Piracy enforcement: the ultimate challenge

SHOETAQUILLA · Post by **SHOETAQUILLA** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:48 am

Thank God that those groups don't exist in Australia...free music & games for everybody!!

Splodginator · Post by **Splodginator** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:51 am

Yeah, but Australia is slowly turning into the 52nd US state.

Interon · Post by **Interon** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:38 pm

Post by **Dogbreath** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:10 pm

Puerto Rico. (Well, it won't be *officially* until 2005-8 but it's considered that by everyone except politicians and mapmakers. Grah... I'm going to rue having to buy all new flags in a few years)

SHOETAQUILLA · Post by **SHOETAQUILLA** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:21 am

I can only think of about 20 odd states...then again i'm not American so why should I care...But I know America has 50 states!!

pfft to the person who stated that...as if we are going to be the 52nd state Americans don't even know where Australia is on the globe without looking and pointing!!

Thunderdog · Post by **Thunderdog** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:51 am

Austraillia is over by Detroit, right?

Post by **wardrich** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:28 pm

All I can say is that the US will NEVER control the whole world... why the hell are they doing this anyway? I'd be scared of a revolt as it is now... All I can say is if they try to take over Canada, I'll move. And I REALLY don't want to move. And, if Canada tries to take over a country... I'll just have to chop our government

-Richard-

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:51 pm

Canada take over a country? HA! We'll be lucky if we keep quebec with their army of french bakers.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:31 pm

Er, the U.S. wouldn't have any reason to conquer the world:

1 It'd cost more than it'd make up for with increased productivity.
2. It means all of those slave laborers in Asia and all those starving dudes in Africa would become U.S. citizens meaning A. they'd have to get paid minimum wage and B. they'd be eligible for welfare. The U.S. Welfare/Social Security/Medicare already costs hundreds of billions of dollars each year-imagine increasing the cost by 20 times it's current size... it'd amount to about 10 trillion a year or around the GDP of the U.S.A.

Shoe: But I can name of of *your* states. Slacker.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:43 pm

Conquering the world is so 19th century. Back then it took alot of people to mine ores, work the farms, work in the factory, etc. You needed alot of land and alot of people to work the land so people spent alot of time and effort conquering their neighbors for resources and worker slaves.

Today with automation 1 person can do the productivity of 200 so nations dont really need more people. Its alot more efficient to hand people some paper money with dead presidents on them for a finished product made outside the country then it is invade, feed, control, and organise a country to make that same finished product. Especially when eventually the conquered nation would have to have the same treetment, benefits, and laws of the country that conquered them. Dont believe me then go and conquer china, give them a minimum wage comparable to what a US worker would get, add workmans compensation, EPA laws, social security, etc and your new DVD player will be $500 again.

Post by **wardrich** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:17 pm

Kazer0 wrote:Canada take over a country? HA! We'll be lucky if we keep quebec with their army of french bakers.

Bullocks to Quebec... I'd be MORE than happy if they separated... It was us that saved them... if they wish to separate and get their asses kicked AGAIN, go right on ahead...

-Richard-

*I've always wanted to use that word... Bullocks...

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 9:50 pm

My sister did a paper on this.

If Quebec leaves, so do the Maritimes because they will no longer be connected and feel left out. Then, British Columbia (Who is feeling left out) will leave as well, because they think they are too far from Ottawa and left out of everything. So they will leave. Then the praries will see there is no point in remaining, and Manitoba-Saskatchewan-Alberta will leave. Then all thats left is Ontario and the Territories, which would probably be sold off due to economy problems.

Post by **wardrich** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:20 pm

perhaps, but who needs Quebec? All they seem to do is whine and complain...

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:29 pm

Canada has alot of land and very few people, maybe they could sell some land for some cash.

If canada does fall apart the smaller countries will find that they will have to pay more for the services they have now (not enough people to tax and everything is more expensive per person when you buy in smaller quantities not to mention natural resources they might lose).

Might as well bite the bullet and apply for statehood here in the USA

Post by **Dogbreath** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:12 pm

Extreme emmigration from Europe in the mid 18th to early 19th century helped turn the U.S. from a country of 20 million to 200 million in a period of around 50 years and helped settle and populate our territories into the developed states they now are. Should Canada totally open up to immigration from South America, Africa, and Asia they'd solve their problems in the same amount of time... not that there'd be anything left to enjoy by then as the social and political stability we take for granted would be totally destroyed by weekly terrorist attacks from "immigrants."

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:41 pm

Dogbreath wrote:Extreme emmigration from Europe in the mid 18th to early 19th century helped turn the U.S. from a country of 20 million to 200 million in a period of around 50 years and helped settle and populate our territories into the developed states they now are. Should Canada totally open up to immigration from South America, Africa, and Asia they'd solve their problems in the same amount of time... not that there'd be anything left to enjoy by then as the social and political stability we take for granted would be totally destroyed by weekly terrorist attacks from "immigrants."

There is more to the expansion of the US during this time then you let on. The US grew in population because of tolerance of different religions, free land for immigrants, good climate, good food supply, large amounts of resources, and growth of industry of all types. Europe at the time was ruled by kings and populated by the ruling class minority exploiting the majority of the population of non-landowning serfs that were one step away from slaves to the king. There is also the fact that Europe was constantly at war in those times and had large amounts of famine.

Interon · Post by **Interon** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:43 pm

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:51 pm

Like I said imigrants go where there are jobs and the local population leaves them alone. During the mass migrations of the 19th and 20th centuries I dont think there was much work in canada and the european ships probably didnt hit that country like they did with NYC in the US. Once people started migrating to a specific country they ended up bringing their family and friends over. While the US had its border open to most people (they limited people from countries like china) for a long time I dont think Canada had the same policy.

Interon · Post by **Interon** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:58 pm

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:07 pm

na010894 wrote:So the temperature had nothing to do with it?

Mexico, central america, africa, middle east, ect are warmer all year around.. didnt hear about a flood of imigrants going there.