Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » US bashing (I strike back)
( ) 4 Votes
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #310828 is a reply to message #310728] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 13:00   |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I don't recall Vietnam or Korea having anything to do with the Cold War...
And because, the US isn't apart of Eurasia. We don't have any large super-power countries bordering us, we are surrounded by water. There would be absolutely no reason for us to pack up a nuclear missile and travel halfway across the globe to fire it and start a war.
However, when a known non-ally starts massing WMD out side of our country, of course we are going to act.
Why the hell would they start massing missiles THAT far away from home and THAT close to American soil? I mean, without any intention for using them. Or at least using them to threaten the country.
[Updated on: Mon, 14 January 2008 13:05] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #310922 is a reply to message #310828] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 17:13 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 12:00 |
I don't recall Vietnam or Korea having anything to do with the Cold War...
|
Lol.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 12:00 |
And because, the US isn't apart of Eurasia. We don't have any large super-power countries bordering us, we are surrounded by water. There would be absolutely no reason for us to pack up a nuclear missile and travel halfway across the globe to fire it and start a war.
|
Mostly because we wouldn't need to. Like in my above post, the US has had bombers capable of delivering nukes (This means "bombing the shit out of", not delivering in the FedEx sense) from the West Coast to Moscow since the mid-late 1970s. That's the same thing as setting up nukes within launching range, only with the mode of delivery being the difference.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 12:00 |
However, when a known non-ally starts massing WMD out side of our country, of course we are going to act.
Why the hell would they start massing missiles THAT far away from home and THAT close to American soil? I mean, without any intention for using them. Or at least using them to threaten the country.
|
So, it's okay for the US to deliver miltary equipment to Afghanistan "THAT far away from home" to help out "Allies" but the Soviets can't deliver military equipment to Cuba (One of THEIR allies)? American hypocricy speaks again.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #310933 is a reply to message #310056] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 17:52 |
Muad Dib15
Messages: 839
Registered: July 2007
Location: behind a computer screen,...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
You know what Dover, if you don't like this country, go back where you came from. I hate people like you that just bash our country when a) they live here and b) they aren't citizens yet/ are illegal immigrants.
Why do you think the last paragraph is complete bullshit? Is it because you don't like the fact that everything in there is completely true? We would have been completely content in staying isolationist, and because of the Japs we came into WW2. You say that the US is the epitome of evil, yet you fucking hypocrites continue to live here because you like the way you can do stuff here without getting in trouble. Would you be fine with the Soviet Union taking on the world out of desperation to save it, because it is completely screwed because they tried to stay afloat using communism? Why do you think the world has such good relations with the biggest and potentially most dangerous country in the world? Nixon. Guess what, Nixon was an American. What would you European leftists do if China attacked us?
"Oh, look. Our country has just been nuked. Lets go over to the Chinese and tell them to stop shooting missiles at us because that's not nice." That doesn't work. Look at what happened in 1939 because of that attitude.
Your pacifism sickens me.
Sadukar, think of new insults.
The manliest post on the internet
[Updated on: Mon, 14 January 2008 18:05] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #310936 is a reply to message #310056] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 18:01 |
 |
sadukar09
Messages: 2812
Registered: May 2007
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
You think Dover is an illegal immigrant? LOL. Your IQ deteriorate everytime. Instead of posting personal insults, get back on topic.
| Quote: |
[19:16:48] <APBBR> @ryan3k: THE ENFIELD DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BECAUSE THE BULLETS INSTANTLY HIT THEIR TARGETS LOL
[19:16:52] <APBBR> @ryan3k: CHRONO TECHNOLOGY IN TEH BULLETS
|
| Quote: |
[22:48]<APBBR> @V0LK0V: AOL COMING UR WAI K
[22:48] <APBBR> Host: Quitting due to Westwood Online connection loss.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #310940 is a reply to message #310922] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 18:11 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 19:13 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 12:00 |
However, when a known non-ally starts massing WMD out side of our country, of course we are going to act.
Why the hell would they start massing missiles THAT far away from home and THAT close to American soil? I mean, without any intention for using them. Or at least using them to threaten the country.
|
So, it's okay for the US to deliver miltary equipment to Afghanistan "THAT far away from home" to help out "Allies" but the Soviets can't deliver military equipment to Cuba (One of THEIR allies)? American hypocricy speaks again.
|
What the hell are you talking about?! I didn't think it was that possible to be that thick headed!
What purpose would Cuba have with WMDs in such an isolated area with absolutely nothing near then except for the US which they aren't allied with.
There is a large difference in delivering weapons to Afghanistan and building WMDs in Cuba.
-There is a war going and supplies are kind of needed. There was no reason for Cuba to have WMDs because there wasn't any reason for them to go to war, as far as I know.
-Delivering weapons to continue a war is different than creating nukes just for fun. For one reason one of the above doesn't destroy everything in a 2 mile radius.
The only reason for me to understand why you don't understand (did that make sense?) is if you where to live in Eurasia, which I thought you lived in southern California...
But just in case you didn't get my point before, I will try to explain it again.
Countries in Europe and Asia all live neighboring each other. If they wanted to start a war with each other, then what is the point of porting the WMDs across the Pacific ocean right next to one single country? The only reason is if they wanted to launch the missiles onto the US, that is the only reason I can think of, short of simply hiding missiles for later use on other countries, which even in that case, it was good for them to be dismantled.
Lets say the Soviets wanted to build nukes to attack lets just say for the sake of argument, China. Why would they port missiles across the Pacific and hide them in Cuba, to which the US is well within the firing range of, only to be later transported back?
It is completely different that dropping a bomb from a plane that took off from the West Cost. First of all, moving missiles into Cuba is like preparing to fire them onto the US. The US having a bomber that can take off from the West coast and travel to Moscow isn't preparing for an attack, it is waiting to be attacked.
One is simply offense, and the other one is defense. There is absolutely no reason why the US would pick a nuclear war with some other county for no reason. And that is the reason why we can't trust anyone else with a nuke.
Haven't you heard the expression if you can't have something done right, you have to do it yourself? Well, it applies here. We know we can trust ourselves to not offensively fire a nuke without warning on another nation, but how can we be so sure that some other nation feels the same way? Call it paranoia if you will.
[Updated on: Mon, 14 January 2008 18:17] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #310989 is a reply to message #310940] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 19:30 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
What the hell are you talking about?! I didn't think it was that possible to be that thick headed!
|
Ad hominem.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
What purpose would Cuba have with WMDs in such an isolated area with absolutely nothing near then except for the US which they aren't allied with.
|
What purpose does any country have with nukes?
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
-There is a war going and supplies are kind of needed. There was no reason for Cuba to have WMDs because there wasn't any reason for them to go to war, as far as I know.
|
Bay of pigs.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
-Delivering weapons to continue a war is different than creating nukes just for fun. For one reason one of the above doesn't destroy everything in a 2 mile radius.
|
Bombs and weapons are bombs and weapons. It's simply a matter of degree.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
Countries in Europe and Asia all live neighboring each other. If they wanted to start a war with each other, then what is the point of porting the WMDs across the Pacific ocean right next to one single country? The only reason is if they wanted to launch the missiles onto the US, that is the only reason I can think of, short of simply hiding missiles for later use on other countries, which even in that case, it was good for them to be dismantled.
Lets say the Soviets wanted to build nukes to attack lets just say for the sake of argument, China. Why would they port missiles across the Pacific and hide them in Cuba, to which the US is well within the firing range of, only to be later transported back?
|
It's a common logical falicity in these kinds of discussions (And I've had plenty of these kinds of discussions) to equate Communist countries with Soviets. The USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republic) is a Union of 15 states into one whole, similar to the USA. Having that said, Most communist countries (Portions of East Europe, China, North Korea, CUBA) ARE NOT SOVIET.
If anyone was going to launch nukes from Cubian soil at the East coast, it would be Cubans. And can you blame them? How many decades of imperialism and being treated as second-class citizens in their own country did they suffer through before Castro takes over?
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
It is completely different that dropping a bomb from a plane that took off from the West Cost. First of all, moving missiles into Cuba is like preparing to fire them onto the US. The US having a bomber that can take off from the West coast and travel to Moscow isn't preparing for an attack, it is waiting to be attacked. One is simply offense, and the other one is defense.
|
I fail to see the difference. A bomber parked in Washington State with a nuke loaded that has the word "Moscow" painted on it is no better than an ICBM in Havana with the word "New York" painted on it.
Oh, and nukes can't be defense. Ever. To illustrate this point, imagine using a Nuclear Strike Beacon to defend against an attack in Renegade.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
There is absolutely no reason why the US would pick a nuclear war with some other county for no reason.
|
Read the OP. Apperantly, there is a reason, as popular US sentiment is that the USSR has done something terribely wrong in being a Communist state. So much so that blame for two wars they didn't partake in and four decades of an arms race "falls equally" to them.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
And that is the reason why we can't trust anyone else with a nuke.
|
And who elected the US to be the sole Nuclear guardian in the world?
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 17:11 |
Haven't you heard the expression if you can't have something done right, you have to do it yourself? Well, it applies here. We know we can trust ourselves to not offensively fire a nuke without warning on another nation, but how can we be so sure that some other nation feels the same way? Call it paranoia if you will.
|
You THINK you can trust yourself not to nuke countrys into oblivion. Can anybody else trust you?
And considering the list of nuclear attacks that have ever occured, the US's track record isn't looking too good.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #310997 is a reply to message #310989] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 19:46 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Oh boy, 2 nukes that ended a war. 
And another thing I don't like, is when people break posts up like that into quotes and reply to each one separately... it means I can't reply to it unless I feel like putting in 30 min of work, which I don't want to do.. :\
So all I can do is generalize. Some of the things you said either reiterated what you quoted or just are completely different, and others I'll give to you.
But let me ask you a question, if you are so smart: If what you say is true, what is the reason behind the USSR porting WMDs to Cuba in the first place? Because according to you: "Having that said, Most communist countries (Portions of East Europe, China, North Korea, CUBA) ARE NOT SOVIET."
Why would they bother moving nukes over to Cuba if they aren't affiliated. Last I know, Cuba wants to be independent.
Also, another thing I wanted to key in on. That offense/defense thing. I didn't mean in terms of defending anything physical. I mean in terms of how it is used.
preparing a nuke to be fired with no prior warning and with no reason to fire in the first place: That is offensively. Going out of a countries way to spread what it can do.
If a country is attacked first, and uses a nuke to retaliate, that is defensively. A nuke sitting on a plane isn't being prepared to fire, it is just taking the first step in retaliation, shall it occur.
[Updated on: Mon, 14 January 2008 19:54] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311039 is a reply to message #311029] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 22:59 |
 |
Starbuzz
Messages: 2487
Registered: May 2007
Karma: 2
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
The stupidity in this thread (except for Dover) is incredible and almost unbelievable. But it is for real and that's why I have been forced to reply.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 14:00 |
Why the hell would they start massing missiles THAT far away from home and THAT close to American soil? I mean, without any intention for using them. Or at least using them to threaten the country.
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 20:46 |
But let me ask you a question, if you are so smart: If what you say is true, what is the reason behind the USSR porting WMDs to Cuba in the first place?
|
My long reply below answers Razor's stupid questions in the two quotes above.
That's a typical "dumb civilian" question with lack of basic military knowledge and history. Learn on your own instead of listening to false information and garbage from school and TV. You want to know why?
Here's the short version:
-The Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba because the United States placed missiles in Turkey (in 1961) that could reach Moscow in 16 minutes. Placing missiles in Cuba (in 1962) was the just and fair Soviet retaliation for American actions.
I just fucked up your previous argument(s). But for the sake of the other name-calling people here, the long version:
Remember that the Cuban Missile Crisis happened early in the Cold War (1962). Bombers, land-based nuclear missile platforms, and unworthy missile submarines were the order of the day. Nuclear missiles did not have such very advanced guidance systems and the probability of a missile failing was high. Their range was also limited. So, the closer the missiles were to your targets, the higher the chances of a successful strike.
And forget the "duck-and-cover" bullshit you learned in school, there were NO Soviet bombers capable of such a mass attack on the United States. The whole bullshit " Russians-have-a-million-bombers-and-they-can-nuke-America-anytime-in-one-big-fuc king-bombing-raid " was a conjured up lie that was born during the days of McCarthy's paranoia and the Red Scare.
In 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. had almost 28,000 nuclear warheads. The Soviets had a mere 3,300+. These figures are true and confirmed by both nations and NATO. So, those who think the Soviets were going to start a war and wipe out humanity can go to hell.
The Soviet Union NEVER was equal to the United States when it came to the military. Throughout the Cold War, they were ALWAYS one step behind the United States in terms of evolution of military warfare, tactics, technology, flexibility. They caught up rather impressively in the late 1980's but then did not last too long after that to see the "glory."
The Soviets made awesome strides in some areas of sea and land warfare but always lagged behind the U.S. in other aspects. Only the vast amounts of nuclear warheads, the later advanced missile capability, and their adoption and integration of advanced foreign electronics into their tanks/aircraft in the 1980's ensured that the USSR maintained a rough nuclear/conventional parity and therefore "equal" status with the United States.
So, in such a crucial period of military technological backwardness of the 1960's, the Soviet Union had no other choice than to deploy missiles in Cuba. No, they were not going to start a war but there was no other option on the table.
And Cuba, located close to the U.S., was the best and only option to even the tide.
My maps will explain for those who can't read/understand words:
Map 1: After the end of WWII, the Soviet Union was isolated. It's biggest allies were the Eastern Bloc nations. It also eventually gained the trust of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq (after the Colonists left them). Observe the nuclear symbols representing locations of nuclear weapons:
MAP 1
Do you people see any IMBALANCE in the first map? Is there something "uneven" about it? Sure...American nukes are ASSRAMMED right near Soviet controlled areas POSING DIRECT THREAT TO MOSCOW while not a single Soviet nuke is anywhere near the American mainland.
I don't expect a few people here to see this in a military prespective and understand but thank fuck I can.
A well-trained military force with the intelligent command hierarchy like that of the Soviet Union would, not surprisingly, be looking for an opportunity to fix this strategic imbalance.
And they did fix it when the Cuban Communists opened up their arms to Moscow in 1959. It was the most timely and perfect opportunity for the Soviet Union to get even when it came to the distributed deployment of nuclear weapons. (Refer to Map II below)
MAP 2:
So, now the Soviet's had evened the playing field but then you all know what happened.
Understand now? They were not going to start a war but were making a highly intelligent and strategic military manuever in a Nuclear Age. The same kind of military strategy with which Americans had nukes assrammed in Europe and Turkey in the first place!
But Kennedy and then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (two great men) agreed to a deal to have the Soviet's remove the missiles from Cuba if Americans removed their missiles from Turkey. So, it was a sort of good ending that was achieved by two great men who did everything possible to solve the crisis peacefully.
There are people who say that the Soviets "putting missiles in Cuba" was not justified and see it as a provocation by the USSR to go to war. What fucking idiots! As explained above, the USSR was in no position to start a war; they were simply playing by the rules of the Cold War.
If it had been some other Latin-American country that befriended Moscow, then the Soviets would have deployed missiles there. So simple to understand.
By putting nukes in Cuba, the Soviet Union maximized its chances that it had of having a successful strike IN THE EVENT of war. Deploying nukes in Cuba was NOT a prelude to war but a necessary measure to be successful in case of war.
This is also where my next strong rebuttal takes place:
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 19:11 |
We know we can trust ourselves to not offensively fire a nuke without warning on another nation, but how can we be so sure that some other nation feels the same way? Call it paranoia if you will.
|
This is the stupidity that I find in some people (everywhere) and CANNOT agree with. Not only is this paranoia but also stupidity, arrogance and self-righteousness.
Did you know that the sole reason the Cold War never became a hot war? Not because you did all the the "good" shit but because Russians are not the animals you think they are. And they are not the animals you have brainwashed others into thinking they are.
Sure, the Russian government is not that clean and have commited atrocites in the past.
But remember that the Russians are a civilized race. They have made strides in all subjects and science and sent man into space. And they most understood the concept of "Mutual-Assured-Destruction" (MAD).
Stop classfiying the Russians as animals and then maybe your attitude about them can change.
BTW, I am coming from the most peaceful and open nuclear-armed nation and I can speak on behalf of my politicians and my fellow countrymen that we understand the power of the nuclear weapon and are as trustworthy as you. The same goes for every other nuclear armed nation.
So, you can go eat your paranoia. I use my commonsense more often. I run on commonsense, not fear, blind emotions, and religion.
NOTE: To those who are asking pathetic questions like "where are you from" and "you need to go back to your country", I have a question for you:
Since when was thinking critically a crime worthy of deportation in the United States of America?
[Updated on: Mon, 14 January 2008 23:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311159 is a reply to message #311039] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 12:49 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:59 |
Here's the short version:
-The Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba because the United States placed missiles in Turkey (in 1961) that could reach Moscow in 16 minutes. Placing missiles in Cuba (in 1962) was the just and fair Soviet retaliation for American actions.
|
I didn't read any of your post except for that. I didn't know that. 
EDIT:
I decided to peek a little more into what you said, cause I feel like I wasted your time by not reading any more than I did:
| Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:59 |
This is the stupidity that I find in some people (everywhere) and CANNOT agree with. Not only is this paranoia but also stupidity, arrogance and self-righteousness.
|
No offence, but you're the one being stupid here. Can I at least have back up information explaining why it is "stupidity, arrogance, and self-righteousness?" *edit* self-righteous is a given*
I never said that the US couldn't trust other countries, I just said that it can only trust in itself 100%.
I'm not even in the same argument as you. I'm not arguing facts, I'm arguing ethics. The result of what could happen, how many lives could be lost. Not because of this, this has happened and you are to blame for it. Because honestly, I hate history, and it puts me to sleep. I have little to no interest in it what so ever, and I have hardly a clue at what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to that.
But what I do know, I try my best to use. For example, I believe you took the comment I said the wrong way.
It is the same as trusting a convicted murderer with a gun to stand next to you and not kill you. There is no way to prove that what they say is what they are going to go by. Just like you have no way to prove that what the US says is what they are going to go by. The only thing you can trust in is yourself. That is why I said we can trust ourselves, but not others. Just like you can trust yourselves but not others. I didn't mean it in as a superiority "we are more responsible than you are" comment.
| Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:59 |
Did you know that the sole reason the Cold War never became a hot war? Not because you did all the the "good" shit but because Russians are not the animals you think they are. And they are not the animals you have brainwashed others into thinking they are.
|
But I never said that. I never implied that. I never even thought that. No body said the US thought they where "animals." From my point of view, the only difference is the type of economy each country runs.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 January 2008 13:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311161 is a reply to message #311159] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 12:57 |
|
Starbuzz
Messages: 2487
Registered: May 2007
Karma: 2
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 13:49 |
| Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 00:59 |
Here's the short version:
-The Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba because the United States placed missiles in Turkey (in 1961) that could reach Moscow in 16 minutes. Placing missiles in Cuba (in 1962) was the just and fair Soviet retaliation for American actions.
|
I didn't read any of your post except for that. I didn't know that.
|
As long as you got the point...which you obviously did now.
I do suggest you read the rest as it may alleviate some ignorance on your part.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 January 2008 12:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311179 is a reply to message #310997] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 14:03 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 18:46 |
Oh boy, 2 nukes that ended a war.
|
Which happen to be the only two nukes ever used in a war.
Was the second one nessessary, even? It was dropped a mere three days after the first. Given typical government beurocracy, poor (Relative to today) international communincation, and seeing how it was during a total war, I don't see how that's a justifiable amount of time if it was a purely diplomatic move. So what does tell me? The US had two nukes at the time, and god dammit it's going to use two nukes!
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 18:46 |
preparing a nuke to be fired with no prior warning and with no reason to fire in the first place: That is offensively. Going out of a countries way to spread what it can do.
If a country is attacked first, and uses a nuke to retaliate, that is defensively. A nuke sitting on a plane isn't being prepared to fire, it is just taking the first step in retaliation, shall it occur.
|
To my understanding, the nukes were never "prepared to fire with no prior warning and no reason to fire to begin with". I don't even think they made it all the way to Cuba.
| Sn1per74* wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 20:16 |
Where are you from Dover?
|
Bulgaria. And yourself?
| Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 21:59 |
(Insert Epic Win here)
|
| PlastoJoe wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 23:34 |
I've seen this happen and work.
|
So have I. I've done it personally several times.
But now imagine the server has Friendly Fire turned on, and nukes work (somewhat more) realistically. But servers usually don't turn Friendly Fire on for that same reason, huh?
I suppose a more common example would be use Demolition Trucks to defend from enemy rushes in Red Alert: A Path Beyond (Or regular Red Alert, for that matter).
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 11:49 |
I never said that the US couldn't trust other countries, I just said that it can only trust in itself 100%.
|
There is a skill called empathy. One popular use for it involves putting yourself in another person's shoes and examining the situation from their perspective, then combining your finds with your perspective to create a more complete picture and to foster mutual understanding and comradery.
Sure, the US thinks it can trust in itself 100%.
But the US isn't the only part of the equation here. The USSR probably (Read: Definately) had a similar mindset. "We can trust ourselves, but can we trust those crazy Americans? Look what they did to Japan!"
Is it really that hard to fathom? Are you so rooted in what you know and are comfortable with?
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 11:49 |
It is the same as trusting a convicted murderer with a gun to stand next to you and not kill you. There is no way to prove that what they say is what they are going to go by. Just like you have no way to prove that what the US says is what they are going to go by. The only thing you can trust in is yourself. That is why I said we can trust ourselves, but not others. Just like you can trust yourselves but not others.
|
Except, you know, the Soviet Union can't be compared to convicted murderers.
Oh, and I just noticed this:
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 16:52 |
You know what Dover, if you don't like this country, go back where you came from. I hate people like you that just bash our country when a) they live here and b) they aren't citizens yet/ are illegal immigrants.
Why do you think the last paragraph is complete bullshit? Is it because you don't like the fact that everything in there is completely true? We would have been completely content in staying isolationist, and because of the Japs we came into WW2. You say that the US is the epitome of evil, yet you fucking hypocrites continue to live here because you like the way you can do stuff here without getting in trouble. Would you be fine with the Soviet Union taking on the world out of desperation to save it, because it is completely screwed because they tried to stay afloat using communism? Why do you think the world has such good relations with the biggest and potentially most dangerous country in the world? Nixon. Guess what, Nixon was an American. What would you European leftists do if China attacked us?
"Oh, look. Our country has just been nuked. Lets go over to the Chinese and tell them to stop shooting missiles at us because that's not nice." That doesn't work. Look at what happened in 1939 because of that attitude.
Your pacifism sickens me.
|
Lol.
If you could please direct me to where I said I didn't like this country, or to where I said the US were the epitome of evil.
Also, the US was involved (out of combat) in WW2 far before Pearl Harbor, giving large amounts of money and military equipment to European allies. Don't get me wrong--There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pull the isolationist bullshit.
Oh, and Nixon was a douchebag.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311181 is a reply to message #311179] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 14:09 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I don't feel compelled to reply to any of that. Because you only quoted half of what I had said, and answered the parts that I would have already answered if you just quoted the entire thing.
The only thing I want to reply to is this:
| you |
| me |
It is the same as trusting a convicted murderer with a gun to stand next to you and not kill you. There is no way to prove that what they say is what they are going to go by. Just like you have no way to prove that what the US says is what they are going to go by. The only thing you can trust in is yourself. That is why I said we can trust ourselves, but not others. Just like you can trust yourselves but not others.
|
Except, you know, the Soviet Union can't be compared to convicted murderers.
|
Why do people keep putting words in my mouth, I never said that. I never related my example to being strictly Soviet. I related it to EVERY SINGLE NATION INCLUDING SOVIET.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 January 2008 14:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311183 is a reply to message #311162] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 14:11 |
|
Starbuzz
Messages: 2487
Registered: May 2007
Karma: 2
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 14:49 |
It is the same as trusting a convicted murderer with a gun to stand next to you and not kill you.
|
No, it's not the same thing. For once, you don't even have the facts to back up the claim that the other country is equal to a "convicted murderer." The mistake being made is that you making up your mind beforehand that they maybe evil.
Sure that maybe true or false since most people make that decision by relying on garbage from the mass media instead of coming to conclusions themselves by using facts available to them. In America, pretty much every township has an awesome public library full of knowledge and truth right under your noses.
Think about the people who love to have that opportunity but are stuck in nations whose governments feed and control the people through mass media.
In America, even with knowlege and truth everywhere, people still insist on believing what comes from the fucking TV and the latest rumor.
Remember, if history bores you, you might as well go back to your ordinary dawn to dusk life.
The whole story of the Cuban Missile Crisis has been severely twisted and an altogether different version, one that puts the Russians in very bad light, presented to kids in American high schools. I know this because I went through this. I just sat through it all in disbelief.
I went to one of the most prestigious high schools in Pennsylvania. Yet, the history teacher (in 11th grade) made us all to do the "duck-and-cover" bullshit in class to mimick a Russian nuclear bomber attack!
And the word "Turkey" was not mentioned at all in class. I am pretty sure most schools here do the same.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 14:49 |
I'm not even in the same argument as you. I'm not arguing facts, I'm arguing ethics. The result of what could happen, how many lives could be lost.
|
That's a nice (and lame) try to get out of the hole you dug for yourself.
I am not sure when you decided to pull the "ethics" crap. Because quite honestly, was the United States being "ethical" in putting advanced and faster Jupiter nuclear missiles in Turkey in 1961?
If America had not done that to the USSR, the Soviet's would not have deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba in wrathful retaliation so quickly the following year in 1962.
You seriously and honestly believe that an educated race like the Russians were going to nuke the world? Get over it.
So, there goes your "ethics" argument to hell.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 13:49 |
Because honestly, I hate history, and it puts me to sleep. I have little to no interest in it what so ever, and I have hardly a clue at what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to that.
|
This is the main source of the problem. Without a solid foundation in history, proven facts, figures, and statistics, you are in no position whatsoever to get into arguments involving them.
The whole world opinion of the United States has dangerously deterioted due to this stubborn refusal to learn the past. Even Europe laughs now.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 January 2008 14:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311186 is a reply to message #311183] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 14:16 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
@ Quote number 1.
Yes it is exactly the same. I'm not trying to compare the motive to kill with starting a war if that is what you are thinking. I am comparing the ability to trust.
If you where standing next to a serial killer and he said he wasn't going to kill you, would you believe him?
@ Quote number 2.
Lol, wow. I don't even want to touch that one... but I will cause it will look like I'm avoiding it:
I specifically said I'm not arguing facts. And what did you do? Use facts to argue.
And another thing. From what you said, you make it sound as if I am defending the US..
@ Quote number 3.
See quote number 2.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 January 2008 14:18] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311190 is a reply to message #311181] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 14:36 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 13:09 |
I don't feel compelled to reply to any of that. Because you only quoted half of what I had said, and answered the parts that I would have already answered if you just quoted the entire thing.
|
I suppose you have that right. That's fine.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 13:09 |
The only thing I want to reply to is this:
| you |
| me |
It is the same as trusting a convicted murderer with a gun to stand next to you and not kill you. There is no way to prove that what they say is what they are going to go by. Just like you have no way to prove that what the US says is what they are going to go by. The only thing you can trust in is yourself. That is why I said we can trust ourselves, but not others. Just like you can trust yourselves but not others.
|
Except, you know, the Soviet Union can't be compared to convicted murderers.
|
Why do people keep putting words in my mouth, I never said that. I never related my example to being strictly Soviet. I related it to EVERY SINGLE NATION INCLUDING SOVIET.
|
All the more so, then, because there are definately countries more cute and cuddley than the Soviet Union (The netherlands, for example).
Not everyone is a convicteded murder. Not everyone is out to get you.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 13:16 |
@ Quote number 1.
Yes it is exactly the same. I'm not trying to compare the motive to kill with starting a war if that is what you are thinking. I am comparing the ability to trust.
If you where standing next to a serial killer and he said he wasn't going to kill you, would you believe him?
|
If I were standing next to a known serial killer, and I matched the type of person this known serial killer hunted, and he assured me that I he would not kill me? No. I would not believe him.
Now, if I was standing next to a stranger on the street, or (for an even closer example), someone I had been talking to on a regular basis for several years/months, and they assured me they would not kill me. Would I believe them? Yes, I would.
I'll leave it to you to decide which is a more appropriate analogy for this situation.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 13:16 |
@ Quote number 2.
Lol, wow. I don't even want to touch that one... but I will cause it will look like I'm avoiding it:
I specifically said I'm not arguing facts. And what did you do? Use facts to argue.
And another thing. From what you said, you make it sound as if I am defending the US..
@ Quote number 3.
See quote number 2.
|
There is no such thing as arguing without facts. Arguing without facts is nothing but yelling/insulting back in forth, similar to what you might know as a "bitchfit". Not a "Heated Discussion/Debate" (As per the subforum name) at all. If you don't like arguing using facts, perhaps this subforum isn't the right place for you.
And he doesn't need to make it sound like you're defending the US. You're doing a fine job making it sound like you're defending the US all by yourself.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311202 is a reply to message #311179] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 15:20 |
Muad Dib15
Messages: 839
Registered: July 2007
Location: behind a computer screen,...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Dover |
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 16:52 |
You know what Dover, if you don't like this country, go back where you came from. I hate people like you that just bash our country when a) they live here and b) they aren't citizens yet/ are illegal immigrants.
Why do you think the last paragraph is complete bullshit? Is it because you don't like the fact that everything in there is completely true? We would have been completely content in staying isolationist, and because of the Japs we came into WW2. You say that the US is the epitome of evil, yet you fucking hypocrites continue to live here because you like the way you can do stuff here without getting in trouble. Would you be fine with the Soviet Union taking on the world out of desperation to save it, because it is completely screwed because they tried to stay afloat using communism? Why do you think the world has such good relations with the biggest and potentially most dangerous country in the world? Nixon. Guess what, Nixon was an American. What would you European leftists do if China attacked us?
"Oh, look. Our country has just been nuked. Lets go over to the Chinese and tell them to stop shooting missiles at us because that's not nice." That doesn't work. Look at what happened in 1939 because of that attitude.
Your pacifism sickens me.
|
Lol.
If you could please direct me to where I said I didn't like this country, or to where I said the US were the epitome of evil.
Also, the US was involved (out of combat) in WW2 far before Pearl Harbor, giving large amounts of money and military equipment to European allies. Don't get me wrong--There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pull the isolationist bullshit.
Oh, and Nixon was a douchebag.
|
Yes, I know about Nixon, but that wasn't the point. My point was, that he was the only person in the world that successfully smoothed out the path for the world with China.
Of course we would give money to the allies. We realized that he was a bad man, but we didn't want to get involved in a war half way across the world that didn't really concern us at the time. Once the Japanese attacked us though, we had a good reason to defend our selves. Sure we had an embargo on them, but that was because they were allied with hitler. In that argument, don't get me started on the mass Chinese rape in the late 1930s. (can't remember exactly what it was called) We didn't like the Japanese and what they were doing, so we put an embargo on them to stop their war effort. Then they attacked us and got us directly involved in the war.
The manliest post on the internet
[Updated on: Tue, 15 January 2008 15:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311209 is a reply to message #311202] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 15:37 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 14:20 |
| Dover |
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 16:52 |
You know what Dover, if you don't like this country, go back where you came from. I hate people like you that just bash our country when a) they live here and b) they aren't citizens yet/ are illegal immigrants.
Why do you think the last paragraph is complete bullshit? Is it because you don't like the fact that everything in there is completely true? We would have been completely content in staying isolationist, and because of the Japs we came into WW2. You say that the US is the epitome of evil, yet you fucking hypocrites continue to live here because you like the way you can do stuff here without getting in trouble. Would you be fine with the Soviet Union taking on the world out of desperation to save it, because it is completely screwed because they tried to stay afloat using communism? Why do you think the world has such good relations with the biggest and potentially most dangerous country in the world? Nixon. Guess what, Nixon was an American. What would you European leftists do if China attacked us?
"Oh, look. Our country has just been nuked. Lets go over to the Chinese and tell them to stop shooting missiles at us because that's not nice." That doesn't work. Look at what happened in 1939 because of that attitude.
Your pacifism sickens me.
|
Lol.
If you could please direct me to where I said I didn't like this country, or to where I said the US were the epitome of evil.
Also, the US was involved (out of combat) in WW2 far before Pearl Harbor, giving large amounts of money and military equipment to European allies. Don't get me wrong--There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pull the isolationist bullshit.
Oh, and Nixon was a douchebag.
|
Yes, I know about Nixon, but that wasn't the point. My point was, that he was the only person in the world that successfully smoothed out the path for the world with China.
Of course we would give money to the allies. We realized that he was a bad man, but we didn't want to get involved in a war half way across the world that didn't really concern us at the time. Once the Japanese attacked us though, we had a good reason to defend our selves. Sure we had an embargo on them, but that was because they were allied with hitler. In that argument, don't get me started on the mass Chinese rape in the late 1930s. (can't remember exactly what it was called) We didn't like the Japanese and what they were doing, so we put an embargo on them to stop their war effort. Then they attacked us and got us directly involved in the war.
|
k.
Edit: To elaborate on what I mean by "k", you haven't addressed your earlier claim of me being an America-hating hypocritical illegal immigrant. I'm still waiting.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Tue, 15 January 2008 15:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311216 is a reply to message #310056] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 16:33 |
Muad Dib15
Messages: 839
Registered: July 2007
Location: behind a computer screen,...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Sorry about the illegal immigrant thing. I was pissed at the time no call for that though. And by bashing our country, if you don't like it, then go back to Bulgaria. You so pissed about what Bush is doing and it doesn't even concern you since you aren't a citizen of the US. The only contry I've heard of that has been attacked by Al Queda aside from us, is the UK. It's not even affecting you over there, so why does Europe hate us. I see about as many people from the UK that don't like us as do, but it seems that everyone on the continent of Europe hates us.
The manliest post on the internet
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311219 is a reply to message #311216] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 16:52 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 15:33 |
Sorry about the illegal immigrant thing. I was pissed at the time no call for that though. And by bashing our country, if you don't like it, then go back to Bulgaria. You so pissed about what Bush is doing and it doesn't even concern you since you aren't a citizen of the US. The only contry I've heard of that has been attacked by Al Queda aside from us, is the UK. It's not even affecting you over there, so why does Europe hate us. I see about as many people from the UK that don't like us as do, but it seems that everyone on the continent of Europe hates us.
|
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself here. I don't nessessarily approve of the actions of the US's current administration, but I haven't meantioned bush at all, nor have I "bashed" this country any more than unbiased true history has.
As for it "not affecting us over there", perhaps you're unaware of Bulgaria's participation in the "Axis of the willing", or whatever the BS terminology is? Or about the Bulgarian contrators dying left in right in Iraq from IEDs and such? Or about the six Bulgarian nurses held in Lybia for several years for "War crimes" and to be executed (Supossedly, intentionally infecting babies with AIDS), only recently released and flown home with intervention from the EU?
Americans have a habit of ignoring (Wether intentionally, or just through being ill-informed, I don't know) the rest of the world (Except any country that Fox News mentions, of course. Then everybody is an expert).
And as for going back, I do. Almost every summer. I try to spend around three months of every year back in Bulgaria, but budget contraints usually mean it's more like every-other year, and usually for a lot less than three months.
As for the hating...well, it's easy to hate the ignorant. I don't say you're ignorant to insult or bash anybody, but just look at this thread so far. Starbuzz summed it up nicely with this:
| Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 13:11 |
This is the main source of the problem. Without a solid foundation in history, proven facts, figures, and statistics, you are in no position whatsoever to get into arguments involving them.
The whole world opinion of the United States has dangerously deterioted due to this stubborn refusal to learn the past. Even Europe laughs now.
|
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: US bashing (I strike back) [message #311257 is a reply to message #311245] |
Tue, 15 January 2008 19:18 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Sn1per74* wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 17:35 |
| Dover wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 15:03 |
| Sn1per74* wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 20:16 |
Where are you from Dover?
|
Bulgaria. And yourself?
|
U.S. of A my friend.
On your name it says your American, and I was wondering why you bashed it so much. 
|
It's a sad day when a man can't question or critizes the country he lives in and not be labeled a "basher", "hypocrite", "illegal immigrant", or something similar.
I wasn't bashing, "my friend". What Prasp does is bashing. You really can't see the difference between what he and I do?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 08 23:53:41 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01370 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
