CreateDebate


Axmeister's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Axmeister's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

I believe the USA had the Philippines as an ally in the Spanish-American War and the Republic of California as an ally in the Mexican War. I'm aware that both these nations were hardly sovereign states, but the USA were only supporting their revolutions.

1 point

Considering that any conflict between major powers will inevitably lead to a nuclear missile stalemate, I find you claim impossible to prove or disprove.

It's also peculiar that you consider it a "fact", as history would imply the exact opposite. You oversized military budget didn't guarantee you victory in Vietnam.

2 points

Actually, it was you who "sat out" in WWII and only joined in after Britain started winning.

2 points

You "won" the Vietnam War? I think you'll find you lost the Vietnam War.

1 point

Big talk coming from a country that has yet to win a war on its own.

1 point

Not any more.

When many countries followed the Gold Standard, the system would be that you could use the note to redeem it's value in gold from your bank. While this rarely occurred, as it is easier to carry paper than it is gold, every could trade happily with the knowledge that the piece of paper they were exchanging goods for was valuable as it was backed up by gold.

However, they've changed the system to FIAT money (I believe) which means that currency is as valuable as the government says it is and is backed up by the government.

1 point

It's the same over here with Cameron.

Before the Iraq War, Tony Blair made Parliament pass an Act saying that they approved of the military intervention, previously they would do this after any war to assess how appropriate the Prime Minister's actions were. Because Blair made it look as though Parliament supported his decision it enabled him to disperse the blame when the Iraq War started to become a scandal.

I believe that David Cameron tried to follow a similar strategy and took a bill to the House of Commons to try get Parliamentary approval. However, his own Conservative Party were outnumbered by the Opposition and Coalition partner the Liberal Democrats (who had also opposed the Iraq War), thus the bill failed and Great Britain is now not going to be involved in any military conflict.

Of course, our PM still speaks out that we should intervene alongside the US. But I'm not too sure many people are listening to him.

1 point

My original comment was that i don't believe that the United States can be described as a nation with "good" intentions.

The recent argument of mine was just stating the current situation and that your claim of Britain doing nothing can lead to incorrect interpretations.

1 point

We say that we're not going to be involved in any military conflict. That doesn't mean we'll be ignoring the situation, we shall just be seeking a more peaceful solution.

It's wholly different to the speech made by the US state department a few days back, claiming that America isn't even intending to wait for the UN report before charging into Syria, it was only after the British Parliament stated that we couldn't be involved that Obama suddenly decides to consult Congress on the matter and try persuade the United Nations to approve of military action.

1 point

The key word there is "good men".

1 point

Most likely, a lot of the industrial and economical development has already been constructed by the time the British had left, the only thing left to do would have been to increase India's potential production.

1 point

"What is your definition of a mixing pot (it's actually called a "melting pot", I don't know why I keep saying "mixing" lol)?"

For me, the melting/mixing pot is used to describe a nation with such a high level of diversity that colour and race will only be physical features and have no relationship with wealth, class or status in society. The United States of America does not have this quality, but then no nation does.

"The phrase was actually coined by immigrants. I guess we just liked the compliment and stuck with it."

Maybe it was introduced by immigrants, but only the minority of the rest of the world consider the USA to be a melting pot.

"What!? Have you been to America? Go to Chinatown and watch the Chinese parades. Little Havana celebrates Cuban culture. Little Italy is a well known Italian district. There are multiple areas within America where the Mexican culture is prominent. St. Patrick's Day is one of our most popular holidays, which celebrates Irish culture. We have Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month. The list can go on. America is one of the few countries that people from different countries can move to and not feel like an outcast."

I admit there has certainly been a change now, but America definitely has a history of strong assimilation, especially when it comes to political ideology.

"The British Empire did great things in India... including mass starvation, right? How about the near extinction of the Australian Aborigines?"

The mass starvation in India had little to do with cultural differences and was caused by the extreme famine that had occurred there.

Concerning the indigenous population of Australia, the vast majority of them were killed by disease, 50% of the Aborigines were killed by smallpox alone. The ones which did die from conflicts were the casualties from self defence and not a genocidal policy.

1 point

You spoke about the British in the 2nd term. As if you weren't part of it.

1 point

Aren't you British?

1 point

In another debate you talked about the 2nd amendment being "good for our people".

The 2nd Amendment, is within the US Constitution and only applies to Americans. The 2nd Amendment also proclaims the "right to bear arms" which does not exist in nations like Great Britain or most other (civilised) nations.

You are an American, it won't do to have a troll tarnishing the British image on this site. There is already that crazy nationalistic fanatic pretending to be a penguin.

1 point

You're an American aren't you?

1 point

Well it's nice to spot the differences, keeps the fun going.

1 point

"It's a PDF from the U.S. Census. Just scroll down to page thirteen to see the chart.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf"

Either way, the data shows that there is a clear correlation between ethnicity and class, which isn't really a "mixing pot" is it?

"Race is based on skin color. Maybe they have some French and German blood in them, but they are still black. Look at African-Americans, most of them have some Caucasian blood in them... but they're still considered black"

Well if you define race like that, then there is no way of proving that the U.S.A is the most racially diverse country on the planet.

"Let me explain what I mean. Other countries do have us beat when it comes to ethnic diversity. However, Uganda for example, contains different tribes and people from within their continent. You aren't going to find many people living there who were born outside of Africa.

However, America contains a large population of people from around the globe. That is why we are considered a mixing pot."

The idea of America being considered a mixing pot is something which the USA have created and promoted themselves.

The USA has had a long tradition of assimilation in which it matters little what ethnicity immigrants are as long as they conform to the "American" way of life. If you look at countries like Australia or Canada they promote multiculturalism in which a multitude of ethnic ways of life are considered acceptable.

"Wait... Uganda is the most diverse country in the world. You're telling me that they were even more diverse than they already are, while under British occupation?"

Well, Uganda had a lot more people of Asian background which were significantly reduced after British colonial rule.

"But none of these countries were more racially tolerant while under British rule."

How so? On of the British Empire's policies was to accept all local cultures and try to harmonise colonial rule among the indigenous lifestyle.

Using one of my previous examples, the Thirteen colonies had made a deal with the Native Americans in which the British agreed not to expand westwards, after the Revolution the USA committed mass genocide against the Native Americans.

In addition to this, the British Empire abolished slavery soon after the American war of Independence, yet the USA kept slavery for several decades afterwards.

I think it is fair to say that there was a decline in racial tolerance in that case.

1 point

I doubt an attack on Syria will lead to WWIII, the U.S and Great Britain have already been to Afghanistan and Iraq and nothing has happened.

1 point

It isn't WMDs this time around, it's "chemical weapons". Also, they've swapped "Threat to the West" to "Threat to Humanity".

1 point

Didn't most historical societies believe that? I doubt the Victorians were too keen on anally receptive sex either.

1 point

The Americans will probably be annexing Puerto Rico in a few years, they've already given them a delegate in Congress.

1 point

It's just a fact that history is taught differently in every country, whether this is a good thing or not is another debate.

For example in the USA I believe they're taught that they won the war of 1812.

1 point

Any intelligence should be presented to the United Nations so an international body can decide its legitimacy and the countries of the world can determine an appropriate form of action.

1 point

Maybe he's copying what David Cameron did at putting it to the legislative body to make the final decision. It then removes any implications on him if the war goes terribly.

As I said in another debate, Obama's main concern now is probably his legacy and this war could make it or break it. Britain has just pulled out after Parliament voted against military action which had removed America's closest ally from the conflict, which could have reduced the legitimacy of the justification for war and made the American public very reluctant to go to war.

Additionally according to a recent poll only 9% of US citizens believe they should attack Syria.

1 point

The technicality being that U.S laws do not apply to non-U.S countries?

1 point

But only an American would be ignorant enough to create a debate with such a title.

2 points

"However, the United States of America is the only country on this planet that matters."

Fuck you.

"Screw the rest of the world's opinion's; you know, until our natural resources run out, in about twenty years... And then, um..... Hey world, we were young and going through a phase, um.. You forgave England for all the empire building. Give a brother nation a break."

At least when we went Empire building we actually built things, your Americans just destroy them.

1 point

But he's an American, isn't he?

1 point

Thank you, I was a bit proud of the work, I had studied this particular issue for my History GCSE.

1 point

"I've met two millionaires in my lifetime (that I can remember). One was white and the other is Cuban. Both live in America."

This is just a personal experience of yours and cannot be used to support any legitimate argument.

"Statistically, Asians take up the higher percentage of upper class in America."

Link to statistics?

"That is in regards to their heritage. They have a diverse background. Have you seen Uganda or Liberia? I wouldn't be suprised if they're 100% black."

Would you regard the French of Germans as different races? Because I'm sure they would, the same applies to the many African tribes with clearly different languages, cultures and heritages.

"I was reffering to racial diversity. Blacks, whites, hispanic, asian, etc,."

As I said previously, apart from the evidence I've provided there is no standardised way of measure diversity, so you cannot possibly prove that the U.S is the most diverse country.

"It seems to me like these countries became more diverse after Britain left. "

Many of the previous colonies actually became less diverse after British withdrawal. Uganda, under Idi Amin, had all Asians banished and commited actions of ethnic cleansing; South Africa had the Apartheid era; India is currently one of the least racially tolerant countries on the planet, even the USA and Canada had immigration policies in which no-one of Chinese descent could enter the country and all those who were in it lost their citizenship.

"Sure, they may have a bit of British blood in them now, but I don't think Britain is responsible for the diversity."

One of the reasons I believe these countries became so diverse was because many companies in the British Empire would encourage immigration between colonies. The British government were also very relaxed on religious views and allowed religious diversity.

1 point

Contrary to popular belief in certain nations, the United States of America is not the only country on the planet, thus their constitution does not apply to anyone but themselves.

1 point

However, if Obama is disliked at the moment a successful war could seriously boost his popularity and even leave him with a good legacy. I have a feeling that is all he needs to care about at the moment, since he cannot get re-elected he just wants to make sure he's remembered in a good light.

1 point

I find it amusing how much the American media is focused on this Miley Cyrus rubbish. Here in the UK, the BBC is practically doing live updates on the Syria issue, I wouldn't even have known of the "Miley Cyrus Meltdown" if it wasn't for the internet.

1 point

"Nope. The USA are too powerful. If any other country defied the UN and went to war anyway then they'd be heavily sanctioned and potential risk being the subject of military action themselves. But of course the USA can do whatever they want."

This will be the first time in recent years in which the U.S will have entered a military conflict without British military support, the UK is a member of the UN Security council and their absence may greatly reduce American influence there.

Also, in the recent discovery of the American NSA having infiltrated the United Nations, the UN may not go too easy on the USA this time around.

4 points

t's just another piece of propaganda, which I would recommend you ignore. It doesn't matter how much it agrees with your personal beliefs, the article just spouts random hate messages without backing it up with any sources or evidence.

1 point

What?

1 point

I don't think it works like that.

1 point

Well I suppose it doesn't :)

1 point

Are you sure? Because in a response to one of my arguments you concluded that the US and the UK aren't that different and then this debate pops up.

1 point

"That's evidence that America wasn't the mixing pot."

And the fact that your upper classes are currently dominated by white people is evidence that America still isn't a mixing pot.

"You guys have the KKK too."

Not to the same extent you had and I would still like to stress that I've never claimed the UK to be the mixing pot of the world. I'm just disputing your claim that the USA is.

"It was a rhetorical statement. We have the largest racial diversity."

That's a laughable claim with no evidence to support it other than your own opinion.

According to Wikipedia, the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet is Uganda, followed by Liberia and Madagascar. The United States doesn't even appear in the top 50.

I'm sure you'll be surprised by this as was I, considering that Uganda has a history of acts of ethnic cleansing, specifically under Idi Amin. However, within the country itself there are several different tribes, each with their own cultures, languages and traditions which leads to the high rate of ethnic diversity.

Diversity not only includes race but also language and religion. For Language, Uganda is first again, and for Religion South Africa is highest. The closest the USA ever gets to the top is coming 2nd in religious diversity, though I'm sure that's due to your colossal amount of different denominations of Christianity.

However, an interesting point is that diversity is strongest in nations which had previously been under the sphere of influence of the British Empire, while Great Britain itself may not be the mixing pot of the world, the top ten of each list are dominated by previous British colonies. It could be argued that the reason why America has such a high rate of diversity (even though they have attempted to reduce it) is primarily due its past as a British territory,

"Proportionally, we aren't that different either. Whites are still the majority."

The reason we have a proportionally higher white presence in Government is due to the fact that we have a proportionally higher white population, the was the point I was trying to make. This does not excuse the fact that the US government is dominated by whites regardless of how little this may represent the racial diversity of the population.

"A state, not a country."

A state the size of a country, a state so powerful that if it were to become independent it would rank as one of the largest economies on the planet.

2 points

Why was this argument downvoted without dispute? If there is something you disagree with please debate about it.

2 points

Quite a lot of American news channels are one-sided pieces of nationalistic rubbish.

1 point

"Slavery in America started with the British. They were the first to settle in America and they had slaves shipped over with them."

It doesn't matter who started the slave trade in America, what matters is that it is clear evidence that the USA is not the melting pot of the world.

"Who started the slave trade? Not the United States!"

Who continued it several decades after the British had abolished it? Who, even after abolishing the slave trade, still had organisation such as the KKK committing actions of deep racial hatred and segregated their population according to the colour of their skin?

The United States, the same United States that you have the audacity to claim as the "mixing pot of the world".

"I hate to sound too repetitive, but we ARE the modern "mixing pot of the world". How can you deny that? Name a country who has a more diverse population than us."

I'm sure there are several, but I'm afraid that there is no standardised way of measuring diversity, and thus we cannot rank nations accurately.

"No, but you act like America isn't."

My original point was that America isn't.

"Your white population in 2011 was around 50 million. Our white population in 2010 was over 230 million. Unless the British population has significantly increased in two years and white births in America have slowed way down over the past three years, then I'm afraid you are wrong."

I meant in proportion to population, sorry if I hadn't made this clear.

"Which makes sense, does it not? Would you like an American to rule your country?"

Well, you're clearly happy that an Austrian is allowed to govern a state in your country.

1 point

Just biased, one-sided nonsense. Another radical wandering around Youtube shouting their opinion.

1 point

He should have stayed in office and been impeached, put on trial and exposed for the tyrannical acts he committed. But instead he hopped out and got a Presidential pardon from his previous Vice President.

Clearly this is another example of the ridiculous amount of power Presidents get to abuse for their own personal gain.

1 point

"You can't stand us because of our past? Give me a break! Do you not realize the role Britain played in the slave trade?"

It's not your past I can't stand, it's the fact that with such a past you can possibly claim that your nation is the "mixing pot of the world". Yes, Britain took part in the slave trade (though to a lesser extent) but we certainly down claim the be the only country on the planet to have encouraged racial diversity throughout our existence.

"How can you disagree that America is the mixing pot of the world? Britain certainly isn't."

Did I ever claim Britain as the mixing pot of the world?

And even though my country may not be the "mixing pot of the world" it still doesn't make the USA, a nation which has openly been against accepting people of other races in the past, any more of a melting pot.

" Like you said, sure we have a black president... but has Britain ever had a black Prime Minister?"

Even though our Government may have more white people in it than yours, it is of a lesser concern as our country has more white people in it than yours.

"We actually have multiple prominent political figures who are black and many who are hispanic. "

Yes, you have some prominent black politicians, it doesn't change the statistics.

"Hell, we even had an Austrian governor!"

Who is not allowed to be President because he wasn't born in the USA.

1 point

I'm very confused that Dana is getting credit for this, I thought this debate was inspired from one of my arguments in another debate.

1 point

"A lot of Brit's can't stand American pride... especially since we originally came from Britain, but what they fail to realize is that America is the mixing pot of the world"

See this is the part of American "pride" I can't stand. Mixing pot of the world? When your nation's history is full of slavery, segregation and racial abuse? What about the current growing population of Hispanic Americans who find themselves at the bottom of the economic pile due to more racial discrimination.

Sure, you have a black President, but 87% of Your congress is white, and I'm sure the billionaires in your highest earning 1% aren't a rainbow of colours either.

1 point

It depends how you measure the difference. When it comes to culture the U.S has a habit of portray America as an 'idea' and claiming that it stands for freedom, liberty, equality (etc). But if you look at the state of their nation, currently and throughout history, it quite often shows the exact opposite of what they apparently all believe in, this is my sole issue with the USA and the cause of my dislike of it.

But overall, the UK and US are similar in many aspects, I suppose that's why we have a "special relationship", and both nations are so diverse that where differences exist they are often within small minorities of the the populations.

1 point

My implication was that even if people don't want their private information at the government's disposal it doesn't mean they're doing anything bad.

1 point

What? The United Nation's is merely a body that enables countries to negotiate international agreements for the benefit of humanity.

1 point

Percussion instruments require a minimal amount of musical talent to play, compare to the piano which actually needs a lot of skill and practice to master.

Also, the piano was developed from the model of a harpsichord which was a string instrument.

1 point

Oh, and you're an expert on security issues at the United Nations?

I think it's pretty obvious that claiming to spy on the United Nations for defensive reasons is a pretty laughable excuse.

1 point

If your government has nothing to hide why do they have official secrets acts?

1 point

If they were conspiring against America they could easily have done it within their own borders. They could also be conspiring against any other country on the planet but I doubt you'll find over 180 different intelligence organisations infiltrating the UN.

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

I'm satirising the original description, the verses quoted have been taken completely out of context and do not acknowledge the several guidelines proposed to husbands and the fact that they should care and take responsibility for their wives.

As you said the Bible also states opposite points of view, but that seems oblivious to the debate creator who seems to have nothing better to do with their time but make outrageous claims to provoke Christians into debate.

1 point

As I said, what could the United Nations (An international body which includes the USA and all it's allies) possibly do that could be seen as a threat to America?

1 point

How is the United Nations a threat to America's safety?

1 point

The United Nations is a peaceful international body, there is no reason to spy on them unless there are aggressive intentions. Also the USA has abused the fact that the head quarters of the United Nations is within their nation.

1 point

My apologies, you are correct in my grammatical error. You are also right in that I'm not from the USA.

1 point

If you're worried about meeting new people remember that everyone else is in the same boat you are. Sometimes you just have to take the initiative and start a conversation.

1 point

“The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance"-Adolph Hitler

After the war several other German generals expressed similar sentiments.

One of the main reasons Britain didn't react to this individual action was that German politicians claimed it as a defensive manoeuvre against the Franco-Soviet Pact. The British Government were proposing plans in 1936 to let the Germans militarise the Rhineland in exchange for giving up all territorial claims in Europe.

2 points

When Germany first militarised the Rhineland, their army was significantly weaker than both French and British Forces, to the extent that if the French had reacted the Germany army had orders to retreat at once.

One of them main reasons Britain and France didn't respond with military action was because they were under the impression that German forces were much larger than they actually were, as Hitler's many military rallies gave the illusion of a large army.

2 points

Some of us have standards.

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

A dream is a constructed from my thoughts, to dream I must exist.

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

I just looked it up on Wikipedia and I'm sure it states that the French were defeated.

Supporting Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo (en.wikipedia.org)
1 point

"I think, therefore I am"

1 point

Why is this even a debate? There have been several British military victories against France.

1 point

The Bible has the word "kill" in it as well! Why would any non-murdering, peace-desiring sane person want to be a Christian?

1 point

I suppose that through prayer God is able to guide his followers among a righteous and pious path.

1 point

Battle of Almansa - Conflict between Britain and France during the War of the Spanish Succession, in which the English Army was led by a Frenchman and the French Army led by an Englishman.

3 points

When debating this we must consider that we're looking on the matter with hindsight.

At the time, the financially and militarily weak Germany was seen as a minor threat compared to the colossal communist state that was Russia. Britain especially was worried about increasing Marxist and Socialist influences within Western Europe, allowing Germany to grow more powerful would create a "buffer zone" between Western Europe and the USSR, many people actually approved Hitler coming to power because he was so anti-communist.

Another reason for letting Germany grow was due to trade, before the First World War, Germany was Britain's second largest trading partner. The financially weak post-war British Empire needed to regain economic power quickly, allowing Germany to regain industrial strength supported that cause, especially since Britain had to repay war loans to the U.S.

Also, Hitler just got lucky. The timing of his initial expansion into the Rhineland coincided with French elections, thus none of the French political candidates wanted to declare war even though it was all turned out to be just a big bluff.

The League of Nations, which was proposed by the U.S president, was militarily weak because the U.S and U.S.S.R never joined, leaving the British and French Empires, whom had just suffered heavily losses, to try manage things and nullifying the military action sanction that the League of Nations had. The U.S also undermined the League of Nations' trading sanctions, when a trade embargo of oil was issued against Italy to halt their expansion in Africa, America continued to sell them oil. With both military and trading sanctions made redundant, the League of Nations was only left with verbal sanctions, which were just laughed off by the offending nations.

Another incident which occurred at Versailles was the creation of many small Eastern European States, one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, bearing in mind that Wilson was the first American President to go to Europe. These smaller nations were very weak and conflicts also immediately arose after the war because of the division of different races between these states. These small nations were easy pickings when in came around to Nazi and Communist expansion.

But even if we hadn't had appeasement and the Second World War as we know it did not occur, who's to say that it couldn't have happened inevitably?

Churchill had wanted an immediate march on Russia as soon as WWII ended to halt the spread of communism, but this was prevented due to the heavy losses from WWII.

If the atomic bombs hadn't been used in WWII would they have been used in the Cold War?

Just because appeasement failed to prevent World War II doesn't mean no appeasement could have prevented an even greater war at a later date.

2 points

In the UK the parents would probably be prosecuted for failing to take care of their child.

1 point

Mass protests at Buckingham Palace. They probably wouldn't make the Queen abdicate, but there'd be no chance that Charles gets on the throne.

1 point

Compare the very capitalistic economy of the USA and the more socialist economies of Europe, I think you'll find that the standard of living for the masses in Europe is better due to there being a lot less inequality.

1 point

Seems like the American propaganda machine is still working to its fullest extent, you Yanks sure know how to put the 'story' in 'history'.

3 points

Does Christianity necessarily aid you in become a better person? Is it possibile to become a 'good' person without Christianity?

1 point

I believe Switzerland has a referendum on nearly everything, but this can lead to a lot of 'tyranny of the majority'.

1 point

If a parent killed their child surely it would be an act of murder and thus the parent would have to sin themselves to apparently save their child.

1 point

Would it not count as murder?

1 point

I beg your pardon? Who are you to tell me to clear off?

1 point

Education, it gets in the way sometimes.

1 point

This one is British.

Axmeister(4322) Clarified
1 point

Well he is Irish.

1 point

Why did they all leave? :(

1 point

Isn't it a celebration of your victory in the war of independence?

(I apoligise for the dispute, meant to click support)

1 point

"In WWI the war was at a stand still, we just broke that stand still. In WWII, it was not very clear who was going to win the war until 1943, until then, most leaders we would have to come to some sort of agreement with the Axis."

After joining in 1917 (halfway through the war), the United States only partook in handful of battles, and weren't vital to their success either. Even before you joined the war we were already recapturing territories.

"The UK had a total of 450,900 deaths. The US had a total of 418,500. Now as I also remember,"

Now, if we look at those deaths in proportion to population, the UK had a significantly higher contribution and thus a significantly higher loss. Britain also suffered attempts at direct invasion and had lost a lot of infrastructure and industry to the war. As I said, you Americans cannot possibly compare your loss to ours.

"it was the US that bailed the UK out and supplied them with weaponry."

Which we've only just finished paying for, we were the ones who suffered the major cost of the war, you Americans saw to that.

1 point

I would, but your butt's still sore after we kicked your arse in 1812.

1 point

Well, losing to the French, Spanish and Dutch empires isn't exactly humiliation.

1 point

Damned Americans, celebrating wars the French won for them...

1 point

"Because the British Empire totally won both world wars all by themselves."

I didn't say we won all our wars by ourselves, you Americans just like to hop aboard the our side when you realise that we're winning.

Anyway, my point was that America has yet to win a war by itself.

"I'd say conquering 1/4th of the world and creatign the most powerful military over 500 years and then being reduced to a nation the size of Michigan with a few islands that are essentially just resorts for fat tourists counts as losing something..."

Well some countries had to bear the cost of fighting 2 World Wars, but then again you Americans wouldn't understand that...

1 point

At least we can win wars by ourselves.

1 point

How on Earth could the USA have survived on its own if Britain had fallen?

If Britain had fallen, Germany would have been able to concentrate all their forces on their Russian invasion, allowing them to successfully invade before the winter had occurred, ultimately giving them Western Russia, the Balkans and several other eastern European nations. Japan would probably gain East Russia and a few more countries over there. After the British and French had fallen Italy would probably have gone to sweep up most of the colonies and territories in North Africa and the Middle East, obtain vital resources such as oil.

Now let's suppose that these 3 empires decided not to invade North America at this point (though they had good reason to), USA would still have a huge problem in that they have hardly any trading partners and that they've lent out huge sums of money to the French and British which they now wont get back, the reason America got out of the Great Depression was because they were able to develop their industry and the government could hire lots of unemployed people when they joined the Second World War, if Britain had fallen the USA would still be in a depression.

Overall, even if the US weren't crushed through military invasion, they would still be destroyed economically.

1 point

A few arguments ago you said "If the UK fell, the US wouldn't have fallen.".

Now it appears that you're arguing 'If the UK fell, but gave the majority of their resources, colonies and armaments, while joining the French in actively fighting against the Nazis, the US wouldn't have fallen."

Which I suppose I can agree with.

1 point

Blacks as a race in America have had a uniquely difficult time, they were victims of slavery, the KKK and several decades of racism after that. I cannot possibly see how you can claim that their victimisation throughout history based solely on their colour is comparable to that of the white race.


2 of 35 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]