Should Nuclear Weapons Be On The Table?

[NumberSix]

Is ISIS/ISIL dangerous enough that nukes should be an option?

I honestly think the US should drop one in an unpopulated desert area of Iraq to send a message.

Is that out of bounds?

[StephHamann]

Is ISIS/ISIL dangerous enough that nukes should be an option?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Middle_857e47_2365721.jpg

[navy]

Is ISIS/ISIL dangerous enough that nukes should be an option?

I honestly think the US should drop one in an unpopulated desert area of Iraq to send a message.

Is that out of bounds?
It goes without saying.

[riseagainst]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Middle_857e47_2365721.jpg

:roll:

[KevinNYC]

Is ISIS/ISIL dangerous enough that nukes should be an option?

I honestly think the US should drop one in an unpopulated desert area of Iraq to send a message.

Is that out of bounds?
Yes, they are absolutely off the table.

If ISIS is that dangerous, we should send in ground troops.

[niko]

Are you 12? Because i'm having trouble with this as an actual real thought you wrote down.

[NumberSix]

Yes, they are absolutely off the table.

If ISIS is that dangerous, we should send in ground troops.
Care to explain why?

[MavsSuperFan]

Care to explain why?
Because mass genocide is wrong and the US is a fundamentally moral country

[NumberSix]

Because mass genocide is wrong and the US is a fundamentally moral country
Did you fail to see the part where I said "in an unpopulated desert area"?

[robert de niro]

im pretty sure the USA army could destroy all of ISIS using just homemade slingshots

[MavsSuperFan]

Is ISIS/ISIL dangerous enough that nukes should be an option?

No, ISIS at worst could radicalize muslims to do an attack in a boston bombing style attack or 9/11 style attack

It does not represent a threat to the continuity of any current world power.

ISIS is about at its maximum power. The sunni areas Iraq and syria are about all it can take. If it is dumb enough to attack iran, the iranians will handle them. If they are dumb enough to attack turkey, the turks will handle them. If they are dumb enough to attack israel, the IDF will handle them.

They will not succeed against either of those 3 militaries.

If they attack the rich gulf oil states, America will intervene and will also handle ISIS.

The best case scenario for us is if ISIS destroys the Shia holy city of Karbala or in some other way antagonizes Iran.

The worst case for US is if ISIS makes a move against Saudi Arabia, because I think that will necessitate american intervention to protect oil supplies. Either Turkey or Israel could handle them.

ISIS also has no appeal towards china or russia both of whom fear Islamic nationalism. Thus is unlikely to garner any support form them


According to Reuters, Muslim minorities make up a seventh (14%) of Russia's population.[3] Muslims constitute the nationalities in the North Caucasus residing between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea: Circassians, Balkars, Chechens, Ingush, Kabardin, Karachay, and numerous Dagestani peoples.

Chechens are of immediate concern for Russia.


Various sources estimate different numbers of adherents with some sources indicating that 2% of the total population in China are Muslims.
remember china has a 1.3 billion plus population so 2% of that is about 26 million muslims.

Xinjiang province has many attacks committed by muslims against china's dictatorial government.

I honestly think the US should drop one in an unpopulated desert area of Iraq to send a message.

Is that out of bounds?
Yes mass genocide is against the nature of modern america

[KevinNYC]

Care to explain why?

You simply don't seem to understand the horror of nuclear weapons.

It's also absolutely terrible strategy. Do we want ISIS to look like the good guys? Will bombing an unpopulated desert area stop ISIS from fighting? Do we want to to spur ISIS recruitment?

When a nuclear bomb explodes in the desert, thousands of tons of the desert go up in the mushroom cloud and fall down as radioactive fallout. So to teach ISIS a lesson, we're going to poison Turkey and Iran and other countries without consequences.

It would easily surpass the Iraq War as the biggest strategic mistake the US has made.

[MavsSuperFan]

Did you fail to see the part where I said "in an unpopulated desert area"?
You are not going to scare people who are prepared to die with threats of death. You would need to hit them with nukes to end their threat

[Nanners]

You simply don't seem to understand the horror of nuclear weapons.


this.

[KevinNYC]

It's one thing in WWII to use nuclear weapons to bring about an end to a horrific war. It's another thing to use them to posture as tough guys.

If ISIS is an existential threat to the US, we should go in there and wipe them out. If they are something less, the troops from the nearby countries where ISIS is an existential threat should wipe them out.

Both those options should be the tools of choice long before we get to nukes.

[kNIOKAS]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Middle_857e47_2365721.jpg
Yes and without stolen oil USA becomes a second rate country.

[~primetime~]

Yes and without stolen oil USA becomes a second rate country.
Did you know that the vast majority of US oil comes from N.America?

[kNIOKAS]

Did you know that the vast majority of US oil comes from N.America?
Do you know why America is systematically raising war on people in another part of the world?

[niko]

Do you know why America is systematically raising war on people in another part of the world?
Which makes what you said correct? You said something wrong and then changed topics.

[oarabbus]

im pretty sure the USA army could destroy all of ISIS using just homemade slingshots


Are you a fckin retard

[Riley Martin]

Which makes what you said correct? You said something wrong and then changed topics.

Exactly. :oldlol: I've noticed kNIOKAS makes a habit out of randomly jumping into threads to post factually-incorrect anti-American propaganda.

Perhaps it's a bot like Euroleague.

[KevinNYC]

Did you know that the vast majority of US oil comes from N.America?He would rather live in his fantasy world than look up the real facts: We get 4% of our oil from Iraq. Iraqi oil contracts are overwhelmingly with non US companies. All the oil production in Iraq is owned by the government which received $90 billion in revenue a couple of years ago

[robert de niro]

Are you a fckin retard
prove me wrong

[oarabbus]

prove me wrong



ISIS wasn't always strong enough to take real advantage of the Iraqi military's intrinsic weakness. "When the US fought ISIS in 2007, they were very weak," Abbas explained. "North of Baghdad, it took less than 24 hours for the whole organization to collapse in the face of a few soldiers and tribal militias."

But between 2007 and now, something changed. "When you like at the [ISIS] training videos from the mid 2000s, and compare them to ones from 2010, they're moving from terrorist tactics like how do you create an IED to things that include operations, strategy tactics," Nathaniel Rosenblatt, the head of Caerus' Middle East division, says.

Rosenblatt and Abbas say there's been an influx of skilled Saddam-era military leaders and soldiers into ISIS' ranks. "When you look at some of the reports about the leadership under [ISIS commander Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi," Rosenblatt said, "those second-in-command guys have very strong ties to Saddam's army." Acquiring lots of weapons, money, and experience over the course of the Syrian war allowed them to translate that new training into real military effectiveness.

It's hard to overstate how much of advantage this training and professionalism gives the Islamist group. "ISIS knows how to use smaller units" effectively against larger forces, says Smyth. They're "very efficient, and you have to deal with that."



qed

[Brokenbeat]

Water balloons full of pig's blood would be just as effective, imo.


"'Murica!!"

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/jogi21/giant-water-bomb-slingshot.jpg

[KevinNYC]

How come you never hang when I come to ny? Gonna take you to the booty clubCuz I'm a Booby man

[robert de niro]

qed
you are underestimating their slingshot skills

[kNIOKAS]

Which makes what you said correct? You said something wrong and then changed topics.
It does not matter where the most oil comes from to US. It matter why they are methodically causing unrest and chaos in the opposite side of the world. You think it's not natural resources?


Exactly. :oldlol: I've noticed kNIOKAS makes a habit out of randomly jumping into threads to post factually-incorrect anti-American propaganda.

Perhaps it's a bot like Euroleague.
What's the propaganda? The Afghanistan state of war and Iraq state of war didn't happen? What's factually incorrect in saying without extorting countries that have nothing to do with US, the US would not be as powerful as it is?

[oarabbus]

you are underestimating their slingshot skills

Touche

[poido123]

The only sensible, realistic and humane action to take here would be an elite force to go in and clean them out.

The size of this elite force is the question.

Too big and they would be easily detected.

Too small and the mission may fail.

I'd suggest a scattered SAS group to land and infiltrate into known Syrian strong points and take out key players in one swift movement. None of these Neanderthals have elite weaponry or surveillance at their disposal, you can get at them.

It makes me wonder why this hasn't been done already or is in the works now.

[DonD13]

yeah an a-bomb in unpopulated desert would teach those assholes democracy and christianity

[Dresta]

It does not matter where the most oil comes from to US. It matter why they are methodically causing unrest and chaos in the opposite side of the world. You think it's not natural resources?


What's the propaganda? The Afghanistan state of war and Iraq state of war didn't happen? What's factually incorrect in saying without extorting countries that have nothing to do with US, the US would not be as powerful as it is?
Moron. The US would be more powerful if it wasn't throwing so much money down the toilet trying to police a world that claims to not want it. The countries that would really suffer if America went into its isolationist shell are the countries of Europe, who would be without their patron and protector (who they always complain about, but then always need to come save them when they are threatened - see current Ukraine/Russia situation). Lets see how they do on their own.

[kNIOKAS]

Moron. The US would be more powerful if it wasn't throwing so much money down the toilet trying to police a world that claims to not want it. The countries that would really suffer if America went into its isolationist shell are the countries of Europe, who would be without their patron and protector (who they always complain about, but then always need to come save them when they are threatened - see current Ukraine/Russia situation). Lets see how they do on their own.
So what keeps them from stopping wasting their money? Being irrational? Not looking up to their economic interests? You have to call out US government for working against its own interests!

[Real Men Wear Green]

Are you 12? Because i'm having trouble with this as an actual real thought you wrote down.
Well if you just hate people from the Middle East and don't care if they all die, or want to see them all dead, I could understand the logic.

[Cactus-Sack]

Because mass genocide is wrong and the US is a fundamentally moral country

:yaohappy:

[MavsSuperFan]

:yaohappy:
absolutely is relative to any other superstate in history.

Its unfair to compare a super state to a normal country.

Persian empire
Alexander the Great's empire
Roman empire
Byzantine Empire (eastern roman empire)
Ottoman empire
Han Dynasty
Tang Dynasty
Ming Dynasty
Qing Dynasty
Mongol Empire
Rashidun Caliphate
Umayyad Caliphate
Abbasid Caliphate
Ottoman Empire
Dutch Empire
Spanish Empire
Portuguese Empire
Russian Empire
British Empire
French Empire
Austro-Hungarian Empire
German Empire
Imperial Japan
USSR
Nazi Germany

The United states is more moral, altruistic and just than any other superstate in human history. Name one super state that is more fundamentally moral than the United States of America.


PS: this is a cool gif of the mongol empire
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif/250px-Mongol_Empire_map.gif

[kNIOKAS]

The United states is more moral, altruistic and just than any other superstate in human history. Name one super state that is more fundamentally moral than the United States of America.



What kind of nonsense is this? Is there a thing of moral superstates, or what? :biggums:

[RidonKs]

Because mass genocide is wrong and the US is a fundamentally moral country
:roll:

[Nanners]

What kind of nonsense is this? Is there a thing of moral superstates, or what? :biggums:


the US is not as bad as nazi germany, therefore they are moral. makes perfect sense.

[RidonKs]

the US is not as bad as nazi germany, therefore they are moral. makes perfect sense.
+1

in the 19th century, england was probably the freest society in the world and it treated its citizens -- in terms of democratic and social values -- better than most places elsewhere. it nevertheless ran a violent repressive colonial regime in india that had horrifying effects.

states are NOT moral actors. people are. this is like a "guns dont kill people, people kill people" kind of comment. states are neutral institutional entities that are more often than not controlled by some kind of domestic balance of power internal to the country it represents.

the correct formulation for virtually any state in the world is "states are as violent and immoral as its citizens allow it to be". this self righteous american attitude based on the constitution and declaration of independence and bill of rights and all that is mostly a load of bunk to be perfectly honest. at least in how those sacred documents actually affect the way people and the organizations to which they belong behave.

[niko]

It does not matter where the most oil comes from to US. It matter why they are methodically causing unrest and chaos in the opposite side of the world. You think it's not natural resources?


What's the propaganda? The Afghanistan state of war and Iraq state of war didn't happen? What's factually incorrect in saying without extorting countries that have nothing to do with US, the US would not be as powerful as it is?
You said something that made no sense and was wrong. Just admit it and move on.

[RidonKs]

Did you know that the vast majority of US oil comes from N.America?
this fact is raised all the time. it's irrelevant. if you can't see that western interests in the middle east are almost exclusively about oil, that's your problem. the fact that the american population relies primarily on energy from its own soil or from allies or even from presumed enemies (venezuela) is a separate issue from the fact that western energy companies are heavily invested in middle east resource extraction and rely on their national governments to implement policies that strengthen that investment.

this isn't a particularly subtle point and in fact it's glaringly obvious if you do some research and think it through.

[MavsSuperFan]

What kind of nonsense is this? Is there a thing of moral superstates, or what? :biggums:
Superstates- a large and powerful state or union formed from a federation of nations.

I listed a bunch of historical superstates.

Its unfair to compare the actions of superstate to the actions of a normal country.

Eg. Sweden didnt invade Iraq, Sweden hasnt drone struck yemen, etc. Sweden doesnt have the ability to do these things.

If the skinny kid on the playground doesnt go around stealing other kids lunch money, is he really moral? or is he just incapable?

The US is historically moral relative to a superstate. List one superstate more moral, altruistic, and just than the United States of America. you cant.

[MavsSuperFan]

:roll:
You can laugh, but its true, any other superstate in history would have conquered a neighbor as weak and resource rich as canada

[Nanners]

You can laugh, but its true, any other superstate in history would have conquered a neighbor as weak and resource rich as canada

thats like arguing that someone is a moral rapist because they only rape people who live miles away in the poor part of town and dont rape the attractive wealthy woman living next door.

[MavsSuperFan]

the US is not as bad as nazi germany, therefore they are moral. makes perfect sense.
You are being sarcastic, but it does make far more sense to compare the actions of one superstate vs another.

The US is not only morally superior to Nazi germany, but also to every other superstate in human history. Seriously name one superstate in human history, that is more altruistic, moral and just than the USA?

Eg. is Belgium a more moral nation than the United States? The answer is of course no.
The US certainly interferes, both economically, and militarily in far more nations, but Belgium's rule over the congo far exceeds anything in terms of cruelty the US has committed.

Who knows what belgium would do if the had the power to do so.

[MavsSuperFan]

thats like arguing that someone is a moral rapist because they only rape people who live miles away in the poor part of town and dont rape the attractive wealthy woman living next door.
Superstates are different from normal countries. The world would be a much worse place If the USA behaved like the USSR or the British Empire or Imperial Japan.

[RidonKs]

You can laugh, but its true, any other superstate in history would have conquered a neighbor as weak and resource rich as canada
america TRIED to conquer canada on numerous occasions. it failed because the english wouldn't allow it and it was strong enough to resist american imperialism. in fact its navy fleet was much stronger than any american force of the day. it was also a deterrent to american actions elsewhere, primarily in latin america.

why doesn't the united states try to conquer canada now? or more broadly why hasn't the united states tried to conquer canada in the past 100 years?

there would be no point. canada is an ally and for decades now its foreign policy has been largely square with american aims internationally; with a few significant exceptions being vietnam and iraq. it's also the us's biggest trade partner. there would be absolutely nothing to be gained and tons to be lost by an american takeover of canada by military force.

us governments haven't been showing moral restraint on this issue in any way whatsoever. it's just been following a glaringly obvious pragmatic course for its own interests. the fact that peace is the result is almost entirely incidental.

[MavsSuperFan]

+1

in the 19th century, england was probably the freest society in the world and it treated its citizens -- in terms of democratic and social values -- better than most places elsewhere. it nevertheless ran a violent repressive colonial regime in india that had horrifying effects.

states are NOT moral actors. people are. this is like a "guns dont kill people, people kill people" kind of comment. states are neutral institutional entities that are more often than not controlled by some kind of domestic balance of power internal to the country it represents.

the correct formulation for virtually any state in the world is "states are as violent and immoral as its citizens allow it to be". this self righteous american attitude based on the constitution and declaration of independence and bill of rights and all that is mostly a load of bunk to be perfectly honest. at least in how those sacred documents actually affect the way people and the organizations to which they belong behave.
And the actions of the United States of America are more altruistic, caring, moral and Just than the British empire. I stand by that statement.


states are NOT moral actors. people are. this is like a "guns dont kill people, people kill people" kind of comment. states are neutral institutional entities that are more often than not controlled by some kind of domestic balance of power internal to the country it represents.
Semantics, if the government of a state take immoral actions that is an immoral state. Actions are often clearly immoral or moral.

Eg. the british empire putting Afrikaners wives and children in camps and threatening them to get the males to surrender during the boer wars.

Eg. America giving the most disaster relief aid of any nation
America giving post WW2 aid in the form of the Marshall plan
America helping Kosovo achieve independence and self determination.
America helping Palau become a nation
etc.


he correct formulation for virtually any state in the world is "states are as violent and immoral as its citizens allow it to be". this self righteous american attitude based on the constitution and declaration of independence and bill of rights and all that is mostly a load of bunk to be perfectly honest. at least in how those sacred documents actually affect the way people and the organizations to which they belong behave.

and america is the most moral, altruistic, and just superstate in human history.

I am not saying america is moral compared to most countries or in absolute terms. That is unfair criteria to judge a superstate by.

[MavsSuperFan]

america TRIED to conquer canada on numerous occasions. it failed because the english wouldn't allow it and it was strong enough to resist american imperialism. in fact its navy fleet was much stronger than any american force of the day. it was also a deterrent to american actions elsewhere, primarily in latin america.

why doesn't the united states try to conquer canada now? or more broadly why hasn't the united states tried to conquer canada in the past 100 years?

there would be no point. canada is an ally and for decades now its foreign policy has been largely square with american aims internationally; with a few significant exceptions being vietnam and iraq. it's also the us's biggest trade partner. there would be absolutely nothing to be gained and tons to be lost by an american takeover of canada by military force.

us governments haven't been showing moral restraint on this issue in any way whatsoever. it's just been following a glaringly obvious pragmatic course for its own interests. the fact that peace is the result is almost entirely incidental.
The War of 1812 was before America truly reached its peak, and the british empire was still the global superpower. Any time after at least 1898 America would have been able to easily conquer canada.


why doesn't the united states try to conquer canada now? or more broadly why hasn't the united states tried to conquer canada in the past 100 years?
IMO the fundamental morality, altruism, and sense of justice of the USA

Imagine if we behaved like imperial japan.

[Nanners]

I am not saying america is moral compared to most countries or in absolute terms. That is unfair criteria to judge a superstate by.

no its not. just because you are a powerful country that is not quite as evil as other powerful countries historically does not give you a pass for plundering and trampling over other nations.

i cant believe you call yourself a liberal. you post some things that are so right-wing they would make sean hannity blush.

[RidonKs]

Semantics, if the government of a state take immoral actions that is an immoral state. Actions are often clearly immoral or moral.
i was going to try to respond to you through analogy but my dog/loyalty post had to be erased since i don't think it made much sense

actions taken by people within states can be clearly moral or immoral. and most of the time grey. that much is obvious.

but the intentions and motivations and factors that lead to those actions being taken are RARELY based in morality. and when they are, it's usually a result of pressure being put on the government by outside forces, namely its own population if we're talking about a representative democracy.

the fair criteria to judge a state by is to look at what it does and look at what it should do. figuring out what it should do is a difficult task but it's necessary and then what the state actually does should be measured against what it should do.

in the case of nuclear weapons, since that's what were talking about, states should pursue reduction of total missiles and regulate proliferation as carefully as possible. these are two examples of what should be done that haven't been done. nuclear weapons HAVE proliferated, to pakistan, india, israel, north korea, etc; and reductions have not been very promising though baby steps have been taken.

what america should do and what america does on this issue is what i'm considering. not what america does and what hitler did...

[RidonKs]

The War of 1812 was before America truly reached its peak, and the british empire was still the global superpower. Any time after at least 1898 America would have been able to easily conquer canada.


IMO the fundamental morality, altruism, and sense of justice of the USA

Imagine if we behaved like imperial japan.
sigh it feels like you aren't even reading my posts even though i'm sure you are

oh well

[MavsSuperFan]

no its not. just because you are a powerful country that is not quite as evil as other powerful countries historically does not give you a pass for plundering and trampling over other nations.

i cant believe you call yourself a liberal. you post some things that are so right-wing they would make sean hannity blush.
Thats what people have told me :confusedshrug:
And by american standards I am
I dont really care, I make my mind up on topics as the come up, others have labelled me as a lib

-Pro gay marriage
-Support progressive taxation
-believes the government has a responsibility to take care of the citizens
-Keynesian Economics supporter (pro government interference to create employment and stimulate the economy)
-Pro Fiat currency (want exports to be competitive)
-Support welfare spending
-Pro abortion
- would legalize all drugs
- lower sentences on non-violent offenders
-Pro centralized federal control
-I wish schools were funded by state wide or even federal income taxes and not local property taxes as I feel it perpetuates poverty in poor areas.
-very anti religion
-very pro immigration
-Very anti voter ID laws
-Very anti direct military intervention
-extremely against censorship no matter how offensive the message

IDK people call me a liberal for these reasons

By you are right I have some idea in the american context that are very right wing

-

[MavsSuperFan]

i was going to try to respond to you through analogy but my dog/loyalty post had to be erased since i don't think it made much sense

actions taken by people within states can be clearly moral or immoral. and most of the time grey. that much is obvious.

but the intentions and motivations and factors that lead to those actions being taken are RARELY based in morality. and when they are, it's usually a result of pressure being put on the government by outside forces, namely its own population if we're talking about a representative democracy.

the fair criteria to judge a state by is to look at what it does and look at what it should do. figuring out what it should do is a difficult task but it's necessary and then what the state actually does should be measured against what it should do.

in the case of nuclear weapons, since that's what were talking about, states should pursue reduction of total missiles and regulate proliferation as carefully as possible. these are two examples of what should be done that haven't been done. nuclear weapons HAVE proliferated, to pakistan, india, israel, north korea, etc; and reductions have not been very promising though baby steps have been taken.

what america should do and what america does on this issue is what i'm considering. not what america does and what hitler did...
agreed, my point is america has done more good in the last 80 years of human history than any other country in history. I stand by that.

[StephHamann]

You can laugh, but its true, any other superstate in history would have conquered a neighbor as weak and resource rich as canada

Rewriting history not only in the WWI thread :roll:

[RidonKs]

agreed, my point is america has done more good in the last 80 years of human history than any other country in history. I stand by that.
it's irrelevant. we can all pat ourselves on the back as much as possible and sure it's great to be proud of accomplishments like the abolition of slavery and the franchise and freedom of speech and all of that.

but that's like spending your entire evening thinking about what a nice gesture you made to buy those girls at the bar drinks because maybe they were hard off and couldn't afford to buy drinks for themselves and they were happy you offered to pay for them. great. but your intention wasn't to "help" them. it was probably to "fk" them.

and if you wound up taking one of them home and forcing yourself on her despite her resistance... well the fact that you bought them drinks is kind of irrelevant.

now before you say "AMERICA DOESNT RAPE WOMEN, ISIS DOES THAT"... this is just an example to clarify a point i'm trying to make. that we should pay most of our attention to the bad things we do and then we should take the necessary steps to stop doing them. patting ourselves on the back is narcissistic and foolhardy.

[MavsSuperFan]

it's irrelevant. we can all pat ourselves on the back as much as possible and sure it's great to be proud of accomplishments like the abolition of slavery and the franchise and freedom of speech and all of that.

but that's like spending your entire evening thinking about what a nice gesture you made to buy those girls at the bar drinks because maybe they were hard off and couldn't afford to buy drinks for themselves and they were happy you offered to pay for them. great. but your intention wasn't to "help" them. it was probably to "fk" them.

and if you wound up taking one of them home and forcing yourself on her despite her resistance... well the fact that you bought them drinks is kind of irrelevant.

now before you say "AMERICA DOESNT RAPE WOMEN, ISIS DOES THAT"... this is just an example to clarify a point i'm trying to make. that we should pay most of our attention to the bad things we do and then we should take the necessary steps to stop doing them. patting ourselves on the back is narcissistic and foolhardy.

American accomplishments since the end of WW2

Financed the rebuilding of western europe, even west germany
Rebuilt Japan
Made imperial japan a democracy
Protected Japan from communism
Freed the colonies of the japanese empire
Protected Western Europe from Soviet domination (eastern europe usually is more pro american they arent spoiled ingrates and realize what a truly immoral superstate could do)
Protected and created South Korea
Protected Taiwan from communist take over
Kept non-american nuclear weapons out of the western hemisphere
Prevented the USSR from placing Nukes in cuba
Prevented/tried to prevent the spread of islamic extremism by supporting pro american dictatorships in the middle east.
Kept the only democracy in the middle east safe
Defended el Salvador from Nicaraguan attack
Gave panama back the canal, that we built
Defeated Manuel Noriega
liberated Kuwait
Defeated Saddam
Killed Uday and Qusay
Defeated Slobodan Milošević
Helped Kosovo achieve independence and self determination and nationhood
Helped contribute to the collapse of the USSR
Protected former Warsaw pact nations from russian domination
Removed the brutal government known as the taliban
Killed Bin Laden
Largest naval force protecting shipping from Somali pirates
Currently acting as a hedge against chinese domination of the south china sea, for japan, south korea, the Philippines and Vietnam. All 4 of which have sought american help in disputes with china
Helping/attempting to help the Ukrainians maintain independence from russia.
Edit:
helped palau become a nation
helped the marshall islands become a nation
helped the federated states of Micronesia become a nation
Protecting many nations through defense treaties, thus allowing them to spend money on welfare programs and neglect their militaries
Providing a nuclear umbrella for many countries thus helping prevent nuclear proliferation
Helping the Kurdish persmerga fight ISIS
Helping save yazidi and christians in iraq

Probably much more stuff I havent even heard of

[RidonKs]

i could go into detail on any number of those examples and illustrate to you exactly why morality had virtually nothing to do with that particular american action. in fact we've discussed at length a few of those examples and i've tried to make the same point.

but it's irrelevant because once again, like i said, patting ourselves on the back is a waste of time. everybody likes to say congratulations to themselves. serious people accept the good and continue to seek out the bad. god knows there's more than enough of it out there.

as an example, let's take the panama canal. i won't even bother to harken back to the initial building of the canal which was problematic in and of itself.

in 1989, president bush implemented operation just cause (sound familiar?). in that operation, manuel noriega was deposed from leadership and imprisoned in america for all kinds of heinous crimes. he remained captive for 18 years until he was finally released under certain conditions in 2007.

now who was this noriega fella? well we know he worked for the cia for about 30 years while rising in the panamanian ranks to great power. he was a drug runner and warlord for most of this time, and in fact the crimes he was eventually tried for were mostly committed while he was on the cia payroll. his status in panama was a huge benefit to american intelligence during the contra wars next door in, you guessed it, nicaragua.

heres a brief article from the guardian that tells the story in case you don't know it -- the article is mostly accurate if a little less detailed than it could be (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe)

now when operation just cause was launched to capture noriega, what happened? well official american sources say "only" 700 people died. the university of panama offers figures closer to 5000. nobody really knows because nobody really cared at the time to find out. but what we do know is that president bush was entirely responsible and there was no just cause to even remotely speak of regarding this action.

again that's just one example. most of the cases you listed are fraught with evidence that i'm afraid would or at least should make you cringe.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Is America as bad as foreigners think it is? No
Is America as good as citizens think it is? No

Done.

[RidonKs]

Is America as bad as foreigners think it is? No
Is America as good as citizens think it is? No

Done.
well said

the key distinction is that america being a nominal representative democracy, the citizens can actually do something about what the country does, good or bad, and thus they share responsibility for its actions on the international stage. just as russians share a responsibility for what the kremlin does in georgia or the ukraine or anywhere else in its sphere of influence. and of course, the responsibility of the average american was much greater in say 1955 than was the responsibility of the average russian at the same time, since the american government had formal democratic mechanisms whereas the russian government was under the thumb of the single party leadership and much more outside of democratic control.

[kNIOKAS]

Is America as bad as foreigners think it is? No
Is America as good as citizens think it is? No

Done.
Who are the foreigners then? Why they can't judge? Like, go now to somebody whose wedding have been blown up and say to them: "yeah well what you think is wrong because actually US isn't as bad as you think it is".

[Nanners]

mavs if you are going to quote ridonks posts, you should take a minute to actually read them


patting ourselves on the back is narcissistic and foolhardy.
immediately followed by


American accomplishments since the end of WW2

*giant wall of back patting*

[Godzuki]

Is America as bad as foreigners think it is? No
Is America as good as citizens think it is? No

Done.


a lot of americans dislike our government, and are almost as bad as the foreigners. thing about America is we have so many different ethnicities, many are more loyal to their home country than the one they've living in. most of America doesn't follow much and are almost as dumb as the Youtube foreigner anti America conspiracy theorists.

the only ones that are overly pro American are the Sarah Palin small town rednecks and country bumpkins.

i think many others know we aren't perfect, but we're nowhere near as bad as the retard foreigners constantly want to paint us, and u know they're reaching with so much of the stupid shit they say like we started ISIS and fund them LOL(i swear these mf'ers are the type who are prone to ISIS recruiting videos). its always the same stupid ass people who have such revisionist history and don't want to learn anything truthful that might go against their agenda.

[RidonKs]

and btw mavs, i could make a very similar list for all kinds of past empires. greek, roman, the european state empires. hell the native american empires were equally productive and cruel. they just didn't have the destructive means of the europeans. you can make the same claims about chinese empires in the past as well.

the bottom line is that doing good doesn't mean you can't do better. even if every example you listed there was purely beneficial to everyone involved and motivated solely by altruism (neither of which happen to be the case, which is crucial), it wouldn't undermine criticism of american power at all. the only thing that can undermine critical inquiry and dissent is dishonesty and ideology. which is why i do my very best to steer clear of both.

[RidonKs]

a lot of americans dislike our government, and are almost as bad as the foreigners. thing about America is we have so many different ethnicities, many are more loyal to their home country than the one they've living in. most of America doesn't follow much and are almost as dumb as the Youtube foreigner anti America conspiracy theorists.

the only ones that are overly pro American are the Sarah Palin small town rednecks and country bumpkins.

i think many others know we aren't perfect, but we're nowhere near as bad as the retard foreigners constantly want to paint us, and u know they're reaching with so much of the stupid shit they say like we started ISIS and fund them LOL(i swear these mf'ers are the type who are prone to ISIS recruiting videos). its always the same stupid ass people who have such revisionist history and don't want to learn anything truthful that might go against their agenda.
hey godzuki what do you think of the several thousand innocent panamanians who were killed by airstrikes ordered by george bush in 1989?

have you heard of such an event? do you care? or is it just a case of good intentions gone awry?

[KyrieTheFuture]

Who are the foreigners then? Why they can't judge? Like, go now to somebody whose wedding have been blown up and say to them: "yeah well what you think is wrong because actually US isn't as bad as you think it is".
What's it like to live life trying to be as annoying and dickish as possible?

[BoutPractice]

I'm not American, but MavsSuperFan is correct: the US is the most benevolent superpower in world history (made even more impressive by the fact that it's arguably the most powerful as well). Some of the "achievements" on the list are dubious at best, but many of them will stand the test of time.

America saved many countries from some of the worst regimes conceived by man, regimes whose brutality would have set these countries back decades. See the difference between Western and Eastern Germany in the 80s... Between North and South Korea... Countries backed by the US during the Cold War are now prosperous states with all the benefits of modern civilization... and unlike the British Empire, this was achieved without brutal colonization. Instead, the US invested their own resources to help these states, and let them enjoy as much freedom as they allowed themselves.

They also gave the world the Internet, iPhones, Hollywood, rock and roll and so on, whereas the USSR and Nazi Germany left no positive legacy other than perhaps the sheer "never again" factor.

[RidonKs]

See the difference between Western and Eastern Germany in the 80s
actually, eastern europeans were living faaaaar more favourable lifestyles than latin and south americans in the 80s. countries like ukraine, poland, hungry, czechoslovakia, east germany, etc... they were with the immediate sphere of soviet influence. it occasionally got violent and it wasn't a pretty picture for the most part given the totalitarian nature of soviet governance.

but in latin ameria during the same period, living conditions were far worse. and it has nothing to do with lacking natural advantages, even a country as wealthy and resource rich as brazil had a disgustingly impoverished population that's only begun to prosper since the election of lula in 2002. around the same time as the first election of chavez actually.

before that, just about every country in the region was under the thumb of violent repressive amerian supported dicatorships. costa rica is probably the only exception i'm aware of. and living conditions, prosperity, distribution of wealth, access to basic subsistence, etc.... was far worse than it was in the soviet satellite states.

so if you want to discuss the marshall plan (postwar financial aid for europe) or the american presence in southeast asia allying with south korea and the philipines and indonesia, or wherever else.... yes there are a number of countries allied to the united states that have benefited from its imperialism and have become incorporated into the global economic system to great success.

but you can't ignore the atrocities committed directly by the united states, in southeast asia killing several million people, in latin america killing several hundred thousand people, or indirectly in turkey or colombia or the middle east where crucial american funding exacerbated ongoing conflicts. these are facts that people aren't accustomed to hearing because they paint a very different picture than the conventional story in the media and elsewhere.

[RidonKs]

They also gave the world the Internet, iPhones, Hollywood, rock and roll and so on, whereas the USSR and Nazi Germany left no positive legacy other than perhaps the sheer "never again" factor.
this is also a load of bologna. germany, one of the strongest countries in the world for the past several hundred years, left no positive legacy? bullshit you just don't know anything about it. neither do i tbh but your suggestion is just ludicrous on its face. same goes for the soviet union.

i do agree with the general thrust of your post i think. but i don't think you have an accurate depiction of what's actually been going on in the world.

[BoutPractice]

Nazi Germany, not Germany. I'm European, and have nothing but admiration for German culture. Same with Russia.

I'm talking specifically about Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union - regimes, not countries. You can say that it's unfair to compare regimes with shorter lifespans to the more stable American regime, but its stability is itself a proof of success...

I'm not ignoring the atrocities committed by the US. (That's why I question MavsSuperFan's full list) I'm no imperialist. But if you look at the balance sheet, and consider the peculiar circumstances of the bloody 20th century... their overall impact was a net positive. And I won't hesitate to say this: Americans practically look like saints compared to what they were up against, as well as just about any superpower in world history.

Of course you can always be Switzerland. If you're going to analyze countries as moral actors, Switzerland will come out on top. But I'm not comparing the US with Switzerland. Even though my ideal world is composed of nothing but Switzerlands, I have to acknowledge that great powers exist, and that if you have to make a choice among them, you might as well go with America.

[RidonKs]

i think we're on the same page but i took exception to those few aspects of your post

where in europe are you from?

yes things could have been a lot worse and american intervention in world war 2, while motivated much more by self interest as opposed to any moral grounds (the facts here are glaringly obvious if you look at them), was very necessary. as was soviet and british intervention. thank goodness the nazis were destroyed lol as if that needs to be said every again since everybody already knows it

the soviet system wasn't quite as bad but was still very brutal and thank goodness the wall was torn down and the empire broke up. lots of bad shit happened as a result of that breakup, take the yugoslav wars as an obvious example, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be happy about the breakdown of a totalitarian empire.

[RidonKs]

oh look another geopolitics thread falling off the front page with questions remaining unanswered

[GimmeThat]

Is ISIS/ISIL dangerous enough that nukes should be an option?

I honestly think the US should drop one in an unpopulated desert area of Iraq to send a message.

Is that out of bounds?


if the after effect of a nuclear bomb wasn't so destructive for such a long period of time.

the human species would not had been smart enough to even "consider" banning it.

[kNIOKAS]

What's it like to live life trying to be as annoying and dickish as possible?
Dunno, I presented you a case to illustrate how arbitrary your statement was. I guess you don't like facts, it seems you find them annoying. :rolleyes:

[kNIOKAS]

i think many others know we aren't perfect, but we're nowhere near as bad as the retard foreigners constantly want to paint us, and u know they're reaching with so much of the stupid shit they say like we started ISIS and fund them LOL(i swear these mf'ers are the type who are prone to ISIS recruiting videos). its always the same stupid ass people who have such revisionist history and don't want to learn anything truthful that might go against their agenda.
So who propped up Sadam Hussein? Who funded and trained Osama? Who was funding groups that now are in ISIS and turned up on US?


I guess you don't like facts.

[Le Shaqtus]

You'd need a big table, where do you buy them that big? :confusedshrug:

[Rizko]

this fact is raised all the time. it's irrelevant. if you can't see that western interests in the middle east are almost exclusively about oil, that's your problem. the fact that the american population relies primarily on energy from its own soil or from allies or even from presumed enemies (venezuela) is a separate issue from the fact that western energy companies are heavily invested in middle east resource extraction and rely on their national governments to implement policies that strengthen that investment.

this isn't a particularly subtle point and in fact it's glaringly obvious if you do some research and think it through.
I know this was a post further back in the thread and I agree with the broader point about natural resources playing a part in it but I don't think that oil is as big as people make it:

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/cityofbrass/2010/06/afghanistans-trillion-dollar-c.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-the-war-on-afghanistan-one-trillion-dollars-of-lithium-the-future-of-silicon-valley-may-lie-in-the-mountains-of-afghanistan/5375266

These articles speak of a trillion dollars worth of precious metals in Afghanistan that are crucial to modern technology. I truthfully believe this was a bigger impetuous for our involvement then oil. As PT has pointed out we have places to get oil and the tools to even create a society that isn't nearly as oil dependent if we really wanted/had our backs to the wall. No such case with these metals

[kNIOKAS]

I know this was a post further back in the thread and I agree with the broader point about natural resources playing a part in it but I don't think that oil is as big as people make it:

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/cityofbrass/2010/06/afghanistans-trillion-dollar-c.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-the-war-on-afghanistan-one-trillion-dollars-of-lithium-the-future-of-silicon-valley-may-lie-in-the-mountains-of-afghanistan/5375266

These articles speak of a trillion dollars worth of precious metals in Afghanistan that are crucial to modern technology. I truthfully believe this was a bigger impetuous for our involvement then oil. As PT has pointed out we have places to get oil and the tools to even create a society that isn't nearly as oil dependent if we really wanted/had our backs to the wall. No such case with these metals
Well, that could be true as well, just I think the mining of these minerals haven't been started yet, at least on a big scale. Maybe it's going to happen.

When bushes and cheneys planned going into Middle East they never meant to pull out early, they were aiming to stay there for a lot of years.

It's naive to think that contemporary wars are started on primary reason being any other than economical. The big countries get to play first and everybody else can only react to it afterwards. US got really upset now when Egypt carried out strikes (? I think) against Libya, they were like "how can you do it without consulting us first". Somebody then claimed it was a renegade general or something, because Egypt does not want to start show that they are making independent decisions now.

Shows how much of everything is under influence and puppeteering from the big powers first.

[Derka]

No need. In a conventional military conflict, these guys are no better than target practice. The rub is: these cowards don't fight like that. They play at guerilla warfare and hide among civilian populations. You can't nuke civilian populations in this day and age; this isn't Japan 1945 anymore.

[MavsSuperFan]

mavs if you are going to quote ridonks posts, you should take a minute to actually read them


immediately followed by
Iread all of redonks post I am only responding to the parts I disagree with or want to augment in some way.

I agree that american foreign policy is based on self interest and not morality. To me that is irrelevant as in the majority of situations america has taken the moral course of action regardless of incentives. Further it is only my assumption morality played zero role in the just actions america has historically taken. The only hard evidence I have is America taking actions that overall have benefitted the world in the last eighty years more than any other nation in human history

You know its funny to me how you America haters give no credit to the US for having our best interests aligned with the moral course of action or the grater good in so many situations

You never give America (a superstate) credit for not preying upon its militarily weak resource rich neighbors.

Stealing Alberta from Canada would also be in our best interests. Much of Canada's energy resources are present there. Let's examine what militarily weaker super states have done in the 20th century.

Imperial Japan: invasion of China, and establishing a puppet state in Manchuria.
Invading the dutch east indies for the natural resources
Invading the Philippines for land and natural resources
Brutal occupation of dutch east indies (Indonesia) and the Philippines
Brutal occupation of Taiwan (then called Formosa)
Brutal occupation of the Korean peninsula
Mass rape of comfort women
Testing biological weapons on Chinese civilians (unit 731)
The rape of Nanjing
Brutal siege and conquest of shanghai
Many atrocities against aboriginal populations on many pacific islands
Invasion of Burma, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc.
Torture of captured POWs
Forcing British troops on the batan death march
Etc. (Stuff I have forgotten or don't know about)

Imperial Japan found it was in its interests to do all of these immoral actions. No body ever gives america credit for not being similarly self interested, even though we were stronger than imperial Japan.

All superstates behave like the USSR and imperial Japan, America is the lone exception

[MavsSuperFan]

I'm a little busy I'll respond later with thoughts on Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union

and why America is more moral

Also america >> British empire morality

[MavsSuperFan]

also nobody ever gets America credit for not siding with the Imperial Japan

nobody gives America credit for not siding with Nazi Germany

the US eventually defeated these at great cost to our selfselves

[IamRAMBO24]

Is ISIS/ISIL dangerous enough that nukes should be an option?

I honestly think the US should drop one in an unpopulated desert area of Iraq to send a message.

Is that out of bounds?

Why the f*ck would you want to drop a nuke in an unpopulated area?:facepalm

The purpose of a nuke is to kill lots of people.

[RidonKs]

Stealing Alberta from Canada would also be in our best interests. Much of Canada's energy resources are present there. Let's examine what militarily weaker super states have done in the 20th century.
i already responded to this point. i can't respond to the rest as it begins to become a waste of time.

stealing alberta WOULDNT be in your best interests. it would be insanity. invade your northern neighbour and create a battleground right on your boarder? the reason america has been so successful is because it's already incorporated canada into its system, and it has been able to stifle mexican growth to the south leaving it invulnerable to attack. there's a reason canada is america's biggest trade partner; it's right next door! stealing alberta would be like stealing puerta rico. you already more or less own it.




once again, nobody is comparing atrocities. that's what zealous right wing militants do. they say, well they got a B- and they get a C and they rank and try to justify their own atrocities by pointing at the other guys.

what YOU should be doing is looking at YOUR crimes. you are a citizen of the united states of america which is a democracy. you have a say there and share culpability for your governments actions with your fellow citizens.

you are NOT a citizen of russia. what putin does matters but only to the extent of having your government respond appropriately, lawfully, and preferably diplomatically/economically if need be.

pay attention to your crimes. and stop committing them. the soviet union was wrong to justify its atrocities in afghanistan on the pretense of an american threat there. similarly, the american government was wrong to justify its atrocities in vietnam and cuba on the pretense of russian threats there.

this isn't complicated.

[RidonKs]

also nobody ever gets America credit for not siding with the Imperial Japan

nobody gives America credit for not siding with Nazi Germany

the US eventually defeated these at great cost to our selfselves
listen dude; america gets as much credit and not even a smidgen more and perhaps far less than the soviet union which sacrificed far more in terms of actual human lives. but again that's besides the point, i have no interest in grading.

the united states didn't enter world war two, they didn't decide not to side with imperial japan out of any moral responsibility. that's revisionist history in its worst form.

in fact the opposite is true. the united states had very competitive isolationist parties that advocated nonintervention.

and of course the bottom line here is that the united states didn't enter the war until it was attacked. pearl harbour. it had been opening debating the possibility of attacking japan for months prior... and obviously the japanese knew this. but until then they had not even entered the war.

and you want to give them credit for not siding with nazi germany? when a legitimate presidential candidate against fking fdr was polling well and buddying up with hitler and his crew?

[RidonKs]

I know this was a post further back in the thread and I agree with the broader point about natural resources playing a part in it but I don't think that oil is as big as people make it:

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/cityofbrass/2010/06/afghanistans-trillion-dollar-c.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-the-war-on-afghanistan-one-trillion-dollars-of-lithium-the-future-of-silicon-valley-may-lie-in-the-mountains-of-afghanistan/5375266

These articles speak of a trillion dollars worth of precious metals in Afghanistan that are crucial to modern technology. I truthfully believe this was a bigger impetuous for our involvement then oil. As PT has pointed out we have places to get oil and the tools to even create a society that isn't nearly as oil dependent if we really wanted/had our backs to the wall. No such case with these metals
that's interesting i hadn't heard of that before. got any other sources? how long has the scouting been taking place? have the scouting records been released publicly through that department? how does the timing square with the invasion of afghanistan?

my gut inclination without reading much more of it is that it's just a pleasant surprise for the occupiers of afghanistan. and it's good, no reason we shouldn't be extracting resources with digital and electric capabilities. though i expect the benefits of that terrific resource won't wind up in the hands of ordinary afghans.

[Rizko]

that's interesting i hadn't heard of that before. got any other sources? how long has the scouting been taking place? have the scouting records been released publicly through that department? how does the timing square with the invasion of afghanistan?

my gut inclination without reading much more of it is that it's just a pleasant surprise for the occupiers of afghanistan. and it's good, no reason we shouldn't be extracting resources with digital and electric capabilities. though i expect the benefits of that terrific resource won't wind up in the hands of ordinary afghans.
If you google you can find a bunch. Just type it. 1 trillion Afghanistan lithium.

IDK exactly when it was found out but I do know that I've personally known about this for like 6 years and it wasn't a knew revelation when I found out so 10 years wouldn't be out of the question, maybe longer.

Yea I agree that there no issue with taking it (tho I do think the average citizen of Afghanistan should be getting a cut for destroying there land). I was just saying that I think the whole "we went in for oil" is overblown. I think it has more to with the metals from the reading I've done on the topic. Tho I don't think any of that was the impetuous, more of a very big side reason. Kinda like a turning lemons to lemonade.

[RidonKs]

you need to make the appropriate distinction between afghanistan and iraq. iraq was a pursuit of oil, i think afghanistan was much more complicated. without going into specifics. appreciate your interest though!

[Rizko]

you need to make the appropriate distinction between afghanistan and iraq. iraq was a pursuit of oil, i think afghanistan was much more complicated. without going into specifics. appreciate your interest though!
I guess what Im getting at is that there was so much precious metals in Afghanistan that I think after they were found it lead to possibly looking into Iraq as well for them.

Essentially I don't think it is so simple that saying we went to Iraq for oil is a good enough explanation.

Something else of interest it that Iraq and Afghanistan both were not members of a Central World banking system at the time from my research. Along with Cuba, N. Korea and a few others (not all countries of the non-members are considered enemies of America). I think that was also a partial impetuous. If I'm correct Lybia wasn't part of it as well before the Quadaffi (spelling? lol) shit.

Something to think about.

Essentially to make blanket statements about why a country would go to war seems a little shallow. These are very intelligent people (for the most part) who have a lot of interests beyond just oil. If it was only oil I think economic imperialism would have been the preferred method. I just think they had more too it (not necessarily the protection/wellbeing of America either). Theyre are some many angles to things like these that making blanket statements just doesn't sit well with me, especially with someone who is pretty thoughtful and intelligent.

[kNIOKAS]

Essentially to make blanket statements about why a country would go to war seems a little shallow. These are very intelligent people (for the most part) who have a lot of interests beyond just oil. If it was only oil I think economic imperialism would have been the preferred method. I just think they had more too it (not necessarily the protection/wellbeing of America either). Theyre are some many angles to things like these that making blanket statements just doesn't sit well with me, especially with someone who is pretty thoughtful and intelligent.
That's a technicality. What oil is meant to stand for is economical gains, which are the primary reason anyways, especially compared to what some guy here calls morals. Who really benefits and whose interests are covered (or were expected to be covered) is another talk. Part of it could be long term US interests, part of it short time interests of special groups, another part of it could be incompetence just as well...

Its not meant to really analyze the situation, especially when nobody here really has the information for that.

[JohnFreeman]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwmZoDBIIAAVcUx.png:large

[NumberSix]

you need to make the appropriate distinction between afghanistan and iraq. iraq was a pursuit of oil, i think afghanistan was much more complicated. without going into specifics. appreciate your interest though!

So where's the oil? :facepalm


Simple minded parrot.

[RidonKs]

So where's the oil? :facepalm


Simple minded parrot.
lemme get back to you on that with a thread bump, i'll link you some sources and give you my take

[BigBoss]

OP is an idiot for even making this thread.

[BigBoss]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwmZoDBIIAAVcUx.png:large

And ur dumb as hell for comparing the two.

AGAIN.

[RidonKs]

OP is an idiot for even making this thread.
this is also true. though he's not an idiot in other matters.

[MavsSuperFan]

i already responded to this point. i can't respond to the rest as it begins to become a waste of time.

stealing alberta WOULDNT be in your best interests. it would be insanity. invade your northern neighbour and create a battleground right on your boarder? the reason america has been so successful is because it's already incorporated canada into its system, and it has been able to stifle mexican growth to the south leaving it invulnerable to attack. there's a reason canada is america's biggest trade partner; it's right next door! stealing alberta would be like stealing puerta rico. you already more or less own it.




once again, nobody is comparing atrocities. that's what zealous right wing militants do. they say, well they got a B- and they get a C and they rank and try to justify their own atrocities by pointing at the other guys.

what YOU should be doing is looking at YOUR crimes. you are a citizen of the united states of america which is a democracy. you have a say there and share culpability for your governments actions with your fellow citizens.

you are NOT a citizen of russia. what putin does matters but only to the extent of having your government respond appropriately, lawfully, and preferably diplomatically/economically if need be.

pay attention to your crimes. and stop committing them. the soviet union was wrong to justify its atrocities in afghanistan on the pretense of an american threat there. similarly, the american government was wrong to justify its atrocities in vietnam and cuba on the pretense of russian threats there.

this isn't complicated.
Please, it wouldnt be much of a battle canada by itself would hardly be able to resist. Stealing Alberta's oil would definitely be in america's best interests. America refrains from doing so because of its fundamental goodness.

Sign, sometimes I wish we did to canada and western europe what the russia did to eastern europe after WW2. If we treated canadians the way the imperal japanese army treated the chinese, they would be justified in their hatred of america.


once again, nobody is comparing atrocities. that's what zealous right wing militants do. they say, well they got a B- and they get a C and they rank and try to justify their own atrocities by pointing at the other guys.

what YOU should be doing is looking at YOUR crimes. you are a citizen of the united states of america which is a democracy. you have a say there and share culpability for your governments actions with your fellow citizens.
I have never said the US doesnt commit war crimes, in fact I often talk about america's immoral actions and even war crimes. Eg. my posts on signature and double tap drone strikes. Both clearly immoral war crimes.

I am saying for a Superstate America commits and incredibly low amount of war crimes and does so much good.

"Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples

[MavsSuperFan]

you are NOT a citizen of russia. what putin does matters but only to the extent of having your government respond appropriately, lawfully, and preferably diplomatically/economically if need be.

pay attention to your crimes. and stop committing them. the soviet union was wrong to justify its atrocities in afghanistan on the pretense of an american threat there. similarly, the american government was wrong to justify its atrocities in vietnam and cuba on the pretense of russian threats there.

this isn't complicated.
Wow, you equate america to the soviet union...
Read up on what they did in eastern europe.

Read up on the rapes of german women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
[QUOTE]A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944

[MavsSuperFan]

listen dude; america gets as much credit and not even a smidgen more and perhaps far less than the soviet union which sacrificed far more in terms of actual human lives. but again that's besides the point, i have no interest in grading.


The USSR contributed greatly to defeating Nazi Germany. However you fail to factor in American aid to the Soviet Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Read up on our generous lend-lease policy during WW2
[QUOTE]The Lend-Lease policy was a program under which the United States supplied Great Britain, Free France, the Republic of China and later the USSR and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and August 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 and nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941.[2]

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[3] In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies. Reverse Lend-Lease policies comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. In practice very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to Britain at a large discount for

[RidonKs]

Please, it wouldnt be much of a battle canada by itself would hardly be able to resist. Stealing Alberta's oil would definitely be in america's best interests. America refrains from doing so because of its fundamental goodness.

you don't understand my point. america already virtually controls the alberta oil sands for all intents and purposes. in fact the only reason a pipeline isn't currently being constructed right down to the gulf of mexico giving american energy interests an even stronger hold on this enormous resource is because the obama administration is holding it up due to intense political pressures (read: NOT because its moral)

oil prices are determined on international markets. whether or not america controls the oil sands or its crucial ally and biggest trading partner canada controls the oil sands is virtually irrelevant.

the point i'm trying to make that you simply can't hear is that trying to assume control of alberta by force would be catastrophic. primarily for canada of course but also for america. it's amazing to me that after the bush expedition into iraq and all the horrendous turmoil and conflict it's caused, you still fail to see how devastating conquest can be not just to the conquered but also to the conquerer. it took the american military no time at all to oust saddam. clearly the same would be true were it to attack alberta and try to oust a) dave hancock's provincial government or b) stephen harper's federal government. and yet the blowback and ongoing conflict would be a ridiculous risk for very little reward, given the fact that the status quo already guarantees the united states all the alberta crude they could possibly want. again the only thing holding keystone up is the american president, not the canadian prime minister who is from alberta and perfectly happy to enrich the pockets of his energy industry supporters by strengthening energy trade ties with his superpower neighbour to the south.

that you can't understand that attacking canada would be among the dumbest moves an american president could possibly make, speaking socially economically diplomatically politically militarily fiscally etc etc etc, really makes me grind my teeth.

[RidonKs]

as for the rest, i'll look into the links you posted about world war 2 and get back to you. i don't think its particularly relevant to the discussion we're having at the moment. that era is far from an area of expertise for me so if i need to rescind the comment you're responding to, i will.

more importantly


American Morality>>> Soviet Union's morality
you just can't get your mind our of this gutter. it's insanity.

comparing atrocities between superpowers, past in the case of the roman catholic empire or the european empires, present in the case of the soviet union, IS A WASTE OF TIME. it's similar to cheering for a sports team. who cares how much better your country seems to be than another country?

if you're an honest citizen with an interest in politics and maybe even making the world a little bit of a better place, you need to look at your own sphere of influence on an individual level. and your sphere of influence presumably stops and ends with american democracy, sham though at times it may seem.

american may be 100x more moral than the soviet union. but even if the united states is unjustly killing ONE PERSON, i'm afraid that is blood on YOUR HANDS. because you are, afterall, a citizen of a nominal representative democracy and you have some say over what your country does in the international arena, minuscule though that say may seem given the sham of the electoral college. you can point to rapes and beatings and genocide around the world all you want. the point is that you can't really do anything about that stuff... and when your country does do something about atrocities around the world, it only acts when it has a material or political self interest in doing so.

as for morality of the past 50 years... maybe america is the most legitimate and moral superpower in world history. this does not change the facts of its recent history which is hideous.

vietnam
cambodia
laos
indonesia
east timor
phillipines
chile
brazil
colombia
panama
CUBA
guatamala
el salvador
haiti
nicaragua
iraq
iran
egypt

i can go on and on and on. do you know the extent of death and destruction that has been caused by american intervention (economic, militarily, diplomatic, financial) in these countries over the past say 100 years and primarily in the past 60 years since world war 2?

i don't either. because records aren't kept because the record keepers don't really care about the victims. but the number of dead is easily and unquestionably in the tens of millions.

your response to this is "but we arent as bad as the soviet union" (whether or not that is true is entirely irrelevant). my response to this could be "well canada isnt as bad as the united states".

your response SHOULD be "what is my government responsible for", and my response SHOULD be "what is my government responsible for"

comparing atrocities is like saying the tsarnaev brothers aren't as bad as khalid sheikh mohammed. if i said that, you would rightly say they're both evil as fk and deserve the death penalty and the difference between killing a dozen people and a thousand people is not significant.

the same is true for countries.

please give this a careful read because i really feel like what i'm saying is logical and self-evident and nevertheless is failing to get through. and i promise to return to your ww2 posts and correct any mistakes i may have made.

thanks for bumping this thread btw

[MavsSuperFan]

you don't understand my point. america already virtually controls the alberta oil sands for all intents and purposes. in fact the only reason a pipeline isn't currently being constructed right down to the gulf of mexico giving american energy interests an even stronger hold on this enormous resource is because the obama administration is holding it up due to intense political pressures (read: NOT because its moral)

oil prices are determined on international markets. whether or not america controls the oil sands or its crucial ally and biggest trading partner canada controls the oil sands is virtually irrelevant.

the point i'm trying to make that you simply can't hear is that trying to assume control of alberta by force would be catastrophic. primarily for canada of course but also for america. it's amazing to me that after the bush expedition into iraq and all the horrendous turmoil and conflict it's caused, you still fail to see how devastating conquest can be not just to the conquered but also to the conquerer. it took the american military no time at all to oust saddam. clearly the same would be true were it to attack alberta and try to oust a) dave hancock's provincial government or b) stephen harper's federal government. and yet the blowback and ongoing conflict would be a ridiculous risk for very little reward, given the fact that the status quo already guarantees the united states all the alberta crude they could possibly want. again the only thing holding keystone up is the american president, not the canadian prime minister who is from alberta and perfectly happy to enrich the pockets of his energy industry supporters by strengthening energy trade ties with his superpower neighbour to the south.

that you can't understand that attacking canada would be among the dumbest moves an american president could possibly make, speaking socially economically diplomatically politically militarily fiscally etc etc etc, really makes me grind my teeth.


So many states find it in their interests to steal the natural resources of their militarily weaker neighbors. Imperial japan for example targeted the dutch east indies and coal resources in Manchuria. Explain to me why Imperial Japan did that if its not with in a stronger state's interest to steal the resources and rape the women of a militarily weaker state? Was Imperial Japan attacking against its best interests?

America opposing Imperial japan was 100% a choice. We could have divided asia up with imperial japan. The US navy was the strongest force in the pacific and the Imperial Japanese navy the second. America chose to act against its best interest by not stealing the natural resources of and raping asia.

What the Russians did to east germany was horrific. People literally ran while being machine gunned to get to west germany. Why didnt america treat west germany like Russia treated east germany? Your refusal to accept that american morality played a role astounds me.

Soviet troops after WW2 raped about 2 million german women. American troops did not rape anywhere close to that. Yet you give no credit to america.

Occupation of Iraq was difficult primarily because America is too moral to take drastic actions against people it occupied.

If we did to the Iraqis what the Soviet union did to the Hungarians or what imperial japan did to Nanjing and shanghai we could have brought a greater degree of control to Iraq.

Take for example how the british empire treated the rebellious Afrikaners during the second Boer war

The British employed a scorched earth policy in its attempt to conqueror the dutch Afrikaners and bring them into british imperial rule.


As Boer farms were destroyed by the British under their "Scorched Earth" policy—including the systematic destruction of crops and slaughtering of livestock, the burning down of homesteads and farms, and the poisoning of wells and salting of fields—to prevent the Boers from resupplying from a home base many tens of thousands of women and children were forcibly moved into the concentration camps.
...
the Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.
Eventually, there were a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black Africans. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas. The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children. Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these concentration camps.[46]

The camps were poorly administered from the outset and became increasingly overcrowded when Kitchener's troops implemented the internment strategy on a vast scale. Conditions were terrible for the health of the internees, mainly due to neglect, poor hygiene and bad sanitation. The supply of all items was unreliable, partly because of the constant disruption of communication lines by the Boers. The food rations were meager and there was a two-tier allocation policy, whereby families of men who were still fighting were routinely given smaller rations than others (Pakenham 1979, p. 505). The inadequate shelter, poor diet, inadequate hygiene and overcrowding led to malnutrition and endemic contagious diseases such as measles, typhoid and dysentery to which the children were particularly vulnerable. An additional problem was the Boers' use of traditional medicines like a cow-dung poultice for skin diseases and crushed insects for convulsions.[47] Coupled with a shortage of modern medical facilities, many of the internees died.

As the war raged across their farms and their homes were destroyed, many Africans became refugees and they, like the Boers, moved to the towns where the British army hastily created internment camps. Subsequently, the "Scorched Earth" policy was ruthlessly applied to both Boers and Africans. Although most black Africans were not considered by the British to be hostile, many tens of thousands were also forcibly removed from Boer areas and also placed in concentration camps.

Africans were held separately from Boer internees. Eventually there were a total of 64 tented camps for Africans. Conditions were as bad as in the camps for the Boers, but even though, after the Fawcett Commission report, conditions improved in the Boer camps, "improvements were much slower in coming to the black camps."


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Konsentrasiekamp_Krugersdorp.jpg
British concentration camp that they moved Afrikaner civilians into. Mostly women and children, the adult males had taken to guerrilla warfare against the brutish British army. The british would let the boers know that if they kept resisting their wives and children would be mistreated. It was a huge reason the males eventually surrendered.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Boercamp1.jpg/800px-Boercamp1.jpg
Children and women of the boers

America chose to refrain from moving Iraqis into concentration camps after they started to attack us with guerrilla warfare. American chose to refrain from using iraqi women and children as hostages to force iraqi men to surrender.

If America had similar morals as the british empire, Iraqi pacification would have been significantly more likely.

Stealing the oil from Canada would remove the amount of money we have to pay to the canadian government to get at that oil. If we employed immoral, harsh tactics, it is within the military capacity of the US to pacify the region

[Nanners]

Stealing the oil from Canada would remove the amount of money we have to pay to the canadian government to get at that oil. If we employed immoral, harsh tactics, it is within the military capacity of the US to pacify the region


Most of this post is just too idiotic to bother with, and the quoted sentence is really no exception to that, but I cant resist pointing out that "we" do not "pay the canadian government to get at their oil". Thats just not how any of this works.

The oil sands is currently owned by multinational corporations, most of which are headquartered in the United States. It does not make any goddamn difference from our perspective if the oil is within territory controlled by the US versus Canada, that oil belongs to companies like Chevron, Exxon and Koch industries regardless of which country it is in.

[MavsSuperFan]

as for the rest, i'll look into the links you posted about world war 2 and get back to you. i don't think its particularly relevant to the discussion we're having at the moment. that era is far from an area of expertise for me so if i need to rescind the comment you're responding to, i will.

more importantly


you just can't get your mind our of this gutter. it's insanity.

comparing atrocities between superpowers, past in the case of the roman catholic empire or the european empires, present in the case of the soviet union, IS A WASTE OF TIME. it's similar to cheering for a sports team. who cares how much better your country seems to be than another country?

if you're an honest citizen with an interest in politics and maybe even making the world a little bit of a better place, you need to look at your own sphere of influence on an individual level. and your sphere of influence presumably stops and ends with american democracy, sham though at times it may seem.

american may be 100x more moral than the soviet union. but even if the united states is unjustly killing ONE PERSON, i'm afraid that is blood on YOUR HANDS. because you are, afterall, a citizen of a nominal representative democracy and you have some say over what your country does in the international arena, minuscule though that say may seem given the sham of the electoral college. you can point to rapes and beatings and genocide around the world all you want. the point is that you can't really do anything about that stuff... and when your country does do something about atrocities around the world, it only acts when it has a material or political self interest in doing so.

as for morality of the past 50 years... maybe america is the most legitimate and moral superpower in world history. this does not change the facts of its recent history which is hideous.

vietnam
cambodia
laos
indonesia
east timor
phillipines
chile
brazil
colombia
panama
CUBA
guatamala
el salvador
haiti
nicaragua
iraq
iran
egypt

i can go on and on and on. do you know the extent of death and destruction that has been caused by american intervention (economic, militarily, diplomatic, financial) in these countries over the past say 100 years and primarily in the past 60 years since world war 2?

i don't either. because records aren't kept because the record keepers don't really care about the victims. but the number of dead is easily and unquestionably in the tens of millions.

your response to this is "but we arent as bad as the soviet union" (whether or not that is true is entirely irrelevant). my response to this could be "well canada isnt as bad as the united states".

your response SHOULD be "what is my government responsible for", and my response SHOULD be "what is my government responsible for"

comparing atrocities is like saying the tsarnaev brothers aren't as bad as khalid sheikh mohammed. if i said that, you would rightly say they're both evil as fk and deserve the death penalty and the difference between killing a dozen people and a thousand people is not significant.

the same is true for countries.

please give this a careful read because i really feel like what i'm saying is logical and self-evident and nevertheless is failing to get through. and i promise to return to your ww2 posts and correct any mistakes i may have made.

thanks for bumping this thread btw


if you're an honest citizen with an interest in politics and maybe even making the world a little bit of a better place, you need to look at your own sphere of influence on an individual level. and your sphere of influence presumably stops and ends with american democracy, sham though at times it may seem.

I have many posts critiquing specific aspects of american foreign policy. In absolute terms america has don't many horrific things. For a superstate america is astonishingly altruistic, and benevolent.

Eg. our refusal to take iraqi women and children as hostages to compel their husbands and fathers to capitulate. The fact that we do not systematically rape the females in areas we occupy, etc.

Here is a post I made calling obama (who i am overall a fan of a war criminal)
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=278950&page=2

Targeted drone strkies :lol :lol :lol

Dont believe all the propaganda you hear.

The obama administration has determined that any military age male can be classified as an enemy combatant. This allows them to make the ludicrous claim that the civilian casualties have been minimal.

Signature Strikes- Drone strikes based solely on attacking people because of "suspicious behavior". We aren't even sure if they are terrorists, If you're in Yemen and look suspicious to a CIA official, Obama has okayed killing you based on nothing else. No due process, no checks and balances. Imagine how we would react if China or Russia were striking targets in this manner.

Personality Strike- we actually think we know who we are targeting. Do we care if we launch a hellfire missile that kills 5 people, only 1 of them being the targeted individual? Well if we do care, we dont care enough not to kill the 4 other people that we have no idea who they are. If you can't feel compassion for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and thats just the countries Obama admits to. Imagine mexico targeted the cartels like this. Imagine some cartel members were hiding in an American city, Mexico decides **** it, its worth the collateral damage to kill this guy, fires missiles and kills 3 innocent Americans along with the cartel member. Mexico would be lucky if we didn't retaliate with nukes.

Double Taps- After an initial drone strike, and the carnage it causes, we have noticed that almost always people come to try to help out the people hurt in the drone strike and give medical attention to them. Obviously these people are trying to help because they are terrorists. So we fire a second hellfire missile at them. :biggums: Targeted strikes, yeah thats what these are.

Eric Holder, (Obama's AG) when questioned about the legality of killing American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, without due process, Holder insisted due process was achieved. He stated there was a difference between due process and judicial process, and that although judicial process had not been achieved the constitution only requires due process. :biggums:

Holder had the balls to claim that an American president along with pentagon personnel can execute American citizens outside America as long as these generals and the administration discuss it beforehand. He argued this was sufficient to satisfy the due process requirement of the constitution. Al-Awlaki's 14 year old son was also killed in yemen by a drone strike. Everyone got up in arms over the death of Trayvon Martin as they should have been, but no one cares that a 14 year old American citizen was killed by our government with no evidence of any crimes he committed? (he was not the target of the strike). Where is congressional approval of military operations in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc?

Lets be honest drones prevent American casualties and American casualties alone. If your neighbourhood had gang members that lived next to you, and you were too afraid to report them to the police, should the police be allowed to fire missiles at them possibly killing your children? If your kids died in a signature strike, and then your wife goes to help them and gets killed in a double tap strike, would you not hate the people that did this for the rest of your life? Imagine what you would say about police that fired missiles into poor communities to avoid the risks of going in.

Sad part is I used to think Liberals like myself were principled and would speak out against actions of any American president that did war crimes and violated the constitution. Only to find out we are just as partisan as the conservatives. Its ok when our guy kills innocent brown people. Its sad the choices in this "democracy" are Romney and Obama. Given that of course ill vote for Obama.
I have no problem criticizing america. I am just not ignorant of how amazingly non-imperial america is relative to its military capabilities


american may be 100x more moral than the soviet union.
Thank you for acknowledging this, that is all i am really saying

[MavsSuperFan]

Most of this post is just too idiotic to bother with, and the quoted sentence is really no exception to that, but I cant resist pointing out that "we" do not "pay the canadian government to get at their oil". Thats just not how any of this works.

The oil sands is currently owned by multinational corporations, most of which are headquartered in the United States. It does not make any goddamn difference from our perspective if the oil is within territory controlled by the US versus Canada, that oil belongs to companies like Chevron, Exxon and Koch industries regardless of which country it is in.
Canada charges taxes and other duties and dues on oil extraction look it up bro

America is the only country that refrains from doing so

Edit: further their is a multiplier effect to these kind of industries.
1. Canadians get employed to extract the oil. These workers may have been previously unemployed and collecting welfare. This take them off the books and makes them tax payers.
2. These men, with disposable income, than cause a boom in local businesses, eg restaurants, theaters, shops, etc.
3. more people are employed, thus more tax revenue and less government outlays on welfare.

by stealing alberta those benefits could flow to america. Its always within a nations interests to steal as much as it can from other nations. Most nations are incapable of doing so, some chose not to out of a fundamental morality

Also do you honestly not think its within american military capacity to pacify iraq, if we used insanely immoral tactics? that is just ignorance. I am proud america doesnt sink that low, I am not arguing to put iraqi women and children into concentration camps. I am just saying that is what the british empire did to win the second boer war and defeat an insurgency using guerrilla/asymmetric warfare.

THE BRITISH WON THE SECOND BOER WAR BY PUTTING BOER WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND STARVING THEM TO DEATH TO FORCE THEIR HUSBANDS AND FATHERS TO SURRENDER.

Im proud america would rather lose a war than starve over 26,000 women and children to death

[Nanners]

Canada charges taxes and other duties and dues on oil extraction look it up bro

America is the only country that refrains from doing so


Ok then, I will look it up, bro. Maybe you should look it up too before you flap your jaws, maybe then you wouldnt look like such a goddamn idiot all the time.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Tips-on-Reporting-Natural-Resource-Income

The US charges federal, state and county taxes on mineral resource extraction and sale.

[MavsSuperFan]

Ok then, I will look it up, bro. Maybe you should look it up too before you flap your jaws, maybe then you wouldnt look like such a goddamn idiot all the time.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Tips-on-Reporting-Natural-Resource-Income

The US charges federal, state and county taxes on mineral resource extraction and sale.
Nice I didnt realize that, I thought I heard we didnt charge extraction fees.

I am pro taxation by the way, I think a goal of government should be to increase revenues, not just cut spending.

But it reinforces my point that it is always within a nations self interest to steal as many resources from other nations as possible. Not saying its the right thing to do, just that it is in that nations best interests.

Also learn how to have a civilized debate with people with opinions that differ from yours without having to resort to Ad hominem attacks like a child.

Could you specifically point out which points I have made you think are idiotic?

[Nanners]

Nice I didnt realize that, I thought I heard we didnt charge extraction fees.

I am pro taxation by the way, I think a goal of government should be to increase revenues, not just cut spending.

But it reinforces my point that it is always within a nations self interest to steal as many resources from other nations as possible. Not saying its the right thing to do, just that it is in that nations best interests.

Nice. Now the next time you tell someone to "look something up", you should look it up yourself first to ensure that you dont get busted for talking out of your ass.


Also learn how to have a civilized debate with people with opinions that differ from yours without having to resort to Ad hominem attacks like a child.

Could you specifically point out which points I have made you think are idiotic?

Are you new to the internet or something? Have you SEEN the shit that gets posted around here? Maybe the off topic section of a basketball message board is not a good place to look for "civilized debate", you dumb cvnt.

Virtually all of your points are idiotic. Your central argument that the US should be held to a different standard than other countries because it is larger and more powerful than them is idiotic. It doesnt fvcking matter if the british empire did evil things, that does not excuse the evil things that we do. You are basically arguing that nobody should care when a bully steals lunch money from the other kids on the schoolyard because he is not quite as cruel as the last bully was.

[MavsSuperFan]

Nice. Now the next time you tell someone to "look something up", you should look it up yourself first to ensure that you dont get busted for talking out of your ass.


Are you new to the internet or something? Have you SEEN the shit that gets posted around here? Maybe the off topic section of a basketball message board is not a good place to look for "civilized debate", you dumb cvnt.

Virtually all of your points are idiotic. Your central argument that the US should be held to a different standard than other countries because it is larger and more powerful than them is idiotic. It doesnt fvcking matter if the british empire did evil things, that does not excuse the evil things that we do. You are basically arguing that nobody should care when a bully steals lunch money from the other kids on the schoolyard because he is not quite as cruel as the last bully was.


Nice. Now the next time you tell someone to "look something up", you should look it up yourself first to ensure that you dont get busted for talking out of your ass.

1. Its ISH, im not going to fact check everything, IIRC i saw a liberal complain about how the american government was letting oil companies like exxon mobile, etc extract oil for free (or maybe it was a very low amount of money) Anyways he was arguing we should be like Saudi Arabia, Norway, etc and charge fees on per barrel extracted basis to get more revenues. But that we dont because of oil companies lobbying.

2. You evidence you provided that the US government actual does get money from the extraction process, only buttresses my original point that Stealing as much natural resources as possible is in the best interest of any nation. Specifically its in america's best interest to steal Alberta's oil resources.

Your evidences only supports that assertion.


Are you new to the internet or something? Have you SEEN the shit that gets posted around here? Maybe the off topic section of a basketball message board is not a good place to look for "civilized debate", you dumb cvnt.
You can find civilized debate anywhere with civilized people, I am sorry for asking civility of you.

Virtually all of your points are idiotic.
Examples? I have made dozens of arguments in this thread, you have addressed maybe 2. you have only countered the point i said the us government doesnt benefit from oil extraction directly.

Thus buttressing my other argument about why it would be in our best interests to steal alberta, and that the US acted against its best interests by refraining from doing so.


Your central argument that the US should be held to a different standard than other countries because it is larger and more powerful than them is idiotic.
I never said the US. I said superstates. Why is it idiotic?


It doesnt fvcking matter if the british empire did evil things, that does not excuse the evil things that we do.
I never said it excuses what we do. I said we are better than them.


You are basically arguing that nobody should care when a bully steals lunch money from the other kids on the schoolyard because he is not quite as cruel as the last bully was.
1. I am saying we are far less cruel than the last bully
2. not that they shouldnt care, but they are lucky we are not as cruel.

[MavsSuperFan]

Do people actually think modern America always acts in its best interests?

Than why didnt we put iraqi women and children into concentration camps and force their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, etc. who took up arms against us to submit by holding their women and children hostage. Eg. what the british empire did to force the Boers to give up their guerrilla warfare tactics and submit

The british empire conquered and forced submission on vast portions of africa and asia. America forced submission on all of the natives that inhabited this land we currently live on. Do people honestly believe there is something special about Iraqis that we werent able to force submission on them? Do people honestly think its because Iraqis refused to submit and not because by the 21st century america was no longer willing to move Iraqis on to reservations.

If 18-19th century america had the same morals as it does today, America probably wouldnt even exist. Half of it would still be native american.

Why didnt the US immediately after WW2 use nukes on the soviet union (before they achieved the bomb) and force soviet submission via nuclear warfare?

Why didnt the US rape 2 million german women? Eg. like the russians did

Why didnt the US set up puppet states throughout western europe? Eg. as the soviets did

The US refrains from pursuing its best interests numerous times and no body gives america credit for it.

[NumberSix]

Nice I didnt realize that, I thought I heard we didnt charge extraction fees.

I am pro taxation by the way, I think a goal of government should be to increase revenues, not just cut spending.

But it reinforces my point that it is always within a nations self interest to steal as many resources from other nations as possible. Not saying its the right thing to do, just that it is in that nations best interests.

Also learn how to have a civilized debate with people with opinions that differ from yours without having to resort to Ad hominem attacks like a child.

Could you specifically point out which points I have made you think are idiotic?
The absolute #1 priority of government should be to protect its citizens from outsiders, which the American government has been pretty good about. You don't see other countries invading America.

[outbreak]

Only a complete idiot would thinking nuclear weapons would do anything but cause more harm in a conflict like this :facepalm Seriously how do you think they would be beneficial? All it is going to do is rally more countries to join up, hell half the USA's allies would turn against them. Nukes should only be an option against an expansionist nation that won't back down. Not using in a conflict with rebels:facepalm

[RidonKs]

Do people actually think modern America always acts in its best interests?
no state government, international body, corporation, bank, cartel, ngo, political party, jazz band, curling club, town hall, family, relationship, senior, adult, or child

COULD EVER

"always (act) in its best interests"

it's a crazy question to ask if people think they do

[MavsSuperFan]

no state government, international body, corporation, bank, cartel, ngo, political party, jazz band, curling club, town hall, family, relationship, senior, adult, or child

COULD EVER

"always (act) in its best interests"

it's a crazy question to ask if people think they do
The US is a global super power, unlike those examples you listed. Nothing besides america's own morality constrains us (most of the time). Especially after WW2 until August 29, 1949
In those 4 years america was the only nation in the world with nukes. Had we wanted to we could have waged nuclear warfare on the soviet union with impunity.
America refrains all the time from acting in its best interests when those actions are grossly immoral. No other superstate has refrained as much as the USA

[RidonKs]

The US is a global super power, unlike those examples you listed. Nothing besides america's own morality constrains us (most of the time). Especially after WW2 until August 29, 1949
In those 4 years america was the only nation in the world with nukes. Had we wanted to we could have waged nuclear warfare on the soviet union with impunity.
this is absolutely not true. you believe the constraining force is "america's morality". this may just be a matter of definition. if you changed it to "americans' morality" we would probably agree.

basically it isn't the structure of government or the sacred documents which constrain american military and economic might. it's the people who live in the country; and primarily it's not the people holding elite government or corporate offices, but people acting outside of the system.

why do you think american forces deployed in the early 20th century by a guy like woodrow wilson were so much more vicious than american forces deployed in the 21st century by a guy like bush? and by "more vicious" i'm not saying stronger or capable of more destruction. i'm talking about precisely the issue you raised, which is constraint.

the reason the iraq war was so constrained and careful was because the american public was not going to put up with total war.

[MavsSuperFan]

this is absolutely not true. you believe the constraining force is "america's morality". this may just be a matter of definition. if you changed it to "americans' morality" we would probably agree.

basically it isn't the structure of government or the sacred documents which constrain american military and economic might. it's the people who live in the country; and primarily it's not the people holding elite government or corporate offices, but people acting outside of the system.

why do you think american forces deployed in the early 20th century by a guy like woodrow wilson were so much more vicious than american forces deployed in the 21st century by a guy like bush? and by "more vicious" i'm not saying stronger or capable of more destruction. i'm talking about precisely the issue you raised, which is constraint.

the reason the iraq war was so constrained and careful was because the american public was not going to put up with total war.
Thats basically what I am saying.

When i refer to america i refer to its people and government. What else is a nation, but its people and its government?

At one point americans were more barbaric and less moral.
Eg. what we did to the native americans.

-committing genocide
-scorching the earth and destroying their food supply. Burning orchids and killing bison for the express purpose to starve natives that resisted us
http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/bison15jpg.img_assist_custom-600x469.jpg
http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/091jpg.img_assist_custom-600x447.jpg
http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/bison5jpg.img_assist_custom-600x446.jpg
http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/bison2jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xPZhw8_W670/UAnnKYUcmyI/AAAAAAAABRk/aHrBXUCxjUk/s1600/buffalo+4.jpg
-moving native americans into concentration camps (aka reservations)


What we did to crush Philippine resistance, after we took the territory from the Spanish empire
Philippine–American War was a dark chapter in out history, one of many.


the reason the iraq war was so constrained and careful was because the american public was not going to put up with total war.
exactly we as americans never get credit for that. We know how to crush an insurgency. Look what we did in the philippine-american war. Look what we did to the Seminole Indians.

We as a nation made the conscious choice not to take grossly immoral actions to crush the Iraqi insurgency. America never gets credit for that.


no state government, international body, corporation, bank, cartel, ngo, political party, jazz band, curling club, town hall, family, relationship, senior, adult, or child

COULD EVER

"always (act) in its best interests"

it's a crazy question to ask if people think they do

Every single one of those, banks, corporations, etc are bound by laws. If they do wrong they will be punished.
The US in practice is bound by no international law. No nation possesses the military capability to enforce a law on the US. the US as the worlds largest economy is not sanctionable.

The US's morality is the only real check on american aggression.