Ryan Miller

They call me "gucci"

17 hours ago, chris said:

Illuminati

The assassination of the Arch Duke was just a prank gone wrong, in the hood, almost died.

Finally back with this series. After a long day of research, I'm back with the fifth poll of the justified series.

Some Background

During the first couple years in the 2000s, the United States was under threat by terrorists abroad. After the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers (located in New York, United States where around 3000 died), the United States, under the Bush Administration, declared the War on Terror. The purpose was to keep Americans safe from terrorists by declaring war on countries where terrorists inhabit. In response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States declared war on the Taliban. The Taliban where in Afghanistan at the time. In 2003, the United States declared war on Iraq for the allegations that they had stored weapons of mass destruction (which were illegal to posses according to UN law). It's almost March 20, when the United States declared war on Iraq, and the effects are clear today. Let's discuss about this.

Arguments (No)

Now, I normally don't start things off like this, but let's begin as to why people wouldn't think that the US invasion of Iraq wasn't justified. First, even though the invasion was a military win, it will later prove to be a political failure. The invasion caused the destabilization of the Middle East. Many Iraqis became angry because they've lost their jobs, live of a loved one, etc due to the war. This has lead to the rise of ISIS because the destruction of the Iraqi military and the withdrawal of American troops in 2011.

Not to mention that this was by far the most ironic thing a country has done. What the US was trying to do was eradicate terrorists from the world. A terrorist is defined as "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Which is ironic since the US has declared war on Iraq that was considered illegal according to the UN. Once again, pointing out that the invasion lead to the destabilization of the Iraqi government and military.

Finally, once the United States finally won the war and established a much more democratic government, the US found no WMDs (acronym for weapons of mass destruction). This means that the US declared a war on a nation under a false statement that resulted in not only deaths of innocent Iraqis for no good reason, but also the lives of American soldiers who fought in the war. This was just a waste of human life that could've been avoided.

Argument (Yes)

One reason as to why the Iraq war was justified was because the United States couldn't tell whether or not the Iraqi government was actually storing WMDs. The US government wouldn't surely have made this decision with the information they have right now. Basically, you can't blame it on the United States because we just couldn't tell.

In addition, the US wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East because at the time, Iraq was under the rule of the dictator, Saddam Hussein. The government was very oppressive to its people and the United States wanted to spread democracy there. Basically, spread democracy.

Wrapping things up...

So, what do you think. Do you think that the US invasion of Iraq was justified because the government just didn't had enough information to tell if Iraq was storing WMDs and to spread democracy in the Middle East. Or was it not justified because it led to the destabilization of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, unlawful declaration of war, and the irony in the US's endeavor to stop terrorists abroad.

3 minutes ago, japan77 said:

My Personal view is basically what Sargun said. While I can understand going against abortions during the 3rd trimester, most abortions happen before then. Also, the gov't should probably subsidize births, as some people probably cite cost as a reason for abortion. I think the claim that Republicans are pro-life is an inaccurate statement, it would be more precise to state that they are pro-birth.

Any politician in general can be quite misleading to persuade people to agree with them. It's like saying that 100% of people who drink clean water will eventually die. When asked why, they would say that drinking clean water leads to death by natural causes (age).

With technology getting better and better every year, some of the stuff we would normally use regularly would become obsolete. This has happened before to primitive technology like phones that look like bricks, floppy disks, type writers, rotary telephones, etc. Let's discuss about this because in the future, we might see libraries becoming obsolete. I'm not saying that they would certainly, but I'm speculating. I mean, we already have ebooks, audiobooks, and content you could download on your phone (via apps). Of course, people still go to the library and no, it isn't obsolete. But with technology becoming more convenient, do you think that libraries will last.

My theory on the issue

For instance back in the really old days (like in the 90s), you would have to go to a store that would let you rent out movies (Blockbuster anyone?) Nowadays, we have Netflix where you could watch movies without ever having to leave your house. A company like Blockbuster became obsolete because the advancement of technology made life more convenient. This seems like the path that libraries are taking. As technology is becoming more advanced and making life more convenient, it wouldn't be crazy to think that libraries in the future might become obsolete as people can read any book they have in the comfort of their home, without having to go anywhere.

What do you think? Do you think that libraries would become obsolete in the future? Why or why not? This is just a discussion series I'm doing, to get the forums slightly more active.

2 hours ago, Micchan said:

Wait, abortion is illegal in the US?

Abortion is technically legal in the United States because of the Supreme Court case, Roe v Wade. However, individual states can set their own restrictions on abortion. For instance, in North Dakota, abortion is illegal once a woman has been pregnant for 6 weeks while in New York, abortion is illegal once a woman has been pregnant for 24 weeks. Some states don't have restrictions on abortion at all like Colorado, New Mexico, etc.

For me, I've chosen other (or compromise). I think that abortion should be legal in the first trimester while states should decide whether or not abortion should be legal in second and/or third trimester.

Abortion is one of those controversial subjects in American politics. Democrats are pro-choice (abortion should be legal) while Republicans are pro-choice (abortion shouldn't be legal). What is your stance on abortion? Do you think that women should have the right to choose what to do with their body, or do you think that abortion is immoral and kills unborn babies.

33 minutes ago, Simon Susarte said:

Funny how it was made when the US was using muskets and not semi automatic and automatic weaponry. 

 

But nah nah you know.

Back when weapons were much harder to reload. Now weapons are like ---> 

Just a few questions about applying for a loan.

Is there a minimum amount of interest rate that members have to pay?

Is there a maximum amount of days that someone has to pay a loan?

If "nation a" is raided while at the same time in paying a loan, can "nation a" have more time to pay the loan?

Is there a maximum amount of money someone can take in a loan?

If there is, can there be a collateral system where "nation a" deposits resources into the bank and in exchange can borrow more money?

If "nation a" is in debt because of a loan, can "nation a" still apply for aid? (I'm talking about the aid forum)

15 hours ago, Simon Susarte said:

 

Except everythign seems to radiate from the assassination of the Arch duke Franz Ferdinand. 

 

The assassination of the Arch duke was a direct cause of the war. If the event hadn't occurred, Europe would just find another excuse to start World War 1. Even a fart would've caused the war.

As an adolescent myself, I would have to say no on that one. The ones that do end up on the media are either wanna be thugs or edgy hipsters (who are also wanna activists).

1 hour ago, Yir Yoronti said:

3 now

4 one hour later...

A project that I've been working on for the last 5 days. The research was intense but quite rewarding in the end.

But to answer the poll, I think we can blame Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and Russia as the main reasons to starting World War 1. Germany was posing a real threat to its neighbors not to mention being involved in a naval arms race with Great Britain. Austria-Hungary was trying to get itself involved in foreign affairs in the Balkans. They were trying to take land from nations that had recently declared themselves independent from the Ottoman Empire. Serbia had extreme nationalists who just really hated Austria-Hungary.

And as for Russia, like boi! They got themselves involved with everything related to the Balkans. They wouldn't stop with their territorial expansion that probably made World War 1 into a global war. Not to mention that Russia was the only nation in the Triple Entente Alliance that wanted to get itself involved in Balkan affairs. Great Britain and France really didn't care about Austria-Hungary invading Serbia, but Russia did.

World War 1 Log

Austria-Hungary ︻デ═一 Serbia

Germany ︻デ═一 Russia

Germany ︻デ═一 France

Germany ︻デ═一 Belgium

Great Britain ︻デ═一 Germany

Austria-Hungary ︻デ═一 Russia

Used Hacks ------> Serbia ︻デ═一 Germany (lol )

Great Britain ︻デ═一 Austria-Hungary

France ︻デ═一 Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary ︻デ═一 Belgium

Japan ︻デ═一 Germany

Japan ︻デ═一 Austria-Hungary

...

History of Europe leading to World War 1

About 100 years ago, Europe lived under a constant fear that a "Great War" would begin. During the late 1800s, the politics of Europe has drastically changed with the unification of Germany, unification of Italy, the growing Russian Empire, and the already declining Ottoman Empire. There are of course many factors that would lead to World War 1. Both Great Britain and Germany had undergone a rapid boost in their navy, Europe being divided into two alliances (Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance), European Imperialism in Africa, and the rise of nationalism in places such as the Balkans and the idea that Europeans in one nation were better than Europeans in another. However, who are we to blame for the start of World War 1?

Main Causes of World War 1 by Nation

Great Britain:

• Great Britain engaging in a naval arms race with Germany that resulted in increased military spending
• Great Britain expanding it's empire into Africa that tried to rival Germany
• Great Britain's involvement in being part of the Triple Entente (a military alliance with Great Britain, France, and Russia)

France:

• France's desire for revenge against the Germans for the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War
• France wanted to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine from Germany after losing it in the Franco-Prussian War
• France expanding it's empire into Africa
• France's involvement in being part of the Triple Entente (a military alliance with Great Britain, France, and Russia)
• France mobilizing in August 1, 1914

Germany:

• German Unification making Germany a threat to the balance of power in Europe
• Rapid German industrialism rivaled Great Britain's steel production (making Germany into an economic power house)
• Germany declaring war on France during the Franco-Prussian War
• Germany's involvement in being part of the Triple Alliance (a military alliance with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy)
• Germany declaring supports Austria-Hungary rights in the (already unstable) Balkans
• Germany declares war on Russia; invades France along with Belgium (bringing Great Britain into World War 1)

Austria-Hungary:

• Austria-Hungary's involvement in the Balkan Wars (making the empire a key figure in the already unstable Balkans)
• Austria-Hungary annexing Bosnia during the Balkan Wars
• Austria-Hungary's involvement in being part of the Triple Alliance (a military alliance with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy)
• Austria-Hungary sends an ultimatum (basically a list of demands) to Serbia for the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Joseph, heir to the Austrian throne that would be impossible for any nation to accept in the first place (excuse for declaring war on Serbia)
• Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia for rejecting the ultimatum

Serbia:

• Rise of Serbian nationalism
• May or may not have aided the assassins who killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand
• Rejecting the ultimatum sent by Austria-Hungary (most likely justified)

Russia:

• Russia declaring war on the Ottoman Empire during the Russo-Turkish War in order to support revolts against the already crippling Ottoman Empire
• Russia's desire to expand into the Balkans
• Russia's involvement in being part of the Triple Entente (a military alliance with Great Britain, France, and Russia)
• Russia being an obstacle to German and Austrian expansion into the Balkans
• Russia mobilizing its military in July 30, 1914
• Russia wanting to defend Serbia from Austria-Hungary (Great Britain and France really didn't care much if Serbia was invaded but Russia did)

Of course, one argument to keeping guns off people is that it would reduce suicide rate in the US. Suicide actually causes the most deaths related to gun violence than homicide.

19 hours ago, Chief Savage Man said:

how about we dont have a gun thing in a music thread

I was thinking the exact same thing...

No because guns don't kill people. People kill people. Although, I chose other because I do believe in gun checks. We need to make sure that people who are mental don't get their hands on a gun, ever. While at the same time, those who use guns for hobbies such as hunting and rifling (sport) shouldn't be restricted on owning a gun.

There are simply extremes on both political spectrum. Political correctness is one of those things that make conversations become really cringy.

One time in school, we had to line up side by side for team selections in a sport. It was physical education so I has shorts on. It all just happened and it was too noticeable. You can guess the rest of the story.

A little note: I've been a little bit off lately as I'm busy with many ongoing projects. I'll certainly continue with the Justified series in a couple of days as I have to continue research on topics. Probably during the weekend where I'll definitely be back on track, I hope.

Throughout recent times, we've seen Israel always come into a tight mess with Palestine. We've seen these two come into conflict with each other as we've seen in the Six Days War (a war the involved Israel and Palestine). Recently, there has been a huge controversy about Israel settlements in occupied Palestine territory. Some say that this is a violation of international law while some say that it isn't because Israel deserves Palestine territory as they've won a war about it. What do you think? Do you think that the settlements of Israelis are a violation of international law or are these actions justified as Israel deserves Palestine territory and have the right to have settlers there.

Just curious to see if anyone here knows how to play an instrument. I'll start. I play the piano. I'm not a master at it, but I'm somewhat on the border between intermediate and beginner. Also, I've just started to learn guitar. What about you guys?

Just curious. Has anyone ever been to a school in the US where a police officer usual attends (by attend, I mean guarding and stuff) the school fully armed? I've never been to one but surely there must be a school somewhere that does.