Anyone who hates America, and therefore Americans, is irrelevant in all aspects of world affairs. You, for example, are too biased and too prejudiced to even be considered a rational thinker.
Since you don't even have a credible understanding of Americans, or even the slightest understanding of a normal person in general, I will give you the accepted perspective of World War II. First, Britain does not deserve most of the credit. If credit were to be
divided up, Russia would take more than both the US and the UK. This is shown through its enormous casualties. The hundreds of thousands of American and British casualties don't even compare to the millions lost by Russia. Although you probably believe Britain took the brunt of the Axis forces, the sheer loss of life in Russia clearly shows that more enemies were attacking them. For all intents and purposes, the English Channel was the only thing that protected Britain from take over at the beginning of the war. Russia didn't have a channel of water protecting it from its enemies. It was forced to fight them on a battlefield. The viability of a ground war induced Hitler to send more forces to Russia since it would have seemed easier to conquer. Had Hitler succeeded in conquering Russia, the destruction of Britain would have been inevitable. Nevertheless, Russia won in the end. It is important to look at how they won, however, to see who influenced an Allied victory. The United States' help, according to the leader of Russia during World War II, was the most important factor in Russia's victory over Germany. Since Americans pushed the favor into Russia's hands, we directly and substantially contributed to Allied victory even before we joined the war. Also considering the fact that the fall of Russia would destroy all other resistance to an invasion of Britain, the US indirectly contributed to Britain's survival; this is, of course, not including the fact that more aid went to Britain than Russia. You need to consider this: if enough American money was spent on Russia to influence the Russian leader to say that the money was what determined his victory, then how substantially did the US contribute to Britain's victory by giving them even more money than they gave to Russia? All of this, however, excludes an entire military: the Japanese. It is true that Britain helped a little in the destruction of the Japanese, but if the United States was not involved, Britain would have had to fight Japan all by itself while being attacked by Germany. A British victory of this sort would be highly unlikely. Whether you want it or not, Americans helped Britain just as much as Russia helped Britain and one British victory at the beggining of the war is not evidence against this fact.
Now to address your hatred of Americans in general. Your responses to some of my comments brings out the true you. They show that you are easily willing to go lengths that morally-bound people will never go to. For example, to get a rise out of you I said that the US will protect you if WW3 comes. In response, you give me this "You people start crying when a plane crashes into a building." This is none other than utter apathy to American tragedy. Normal would not say this. Americans in general would not say this about a British tragedy. I don't even know how to respond to that, its
just.....fucked up. You're fucked up. Thousands of people died on 9/11 and you respond with "oh get over it." You have even completely disrespected and disregarded the deaths of every American who died from World War II. There is seriously something wrong with you. Your dislike for America even goes so far as to be self-destructive: "You still think the US is the world's strongest power? ". The US is your greatest ally, why would you want us not to be the strongest country in the world? I have no idea where your hatred for America comes, or why you try to blame all of Britain's problems during World War II on one of its own Allies, but I do know that if you think this way, there is no reason for anyone to even consider your opinion on any world situation.
This is pretty useless if the country cannot help you when you're getting hammered.
They actually were helping you by taking German forces away that would otherwise be attacking you. If Russia was not in World War 2, Britain would have gotten taken over just like France. It would have been a lot worse if Britain had no Allies at all.
I'm finding it amusing how since I haven't yet mentioned the year you can somehow come up with statements like this. Well I'll tell you that this happened in 1940, at this point the Soviet union was fixing elections in the Baltic states.
You're talking about one battle, I am talking about the war as a whole like we should be. This is not about the beginning of the war, this is about the whole war.
while I'm about to get bombed at least I know that I won't die of starvation or malnutrition.
The majority of British civilians did not get killed by bombs, therefore they survived to eat the next day. Which food did they eat? The food that came from America. Your welcome.
At this point in time, you were selling them oil and fueling their empire expansion.
You really need to stay with what is relevant. That was before the US entered. I am talking about the war as a whole, where the US was destroying the Japanese military, thereby refusing to allow it to attack its Allies.
It was compared to the German Empire, (of which you did nothing to prevent).
What do you mean we did nothing to prevent?
Yes it was the Headquarters of the largest empire the world had ever seen, the problem with this is this "gigantic empire" had lost all it's funding paying for WW1.
blah, blah, blah. This is irrelevant keep it out please.
There's more point to conquering this huge peice of fertile land instead of going all the way around the world to attack this small island.
lol nice try. No, it is much more important to attack a weaker country that stands in your way, than a huge country that does not oppose you. Your an idiot.
Japan didn't care whether you were involved or not
Japan did not want the US to be involved, but they were forced to involve us.
What battles were crucial and what weren't is merely a matter of opinion
Lol, no its a matter of fact. Consider what separates the Battle of Stalingrad, in terms of magnitude, with the Battle of Nanos? Nobody would consider Nanos to be more important to Stalingrad, so it is not determined by opinion. Sorry.
you cannot claim that the defeat of the Japanese empire was solely done by the US.
Basically it was. America had barely any help in fighting the Japanese. You have not proved me wrong yet, sorry.
As I said before the Pacific Theater was the United States own, private war
It would have been brought to Europe if America was not involved. Japan would not just sit in the Pacific waiting to see if its Allies won or not.
America was an "ally" of Britain.
Your welcome.
If we had not defeated those Japanese at India, there would have been more for you americans to fight.
More Japanese to surrender Americans. Those added Japanese troops would not have been able to stop the United States on its way to the mainland.
You cannot claim that because America led the battles, Britain's contribution was minimal. All you can conclude from that fact is that, America was in command at the time.
Im not. Americans were both leading the battles and devoting most of the troops for them.
I was planning on completing it afterwards but you had disputed it by then
No. You're too afraid.
The United States can recieve credit where it's due, what I'm trying to make a point about is that the US contribution wasn't needed.
LOL that's the dumbest sentence I have ever seen. You basically just said "The US can have some credit for World War II, but it's help in WW2 was unnecessary so Americans died for nothing."
I am not prejudice towards americans, I just hate the United States, I would only dislike patriotic americans..
Lol so you hate the United States, but you don't hate the people that make it what it is. Why do you hate patriotic Americans? I don't hate fervent Britons.
You're clearly don't understand the difference between a country and the country's inhabitants.
Lol so you hate the land the US is on? A country is made up of its inhabitants.
imply that the US was equally(if not more) involved with the war as Britain and France was.
Casualties were just about equal. The US lost more soldiers. Is that implication false?
Since Japan is on the other side of the world Japan's result is now made to 0.1
lol. Just because its on the other side of the world does not mean you can divide its strength by ten. I could also reduce Britain to a 0.1 since America would not be giving it supplies for free.
for example you fueled Russia with military equipment , money and supplies
Did those contribute to the destruction of Britain? Nope, which means its irrelevant.
Immediatly after the war teh USSR conquers Poland (the reason Britain entered the war in the first place) causing our whole contribution (including the rationing of our food, death of millions, end of the empire, etc.) to be completely pointless.
You joined the War because Germany was going for you.
Hitler couldn't deal with the snow, there was hardly any "real fighting" going on, I'ld say it's a pretty easy battle if the enemy retreats because of the weather.
Lol its like you only think Britain was the one fighting in World War 2. According to you, no other country did any "real fighting." You are not credible at all.
I have every respect to the lyal soldiers who died for their country, what I hate is the fact that the death of 495,000 british lives, the conquest of France, Belgium, the Balkans, Denmark,Norway and Finland could have all been prevented if the US had been fucking bothered to join the war FROM THE START.
Your just an irrational idiot who has noone else to take his anger out on. If you literally blame the US for 495,000 deaths of its own Ally, then you clearly do not understand the war. Your judgement is clouded by hatred. You cannot see what I can see, or what any other normal person can see. I'm sure most other British people are on my side.
Lets look at the whole amount of deaths shall we, Britain 495,000, to US's 413,000. I think you'll find that we lost more people in total.
It's a tragedy that so many British civilians died in war, but after the US entered it expended more of its soldiers lives fighting Britains enemies than Britain did fighting its enemies. We deserve an equal amount of respect as Britain. You are welcome.
By the way, if World War 3 comes, don't be afraid, Americans will protect you from any country that tries to harm you.
That situation actually happened in WW2 as I said, France had fallen, Russia was preoccupied(and falling), USA was just not bothering
Okay there are several things wrong here. First, that situation never happened as Britain had always had some country on its side. Second, it is true that Russia was preoccupied, but it was preoccupied with attacking the Germans, thereby taking German forces away that would otherwise be used against the British. Third, of course the US was bothering. While you were getting bombarded we were lending you equipment and supplies to stay alive. Meanwhile, we were also keeping the Japanese away from you and Russia.
What kind of idiot would travel all the way around the world to attack a small island? It's more likely that Japan would conquer North America or Asia first.
Wow you really belittled Britain there. It wasn't just a "small island" it was the headquarters of one of the main Allies. What is the point of conquering North America? In this situation the US would not be involved at all, therefore there would be no reason to expend resources on an area that is not in opposition to the war you are trying to fight.
OK, but lets look at the war with Japan on a whole:
There is a reason why I listed the CRUCIAL battles that took place and it is because those are the ones that mattered. The battles that I listed determined the outcome of that part of the war. The battles you listed, which were mostly little skirmishes, barely contributed to the final outcome. And consider that a Pacific Theater would not have been opened at all without the US.
In the south east of Asia, Britain launched it's own campaign against Japan
That was basically a fight for India. Had the British not done this, the Japanese would have pulled out anyway as Americans were heading for the Japanese mainland.
Out of all the battles you listed, which were supposed to be evidence that Britain had a comparable presence to the US in the Pacific Theater, only one battle did not involved the US. In fact, some operations, such as Battle of the Coral Sea, Operation Cartwheel, the Attack on Rabaul, Admiralty Islands campaign, and Western New Guinea campaign were LED BY the United States. In addition, Douglas MacArthur, an American General, was the Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific Area. From this, we can draw the conclusion that Britain's help in the Pacific Theater was minimal at best.
Didn't I give you a list of European battles in which the US was involved as well? lol
I will not stand by and let the United States take credit where it doesn't deserve it.
O of course you could never let the United States take credit for fighting in World War II. You are trying to make the deaths of all Americans in that war pointless.
Why I hate america is another debate...
Not really. The effort you put forth to take away credit from the US during WW2 could arise from some irrational prejudice you have with Americans.
America acts like it killed them both solely on it's own.
I live in America and NOBODY thinks that. This is probably where part of your hatred for America comes from.
It does matter that Hitler was stronger than Japan as it clearly shows that Britain could have finished the war without USA's help
It does not clearly show that and you cannot come to that conclusion. Even if Hitler was less strong than Britain, the added threat of Japan would make the Axis stronger than Britain. I'll do it mathematically to help you understand: on a number scale let's say that, in relation to strength, Britain has a 2, Germany has a 1.5 and Japan has a 1. If Germany and Japan were to gang up on Britain, they would have a strength of 2.5 compared to Britain's 2, which means they are stronger. Do you understand the logic now?
1) USSR turns against us almost immediatly after the war
What happens after the war is irrelevant. This debate is concerned with what happens to end the war.
2) USSR dealt with Hitler easily anyway
WOW. This really shows how much you know about World War 2. Have you studied anything about that war? 8 to 10 million Russian soldiers died in addition to 12 to 14 million civilians. Are you seriously calling that "easy"?
3)You didn't kill the Nazi's when they were bombing us to bits, you only come aid us when we're storming into Berlin, you can hardly call that "help".
We only help you when your about to enter Berlin? Are you fucking kidding me? Nice fucking disrespect for all the Americans who died fighting to get to Berlin along Britains side. You're dumb piece of shit. Without the United States, the D-Day invasion would have never occurred, which means you would have never gotten to Berlin. Have some fucking respect for those who died in defense of the Allies, which includes Britain.
4)You helped us so much did you? as I've said before you might as well not have bothered.
Over 400 thousand Americans died fighting the Axis Powers. The US lost more soldiers than Britain, and you come to the conclusion that America "might as well not have bothered." Just fucking say "thank you" and let's be done with it.
I think you'll find that the debate title clearly states Britain not Allies
Had the USSR fallen to the Axis powers, the destruction of Britain would have been inevitable. There would be nothing to stand in the way of them.
they'd either have to travel all the way around Asia and Africa or sail around North and South America.
Ok? Is that impossible?
British India and other British colonies helped defeat the Japanese empire, and in the process we had to sacrifice most of our eastern colonies.
The following link has a list of the major campaigns and battles that took place in the Pacific Theater. In other words, it displays a list of battles that were crucial in the outcome of an Allied victory in that area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Only one of the ENTIRE list(the battle of Okinawa) had a British contribution, and even that was minimal. Also if you want to consider Canadians help, they also gave very minimal support to the Aleutians Islands Campaign.
I'm here to argue with you, not to listen your rubbish, american comedy.
Yeah, nice comeback. Why do you hate America so much?
This statement you ignored the concept about and tried to avoid it by pathetic sarcasm.
Because it is a ridiculous argument and you should be able to see that on your own. As I said, it does not matter that Hitler was stronger than Japan, but that the two together would be unbeatable.
Are you blind or something?, the debate title clearly says Britain did not need americas help, not allies.
Your a genius, huh? If America helped the USSR, Britain would benefit. If America killed Nazis, Britain would benefit. Americans helped both Britain and the USSR so much, that we pushed the war into the Allies favor.
the amount of "help" your country provided was very minimal compared to the amount they could generate, so they might as well not have bothered.
You just don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what we could have given to the war, but what we gave that affected the outcome. I already explained this to you but you just can't accept it. I'll give you another example: the US spent $760 billion on the Allies, basically defeated the Japanese, and fought in Europe and Africa. Let's consider what it could have done: we could have given you all the equipment we could possibly manufacture(probably over a trillion dollars worth), forced every single American to fight by giving them a gun and sending them to Europe, and performed suicide attacks against the Axis powers. Should this have been done? No because it would be unnecessary and too costly. From now on, you cannot say we did not give enough because you have not proven what we gave was too little.
I'd like to see evidence of this, come back with a list of battles in Europe and Africa which your country helped with.
Europe:
Operation Overlord which includes:
Invasion of Normandy
Battle for Caen
Battle of Carentan
Battle of Cherbourg
Battle of Villers-Bocage
Operation Goodwood
Operation Atlantic
Battle of Verrières Ridge
Operation Spring
Operation Cobra
Operation Totalize
Operation Lüttich
Operation Tractable
Battle of Hill 262
Falaise pocket
Battle for Brest
Operation Dragoon
Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine
Operation Market Garden
Battle of Arnhem
Lorraine Campaign: September - December 1944
Battle of Metz
Battle of Nancy
Battle of Moerbrugge
Battle of Hürtgen Forest
Battle of Overloon
Battle of Aachen
Battle of Crucifix Hill
Battle of the Scheldt
Battle of the Bulge
Battle of St. Vith
Battle of Kesternich
Losheim Gap
Elsenborn Ridge
Siege of Bastogne
Operation Bodenplatte
Operation Nordwind
Colmar Pocket
Operation Veritable
Operation Plunder
Operation Varsity
Ruhr Pocket
Battle of Groningen
Africa:
Operation Torch which includes:
Battle of Casablanca
Operation Blackstone
Operation Brushwood
Operation Goalpost
Battle of Arzew
Operation Reservist
Battle of Tafarquay Airfield
Battle of Youk-Les-Bains Airfield
Battle of Algiers
Operation Terminal
Tunisia Campaign which includes:
First Battle of Medjez
First Battle of Djedeida Airfield
Battle of Djebel Abiod
Second Battle of Medjez
Second Battle of Djedeida Airfield
First Battle of Tebourba
Battle of Maknassy
Battle of Longstop Hill
Second Battle of Tebourba
Battle of Faïd pass
Battle of Kasserine Pass
Battle of Sidi Bou Zid
Operation Ochsenkopf
Operation Capri
Battle of Medenine
Operation Pugilist
Battle of Mareth
Battle of El Guettar
Operation Supercharge II
Battle of Tebaga Gap
Battle of Wadi Akarit
Operation Vulcan
Operation Strike
Well so much for you knowledge of WW2.
I'm sure anyone would have rather had this amount invested in lives instead of currency.
As I've told you before, it was not $760 billion in cash, but $760 billion in equipment and supplies.
Sure most of it was WW1 debts but you still can't claim that as "help"
War debts does not prove Stalin wrong in his assertion that the Allies could not have won without the lend-lease program. Consider this example: a country at war with another country needs tanks to fight or they will lose. At a time of desperation, they spend huge amounts of money on tanks from another country. These sums are so huge it will take decades to pay back. The result, however, is that the tanks win them the war. So, they could have chosen to go into debt and exist, or they could have chosen to keep their money and be destroyed. You still have failed to prove Stalin wrong.....
Nuking Japanese civilians didn't do any harm to the Japanese military apart from making them more angry
In my example I asked what would have happened if the US nuked all of the Axis powers. You misunderstood...
Anyone can look at a globe and see that Japan would either have to cross America or Asia to get to Europe.
Lol Russia is less than 200 miles away from Japan. The Japanese would not have had to go to cross Asia to attack the Allies. Even if that was the only way, Japan had a navy to transport its troops to Europe.
Britain helped you defeat the Japanese Empire.
In what way?
It wasn't really a joke then, if only you understood it and only you laughed.
So you were next to the people who might have read my argument and did not hear them laugh? lol
It's not a whole other debate, it's a sub-debate contributing to the overall outcome of this one.
Please explain how a debate on whether or not the US tried to take away Britain's empire could contribute to a debate on how Britain did not need the US's help in WW2.
That's because you've just brushed aside all the disagreements I made with you
The disagreements you made with me were irrelevant bits of separate arguments.
such as the fact the Hitler was a worse threat than Japan
Germany might have been a stronger enemy than Japan, but Russia would not have been able to hold off both at the same time.
Yes I might have not stuck to the orginial statement
That is why I constantly have to tell you that what you are saying is irrelevant.
I'm arguing how america doesn't deserve half as much credit at it's getting
Wow you do not even know what you are arguing. You are actually arguing that America does not deserve any credit for WW2, hence the title that implies America was not needed for the Allies to win.
you could have done far better than just lend us money, so much that you might as well not have bothered.
First we did not lend you money, we lent you supplies and equipment. Second, we did not "just lend" you equipment, we destroyed the Japanese military and fought in Europe and Africa as well. Third, America, through the lend-lease program, spent over $760 billion (in 2008 dollars) on the Allies, which is a very substantial amount of money; it was so substantial, in fact, that an Allied leader said the Allies could not have won without it. You need to understand that by saying that the United States' help did not affect the outcome of the war you are disagreeing with Joseph Stalin, a leader in the middle of WW2. Please present evidence to prove that he is wrong.
The U.S contribution to defeating 1 of the axis, is also very small compared to the work done by the rest of the Allies and tey might as well not have bothered again.
The United States, if you are unaware, fought all of the Axis powers in addition to basically defeating one of them on its own. In addition, it does not matter how small the work is compared to others, but how crucial the work was in determining the outcome of the war. For example, consider what could have happened if the US, by itself, produced and used the atomic bomb on the Axis powers in 1943. America's "work" would be considered minimal compared to the loss of life sustained by the other Allies, but it definitively put the war in the Allies favor.
oh wait, you're actually telling me what to write?
No, I am telling you what points you need to prove invalid.
I knwo that if I write what you tell me you'll have already prepared an argument against it (that's if you're good at debating)
Nice imagination but that's wrong as well. The best argument never has a valid opposing argument, therefore you will not be able to create a valid argument.
I've not studied about "how great America did defeating Japan"
hmmmm interesting. You have not studied America's war with Japan in WW2, but you are willing to come to the conclusion that the Japanese would not be a threat to the other Allies.
WW2 started at 1939
Yes that is when Britain and France declared war on Germany. Japan and the USSR had several conflicts before WW2 officially began, so war was inevitable between the two.
where's USA?
Oh yeah, they don't want to fight...
The fact that the US did not enter the war as soon as either Britain or France does not justify your disrespect for the Americans who lost their lives.
Nice to see that you can make jokes out of the Second World War.
lol no that was a joke about you.
you hardly helped us defeat Hitler.
Nice argument. I can see that its backed up by some serious facts.
It's hard to maintain control of 1/4 of the world when you've just lost the world's biggest war and the president of america is hell bent on destroying it
I am not blaming Britain for not being able to hold on to its giant empire, but obviously you blame the US for Britain's loss. I will not continue to argue against you in this because that is another debate completely.
either way the quote was from Stalin, Stalin later turned out to be the enemy, just in a different war.
That has nothing to do with anything.
The post I am replying to introduced no new information on how the lend-lease program or the destruction of the Japanese did not matter in helping the Allies win the war. You need to remember the original argument: you believe Britain did not need America's help in winning WW2. I am arguing that it did need our help because of the lend-lease program as well as the fact that the US destroyed the Japanese military. None of what you just said refutes either of those assertions. For your next reply you need to stick to whats relevant: how was the aid in the lend-lease program and the destruction of the Japanese military unsubstantial in effecting the outcome of WW2, especially considering the fact that one of the Allied leaders said that without the lend-lease program the Allies could not have won?
I believe that the USSR wasn't at war with Japan until the americans brought them in, in 1945.
You seem to have a lack of knowledge of World War 2. Japan invaded the USSR in July of 1938.
you did nothing to aid the chaos in Europe.
Good job dismissing the deaths of every American who died in battle in Europe in World War 2. This is why I mentioned the lend-lease program; its implementation gave a critical advantage to the Allies.
So while the rest of us are busy fighting you're making lots of money from the wepaons we buy off you
lol I'll explain this later.
Hitler was a worse threat than Japan.
That is completely irrelevant. lol is Hitler a worse threat than both Hitler and the Japanese combined?
due to your country's envy of our power.
lol, well first that is irrelevant. Second, Britain was unable to hold on to its colonies because it was not powerful enough.
Causing us to owe you $760billion.
You are blatantly unaware of the fact that the American people did not ask for its $760 billion back. This is what I'm talking about when I say you have a lack of knowledge of World War 2.
As far as I know the UN wasn't in WW2
Its good that you know that, but he wasn't referring to the UN we know today. This was said at the Tehran Conference of 1943, before the United Nations even existed. Here is the link: http://www.time.com/time/printout/
It's irrational and unreasonable to be confident with the assertion that Britain could have never fallen to the Germans. Having said that, I dont believe you are considering all of the facts. First, the Allies(basically the UK and the USSR) would have the added threat of the entire Japanese military. For the most part, the United States defeated the the forces of the Empire of Japan with the exception of some small battles between the USSR and Japan. In addition, Japan would be stronger now that they have a constant supply of oil. Before Pearl Harbor, the United States cut off Japan's supply of oil, which severely weakened them. With the US completely out of the picture as a neutral power, Japan would have kept its oil and gone directly for the other allied powers. It is questionable what its strategy would be for doing this, but the USSR would not be able to hold back the full force of the Japanese military in addition to already holding off the German military. It is less likely that the Japanese would go after Britain, but in the event that they chose to do so, it is probably true that the British would not have come out victorious. Besides the demise of the Japanese, however, the United States brought other advantages to the Allies. First, there was the cash and carry program which later turned into the lend-lease program. The lend-lease program supplied the allies with about $760 billion(inflation adjusted) in supplies. Britain received over sixty percent of these supplies. From 1943 to 1944 about a quarter of all British munitions came from lend-lease. The USSR was also greatly helped, receiving over twenty percent of the supplies. The Red Army was highly dependent on rail transportation but was only able to make 92 locomotives. The lend-lease program gave them 2,000 locomotives to use. Stalin said himself that "without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
So, minus American involvement, Britain and the USSR would be weaker against a stronger enemy. The USSR may have took the brunt of the Axis powers military, but its own leader admitted that without America's help it would have failed in its efforts.
Thats what I said.
Don't take things out of context.
You had the choice of invading japan or nuking them, you chose the nuke, that's not a last resort.
Had we invaded there would have been a greater net loss of life. Invading wasn't really considered to be an option, therefore the nuke was the last resort in getting the Japanese to surrender.
you can't compare these several "wars" to the world war two.
Even better. Considering the rarity of a war such as one of the World War's, it could be argued that the utilization of nukes by any country is also rare. In addition to this, more than one country now has nuclear weapons so the cost of using nukes are much higher.
What if a powerful country like Russia or France declared war on you, I bet your government would be pushing those buttons like crazy.
If any country launches a nuke to another country, the country being attacked will retaliate with nukes. American politicians know this and consider nuclear weapons a worst-case scenario and last resort in the event that nukes are launched against America.
Threat: something that is a source of danger
Where did you get that definition? You probably made it up as it makes no rational sense. A kitchen knife is a source of danger, is that a threat? Now that I think of it, a pretzel could be a source of danger as someone could choke on it, is a pretzel a threat?
You haven't disposed your nukes and therefore have the intention to use them.
Ingenious logic..........People keep guns in their houses for protection. Does that mean that they are going to take it outside one day and start shooting people?
government changes to one of hostile intent? or global domination?
If we start nuking countries to take over the world, nukes will be launched against us. In the attempt, we would destroy ourselves.
if no-one is threatened how come they're all building missile defences.
Define all.
How can you judge something I haven't given you?
Past experiences....
Random means I'm unpredictable and my arguments can be easily defended
LOL random does mean that you are unpredictable but I dont know how you came to the conclusion that your arguments are therefore easily defensible. You are unpredictable in that your arguments can sometimes be completely irrelevant to what I am saying.
I then asked you to select one of these arguments to prove your point
I clearly said any of the arguments apply. The fact that you don't see a connection is irrelevant.
just too lazy(typical of americans)
Uh oh. Its kind of strange how Americans, who you think are lazy, have the most productive economy on the planet. lol You're smart. Don't worry though, I am intelligent enough to know that generalizing against a huge group of people is ridiculous. I won't do it to British people.
They aren't stupid you know, they're not going to let you walk into their capital.
Hence, we decided to nuke them.
It's what the rest of us would have done.
LOL. Nice try. Any rational government would conclude that an invasion would lead to an increased death of its own citizens and a higher total loss of life. Don't try to represent the rest of the world, you're not smart enough, sorry.
So just because they defended their country
Don't sugarcoat it. They were refusing to surrender to the victor.
Your country is the only "civilised" place to allow an everyday policemen to carry guns.
Yeah maybe they should just carry batons, so when they get attacked by someone with a gun they will be able to sufficiently protect themselves.
You clearly have the wrong definition of "safe".
You clearly don't know anything about America....
that's a fact, you retard, and of course I know how long the war was.
Right, of course you do. :)
You threatened their empire, that's them.
But not their existence......
claiming it's ok to nuke towns of innocents.
It was war. They believed that it was ok to kill innocent Americans, we believed it was ok to kill innocent Japanese people. They were refusing to surrender and therefore refusing to not be our enemy.
The Japanese Empire was established before WW1
Are you suggesting that Pearl Harbor was built because America was an enemy of Japan? Please say no, dont make yourself look dumb again.
You don't just build a huge fleet of ships with no intention to use them.
We intended to use them. We did not specifically intend to use them against Japan. Its not like we said "Oh, we are probably going to fight Japan in twenty years, we should build a big navy to fight them."
Of course they didn't, the whole text was about the Pacific.
It was about loosing oil that the US was shipping them. You said they took back the places they were getting oil from, Alaska is a huge producer of oil, therefore you implied that they took back Alaska.
Go to this link, what is the ocean under Alaska......lol
http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/
I have argued with americans many times before and nearly all have been unable to understand the sources therefore I have had to clearly highlight the bits that prove my argument.
Think of it this way: are the chances of you being constantly wrong higher than the chances of everyone else always being wrong? They dont understand your sources because you constantly list sources that are irrelevant or unsubstantial.
I provide a source clearly station that japan wanted to surrender
I believe I explained why that source was useless.....
Why did you bring Nigeria into it?
As an example. Lol could you really not see that?
I doubt you would understand half the words in the "oxford Reading Dictionary" so I chose a source which you could understand.
Please don't be pretentious. You chose a source that would satisfy your argument. In this case, your source was a website where random people can make up their own definitions. lol
Not only can you apparently read my thoughts but you can travel back in time to do so.
Think about this. Who actually laughs when someone insults them. Even if they think that insult is terrible. Its a ridiculous thing to say. Don't try to get me to think things that you fabricate.
it was a statement not open for debate but an insult to you.
Well I guess you tried then, right? Trying is all that counts.
and you're not afraid to use them
You need to analyzed the situation more closely. The United States is not afraid to use nuclear weapons; what nuclear arms-possessing country would be if they are in a desperate situation enough to move to their last resort(nukes). Its the fact that we have been in several wars since the last time we used nuclear weapons and have not used them since that shows that the USA is extremely cautious of their utilization.
I dont understand how you could not take that as a threat
A threat is a measure of intent. The US has no intention of nuking a country such as Madagascar, for example, therefore they should not be threatened by us. If possession garners threat, everyone should feel threatened by the police.
I have no wish to explain my motives to you.
Nor do you have the ability. The blabber that comes out of your mouth is indefensible as it is random.
the fatc that you cannot provide that shows how little the foundation is which your argument was built on.
I just don't understand you. First you told me to find an example. I replied by saying that an example would be any argument you have ever posted. You then say I am incapable of providing an example. Ingenious.....
no-one else had any defence against.
The Japanese had defenses against an American invasion. Should have we invaded Japan? (the total loss of life in this situation would probably have been higher than dropping the atomic bombs)
How could you not be concerned about your own safety when someone has that?
A cop carries a gun. Should I not feel safe next to one?
Its called exaggeration its a form of linguistic device.
Doubt it. You probably didn't know how long the war was lol.
Yes, but you were the ones threatening them.
It was not a threat to their existence. It was a threat to their ability to wage war on innocent people.
you then have a fleet of battleships facing there direction
The naval base at Pearl Harbor was actually established before WW2. Its not like we built it just in case we decided to go after Japan.
Japan occupied all the oil producing areas
Really? lol Did Japan occupy Alaska?
(notice it says in 8th May 1945 Japan made an attempt to surrender)
Notice the source to back it up as well as the amazing detail offered in regard to the attempt to surrender.
And how is being born in a country that belongs to your enemy a crime punishable by death?
It was a part of Japanese culture to save face. Make no mistake, they did not want to surrender.
You were showing every country in the world not to trifle with you.
Oh so I guess we were showing a country like Nigeria not to "trifle with" us?
Urban dictionary....
Yeah, I stopped reading that sentence when I saw this.
I am sitting here and laughing at your pathetic attempts to elevate yourself above me.
lol no you arent. nice try though
Quote from Wikipedia:
A 2003 study by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the British Medical Journal, argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated.[102] Their analysis reported no statistically significant relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer, though the accompanying editorial noted that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings."[103] This paper was widely promoted by the tobacco industry as evidence that the harms of passive smoking were unproven.[104][105] The American Cancer Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data, criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.[106] Notably, the study had failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.[107]
Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."[108] In a US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[109] The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research,[110] a tobacco industry front group tasked with "offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip Morris[111] who stated that Ernstrom's work was "clearly litigation-oriented."[112] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it."[113]
I'll answer it now since you cannot figure it out: the rest of the planet!
Are you seriously trying to argue that the United States has threatened every country on Earth with its nuclear weapons?
I gave you some advice since it was clear that you needed it.
LOL. First, you did not give me any advice whatsoever. Second, how is giving someone advice an act of putting yourself at an advantage towards the person your advising? Do you think about what you are typing?
For example?...
LOL WHAT. Why do you need a specific example if I said "any argument that you have ever posted"? Are you really this dumb? Just choose any argument you have posted and that's an example. Your stupidity is seriously slowing this argument down.....
in doing so scared the hell out of everyone else.
So, with your ingenious logical reasoning, a country should not use a beneficial weapon because it might scare some people its not being used against?
the rest of the world was halfway through WWII when that happened
The rest of the world was halfway through WWII when Pearl Harbor was attacked? You are ridiculously unintelligent. WWII began in September of 1939, Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, and the war ended in 1945. Explain to me how 2 years through a 6 year war constitutes the halfway point of that war.....
Japan didnt "declare" war they only attacked you
Is attacking a neutral country not an act of war?
you threatened them.
How did the United States threaten Japan to push for the attack on Pearl Harbor?
Japan where already seeking peace in April 1945, you nuked them in August 1945.
You clearly have no knowledge of WWII. The Japanese refused to surrender, therefore we nuked them. Had they surrendered in April we would not have nuked them, but the failed to do so.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/
This source is unsubstantial and fails to prove your point. Gar Alperovitz, the author of the book that stated that Japan was seeking peace, has been known by many historians to be a revisionist, which basically means that he has been known to change history away from that which is commonly accepted and substantiated by other historians. This tendency destroys his credibility. You are going to have to find more than one historian to support your argument anyway...
No, unliked the U.S the rest of us civilised countries have abolished the death sentance as a form of justice.
And that means that the death sentence is not justified, because other people dont think its right? By the way, the UK, for example, enforced capital punishment during the time that the US nuked Japan. LOL
Show of power=threatening people
A show of power does not equal a threat to everyone person on the planet. A show of power directed towards one country is a threat to that country, in this case the Soviet Union.
I am not here to discuss the quality of my insults
LOL why would you be? I can't help but call you out on the ridiculous insults you try to use against me.
The fact that you appear to want to discuss my insults makes you very broing indeed.
Boring? Obviously it might be boring to you, who would want to listen to someone else make fun of their pathetic attempts to insult them?
It is from the book. The book contains all study information in the reference section.
The source you gave me was an excerpt from the book. Within the excerpt there were other alleged facts to which footnotes were attached. The footnotes, listed at the bottom, are references to other studies or other articles supported by other studies that give support to whatever the author wrote. This part: "Homosexuals have a greater incidence of mental illness, particularly depression and suicide, than do heterosexuals." does not have a footnote attached to it and therefore is not supported by any study.
I don't see how you're missing this.
I can't miss something that doesn't exist.
The link also says that the only reason why homosexuals may have a link to mental illness, is because they are abused by a hostile society. Even though the author did not prove that homosexuals have a greater link to mental illness, it explains that the only reason they would have it is because they are abused. In other words, just like any other human, if they are abused, they will have a higher chance of having mental illness.
That was an inference I made from the findings of their higher probability of mental disorders.
Well good thing nobody actually found that, including your source.
The source I gave was an excerpt from a book called Homosexuality and American Public Life by Christopher Wolfe. There is a listing of all the sources and research studies in there if you wish to read it.
The particular quote that I listed had no source attached to it. It's the basis of your argument and there is no supporting study........
I asked for an honest argument with logical reasoning. No need for an apology.
Where exactly was my logic flawed? Had your statement been supported by a source, my logic would have been flawed, that is not the case.
And in the art of debating you must make exact your intentions and meanings
You said that the United States "threatens everyone" with nukes. I asked "who is everyone", obviously a question on which countries the US threatens. You, being the smartest person in the world, came to some strange, disconnected conclusion that I am an American who believes the US is "the only country in the world that matters." I was explicit and exact in my question, your lack of intelligence led you to a meaning that was completely irrelevant to what I was talking about.
otherwise your opponents will manipulate this to their advantage.
lol, in what way did you use your confusion to your advantage? What do you think you gained from that?
You are now repeating what I have already disputed.
First, you are incapable of disputing that fact. Second, you confused yourself once again and I was forced to repeat what I said in the hope that you would interpret it correctly. Unfortunately, you do not learn from your mistakes.
why do you bother typing pointless statements like that.
I could say the same thing about any argument that you have ever posted.
It didnt "threaten" it nuked
Are you suggesting that the US nuked "everyone" ?
it shows what will happen to any country that dares touches one of the U.S's little harbours
Nice try down-playing that. If one country attacks the other, kills thousands and then declares war, which lasts a few years and incurs thousands more dead, and eventually refuses to surrender to the victor, is that not justification?
Therefore a show of power.
This is a direct quote from me in my previous post---->"yes it was a show of power" lol
I don't need you opinion on my insults
See thats the problem. Can it really be considered an insult if it does not insult the person its meant to? It might actually have been so bad that it made you insult yourself.
you should know that it's a bad thing and accept it.
Lol I accept it as a bad insult......
had we dropped it under the table to them directly, that would have been threatening
That's ridiculous logic. Since the US did not send them the information directly, it could not be considered a threat? Of course it was a threat; it was their greatest enemy releasing the numbers of how many nukes they had.
Normally, for a situation such as this, I would use the common sense argument against you, unfortunately, your lack of common sense would not allow you to understand it. Not only is it ridiculous to believe that homosexuals have some sort of mental disorder of such a magnitude that jeopardizes their ability to be in any position of authority, but basic logic would show you, if you were logical, that past homosexual politicians have had no connection to mental illness.
Since you provided a ridiculous source in an attempt to give your argument a basis, and since you lack any amount of common sense, I must disprove or disconnect the source because it is the only way that will get to stop talking. First, the source never states or concludes that homosexuals should not hold public office. Second,it does state that "homosexuals have a greater incidence of mental illness...than do heterosexuals" but it does not have a source for this so called "fact." The paragraph that contains this phrase, the one that supports your entire argument, is not backed by any sources. In other words, your first statement does not need to be disproved by me because you have failed to prove it in the first place. Third and last, a study was cited as saying that 37% of participants, all of whom were homosexuals, were sexually abused as children. The problem with this, however, is that all of the participants had a sexually transmitted disease. This greatly changes the conclusions of the researchers because had the abusers been healthy, the chance of them taking advantage of smaller people for sexual purposes would decrease significantly. So, not only is the statement that you based your entire argument on wrong, but even another attempted conclusion of the study is wrong as well. If you had common sense, you would have never asked me to disprove you. Sorry.......
And what does your country do? nothing.
Don't blame a country for failing to quickly jumping into a foreign conflict that would have undisputedly lead to a loss of life of it's own citizens. Shall I blame your country for failing to help the United States after Pearl Harbor?
We had a higher pecentage than you
Human life is too valuable to consider loss in terms of percentage. When disasters occur, people don't mention what percentage of a certain country died, they say how many people died.
Yet you haven't found any evidence that disagrees with the evidence I have placed.
Really? Are you really dumb enough to try to prove this to someone? You are ridiculously stupid....
Sources: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/8_1.htm
http://www.mcatoolkit.org/Overview/
yet you still expect our army to have survived untouched
I didn't expect anything. I was simply saying that your country's military was being destroyed, which is the truth.
It was a major turning point of the Second World War
Not because the British won, but because the Germans gained their first significant loss.
Exactly what I've been saying to you americans who keep bringing up the U.S revolution.
That's a separate issue.
Only a complete idiot would make a statement like that without any sources to back it up.
LOL. Yeah, but an even dumber person oppose the point and provide sources that lack to say the contrary. The Battle of Britain may have been a turning point in the war, but it was most certainly not the point at which Britain started to win. That took place after Britain gained momentum. You misread what I typed, again.
Where is your evidence of such claims?
The US joined on December 8th of 1941, look at the dates of these missions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Those are the first 6 of a list of 21. If you wish to further your studies, there is a list at the bottom of the pages which provides the entire list.
Thats the way it is
"maybe our country still hasn't told you" <----- lol is that the way it is? Does that sound right to you?
