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?
Some allies they are, didn't even help us properly at WW2.
We didn't help you "properly"? I would get angry at that statement but I have come to learn that I shouldn't blame retards for the stupid things they say. By the way, the United States lost more soldiers in World War II than the United Kingdom.
Only an idiot would argue against someone with only an insult.
What other way could I possibly argue against it? If someone tells you that one country literally owns every ocean on the planet, what would you do? Its completely idiotic to even suggest something like that.
your asking me to argue against myself?
What? How did you get that out of what I said? You made some implication that the United States has not invented anything useful and I told you not to argue that because, along with your other arguments, its completely ridiculous.
our military wasn't destroyed by Germans, if your going to make a staement like that at least have sources to back it up.
You really need to read my statements more carefully. I never said that the military of the United Kingdom was destroyed by the Germans. I said that it was being destroyed. There is a pretty big difference there.
then finally defeats the enemy in an epic battle
I guess your talking about the Battle of Britain? If so, then you must know that that was an offensive for the Germans and the British were simply defending themselves. I don't mean to belittle the strength of the United Kingdom's forces, but its much easier to win a battle when your not the one trying to invade a heavily fortified island filled with troops. No intelligent person would suggest that the Battle of Britain was the point at which England started to win the war.
we were also infiltrating German High Command and tricking them with our secret service
Most if not all of the missions meant to deceive the Axis powers were carried out after the US entered the war.
maybe our country still hasn't told you
That's an odd way to phrase it........
They're bastards
Those bastards are you greatest allies.
In theory we still own the ocean as we won it in the Battle of Trafalger
Only an idiot would argue that one nation literally owns the entire ocean.
we actually invented useful things
Please do not try to argue that the United States has not invented useful things.
We could have easily won the war without you
Don't be pretentious. Your military was being destroyed by the Germans.
You only joined when we were winning anyway.
What do you consider winning? When the United States entered the war, the British were stuck on their island slowly building up for an offensive. They hadn't even launched a successful offensive against the Axis at that point.
One hardly needs to be supplied, as it was never inferred that they were the same nation.
How is that a common trait?
Resources are quite the opposite to consumers.
A higher total population means more human capital for labor. The more human capital generates money and, along with the higher population, creates consumers who increase the GDP.
I was refuting the notion that the U.S has the highest GDP, which it does not.
In a separate post on the same topic you said that "a nation is merely a group of people bound together by a common trait". A question that I have to ask is: what is the common trait between an international trading bloc with a population of 500 million and a country divided into states that has a population of 300 million. If the European Union "equates to the U.S federation in terms of the resources available to it", then how is there a difference of 200 million in relation to the number of possible consumers in each country?
The EU has the highest GDP in the world.
The countries of North America have a higher combined GDP than that of England, but does it really make sense to compare a group of economies to a single economy? Of course, there are more connections between the EU member countries than that of the members of the NAFTA but the fact remains: you are combining a group of countries to gain the ability to surpass one. The only significance that I can see in comparing the economy of the EU to the economy of the US is that it takes most of the EU member countries to equal the single American economy.
A train versus two of the largest and most important buildings in the United States?
Please do not pretend as if the same relatively proportional event could not have occurred in England. The absence of an attack does not render the possibility of a past attack impossible or even improbable. If England was as great a target as the United States, its doubtful to believe that England would not have been attacked.
then they obviously knew the possible consequences
First, some people do not have the intellect to see far enough into the future or to see any possible consequences resulting from their actions. Second, the thrill of the situation could be a deterrent in itself of even thinking about future costs of current actions.
if the punishment was more strict, then it would more of a deterrent.
You know what, you are right. We should execute people who steal groceries from a grocery store. Public outrage is a deterrent to stricter laws.
"the cops can stop me and remind me that its safer to wear my seatbelt without a fine"- as if that will have any significant impact on you. A financial burden inflicted on a person acts as a deterrent to breaking the law.
"i will die when my time comes like everyone else"- im sure you would rather die when its your "time" than wear a seatbelt to get decades more of living.
"I never said u were..."- u said i was confused
"if you cover yourself well then that won't be a big deal."- how would you know?
"your inner heat will generate and you'll feel less cold."- you have no idea of what you are talking about. Less cold does not mean not cold at all.
"does that clear some confusion????"- i wasn't the confused one....
For some reason you just assumed that walking can keep the cold away in the winter, which is ridiculous. Even if the school was down the street from my house it would have been incredibly cold to walk there.
"well your government isn't exactly getting rid of them"- you really do not understand a lot about the world. The US is reducing its number of nuclear weapons, but can not eliminate all of them because other countries possess nuclear weapons as well. Does this mean that we are threatening them with our nukes? Absolutely not. We are simply making sure that in the case where a nuclear war could occur, we are prepared.
"if you knew someone had a gun and they had just shot someone wouldn't you think they'ld be prepared to shoot you"- just shot someone? It was over sixty years ago. Why do I have to keep reminding you of this?
"It's well-known the kind of firepower the US is packing"- that does not mean that we threaten every other country with our nuclear weapons on every instance that we threaten them.
"hell we used to release numbers every once in a while just to remind everyone of it."- we were not reminding "everyone" of it. You may not remember, but the United States used to be in an arms race with the Soviet Union. We released numbers for them, not for everyone else.
"another U.S citizen who beleives that they are the only country in the world that matters."- that is absolutely not what I meant, but it was no surprise that you misinterpreted what I said.
"if you see someone get shot you don't suddenly yell at the guy with the gun."- that is a terrible generalization. Also, I was not stating that people now blame the US after such a long time, but stating that using one event that took place over sixty years ago is not grounds for stating that the US threatens "everyone" with nukes.
"also 60 years is a long time to a country."- yes......
"the bombing of japan was a show of power, you don't honestly think that when a country gets hit by a superbomb, no-one bothers to notice."- yes it was a show of power. It is wrong, however, to say that the United States threatens "everyone" with nukes after it has only used them on a single country. Under your logic, if a nuclear power threatens another country, it must be threatening that country with its nuclear weapons. This view is ridiculous.
"says the idiot"- wow it takes some serious brain power to come up with that one, but it definitely takes more courage to actually say it to somebody.
"once you start walking to school in winters you'll feel warmer inside"- i will feel warmer inside? I lived 4 to 5 miles away from my school and in this area of the world it is common for the temperature in the winter to reach around 10 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Walking may help me exercise, but you're an idiot if you think the heat from the exercise will make me warm enough to walk that distance.
The Korean War was still almost sixty years ago. Two examples with that distance of time away from the present is no where near enough to say that just we threaten everyone with nukes.
"walking out the door with it and waving it around the neighborhood is not nice."- in this case, it has been more like walking out in public with the gun concealed. The public would only know that you have it because you have shot someone before.
"they just threaten everyone with nukes."- who is everyone? Japan suddenly accounts for everyone? Not only did we bomb them over 60 years ago, but that was the first and last time that any country used an atomic bomb on another. It is idiotic to say that the United States threatens "everyone" with nuclear weapons and then have one example that occurred over 6 decades ago for support. So, good job you're an idiot.
Even though these people have the right to build the mosque where they please, it should not be built close to a place where terrorists, acting partly due to their religion, killed thousands of innocent people. You don't burn down someones house and kill the people inside in the name of Christianity and then ask to build a church next door.
you don't even have evidence nor had you elaborated on it.
Why would I need evidence for something as simple as that? If smoke from a cigarette can negatively affect the health of the person smoking, then the smoke can affect the health of someone nearby. It is so simple that it gets me to wonder why I would have to explain that to you. I guess I expected people on this website to have at least an average IQ and obviously I overestimated you.
So apparently you were only able to read one word of my eight word comment.
"you have simply only sad "No""- explain to me how I only said "no" in this: No. Smoking can affect the health of bystanders. I dont even understand how you could miss that.
makes the death penalty so costly
I believe the extra money is worth what is offered in return.
Life imprisonment without parole is more effective
Nothing is more effective than just eliminating the murderer. You can not have lower deterrence than that.
States with the death penatly have a higher murder rate than those states who don't.
I think you are looking at that the wrong way. I think it is more reasonable to suggest that they have the death penalty because of their high murder rates.
A list of men who were exonerated while being on death row who would have been executed.
That is not a list of people whom the United States judicial system has failed, but a list of people the system has saved. You may argue that if those people have come so close to being put to death the chances of others who have not committed a crime being put to death must be high. I believe, however, that those examples show how the system works even better. The safeguards, which I mentioned in my last reply, are now proven to work. They actually have saved people. That list is an example of how difficult it really to execute a person who is not guilty.
maybe the prison shouldn't have released them.
Regardless of what you think the system should be, convicted killers will still probably be released from prison. Execution is the best way to make sure that they can not kill again.
yet it also applies for those who are innocent
In American court, the chances of executing someone who did not commit the crime are almost non-existent. There are so many safeguards against executing a person that it can almost NEVER happen. In fact, nobody has ever been proved to have been wrongfully executed in the United States. Convicted killers, however, have killed more people after they were released from prison. Robert Biegenwald, for example, was convicted of killing an additional four people after serving just eighteen years in prison. I guess the question comes down to this: would you rather take away any chance that murderers have of killing again or would you allow them to have a chance at getting back into society again?
USA got a chance to show its superority
What chance was that exactly?
i rule out the chance that it would lend a helping hand to other countries to grow up
its time we go for a change
All the most powerful countries in history have done worse as leaders than the US. In response, what do you do? You solely blame the United States. Its interesting how that works.
If u can't do what it takes to be good leader, u can give the chance to others.
Do you really expect any country to give up its power to another country because people say it is doing a bad job of leading? Its not the country itself, its the position the country is in.
In an effort to throw the blame around for the perceived misfortunes of Britain you have become ignorant in such that a single country can not take the blame. Britain was greatly damaged during World War II. Unlike the United States, which was separated by an entire ocean from Europe, Britain was within range of the German military. Not only were the British forced to defend themselves with much difficulty, but their cities were bombed over and over again. This caused massive costs to the British Government. You may also attempt to place the blame on the United States for the costs incurred during the lend-lease program, but it was just business in between trading countries. It is not as if the supplies sent to Britain could be made for free and the US had declared a state of neutrality at the time in regards to the war. You have also stated that the US did not join soon enough, but would you expect a country to be over-enthusiastic about sending its soldiers to die? You may try to use this against me for relation to modern times, but the past 70 years have caused a change in circumstances. The United States and United Kingdom are both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As members of NATO, the countries have adopted a system of mutual defense in the event that one member gets attacked by an external country. In other words, if Britain, for example, gets attacked, then the United States along with every other member country declares war on the attacker. In conclusion, your argument's flaw is as simple as this: You are unhappy of the way that Britain escaped from World War II and who do you place the blame on? Its greatest ally. I think you can see the problem here.
Now, as for you comment regarding the money going to the United States, how is it harmful for Britain if the money that was taken from it not going towards harming, but towards helping it?
If you are still too narrow minded to accept any of these views look at it this way: Britain has done bad, the United States has done bad, so why dwell? As the strongest country in the world and the possessor of the most productive economy on the planet, the United States is the best ally that Britain could ask for.
How does that make the United States a bad ally for Britain? If Britain and the United States were enemies, then I could see how it was bad for Britain, but if the money is going to an ally of Britain, how does that make conditions worse for Britain?
"they're too powerful"- you're basically saying that your best ally, the country who is most likely to support you in any conflict, is too powerful.
"I think the rest of the world should stand up to them"- for what reason?
"also they treat Britain like dirt."- in what way?
"where were you at the start of world war 2?"- we were in involved in the majority of World War II. I don't really understand why you used an event that occurred 70 years ago as an example. The United States entered the war and fought alongside Britain, which further strengthened their relationship.
"Why do we still have to go and help everyone else in the world before we can help our own people?"- because our people are not being killed in packs by men with machine guns.
"We have homeless people."- they arent being killed.
"We have natural disasters."- those dont happen that often.
"Why can the other countries call us wusses and everything"- they can call us whatever they want, the validity of the statement is all that matters.
"If all you other countries are so big and bad why can't you help them?"- the United States is the most powerful and the one which can expend more of its power than any other country.
"The fact that we've found an entire life cycle at the bottom of our ocean"- considering that we HAVE discovered it and it has not benefited the world in anyway, why should we try to do it again?
"Studying unusual life on earth such as this could help us find life on other planets."- lol, what? How does that make sense in any way? In order to find life on other planets we are going to have to go to the other planets in the first place. If we found a new species of fish at the bottom of the ocean, how would that help us find life on another planet?
"I think it's incredibly arrogant to assume we know everything there is to know about this planet."- I am not assuming we know everything, but further information will most likely be useless.
"It all works together, in my opinion, but since NASA hasn't produced much advancement in the past 40 years, their ridiculous budget could be cut."- they haven't produced much in the past 40 years because their budget took a huge cut. Space exploration is very expensive, but it has huge potential in benefiting the world.
"A lot of space is going to be the same too."- its going to be much more diverse than the environment at the bottom of the ocean.
"And one is far less expensive than the other."- one has much more potential than the other.
"NASA would hopefully yield an alternative to life on earth since we've so clearly f*cked up the only liveable planet in the solar system."- so, even though you say that this planet is doomed, you still want to conduct tests on it?
"NOAA can offer a lot of information regarding Earth's weather systems and changing environment."- we do not need more information regarding the weather.
"I think it's more important to know what's going on at home than away"- we basically know everything there is to know about this planet.
"Why because they have more or just as many as nukes as the USA."- nukes would destroy the world and render it uninhabitable not allow the United States to take it over. Both the United States and Russia each have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over.
"i think that in conventional warfare, china would probably dominate the usa, on the grounds that their population is over a billion people"- do you really think that they have the money, the time, or even the power to utilize that many people? They really don't.
"i dont think the PLA is paticularly untrained"- the Chinese army is known to be very badly trained.
"defence against an invading china may be easier-home turf"- it would be impossible for China to invade the United States.
"a fact is in about 10 more years china will have enough trade with outher countries to suppport itself without the U.S."- nope. The United States has the largest economy in the world. Even with immense growth over the next ten years the Chinese would still need to trade with the US to be productive.
"china is spending way more then it ways it is on the military roughtly about a few billion more"- the United States currently spends almost 7 times what the Chinese spend on their military.
"our technology is almost there to the U.S."- its not even close.
"china has invented a new land based missile nickname the aircraft carrier sinker"- what about the American submarines that will blockade China? One thing is for sure: it will be easy to destroy China's only aircraft carrier.
"you dumb americans think that all these countries will team up with you while in truth not many countries will"- actually, more countries will probably side with the United States than China. You see, there is this little thing called NATO, where if one member country is attacked all 27 other countries in the organization declare war on the attacking nation. The United States is a member. And you call Americans dumb?
"india and china have become very gudpartners"- India hates China. US relations to India was said to have slightly worsened when President Obama stated that he would like to increase relations to China.
"everyone knows the sino russian alliance and trade has been great for the last 20 years"- Russia really has no choice but to stay neutral or be on the side of the United States. It would lose almost every trade partner if it decides to side with China. Since NATO members are its main trade partners it really has no choice but to not side with China.
"the middle east would also be on our side"- Turkey is a NATO member, the United States is the main trading partner of Saudi Arabia, Israel is a very good ally of the United States, and Iran would definitely be on your side but the other countries could easily counter its attacks.
"as well as korea"- South Korea is much stronger than North Korea and it is also an extremely good ally of the United States.
"if you wanna talk about a nuke battle im pretty sure russia has thousands of nukes more then the U.S."- each country has enough nukes to destroy the world a few times over.
"You take out the sat's and every system that depends on it will be venerable."- you act like taking down a satellite is easy. Not only would the Chinese have to locate our satellites, which is close to impossible, but they would have to aim and shoot them down perfectly, which is also basically impossible. Shooting down our satellites is definitely not a viable option.
"China's ASBM's can take out the U.S navy"- good luck going after American submarines.
"Who's knows maybe in the future China will have a quantum missle that can disable every ship with one shot."- how old are you? Ten years old?
"Wouldn't that just increase demand, and wouldn't supply simply increase as a result?"- the drug trade does not work the same as a market economy. Regardless of demand, there is always going to be a point at which the supply cannot increase.
"yes drugs would be a little harder to get (but only a little, people get drugs in jail all the time.)"- do you really think that they get just as much drugs as if they weren't in jail?
"that a cop took away someone else's drugs doesn't seem to make it any harder for another person entirely to get them."- If someone goes out and buys drugs and gets caught with them and takes them away, they are also being taken away from someone who could have bought them in the first place.
"I think your argument assumes there is some way to put almost everyone who takes drugs in a jail where they cannot get drugs."- im not saying that there is no access of drugs in jail, but that the drugs that people are caught with help to decrease the supply of the drugs. If the drugs were never taken away, the supply would obviously be higher.
"the illegality has not made them harder to get in the least I don't believe."- the fact that the government takes any illegal drugs away from the people they find them with somehow means there won't be less than if they didn't take them away?
"Do you have stats that say otherwise? I'm curious."- how could i have statistics on a hypothetical situation?
"Maximize profit in war and death."- so far, we have had 5,378 casualties in the wars and another 2,819 dead from 9/11. We have also spent 972,041,000,000 dollars on both wars. Yeah, we gained a lot.
"U.S.A. government wants global dominance"- just because we are the most powerful country, doesn't mean we want to control the world. If we wanted to, we would definitely be fighting in more places than Iraq and Afghanistan.
"were being paid huge amounts of money to do simple tasks that ordinarily the military does it with no bid contracts."- they made money by giving it away?
"it is known as a false flag. A false flag is a tactic where the government masquerades a attack by doing the attack by themselves and blaming it on someone else."- this does nothing for your argument.
"the facts are buildings don't FALL at FREE FALL Speed no matter what circumstances unless it is a demolition."- the building was designed to collapse downwards. Supports of the building melted and when the top fell, it pushed the rest down with it. You really don't know anything about physics.
"Lastly, simplest logic is the North Tower was hit first yet the South tower collapse first, simple physics says that is impossible"- lol, what law of physics explains that that is impossible?
Are you suggesting that you do not need evidence to support the statements that you make?
"I'm simply giving an example of a fairly common occurrence."- you gave absolutely no example. It was a completely generalized statement.
Besides showing that you think its wrong for the US to get involved in other countries affairs, you need to show why it is wrong for the US to get involved. There needs to be some kind of example to show why its a bad thing. You can't just say its a bad thing.
Are you seriously suggesting that its a fact to say that a crying child, a smelly dog, or exposed underwear could cause someone to have a heart attack? How dumb do you have to be to actually believe that? Give me the source that proves that to be a fact.
"Frankly, the exhaust from cars on city streets is more harmful"- im not sure that thats true, but even if it was, are you going to get people to stop driving?
"so, fix that little problem first and then you can jump on the smokers"- so since we cannot stop one unhealthy thing from occurring, then i guess we shouldnt try to stop any unhealthy thing from occurring?
