticks up for him. SMH...this guy manages to combine bad looks, a shitty personality and poor intellect - archetype of a misfit. in which you try to refute what I'm saying. That isn't consistent with you making an entirely different point about an entirely different country. Just ditch the bullshit. Why write it? Just replace the word 'Bulgaria' with the word 'Serbia' and you get a coherent argument relevant to the WW1 discussion (unlike your excursus on Bulgaria). This is about as consistent as it gets, reminds me of how the only person dweeby enough to stick up for you on this forum is an inbred archer from Tennessee.
JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 01:18 Why write it? Just replace the word 'Bulgaria' with the word 'Serbia' and you get a coherent argument relevant to the WW1 discussion (unlike your excursus on Bulgaria). If this is what you meant to say, it begs the question of why you didn't say it back before I pointed out your failure? The bullshit, ditch it. And I don't talk about Siberia because I'm not that familiar with Siberia. I am that familiar with Bulgaria, and how it's a perfect example of pan-Slavism--That's the issue I discuss when bringing Bulgaria up, proof that Russia isn't the greedy monster that McCarthyfags would like to have you believe. If you feel Serbia is a better example, than thanks for providing me with more proof for my point. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 01:18 This is about as consistent as it gets, reminds me of how the only person dweeby enough to stick up for you on this forum is an inbred archer from Tennessee. It's unsurprising that the person with an obsession with appearances would see forums as some kind of popularity contest.
Dover wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 03:48 JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 01:18 Why write it? Just replace the word 'Bulgaria' with the word 'Serbia' and you get a coherent argument relevant to the WW1 discussion (unlike your excursus on Bulgaria). If this is what you meant to say, it begs the question of why you didn't say it back before I pointed out your failure? The bullshit, ditch it. And I don't talk about Siberia because I'm not that familiar with Siberia. I am that familiar with Bulgaria, and how it's a perfect example of pan-Slavism--That's the issue I discuss when bringing Bulgaria up, proof that Russia isn't the greedy monster that McCarthyfags would like to have you believe. If you feel Serbia is a better example, than thanks for providing me with more proof for my point. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 01:18 This is about as consistent as it gets, reminds me of how the only person dweeby enough to stick up for you on this forum is an inbred archer from Tennessee. It's unsurprising that the person with an obsession with appearances would see forums as some kind of popularity contest. Why would I notice a typo before the dweeb points it out? Yes, you've clearly got my elaborate ploy all figured out.. McCarthy probably thought quite highly of the Czar, so that whole angle seems irrelevant - no need to name-drop Bulgaria any longer. Pan-Slavism really doesn't matter here, whether the Czar wanted to support his Slavic brothers or keep Austro-Hungary from taking that territory, he approved of the mobilization that triggered WW1. Realistically, those two and many other factors played a role, to assume anything else is causal oversimplification. Singling out Germany is laughable and shows a poor understanding of history - if one really feels the need to oversimplify the issue, then he should rather blame Russia and Austro-Hungary.
JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 05:29 Why would I notice a typo before the dweeb points it out? Yes, you've clearly got my elaborate ploy all figured out.. It isn't a typo. If it was, you wouldn't have worded it in the way you would have. You're busted. Give it up. Ditch the bullshit. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 05:29 McCarthy probably thought quite highly of the Czar, so that whole angle seems irrelevant - no need to name-drop Bulgaria any longer. Pan-Slavism really doesn't matter here, whether the Czar wanted to support his Slavic brothers or keep Austro-Hungary from taking that territory, he approved of the mobilization that triggered WW1. Realistically, those two and many other factors played a role, to assume anything else is causal oversimplification. Singling out Germany is laughable and shows a poor understanding of history - if one really feels the need to oversimplify the issue, then he should rather blame Russia and Austro-Hungary. You're basically proving my point for me. I haven't singled out Germany, if you bothered to read this: Toggle Spoiler Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:55 One might make a case that Serbia started the war since it was a Serb that assassinated Ferdinand. One might argue it was Austria for antagonizing Serbia in the first place. Most likely, one would say it was Germany since they were the first of the major participants to actually declare war on another and attack. However, one cannot blame Russia for starting the war on the basis that they prepared to have one (And rightly so, since they had war declared upon them soon afterward). , I list potential causes in the form of actions by three other countries as well. What kind of simplification is that? You're proving my point for me.
Dover wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 08:12 JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 05:29 Why would I notice a typo before the dweeb points it out? Yes, you've clearly got my elaborate ploy all figured out.. It isn't a typo. If it was, you wouldn't have worded it in the way you would have. You're busted. Give it up. Ditch the bullshit. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 05:29 McCarthy probably thought quite highly of the Czar, so that whole angle seems irrelevant - no need to name-drop Bulgaria any longer. Pan-Slavism really doesn't matter here, whether the Czar wanted to support his Slavic brothers or keep Austro-Hungary from taking that territory, he approved of the mobilization that triggered WW1. Realistically, those two and many other factors played a role, to assume anything else is causal oversimplification. Singling out Germany is laughable and shows a poor understanding of history - if one really feels the need to oversimplify the issue, then he should rather blame Russia and Austro-Hungary. You're basically proving my point for me. I haven't singled out Germany, if you bothered to read this: Toggle Spoiler Dover wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:55 One might make a case that Serbia started the war since it was a Serb that assassinated Ferdinand. One might argue it was Austria for antagonizing Serbia in the first place. Most likely, one would say it was Germany since they were the first of the major participants to actually declare war on another and attack. However, one cannot blame Russia for starting the war on the basis that they prepared to have one (And rightly so, since they had war declared upon them soon afterward). , I list potential causes in the form of actions by three other countries as well. What kind of simplification is that? You're proving my point for me. How exactly did I word it? Like I said, just replace 'Bulgaria' with 'Serbia' and it makes perfect sense...hardly reason for you to stay up until 5 AM . 1. You're taking all the blame off Russia, which was the first great power to mobilize it's forces against another. 2. You're instead putting most of the blame on Germany for reacting to this mobilization with a formal declaration of war. 3. You're holding Yugoslavia (you're saying Serbia, but I can't be bothered to freak out on someone for mixing up country names) as a whole accountable because a Serb killed Franz Ferdinand. Bottom line, your reasoning is almost as ignorant as declaring the field of inductive reasoning obsolete...
JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 How exactly did I word it? Like I said, just replace 'Bulgaria' with 'Serbia' and it makes perfect sense...hardly reason for you to stay up until 5 AM . Only it wouldn't have made perfect sense because nobody is talking about Serbia, and if you do nothing but replace "Bulgaria" with "Serbia, you look like some kind of weirdo faggot who's having a conversation with himself. As for the 5 AM, I have an interesting sleep schedule. Your e-peen must be huge if you think it has anything to do with you. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 1. You're taking all the blame off Russia, which was the first great power to mobilize it's forces against another. Not all the blame, but I do disagree with SoQRadio's assertion that Russia is most to blame. You and him both make the lazy intelectual mistake of confusing "Mobilize" with "Attack". JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 2. You're instead putting most of the blame on Germany for reacting to this mobilization with a formal declaration of war. Yes. That elevates things. A formal declaration of war is far more aggressive than simply "mobilizing". For example, the US "mobilizes" against nations all the time, most recently in some clusterfuck with some North Korean ships or something. Yet you don't see any World Wars starting there yet, do you? Beyond simply declaring war, they were also the first to attack and invade. From a purely military standpoint there's nothing wrong with that, and there's even some advantage to be had, but politically it doesn't look good, and earns you a majority blame. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 3. You're holding Yugoslavia (you're saying Serbia, but I can't be bothered to freak out on someone for mixing up country names) as a whole accountable because a Serb killed Franz Ferdinand. Yeah. This happens all the time, like Afghanistan being held responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or the "nation" of Palestine being held responsible for the 1972 Munich massacre. This is the way blame for terrorist attacks (Like the assassination of Ferdinand) works.
Dover wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 09:39 JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 How exactly did I word it? Like I said, just replace 'Bulgaria' with 'Serbia' and it makes perfect sense...hardly reason for you to stay up until 5 AM . Only it wouldn't have made perfect sense because nobody is talking about Serbia, and if you do nothing but replace "Bulgaria" with "Serbia, you look like some kind of weirdo faggot who's having a conversation with himself. As for the 5 AM, I have an interesting sleep schedule. Your e-peen must be huge if you think it has anything to do with you. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 1. You're taking all the blame off Russia, which was the first great power to mobilize it's forces against another. Not all the blame, but I do disagree with SoQRadio's assertion that Russia is most to blame. You and him both make the lazy intelectual mistake of confusing "Mobilize" with "Attack". JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 2. You're instead putting most of the blame on Germany for reacting to this mobilization with a formal declaration of war. Yes. That elevates things. A formal declaration of war is far more aggressive than simply "mobilizing". For example, the US "mobilizes" against nations all the time, most recently in some clusterfuck with some North Korean ships or something. Yet you don't see any World Wars starting there yet, do you? Beyond simply declaring war, they were also the first to attack and invade. From a purely military standpoint there's nothing wrong with that, and there's even some advantage to be had, but politically it doesn't look good, and earns you a majority blame. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 06:52 3. You're holding Yugoslavia (you're saying Serbia, but I can't be bothered to freak out on someone for mixing up country names) as a whole accountable because a Serb killed Franz Ferdinand. Yeah. This happens all the time, like Afghanistan being held responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or the "nation" of Palestine being held responsible for the 1972 Munich massacre. This is the way blame for terrorist attacks (Like the assassination of Ferdinand) works. I don't think I have to point out the irony of someone with you appearance and 'sleeping schedule' calling me a weirdo. It seems you forgot how this argument started (a few posts before my now infamous typo made you flip out): SoQRadio wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 17:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. You replied with an analogy of how Russia came to the rescue of another slavic nation (Bulgaria). This dummy actually forgot what he was arguing about...jeez 1&2 Lazy intellectual mistake, huh? That's rich coming from you, clearly not aware of the great powers being at the brink or war even before Franz Ferdinand was shot. Mobilizing meant that war was now inevitable, comparing this with a current scenario instead of looking at the historical context is exactly that, a lazy intellectual mistake. 3 The Taliban regime was actively supporting Al Queda, while Franz Ferdinand's assassin was a rogue freedom fighter, but that's besides the point - it doesn't matter who Austro-Hungary blamed when evaluating history. Hitler blamed Poland for attacking Germany first, so do you agree with that as well?
bulgaria ftw?
JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 It seems you forgot how this argument started (a few posts before my now infamous typo made you flip out): SoQRadio wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 17:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. You replied with an analogy of how Russia came to the rescue of another slavic nation (Bulgaria). This dummy actually forgot what he was arguing about...jeez I remember perfectly, and the example I gave is perfectly valid. I still don't get what your problem with it is. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 clearly not aware of the great powers being at the brink or war even before Franz Ferdinand was shot. You're making that same lazy intellectual mistake again. "At the brink of war" is not the same thing as "at war". That hallowed threshold was crossed by Germany. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 Mobilizing meant that war was now inevitable, comparing this with a current scenario instead of looking at the historical context is exactly that, a lazy intellectual mistake. Bullshit. If you can mobilize without going to war in modern times (Especially in the age of weapons of mass destruction), then there's no reason not to be able to do so then. The will not to go to war simply wasn't there, and the great powers have nobody to blame for that but themselves. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 3 The Taliban regime was actively supporting Al Queda, while Franz Ferdinand's assassin was a rogue freedom fighter, Incorrect. He was part of an organization calling itself the Black Hand (Which Westwood took for the Black Hand in the C&C series). There were five other would-be assassins along the same route Ferdinand was taking. That doesn't speak to your theory of a rouge freedom fighter. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 but that's besides the point - it doesn't matter who Austro-Hungary blamed when evaluating history. I would say it matters more than some nerd on the internet blaming Russia. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 Hitler blamed Poland for attacking Germany first, so do you agree with that as well? Godwin's law. Disucssion over.
The Germans. :/ Unless you wanted something more specific....
Dover wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 15:20 JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 It seems you forgot how this argument started (a few posts before my now infamous typo made you flip out): SoQRadio wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 17:23 Actually Russia was most directly responsible for WWI. Until Russia acted, it looked like it was going to be a small-scale war between the Austrians and the Serbs (over the assassination of Francis Ferdinand). Russia wanted control of the straits and didnt want to lose its influence in the Balkans, and acted in defense of the Serbs. Russia started mobilizing for war early, and thus forced Germany to declare war, for the sake of its own national security as well as for the sake of its ally, Austria. You replied with an analogy of how Russia came to the rescue of another slavic nation (Bulgaria). This dummy actually forgot what he was arguing about...jeez I remember perfectly, and the example I gave is perfectly valid. I still don't get what your problem with it is. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 clearly not aware of the great powers being at the brink or war even before Franz Ferdinand was shot. You're making that same lazy intellectual mistake again. "At the brink of war" is not the same thing as "at war". That hallowed threshold was crossed by Germany. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 Mobilizing meant that war was now inevitable, comparing this with a current scenario instead of looking at the historical context is exactly that, a lazy intellectual mistake. Bullshit. If you can mobilize without going to war in modern times (Especially in the age of weapons of mass destruction), then there's no reason not to be able to do so then. The will not to go to war simply wasn't there, and the great powers have nobody to blame for that but themselves. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 3 The Taliban regime was actively supporting Al Queda, while Franz Ferdinand's assassin was a rogue freedom fighter, Incorrect. He was part of an organization calling itself the Black Hand (Which Westwood took for the Black Hand in the C&C series). There were five other would-be assassins along the same route Ferdinand was taking. That doesn't speak to your theory of a rouge freedom fighter. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 but that's besides the point - it doesn't matter who Austro-Hungary blamed when evaluating history. I would say it matters more than some nerd on the internet blaming Russia. JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 11:16 Hitler blamed Poland for attacking Germany first, so do you agree with that as well? Godwin's law. Disucssion over. - I already explained why the analogy is irrelevant. - You're rewriting history, just like you rewrote philosophy. The idiocy of invoking a universal law for the consequences of military mobilization should be apparent to anyone sporting a jawline. - Rogue as in not in any form connected to the King of Serbia or his government. - Saying 'Godwin's law' doesn't make your argument any less stupid. You'll reply, don't worry. I'm posting at 5 AM and calling people nerds.
My school taught WWII in great detail. Not so much WWI, however. But, because of my lack of interest in either topic, I've totally lost all knowledge given to me in those lessons. Also, I'm of a German heritage and I dislike Germany. I mean the name makes me feel sick. "Germ"any. :V
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 21 November 2009 19:57 Also, I'm of a German heritage and I dislike Germany. I mean the name makes me feel sick. "Germ"any. :V BAH DUM PSH
Thank you, thank you. I'm here til Tuseday.
the only reason austria attacked is because germany gave them a blank check to act and guaranteed their support you can really make an argument blaming anyone short of hitler for world war 1
Ryan3k wrote on Sun, 22 November 2009 21:06 the only reason austria attacked is because germany gave them a blank check to act and guaranteed their support you can really make an argument blaming anyone short of hitler for world war 1 Good point, but bullying Serbia was a regional issue - the fatal step that turned it into a World War was Russia's move on Germany.
wasnt it the french who put germany in a 2 fronts situation? Otherwise it would have been a little local war between germany and russia. so lets all blame the frog eaters
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 02:59 Ryan3k wrote on Sun, 22 November 2009 21:06 the only reason austria attacked is because germany gave them a blank check to act and guaranteed their support you can really make an argument blaming anyone short of hitler for world war 1 Good point, but bullying Serbia was a regional issue - the fatal step that turned it into a World War was Russia's move on Germany. But wait, even though Russia started producing armaments and massing troops on Germany's border, it was Germany's fault because they declared war to protect their national secruity!11!
Radio dont try to mock other people when you are being a straight nerd plz kthx
Well we can all agree on one thing: Poland pretty much sucks.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 22:32 Well we can all agree on one thing: Poland pretty much sucks. I'd agree then half of poland suck balls but theres a second half which is good so thats why people say it suck. Give more reason, every country has some kind of disadvantages that make people look at it like it sucks badly. But one country have more of it while one have less. I like USA, but i pretty agree theres a lot(not every1) of dumb people like you that don't realize they grandpas came from europe,even from poland. But you're one of these fat Americans that suck cock for 5$ at gas station.
America has started every single war since humans came into existence. sarcasm btw ;/
RoCk2Star wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 15:34 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 22:32 Well we can all agree on one thing: Poland pretty much sucks. I'd agree then half of poland suck balls but theres a second half which is good so thats why people say it suck. Give more reason, every country has some kind of disadvantages that make people look at it like it sucks badly. But one country have more of it while one have less. I like USA, but i pretty agree theres a lot(not every1) of dumb people like you that don't realize they grandpas came from europe,even from poland. But you're one of these fat Americans that suck cock for 5$ at gas station. Poland hasn't produced SHIT lately. The only good things to come out of Poland were a few people in history ages ago (Chopin, Copernicus, etc). Nowadays they're too busy BAWWWWing about the holocaust and producing a grand total of about nothing useful. Also, lol, I'm fat and suck cock and pay too much for gas? The last one's true (except I avoid driving at all costs), but that's hardly my fault. The first two are probably the most pathetic insults you could come up with. I guess that's another reason why Poland sucks. HaTe wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 16:10 America has started every single war since humans came into existence. sarcasm btw ;/ lol'd
You faggots are still pissing in the wind over this?
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 16:28 RoCk2Star wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 15:34 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 22:32 Well we can all agree on one thing: Poland pretty much sucks. I'd agree then half of poland suck balls but theres a second half which is good so thats why people say it suck. Give more reason, every country has some kind of disadvantages that make people look at it like it sucks badly. But one country have more of it while one have less. I like USA, but i pretty agree theres a lot(not every1) of dumb people like you that don't realize they grandpas came from europe,even from poland. But you're one of these fat Americans that suck cock for 5$ at gas station. Poland hasn't produced SHIT lately. The only good things to come out of Poland were a few people in history ages ago (Chopin, Copernicus, etc). Nowadays they're too busy BAWWWWing about the holocaust and producing a grand total of about nothing useful. Also, lol, I'm fat and suck cock and pay too much for gas? The last one's true (except I avoid driving at all costs), but that's hardly my fault. The first two are probably the most pathetic insults you could come up with. I guess that's another reason why Poland sucks. HaTe wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 16:10 America has started every single war since humans came into existence. sarcasm btw ;/ lol'd Chopin was half-French and Copernicus was Prussian. Poland really does suck. Gas is cheaper in the US than in Poland. Mr Zimmer isn't the fat American, that's Dover you're thinking of.
i skipped the 2nd page of this discussion but ww1 as i saw earlier posted was started by the serbs more specifically by a group called the black hand (I always wonder if the renegade creators stole that name). with the assassination of the arch duke of Austria Hungry, they were obviously pissed and retaliated against Serbia, as a result, the Russians who were Serbias ally stepped in to back them up. this resulted in Germany entering the war. Now because russia france and britian were all allies (the triple entente)foreseeing the threat of france entering the war shortly after russia entering, germany attacked france through beligum against the Maginot line. because beligum was a neutral country, britian already had a deal with the beligians to protect their neutral sovereignty and this brought the brits into the war. I cant remember how far into it but eventually the Germans and Austria-Hungarians brought the surrender of the russians bringing about the poor conditions that gave a birthing to communism in its most extreme form to be followed up by joseph stalin. Germany initially also striked france because the two countries throughout history had always been bitter rivals and so this whole mess gave them a fairly decent excuse to go after the enemy they always wanted to defeat once and for all, france. America entered later. and Poland sucks
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 18:00 ...Gas is cheaper in the US than in Poland. Mr Zimmer isn't the fat American, that's Dover you're thinking of... Hey... I live in America and I'm not fat . Anyway, that reminded me of something I learned a few days ago. It turns out, that even though fatty foods from places like McDonalds do cause overweight problems in many American citizens... the real reason why so many Americans are fat does not lie in the consumers themselves (or there self control, whatever you want to call it), but rather the sources of the food. Processed food and drink, or anything wrapped in a wrapper with a nutrition label on it, is made with synthesized ingredients. To put it simply, the real actual ingredients are more expensive than these synthesized stuff... so they opt to go the cheaper route. Ingredients, such as sugar, are often replaced with cheaper synthetic substitutes. It is these substitutes that causes fat buildup in consumers. So, the next time you think about mentioning fat Americans, think again, because you aren't directly insulting the consumers, but rather, the people who put the 'fake' food on the market.
wtf... Ok, that shit isn't good for you, but the reason people are fat is because they won't lose the fork, and are too lazy to do a half hour of walking a day.
nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 21:44 wtf... Ok, that shit isn't good for you, but the reason people are fat is because they won't lose the fork, and are too lazy to do a half hour of walking a day. AND because of corporate assholes : D But this is getting off topic. BACK TO TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH POLAND SUCKS
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 21:13 JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 18:00 ...Gas is cheaper in the US than in Poland. Mr Zimmer isn't the fat American, that's Dover you're thinking of... Hey... I live in America and I'm not fat . Anyway, that reminded me of something I learned a few days ago. It turns out, that even though fatty foods from places like McDonalds do cause overweight problems in many American citizens... the real reason why so many Americans are fat does not lie in the consumers themselves (or there self control, whatever you want to call it), but rather the sources of the food. Processed food and drink, or anything wrapped in a wrapper with a nutrition label on it, is made with synthesized ingredients. To put it simply, the real actual ingredients are more expensive than these synthesized stuff... so they opt to go the cheaper route. Ingredients, such as sugar, are often replaced with cheaper synthetic substitutes. It is these substitutes that causes fat buildup in consumers. So, the next time you think about mentioning fat Americans, think again, because you aren't directly insulting the consumers, but rather, the people who put the 'fake' food on the market. stfu, the whopper is pretty much the perfect meal...so even those with no time to cook could eat healthy.
i heard spoony caused world war 1 when he wanted to implement the pointfix on all countrys across the globe
Hitman wrote on Tue, 24 November 2009 08:41 i heard spoony caused world war 1 when he wanted to implement the pointfix on all countrys across the globe lol'd Poland sux.
RoCk2Star wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 21:34 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 22:32 Well we can all agree on one thing: Poland pretty much sucks. I'd agree then half of poland suck balls but theres a second half which is good so thats why people say it suck. Give more reason, every country has some kind of disadvantages that make people look at it like it sucks badly. But one country have more of it while one have less. I like USA, but i pretty agree theres a lot(not every1) of dumb people like you that don't realize they grandpas came from europe,even from poland. But you're one of these fat Americans that suck cock for 5$ at gas station. I sense VERY LARGE AMOUNTS of irony in this noted section. Oh, and also, only males were allowed to migrate from country to country? Interesting, considering that the German Nazis were trying to export ALL of the Jewish population. Also, I find it funny that we're called "fat Americans" when most the people in my town are skinny or have some muscular build, AND born in the USA.
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 24 November 2009 00:00 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 16:28 RoCk2Star wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 15:34 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 22:32 Well we can all agree on one thing: Poland pretty much sucks. I'd agree then half of poland suck balls but theres a second half which is good so thats why people say it suck. Give more reason, every country has some kind of disadvantages that make people look at it like it sucks badly. But one country have more of it while one have less. I like USA, but i pretty agree theres a lot(not every1) of dumb people like you that don't realize they grandpas came from europe,even from poland. But you're one of these fat Americans that suck cock for 5$ at gas station. Poland hasn't produced SHIT lately. The only good things to come out of Poland were a few people in history ages ago (Chopin, Copernicus, etc). Nowadays they're too busy BAWWWWing about the holocaust and producing a grand total of about nothing useful. Also, lol, I'm fat and suck cock and pay too much for gas? The last one's true (except I avoid driving at all costs), but that's hardly my fault. The first two are probably the most pathetic insults you could come up with. I guess that's another reason why Poland sucks. HaTe wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 16:10 America has started every single war since humans came into existence. sarcasm btw ;/ lol'd Chopin was half-French and Copernicus was Prussian. Poland really does suck. Gas is cheaper in the US than in Poland. Mr Zimmer isn't the fat American, that's Dover you're thinking of. Copernicus mother was german but dad was Polish also he born in polish territory, your bs is epic. Your country lost all the world wars ..
Why guys you are so racist? Why guys you are so racist?
RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:27 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 24 November 2009 00:00 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 16:28 RoCk2Star wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 15:34 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 22:32 Well we can all agree on one thing: Poland pretty much sucks. I'd agree then half of poland suck balls but theres a second half which is good so thats why people say it suck. Give more reason, every country has some kind of disadvantages that make people look at it like it sucks badly. But one country have more of it while one have less. I like USA, but i pretty agree theres a lot(not every1) of dumb people like you that don't realize they grandpas came from europe,even from poland. But you're one of these fat Americans that suck cock for 5$ at gas station. Poland hasn't produced SHIT lately. The only good things to come out of Poland were a few people in history ages ago (Chopin, Copernicus, etc). Nowadays they're too busy BAWWWWing about the holocaust and producing a grand total of about nothing useful. Also, lol, I'm fat and suck cock and pay too much for gas? The last one's true (except I avoid driving at all costs), but that's hardly my fault. The first two are probably the most pathetic insults you could come up with. I guess that's another reason why Poland sucks. HaTe wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 16:10 America has started every single war since humans came into existence. sarcasm btw ;/ lol'd Chopin was half-French and Copernicus was Prussian. Poland really does suck. Gas is cheaper in the US than in Poland. Mr Zimmer isn't the fat American, that's Dover you're thinking of. Copernicus mother was german but dad was Polish, your bs is epic. Your country wont steal him. I'm not 'stealing' him as I'm not Prussian. My mother is Bavarian and my father is American with mostly Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Your typical whimsical Polish lack of self-esteem is telling you to project today's nationalism onto history, while the concept of the nation state didn't even exist back then. Copernicus wrote all of his work in German and Latin - it's unclear whether he even spoke Polish as his father died when he was young and he had little connection to that side of his family.
RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:27 Copernicus mother was german but dad was Polish also he born in polish territory, your bs is epic. Your country lost all the world wars .. Your country lost every battle in every war. Poland's smartest men thought that horses could beat tanks...
RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:30 Why guys you are so racist? Why guys you are so racist? I think, that you sir, ARE the racist. Wasn't there another guy that said renegade was racist because it had no "black" characters? Wasn't he the racist?
IAmFenix wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 17:17 RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:30 Why guys you are so racist? Why guys you are so racist? I think, that you sir, ARE the racist. Wasn't there another guy that said renegade was racist because it had no "black" characters? Wasn't he the racist? lol, first Renegade mission
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 22:51 RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:27 Copernicus mother was german but dad was Polish also he born in polish territory, your bs is epic. Your country lost all the world wars .. Your country lost every battle in every war. Poland's smartest men thought that horses could beat tanks... You fail at history, not every but significant amount of them. Well we didnt had anything else .. Weren't prepared for world war cause of shit politics. Nowadays politics here feels most retarded..
IAmFenix wrote on Thu, 26 November 2009 00:17 RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:30 Why guys you are so racist? Why guys you are so racist? I think, that you sir, ARE the racist. Wasn't there another guy that said renegade was racist because it had no "black" characters? Wasn't he the racist? There was no offense in my thread, was just for lulz sir.
RoCk2Star wrote on Thu, 26 November 2009 02:31 IAmFenix wrote on Thu, 26 November 2009 00:17 RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:30 Why guys you are so racist? Why guys you are so racist? I think, that you sir, ARE the racist. Wasn't there another guy that said renegade was racist because it had no "black" characters? Wasn't he the racist? There was no offense in my thread, was just for lulz sir. You think racism is funny? You are racist.
...even the obese gypsy from Bulgaria won't stick up for Polandball...now his fate lies with the Moldavians, officially the shittiest place in Europe unless Kosovo is recognized.
Dover wrote on Thu, 26 November 2009 17:37 RoCk2Star wrote on Thu, 26 November 2009 02:31 IAmFenix wrote on Thu, 26 November 2009 00:17 RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:30 Why guys you are so racist? Why guys you are so racist? I think, that you sir, ARE the racist. Wasn't there another guy that said renegade was racist because it had no "black" characters? Wasn't he the racist? There was no offense in my thread, was just for lulz sir. You think racism is funny? You are racist. Never said it meant to be funny.
Ok then, yea now I get it, "We Didn't Start the Flame War". Anyways, schools in other countries (that I am aware of) do NOT teach about Poland. You know what Poland did because you went through their educational system. I mean, I pay the most attention in history because it interests me, and I haven't learned any thing about Poland other than it's location in the world.
You haven't missed much - they basically got raped by Germans and Russians a couple times.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 27 November 2009 14:15 You haven't missed much - they basically got raped by Germans and Russians a couple times. Pretty much, yeah. Poland is definitely the shittiest nation in Europe. Atleast it's not Africa, though.
No, it's not the shittiest, it just gets the least respect. You have places like Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo or Moldavia which are definitely shittier...
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 28 November 2009 08:44 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 27 November 2009 14:15 You haven't missed much - they basically got raped by Germans and Russians a couple times. Pretty much, yeah. Poland is definitely the shittiest nation in Europe. Atleast it's not Africa, though. Mr.Perfect Country.
Problem with Poland is, that Polish people come to Germany to steal our vehicles!
Sir Kane wrote on Sat, 05 December 2009 14:04 Problem with Poland is, that Polish people come to Germany to steal our vehicles! We sell them in Russia.
Good, because I sell Poland in Germany [/spam] Stealing will get you no where. You have no idea what you may or may not be causing.
Was that comic about Poland sucking in this thread? I'm looking for it.
IAmFenix wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 18:17 RoCk2Star wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 15:30 Why guys you are so racist? Why guys you are so racist? I think, that you sir, ARE the racist. Wasn't there another guy that said renegade was racist because it had no "black" characters? Wasn't he the racist?
Call me racist all you like. But I fucking hate polish people, they come over here (UK) and try to steal our jobs. i.e. British painter: I'll paint the whole house for £300 Polish painter: I paint the hosue for u special price £100 yes Now you see why I hate them, kindly gtfo and go back to your own country D; [/rant]
I thought it was the brown ppl that steal jobs in UK not polaks
Hey, isn't Poland the country that used to disappear and reappear in 5 year intervals?
Azazel wrote on Tue, 26 January 2010 17:15 Call me racist all you like. But I fucking hate polish people, they come over here (UK) and try to steal our jobs. i.e. British painter: I'll paint the whole house for £300 Polish painter: I paint the hosue for u special price £100 yes Now you see why I hate them, kindly gtfo and go back to your own country D; [/rant] Not to mention they get paint everywhere, not just on the walls. Qualified painter my arse
nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 26 January 2010 14:08 I lol'd, pretty hard.
There's a whole bunch of those comics online, some of which are just too funny for the internet. However, the ones that make fun of Poland are easily the best, even if it's such an easy joke in the first place.