CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
America vs Britain
I miss all those funny American nationalists I used to debate with, so I've made this debate to try get some of them back out.
Anyway, this debate is an open playing field. It is not specifically about their current military power or solely about who conquered more land, you are allowed to use any criteria to make a judgement.
Apart from saying "I'm from here, so I support this side".
At the price of us giving up our colonies. If America had joined WWII at the same time Britain did and put in the same effor that Britain did, then it is likely that the British Empire would still be around for a lot longer afterwards.
I am not talking about the United States saving Britain in the whole "MURIKA SAVED DA DAY FRUM DA NAZIS!" I mean the US saved Britain from total economic collapse... well actually, we didn't completely stop it but we definitely lightened the fall, unfortunately instead of recovering the UK decided to follow a more centrist path and dishonor the empire even further.
What are you talking about? Why is any European conflict our responsibility? You do know that we live all the way over here in North America right?
Are you aware that Britain started WWI with the Germans? Are you under some delusional impression that we started these conflicts? No, we just saved you from them after Britain's colossal, embarrassing military failure.
We got involved with WWI because we knew the meaing of the word "alliance" you americans clearly don't. Britain did not start WWI, Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia, Serbia's ally, declared war on Austria. Germany, Austria's ally, declared war on Russia and Serbia. France, Russia's ally, declared war on Germany and Austria. Germany attempts to invade France by invading Belgium. Britain, Belgium's ally, then declares on on Germany.
Please endevour to explain how you managed to come to the conclusion that Britain started WWI with the Germans?
And then please expln your claim that Britain made any military failures and that America saved Britain at all.
It's not just my conclusion, it's history. From wikipedia, (link below)
The growth of Germany and the United States eroded Britain's economic lead by the end of the 19th century. Subsequent military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily upon its empire.
Fail. On to the next question,
And then please expln your claim that Britain made any military failures and that America saved Britain at all
Well we can start with the 1941 Lend lease act signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt which gave a total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies to the allies to fight WW2, absolutely free of charge. The U.K. received $31.4 billion in tanks and guns and planes to defend their little island, all of which they squandered. Of course, it wasn't long before the Luftwaffe was bombing the shit out of London and the U.K. was back at our doorstep begging again.
So, we did everything we could to help you with YOUR silly war, short of dieing for you. When the Japanese made the horrible mistake of attacking a U.S. state, we fucked some shit up. See, we have no problem fighting, we're just not going to do it for some shitty little island.
"The growth of Germany and the United States eroded Britain's economic lead by the end of the 19th century. Subsequent military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily upon its empire."
There were long term causes and short term causes. The short term cause was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, while the economic tension lead to the build up of the war. It didn't cause it.
"Well we can start with the 1941 Lend lease act signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt which gave a total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies to the allies to fight WW2, absolutely free of charge.The U.K. received $31.4 billion in tanks and guns and planes to defend their little island, all of which they squandered. Of course, it wasn't long before the Luftwaffe was bombing the shit out of London and the U.K. was back at our doorstep begging again. "
Sorry, I thought we were talking about WWI. If we're talking about WWII then it was America who made huge military failures. In the D-Day landings which many people argue was crucial to the allies victory, the American invasion of Ohama beach was nearly a failure due to the bad planning and excecution. Half of the amphibious tanks were launched too far out and sank, of the 16 that actually landed only 2 survived (The American divisions later had to borrow tanks from the British). Your American Air Force, bombed 3 miles behind the beach and missed their target, the US Army plan included equipment that had been absolete in WWI.
The reason the British were more successful in both their beaches was due to their experience and armoured assault vehicles.
"So, we did everything we could to help you with YOUR silly war, short of dieing for you. When the Japanese made the horrible mistake of attacking a U.S. state, we fucked some shit up. See, we have no problem fighting, we're just not going to do it for some shitty little island."
Why have you suddenly changed to WWII? I know that the Americans did have a slight effect in WWII, but Britain could certainly have fought the war without them in WWI.
Anyway, it's common knowledge that you didn't join WWII at the beginning because your economy srewed up and was going nowhere. And you still have yet to explain how either WWI or WWII were caused by Britain.
And I am stating that it is not America's job to help Britain maintain their empire. Its like saying "Austria caused the collapse of the Chinese empire because they didn't get involved in a war (that didn't really concern them) soon enough.
We don't claim credit for the war, we claim credit for making Britain's economic collapse not as bad as it would have become (which America did) and stopping the soviets from advancing further into Europe (which America did)
Never said joining WWI was about maintaing the British empire. However, WWI, the Treaty of Versailles (which was extremely unfair toward Germany) and the post-WWI actions of Britain and France (including the Treaty of Versailles) are what caused WWII. The second world war is what caused Britain to lose its empire and the economic collapse later on, Britain was hit hard in WWI but would have retained almost all of its empire if it wasn't for WWII.
"Never said joining WWI was about maintaing the British empire."
Yes you did, I said Britain would never have owed the USA money if the USA had fought their fair share of WWI.
You then said that it wasn't America's duty to maintain Britain's Empire.
" However, WWI, the Treaty of Versailles (which was extremely unfair toward Germany) and the post-WWI actions of Britain and France (including the Treaty of Versailles) are what caused WWII."
And who was it who used the war loans of Britain and France to get his way at the Treaty of Versailles? Your American President Woodrow Wilson.
"The second world war is what caused Britain to lose its empire and the economic collapse later on, Britain was hit hard in WWI but would have retained almost all of its empire if it wasn't for WWII."
Britain could have easily kept the empire if they had just made all of it federal and equal. The only thing that killed the Britain Empire was the British.
Yes you did, I said Britain would never have owed the USA money if the USA had fought their fair share of WWI.
You then said that it wasn't America's duty to maintain Britain's Empire.
Your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not talking about debt and Britain owing America money after WWI, I am talking about how after WWII the British Empire started going under and America softened the fall for them on the economic side of things.
When I said it was not America's duty to maintain Britain's Empire I am not saying that the USA didn't do anything, I'm saying that blaming the British Empire's downfall on America for not getting involved enough and fighting their "fair share" (in a war America really had no place in and the only reason America got involved was because Woodrow Wilson was insane and corrupt) is almost like saying that is was America's job to maintain Britain's Empire.
And who was it who used the war loans of Britain and France to get his way at the Treaty of Versailles? Your American President Woodrow Wilson.
And who wanted heavy reparations, sanctions against Germany and a demilitarization of Germany? Britain and France.
Britain could have easily kept the empire if they had just made all of it federal and equal. The only thing that killed the Britain Empire was the British.
WWII was one of the major causes of Britain's economic problems, these economic problems are what caused the British to give up their empire.
"Your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not talking about debt and Britain owing America money after WWI, I am talking about how after WWII the British Empire started going under and America softened the fall for them on the economic side of things."
America could have softened the fall a lot better if they had joined WWI and WWII. Also your President Roosevelt disliked Winston Churchill and hated the British Empire.
"When I said it was not America's duty to maintain Britain's Empire I am not saying that the USA didn't do anything, I'm saying that blaming the British Empire's downfall on America for not getting involved enough and fighting their "fair share" (in a war America really had no place in and the only reason America got involved was because Woodrow Wilson was insane and corrupt) is almost like saying that is was America's job to maintain Britain's Empire."
WWII had little to do with maintaining Britain's Empire. It was to stop the Nazi's taking over mainland Europe.
"And who wanted heavy reparations, sanctions against Germany and a demilitarization of Germany? Britain and France."
I think you'll find it was just France. The British Prime Minister David Llyod George knew that Germany was a vital trading partner to Britain, so while he wanted to punish Germany, he didn't want to ruin it.
*"WWII was one of the major causes of Britain's economic problems, these economic problems are what caused the British to give up their empire."
America could have softened the fall a lot better if they had joined WWI and WWII. Also your President Roosevelt disliked Winston Churchill and hated the British Empire.
America had no place in WWI, I personally think Woodrow Wilson was bribed to get involved (was similar to his nature) as for Roosevelt disliking Churchhill and the British I don't see how this really effects the situation, but whatever, maybe there is some hidden message in there.
WWII had little to do with maintaining Britain's Empire. It was to stop the Nazi's taking over mainland Europe.
1. I have already said this
2. WWII is what caused Britain to lose its empire. Because of all the problems the war caused the British had to start pulling out all over the world. Just because the war was fought against Germany does not mean that Britain was unable to maintainer her empire due to the effects of this war.
I think you'll find it was just France. The British Prime Minister David Llyod George knew that Germany was a vital trading partner to Britain, so while he wanted to punish Germany, he didn't want to ruin it.
Britain still wanted to ruin Germany, France was obviously more concerned because they had a direct border with Germany, but Britain still did their fair share of punishing Germany for a war they didn't start.
True.
Thus referring back to my point about how it doesn't matter that WWII for Britian was about stopping the German advance, its caused the problems that caused the end of the empire.
I agree with you on your other points, but this point I'm afraid I'll have to bring into question.
"Britain still wanted to ruin Germany, France was obviously more concerned because they had a direct border with Germany, but Britain still did their fair share of punishing Germany for a war they didn't start."
The other members of the Axis alliance, Austria and Turkey, were heavily punished in other treaties. The punishments that Treaty of Versailles gave Germany were quite fair, which explains how they were so quick to recover and start WWII.
The other members of the Axis alliance, Austria and Turkey, were heavily punished in other treaties. The punishments that Treaty of Versailles gave Germany were quite fair, which explains how they were so quick to recover and start WWII.
Germany had to pay extremely large amounts of money in reparations, then later on down the road most of the countries they were paying the reparations to demanded more. Also, besides the money, the treaty also forced Germany to cut its military immensely and give up some of its land and other demands that crippled their economy, Germany did not start WWI, they were just the last man standing on the Axis side. Although later on Britain saw how badly this could turn out, in the beginning they still went along with it.
"Germany had to pay extremely large amounts of money in reparations,"
2% of their GNP isn't an "extremely large amount".
"then later on down the road most of the countries they were paying the reparations to demanded more."
Actually, Germany just stopped paying and France and Britain didn't do anything about it because they felt they were too harsh at Versailles.
"Also, besides the money, the treaty also forced Germany to cut its military immensely and give up some of its land and other demands that crippled their economy,"
The German invasion of France in WWI had completely ruined most of the infrastructure and waste a large amount of land, you cannot blame the French for wanting to make sure that there neighbouring enemy (who had also invaded France less than 50 years before) was in no state to attack them again.
"Germany did not start WWI, they were just the last man standing on the Axis side."
If Hitler had gone all expansionist, then WWII wouldn't have happened. End of.
"Although later on Britain saw how badly this could turn out, in the beginning they still went along with it."
america only joined in in the last five minutes of WW2 and thats only because japan attacked america otherwise they wouldnt have bothered we owe more thanks to the soviet union who really saved britain
and if it wasnt for america hitler would have never had the weapons he did because america got out of the great depression by arming nazi germany
america only joined in in the last five minutes of WW2 and thats only because japan attacked america otherwise they wouldnt have bothered we owe more thanks to the soviet union who really saved britain
America saved Britain from the ECONOMIC not MILITARY disasters of the time.
and if it wasnt for america hitler would have never had the weapons he did because america got out of the great depression by arming nazi germany
WWII and the defense spending didn't get America out of the depression. America was emerging as a super power and at the same time the war was tearing most industrial nations apart. So America was given a great opportunity and became even more powerful.
this debate is an open playing field. It is not specifically about their current military power or solely about who conquered more land, you are allowed to use any criteria to make a judgement.
Yeah lets not talk about military power guys. So far, the united states has spent 711 billion dollars on military in 2012, the U.K. has spent 62 billion. That is pretty much what goes on every year, the U.S. spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military. So that makes sense that you wouldn't want to talk about our awesome military power.
But that's how it is, the United States owns this planet. Get use to it because it's not going to change anytime soon. America has the military power to destroy the U.K. 100 times over. If we so choose, we could literally enslave that little backwards island.
As far as "who conquered more land"? In the modern world, no one uses this standard anymore. The times of the Romans and Mongols are over, guy. If fact, the measure of people conquered is now a measure of how backwards a nation is.
For instance, no one was impressed when Hussian gassed the kurds, people just thought he was a monster. In modern civilized nations, conquering others doesn't make you cool, it makes you hated. Just look at the blowback from the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It hasn't help us one bit that we "conquered" those nations.
Funny that you start a new debate here when you haven't responded to the arguments made against you in the 'Canada: queen Elizabeth's bitch' thread.
"Yeah lets not talk about military power guys. So far, the united states has spent 711 billion dollars on military in 2012, the U.K. has spent 62 billion. That is pretty much what goes on every year, the U.S. spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military. So that makes sense that you wouldn't want to talk about our awesome military power. "
Hooray, for America and there awesome military power!
Now tell me how many wars you've won on your own.
"But that's how it is, the United States owns this planet. Get use to it because it's not going to change anytime soon. America has the military power to destroy the U.K. 100 times over. If we so choose, we could literally enslave that little backwards island."
Someone here has no concept of global politics. America has never owned the planet the same way Britain owned the planet. Most of you barely know geography outside your own borders. You claim that "it's not going to change anytime soon" but it already has changed. China is probably more powerful than America now, maybe even Japan.
"As far as "who conquered more land"? In the modern world, no one uses this standard anymore. The times of the Romans and Mongols are over, guy. "
You're only saying this because America has never conquered any land. The fact that Britain conquered a 1/4 of the world's land mass shows their extensive influence and the reach of the English language and culture. To disregard any reference to colonial times when judging how great a nation is, is the height of idiocy.
Of course, America only has 200 years of history, compared to Britain's 2000, so it's understandable that you wouldn't want to talk about the past.
"If fact, the measure of people conquered is now a measure of how backwards a nation is."
Nope, history is history. I think you'll find with the globalisation of the planet and a universal aim for world peace, the size of a nation's military is a key factor in how backwards it is.
"For instance, no one was impressed when Hussian gassed the kurds, people just thought he was a monster."
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a monstrous act too.
"In modern civilized nations, conquering others doesn't make you cool, it makes you hated. Just look at the blowback from the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It hasn't help us one bit that we "conquered" those nations."
That's because when the U.S 'conquers' land they wreck it to pieces. When the British Empire conquered land, they did it because they wanted to expand their interests and ended up developing the land. While the inhabitants didn't benefit immediately they certainly benefited in the long run.
"Funny that you start a new debate here when you haven't responded to the arguments made against you in the 'Canada: queen Elizabeth's bitch' thread.
"Hahaha. No one here thinks you were winning, just look at the points. "
Sorry, I've been busy the last few days. Don't worry I'll get back to thrashing you all. Also the points mean very little in this debate now, because some idiots have gone round up-vote spamming. If you look at the arguments you'll find Britain is winning.
"And no, I didn't delete it, it's still right there making you look stupid. Try copy pasting the entire link."
XD, sorry about that. I think you'll find I did manage to get back to your Canada debate again.
"I'll get back to this in a little bit. Don't think you got away with all the retarded arguments above, I'll get to them."
We've all got a lot of work to do, sorting out 'retarded arguments'.
Hooray, for America and there awesome military power
I'm glad you recognize our superior military power. Hooray is right, you probably wouldn't be alive without the American military.
Now tell me how many wars you've won on your own.
This isn't 20 questions nor is it history class. Look up your own information and make arguments based on the information you have.
Someone here has no concept of global politics. America has never owned the planet the same way Britain owned the planet. Most of you barely know geography outside your own borders. You claim that "it's not going to change anytime soon" but it already has changed. China is probably more powerful than America now, maybe even Japan.
This isn't the America vs. China debate or the America vs. Japan debate. You created a debate called "America vs Britain".
The United States absolutely owns this planet. We go into any nation we want and we call it whatever suits us: war, police action, occupation. No nation equals our military might. We are the lone superpower.
You're only saying this because America has never conquered any land.
We took 13 colonies of the best land on earth from your shitty little island.
Of course, America only has 200 years of history, compared to Britain's 2000, so it's understandable that you wouldn't want to talk about the past.
I'm quite proud that my nation is not thousands of years old. I'm glad that we are a new nation that doesn't believe in barbaric notions of the past like royal bloodlines and kings and queens. I'm glad we are founded on modern concepts like democracy and human equality.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a monstrous act too.
I agree, we are monsters. That means don't fuck with us.
While the inhabitants didn't benefit immediately they certainly benefited in the long run.
Your beliefs are absolutely disgusting. Slavery, indentured servitude, imperialism, murder, rape: this is what you are defending. If I build you some infrastructure can I enslave you, rape your wife, and steal your home? Is that a fair trade?
I assume the 13 Cololies your talking about is the American Revolution which America only won with help from the French and Spanish, as for slavery America was built on slavery, Britain banned slavery long before America so saying its a country founded on human equality is bullshit its a country built on slavery and the murder and subjugation of its native people
Most wars are won with the help of allies, Britain was also built on slavery, and our declaration clearly states,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
There was some debate about this and we ended up fighting a civil war over it, but our nation certainly was founded on equality. Although, at that time, they weren't talking about racial equality as much all bloodlines being equal and no one being special and worthy of royalty. This is a concept that you brits still do not understand. The rest of the world knows that no bloodline is special, but your little island is still in the dark ages.
The Civil War was about States Rights not Slavery the banning of Slavery was just one of the outcomes of the war. The declaration can say what it likes but if one colour of person or race is treated better than another then it's all just Bullshit. You say Britain is in the Dark Ages because it still has a Royal family but their a good money spinner the majority of money brought into Britain from tourism is because of the Royal family and a lot of this money comes from Americans and how can a country which has free healthcare for all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion be thought of as living in the Dark Ages?
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. What state right was being disputed? Was it the right to own another human being? Yeah, it was.
The declaration can say what it likes but if one colour of person or race is treated better than another then it's all just Bullshit.
The citizens of the north believed that all men are created equal, regardless of race. And Yes, we had to put down a revolt of lazy, racist, morons due to our firm belief in human equality.
how can a country which has free healthcare for all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion be thought of as living in the Dark Ages?
On the issue of king and queens and superior bloodlines, your little island is one of the most backward places on earth.
Why are you such sheep by the way? Are you always going to be peasants? Don't you think it's time to stand up for yourselves, stop being subjects of the crown, and just be full on human beings, individuals that are born equal to all other human beings? When are you crazy people going to stop worshiping this one stuck up family and pretending that they're better than everyone? Don't you have any esteem for your own family and bloodline? How many millennia have we been doing this shit? It's just so primitive.
You honestly believe that the Citizens of the North were anti slavery and this was the only cause of the Civil War, you are the one who does'nt know what he's talking about, there were many people in the North who believed that Blacks were inferior to Whites and were pro slavery, at the same time in the South there were many people who were anti slavery and Blacks (Slaves and Free Men) served in the Confederate Army alongside Whites unlike the segregated Union Army. Also when land in the South fell into Union hands many "free" Blacks were often expected to work longer and harder than they were when they were Slave's.
Slavery was one of the issues concerning the Civil War but at the time it was one of the minor issues, the issue of States Rights was mainly that the South did not want to be part of the United States Of America, they wanted to govern themselves with the money earned from the industries in the South being used to run the South instead of their taxes going to Washington, it was felt that Washington was too far away for anyone to understand what was happening in the South, in short they wanted to be self sufficient.
You say that in America all people are equal because it says so in the constitution so why is it that more Blacks live in poverty than Whites and the Native American has never been treated equally, shuffled off to live on "bad land" whilst the new Americans kept the good land for themselves, until all people in America are truly treated equally the declaration will be Bullshit.
Britain one of the most backward places on earth, I assume that was meant to be a joke, tell me what happens in America when someone with no health insurance or money is ill can they just go to the doctor or hospital to get treatment? On this backwards little island we have free health care for all and that is not just the British but people visiting the country as well, so if any American tourist hurts themslves whilst coming here because they love the Royal family (dont deny it I have met many Americans that think the Royal Family is awesome) they can get free healthcare!!! We also have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, I know your constitution says you also have freedom of speech and religion but think long and hard about American history, the wording of the Pledge Of Allegiance and what is printed on the Dollar Bill and tell me do you really have this?
Britain one of the most backward places on earth, I assume that was meant to be a joke, tell me what happens in America when someone with no health insurance or money is ill can they just go to the doctor or hospital to get treatment?
Yes they absolutely can. Why would you think otherwise? It's called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 passed by our congress. This act guarantees medical "treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay."
Do you see how completely uninformed you are. Do you just believe whatever is fed to you? Must be that peasant mindset you have. In civilized nations we like to use facts and evidence.
You say that in America all people are equal because it says so in the constitution so why is it that more Blacks live in poverty than Whites and the Native American has never been treated equally, shuffled off to live on "bad land" whilst the new Americans kept the good land for themselves, until all people in America are truly treated equally the declaration will be Bullshit.
That sucks that you are having trouble with your reading comprehension. I never even mentioned the constitution at all, I mentioned the declaration of independence, and neither document guarantees income equality. It states that all men are created equal, not that all men are equal.
Also when land in the South fell into Union hands many "free" Blacks were often expected to work longer and harder than they were when they were Slave's.
I'm sorry you are so backwards.... I really am. The issue is freedom, not how hard you work. Hard word is not the worst thing that could happen to you, slavery actually is. In the U.S. we value our personal liberty, something you can't understand because you are sheep.
I don't care if I was breaking rocks for 20 hours a day, that would be preferable to being someones property. (Probably not for you though because you are use to being the queens property)
Slavery was one of the issues concerning the Civil War but at the time it was one of the minor issues,
This statement shows exactly how uninformed you are. Allow me to help you out since you are so ignorant on the subject.
Here's a quote from wiki,
"Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. Following Lincoln's victory, many Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option."
So those are the facts. Learn them. I can't help but notice your complete lack of supporting evidence for anything you've said.
The "it was about states rights" argument is consistently used by racist southerners to justify slavery. It make sense that you would fall in line with them because you are from such a primitive, backwards culture.
"Yes they absolutely can. Why would you think otherwise? It's called the
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 passed by our congress. This act guarantees medical "treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay."
Hooray! So when on of you Americans break a leg, a Doctor can stop the bleeding so that when you regain consciousness he can charge you thousands of dollars to get your leg fixed.
"Do you see how completely uninformed you are. Do you just believe whatever is fed to you? Must be that peasant mindset you have. In civilized nations we like to use facts and evidence. "
Please stop with this whole "civilised nation" bullshit. America is the country created the modern fast food resturaunt, an institution which encourages you to eat loads of food with your hands. Your 'inventions' mainly involve devices that make you lazier. The plastic culture which you enforce on the rest of Europe through your pathetic media is exactly the opposite of "civilised".
"That sucks that you are having trouble with your reading comprehension. I never even mentioned the constitution at all, I mentioned the declaration of independence, and neither document guarantees income equality. It states that all men are created equal, not that all men are equal."
That happens in every nation, all men are created equal.
"I'm sorry you are so backwards.... I really am. The issue is freedom, not how hard you work. Hard word is not the worst thing that could happen to you, slavery actually is. In the U.S. we value our personal liberty, something you can't understand because you are sheep."
You still have yet to justify, the horrendous amount of racism and inequality that happened in America, of which the guy was clearly infering to.
"I don't care if I was breaking rocks for 20 hours a day, that would be preferable to being someones property. (Probably not for you though because you are use to being the queens property)"
Hooray, I'm apparently the Queens property, now state the document or law that states that, or does it not exist?
So in an emergency you can get free medical treatment but in a non emergency situation you cant, in Britain healthcare is free emergency or not, all people have to pay for is prescriptions although if you have an ongoing medical condition or disability you get your prescriptions free. That is a hard fact.
So the declaration says all men are created equal but not all men are equal is this meant to justify the non ethical treatment of the native American and non whites.
You need to educate yourself about the world outside of US no one in Britain is the Queens property neither are we Peasants and you say people in Britain are Sheep, if you compared the amount of people in Britain and America who follow what their leaders say blindly, believing everything that has been spoon-fed to them by the Powers-That Be you would find more Sheep in America than the UK
You see it gets annoying when someone doesn't use periods no one knows where the idea ends and new idea should always have an ending don't you think that is so why don't you use them even though you know it's confusing when you think about it being a big problem it makes you wonder why more folks don't use periods more often than they do people know how to use them it would be a good idea but no one ever does have decent grammar any more run on sentences will make me crazy that really makes you think you think you could start using them now so that people understand?
"I'm glad you recognize our superior military power. Hooray is right, you probably wouldn't be alive without the American military. "
I was being sarcastic.
"This isn't 20 questions nor is it history class. Look up your own information and make arguments based on the information you have. "
Is it because you haven't won any wars on your own?
"This isn't the America vs. China debate or the America vs. Japan debate. You created a debate called "America vs Britain". "
I know, but it still disputes the fact that America doesn't own the world the same way Britain did. Britain actually had a war against China and won, we also had a war against Japan which we didn't win because some Englishmen had joined the other side.
"The United States absolutely owns this planet. We go into any nation we want and we call it whatever suits us: war, police action, occupation. No nation equals our military might. We are the lone superpower. "
Ballshit, I've just disputed that with the fact that China and Japana are probably more powerful than you already. America isn't even a superpower. Whereas Britain was a hyperpower.
"We took 13 colonies of the best land on earth from your shitty little island."
The 'best land on earth' at that time was India. America was just a 'bothersome little colony'. While the American rebellion was being fought, the politicians in Parliament were wondering whether to bother fighting it at all.
"I'm quite proud that my nation is not thousands of years old. I'm glad that we are a new nation that doesn't believe in barbaric notions of the past like royal bloodlines and kings and queens. I'm glad we are founded on modern concepts like democracy and human equality. "
A country founded upon slavery, racism, classism and sexism can hardly be called a nation "founded on modern concepts like decomcracy and human equality".
"I agree, we are monsters. That means don't fuck with us."
What, like the Vietnamese didn't 'fuck with you'?
"Your beliefs are absolutely disgusting. Slavery, indentured servitude, imperialism, murder, rape: this is what you are defending."
Your mistaking the British Empire for another nation. When the British first endorsed slavery, it was because every other European Empire had done it as well. The only reason people in Britain put of with it so long is because they were taught that black people were 'evolutionarily inferior' and so were littler more than animals. Britain was one of the first empires to abolish slavery and the Royal Navy went around fleeing slaves from American slave ships.
Britain industrialised most of their colonies, they brought free trade and the gold standard to many. They used their military to protect them and brought the longest era of world peace the world has ever seen.
If these countries were not colonies of Britain they would have become colonies of France, Spain, Holland, Germany or Japan, who would have treated them much worse.
But that's how it is, the United States owns this planet.
This something I just could not leave be.
It is completely wrong. We, humanity, do not own this planet. And you think a small portion of humanity does? We simply live on it alongside other life that we must consider. This planet is not just ours.
So you really are an idiot. And you're from US. Good job keeping US's intelligence consistent. Oh yes, no matter what you do do not make your country look smart, that would be very foolish.
Oh yes, no matter what you do do not make your country look smart, that would be very foolish.
Uh huh...
What you wrote directly above is barely legible. I see you start right out with the lowest form of attack before you become unreadable. Is that the best you have by the way? If you are going to make a blatant ad hominum attack you should use a better word than "idiot". Are you so polite that you don't have any harsher words to call me than "idiot"?
What you wrote after my first argument is barely legible.
Your response to my argument was exactly that, and I simply responded in kind. You can see everyone else but not yourself? That's narrow-minded in a rather stupid way.
Check the definition of idiot. But you won't notice it applies to you, as you can't see yourself.
I guess I should take it easy on you because English is obviously not your first language. I don't have to look it up because I know what it means. We both know you just looked that up because you didn't remember what it meant and now you're hassling me about the spelling.
Well, good work my friend. 1 point for you. You are absolutely correct. My spell check did not know 'hominem' and I have atrocious spelling.
Can you type some more stuff now? It's really entertaining to read. Your writing style is so unique.
I did check it out just then, and what I noticed was your little misspelling. See, you're from US, your native language is English, meaning you should have known how it is written correctly, yet you did not. It's rather funny that I tend to notice mistakes in the writings of those whose native language is English, even though mine isn't. I know I make mistakes now and then but shit... how few I make compared to so many others who are native speakers.
I didn't check it out because I forgot what it meant, I checked it because I did not previously know the meaning.
Can you type some more stuff now? It's really entertaining to read. Your writing style is so unique.
Yes thank you :) This exchange has been entertaining and your english is actually very good. I think you missed a comma and it made something confusing to read, that's what I said was not legible. But that was back when you were calling me an idiot and I was making fun of your hippy non-sense about the planet belonging to the animals or something.
See, you're from US, your native language is English, meaning you should have known how it is written correctly, yet you did not. It's rather funny that I tend to notice mistakes in the writings of those whose native language is English, even though mine isn't. I know I make mistakes now and then but shit... how few I make compared to so many others who are native speakers.
That would normally be the case, except that "ad hominem" is not english, it's latin. It is a neutral word because neither of us speak latin.
(Most English speaking people don't know what "ad hominem" means either, outside of debating circles.)
But that was back when you were calling me an idiot and I was making fun of your hippy non-sense about the planet belonging to the animals or something.
This is the idiot part.
The planet belongs to every living organism that originates from here. Just because we have the ability to say it is only ours does not make it ours. But you went even farther - you said it belongs to the US - this is not just very stupid, but downright idiotic.
Just because someone's military force is the strongest on the planet does not make only them own the planet.
That would normally be the case, except that "ad hominem" is not english, it's latin.
Its origin may be of Latin but it is used with English, and on this site I've seen it used rather much. English also has words that were originally French, also other words from Latin. Why are those words considered English and not French or Latin? Because they've been used so much with English that they became English?
(Most English speaking people don't know what "ad hominem" means either, outside of debating circles.)
Thank God for America - without which we would have lost the 2nd World War (some say we did anyway) They have always supported us and in return ask for us to say yes most of the time.
They only joined WWII when Britain started to win. America's contribution to WWII was exaggerated afterwards so that Russia's contribution would get little credit.
They didn't send any troops during the German invasion of France or during the Battle of Britain. The British had to fight for almost 3 years (1939 - 1942) alone.
They first set foot in Europe in the summer of 1943 (it wasn't even in mainland, only in Sicily). By that time, the Soviets had gone through the worst and were starting to push the German army in the eastern front back; by that time Germany didn't have the potential anymore to achieve victory on the Eastern front (or in the war).
D-Day has been dramatized a lot, but it wasn't that significant in the overall outcome of the war. By this time, the Soviets were already deep in eastern Europe and had reached Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Germans were pretty much already lost.
If you look at military strengths and deaths, the Soviet Union had way more casualties, and also a way larger army. They also inflicted more German casualties. It is also worth mentioning that 80% of the entire German army was on the eastern front, leaving only 20% in the west.
That's because they didn't want to go to war and they gave britain the suppiles to live and america was the reason we won in africa plus we were fighting on 3 fronts and america was in the great deppresion plus a lot of the amercan fleet was destroyed
That's because they didn't want to go to war and they gave britain the suppiles to live and america was the reason we won in africa plus we were fighting on 3 fronts and america was in the great deppresion plus a lot of the amercan fleet was destroyed
forgetting the fact that it was the soviet union that did most of the work and were the ones who acctuly took down hitler in the 1945 invasion of berlin
Your response to blind nationalism is blind nationalism? Two wrongs do not make a right.
I would agree with you if you were asserting that all "my country is the best country" mentalities are bad, but you're just trying to refute "America is the best," with, "No, Britain is the best." It's trying to stamp out ignorance, pride, and arrogance with even more ignorance, pride, and arrogance, which is why I don't support your zealous, flag-waving patriotism; it's just as bad as the (admittedly disgusting) attitudes you criticize.
Fight fire with fire. What else are you suppose to do to end blind nationalism? Use reasonable structured arguments that are supported by facts and statistics?
I am not a nationalist. I would never join the military or support this fucked up nation anymore than I have to. Nations are primitive in the big scope of things and I believe we humans will eventually grow out of this. But we'll have to completely grow out of the kings and queens, monarchy, superior bloodline bullshit first.
What I am proud of is the American revolution and our revolt against the crown. I'm also proud of our actions during WW2, back when America had a little respect around the world. I might have joined the military back then.
Axmeister has been trained to believe all these silly notions about the U.S. and I'm just educating him a bit. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think that necessarily makes me a nationalist.
"I am not a nationalist. I would never join the military or support this fucked up nation anymore than I have to. Nations are primitive in the big scope of things and I believe we humans will eventually grow out of this. But we'll have to completely grow out of the kings and queens, monarchy, superior bloodline bullshit first."
What are you? some messed up anarchist?
"What I am proud of is the American revolution and our revolt against the crown."
Which was a stupid hypocritical act. You claim the American revolution was against the monarchy? Then why did you revolt against Britain, a constitutional monarchy with limited power, instead of Spain, an absolute monarchy who also owned more of North America?
"I'm also proud of our actions during WW2, back when America had a little respect around the world."
Because they like to join in wars late.
"Axmeister has been trained to believe all these silly notions about the U.S. and I'm just educating him a bit. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think that necessarily makes me a nationalist."
I've never called you a nationalist, I think you'll find your patronising comment about educating me is, in reality, quite the reverse.
"What I am proud of is the American revolution and our revolt against the crown."
Which was a stupid hypocritical act. You claim the American revolution was against the monarchy? Then why did you revolt against Britain, a constitutional monarchy with limited power, instead of Spain, an absolute monarchy who also owned more of North America?
Are you not aware that the 13 colonies that started the united states belonged to England, not Spain? Do you even know what revolt means? You can't revolt on another nation, guy. The Spanish ended up with some shitty desert we call Mexico. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
"Are you not aware that the 13 colonies that started the united states belonged to England, not Spain? Do you even know what revolt means? You can't revolt on another nation, guy. The Spanish ended up with some shitty desert we call Mexico. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?"
Then it clearly wasn't an act against Monarchies. Because there was no 'tryanny' of the Crown, because out of all the monarchs of Europe the British one had the most limited power.
If your nation was so Anti-Monarchy, why did you ally with absolute monarchies against a constitutional monarchy with limited power?
Because I tend to become a dick when I realise I've got something right. Plus, I'm only a nationalist for the fun of it, if I met an American in real life, I probably wouldn't be as offensive to them as I am on here.
I guess part of the reason I have such distaste for nationalism is because overly-nationalistic Americans are partly responsible for Americas tarnished image abroad. It seems to me at least Americans have succeed in stereotyping themselves as people who think their country is the best and all other countries suck, which is a rightly contemptible attitude to hold. I feel the nationalists in this country are essentially contributing to giving America a bad name, so I've come to loath nationalism, regardless of which country it is in support of.
You think that's up to you? You think your little fussing on this small site will make a difference? And I thought Americans thought too much of themselves...
You do understand that would mean America is nonsense, that it is a lie. And that is completely wrong. Americans do lie, they do think too much about themselves, but comparing it to religion is just stupid. A religion is a religion, a country is a country.
A suggestion to you, stay away from debates that involve Britain and America and religion. You'll make yourself look much smarter that way.
I've no wish to debate with you. Not because I don't like you (that would be un-Christian of me). But because you have the inability to write arguments without insulting the other party.
If you want to debate on your terms, then make your own debate. Until then, you either come up with a reason why America could possibly be greater than Britain, or you go away.
But because you have the inability to write arguments without insulting the other party.
This I actually laughed at. You begin with insults. I have simply observed your idiotic and deluded arguments and made the according conclusion - that you are delusional and quite frankly stupid. It is not an insult, in case you don't have the capacity to understand.
If you want to debate on your terms, then make your own debate.
Really? That stupid? Debating is about giving your opinion on a subject, that is the only fucking rule there is.
Until then, you either come up with a reason why America could possibly be greater than Britain, or you go away.
Or perhaps you should pull your head out of your shit-hole and look at the outside world?
USA has the strongest military, this basically decides the "greatness". Music, movies, games, books, science and technology (even though on average they are quite stupid). Facts are facts and reality is reality, but you, of course, only care about your deluded opinions and beliefs.
If you have no wish to debate me then why did you respond in the first place?
"This I actually laughed at. You begin with insults."
I can look at every single one of your arguments and find indirect insults in every paragraph and direct insults several times. Please explain how you can claim I'm the one who insults you, have I insulted you once in this debate?
"I have simply observed your idiotic and deluded arguments and made the according conclusion - that you are delusional and quite frankly stupid. It is not an insult, in case you don't have the capacity to understand."
Calling someone idiotic, delusional and stupid are insults. What's worse is you use these insults as 'evidence'to support your arguments and attmpt to dispute mine.
"Really? That stupid? Debating is about giving your opinion on a subject, that is the only fucking rule there is."
And the subject is America vs Britain.
"Or perhaps you should pull your head out of your shit-hole and look at the outside world?"
Come up with something new, you recycle your insults over and over again. It makes your arguments quite borng and repetative.
"USA has the strongest military, this basically decides the "greatness"."
Yet they haven't won a single war on their own.
"Music, movies, games, books, science and technology (even though on average they are quite stupid)."
100% opinion, you have no evidence for this, because there isn't a measurement for how great a nation's culture is.
""Facts are facts and reality is reality, but you, of course, only care about your deluded opinions and beliefs."
I've heard this so many times, seriously if you can't come up with a serious point on this debate, I'm just going to ban you.
"If you have no wish to debate me then why did you respond in the first place?"*
I can look at every single one of your arguments and find indirect insults in every paragraph and direct insults several times.
Then go ahead and provide me those paragraphs and become proved wrong.
Please explain how you can claim I'm the one who insults you, have I insulted you once in this debate?
You have, and I actually do not care about you as much as to go and fetch them. I've got better things to do with my time.
Calling someone idiotic, delusional and stupid are insults.
Depends on context. And the context I used them in is simply a reflection of reality, not an insult.
"It is not an insult, in case you don't have the capacity to understand." I guess I was right about that, you really do not have the capacity to understand.
And the subject is America vs Britain.
This is your response? Very stupid, again...
You said, "If you want to debate on your terms, then make your own debate."
Then I said, "Really? That stupid? Debating is about giving your opinion on a subject, that is the only fucking rule there is."
Then your answer is, "And the subject is America vs Britain." Where is the bold in this quote? If it was a follow-up from the previous it should have one, yet does not. You avoided the issue, you did not give a legitimate reply.
Can you really not see how stupid you are being?
Come up with something new, you recycle your insults over and over again. It makes your arguments quite borng and repetative.
Then perhaps you should start coming up with some new topics? Then perhaps you should begin debating new subjects? Then perhaps you should pull your head out of your shit-hole already? America vs Britain and religion... stay away from those 'cause you really are incapable of debating on them with any substance.
You should really look over your own arguments as there is nothing new compared to your older ones. The same crap over and over. Because you are deluded and stupid and above all else wrong.
Yet they haven't won a single war on their own.
You clearly don't understand how things work, globally. Educate yourself, then come back. Otherwise you'll just provide worthless crap.
100% opinion, you have no evidence for this, because there isn't a measurement for how great a nation's culture is.
That was 100% biased response. Literally.
I've heard this so many times, seriously if you can't come up with a serious point on this debate, I'm just going to ban you.
That would only prove me right and you wrong. It would show you are unable to accept reality and so adhere to your idiotic delusions. You don't even want to hear about reality, the truth. You are so stupid and mentally just fucked up. You need professional help, I'm sure I've said it to you before. So far you have not proved me wrong. Go get some help.
You can't refute me, you cannot provide anything but insignificant crap, then you get bored or see that there is no way you can nonsense me to submission, and then you simply go for banning. Nice... strategy, but ineffective and so very stupid.
Because you entered my debate.
If I see something so stupid then of course I will say something.
"Then go ahead and provide me those paragraphs and become proved wrong."
Considering how you don't understand what an insult actually is, I'm afraid I can't do that to you at the moment.
"You have, and I actually do not care about you as much as to go and fetch them. I've got better things to do with my time."
So you demand that I go fetch your offensive arguiments, but you can't do the same for me? Because you have 'better things to do with your time' in backwards Estonia?
"Depends on context. And the context I used them in is simply a reflection of reality, not an insult.
"It is not an insult, in case you don't have the capacity to understand." I guess I was right about that, you really do not have the capacity to understand."
Not because I don't like you (that would be un-Christian of me)
It's not "un-christian" to not like someone. Christ himself hated the rich, the romans, gamblers and merchants, and pretty much anyone that was not a jew. I remember a verse where Christ is calling gentiles dogs. I can provide it for you if you wish.
Sure we can talk more about Christ. Thanks for bringing him into this debate. I have that verse right here for you.
Matthew 15, 25-26
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Seems like if you're a gentile you're a dog and not worthy of Christ's help. Sucks to not be a jew huh. Maybe you should make a new debate about it. I'll meet you there.
I didn't drag religion into question, I brought your relationship with religion into the debate as a way of helping you understand why I make debates about America.
Pull your head out of your shit-hole. Seriously, you are so blind to reality. Although your shit-hole is real, it prevents you from seeing the rest of the world and so you make things up.
I don't have a problem with you picking favourites between the two once great nations. The US is more powerful right now albeit losing its hegemony. Sure, they have commited atrocities but so did Britain during its hegemonial period. I would choose the US over Britain any time from a historical or moral perspective. Enjoy your monarchy by the way.
On the other hand you have great handouts and health care, even Romanians are cashing in on your social security. Enjoy following US policy politely with the rest of the Europeann Union.
I am mainly talking about foreing policy. Don't pretend the EU is being critical of the US. Their leaders follow along politely. The welfare state is a very american idea, it was supported by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The administration affected many constitutions around the world to include universal health care. Europe followed the ideal set by him.
The “rebels” were able to kick the British military square in the ass. though they were small and had help; they were able to stand up for their cause and still win.
Please don't delude yourself, the American revolution was a war between the American loyalists and the rebels. Britain did support the loyalists but the rebels recieved a huge amount of help from the Spanish, French and Dutch Empires. If those other empires hadn't got involved then Britain could have won the war easily.
In my view, US is the country which lead the another countries. US is like foundation for our world. I think, America has a huge influences for economics of the world,enviroment etc.
We won our independence from them already. We have advanced further than they have. We have achieved power that they cannot. America is just too much for Great Britain to handle. If Britain ever wanted to compare itself to America then sure we have our faults but we are a baby nation. We are new and yet the strongest and therefore we shall not be taken down by Great Britain.
Well first we broke free from Great Britain. Remember that in 1782? Britain was very strong and i have to admit that, but we eventually overcame British influence in our lives after the cruel taxes they had placed on us. Remember the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Tea Act? How they taxed all our paper goods and tried to use Americans to help out the British East India Company by lowering the tax on tea thinking that we would start buying from them? That's messed up, but in America you can pursue happiness in any way. There will be a group of people there to mock you, there will also be a group of people willing to welcome you in. And most people won't care at all for they know it's my right to do just about whatever. If I were to go to a British audience and tell them I’d found happiness through Call of Duty or The Hunger Games or Yoga Pants I'm pretty positive I’d be greeted by rejection and eye rolling from all the citizens in Britain. Now Britain was very powerful and yet still is but in modern times America has out done it's parent country in just a span of about 300-400 years.
"Britain was very strong and i have to admit that, but we eventually overcame British influence in our lives after the cruel taxes they had placed on us. Remember the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Tea Act?"
The Stamp Act was repealed after the British colonists complained, and the Tea Act was actually extremely fair. The tea tax in the American colonies was one of the lowest in all of the British Empire, the only reason people view it as unfair was because smugglers created propaganda since the tea tax made them lose out on illegally smuggled tea.
" How they taxed all our paper goods and tried to use Americans to help out the British East India Company by lowering the tax on tea thinking that we would start buying from them? "
There is nothing wrong with the Government encouraging it's population to buy a certain good by making it cheaper.
"That's messed up, but in America you can pursue happiness in any way."
Unless you were poor, black, female or foreign.
"There will be a group of people there to mock you, there will also be a group of people willing to welcome you in. And most people won't care at all for they know it's my right to do just about whatever. If I were to go to a British audience and tell them I’d found happiness through Call of Duty or The Hunger Games or Yoga Pants I'm pretty positive I’d be greeted by rejection and eye rolling from all the citizens in Britain."
This is merely incorrect generalisation and cannot be used to support your argument. You cannot possibly claim that all Britons will reject you because you like a certain thing, whereas most Americans will greet you with open arms.
"Now Britain was very powerful and yet still is but in modern times America has out done it's parent country in just a span of about 300-400 years."
America has not outdone it's parent country in anyway, aside from being physically larger.
The Stamp Act was repealed after the British colonists complained, and the Tea Act was actually extremely fair. The tea tax in the American colonies was one of the lowest in all of the British Empire, the only reason people view it as unfair was because smugglers created propaganda since the tea tax made them lose out on illegally smuggled tea.
Youre right above but the previous guy here gave poor examples. The better ones wouldve been the intolerable acts. Quartering act, ect. Those were unnecessary. The main reason the revolution happened is because after the War of 1812 Britian was, not in debt, but needed to pay their bills and such. So, they really began to enforce their merchantile system that was put in place when the colonies began, but was left to salutary neglect. Its because of this lack of enforcement that the colonies began making their own government, rules, and liberties. They had this good, comfortable, functioning of life and when the merchantile system was reenforced they reacted harshly because it removed their liberties they established. Its easy to argue that the taxes were fully reasonable, but they nonetheless sparked anger in the colonies. We just wanted out liberties back and were willing to do whatever it took to make it so.
Everything else about him saying all Britains reject americans and yada yada is a hasty generalization. Though, there is the stereotype were all fat...which isnt true. In fact, that shouldnt even be a negative thing because our fatness is a sign of immense wealth. If we eat well to grow large it is because we are fruitfull and wealthy. A fat person was very respected in ancient greece and rome.
And we could argue for years over which is better.
" The better ones wouldve been the intolerable acts. Quartering act, ect. Those were unnecessary. "
From what I gather the Quartering Act was a piece of legislation making the American colonies pay for the accommodation of the British soldiers militarising the area. Which was because the French were threatening to invade, I don't see how that is unreasonable or unlike the system that most nations have today, where countries that have a large military pay for that large military.
" The main reason the revolution happened is because after the War of 1812 Britian was, not in debt, but needed to pay their bills and such. So, they really began to enforce their merchantile system that was put in place when the colonies began, but was left to salutary neglect. "
I haven't a clue what you're talking about, you're justifying the American Revolution with a war that happened after it?
"Its because of this lack of enforcement that the colonies began making their own government, rules, and liberties."
What? You're first statement talks about an act involving the militarisation of the American colonies and then you claim that there was no enforcement in the American colonies?
"Its easy to argue that the taxes were fully reasonable, but they nonetheless sparked anger in the colonies. We just wanted out liberties back and were willing to do whatever it took to make it so."
Where was the oppression, where had your liberties been taken away? The taxes were completely reasonable, the only people who lost out were those who partook in illegal smuggling.
" In fact, that shouldnt even be a negative thing because our fatness is a sign of immense wealth. If we eat well to grow large it is because we are fruitfull and wealthy. A fat person was very respected in ancient greece and rome."
In the modern era, rich people afford dietitians to make sure they don't become obese and die of unhealthy eating, while the poor engulf cheap fast food.
In a battle we would obviously win. In economics we might win(not sure due to our current state). What does Great Britain do that we can't do or haven't already done?
"In a battle we would obviously win. In economics we might win(not sure due to our current state)."
Your economy has only grown so large in the first place because of the free-market ideology that the British Empire enforced around the world.
"What does Great Britain do that we can't do or haven't already done?"
On the contrary, what can the USA do that Great Britain hasn't already done?
Great Britain has:
-Created the nations of India, Australia , New Zealand, Canada, Kenya, Uganda and many more.
-Created and developed the cities of Hong Kong, Singapore and many other regions which helped Asia become the economic powerhouse it is today.
-Administered the longest period of world peace mankind has ever seen.
-Been the first of the modern powers to abolish and suppress the slave trade.
-Installed democracy into most of the modern world, from which without many nations on this planet would still be under dictatorship.
-Installed banking systems to help national economies.
-Enforced free trade across the globe.
-Defeated many other nations which would have had empires much worse than ours.
-Fought and won both world wars, as well as many others.
There is other stuff, of course, but I believe I've made my point clear. We aren't the ones of have to meet the standards of America, it is the USA which must now attempt to try and get near to the magnificence and power that Britain has already achieved.
"Fought and won both world wars, as well as many others."
Like did America not win both world wars and also and many more as well?
We dominated in both wars. Even though the Atomic Bomb droppings were a little harsh in my opinion we weren't going to be pushed around. We aren't afraid to wage war with anyone. Especially Great Britain. Now i agree with you excellent example for they are correct, but if you do a tad bit of research Britain got their butts handed to them by America. America was never afraid of Britain in the first place especially when the Boston Tea Party occurred. We also have many more weapons than the British do especially nuclear war heads. They have about 220+ warheads, but America has 5,113 warheads. But wait here is a kicker........the cold war. We waged a war that Great Britain couldn't possible handle. Or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Yes we also handled that too. I could never imagine Britain trying to handle those situations especially when Cuba and The Soviet Union were against one country alone? No. Britain could never have dealt with that the way we did. Here were the results:
- Withdrawal of the Soviet Union's nuclear missiles from Cuba
- Withdrawal of certain United States' nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy
- Agreement with the Soviet Union that the United States would never invade Cuba without direct provocation
- Creation of a nuclear hotline between the United States and the Soviet Union
- Fidel Castro's position as Cuban leader strengthened
Now we have our negatives in this event. Britain could have kept the world at peace for centuries, but it simply cannot have stopped a nuclear throw down with would result in an ultimate catastrophe.
"Like did America not win both world wars and also and many more as well?"
America only joined the World Wars after Britain started to win, also America has never won a war on its own.
"We dominated in both wars."
You joined in the latter half of both World Wars.
"Even though the Atomic Bomb droppings were a little harsh in my opinion we weren't going to be pushed around. We aren't afraid to wage war with anyone. Especially Great Britain."
If you're so 'unafraid' to declare war on nations then what was with your governments isolationist policy at the start of WWII?
"Now i agree with you excellent example for they are correct, but if you do a tad bit of research Britain got their butts handed to them by America. America was never afraid of Britain in the first place especially when the Boston Tea Party occurred. "
I think you'll find that if you did some research. The American Revolution was primarily between the colonies in America. The loyalists were supported by Britain while the rebels were supported by the French, Spanish and Dutch empires. How you can possibly claim that the American Revolution was solely won by Americans is beyond me.
"We also have many more weapons than the British do especially nuclear war heads. They have about 220+ warheads, but America has 5,113 warheads. But wait here is a kicker........the cold war. We waged a war that Great Britain couldn't possible handle."
What the heck are you on about? Britain was you're ally in the Cold War. And the amount on warheads doesn't matter it only takes a couple to end the world.
"Or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Yes we also handled that too."
Hooray! America successfully launched a blockade on a nation several hundred times smaller than it is, that must be one of your few military acheivements.
"Or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Yes we also handled that too. I could never imagine Britain trying to handle those situations especially when Cuba and The Soviet Union were against one country alone? No. Britain could never have dealt with that the way we did. Here were the results:
- Withdrawal of the Soviet Union's nuclear missiles from Cuba
- Withdrawal of certain United States' nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy
- Agreement with the Soviet Union that the United States would never invade Cuba without direct provocation
- Creation of a nuclear hotline between the United States and the Soviet Union
- Fidel Castro's position as Cuban leader strengthened"
Britain created the modern world, I have given you a list of several British achievements. How can you possibly compare all of that to a small skirmish with a tiny nation that the US won?
"Now we have our negatives in this event. Britain could have kept the world at peace for centuries, but it simply cannot have stopped a nuclear throw down with would result in an ultimate catastrophe."
The British successfully stopped the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Russians, Japanese, Chinese, Germans, Belgians and Italians from creating and empire which dominated the world. Please say how we couldn't have preventing a tiny nation like Cuba from building a missile base next door to us?
"Like did America not win both world wars and also and many more as well?"
America only joined the World Wars after Britain started to win, also America has never won a war on its own.
"We dominated in both wars."
You joined in the latter half of both World Wars.
"Even though the Atomic Bomb droppings were a little harsh in my opinion we weren't going to be pushed around. We aren't afraid to wage war with anyone. Especially Great Britain."
If you're so 'unafraid' to declare war on nations then what was with your governments isolationist policy at the start of WWII?
"Now i agree with you excellent example for they are correct, but if you do a tad bit of research Britain got their butts handed to them by America. America was never afraid of Britain in the first place especially when the Boston Tea Party occurred. "
I think you'll find that if you did some research. The American Revolution was primarily between the colonies in America. The loyalists were supported by Britain while the rebels were supported by the French, Spanish and Dutch empires. How you can possibly claim that the American Revolution was solely won by Americans is beyond me.
"We also have many more weapons than the British do especially nuclear war heads. They have about 220+ warheads, but America has 5,113 warheads. But wait here is a kicker........the cold war. We waged a war that Great Britain couldn't possible handle."
What the heck are you on about? Britain was you're ally in the Cold War. And the amount on warheads doesn't matter it only takes a couple to end the world.
"Or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Yes we also handled that too."
Hooray! America successfully launched a blockade on a nation several hundred times smaller than it is, that must be one of your few military acheivements.
"Or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Yes we also handled that too. I could never imagine Britain trying to handle those situations especially when Cuba and The Soviet Union were against one country alone? No. Britain could never have dealt with that the way we did. Here were the results:
- Withdrawal of the Soviet Union's nuclear missiles from Cuba
- Withdrawal of certain United States' nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy
- Agreement with the Soviet Union that the United States would never invade Cuba without direct provocation
- Creation of a nuclear hotline between the United States and the Soviet Union
- Fidel Castro's position as Cuban leader strengthened"
Britain created the modern world, I have given you a list of several British achievements. How can you possibly compare all of that to a small skirmish with a tiny nation that the US won?
"Now we have our negatives in this event. Britain could have kept the world at peace for centuries, but it simply cannot have stopped a nuclear throw down with would result in an ultimate catastrophe."
The British successfully stopped the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Russians, Japanese, Chinese, Germans, Belgians and Italians from creating and empire which dominated the world. Please say how we couldn't have preventing a tiny nation like Cuba from building a missile base next door to us?
You hinted at "was" a better empire. Great Britain nearly has no Empire compared to modern America. We are too far advanced to even be compared to such a country. Great Britain is a very powerful nation, but they don't come close to the sheer power that America can portrait.
I prefer Great Britain to America mainly because, yes I am patriotic... but not blindly so. I prefer our small little tea-drinking, damp, rainy nation because it is so remarkably British. Where else can you stand under a leaky bus shelter in the pouring rain eating fish and chips out of newspaper and complaining about 'Good old British weather' to whoever bothers to listen?
Alright, so tea is not grown in Britain - it is grown in India. But we made it our own. What about fish and chips? Fish and chip shops are a predominantly British thing. London buses? Red post boxes?
Whereas America, forgive me, is such a mishmash of cultures and viewpoints and is such a new nation that it barely has any tradition at all. It is an immigrant nation. I like my roots.
Sorry, but if you're from the United States, then you should know that America describes two continents. Great Britain and the United Kingdom has more history then the United States ever will. Whispers That's a nice three hundred years you got there pal. Please go back to your crippling nation and entertain your white, baptist, suburban soccer moms. Until you get the number of homeless, unemployed, and illegals down, try fighting with a nation that you can actually win against, like Mexico.
