Things you'd like to see changed in America

[davidbaker88]

Isn't the new thing Global Nuclear Non-proliferation? So that would require all countries, not just the U.S.

And Isn't the Nuclear Clock still set at like 7 or 5 minutes to midnight?

 

[Bloob Face]

Even if another superpower would have the slightest interest in invading the U.S, the only viable way to do it when half the country is a pretty well armed militia would be to exterminate the entire population with ICBM's and considering that the U.S keeps a pretty extensive defense grid of weaponry capable of shooting down ICBM's it would make the endavour far to costly to even consider it. In fact, it would bankrupt any given superpower trying. And any form of rewards that could be gained from such an endavour wouldn't really make it all worth it. Especially since the European Union is pretty unlikely to just sit by when this potential superpower tries to take out a country that's keeping to it's own borders and just wants to be left alone.

Invading the U.S just wouldn't be worth the effort. Not becuase of the Nimitz class carriers or all of the other offensive capabilities, but simply because of the population being pretty well armed in general, and the defensive missile silos that can keep the country pretty damn safe from ICBM attacks.

So quite frankly, there's no excuse what so ever for the U.S to keep such an extensive military force with blatantly obvious offensive abilities like the current one, nor is there any excuse for the U.S constantly butting in into conflicts that has nothing to do with them.

The U.S government is just acting like the power hungry despot it is, thinking it has some sort of god given right to police the world, and doing a pretty shoddy job of it to boot.

The United States military policy as it is today is just a waste of resource and human lives. But hey, at least the average Joe can feel good about himself watching american bombers obliterate clay buildings which those "brown, commienazis of terrorist descent" lives in. I guess the sacrifices in resources and human lives is worth that feeling of self satisfaction... Or is it?

Hasn't this been used in an argument against the existence of God? I'm paraphrasing, but part of it was something like, "if he is able but unwilling, he is evil." What is during the 30's and 40's the Allies only looked after themselves? How many millions of people would have died that could have been helped? Would you ignore them because they should look after themselves? Is looking after only yourself when you could help other people morally acceptable? As for your case against the US's military, of course no one wants to have to use it, but it must be ready whenever the use of force is needed, such as in World War II. If no one had the power to stop the Axis powers, who would oppose them?

You also assume that the United States only wants to inflate its own sense of self-worth. Have you considered that it genuinely wants to help people, and do what is best for everyone? No one wants war, no one wants to have people killed, but sometimes it is necessary. As Aristotle said, "We make war that we may live in peace."

 

[PurpleRain]

Okay buddy how safe do you think we would feel if we put away all our nukes while Russia and other countries have them. The only reason any country has nukes is because no one else will launch a nuke at them or there will be hell to pay. How do you think we will feel if we scrap our nukes while every other super power has one.

As for the poor thing, remember we are a Democracy/Republic. We encourage people to be proactive and not suck off of the Governments tits. Unlike Europe...

First paragraph: Very safe. I think you forget what age we're living in: The Global Age. With the internet and global economy and politics, it's suicide for one major country to go to war. If a nuke was launched, I'd fear more so of the country that would retaliate with the same power display.
If the US got rid of every nuke they had, I would be so so damn proud of America. I would friggen sing their anthem, tell my kids about it and cry of the day (and I am not joking here). The media would herald it the day of change for the better and the start of a better world. Russia, China (both who I doubt is anti-America as some are ignorant on) as well as all others would be pushed into getting rid of theirs otherwise look bad for their protesting public and the global eye.

Second paragraph: No. The Republicans pushing for capitalism are pushing for people to be self-righteous and proactive. Not all people believe in this as it is a lofty idea to those that do not wish to be apart of that system. Radical change could be for the better. I wish there were some truly socialist countries out there to live and work in.

 

[tsb247]

Get rid of their nukes so that they can use that money and feed the world.

Oh joy non-americans making stupid American bashing threads.

How about this. Everyone who the USA has given aid to, please pay it back.

It's not the stupid American thing, it's the fact that America has the power to alter the world for the better and fails to do so. Subsequently, we also seem to be sharing your problems.

The thing is that the U.S. has no obligation to alter the world for the better, and even if we tried, people would still complain about us. It seems to be a, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," kind of scenario.

I too am sick of non-Americans making America bashing threads. I also find it funny that Americans are known for being arrogant and yet I see more threads by non-Americans bashing the U.S. than I see threads bashing other countries started by Americans.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No excuse whatsoever? Really? I can come up with three off the top of my head, and that's without doing any research. They might not be good reasons, but they're still reasons. Please, if you're getting into a debate, don't make blanket statements like that.

Reason 1: As a weapon to wage war against other superpowers, should the need arise. This is left over from the Cold War, and bears little relevance to the modern geopolitical situation, but it's what the machine was designed to do and it does it well.

Reason 2: As a deterrent to prevent other nations from going to war. If you attack the allies of the US, the US will attack you. Politics at its finest.

Reason 3: As a tool for intervention in international politics. This is the "War is an extension of diplomacy by other means" theory, and I don't particularly like it, but it's there.

Let's break em down shall we:

Reason 1: You said it yourself: This is a lefover from the Cold War, and bears little relevance to the modern geopolitical situation

Quite simply it's a pretty lousy reason, and lousy reasons are not excuses. If you want to make excuses, then you need GOOD and VALID reasons. And what is it you say about the machine does well? Which superpower is it actually fighting successfully against? Since when was Iraq and Afghanistan considered "superpowers"? So far, the only thing this "anti-superpower warmachine" has been used for is bullying underdeveloped countries that don't really stand a chance in defending against it, which of course add even more nails to the coffin of this particular reason.


Reason 2: More likely politics at it's worst as it stands to divide the world in an unfair manner. Since the U.S have invested so much resources into it's military and become the superpower it is, one would think that the most intelligent course of action to become as neutral as possible. It's no wonder the current course of action breeds so much resentment, when two countries that have nothing to do with the U.S go to war against eachother and "big brother" USA comes to the aid of one, but not the other. It's no wonder terrorists resent america.

It's better for them to let them fight their own wars and come to their own terms instead of butting in. Seriously, why would the U.S need military allies in the first place? It has enough of a military force to look after it's own borders and protect itself, it doesn't need assistance to do that. What it does need is assistance in attacking other countries, which of course only confirms my sentiments when I call the U.S government power hungry despots. Their intention isn't self-defense, the intention is obviously to bully the rest of the world.


Reason 3: Once again, you find a reason but yet again that reason is a pretty bad one and you agree with it yourself.

So tell me, can you honestly say that these three reasons you came up with excuse the behaviour that the U.S government has indulged in for the past 50 or 60 years? Do you back your government up or do you have the spine and clarity of vision to criticise it?

Now, for the rest of your statements:

Okay, first of all, where did you get this idea that the American population could in any way constitute a "heavily armed militia?" Maybe Texas could muster something, I dunno, but that seems like a huge assumption to me. According to the National Opinion Research Center, as of 2006, 21.6% of Americans own guns, and most of those are handguns--not exactly the most useful tool for guerrilla combat.

Yes, these are the home owners of firearms (and 21.6 percent is a pretty high figure if you compare it to countries with more restrictive gun control than the U.S). But there's also the fact to consider that in the U.S there are plenty of vendors who stock and sell firearms in high numbers.

So while a militia force in other countries might have to steal firearms from an occupying force, or make home-made IED's to muster a defense, most american citizens can just walk down to the local gunshop and arm themselves. If the situation warranted it, you'd see a drastic rise in the percentage of armed U.S citizens.

If you think about it, how many vendors of firerarms (hunting weapons as well as pistols and more combat oriented weapons) and ammunition does the average metropolitan area in the U.S have?

I can guarantee you, that over here, the number of stores selling guns and ammunition can't even come up to a fraction of that number, because we have very strict gun control.

To summarize, munitions for a potential militia force is more readily avaliabe in the U.S than most other countries. Any potential aggressor who would consider launching a full scale attack on U.S soil would be aware of this, and if they have any strategic analyst worth their salt, they would forsee this aspect as a huge blow to any plans of pacifying the entire population.

Second, about the "extensive defense grid of weaponry capable of shooting down ICBM's..." That doesn't actually exist. At all. Reagan proposed the Star Wars initiative, it was mocked by everyone, and it never got off the ground. The entire thing was mainly used to make the Soviets think that the USA was beating them in the arms race. If the US did have a defensive grid like that, the Cold War would not have been nearly as tense as it was.

Don't give me that. We both know how many different models and variants of ABM's the U.S have lying around, and the research conducted in perfecting these weapons.

Yes, the idea of these being capable of defending against the Soviets wouldn't be very realistic, and there is a certain difficulty in managing to shoot down MIRV's with ABM's. But newsflash! The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore!

The only potential threat as of todays geopolitical climate is of a rogue state, probably an under developed country of some sort who most likely doesn't even have access to weapons of mass destruction to begin with. Remember Iraq? Bush insisted that Saddam had WMD's scattered all over and was just itching to use them. Of course, there was no real proof or solid intelligence supporting these claims at all, and then Operation: Iraqi Freedom is launched. Did they find any WMD's with the capabilities to threaten U.S soil?

*booming voice* NOOOO! : )

But hey, at least they had some fun in beating an underdeveloped and already war-torn country into submission yet again. Seems to be the U.S government's favourite pastime.

But, I digress. The Soviet Union isn't around anymore, and there is no indication that any superpower in existence would have the need nor reason to attack the U.S. The only potential threat would come from a hypothetical rogue state, who might not even have access to ICBM's capable of making the trip to U.S soil. And even if they had, they wouldn't have enough of them, because even the meagre defense grid of ABM's would most likely be able to take them out.

And even if the current defense grid is too meagre, why couldn't the government invest in extending it even further to cover the U.S borders? Instead of spending billions of dollars to develop even more offensive weapons intended to be deployed abroad and harrass other countries in conflict (like stealth bombers, warships, gunships, inter continental troop carriers etc. etc.)

If the plan was to make U.S soil more safe from attacks by means of self-defense, I might have been more lenient. But you and I can both see that's not what the government intends to do. I've said it before and I've said it again, the U.S government have no intention of defending the homeland, the U.S government is acting like power hungry despots with the intention to bully the rest of the world as it pleases. There is no valid excuse for that behaviour.

And third, as Purple Rain pointed out, maintaining nukes costs a lot of money. How, therefore, would getting rid of the things that are costing them money bankrupt anyone? You'd think they'd have more cash lying around afterwards because they don't have to pay anyone to dust the things.

Uhm, the what now? Can't remember saying that getting rid of nukes would bankrupt anyone. Sure, building nukes is a waste of money (especially when they reach a number where they can destroy all life in the entire world several times over), and maintaining nukes is costly. But that's pretty much all I've said.

Okay...this is actually insulting. Sir, if you can think of no better statement than to call another country a "power hungry despot" and imply that your opponent is a racist ignoramus, then you should not say anything at all. You spent about a page arguing with the troll LOLESCAPIST: please do not descend to his level. I'd like to have an actual debate here.

But your country IS a power hungry despot, even if you don't support it personally. I know it's not your fault, you're just one cog in the machinery, and im not calling you personally a racist nor an ignoramus. My main gripe is with your government, and the americans who support that government's actions in foreign countries.

But you and other potential non-supporters of your government aren't completely innocent either. Americans have gotten away for too long with just washing their hands of the mess their government creates by saying: "Well I voted for the other guy...". By not taking any action, you give your silent consent to the government in doing whatever the hell it wants.

And you know what? Painting signs and stage protest marches is a pretty weak response when your government is clearly prepared to KILL people in other countries. Can't you recognize urgency when you see it? If they are ordering their troops to kill people abroad, what makes you think they would listen to a bunch of loud mouths with signs outside the white house?

Where is the revolutionary actions the american ancestors were so known for when it is so clearly needed? Democracy is nice and admirable and all that, but sometimes an elected government needs to be toppled by it's own people if it abuse the power given to it...

 

[Julianking93]

Better healthcare. (Why is America one of the few places where you actually have to [b/]pay[/b] to stay alive and visit a doctor?)

More culture. (I just recently went to a movie and some hick guy in line asked me what I thought was good. I said Inglorious Basterds is probably the best thing out now, but it has a lot of subtitles from about 4 different languages. The guy then asked me what subtitles where.)

Better education. (A survey I just saw said that over 87% of Americans cant identify America on a map. Thats sad)



Oh, and one of the most important things, someone needs to assassinate whoever's in charge of giving Lady Gaga and the Jonas Brothers a music contract...

 

[Tron900]

the right to bear arms needs reviewing in the constitution..... cos the king of england may invade again is not a good reason.....should be published online with a scripting to majority of news site to who is public enemy number 1

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I read over that page and I noticed that you are effectively stabbing this guy with the word 'you' and its variants. You're calling us out as a country as if a nation of 300,000,000+ acts a single entity with one agenda and one set of priorities. If I was him reading that post, I would feel like you were jabbing your finger in my chest and exhaling cigar smoke onto my face every time you used the words 'you' or 'your.'

Tough shit. But you know what? I don't see any reason to care about your "feelings" when people are dying because of what your government does and the fact that americans either support it, or just sit idly by condemning it, but not taking any real action against it's abuse of power.

JimmerDunda made one statement and you berated us as a whole because of what he said. I never wanted Bush, the warmonger that he was, to be president, because I thought he seemed like too much of a cowboy, and as such never supported him.

Yes, but what did you do when the bastard got elected anyway?

How many anti-Bush americans did anything to dethrone the fucker and prevent his abuse of power? The really sad thing is that people from OTHER countries had to commit acts of terrorism, when it really should have been the americans themselves doing it against their despot government.

McCain was the same way, so I went with Obama. This president made a promise to pull out of the Middle East, a place we never should have gone to in the first place anyway, and, whether or not he actually goes through on this promise, it was a hell of a lot better than McCain's promise to crush the terrorists and 'finish the fight' before we left.

Yup. Obama seemed to be an improvement. But I doubt he'll take the peacful approach. In fact, just recently I read that he intends to stick by with NATO and keep the fight going in Afghanistan and Iraq. So any hopes for betterment in that department was swiftly crushed.

Let me make this clearer. You are making me feel the way I did earlier today in my English class. A group of particularly noisy individuals had failed to do a simple task set forward by the instructor in favor of spending their time chattering. A large portion of the class and I did as we were told and finished the assignment in less than five minutes. Fifteen minutes later, the talkers had not started their work. The teacher then reprimanded the entire class for the next fifteen minutes, and all I could do was sit there bored, because I knew that this lecture did not apply to me. I don't feel that paragraphs 1-7 of your post apply to people like me, who opposed pretty much every war that the U.S. has gotten involved in since the Korean War. We cast our votes, but we were overwhelmed by the ignorant majority that feels the need to wipe out the "commies" and the "brown people" that you mentioned. Though you are making "kind of" valid points, I don't think you're being fair.

Tell me, is it fair to just sit by and watch your despot government act like nazis in foregin countries and just wash your hands of their actions by saying: "Hey, I voted for the other guy. Im not to blame..." ?

Sorry, Americans have gotten away with that for too long. The responsibility is on your hands. Do something about it if you disagree with your government. Just saying: "Well that's not very nice" just doesn't cut it. Your government is prepared to kill people, what makes you think it would listen to your side-line condemnation?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Well excuse me for living in a country that has a military thats worth a damn. Excuse me for my country not closing its boarders and not sending military aid to countries that need it. Excuse me for my country not being a bunch of cowards that look only to protect themselves and not help countries that are being attacked by people who would like to see them wiped off the map.

See this is how anyone can see that you're immature and an idiot. You talk about "cowardice", as if the world is one big dick measuring contest where the "brave and courageous" are the people to be. An adult and responsible individual knows when to fight and when to let other people be. A mature and intelligent individual realize the importance of the struggle of other countries, and why freedom and democracy will be impossible for them if you're gonna try parenting them into it.

If they want democracy and freedom (we still aren't sure of that because no one really bothered to ask the general population), they need to find that identity for themselves by overthrowing their oppressors by themselves, otherwise it's not gonna happen.

But you can't understand that. Because to you, vain courage and playing superman is gonna solve all problems of the world. Grow up, and cease with your childish delusions. Super heroes might be successful in the comicbooks, but in the real world it doesn't work like that.

So NO, I won't excuse you for your ignorance. You have access to the internet and all sorts of ways of learning. Your ignorance is on your responsibility, so you are NOT excused.

I like how Eurofags can determine what our country needs improvement on. How about you stop picking on the big guy because its easy to find the most well known country and point fingers at it. Look in a mirror Europe. Your hands are not clean either.

My country: 200 years of peace (yes, we even managed to stay out of WW2 like the clever bastards we are)

America: ... Hmm.

So yeah, you have some seriously important lessons to learn from us (not europe, because europe isn't a country), whether you like it or not...

 

[Jaythulhu]

Less guns, less god-bothering, less people who've never been anywhere yelling about how the US is the greatest place on the planet, more education (it disturbs me that 63% of your population can't find your own country on a map), WAY LESS FOX NEWS! (How the hell do those mongrels get away with offering so many lies, so much misinformation as truth and so much racial / socio-economic / political hatred?), and finally,

YOU ALL NEED TO GET LAID, REALLY REALLY BADLY! Boobs aren't the enemy, swearing isn't the enemy, though graphic disembowlments, decapitations and dismemberments as childrens' entertainment probably ain't that healthy.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Less soldiers leaving America for exotic destinations.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Hasn't this been used in an argument against the existence of God? I'm paraphrasing, but part of it was something like, "if he is able but unwilling, he is evil." What is during the 30's and 40's the Allies only looked after themselves? How many millions of people would have died that could have been helped? Would you ignore them because they should look after themselves? Is looking after only yourself when you could help other people morally acceptable?

Is it morally acceptable to completely disrespect any conflicts between two countries? Sure im not a big fan of the third reich nor their warmongering ways, but germany was still it's own country back then, and it declared war on other countries.

If it hadn't declared war against my own country, then what right do I have to butt in? You have to be able to see things from a bigger perspective here. It is a futile effort to just de-humanize one country and just "team up" with the countries at war with it. It will never bring a respectable unification or peace, it will just stage the ground for more hostility and warfare.

For instance, what happened after WW2? The americans and soviets began a cold war. Instead of pulling out and let germany rebuild on it's own, the allies stayed put and dictated it's rule, started squabbling amongst themselves, and the world was split into two (yet again).

Now the empire of Japan attacked the U.S. Responding to that attack was the only proper thing to do. They started a fight with the U.S, therefore the U.S will have to make sure that the Japanese can't pose a threat anymore (although the Japanese did have it's reasons for attacking in the first place, and I can't really condone the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets like the U.S did), but the U.S could have stayed content with fighting it's own enemies, rather than butting in in europe where it didn't belong and then acting like the opportunistic ways it did, causing the great divide.

The very concept of military allies doesn't serve a purpose of uniting the world, it only serves to foster resentment between countries that didn't have anything to do with eachother in the first place.

I know it is very callous to ignore genocide going on in other nations, but when all is said and done, it is up to the natives of these countris to put a stop to it. If they are sick and tired of persecution and genocide they can either fight and try to end it, or they can seek refuge elsewhere. And the humanitarian thing to do, is to accept non-combatant refugees who do not wish to fight. But intervening with military actions only serve to breed more conflicts. Which will of course create more wars, and more deaths.

To summarize: a policy of staying out, is preferable to a policy of butting in. You're not "doing nothing" by refusing to take military action in a conflict between two other countries or a civil war within another country, you are respecting the factions and nations as their own forces and their ability to take action against the crimes and injustice that they percieve. And while you could refuse to have diplomatic and trading relations with a specific faction or country involved in a conflict for their eventual disgusting practices during wartime (like genocide or usage of maiming weapons etc.), but it is very unlikely to turn an enemy of said faction, just because you refuse to trade or ally yourself with it, and it is highly unlikely for them to attack you for it. After all, war is costly business, and you have to pick your enemies wisely. Starting a war with someone just because they refuse to supply you with munitions and other forms of military and diplomatic aid, is just plain foolish when you are engaged in a war with someone else already.

You can't hope to unify a world through military might or by creating a network of allies, because any such actions will just create an opposite reaction and keep the world divided. The only hope we have is through creating a dependence in trade, humanitarian aid, communication and respect towards the rights of an independent society to go to war with another if they find the reason to do it, and the belief that no sane human being will start a war on arbitrary grounds.

You can't treat societies like they were individuals in one specific society, and police the ones who are "being naughty to others".

Even Hitler and his Nazi party had their reasons for going to war with other countries you know, and it was not because of some racist ideals about aryan supremacy, that stuff was mostly a stunt to appeal to the german people. You can find many of these reasons before and during the aftermath of World War 1.

As for your case against the US's military, of course no one wants to have to use it, but it must be ready whenever the use of force is needed, such as in World War II. If no one had the power to stop the Axis powers, who would oppose them?

The axis powers wouldn't have any reason to have anything to do with eachother if it weren't for the allies. If the countries directly involved in the conflicts were let to fend for themselves, the axis wouldn't have any need to form in the first place.

That's what happens when military allies are formed. It's like a fistfight with two people involved and a crowd composed of sympathisers to both fighters. At first they tend to watch how the spectacle resolves, but as soon as one of the fighters cry for assistance by one of it's supporters, the other fighter will do the same, and before you know it a fistfight between two people have become an allout skirmish between two groups of several people. Meaning of course that more people and more relations will be hurt in the long run.

What im proposing here is a policy where you let the fighters duke it out for themselves until they are done, and then do the humanitarian thing and patch them up once they are finished without taking sides. You can of course advice them not to fight and hopefully appeal to their sense, but stopping them if they are really intent on fighting or butting in will just cause more conflict.

Most of the time it is better to simply not get involved, from a geopolitical standpoint.

As for no one wanting to use the U.S military, that's a complete lie. The U.S military is constantly active and engaged in one conflict or another. It just never stops. So im gonna have to call you a liar on this one.

You also assume that the United States only wants to inflate its own sense of self-worth. Have you considered that it genuinely wants to help people, and do what is best for everyone? No one wants war, no one wants to have people killed, but sometimes it is necessary. As Aristotle said, "We make war that we may live in peace."

Yes, but history has shown us it is better to stay out. Because once you go to war you create more enemies, more deaths, and more destruction.

Americans if anyone should have learned that by now. They have to understand that it's not going to "work out better the next time", like their government seem to think it will. They should consider just staying out and leave other countries to fight for themselves. Acting like a policeforce just makes things worse. You can't be completely blind to that fact, or are you?

Pragamticism first, idealism second...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The thing is that the U.S. has no obligation to alter the world for the better

So why the hell does america constantly butt in where it doesn't belong? Instead of... You know... Just staying the fuck out?

, and even if we tried, people would still complain about us. It seems to be a, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," kind of scenario.

The thing is, you'll be less damned if you don't than you'll be damned if you do in this scenario.

The way it is now, America just creates more and more enemies by steamrolling it's warmachine across countries that America really doesn't have much to do with in the first place. This just breeds further military conflict and resentment.

If america however just stayed out, some countries might "damn" it for being uncaring and indifferent, but do you really think anyone would be willing to start a war against you just for being uncaring and indifferent?

Not very likely. So the argument still stands. Yes you'll be damned if you cease to intervene with the rest of the worlds problems, but at least it won't create more enemies for you who strike at american civilians.

I too am sick of non-Americans making America bashing threads. I also find it funny that Americans are known for being arrogant and yet I see more threads by non-Americans bashing the U.S. than I see threads bashing other countries started by Americans.

That's because the arrogance of americans manifests in it going to war and supporting war efforts, when arrogance of non-americas tend to be limited to making threads on messageboards.

See how one method is way more peaceful than the other? : )

 

[JimmerDunda]

Well excuse me for living in a country that has a military thats worth a damn. Excuse me for my country not closing its boarders and not sending military aid to countries that need it. Excuse me for my country not being a bunch of cowards that look only to protect themselves and not help countries that are being attacked by people who would like to see them wiped off the map.

See this is how anyone can see that you're immature and an idiot. You talk about "cowardice", as if the world is one big dick measuring contest where the "brave and courageous" are the people to be. An adult and responsible individual knows when to fight and when to let other people be. A mature and intelligent individual realize the importance of the struggle of other countries, and why freedom and democracy will be impossible for them if you're gonna try parenting them into it.

If they want democracy and freedom (we still aren't sure of that because no one really bothered to ask the general population), they need to find that identity for themselves by overthrowing their oppressors by themselves, otherwise it's not gonna happen.

But you can't understand that. Because to you, vain courage and playing superman is gonna solve all problems of the world. Grow up, and cease with your childish delusions. Super heroes might be successful in the comicbooks, but in the real world it doesn't work like that.

So NO, I won't excuse you for your ignorance. You have access to the internet and all sorts of ways of learning. Your ignorance is on your responsibility, so you are NOT excused.

I like how Eurofags can determine what our country needs improvement on. How about you stop picking on the big guy because its easy to find the most well known country and point fingers at it. Look in a mirror Europe. Your hands are not clean either.

My country: 200 years of peace (yes, we even managed to stay out of WW2 like the clever bastards we are)

America: ... Hmm.

So yeah, you have some seriously important lessons to learn from us (not europe, because europe isn't a country), whether you like it or not...

Oh shut up you big ignorant pussy liberal prick. You think all of the world's problems can be solved by every superpower closing their boarders. Well guess what there is evil in the world, such as the Taliban, that needs to be dealt with. The only way to deal with it is conflict.

The fact your country stayed out of WWII is not something to be proud of, it just continues to prove how big of cowards they were. If it wasn't for the brave soldiers from the UK, Russia, USA, and those who contributed to the efforts against the Axis, you would be speaking German in an established Reich.

It just goes to show what a disrespectful little idiot you are. That you can't even respect the soldiers that kept your neutral country free from Hitler. Seriously log off and go huge a tree.

 

[JimmerDunda]

Okay buddy how safe do you think we would feel if we put away all our nukes while Russia and other countries have them. The only reason any country has nukes is because no one else will launch a nuke at them or there will be hell to pay. How do you think we will feel if we scrap our nukes while every other super power has one.

As for the poor thing, remember we are a Democracy/Republic. We encourage people to be proactive and not suck off of the Governments tits. Unlike Europe...

First paragraph: Very safe. I think you forget what age we're living in: The Global Age. With the internet and global economy and politics, it's suicide for one major country to go to war. If a nuke was launched, I'd fear more so of the country that would retaliate with the same power display.
If the US got rid of every nuke they had, I would be so so damn proud of America. I would friggen sing their anthem, tell my kids about it and cry of the day (and I am not joking here). The media would herald it the day of change for the better and the start of a better world. Russia, China (both who I doubt is anti-America as some are ignorant on) as well as all others would be pushed into getting rid of theirs otherwise look bad for their protesting public and the global eye.

Second paragraph: No. The Republicans pushing for capitalism are pushing for people to be self-righteous and proactive. Not all people believe in this as it is a lofty idea to those that do not wish to be apart of that system. Radical change could be for the better. I wish there were some truly socialist countries out there to live and work in.

You my friend have surpassed Lunatic in being an idiotic liberal. Of course I wouldn't mind if we discontinued some of our nuclear programs but that fact of the matter is every superpower is gonna have nukes for the rest of eternity. No one is gonna give up that power. It is pretty much a deadlock and the USA is sure as hell not gonna give it up before Russia does.

Socialism and Capitalism are forms of Government. Seriously I usually hate the right wings nuts in my country right now for buying into fox news, but Jesus Christ how many idiots like you eat up the liberal media?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Oh shut up you big ignorant pussy liberal prick.

Thank you for proving my point. : )

You think all of the world's problems can be solved by every superpower closing their boarders.

No I don't. Problems will always persist. But it's a pretty good start, and I have motivated why it is a good start with quite a few posts now. The only thing you've managed to produce yourself is something along the lines with:

Yuo're just one of them stupid commie liberal pussies with no brain! I hate yuo!

Quite simply, you're not very successful at disproving my arguments. You're just making a worse ass of yourself than I am for my vitriolic comments about the United States.


Yes, people im well aware that many of you will dislike me for my comments about america, but at least I try to provide some reasons and arguments in contrast to Jimmerwhatshisface, who goes on spamming hatred towards liberals and telling everyone who is clearly above his intellect to just shut up because he/she/it can't handle the arguments.

Well guess what there is evil in the world, such as the Taliban, that needs to be dealt with. The only way to deal with it is conflict.

Evil doesn't exist, and if you held on to just a speck of intelligence you'd know that. Evil, just like good is just a matter of perception.

The Taliban aren't evil, they are just people. And like any people they are capable of doing horrible things to other people.

The thing is, america wouldn't have to have the Taliban as their enemies if they just let the Taliban be. The Taliban lived in their own country, and yes they preformed atrocities against other people in their own and other countries. But you can't "deal with" or "put an end to" it by intervening, that's what you simply can't get. It is up to the oppressed people in these countries to put an end to the atorcities by fighting back if they want to enjoy some sort of freedom and democracy. You can't provide these people with these things by intervening and fighting the Taliban. It is futile. You don't have any real results to show for your current fight, you have not put an end to terrorism. All you have succeeded in doing is creating more enemies for yourselves, along with breaking your own constitution through the patriot act.

So you're not dealing with anything. You're failing, miserably. Like you always have done whenever you try to intervene with any conflict.

The fact your country stayed out of WWII is not something to be proud of, it just continues to prove how big of cowards they were.

Oh no quite the contrary, it just goes to show that the leaders of my country at that time had their own peoples interests in mind first and foremost, rather than trying to score points with a few other nations through joining the fight.

They weren't showing cowardice, they were being smart. Had the Nazi's declared war against my country back then, then yes they would have fought back if they could. But since they weren't involved in the conflict from the beginning, it wasn't their problem. And they did the right thing by staying the fuck out. But being of lower intellect as you obviously are, you can't understand that.

If it wasn't for the brave soldiers from the UK, Russia, USA, and those who contributed to the efforts against the Axis, you would be speaking German in an established Reich.

Got any proof to back that up?

And yes, the soldiers of Russia and the UK were brave indeed, they fought against the germans trying to invade their countries. The U.S on the other hand had nothing to do with it, but still they intervened. Of course, soldiers don't really have much of a choice in where they are sent to fight, so I can't really blame them individually for doing what their commanders told them to. But the supreme commanders of the United States were plain stupid for joining in on the fronts of europe. If they hadn't, the world wouldn't have had to put up with all the Cold War bullshit that ensued and the constant fighting between self proclaimed communists and capitalists.

The U.S should have sticked to fighting the Japanese, because they started the fight with the U.S in the first place.

It just goes to show what a disrespectful little idiot you are. That you can't even respect the soldiers that kept your neutral country free from Hitler. Seriously log off and go huge a tree.

I don't disrespect soldiers for what they are forced to do in wartime. Sure, I might consider some of them to be a bit silly for joining up in the first place, because it entails that they have to relinquish their free will to their commanders. But wars aren't on the responsibility of soldiers, but upon the incompetent leaders sending them to it. I see no reason what so ever to respect incompetent leaders for their crimes.

And no, I won't log off. I have just as much right to speak as you do. The only difference between us is the fact that I use that right carefully, instead of just ranting like an idiot like you do...

 

[JimmerDunda]

Oh shut up you big ignorant pussy liberal prick.

Thank you for proving my point. : )

You think all of the world's problems can be solved by every superpower closing their boarders.

No I don't. Problems will always persist. But it's a pretty good start, and I have motivated why it is a good start with quite a few posts now. The only thing you've managed to produce yourself is something along the lines with:

Yuo're just one of them stupid commie liberal pussies with no brain! I hate yuo!

Quite simply, you're not very successful at disproving my arguments. You're just making a worse ass of yourself than I am for my vitriolic comments about the United States.


Yes, people im well aware that many of you will dislike me for my comments about america, but at least I try to provide some reasons and arguments in contrast to Jimmerwhatshisface, who goes on spamming hatred towards liberals and telling everyone who is clearly above his intellect to just shut up because he/she/it can't handle the arguments.

Well guess what there is evil in the world, such as the Taliban, that needs to be dealt with. The only way to deal with it is conflict.

Evil doesn't exist, and if you held on to just a speck of intelligence you'd know that. Evil, just like good is just a matter of perception.

The Taliban aren't evil, they are just people. And like any people they are capable of doing horrible things to other people.

The thing is, america wouldn't have to have the Taliban as their enemies if they just let the Taliban be. The Taliban lived in their own country, and yes they preformed atrocities against other people in their own and other countries. But you can't "deal with" or "put an end to" it by intervening, that's what you simply can't get. It is up to the oppressed people in these countries to put an end to the atorcities by fighting back if they want to enjoy some sort of freedom and democracy. You can't provide these people with these things by intervening and fighting the Taliban. It is futile. You don't have any real results to show for your current fight, you have not put an end to terrorism. All you have succeeded in doing is creating more enemies for yourselves, along with breaking your own constitution through the patriot act.

So you're not dealing with anything. You're failing, miserably. Like you always have done whenever you try to intervene with any conflict.

The fact your country stayed out of WWII is not something to be proud of, it just continues to prove how big of cowards they were.

Oh no quite the contrary, it just goes to show that the leaders of my country at that time had their own peoples interests in mind first and foremost, rather than trying to score points with a few other nations through joining the fight.

They weren't showing cowardice, they were being smart. Had the Nazi's declared war against my country back then, then yes they would have fought back if they could. But since they weren't involved in the conflict from the beginning, it wasn't their problem. And they did the right thing by staying the fuck out. But being of lower intellect as you obviously are, you can't understand that.

If it wasn't for the brave soldiers from the UK, Russia, USA, and those who contributed to the efforts against the Axis, you would be speaking German in an established Reich.

Got any proof to back that up?

And yes, the soldiers of Russia and the UK were brave indeed, they fought against the germans trying to invade their countries. The U.S on the other hand had nothing to do with it, but still they intervened. Of course, soldiers don't really have much of a choice in where they are sent to fight, so I can't really blame them individually for doing what their commanders told them to. But the supreme commanders of the United States were plain stupid for joining in on the fronts of europe. If they hadn't, the world wouldn't have had to put up with all the Cold War bullshit that ensued and the constant fighting between self proclaimed communists and capitalists.

The U.S should have sticked to fighting the Japanese, because they started the fight with the U.S in the first place.

It just goes to show what a disrespectful little idiot you are. That you can't even respect the soldiers that kept your neutral country free from Hitler. Seriously log off and go huge a tree.

I don't disrespect soldiers for what they are forced to do in wartime. Sure, I might consider some of them to be a bit silly for joining up in the first place, because it entails that they have to relinquish their free will to their commanders. But wars aren't on the responsibility of soldiers, but upon the incompetent leaders sending them to it. I see no reason what so ever to respect incompetent leaders for their crimes.

And no, I won't log off. I have just as much right to speak as you do. The only difference between us is the fact that I use that right carefully, instead of just ranting like an idiot like you do...

Its a little something called allies buddy. The UK and France needed some relief support to help end the war. I like how continue to pick out USA as the bad guy for helping out its allies. And you call me ignorant...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Its a little something called allies buddy. The UK and France needed some relief support to help end the war. I like how continue to pick out USA as the bad guy for helping out its allies. And you call me ignorant...

Yes, I call you ignorant, and rightly so. Because if you had paid the slightest attention to what I've been saying over and over in this thread, you'd realize that my proposition basically means the end of countries acting as military allies to other countries, BECAUSE OF THE VERY FACT that acting as such cause more problems than it solves.

If you're not even gonna bother with reading what im writing, why reply at all? Is it because you're not really interested in discussing the subject at hand but just show off your irrational hatred towards "them liberal commie pussies" and your lacking intellect?

 

[JimmerDunda]

Its a little something called allies buddy. The UK and France needed some relief support to help end the war. I like how continue to pick out USA as the bad guy for helping out its allies. And you call me ignorant...

Yes, I call you ignorant, and rightly so. Because if you had paid the slightest attention to what I've been saying over and over in this thread, you'd realize that my proposition basically means the end of countries acting as military allies to other countries, BECAUSE OF THE VERY FACT that acting as such cause more problems than it solves.

If you're not even gonna bother with reading what im writing, why reply at all? Is it because you're not really interested in discussing the subject at hand but just show off your irrational hatred towards "them liberal commie pussies" and your lacking intellect?

Oh the irony of saying I lack intellect. Just because you think you know the facts because your country thought you to be lazy and neutral while all the other countries help each other out by solving conflict. I agree this is going nowhere. Good day to you sir. Maybe your country will grow to be worth a damn some day.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Maybe your country will grow to be worth a damn some day.

200 years of peace. That's all that needs to be said.

Oh! And we have pretty good diplomatic relationship with the rest of the world as well. In fact, this held true even during the aftermath of WW2. Who would've thunk it? : )