VeeshanVault

http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20 ... index.html

49 percent cannot find New York
11 percent cannot find the United States

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Maybe I shouldn't laugh...yeah I should.
Ignorant fucks.

shobe

Topping the scoring was Sweden, with an average of 40, followed by Germany and Italy, each with 38. None of the countries got an "A," which required average scores of 42 correct answers or better on the 56 questions.

In the world map test, Swedes could find an average of 13 of the 16 countries. Germans and Italians were next, with an average of 12 each.

Another reason why we > you !

Dumb fucks.

Sigh.

I could have told them all the right answers. I swear that when they do these, they gather up the results outside of an Eminem concert.

at one point Kylere, I would have agreed with you.

However in school, a good friend of mine and I frequently pick a topic and poll about 30 to 40 people, and keep the tabs on how many get it right.

Questions like, who is the vice president.
Who are the palestinians fighting against.
Who was Luke Skywalkers father.
Who ran against the President in the last election.
Where is Cuba.

Stuff like that....if 10% of the people polled got it right...we were shocked. We had running bets on this stuff OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS.

And this was people in college.

Jesus Truant. That is frightening.

Bwahaha, America pwned again!

Tegellan wrote:Bwahaha, America pwned again!

I personally don't have a problem with geography, but saying america pwned again is verra funny. To paraphrase Jim Rome:

We still pwn ANYONE at the #1 game ever played...

WAR.

Actually Aranuil, the #1 game in the world is .....

GEMS


Thx~

Well, asking a euro student where their neighboring countries are is similar to asking an American what states border their own. Asking a euro where Arkansas is on the US map is like asking an American where Germany is on a map of Europe. Some may get it, many may not. It's not as cut and dry as the survey shows, as is the case with most surveys.

The international survey was conducted for the National Geographic by RoperASW. The results were based on face-to-face interviews with at least 300 men and women aged 18 to 24 in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, Britain and the United States.

300 people? Total? Not the greatest sample if you ask me. And they're saying the people couldn't find these places on a map, what map is anyone ever going to need to find a place on without it's name being labelled? That's the point of a map. Pretty weak attempt at an attention-grabbing article, imo.

It wasn't quite that hard, Sylvus. I went to the site and took the sample quiz they had. On the map questions if you knew the general area of where the country was you would get it right as the countries were numbered and it was multiple choice.

I would agree with you if it was just a blank map and you had to point, but even with names on a map it would take someone a while to find a place if they didn't even know where to begin looking.

You if you actually had business in Iraq you're most likely going to know where it is.

I lose no sleep knowing that some teenagers know little geography.

If they ever get a job that requires that knowledge they'll learn it in 10 minutes.

Given a blank US map, how many Americans could properly label all the states and spell the names correctly?

>50% I'd guess.

There are college students who can't spell their own names. Over here we have a word for them...... Atheletes.

Was a pretty easy quiz. Only missed the one on largest religion... I could of swore Islam was the #1 religion in the world.

The percentage of people on the planet that know where Sweden is was funny.

The percentage of Americans that didn't know where the US is was sad

These little quizzes are sometimes just a bunch of bullshit however. Yeah, in 10th grade I was made to memorize every country in the world and about 100 other major cities and rivers. 10 years later, some of that information has changed. How many of us which once learned where the "U.S.S.R" was could know name and locate the 10+ territories that have taken it's place?

Keeping track of current events and knowing where they take place is one thing, priding yourself on knowing where every country is and it's current government/leader/exports, etc. is more of a trivial matter.

For all you spermologists out there (whereas a spermologist is not one who manufactures Haley's dream diet (!) but rather a collector of trivia), this little tidbit is a bit more shocking. You know who has the most updated World Map? It's not the National Geographic Society, or the U.S. State Department even. It's the Coca-Cola company.

>used to be a horologist

ask the right 'sampling' of people the right questions and you can prove anything is true.
there are no absolutes.
though americans as a whole can be pretty dumb
and i is one.
even knowing that, theres no place id rather be

there are no absolutes

Ummm...that statement is paradoxical.

rhyae wrote:There are no absolutes.

I beg to differ.

Holy Cow Aran,
I am sure that if you were say a bunch of Canadians doing war games next the americans like in ohh say Afghanistan and you came under friendly fire from said americans you would probably wish they could locate the largest city in the USA let alone listen to combat instructions.

America pwned

..what?

Mawafu wrote:..what?

I said, "LAKER'S SUCK!!!!"

Vlade flop>all

Fuck off, Cid!

Shaq is back, baby!!

Atokal wrote:Holy Cow Aran,
I am sure that if you were say a bunch of Canadians doing war games next the americans like in ohh say Afghanistan and you came under friendly fire from said americans you would probably wish they could locate the largest city in the USA let alone listen to combat instructions.

America pwned

First of all, I would never make light about the loss of life to Canadian troops, but I will be frank.

Allied forces are ultimately under American command, and I view them as American assets no matter what country they originate from. The days of hiring conscripts and not caring what happens to them are long gone. Accidents happen in war, to both friendly forces and with 'collateral damage' (nice way of saying we fucked up and killed some civilians). Several actual Americans also died due to friendly fire in the war. These accidents are not due to incompetence on the part of the soldiers that died, or the people who accidentally killed them. Moreoften than not, these accidents are due to a lack of communication, which is unfortunate and highly regrettable whether they happen to Americans, Canadians, Brits, or Pakistani troops.

The fact is that when our soldiers volunteer for service, they understand that yes, they might be called, and yes they might die, but they are willing to do that to defend their way of life, and their country that they love.

The fact that there are individuals in Canada that may think it was an intentional act, or that it's any more or less regrettable when ANY allied force dies is retarded. If that is in fact your opinion, I reject you totally.

Our armed forces are the best trained, best equipped in the entire world, and there is not a country on the planet that could defeat us in a conventional war. The fact that we allow Canadian forces to train with us, and that we support and protect Canada means you owe us your gratitude, not your jibes.

Ignorance, pwned.

EDIT:
Here are two links from CNN.com. If you would prefer, I can probably find the same thing from BBC's web site.

The first link details the incidents as they occurred, and shows some of the ways that the US has expressed regret for the incident, and admiration for the skill and courage shown by the Canadian force. It also expresses thanks for Canada's ongoing support.

The second link gives more details about how the accident could have happened. Clearly if a fighter feels he is being fired upon, he should be able to act in self defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/c ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/c ... index.html

Both articles also make mention of two other 'friendly fire incidents' that occurred during the war where American forces died.

You if you actually had business in Iraq you're most likely going to know where it is.

I lose no sleep knowing that some teenagers know little geography.

If they ever get a job that requires that knowledge they'll learn it in 10 minutes.

Guess I'm just euro-centric when I believe that knowing there's a world outside your own borders is a good thing...

Hello?

I did fine just missed the religion one. I think Islam untill somewhat recently WAS the #1 religion in the wolrd...Go Go Christian broadcasting network?!

Drolgin.....can you locate Vermont on a blank map? How about El Salvador? I would venture to say that unless it is a major country, most people across the globe cannot pick out 25% of the countries that are not on their own continent.

Yes and Yes, Kilmoll.

So you can locate Vermont on a map, but you didn't know Denmark was the capital of Sweden? heh

Denmark capital of Sweden? Ok, it's halibuts at dawn, sir! An insult of that magnitude cannot go unpunished!

Denmark is more of a suburb of sweden Kilmoll.

In Flames came from Sweden, and In Flames owns.


- Johan Bork

In Flames is indeed own

I would really love to see what percentage of questions President Bush would get wrong on that survey on the Nat'l Geographic site....my guess is he'd get about 50% of them wrong

Aranuil wrote: The fact that there are individuals in Canada that may think it was an intentional act, or that it's any more or less regrettable when ANY allied force dies is retarded. If that is in fact your opinion, I reject you totally.

Ignorance, pwned.

.

Never said it was intentional more the tragedy my friend. Considering the pilots were NOT given clearance to fire. Big lack of communication and ignorance there .

I didn't find that test particularly hard, and I'm a product of a public school in the United States. It's all relative. If you don't go to school, much less listen in it, why expect some kids to know where Argentina is?
With a vastly underfunded public school system in the United States it is no surprise the reporters could find horrible results if they wanted to.

Atokal wrote:Considering the pilots were NOT given clearance to fire. Big lack of communication and ignorance there.

This is not an accurate statement.

The pilots were not given clearance to strafe the target site because of the 10,000 foot hard deck defined in their rules of engagement. The pilots were given permission to paint the target and to fire in self-defense if they felt they were threatened. Clearly, in the opinion of the pilots they felt they were threatened and they acted in self-defense.

Whether the ground fire directed at the aircraft was from the Canadian excercise or from another source is unclear, but eye witnesses stated they saw tracer fire directed skyward.

Because of the defined hard-deck, the pilots dropped a 500-lb. bomb.
Lack of communication yes. Ignorance... I don't think this word means what you think it means.

Why you chose to bring this up... What correlation you saw between a National Geographic geography survey, and the tragic friendly-fire incident, I have no idea, but I feel very strongly that it was in poor taste.

99% of all of the fighter pilots in the US forces are former academy graduates. Only the top 1% of the top 1% are allowed to become fighter pilots. I seriously doubt that the American education system was what caused the friendly-fire incident.

actually according to your own brass and communications logs they were expressly told not to drop and they dropped anyway. this is why they are going to court for second degree murder.

I bring this up bro because of your statement that the USA is still the best at the only game that matters WAR.

/nod Kyu.

Further with regards to the 10,000 foot deck, now I am no ballistics expert but it seems to me that the ordinary rifle used by the Canadian military posed no threat to the pilots of the fighter jets. (remember this was at night) Kinda like shooting at a charging rhino with a pee shooter while blind folded. If your position is this was an acceptable reason to disobey orders and drop the bomb. Well ignorance was not and never will be pwned with that weak argument.

Cheers
btw talking about poor taste umm mentioning war on a thread regarding the average geographical knowledge of the American population was in poor taste. Since war sucks and most people would agree who gives a shit if the USA is the best at a detestable game?

Kyoukan is correct, per this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/29/friend ... index.html

However the pilots have yet to be declared guilty of negligence.

The war comment was based on Shaion's statement that 'we > you', which reminded me of the joke Jim Rome has said several times when the British team has beaten the American team in the Ryder Cup.

There is no doubt in my mind that the fighters were taking fire. I highly doubt they were taking it from the Candian forces, but to a pilot in a night vision scope, I'm sure a large live fire exercise would look like a source of gunfire. At no time were the pilots aware, or made aware of the exercise taking place.

My position is that if an soldier's life is threatened and it is within his rules of engagement to act in self-defense then he shouldn't be penalized for doing so. My position is that the failure in this incident was the failure to make the pilots aware of the excercise. Clearly a failure on the part of the US armed forces, but this in no way disproves my original statement that the US military is the best trained, best equipped and most effective military in the world.

Since the jets were at 23,000 feet, the 10,000 foot deck does not come into play, however out of interest, I did some research. A typical Canadian light infantry unit will have two heavy machine gunners using the M60E3 7.62mm machine gun. Though the maximum effective range on this weapon is only 3609 feet, the maximum range is 2.3 miles which exceeds 10,000 feet. Therefore if the planes had been 'on the deck' (which they weren't), they could have received fire from the Canadian forces (which they almost definitely didn't).

There are far better examples of our military fucking up royally in the past that could have been used than a single friendly fire incident. Last I checked Canada was one of our most staunchest allies, and as I said, I view the loss of an allied force be it by friendly or by enemy fire as no different than the loss of an american soldier/asset.

Incidentally, I agree with you. War is a detestable game. It's also a necessary game. We can't choose when and where our enemies will strike (as evidenced on 9/11), but we can be prepared for it, and we can react with extreme prejudice. We can also use our armed forces to perform preventative srtikes when necessary. Not all countries can afford to rely upon their neighbors to protect them. The United States learned during WWII that isolationism doesn't work.

don't you think it is a little derogatory and arrogant to regard other countries that give up lives and dollars towards fighting a war that is not their own and making enemies they didn't have in the process "american assets"?

because I certainly fucking think it is.

Nope. Same way that the brits refered to us as assets, and the same way that companies prefer to people as "our most important assets".

I wasn't asking you, retard. Go back to putting me on stfu and declaring it every 30 seconds like its somehow empowering you to be more like an actual man.

That's the funny thing about a public messageboard.. everyone is entiled to reply.

As for having you on stuf, I ended up remove you.. simply because, frankly, it wasn't as easy to laugh at your idioicy when you were on it.

Just another devoted fan of kyoucan the man here, someone just a walking example of how a pussy can be a bad thing.

kyoukan type-R wrote:don't you think it is a little derogatory and arrogant to regard other countries that give up lives and dollars towards fighting a war that is not their own and making enemies they didn't have in the process "american assets"?

because I certainly fucking think it is.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you all day. However, since you asked...

Soldiers, weapons, vehichles under American command are 'assets' no matter which country they come from. I refer to American soldiers as assets as well. No, I don't think it's in any way derogatory. Given that I stated:

I view the loss of an allied force be it by friendly or by enemy fire as no different than the loss of an American soldier/asset.

That seems to indicate I hold our allies/allied forces in the highest regard. I have great respect for any country that assists my country in defending my way of life.

Aranuil wrote:That seems to indicate I hold our allies/allied forces in the highest regard. I have great respect for any country that assists my country in defending my way of life.

Semantics aside my friend but it is "our" way of life not just the yanks. Remembering of course that we all enjoy freedom and democracy neither of which are uniquely american.

I do understand the comment regarding assets during war. As this is a common enough term in combat command.

Cheers

said, "LAKER'S SUCK!!!!"

You are kidding, right?