Lonan said:
Crimsonsniper said:
Lonan said:
Crimsonsniper said:
Lonan said:
Crimsonsniper said:
Lonan said:
Many Americans have had the idea that they are better than everyone else because of centuries of democracy. This was a way for them to cope with Great Britain being overwhelmingly more powerful than them. But I'm already over-analysing it. Humans are animals, and among the American population is the least worthy of all animals. If you put it in the context of how animals behave, you will get much farther than trying to rationalise Homo Sapien behavior with a post-Enlightenment style of thinking.
As far as I can tell, your the most ignorant person to enter this forumn yet. If you are so proud of Great Britain's moral superiority tell everyone on the escapeist of the atrocities your "great" country committed in the Boer War. Chances are you don't know of your own disguesting past.
I said nothing of moral superiority, but of power superiority. And if it were a competition of moral superiority, the United States would still likely be the loser: Pouring boiling tea down loyalists throats in the name of American style morality and democracy; and treating natives as lesser creatures, "savages" and trying to wipe them off the map with mass, yet incomplete genocide. Also, denying the catastrophic nature of climate change is the greatest assault the lesser in the United States have made on the innocent; but has yet to manifest. Modern day oppression of atheists and homosexuals is hardly better than Great Britain, which is one of the most welcoming societies on earth. The spending which has caused this recession is also in large part to the liberal country you defend, and the bombs dropped on Japanese civilians could hardly defeat the Boer War in an argument about morality. Also, it was the Boer War that took away most of the British public's appetite for colonialism. The British effectively took over half the habitable land on earth, nearly all of it's oceans, and gave it back largely because of the atrocities you mentioned. The United States is now thrashing like an elephant caught in the mud with predators surrounding it. It cannot comprehend that it is being beaten, and countries it once looked down on as lesser beings(all of them); as children, are now better than it. Even people who look different are more powerful, IT CAN'T BE TRUE and there's so many of them. Quick, I need a defense, ok: everyone is evil except America and they are all jealous. Ya, thats it! That should give me enough time to get up and look down on them again while they care about my feelings and try to be less "evil" out of genuine desire. Suckers!
It is still struggling to grasp it's loss of power, and will do anything to bring others down to make it look better by comparison. It is utterly unwilling to give up power despite the atrocities it has committed. The U.S. strapped electrodes to innocent men's testicles, treated them like animals under abusive owners, killed countless civilians in Iraq, and doesn't regret a thing.
A video recently surfaced about a 2007 murder of two journalists from the air and those who tried to give them medical aid, as well as two children in the vehicle, and laughed about it. I do not believe this is an isolated part of American psyche. I don't think it's just a few people who are like this. But do tell me about the atrocities of the Boer War. But also tell me how Great Britain changed afterwards. The U.S. has only changed because it's destroyed it's economy. Of course, it has to bring the rest of us with it, and will vigorously attempt to do this again the next time it hurts itself.
*edit*
I want to mention that I have great appreciation of many Americans, and I in no way cast my criticisms of the U.S. to all Americans, as I am aware that not all have these characteristics.
It's quite obvious you have some issues to resolve since you have such a scewed sense of morality. I'm not claiming that the United States is perfect by any means, I know its done some things I regret but I don't hide them and I don't make excuses, unlike you. Let's begin. According to you the Boar War was a justifible and ultimately good thing for the world, but something like the atom bomb that ended World War 2 was just an atrocity (are you really being so hypocrital?). Also please grow up and realize half the problems going on in Africa are the result of Great Britain's realization that it was cheaper to exploit an unstable and completely dependent number of separate nations rather than an empire (Britain didn't "willingly" give up anything, after World War 2 they couldn't manage to hold on to all their possessions due to a strained government and widespread calls of independence by your "colonies"). As for the comment on American war crimes, you must not know anything of the infamous and mindless brutality of your SAS. British troops also serve in Iraq and Afganistan and have commited their fair share of civilian deaths (and by that I mean executions and beatings), here's a link for you http://www.heyetnet.org/eng/video/1342-video-shows-british-army-brutality-in-iraq.html . Those are your own soldiers and you must be so proud of them right now, they may be sick fucks but thats fine for you right (It was ruled that there was "insufficent evidence" and they were acquitted by your own government, but I'm sure they were really innocent and it was all a misunderstanding to start with). There are plenty of other things I could list if you want to continue, I'm sure I'll shatter your dreams of your perfect nation. By the way it's becoming clear that your being a selective, hypocritical scumbag.
I didn't say the Boer War was justifiable, you once again put words in my mouth. I never said Great Britain was perfect, and have made no excuses. You are just as selective by saying I think the Boer was is good for the world but the bomb was an atrocity, I think both were, but both were steps towards peace. Are you really so hypocritical as to call me selective? Growing up has nothing to do with agreeing with you. Great Britain was only one European coloniser, there are many others. From what I've seen the only infrastructure in these former colonies was made by the British. And if Great Britain is so terrible in the world why does it not have the hatred the United States does? As for you shattering dreams of a perfect nation, I never said anything to this effect, your defensive nature only provides evidence for my original statement. As for poor countries, the Phillipines is a former colony of the United States, and is incredibly poor. Could we not blame all it's problems on American imperialism? And if Great Britain never willingly gave up the colonies, why doesn't the United States prove itself better by returning all the Mexican territory it invaded? Mexico is today half it's original size. As for soldiers committing atrocities, the United States hardly has the upper hand. You claim that I am making excuses, but saying "He did it too!" is a textbook excuse. This is just another tactic to bring others down to make yourself look better by comparison. I'm willing to listen to how I've been selective, but you've just declared me selective because I didn't mention the Boer War. You didn't mention that Americans didn't lose their appetite for imperialism after it's atrocities against the natives.
I like how you ignored the link, maybe you should watch your troops again, those arent troops they are executing but young teenage boys that they are beating to near death for no other reason than fun http://www.heyetnet.org/eng/video/1342-video-shows-british-army-brutality-in-iraq.html . Speaking of World War 2 Britain committed one of the first and largest atrocities in the bombing of Dresden (The bombing proposed, organized, spearheaded, and defended by Great Britain). Following the link at least the United States punishes its soldiers if they do something like this, your country just lets it go and angrily blames the U.S. for their involvement in Iraq and Afgahnistan... its funny because your country was one of the biggest supporters of both conflicts, plus all of the conflicts involving Isreal with Britain originally going so far as to land troops in support. Just admit that your full of shit. You accused US troops of brutality but when I said your troops are no better you play the, "your just trying to make yourself look better by blaming others" card, just grow up already you ignorant loser.
So earlier the use of the bomb was an evil atrocity and now its a step towards peace? What type of flip-flop behavior is this? Are you trying to use this as justification for the Boer War? Neither action was right, unless you believe that those atrocities are only minor. Moving on. Concerning the Boar war you said, and I quote "the bombs dropped on Japanese civilians could hardly defeat the Boer War in an argument about morality. It was the Boer War that took away most of the British public's appetite for colonialism". Wrong on both accounts, the Boar war did nothing to undermine British support for imperial practices, it only exposed the ineptitude of the British army at that time. As for morality, its one thing to drop a bomb that instantly kills most of its victims (and possessing side effects not known at that time) and quite another to slowly starve innocent women and children to death over the course of several months. Indeed it was the British who developed the first concentration camps the world saw, the camps werent that different from some of the nazi concentration camps of World War 2 even. You tell me which is more evil.
Concerning British withdrawal from its colonies, most of the colonies were left in horrible states when your country severed ties. India got torn apart in a brutal civil war leading to the creation of Pakistan, Bangaldesh, and modern India, thousands were killed in the conflict because you left no proper government in place. In most of Africa, including the more developed parts Britain left brutal dictators and military regimes in place that were sympathetic to Great Britain. Using these ties they still held sway over the government to an extent and used this reliance to secure better trading deals for itself. Going so far as supplying weapons to governments they knew were using them in ethnic cleansing.
Concerning the natives you like to bring up so often, yes the United States did do some atrocious things. Britain did far worse. Many native tribes on the East coast were destroyed by Britain long before the American Revolution. Part of the reason so much violence occured between America and native americans was that British troops in Canada were supplying them with weapons and encouraging raids on American frontier settlements, leading to many of the slaughters that took place early on in America history. Britain utterly destroyed many of South Africa's tribes, the most famous of which were the Zulu, although they were not by any means the only ones.
Concerning Mexico, I'm all for giving up Texas if Britain gives up its ill gotten ground in Ireland. Ground taken by force and still not completely surrendered.
Yes I realize Great Britain was only one colonizer, France, Belgium, Spain, Portgual, Italy, the Dutch, Germany, and even the United States all did similar things. None, however, can match the amount of atrocities or the extent of damage that Briatin alone is responsible for. By your own quote "The British effectively took over half the habitable land on earth, nearly all of it's oceans" a nation who owned so much is largely responsible for the current state of the previous colonies, and having had the most Britain left behind more unstable colonies than anyone else could have. Earlier it was just the United States was scum, now its the world's a screwed up place and everyone has made mistakes? Don't drag anyother nations into this debate, its between the US and Britain, stop trying to make yourself look better by comparing. Furthermore I intend not to mention them again myself.
Concerning the Phillipines, it is one of wealthiest nations in Southeast Asia nearly rivaling Japan and is furthermore among the most quickly growing economies in the world. But I wouldn't expect someone who jumps into sensationalism like you to know that.
PS: Your still a hypocrite, a flip-flopper, and a ignorant moron.
Only those who are caught are punished. I'm not saying any force has more or less brutality. There's no way the Phillipines rivals Japan, because it is the second largest economy in the world. As for the British bombing back at Germany, if you lived in London during the bombing campaign you would think quite differently. It's ridiculous to suggest that the U.S. punishes troops who do these things any more at all. The shootings in the holes in Germany were never punished. You just assume that it was because you want it to be true. To say the U.S. punishes troops more is completely incorrect. And saying that shooting huge groups of people from a helicopter, who didn't even shoot, is better than beating people not tremendously more than school bullying I've seen and sometimes experienced is ridiculous. Then of course killing the people in the van that comes to pick them up.
As for the bomb, I said it was an atrocity as was the Boer War, but both resulted in a reduced desire for war. Certainly the bomb was better overall, but to say the Boer War did not reduce desire for imperialism is false. I have seen this from many sources, I don't need you to contradict me. As for concentration camps, committing genocide against the native people now conquered by the U.S. is hardly better than what was done to the native people of South Africa under British rule. And if we're talking about starving woman and children to death in camps, you can't even argue what happened with the slaves, many of whom were likely starved and beaten in slave camps and considered lesser beings. What about the lynching because of basic prejudice? As for leaving India without a government, that was exactly what Ghandi wanted. The British told him this would happen, and he knew it, but wanted the British Empire to withdraw entirely. He campaigned for years to get what he wanted, and finally did.
You said that attacks on the natives were because British soldiers provided them with weapons, yet you completely ignore why they attacked Americans in the first place. The massive campaign to "tame the west" obviously created resistance among those who didn't want to be taken over. Of course they were given weapons, it's better than giving to the Taliban. The natives were being hunted down. The natives were overwhelmingly against Americans. To say they were encouraged to attack American settlements is ridiculous. They didn't need any encouragement.
It's ridiculous to say that former British colonies are the the most unstable.
Also, if natives were ever encouraged to attack American settlements, was it during the War of 1812? Perhaps the Fenian raids? You are also hypocritical in not considering the reasons natives would want to defend themselves from Americans.
As for Mexico, not only Texas would have to be returned, but also New Mexico (effectively still treating Mexican territory like Manchuko to this day), Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah and California.
*edit*
The Phillipines is very impoverished: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines
Per Capita annual income is below $4000.
*second edit*
This is getting ridiculous, let's stop it here.
Stop it here?!? Last I recall you started this and I intend to finish it. I don't care if I'm wasting your time, pissing you off, or proving you wrong. I care that I'm deflating your oversized ego. I never intended to prove Britain the most evil nation to ever exist, I've done this to cut you down to size. Before you start judging others, look at yourself. Furthermore I intend not to let you pull a cowardly stunt like this with the (?Let?s end it now.?) bullshit after you try to get in the last word. If your chickening out because you feel your position in this conversation is weakening then admit so, don?t pull this garbage it?s generally beneath intelligent humans, something it?s becoming apparent you aren?t.
?Only those who are caught are punished? -Except in Britain, because the soldiers responsible for that clip were identified by your government in the video the soldiers posted of themselves. Not only that but they were going to be charged until the government declared a ?lack? of evidence. I guess a video by the guilty showing their crimes isn?t enough evidence, but I?m sure that you will continue to defend those disgusting individuals you proudly call your noble soldiers.
?As for the British bombing back at Germany, if you lived in London during the bombing campaign you would think quite differently?
-Considering you didn?t live through it either who are you to assume it was nothing compared to what London went through. According to numbers the entire nation of Britain suffered a total of 43,000 civilian deaths throughout the Bombing of London, the bombing of Dresden killed as many as 40,000 civilians, in short the bombing of that single city killed nearly as many (depending on the figures) people as the whole bombing of London campaign in addition too hundreds of thousands more who were also killed in various other bombings, however none could compare in the amount of death done in under 24 hours at Dresden. Also the bombing of Dresden had had no military value it was a terror tactic designed to kill civilians and ?only? civilians, it also destroyed one of the most culturally beautiful cities in Europe, no one even now remembers the once renowned and artistic Dresden.
?As for concentration camps, committing genocide against the native people now conquered by the U.S. is hardly better than what was done to the native people of South Africa under British rule. And if we're talking about starving woman and children to death in camps, you can't even argue what happened with the slaves, many of whom were likely starved and beaten in slave camps and considered lesser beings. What about the lynching because of basic prejudice?? -Concerning slaves, Britain maintained the most extensive slave trade and originally started the practice of using them for southern plantations within the Thirteen Colonies. If not for Britain the cotton industry that fueled the slave trade would never have started up (chances are slavery would have been ended much sooner as there would have been no incentive to continue an unprofitable enterprise). Britain continued to long use slaves throughout the Caribbean and in Canada. Indeed Britain only abolished slavery for one of its colonies in 1840, many other colonies had to wait years before they too would be denied further slavery (Slavery was never outlawed in many British colonies at any point in history, only the slave trade was banned). The American civil war started less than 20 years after 1840 when the South refused to submit to Federal control and pressure to end slavery (Pressure going on for decades previously). The South then seceded from the U.S and the civil war began. During the war the thirteenth amendment was finally passed (now that southern opposition had left the nation thus allowing the bill to be passed). It officially and universally ended slavery throughout America, although some other states had ended slavery within themselves independent of the government in previous years. Furthermore it is foolish to argue over an issue such as this when there were abolitionists present in many countries and working to undermine or remove slavery.
Concerning Mexican territory not all the territory in the named states belonged to Mexico. Texas was an independent state that revolted against the Mexican government, in the ensuing revolution Texas won its own independence and applied for statehood with the United States. The United States did nothing to take Texas by force, it was the local populations and American ranchers living there that revolted on their own. It was "many" years before the United States let Texas join because of controversy that it was really a rebellious and newly independent state. When Texas did join conflict began between both forces on the border with Mexico. The nations of France and "Great Britain" both recognized Texas as an independent state instead of the Mexican insistence that it was a rebellious state, following this logic both nations would have consented to the annexation of Texas as it voluntarily wanted to join the U.S. In the ensuing conflict the U.S. defeated Mexico quite fully and could have annexed the whole Mexican nation had they wished. Instead they took several large Mexican states bordering U.S. territory and left the rest. They later made a repayment for a small plot of additional territory. Had Mexico won Texas would have been re-subjugated and U.S territory taken and held by force. The Mexican government was quite clear it would have done the same to the U.S. if they had won the war instead. I not excusing Polk?s obviously imperialist agenda, but you have to be realistic in what would have occurred had roles been reversed and realize Texas is at the very least U.S. territory otherwise you would be contradicting your own nations opinion on the matter.
?I have seen this from many sources, I don't need you to contradict me? -I don?t need to contradict you? You are a moron, you contradict what you say previously and what I say, but it?s wrong for me to point that out. Maybe you should provide some of these sources, they must clearly state that the Boer War lowered British public opinion of imperialism. Wikipedia doesn?t count, I wouldn?t normally feel the need to state this but given your education I should.
?And saying that shooting huge groups of people from a helicopter, who didn't even shoot, is better than beating people not tremendously more than school bullying I've seen and sometimes experienced is ridiculous. Then of course killing the people in the van that comes to pick them up.?- If you really feel that way may I kindly kick you in the face till I grow tired of doing so, because it is no obvious immoral act for me to do so by your logic in comparison to murder (which was committed by the soldiers in the clip). They actually continued to kick a man they had murdered in the face during that event.) Please show me a clip where we see American soldiers kicking a man they murdered in the face as they beat teenage kids to near-death, I would love to see you top this in a clip you lying piece of trash. Try to keep the information you hurl to something that can be confirmed not some story you made up on a whimsy.
? You said that attacks on the natives were because British soldiers provided them with weapons, yet you completely ignore why they attacked Americans in the first place. The massive campaign to "tame the west" obviously created resistance among those who didn't want to be taken over. Of course they were given weapons, it's better than giving to the Taliban. The natives were being hunted down. The natives were overwhelmingly against Americans. To say they were encouraged to attack American settlements is ridiculous. They didn't need any encouragement.?- I guess by that statement that you would be ok with me giving guns and grenades to someone who told me he intended to use them to kill you, your family, your neighbors, and as many other random innocents as possible. I would be happy to assist him if that is your logic.
"It's ridiculous to say that former British colonies are the the most unstable." ?Considering that the nations of Bangladesh and Jamaica are the poorest nations in the world and both former colonies of Britain, I don?t think it?s a ridiculous claim, to imply that several former British colonies are not the worst is.
?Also, if natives were ever encouraged to attack American settlements, was it during the War of 1812? Perhaps the Fenian raids? You are also hypocritical in not considering the reasons natives would want to defend themselves from Americans.? -Actually I?m referring to the British soldiers who supplied weapons to Indians and encouraged attacks on the U.S. prior 1812, it was one of the main reasons that war occurred. I shouldn?t expect you to know that though considering your less than capable intellect.
?The Phillipines is very impoverished: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines
Per Capita annual income is below $4000.? -I?m sorry I was mistaken the Phillipines were the second largest in the 1970?s, they are now only the fifth largest. They are not a poor nation and possessed until 2008 one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The annual income number does not indicate nation wealth it indicates economic disparity for the population, again I shouldn?t be surprised that you can?t comprehend something like this yourself. Using Wikipedia as your source implies that you are either lazy, a moron, or more likely both.
If you want to end it do so, but I?ll take any response that does more than say?s ?I?m done? as a cue to continue. I can continue this myself for a very long time.
PS: In addition to you being a hypocrite, flip-floper, and an ignorant moron, we can now add a coward who flees when he's losing an arguement.
