Nationalism - I Can't Stand it

[The Pinray]

When it comes to the Escapist community specifically I see quite a good bit of ignorant Americans and a bunch of stuck up elitist Europeans (Mostly Brits).

No side is better than the other. And people need to learn to get over themselves.

And on the topic of nationalism: It's a good thing, in my opinion. If people weren't proud of their home country then they'd fall apart. The country, that is.

 

[Capt. Crankypants]

But...but.......Nationalism will bring us victory!
[sub]Cookie anyone?[/sub]

Yeah I've got nothing OT to add. Many people do many things that annoy many other people. This is just one of them.

 

[Sean Steele]

Nationalism is the way for the dumb underachievers to piggyback feelings of accomplishment upon the success of individuals and organizations who happened to be born or formed in the same country.

 

[Blunderboy]

SNIP
Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

SNIP

Luckily, history does.

See here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)]
And here as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign]
Here too? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_Campaign_1942-1943]
Man, what are the odds? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Soviet_invasion_and_the_Atomic_bomb]

Well in fact I am well aware of that, but they joined in shortly before the A-bomb, did nothing, and only intended to conquer Japan (after the US and Aussies did all the dirty work). So my point is still correct, I just didn't feel like adding 2 additional paragraphs for clarification.

Easy for you to say after the fact. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, even though I question the wisdom of wilfully ignoring facts.
I would however point of that the fighting in Burma was certainly not 'nothing'.

EDIT - Dragging this out of a futile flame war, there is nothing wrong of being proud of your country. I am very proud to be British. I would be equally proud to be Canadian, Greek or anything else.
However, thinking that somehow the geographical location of your birth somehow makes you better than anyone else is stupidity in the highest degree, especially when you have personally done nothing to contribute to the perceived greatness of your particular area of rock.

 

[Maveroid]

OP isn't really describing nationalism. Nationalism is about how you identify yourself (as in your national/racial group) and is far more complicated than mere boundaries or borders. Nationalism as it is understood as a political movement (for example National Socialism) is different to the political theories of nationalism (how nations develop as a coherent idea).

For more see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism or http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/ (this one is better but wikipedia is the norm)

Interesting point is how the development of nations doesn't always occur in symbiosis with the success of political nationalist groups even when the nation is recognised in other ways.

OP is talking more about racism/jingoism/patriotism which is different.

Also; can we have some thread discussing politics which doesn't end up mentioning world wars. This is worse than mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to international relations students or putting something up on the topic on the guardian website.

You are absolutely right, of course. Please excuse my choice of words.

All I was trying to say is that most of the people that go around insulting other countries are just egoistic and arrogant dummies who think too highly of their own opinions and believe them to be world-changing. Or, as SiskoBlue said:

[...] Most of us have no real impact on the world. Not really. [...]

And most of this flame war crap is all because people suffer the in-groups/out-groups social phenomena. Meaning they'll promote the positives of any group they consider they belong to and point out the flaws of groups they don't belong to. And before anyone says "but I'm part of group X and I talk about how bad X is all the time?" Maybe you do but you're just putting yourself into a new group, the "People from X who disagree with the majority of X" and like to see yourself as being "alternative".

As for mentioning World Wars and all that... If I knew that a quick rant about nationalism/patriotism/racism would result in users fighting over who did what in World War I and II... I promise I would not have started it.

Then again, excuse me for being so short-sighted; it was fairly predictable now that I think about it.

 

[Maveroid]

When it comes to the Escapist community specifically I see quite a good bit of ignorant Americans and a bunch of stuck up elitist Europeans (Mostly Brits).

I just see a lot of people who still can't get over the fact that the internet makes us all even more similar than we already are.
The internet has blended cultures together and... I don't think that there will be many traditions to hold on to after most internet users have pretty much heard of all the customs in foreign cultures or even talked to the people upholding those cultures. At least thats what I thought would happen before I saw all those rants about other countries being idiots (i know countries can't be idiots, thats the point)

Bashing other countries today makes less sense than it did before. If SOPA gets passed, for example, it doesn't matter whether the U.S or anybody else started it because, lets face it, most of the countries in the world had the same idea at some point or another and some parts of Asia are censoring the internet already if I am not mistaken. (excuse my ignorance). By the way, the idea for this discussion started after I went on a forum discussing how the Americans should be excluded from the internet because of SOPA.

Instead of going on and on about how the Americans should be banned from anything internet-related, how about you try to be pro-internet-freedom and help show, not only the U.S. government, but the whole world what you believe to be the right way for the internet to be handled. It doesn't actually matter what you specifically think, just proclaim the idea of internet-freedom a bit louder (or in a more effective way)

In the end, if we all fight each other we will all die together.

I mean, just look at the Gaming community as it is right now...

 

[superbowlbound]

SNIP
Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

SNIP

Luckily, history does.

See here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)]
And here as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign]
Here too? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arakan_Campaign_1942-1943]
Man, what are the odds? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Soviet_invasion_and_the_Atomic_bomb]

Well in fact I am well aware of that, but they joined in shortly before the A-bomb, did nothing, and only intended to conquer Japan (after the US and Aussies did all the dirty work). So my point is still correct, I just didn't feel like adding 2 additional paragraphs for clarification.

Easy for you to say after the fact. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, even though I question the wisdom of wilfully ignoring facts.
I would however point of that the fighting in Burma was certainly not 'nothing'.

EDIT - Dragging this out of a futile flame war, there is nothing wrong of being proud of your country. I am very proud to be British. I would be equally proud to be Canadian, Greek or anything else.
However, thinking that somehow the geographical location of your birth somehow makes you better than anyone else is stupidity in the highest degree, especially when you have personally done nothing to contribute to the perceived greatness of your particular area of rock.

Okay, but according to historians the Soviets only joined after victory was guaranteed (after they floundered around for 2 years). And yet again, didn't ignore the facts, I see one total battle in the Pacific the Russians fought in, sure is a lot...

And I am confused how being born in a 1st world country doesn't make you better. You have better education, healthcare, freedom, etc. so you are significantly more likely to be a better person. Although I don't agree with flame wars between USA vs Europe (especially because one is a country, the other a continent) there is something to be said about people being born in better countries turning out to be more significant people.

 

[superbowlbound]

We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns.

The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans.

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day,

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory,

Wow the Ameican eduction system never ceases to amaze me.

Really I am actually not sure whether you are just a troll or this is what you belive.

Anyway first the We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns bit is completely wrong. You may have provided some equipment yet if you Supplied ALL then why were the English getting to the point where they were melting down metal fences to use the Steel?
Then we have to take into account the English protecting your merchant ships traveling accross the Atlantic that were being harassed by U-boats. Even then the supply lines were still unreliable. It would have been suicide for England to rely solely on you.
And this is just in the west. The English also had forces in North africa and across the world (the sun never sets on the Union Jack). These forces were supplied entirely with equipment that was NOT of US origin. Also considering that the 3rd Reich controlled the Medeteranian no supply ship could of entered and delivered cargo without being elimonated by "pirates".

Next:

The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans.
This is just a joke right?
Churchhill had successfully stalled the Germans in the west and the Soviets were pushing them back in the East. As well as the English were pushing them north out of Africa.
If the only successful battle plans were American then why were the Nazi's already on the retreat? The war could have been won without you at all.

next:

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day,

See above

Next:

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory,

Really? the rest of the statment would imply otherwise.

You may have been the primary reason for Saving Australia (thanks for that btw) but:

Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

This is also wrong. The Russians were fighting the Japanise Empire As well. Here link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Border_Wars

Also Singapore held a major base for the English. There was a naval fleet stationed there as well as a farily sizable force consting of English, Quiwi and Australian Forces.
Edit:
Also forgot this link on the last part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

Okay here we go:
yes the supply were torpedoed by U-boats, but there were so many ships, built so fast, and with tons of supplies, that there was NEVER a supply problem (please, show me otherwise). Supplying all the allies =/= solely supplying all the allies. And please find someone who cares about Africa in WWII who isn't British. It had no point and just needlessly cost both sides men to free countries that had little value at the time.

Now Churchill stalling them in the West end involves him retreating to England? I don't recall any significant allied forces in Europe before D-Day. War would have turned into a stalemate without US intervention, remember the battle of the bulge? That would have extended the war by over a year if it was successful (thank goodness for those US paratroopers). That was with an infusion of millions of troops, arms, and vehicles, without it the war would have dragged on for years, possibly ending with Germany controlling the continent of Europe, with England and Russia the only other remaining countries. I can't say this would happen for sure, but neither can you.

In terms of the Soviets, they most definitely did not have any generals, you know, because they executed them all. The push back was a combination of sheer numbers, poor Nazi supply, and the winter. If you call that a well formulated plan (that cost the Soviets significantly more than the Nazis) then you would fit right in with the Soviet army. And protecting your border is not the same as fighting in the Pacific. I don't consider the battles in Alaska fighting in the Pacific theater because it was just defensive, there was not counter offensive in either.

Finally that is a stretch with the English colonies. The colony of India as run by the British is really Indians fighting, not British. Also never ignored the Aussies, but they aren't part of Europe.

Also before you go knocking the US education system, you should learn to spell (American, believe, across, Mediterranean, eliminated, Churchill, statement, Japanese, Fairly, Consisting) especially Churchill.

 

[Gordon Freemonty]

And I am confused how being born in a 1st world country doesn't make you better. You have better education, healthcare, freedom, etc. so you are significantly more likely to be a better person. Although I don't agree with flame wars between USA vs Europe (especially because one is a country, the other a continent) there is something to be said about people being born in better countries turning out to be more significant people.

Better in what respect? Healthier possibly, But are you seriously suggesting that someone is better for being born into a more privileged environment?

 

[superbowlbound]

And I am confused how being born in a 1st world country doesn't make you better. You have better education, healthcare, freedom, etc. so you are significantly more likely to be a better person. Although I don't agree with flame wars between USA vs Europe (especially because one is a country, the other a continent) there is something to be said about people being born in better countries turning out to be more significant people.

Better in what respect? Healthier possibly, But are you seriously suggesting that someone is better for being born into a more privileged environment?

Tends to work out that way. don't confuse that with their life being worth more, I just simply mean because I was born in the US, I am more likely to be rich, famous, and impactful to the world than someone born in Mexico. So yes, someone born in a more privileged environment is likely to be a better person (yet again, better also doesn't mean nicer, or a family man, or any of those things, it simply means a more useful person to the world. And before you argue that, please look at 1st world inventions/inventors vs 3rd world inventions/inventors)

 

[Blunderboy]

And I am confused how being born in a 1st world country doesn't make you better. You have better education, healthcare, freedom, etc. so you are significantly more likely to be a better person. Although I don't agree with flame wars between USA vs Europe (especially because one is a country, the other a continent) there is something to be said about people being born in better countries turning out to be more significant people.

Better in what respect? Healthier possibly, But are you seriously suggesting that someone is better for being born into a more privileged environment?

Tends to work out that way. don't confuse that with their life being worth more, I just simply mean because I was born in the US, I am more likely to be rich, famous, and impactful to the world than someone born in Mexico. So yes, someone born in a more privileged environment is likely to be a better person (yet again, better also doesn't mean nicer, or a family man, or any of those things, it simply means a more useful person to the world. And before you argue that, please look at 1st world inventions/inventors vs 3rd world inventions/inventors)

I really think that your definition of a 'better person' is wildly different from most people in this thread.

 

[superbowlbound]

And I am confused how being born in a 1st world country doesn't make you better. You have better education, healthcare, freedom, etc. so you are significantly more likely to be a better person. Although I don't agree with flame wars between USA vs Europe (especially because one is a country, the other a continent) there is something to be said about people being born in better countries turning out to be more significant people.

Better in what respect? Healthier possibly, But are you seriously suggesting that someone is better for being born into a more privileged environment?

Tends to work out that way. don't confuse that with their life being worth more, I just simply mean because I was born in the US, I am more likely to be rich, famous, and impactful to the world than someone born in Mexico. So yes, someone born in a more privileged environment is likely to be a better person (yet again, better also doesn't mean nicer, or a family man, or any of those things, it simply means a more useful person to the world. And before you argue that, please look at 1st world inventions/inventors vs 3rd world inventions/inventors)

I really think that your definition of a 'better person' is wildly different from most people in this thread.

mmmkay, who contributes more to the Earth? Being a nice guy is cool and all, but who invented most of the worlds inventions, certainly not Central/South Americans, Africans, Middle Easterners, Eastern Europeans, or South East Asians. There is a reason for that...

 

[Gordon Freemonty]

And I am confused how being born in a 1st world country doesn't make you better. You have better education, healthcare, freedom, etc. so you are significantly more likely to be a better person. Although I don't agree with flame wars between USA vs Europe (especially because one is a country, the other a continent) there is something to be said about people being born in better countries turning out to be more significant people.

Better in what respect? Healthier possibly, But are you seriously suggesting that someone is better for being born into a more privileged environment?

Tends to work out that way. don't confuse that with their life being worth more, I just simply mean because I was born in the US, I am more likely to be rich, famous, and impactful to the world than someone born in Mexico. So yes, someone born in a more privileged environment is likely to be a better person (yet again, better also doesn't mean nicer, or a family man, or any of those things, it simply means a more useful person to the world. And before you argue that, please look at 1st world inventions/inventors vs 3rd world inventions/inventors)

I really think that your definition of a 'better person' is wildly different from most people in this thread.

mmmkay, who contributes more to the Earth? Being a nice guy is cool and all, but who invented most of the worlds inventions, certainly not Central/South Americans, Africans, Middle Easterners, Eastern Europeans, or South East Asians. There is a reason for this...

And whats so special about you then? What have you invented? Anyone, given the chance has the capacity to be who he/she wants.

 

[Grant Hobba]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

You are kidding right? almost 10 000 allied troops died and that's successful ? D Day was a horrible day and your disrespect towards it shows how messed up Americans can be. America also didn't "supply" everyone yes their munitions were used but we paid for.. also ww1? you ... you can't take credit for anything. You aren't the entire military....


how about we dig to the most recent wars to show how far you have fallen from glory, Vietnam ?
how about the bay of pigs invasion? how about Iraq.... hmmm I think the brief moments of heroism is severely outweighed by the team america warfare going on in developing nations to steal what little wealth they have for itself.

I actually laughed out loud. As Stalin said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"

But I lol'd more because Eisenhower expected the loses to be well over 10x that... I'd say that's successful.

and in terms of Vietnam and Iraq, lrn2ignore the media. They are the reason we pulled out of Vietnam (look up the Tet Offensive and the way the media spun it). And if you want to talk about $ then yes, Iraq failed. But with minimal casualties and a new government, then it was successful. (and if you want to discuss ethics, yet again nothing to do with the war after it started)

wow.

how self righteous.

I bet you piss red white and blue don't you?

I'll tell you what, I won't bother arguing with you... I was always taught " don't argue with an idiot... they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience"

I will say this however.

The Vietnam war was against communism that was never a threat ... America just has to impose it's "values" on developing nations because it thinks it is the biggest global super power.

reality check... America is now going to be bought by china because the debt sealing was raised to 14.7 trillion? bah.

10x that amount of casualties expected? that doesn't excuse it. You are pathetic. truly.

what about the bay of pigs huh? didn't have anything on that did you?

Iraq was completely avoidable and casualties shouldn't have happened because the war shouldn't have. tell me why we needed to Invade them?

I bet you stroke yourself to mw3 don't you? to the thought of american's being the self righteous heroes of the world.


buddy you are pathetic.

really.

 

[jimbob123432]

As a Canadian, I understand your hatred. I loathe when people assume: we can't speak properly, we're essentially a 3rd world country, we have no military, or we're Communist. I admit that I sometimes have preconceptions about other countries (mainly America), but I think it's partially because I get so mad at people who have preconceptions about my country (mainly Americans).

 

[The Pinray]

When it comes to the Escapist community specifically I see quite a good bit of ignorant Americans and a bunch of stuck up elitist Europeans (Mostly Brits).

I just see a lot of people who still can't get over the fact that the internet makes us all even more similar than we already are.
The internet has blended cultures together and... I don't think that there will be many traditions to hold on to after most internet users have pretty much heard of all the customs in foreign cultures or even talked to the people upholding those cultures. At least thats what I thought would happen before I saw all those rants about other countries being idiots (i know countries can't be idiots, thats the point)

Bashing other countries today makes less sense than it did before. If SOPA gets passed, for example, it doesn't matter whether the U.S or anybody else started it because, lets face it, most of the countries in the world had the same idea at some point or another and some parts of Asia are censoring the internet already if I am not mistaken. (excuse my ignorance). By the way, the idea for this discussion started after I went on a forum discussing how the Americans should be excluded from the internet because of SOPA.

Instead of going on and on about how the Americans should be banned from anything internet-related, how about you try to be pro-internet-freedom and help show, not only the U.S. government, but the whole world what you believe to be the right way for the internet to be handled. It doesn't actually matter what you specifically think, just proclaim the idea of internet-freedom a bit louder (or in a more effective way)

In the end, if we all fight each other we will all die together.

I mean, just look at the Gaming community as it is right now...

You got me there, friend. I sort of wish we could all just get over ourselves and have some decent talks about gaming. But there will never be an end to kids with something to prove. The gaming community has boiled down to constant whining, elitism, and entitlement that floors me every day I log on to this site.

Worst part is, this is the best gaming community that I've ever experienced online.

As for the nationalism: I honestly don't care for the dick-waving competitions. I am an American, and I have lived in Britain. I have dear friends there. My family origins come from Spain and Italy. We are all people, regardless of where we're from. We should at least respect each other on that level. See the individual, not the collective.

But the internet is a complete mess. That'll never change, and in some ways I don't want it to.

Also, we'll need each other when the robots begin their revolution.

 

[mik1]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day

...you mean thats not what it's about??? *mind blown*

...oh wait, not really.
Considering WWII might as well be its on genre in movies and literature, I find it hard to believe that anyone couldn't know just about every detail of the war. The americans you met were probably just telling you that to push your buttons.
Pushing others buttons seems to be a skill my countrymen have mastered.

 

[superbowlbound]

I try not to generalize against other nations, but I do hate a lot of things about popular American patriotism.

WW2 for example, living in Canada, we tend to think of WW2 as this global tragedy in which countries from all over the world banded together like never before to deal with a situation.

Americans seem to believe it was all just about how Hitler was bad and how America saved the day, and how the whole event is just proof of how awesome America is. Even going as far as to rewrite history(Pearl Harbour), disregard the fact that they arrived two years late when everybody else jumped in right away, and of course pretend certain armies hardly existed.(Russia anyone?)

(Pearl Harbor lrn2spell)

SORRY, sorry. Anyways. I don't know any Americans who think we single-handedly won WWII (Although I will take credit for WWI, but another tangent). I am curious what this revision of Pearl HARBOR is though. And don't forget, we get a lot of credit for a lot of reasons. We supplied ALL of the allies with tanks, planes, and guns. The American generals were the only ones who ever had successful battle plans (remember market garden?).

The war didn't really get on track until D-Day, I mean Africa was cool and all, but NO ONE cared. D-Day happened after America joined and was planned by Americans. Also what about the Pacific theater? Don't recall Europe, specifically Russia, helping out.

I'm not crazy/stupid enough to think we were the single reason for Allied victory, but don't dare act like we were just a small puzzle piece, we did a larger share than any other allied country (inb4 Russia losing 20 million people, it was incompetent generals, poor supply, and outgunned soldiers). Finally the US did not enter WWII because of Hitler and the jews, we, along with most of the world, were very racist against Jewish people and didn't really care until Pearl HARBOR was bomber.

/rant

You are kidding right? almost 10 000 allied troops died and that's successful ? D Day was a horrible day and your disrespect towards it shows how messed up Americans can be. America also didn't "supply" everyone yes their munitions were used but we paid for.. also ww1? you ... you can't take credit for anything. You aren't the entire military....


how about we dig to the most recent wars to show how far you have fallen from glory, Vietnam ?
how about the bay of pigs invasion? how about Iraq.... hmmm I think the brief moments of heroism is severely outweighed by the team america warfare going on in developing nations to steal what little wealth they have for itself.

I actually laughed out loud. As Stalin said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"

But I lol'd more because Eisenhower expected the loses to be well over 10x that... I'd say that's successful.

and in terms of Vietnam and Iraq, lrn2ignore the media. They are the reason we pulled out of Vietnam (look up the Tet Offensive and the way the media spun it). And if you want to talk about $ then yes, Iraq failed. But with minimal casualties and a new government, then it was successful. (and if you want to discuss ethics, yet again nothing to do with the war after it started)

wow.

how self righteous.

I bet you piss red white and blue don't you?

I'll tell you what, I won't bother arguing with you... I was always taught " don't argue with an idiot... they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience"

I will say this however.

The Vietnam war was against communism that was never a threat ... America just has to impose it's "values" on developing nations because it thinks it is the biggest global super power.

reality check... America is now going to be bought by china because the debt sealing was raised to 14.7 trillion? bah.

10x that amount of casualties expected? that doesn't excuse it. You are pathetic. truly.

what about the bay of pigs huh? didn't have anything on that did you?

Iraq was completely avoidable and casualties shouldn't have happened because the war shouldn't have. tell me why we needed to Invade them?

I bet you stroke yourself to mw3 don't you? to the thought of american's being the self righteous heroes of the world.


buddy you are pathetic.

really.

Well ignoring the fact you won't reply...
Several things, yes debt is awful in this country, but China will never call us on it in the near future because our economies are intertwined. Secondly would you have preferred D-day not happen? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You are basically saying we should have given up, let the Nazis rule Europe, and called it a day to avoid the minimal casualties? And you call me dumb...

Yeah, Bay of Pigs flopped, that's why I didn't defend it, does any country not have its blemishes. know back to your intelligence I clearly stated you can debate the ethics of Iraq, but it happened with minimal casualties, so my point is still valid. That's like saying Hitler should have never been elected so WWII shouldn't have happened and all the casualties were avoidable, a nice thought, but not really the argument. Same thing goes for Nam, I do not debate the that it was questionable to enter into the war, I do contest that it was a failure.

Finally MW3 sucks ass, although it is slightly (SLIGHTLY) better than MW2.

So Please, please tell me how I am and idiot when you just ignore arguments and instead focus on your personal feelings about a single soldier dieing in war. I don't recall the quote being "war is heaven"

 

[superbowlbound]

Your problem is with bigotry. Not nationalism. There's a big difference.

mmmkay, who contributes more to the Earth? Being a nice guy is cool and all, but who invented most of the worlds inventions, certainly not Central/South Americans, Africans, Middle Easterners, Eastern Europeans, or South East Asians. There is a reason for that...

Whoa, the ignorance of this statement is hilarious. North Africa and the Middle-east is where the knowledge inherited, traded or taken by Europeans to base their knowledge or civilizations on, is from. You think for example "algebra" was invented by europeans? It's name is originally "Al-Jabr(al-djebr)"... Sounds so european doesn't it.

I mean that's cool and all but how long ago was that? Do I care who first invented crop irrigation? You are just ignoring the argument. History is cool, but the present is what matters. Yes, in 100 year I am aware the world will be completely different, but as it stands these are the 1st world countries and they are the ones who produce great people. And I am well aware that a lot of math came from there, a whole lot of good its doing for them now.