Please Delete This Thread

[tasty]

Keep blaming America and acting like being the only remaining super-power is something to be ashamed of.

Bucc, there are a lot of different theories of what does and doesn't make peace in international relations. What's ignorant is to assume that this unipolar system is just, efficient, or positive. I'm not saying that being in a position of power is a shameful condition, but it's important to examine how we got in this position and what we are using it to do. I'd argue that we do some good and a lot of bad, despite what our government's intentions may be. And please, no one assume that I am defending your comments, because 95% of this thread contains some of the most retarded things I've ever read.

On North Korea, I don't think it will escalate much beyond where it is right now. Bush has actually handled it well in my opinion, and now with N.K's close neighbors at the bargaining table I think it will be resolved. North Korea's nukes are just a scare tactic; logically, it would make absolutely no sense for them to launch a military attack, nuclear or otherwise, on the United States, China, Russia, or any other country. Jong Il's strong-arm tactics may have caused the world to realize their military strength, but it certainly hasn't brought them any respect diplomatically. North Korea looks really desperate right now, and if we can just pacify them with aid or something that would be ideal.

[tasty]

You see, after defending your right to go to college (for 8 years of my life), and getting two degrees myself, and working my way up to be the Fleet Manager of the largest auto dealership in half of the state I live in, I think I might just have the right to say whatever I want.....it's that freedom of speech thing.....but then again, you are probably a damn democrat who thinks that freedom of speech is something that only people with your views gets to take advantage of.  You are probably going to one of those ultra-liberal schools run by professors who fill your head full of a bunch of left-wing bullshit.

What the hell is this outburst for?

1. What does your job or authority have to do with free speech?
2. Funny, it seems like most attempts at limiting free speech (not to mention other liberties) have come from the right, not the left
3. If you actually learned anything in college, you wouldn't condemn academia or make ridiculous generalizations about "left-wing bullshit"

[Cossack killing Sooners]

Well Rush went to college and he is one of those left wing bashing critics.

Also I would like to make known my view on NK since all I have done in this thread is critique someone's arrogance. First off NK is an aggressor. They have built a large ass highly trained active army up for 50 years to serve one purpose and one purpose only. That purpose is to take over South Korea and reunite them under the flag of Pyongyang. Every aspect of their lives goes into the future "unification"of Korea. Every hour they work every plant they seed is designed to help this cause. Some day they will strike, and when they strike it will be hard. The DPRK has the largest Artillery force in the world (larger than China and larger than Russia). Conservative US Army estimates say that 1 million people will die in the first day of the war. Keep in mind I am not saying that the DPRK will succeed in taking out the ROK and the US 8th Army, I am merely saying that this will be no Grenada or Panama.

I agree with Assassin that we will probablly do surgical strikes destroying many storage depots and batteries and what not. Nuclear usage is out of the question because our biggest trading partner China would not like to see the Yalu Valley and part of Manchuria irradiated. However I think it is wrong to use the edict of pre emption on any case, especially this one.

     Also Bucc, explain this action on behalf of the US. We have withdrawn from the anti-balistic missile treaty. This has the strong potential of starting another arms race with China and Russia. Now they have to (and are probablly already) developing new anti missile weaponry. Yes Bush is on his way to starting either a world war or another Cold War.


On a totally unrealated note, did anyone hear that the Chinese are sending a manned flight into space? This is big news and an indicator that the Chinese may soon become a rival superpower.

[tasty]

On a totally unrealated note, did anyone hear that the Chinese are sending a manned flight into space? This is big news and an indicator that the Chinese may soon become a rival superpower.

They already are a rival superpower. They have the largest standing army in the world and are quickly becoming privy to neoliberal trade policies that will capitalize their economy. Communism my ass.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, there are a lot of different theories of what does and doesn't make peace in international relations. What's ignorant is to assume that this unipolar system is just, efficient, or positive.

First, it's not unipolar, second, it's not ignorant to think it's just, efficient or positive, just because that opinion differs from yours.

Especially the efficient part.  Where do you base that reaction from?

It is important to understand how we got in this position, but that's really an easy answer.  The mobilization of this country's infrastructure in WW2 and post WW2 is what put the USA into the world power it is.  

Where I don't agree with you Tasty, is where you think we do a little good and a lot of bad.  I think we do much more good then you give the country credit for.  Especially when compared to the rest of the developed world.  What nations give aid like the USA?  Who comes close?  Even talk about it in terms of % of the GNP.  

Sure, the government has made mistakes with the right intentions.  Yes, the government as actually done wrong on purpose.  The the nation is 1) more then the government and 2) still does more good then harm.  

A last note, yes, China has been a superpower for a long time, and without China, the USSR would not have fallen.

[Cossack]

A last note, yes, China has been a superpower for a long time, and without China, the USSR would not have fallen.

You gotta explain this one to me. Maybe it because I am Russian and a bit biased on this claim. I always thought the fall of the USSR had to do with economic woes, destabilization in Eastern Europe, and the Afghan quagmire. Never really thought China to be a deciding factor in this.


Also the reason I dont consider the Chinese to be a superpower is because they havent used it. Unlike the US and Russia, they have no sphere of influence. They have the brawn but they havent used it at all. This Manned Space flight symbolizes to me that they are finally using their economic and technological power.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Cossack, for every nuke the USSR had pointed at the USA, they had another pointed at China.  The USSR was always very worried that China would try to sweep north into Siberia because they needed the land and natural resources found there.  

The USA used the arms race to hurt the USSR economically, but that never would have been possible if the USSR didn't also feel the need to defend against China.  China was the more immediate threat.

This was also of large concern with the break up of the USSR.  Many people worried that China would take advantage of it and make a move then.

And as GhostSniper has said, China has been using it's number one commodity (people) for a long time.  Although I think Truman was right to not drop the bomb in Korea.  Like Vietnam, the USA just never really got in there to win it, which they could have done without the bomb.

[Cossack]

I see what you are saying Bucc and I agree with it.

Also Ghost. China has no sphere of influence. VietNam was in the USSR's influence (VietNam actually had a war with China over the Northern Border at one time and Hanoi continues to harrass Chinese shipping every now and then) and Mongolia is definently in Russia's political influence although they are tied to China culturally.

What I am trying to say is China has not done any "empire building" as of late. Nothing compared to the US or even Russia today (The Former republics are really only independent in name only and Cuba's policies are still greatly influenced by Moscow). China may have a large military but they have not used it in a long time since the Sino-Vietnamese War. North Korea is just nuts. They are Stalnist in their practice of communism. China is Maoist. One can argue that the DPRK is the last vestige of hardline Stalinist states.

[tasty]

First, it's not unipolar, second, it's not ignorant to think it's just, efficient or positive, just because that opinion differs from yours.

Not reading the foreign policy abstracts lately? It's been commonly agreed on that the international system hasn't been bipolar since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Especially the efficient part.  Where do you base that reaction from?

Economically, I base that opinion on dependancy theory. How LDCs exist on the periphery to feed the core EDCs. We extract the raw materials of the third world, process them in our country to add value, and sell them back to the rest of the world. The economic inequality that exists between industrialized democracies and the rest of the world is inefficient. Also think about aid we give. If trade were fair, would this aid even be necessary?

It is important to understand how we got in this position, but that's really an easy answer.  The mobilization of this country's infrastructure in WW2 and post WW2 is what put the USA into the world power it is.  

You're right, this is how we sprung to the position of dominant world power. However, when I said "got in this position" I was going back much further than this to the time that we colonized this country by running Indians off the land and taking from Mexico. To the time we boosted our economy by using slave labor. No, we are not the only country that engaged in these barbarous practices. I'm just saying we became the global hegemon by more than just hard work and elbow grease.
 

Especially when compared to the rest of the developed world.  What nations give aid like the USA?  Who comes close?  Even talk about it in terms of % of the GNP.  

I'll fully admit that these numbers are old (they are from 1994), so tell me if you have evidence in any massive changes in them since then:
Economic Aid Given: 1994
United States: 7.87 billion
France: 6.71 billion
Germany: 5.4 billion
Japan: 10.49 billion

Here are the numbers as percentages of our GNP:
United States: .14%
France: .65%
Germany: .36%
Japan:  .34%
So of the world's largest economies, France would actually be the biggest donor percentage-wise.


edit: Also, can someone please explain what the justification for nuking North Korea or China in the 1950s would have been?

[Cossack]

edit: Also, can someone please explain what the justification for nuking North Korea or China in the 1950s would have been?

To get into a nuclear holocaust. Anyone think Stalin and Kruschev would just sit idle while American bombers irradiated Manchuria and the DPRK?

[BFG]

Tell ya whats really funny; america / some americans, seem to still have the idea that america is the defender of democracy, some sort of holy crusader of good against evil. The land of the free etc... now that is funny.

[kami]

BFG, especially since it's technically not even a democracy, hah!

GhostSniper, the Scandinavian countries don't rely on the US or NATO for protection, they rely on diplomacy and the UN. kthxbi.

[tasty]

These are the newest figures I could find and are for the year 2002:
[/quotes]
Thanks for updating my numbers. This is what happens when I buy my World Factbooks at used book sales.

I find it funny that the countries that give the biggest percentage of their GNP depend mainly on the United States for their defense needs when the shit really hits the fan.

What an unfounded assertion. When have Luxembourg and Denmark relied on the US for their military needs? And don't say WWII, because that isn't relevant to the postcolonial era to which aid figures apply. Everyone knows these countries aren't major military powers; giving a greater percentage of your economy to aid rather than useless military buildup should be something to be proud of. These countries are trying to foster an era of greater political partcipation and cooperation through organizations like the UN, EU, and ICC, hopefully decreasing the need for a robust arms race.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Not reading the foreign policy abstracts lately? It's been commonly agreed on that the international system hasn't been bipolar since the fall of the Soviet Union.

That is not a UNIVERSAL belief Tasty, and I think for myself.

Economically, I base that opinion on dependancy theory. How LDCs exist on the periphery to feed the core EDCs. We extract the raw materials of the third world, process them in our country to add value, and sell them back to the rest of the world. The economic inequality that exists between industrialized democracies and the rest of the world is inefficient. Also think about aid we give. If trade were fair, would this aid even be necessary?

Yes, the aid we give would still be necessary, because we are charitable, and yes, people are starving that we want to feed for no other reason then to feed them.

And your conclusion of ineffeciency based upon a dependancy theory is laughable.  First, in your model, we would be the more efficient, not the less.  Second, you need to take a long look at our import/export numbers before you spout off about this matter, because you are wrong.  I've looked at the UN reports on it, and we still import more FINISHED GOODS then we EXPORT.  Not to mention the amount of raw resources in this country.  In the big picture, you are just wrong. Especially coming from you when you bitch about us using our natural resources in the first place (foresting, remember).

You're right, this is how we sprung to the position of dominant world power. However, when I said "got in this position" I was going back much further than this to the time that we colonized this country by running Indians off the land and taking from Mexico. To the time we boosted our economy by using slave labor. No, we are not the only country that engaged in these barbarous practices. I'm just saying we became the global hegemon by more than just hard work and elbow grease.

Tasty, you know that makes a Native American madder then all hell?  It's for some white liberal to go spouting off about the stealing of the land by the white man.  It goes to show that you know little about the actual plight of the Native Americans, and even less about Native American history.  So don't be another ignorant fool.

Also, take your spin off it again.  You say "we are not the only country that engaged in these barbarous practices".  At that time, every country that could, did.  Don't talk about the Brits not having slaves, because they did, just not in England.  What nation didn't kick around some other people to establish it's borders?  

Now let's talk about the economic "boost" of slavery.  It's a fallacy.  Any economic gains made by the southern states was lost in the economic void after the civil war.  And if not then, by the Great Depression afterwards.  

You are just trying to spill old guilt, needless guilt, misplaced guilt, to tarnish something that shouldn't be.  You'd make Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore proud in that bullshit.

I'll fully admit that these numbers are old (they are from 1994), so tell me if you have evidence in any massive changes in them since then:
Economic Aid Given: 1994
United States: 7.87 billion
France: 6.71 billion
Germany: 5.4 billion
Japan: 10.49 billion

Here are the numbers as percentages of our GNP:
United States: .14%
France: .65%
Germany: .36%
Japan:  .34%
So of the world's largest economies, France would actually be the biggest donor percentage-wise.

In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion.  That doesn't include the $4.3 billion the United States budgeted on peacekeeping operations.  However, if you had gotten the point of my post, where you can't judge America just by it's government.  So, add on to that the Red Cross, Feed the Children, and all those hundreds of other charities we give to that go to foreign countries.  

A side note, notice who's giving more, and who's giving less over the years too.  Seems that only the USA is giving more, and remember, those dollars are worth less now, 10 years later.  So, seems like these European governments (the ones Tasty mentioned at least) are going in the wrong direction.

Try this one Tasty:

The USA is the world's biggest giver!
"When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion.

Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.

No, Americans don't give, do we.  That's 2.3 percent.  And if you measure Americans by only what the government gives, then you are just playing that spin game you claim to hate so much.

BFG GEN, you have no idea what land of the free means, and twisting it like that just shows a lack of intelligence, and taste.  Nobody here has said that the government of the USA hasn't done the wrong things, nobody.  The difference is, there are quite a few people that love to take pot shots at America, when their own countries aren't even close to perfect (and that list would include at least 3 of you posting here).  

Think how stupid someone would be and sound when all they do is talk about how arrogant the germans are, or how stupid the Brits?  Doesn't matter what's said, they just keep trying (even when they are wrong) to point out the flaws in another country.  

So don't be a horses ass and start another flame like that BFG.  

[Cobra]

...er...I have to go with Cassock on this one.  A lottery is a better solution...

[tasty]

That is not a UNIVERSAL belief Tasty, and I think for myself.

I just said it was common, not universal. You said "it's not" as if it were a fact that it were not unipolar, when you are in fact in the minority. If you want to dispute it then go ahead and give you reasons why you dispute it, don't just say "it's not unipolar" and expect me to receive it like fact.

First, in your model, we would be the more efficient, not the less.  

I'm talking in terms of a world system here, not just from our own personal economic point of view.

I've looked at the UN reports on it, and we still import more FINISHED GOODS then we EXPORT.  

Yes, because we have the money to afford extra things we don't need. When I talk about things we export, I am talking about examples like how US Corporations buy coffee from Mexico, grind it up and add preservatives, and then sell it back to Mexicans in their grocery stores. There is a significant value added system in many different businesses that allows US companies to make money off of peripheral nations.

Not to mention the amount of raw resources in this country.  In the big picture, you are just wrong. Especially coming from you when you bitch about us using our natural resources in the first place (foresting, remember).

The answer to my complaints about using too many resources isn't to just take resources from other countries, it's to use less paper and waste overall. We do have many raw goods in this country, which is a large part of what has allowed our economy to become like it is today. We still make plenty of profit off the resources of other countries though, and this is capital that gets added back into the US.

You're right, this is how we sprung to the position of dominant world power. However, when I said "got in this position" I was going back much further than this to the time that we colonized this country by running Indians off the land and taking from Mexico. To the time we boosted our economy by using slave labor. No, we are not the only country that engaged in these barbarous practices. I'm just saying we became the global hegemon by more than just hard work and elbow grease.

Tasty, you know that makes a Native American madder then all hell?  It's for some white liberal to go spouting off about the stealing of the land by the white man.  It goes to show that you know little about the actual plight of the Native Americans, and even less about Native American history.  So don't be another ignorant fool.

Do you know what makes an arguer madder than hell? When their opponent claims that they are ignorant and angering them without even giving a good explanation for why. I have plenty of education about the Native American experience. In 2000 supported the candidacy of Winona LaDuke, a 100% Anishinabe Indian. And in the two times I've seen her speak, you can damn well guarantee that she is with me on this issue. So don't go around trying to claim that I don't know anything about it because I'm white. I'd think you would know better than to play the "Race Card". Besides, just because you are Native American doesn't mean you speak for all of them. Did it ever occur to you that there may be division among the Native American community? That doesn't make you right just because you are one and I'm not.

Also, take your spin off it again. You say "we are not the only country that engaged in these barbarous practices".  At that time, every country that could, did.  Don't talk about the Brits not having slaves, because they did, just not in England.  What nation didn't kick around some other people to establish it's borders?  

It was a reservation to my argument, not "spin". I'm well aware that the Dutch, British, French, and numerous other countries did things just as ghastly as we did during this time. No coincidence that today they are, along with the US, in the upper echelon of economically powerful nations. I never said that our experience was any worse than any other power of the colonial period. Societal standards have changed since then, and people know better now. All I wanted was for you to recognize the role that it played in allowing countries like ours to maintain power over smaller countries with less technology, less money, and less imperial intention.

Now let's talk about the economic "boost" of slavery.  It's a fallacy.  Any economic gains made by the southern states was lost in the economic void after the civil war.  And if not then, by the Great Depression afterwards.  

If those economic gains had not been made before the Civil War, then what would have happened? The economic void would have been even worse and our country would have been down that same amount afterwards. A surplus created is a surplus created and is helpful whether it is eventually lost or not.

You are just trying to spill old guilt, needless guilt, misplaced guilt, to tarnish something that shouldn't be.  You'd make Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore proud in that bullshit.

Sheesh, gimme a break with the character defamation. When have I drawn a comparison between you and a figure I don't like in a debate? I don't think I ever have.

That doesn't include the $4.3 billion the United States budgeted on peacekeeping operations.

Ha, a mention of peacekeeping. How novel! Considering the UN is responsible for almost all peacekeeping and considering the fact that we owe backfees to the UN for about the past 6 years, I'd say our peacekeeping efforts are rather meager when compared to the efforts of countries like Japan, who gives by far the highest percentage of its money to the UN, or the Netherlands, who actually commits their troops to do peacekeeping instead of just giving money.

However, if you had gotten the point of my post, where you can't judge America just by it's government.  

I was just comparing governments. Your point about private giving is a good one. However, to know what you meant by this in your previous post, I would have had to read your mind.
"Can't judge America just by it's government ? Look at how much private money we give!"

[The Golden Shark]

Yes Mrt, I do have a gun.  After years of defending your right to badmouth me and the President, I feel much safer with my 10mm Glock by my side to protect my family from someone like you who would probably try to break into my house to steal my Macintosh.  So I say come to me, come to me Mrt and let me show you this sweet toy of mine which, like Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum, can blow your head clean off

whoa dood. you need to chill out with that shit. unfortunatly, ( im not trying to insult you) but i think people like you are the reason world peace will never be reached.

you buy into the media, and the fear they sell. you believe what the president says, no questions asked. i really recomened you watch "bowling for columbine" by micheal moore. its a talks about this exact issue and is an excelt movie. watch it, then tell me you are a right wing, gun owning, violent man, who follows the NRA.

really, this post was more in sorrow, and pitty, than in anger, or hate.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'm talking in terms of a world system here, not just from our own personal economic point of view.

So am I.  Doesn't change that in your model, the USA is more efficient.  It's just the efficient subsystem in the overall system.  

Yes, because we have the money to afford extra things we don't need. When I talk about things we export, I am talking about examples like how US Corporations buy coffee from Mexico, grind it up and add preservatives, and then sell it back to Mexicans in their grocery stores.

Which is a drop in the bucket in the whole picture.  You can nit-pick all you want Tasty, but the truth is, other countries profit more on America then America profits off other countries.  So yes, you can find a few countries that disagree with that model, but the overall numbers, and the truth is, economically, they make more from us, then we do off them.

We still make plenty of profit off the resources of other countries though, and this is capital that gets added back into the US.

And they still make more profit off us.

Do you know what makes an arguer madder than hell? When their opponent claims that they are ignorant and angering them without even giving a good explanation for why. I have plenty of education about the Native American experience. In 2000 supported the candidacy of Winona LaDuke, a 100% Anishinabe Indian. And in the two times I've seen her speak, you can damn well guarantee that she is with me on this issue. So don't go around trying to claim that I don't know anything about it because I'm white. I'd think you would know better than to play the "Race Card". Besides, just because you are Native American doesn't mean you speak for all of them. Did it ever occur to you that there may be division among the Native American community? That doesn't make you right just because you are one and I'm not.

Oh wow, you got behind a Native American candidate, that makes you oh so intelligent on Native American history, doesn't it?  

That's a perfect example of the modern liberal bullshit I'm talking about Tasty.  You think that you supporting a candidacy means shit in this?  Tell me what it has to do with this?

I didn't play the race card, you did (tried to).  And it's not yours to play.  Which pisses me off, yes.  I know the division in the Native American community.  So much so that I'll even give you a little history which does fit right in.  Who did "the whites" take the black hills from?  The Souix?  Who did the Souix kick out of the black hills, the Crow?  Who did the Crow kick out of the black hills, the Yute?  Do I need to go on?  The Native American nations were at war with each other for years.  So YOU don't lump them all together and presume to speak about what the "white man" did.  Because you represent it all wrong, just to fit your liberal agenda.  Yes, there was genocide, yes there were broken treaties (which are the real issues left today).  But yes, there were many Native Americans taking part in the killing of the other nations, both before the white man, and along side him later.  And all of that has absolutely NOTHING to do with why the USA is now where it's at.  

So what makes me right and you wrong?  I have a real education in it, including a good deal of history that does not involve the "white man".  

All I wanted was for you to recognize the role that it played in allowing countries like ours to maintain power over smaller countries with less technology, less money, and less imperial intention.

You missed my point completely.  Name some countries that didn't.  It's not just the powerful, it was pretty much all of them.  Including those that aren't world powers.  So you bringing it up is spin, it is just more bullshit that means absolutely nothing in the context of being a superpower or not (where this started).  

If those economic gains had not been made before the Civil War, then what would have happened? The economic void would have been even worse and our country would have been down that same amount afterwards. A surplus created is a surplus created and is helpful whether it is eventually lost or not.

I completely disagree with you, because the economic and industrial strength of the nation was in the North, not the South.  The north, where slavery wasn't used.  

And it wasn't just the surplus in the south lost, it was much more then the surplus.

Add to that the assumption you are making that without slavery, the economic gains wouldn't have been made.  There's just no depth to it.

Face it, you played the guilt card where it sure as hell doesn't belong.

Ha, a mention of peacekeeping. How novel! Considering the UN is responsible for almost all peacekeeping and considering the fact that we owe backfees to the UN for about the past 6 years, I'd say our peacekeeping efforts are rather meager when compared to the efforts of countries like Japan, who gives by far the highest percentage of its money to the UN, or the Netherlands, who actually commits their troops to do peacekeeping instead of just giving money.

Not one word you said there changes how much the USA spent on it, now does it?  So, there you go, giving more left wing propaganda and acting like the USA doesn't do anything.  BTW, the USA does get involved with peacekeeping with and without the UN, you disagreeing with them doing it on their own doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

However, if you had gotten the point of my post, where you can't judge America just by it's government.  

I was just comparing governments. Your point about private giving is a good one. However, to know what you meant by this in your previous post, I would have had to read your mind.
"Can't judge America just by it's government ? Look at how much private money we give!"

Not read my mind, just my post.

Where I don't agree with you Tasty, is where you think we do a little good and a lot of bad.  I think we do much more good then you give the country credit for.  Especially when compared to the rest of the developed world.  What nations give aid like the USA?  Who comes close?  Even talk about it in terms of % of the GNP.  

Sure, the government has made mistakes with the right intentions.  Yes, the government as actually done wrong on purpose.  The the nation is 1) more then the government and 2) still does more good then harm.  

Notice the nation is more then the government comment right there.  Now, you assumed I meant governments, which I didn't, and that's ok, but now answer the other questions I asked, with the right numbers, and how all the other countries you talk about are giving LESS now.  Go ahead, those are answers I'd like to hear.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

btw, if they nuked korea, hawaii and california and the whole west coast would get poliution, cause wind blows from west to east and the ocean is like rite fucking there, if u want to run mexicans out of california that is the way to go.but since im mexican lets, not

Smokie, think about what you are saying.  Please.

[smoke.aHa!]

its no bull shit, this isnt the nukes of the 1980's, they have purified hydrogen bombs and all that other crazyshit that makes things go boom. that one power plant in russia that got fucked up by nuclear stuff is still polluting the planet, concrete cant hold this shit back, what makes u think water will be any different? and i think with 1 nuk u could probably make the planet go smoked