All joking aside, if the United States stopped meddling in the affairs of other countries, for both humanitarian and corporate reasons, and devoted the bulk of their defence spending to other areas, like infrastructure, education, and reforms, the United States could become a beacon of advancement in less than a decade. The United States could easily become the ACTUAL 'greatest country on earth'.
They just need to realign their priorities.
@I Are Lebo, Other countries get mad at us for meddling in affairs and then want us to be the world police. It's one or the other damnit! I agree with you though, other countries need to chip in more when it comes to the humanitarian effort.
@I Are Lebo, Couldn't agree more, almost half a trillion of our tax dollars go to the defense budget.
@Commandshark, countries wants US to be the world police? 😂
@Juggy, yeah, if shït hits the fan most countries except us to be there to help. I'm all for helping your friends, but we're the worlds bitch at this point. We're getting oil and shït in return but they don't give a shït about that, they swim in oil over there
@Juggy, he's right. Look at libya, syria and Ukraine. None of those countries are strategically important to us, but all you hear about is "why isn't the US doing more to help?" Libya was the most annoying; for weeks the world cried we didn't do anything, then as soon as we did countries went right back to criticizing. Those countries are significant to europe, they can deal with them, instead of expecting the US to do something.
@Dexios S Divine, the worst part? Were not evwn getting oil out of it. People always assume we are because of Iraq, but we let their oil companies sell their oil and we don't get any of it. So we don't get anything in return.
@Oujosh29, it must be raining thank you letters day and night there in the US from the middle east. Dont you find it odd the countries US is supposedly liberating was trying to convert from the US currency to gold?
You guys watch way too many Michael Bay films.
P.S. oil is only one thing. But hey what do i know right? 😁
@Oujosh29, the reason why people ask is because you guys bully the small countries and act like you are the worlds police and stand up for certain values across the world, but when a bigger country does anything you talk a big game and back out as quick as possible... we dont consider you guys the worlds police... you cause a lot of the violence in the world whether it is direct or not. And we dont assume you go in to get oil out of it. You have gone into the middle east whenever a super power has threatened the oil economy (such as the soviet union), or when leaders threaten to sever ties to the US which starts the whole oil joke
@I Are Lebo, socialist scum
@Juggy, the US killed 75% of ISIS fighters through drone strikes. We eliminate the cancer before it spreads. You are welcome.
@Juggy, you think the wars started over the gold standard? Lol, yeah, no.
@Michael Fassbender, along with..? Maybe they can nuke the remaining population with nukes, nagasaki and hiroshima style.
@I Are Lebo, nice joke but everyone knows that corporate America would never quit they have more money to get and barely do anything with
@TheBlitz, how do we bully the smaller countries? By giving them a crap load in foreign aid? By signing trade deals that favor them? By being the biggest fiancial backer of the UN and other aid organizations? I actually would like the US to demand more for what it gives instead of being afraid of being called mean or bullying. The US is gonna be called that anyways, might as well get something out of it. As for the middle east, its not about oil, and people can say no one wants us to be the worlds police, but they are usually the first ones to ask why isn't the US doing anything about (insert foreign crisis here, Syria, Ukraine, etc.)?
@Oujosh29, i didnt say it did.. well that being said US got a hollow economy being based in currency with nothing to back it up, its only a matter of time before it cracks.
@Juggy, ok... You obviously don't know about history or politics. In world war 2 we were at war with the nation of Japan which during the war was the most unconventional and unethical military at the time, nuking 2 under populated cities strategically ended the war without an invasion of the Japanese land. ISIS is a group with no official political power of borders, if a couple citizens may have died because of US drone strikes to kill thousands of ISIS members that's fine because the ISIS members would kill millions if they had the power.
@Juggy, if you mean the US will eventually be called on its massive 20 trillion dollar debt and climbing, and with neither party doing anything about, then yeah. Not looking forward to that.
@Juggy, you'd best hope the US economy doesn't collapse or the world is F***ed
@Michael Fassbender, did you just justify nuking 2 civilian populated places? Americans got too butt hurt because of pearl harbour (a military facility if i may add).
Look at what your media and government did and still doing to libya and syria. Plus US made ISIS in the first place
@Michael Fassbender, coz US is the saviour of man kind right?
@Juggy, 1) an invasion of Japan was predicted to kill 1,000,000 people, I'd rather have 100,000 enemies of the United States dead instead of 1 American, you'll call me a racist or something dumb but I'm a nationalist damnit 2) Islam (a religion of hatred and oppression) created ISIS
@Juggy, because every economy in the world relies on the US and a few other countries. We also have the nukes.
@Michael Fassbender, i rest my case.. 'murica!!
@Juggy, what bitch ass country are you from?
@Michael Fassbender, guess who you guys thought also got nukes?
@Juggy, lol, America got too butt hurt over a sneak attack on American soil when we weren't even at war yet, thats a new one. The two cities we nuked were also legit targets too because war material was being produced there. And michael is right, the projected casualties on the american side was a million dead, on the Japanese side it was north of 5 million. That sound better?
@Oujosh29, for the record I love Asian people, but I do believe the bombing was justified.
@Juggy, We're Americans, shooters shoot
@Michael Fassbender, country which the hour is late. I love to keep this going but i think ive already given some of my points. (Just in case youre wondering im not from a country practising religion of hatred and oppression). I bid you both good day.
@Juggy, too ashamed?
@I Are Lebo, Well America first was Trump's main point so let's hope he delivers.
@I Are Lebo, their is a reason they do it sometimes. A huge bulk of american power resides in the value of the dollar bill. When countries that use the dollar bill suddenly stop using it it defrades the value and influence of our currency.
@Michael Fassbender, I remember my Grandpa telling me how happy he was when they announced that they nuked Japan. The thought of invading mainland Japan was very scary to the Americans because of how brutal the Japs were
@TR8R, they're alright nowadays though
@Commandshark, almost nobody wants the US to act as world police. That's a lie that's told to you because your government very much wants to be the world police. Most of the rest of the world wants to be left alone.
The global attitude towards the USA isn't generally very good right now.
@Juggy, I wish more people would bring that up. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were one of the worst war crimes of the last century. Everyone seems to want it swept under the rug and forgotten about.
@I Are Lebo, it's one of those things where if we weren't there they would want us back. I admit we are overstepping in some aspects, but up until the end of the Cold War we were needed.
@Michael Fassbender, just so you are aware of the propaganda you're spouting, the bombing at the end of WW2 was not justified because that isn't why Japan surrendered. Japan surrendered a few days after the bombing because the Soviet Union began invading them. Their defence minister was quoted saying he saw no difference between a hundred small bombs and one big bomb.
There never would have been an American invasion of Japan. That's a lie that's been passed down three generations now.
The bombing of two non militaristic cities was unjustifiable.
@I Are Lebo, you can't say the eradication of a city in the blink of an eye wasn't a factor. You talk about propaganda and false information with no proof that it's fake.
@I Are Lebo, also you're a Jew and frankly I don't trust Jews
@Michael Fassbender, you are arrogant, you are ignorant, and I genuinely dislike the fact that you are also fairly witty, because other than your comments on here that are jokes, all of your other comments show that you are a scumbag of the lowest order.
I've gone a couple of weeks now without upvoting you, downvoting you, or replying to you, and after this comment I'm going to go back to ignoring you.
The biggest thing I resent you for is you've actually managed to colour my feelings on the real Michael Fassbender, who is a pretty good actor. Hopefully he isn't as much of a hateful POS as you.
@I Are Lebo, a Jew leaving me alone... Perfect.
@Michael Fassbender, do yourself a favour and look up The Untold History Of America. It's on Netflix.
And the anti-Semitic stuff doesn't upset me. It just backs up my assessment of you.
Now kindly fück off.
@I Are Lebo, I'm not trying to be offensive, I just dislike Jews. How do you know that that documentary is true?
@Michael Fassbender, "I'm not racist"
@I Are Lebo, Here's the thing though. If it isn't the US who's doing this, it's going to be someone else. There's always going to be a super power who's meddling in world affairs. If the US stepped down, it would be either Russia or China. And frankly, I'd rather have the US meddling around than Russia or China.
@ScarletSpiderClone, Jew isn't a race
@CriTiKa1, that's actually a pretty good point. It doesn't change the fact that the United States spends more money on defence spending than the next 24 countries combined, which is a phenomenal waste of money.
@Michael Fassbender, Yeah I have nothing against the Japanese now. It does boggle my mind how people have such a skewed view of history though... How people can deny the bombs were a factor in the surrender is beyond me
@TR8R, because they're fückin stupid
@I Are Lebo, The problem is our system, if the President and Congress cut the defense budget that would be public knowledge and if we ever got attacked (even by just lone wolves) it would be blamed on our cuts to defense. Everyone of those politicians would get spit-roasted in public opinion.
@TR8R, it's not an ignorant denial. Do you realize that Nagasaki was the sixth Japanese city to be destroyed during WW2?
Wether or not it factored is irrelevant. The Japanese would have surrendered anyway. In fact, if the Americans would have guaranteed the safety of their emperor, the Japanese would have surrendered months earlier.
It was unnecessary, and therefore evil.
@ScarletSpiderClone, you're right. It's lose-lose. It's the same story it's always been. Corporate and personal interests are always put before the common good, and because the most powerful people are evil men like the Koch brothers, that's unlikely to change anytime soon.
@I Are Lebo, cities being destroyed by concentrated firebombing and cities being destroyed by a single terrifying weapon are very different situations. Reading history and making your conclusions are all well and good but I heard the truth directly from people who lived it
@TR8R, if you stop and think about it, from a practical standpoint, they're really not that different. In fact, the single bombing would be preferable, as it's much easier to shoot down one plane than it is to shoot down a hundred.
Either way, it's still irrelevant. The lie is that the bombing saved many American lives. There never would have been an American invasion on Japanese soil.
America kept threatening to publicly execute the Emperor, who the Japanese revered as a living god. America kept the war going, not the Japanese. In the end, the emperor was spared anyway.
The equivalent would be if another nation was on the verge of defeating America, and they kept publicly stating that once the US surrendered, they'd publicly execute Jesus Christ (who in this scenario was alive and well).
@Michael Fassbender, my issue with your perspective on the ISIS issue and that we should just nuke the Middle East. Japan was entirely justified, however less than .01% of the muslim population can be construed to support extremist fundamentalist groups, so not even just most, but the VAST majority of Muslims are innocent even in areas of greater fundamentalism like in the Middle East. That kind of reaction is over the top especially considering we've been hitting their primary sources of revenue so they're collapsing on their own for the most part. I'd rather we try and bring secular education and slowly deconvert the populace to agnosticism/atheism because all religious fundamentalism is dangerous regardless of the faith (barring maybe Buddhism)
@Sven and Otar, to say they're innocent is a stretch, Muhammad was a pedophile, and most of them support sharia law which oppresses a wide variety of people. While they may not be violently against the west, their beliefs can rarely coexist with western civilization. I hate all organized religions.
@Michael Fassbender, well I'd argue that extreme Judeo-Christian beliefs don't coincide either with what I'd consider the standard morality most people hold in the west. Regardless, even supporters of sharia law are not deserving of death, let alone the horrific kinds of death that result from nuclear fire. A flawed world-view should not result in a death so long as it doesn't directly negatively affect the lives of fellow humans in a way that's worse than death. The best way to bring about peace in terms of religion is to support and protect full and proper secular education. Overreacting with extreme prejudice just makes things worse by making religious people cling harder to their beliefs. But through education and the teaching of critical thinking, we can make them believe the loss of their faith is their own idea. While generally speaking I'm for diplomacy, I would be willing to support the further weakening of the Russian Federation until collapse, then crank up the... (cont'd)
@Michael Fassbender, nationalism knob to 11 and start a slow-moving approach to global domination for the U.S. With a mixture of warfare against the weaker countries and diplomacy for our westernized allies (perhaps initially by making all of Western Europe and Canada a protectorate, then over time defacto annexing them into the U.S. Through the slow erasure of their national identities. While I'm not of the mind that the U.S. Is inherently a better nation, it is currently the best candidate to unite all of humanity under western values and allow us to expand beyond earth and advance as an entire species. While I despise fascisms stances on economics (a weird mixture of the worst of both extreme economic methods), I do think their use of nationalism to great affect and a willingness to be the, "bad guy" with military expansion is admirable. If one could combine their ability to use nationalism to stir support among the people but temper expansionist tendencies enough so as... (cont'd)
@Michael Fassbender, to not over-stretch themselves like those of the past, we could truly forge a United humanity to bring prosperity to the greatest number of people possible and advance us as a whole
@Sven and Otar, the modern world was built in the US's image
@Michael Fassbender, I don't disagree that most of the first world has used the U.S. System of government and their economy as a template. But I just think that all of humanity being united under one nation (being that most people are too naive to ascend above tribalism) and a similar ideology (like multiple political parties to debate on economical issues and how to allocate funds for government programs, but still identifying as a part of a singular tribe) is the best way to achieve world peace and end as much of human suffering as possible on that level and paves the way for further advancement for our species as a whole
@Michael Fassbender, basically change the equation from:
To a de facto: My nation=humanity
@Michael Fassbender, apparently "greater than" signs don't translate into their format
@Sven and Otar, greater than signs do not
@I Are Lebo, practical? Practicality has no place in warfare. Just knowing the enemy has a weapon capable of annihilating cities by itself is a MASSIVE psychological disadvantage. And we can argue all day whether there would've been an invasion, the fact is that plans were made for one, but it wasn't necessary because they surrendered shortly after the bombing. In fact American soldiers were given briefings on what o expect from the civilians of Japan, since it was believed they would join the soldiers in suicide attacks on any invaders
@TR8R, yeah, actually the Imperial government was sending troops to train the populace to fight to the last with everything from rifles to sharpened sticks. The Japanese were so good at their own propaganda machine they had the populations of soon to be occupied islands believing we were cannibals and we would eat them so they'd either fight to the death or they'd just commit suicide. There are several accounts on the island of Okinawa when our troops arrived in the villages of civilians, by the tens, committing mass suicide by jumping off the cliffs, slaughtering their own children, blowing themselves up with grenades to not only kill themselves but our troops as well. The Japanese were far more ruthless. Not to mention we warned them, dropping pamphlets in Japanese at all potential bombing sites for a week prior, that if they did not vacate, they'd face imminent and immediate destruction
@TR8R, I find your understanding of human psychology to be somewhat flawed. The truth is, fear doesn't end wars. That's why terrorism is so fundamentally flawed. Only two things end war. Hopelessness and exhaustion.
When one is fighting for a cause they believe in, there are many ways to end the conflict. But when one is fighting for survival, it becomes a lot simpler. There is no point in surrendering to an enemy that will kill you if you surrender.
No country in the history of the Earth he ever surrendered itself to an enemy country based on a weapons threat. Politics and war is never that simple.
@Sven and Otar, I get what you're saying, but if your asshole neighbour left a note on your door saying that they were going to burn your house down, would you abandon everything you own and flee? (Assuming in this situation you could not involve the police)
@I Are Lebo, to complete the analogy however, that'd be like saying that your asshole neighbors did that in response to you savagely murdering the family dog and beating up their son in a fistfight with him only being able to use his fists while you had a baseball bat and got a couple of solid gut-hits in before he beat you all in the same week. Assuming there was no police, that response would seem pretty fair all things considered
@I Are Lebo, their fight to the last man philosophy wasn't inspired by a need for survival (I'd argue for the civilians due to the propaganda they were being fed it literally came to be about the ultimate form of survival) but rather as a part of their marshal culture and military history. A culture that required failure to be repaid in blood, floggings for even minor failures among enlisted, death for any failure of duty for any and all military personnel via execution or seppuku for the officers. Since failure=death/dishonor and success=possibility for honor and life or death in duty=honor, when faced with the choice of certain death but retaining their honor against Americans or dishonor/death in retreat, they chose the honorable path. An enemy like that cannot be persuaded to surrender without extreme aggression. Believe me, while I'm hugely against the use of nukes for the most part, 40's Imperial Japan is the exception and was completely justified.
@I Are Lebo, especially considering we gave them a whole week to run, and prior to that we never once intentionally slaughtered civilians on their side but they did. I used to be on your side of this debate, but the more I learned about the situation and that theatre of the war (I was mostly a European theatre buff), the more I leaned to the side of our actions being wholly justified
@I Are Lebo, not to mention things like the Batan Death march
@Sven and Otar, there's something huge you are overlooking. The Americans refused to guarantee the survival of the Emperor were Japan to surrender. They weren't just fighting for their sense of honour. They were fighting for the life of their living god.
Seriously. Go watch The Untold History Of America. It's available for free on YouTube, and they do a hell of a lot better at backing up their arguments than I can.
@I Are Lebo, I actually am familiar with the piece, my opposition used it in my argumentative logic class on this topic and I did my homework. We offered the Germans the exact same terms when we declared war on them as well and for the Nazi's "God" was the State and the Führer was the State personified. But the Germans did not have that same ingrained sense of honor being more valuable than life that the Japanese did. Germans, while still ferocious fighters, would often surrender to us and U.K./Canadian forces when the odds were severely stacked against them. The Japanese did not do so. If their "god" demanded that kind of devotion from his followers then their deaths are on him, not us. After the violations against our citizens and troops they committed an unconditional surrender was a fair victory condition
@I Are Lebo, while normally I'd say I'm on your side when it comes to how atrocious the U.S. Has been to inferior powers like the Native Americans, Spain, and Mexico, this is one time our cruelty was wholly justified considering we gave them ample opportunity to perform a mass evacuation of all potential bomb targets, their cruelty in war towards us, the brainwashing of their own citizenry against us, and their unwillingness to surrender in the face of unavoidable defeat. There is no excuse I can fathom nor has been presented to me for why their actions against us were justified and even if we somehow screwed up by sending them into literal fight or die mode, the mass killing of a couple tens of thousands to prevent the slaughter of over a million allied casualties and tens of millions of theirs (both civilian and military) is still morally justifiable in my view
@Sven and Otar, I think you should watch it again, as it seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Japanese culture.
Their emperor (their living god) did not demand anything of them. The position was more a religious one than a political one. The emperor did not address the public directly. That's why I compared him to Jesus, rather than the president.
Hitler was a political leader. Remember that he started out as a chancellor. There is no comparison between them. The German culture then was (and is) very different from Japanese culture.
Let me put it another way. Let's say the United States went to war with North Korea. America was winning, and publicly stated that upon their unconditional surrender, that Kim Jong Un was to be executed for his crimes. The populace would literally fight to the last man rather than surrender. This isn't because they are insane, or savages. It is because in their culture, that specific person is more important than their own lives.
@Sven and Otar, and since you brought it up, you must not forget or dismiss the violations Americans committed against Japanese citizens and troops. Your side was not innocent of war crimes, long before the bombing of Hiroshima.
Some of those internment camps were just as bad as some of the concentration camps in Europe around the same time.
All of that is besides the point. The truth of the matter is, the American Military Industrial Complex got their hands on a powerful super weapon. The mentality is that there is no point having a powerful weapon if you do not use it at least once.
It was unnecessary.
I'm not arguing for anything to be done about it other than the recognition that it was unnecessary. The war did not hinge on those bombs. The war could have ended sooner with proper diplomacy. My belief is that the propaganda makers were too effective in dehumanizing the Japanese to the public, and that dehumanizations permeated every level of American society.
@I Are Lebo, the stance "I will kill a million of them to save a hundred of us" is NOT a patriotic stance. It is a short sighted and selfish one.
@I Are Lebo, I am not some nationalist who believes the U.S. Can do no wrong, I do support generally to find the solution to our biggest problems in the way that harms the fewest people, but Japan's blind attempt at a power grab in the Pacific that attacked us when we were largely defenseless to cripple us so they could have a few years to bulk up military might and bully us in international politics and trade (their goals with Pearl Harbor), effectively required a declaration of war to defend our way of life and assets both foreign and domestic. It was the cruelty they chose to show by not holding back in that surprise opening engagement that warranted an unconditional surrender since they didn't hold to classical traditions in modern war of not trying to harm non-combatant civilians
@Sven and Otar, it's justifiable because of a huge misconception that you have.
The allies would not have had the chance to invade Japan, because the Soviet Union already was in the process of invasion. There was no slaughter to prevent.
All the Allies had to do at that point was focus on finishing the Nazis, and leave the Soviet Union to fight the Japanese.
There would not have been a major offensive. That's the point that I'm trying to make. The nuclear bombing did not prevent an invasion, because the invasion would never have happened anyway.
@Sven and Otar, I'm sorry, that's bullshït. Saying that Japan had to surrender unconditionally because of Pearl Harbour is incredibly ignorant.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in a surprise attack because they were going up against an enemy many time stronger than they were. The hope was to cripple the USA long enough for Japan to finish its interests in the Pacific Ocean.
It had nothing to do with cruelty, it was simple strategy. If they had gone toe to toe with the American Navy from the get go, they'd have been slaughtered.
You don't hold back when you fight a bear. You strike fast, you strike hard, and you hope that you do enough damage that it doesn't immediately take your head off.
As for trying not to harm non combatants, Pearl Harbour was a military target, not a civilian one. America killed a thousand times more Japanese civilians during WW2 than the Japanese killed American civilians.
I'm not arguing who was right or wrong. But stop lying to yourselves.
@Sven and Otar, "they didn't hold to classical traditions in modern war of not trying to harm non-combatant civilians"
Firstly, yes they did. They held to THEIR traditions regarding warfare. Not yours.
Also, it's hard to take criticism about not targeting civilians from a country that wiped out six non military cities.
That's a very hypocritical attitude.
@I Are Lebo, but that wasn't the equation. It was, over a million casualties for us verses tens of millions of theirs. I have no real personal care for nationalities, but tens of millions of estimated casualties over the course of a mainland invasion is worse than a couple tens of thousands in the span of a few days. Additionally all we officially said was that execution for their leaders wasn't off the table. As for the internment camps, you're right, those were inexcusable, however they weren't death camps like Auschwitz. As for how we treated their prisoners while yes, we were probably a bit unnecessarily cruel in capture and treatment until intelligence officials got ahold of them, we still treated them better than they did their prisoners (i.e. No Bataan death march). As for it being their religion/culture, I understand their behavior in battle, while cruel and seemingly insane, came from a culturally held code of ethics, however this is a case where morality is not cont'd
@I Are Lebo, not to mention they way American/Japanese people were treated around the same time.
@Sven and Otar, as a side note: the fortunate truth is that Aushwitz stood alone even in the camps of the Nazis. My father's mother survived Aushwitz. It was by FAR the worst camp. Over 1 million Jews died there alone.
@I Are Lebo, subjective. They were undeniably in the moral wrong for how they behaved, wounding medical personnel first in a battle, drawing us out when wounded so we could patch them up and then detain them and blowing themselves up with a grenade or stabbing/shooting as many as possible before death, and convincing non-Japanese civilians in their occupied territories that we'd eat them and their children alive if we came. Those are wholly inexcusable. Our use of that superweapon was wholly justified regardless of cultural norms here. And frankly, that the emperor, who surely must know he's not actually a god and is just using the position and mystique to manipulate and control his people and maintain his personal power, didn't admit to his mortality and try and end the mind-bending levels of bloodshed for his own people before those events transpired makes their deaths entirely on his shoulders.
@I Are Lebo, they were also besieging our pacific territories at the time and imprisoned the civilians there. Unconditional surrender was still a fair move. As for the eliminations of Dresden among others, they were still production and storage centers for munitions and equipment. While they may have not had a significant military contingent, they did serve as tactical targets.
@Sven and Otar, I'm actually of the impression that not only was the emperor a figurehead, but he may have actually had LESS real power than the common man. He was as trapped by their customs and traditions as any of them.
And I do whole heartedly agree that traditions, when followed blindly, invite disaster.
Ironically, I don't really truly have a problem with the bombings. Neither the carpet bombings, nor the nuclear ones. From a strategical standpoint, I'm convinced that they thought they were doing what was necessary. Who knows, maybe it really was the best way to end the conflict.
I don't think anyone was laughing when those bombs detonated, on either side. No one truly wanted that.
The only thing I have a problem with is the endless self justification of it. The common statement is that it prevented an Allied invasion of Japan that would have been extremely costly, in lives and resources.
@I Are Lebo, or at least, they were believed to be
@I Are Lebo, however, the evidence points to the true cause of the Japanese surrender to be the Soviet invasion that began two days after the destruction of Nagasaki.
The Japanese defence minister had publicly stated that he was not swayed by 'the power of the atom', and while he may have been blustering to save face, it seems unlikely.
@Sven and Otar, I do want to add as a side note that I am enjoying this debate immensely. Your points are very well made.
@Sven and Otar, oh I agree. The whole unconditional surrender thing was definitely the right thing to do. In retrospect, they probably went about it the wrong way, but hey. Hindsight, right?
@I Are Lebo, likewise:) I do try to do my research on the topics I debate on and hone my debate skills with websites like debate.org. While in more informal instances like this I try to not be the as$hole pointing out fallacies in the other's argument, I do try to avoid debating those that rely too heavily on them because it's no fun when you have to resort to the argumentative equivalent to a cudgel when you spend all your time training in essentially verbal fencing. While I'm an actor by profession, U.S. Army infantryman in my past (so not just soldier, but one of the guys that actually does things on the front), and physicist in my collegiate studies, I find learning of all kinds and debate from epistemology to politics fascinating and consuming. I really do enjoy encountering people I can spar with that don't take offense to my differing opinion as though I'm attacking them:)
@Sven and Otar, unfortunately, I do have to get some sleep. I have to check out debate.org sometime. I too dislike it when people think all they have to do to win a debate or argument is simply dispute the other person's argument.
I am of the opinion that you do not have to agree with someone to respect them.
Since there is no emote for a respectful nod, I shall leave you with a polite 👊🏻.
@I Are Lebo, me too, it's 4:40 where I am, I just get into this stuff too much most nights:P
@Michael Fassbender, Dude, go watch "the untold history of the US" it's on Netflix. The nuclear bombs weren't dropped to end the war. Japan was going to surrender. Japan surrendered bc the soviets invaded and they didn't want to lose territory. The nukes were dropped to control the post war negotiations. The bombs were a power play and civilians paid the price.
@I Are Lebo, Wow.. someone smart. Finally. We have wonderful political conversations here. If only it wasn't a joke site. lol
@Michael Fassbender, actually it's based on The French, since most countries have some basis on the napoleonic code, also few countries other than the US use an electoral college system.
@Xig, So?.. educate yourself.. not for me, but for you. So you don't sound ignorant. Even if you wish not to that's totally up to you. One of the great things about being an American is that it is indeed land of the free. You're entitled to your opinion and so am I. 'Murcia!
@LeafOnTheW1nd, the French Revolution was due, in part, because of the American Revolution. Then every successful capitalist nation after WW2 has been pretty much like the US
@LeafOnTheW1nd, I do not deny that the French have had a great deal of influence in the world
@Xig, it's actually quite simple. He comes across as ignorant because he is ignorant.
You can't help someone who clings to ignorance.
@I Are Lebo, he is trying too hard to come off as witty but he's just ignorant
@Juggy, I think he's actually trying to come across as ignorant. Hence all the anti Semitic, racist, and homophobic remarks.
@I Are Lebo, he doesnt really need to try very hard
I'll wait. *grabs popcorn*
@Donald Trump, You grab almost anything that starts with the letter P don't ya?
I don't remember downloading political pics
@Maple Syrup Monster , I believe the waiter mistakenly put some politics in our funny pics
@A Math Dealer, "Mistakenly".
@Maple Syrup Monster , you probably should've skipped to the next one. Or all jokes are funny to everyone. I find some political pics funny. But there's always someone butt hurt posting that they shouldn't be here. Kind of like how people who get offended easy complain about jokes. I tell them the same thing I tell you. If you don't like it don't look at it or listen to it. Some of us think it's funny.
I'm loving the overuse of the word "Us" as if one person on the internet is the spokesperson for an entire country.
Ugh Jews and shιt idk some other polarizing political BS
@Michael Fassbender, Come on man, you can be more offensive than that!
@Gamasennin, thanks for believing in me
Everyone in this top argument about the US in other countries is just using sweeping generalizations and anecdotal evidence about what the entire world thinks.
That's like saying "you broke a bunch of other people's arms and now that someone broke your arm you're not allowed to scream in pain and be mad about it". Sure there is some karma about it, but you're not just going to look at it and go "ehh. What can you do" and walk away.
I'm ok with that
Oh so that's cool if we have that done to us because the CIA did it to 3rd world countries? Terrible logic. Like, we deserve it? Lmao. You live here douche. Act like you care.
Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman if you don't understand the meme. Statist
To be clear, this rumor was debunked several days ago. Some news networks are still running the story though, trying to delegitmize Trump's win.
Me: this is my chance to write a witty comment, and since I'm first everyone will see and like it!!!
Me to me: tell them you're 'FIRST!'