Original Post
The World more Soft or Tough?
Not sure if this is supposed to be in the rapid threads section but I thought it could yield some good conversation and arguments.
I've been noticing a number of things in the news, around my town, and I've seen through out history. I want to know, are we getting soft (as in not really punishing things we should) or getting more tough (the opposite of what the other was).
I had read somewhere that back in on Dec 7th 1941, that when Japan bombers had attacked Pearl Harbor, all of America had cried for war. When 9/11 happened nobody wanted to fight. (I wanna say we had just got out of a major war but I'm not sure if that's accurate)
Now on the flip side I hear we have made a major choke hold on the middle east and have strict laws preventing them from doing many things that they used to do. And China has a law were you can only have on child and if it's a girl they kill that child. You have more then one child they kill the children and the family.
So I want to know, has the world got more soft or tough?
I've been noticing a number of things in the news, around my town, and I've seen through out history. I want to know, are we getting soft (as in not really punishing things we should) or getting more tough (the opposite of what the other was).
I had read somewhere that back in on Dec 7th 1941, that when Japan bombers had attacked Pearl Harbor, all of America had cried for war. When 9/11 happened nobody wanted to fight. (I wanna say we had just got out of a major war but I'm not sure if that's accurate)
Now on the flip side I hear we have made a major choke hold on the middle east and have strict laws preventing them from doing many things that they used to do. And China has a law were you can only have on child and if it's a girl they kill that child. You have more then one child they kill the children and the family.
So I want to know, has the world got more soft or tough?
But in all reality... I think I might be insane...
Japan declared war on the US. It makes sense to fight back against someone who declared war on you.
al-Qaeda is not a country nor did they declare war, their attack was retaliatory against the US because of the US's support of Israel, their presence in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iran. It makes no sense to invade Afghanistan to kill the Taliban just because in the past they supported al-Qaeda.
In the first case US's defensive actions had been purposefully provoked, in the second case it was a desperate act from antagonized group that was used as justification.
No person in their right mind would think that attacking Afghanistan was justified.
This is not a case of softness, just logic.
If anything you can see that the US's support of Israel is... very similar to their own attacks on the middle east. You could say the US has become more warmongering. But that's not really a commentary on the entire world, just on the US.
al-Qaeda is not a country nor did they declare war, their attack was retaliatory against the US because of the US's support of Israel, their presence in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iran. It makes no sense to invade Afghanistan to kill the Taliban just because in the past they supported al-Qaeda.
In the first case US's defensive actions had been purposefully provoked, in the second case it was a desperate act from antagonized group that was used as justification.
No person in their right mind would think that attacking Afghanistan was justified.
This is not a case of softness, just logic.
If anything you can see that the US's support of Israel is... very similar to their own attacks on the middle east. You could say the US has become more warmongering. But that's not really a commentary on the entire world, just on the US.
Last edited by ImmortalCow; Nov 28, 2012 at 03:08 PM.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
No person in their right mind would think that attacking Afghanistan was justified.
This is not a case of softness, just logic.
If anything you can see that the US's support of Israel is... very similar to their own attacks on the middle east. You could say the US has become more warmongering. But that's not really a commentary on the entire world, just on the US.
The US was attacking Sadam. The US had previously armed Osama to help fight off the Russians. They then took those arms, allied with Sadam and started attacking their neighbors. The US defended those defenseless countries in Desert Storm. 9/11 was an attack on Americans that was probably in response to Bush Jr. winning the 2000 elections. The US still maintain presence in the area to defend the US assets in the area. The US has never 'Warmongered'. The US is a country not based in geography but principal.
The home of the free and land of the brave!
Originally Posted by Onimaru
The US was attacking Sadam.
Because of the "Wepons ov Mass Destrukchun" that Bush loved so much, right?
Originally Posted by Onimaru
The US had previously armed Osama to help fight off the Russians.
Well, not Russians, Soviets, but close enough I guess.
Originally Posted by Onimaru
They then took those arms, allied with Sadam and started attacking their neighbors.
Incorrect. I don't think there was ever a time when Al Qaeda was allied with Sadam so explicitly, and they sure as hell never attacked their neighbors.
Originally Posted by Onimaru
The US defended those defenseless countries in Desert Storm.
No? Desert Storm was an assault on Iraq in response to Iraq annexing Kuwait. Al-Qaeda did not participate in this war at all. Sadam did order the attacks, but it had nothing to do with mindless attacks. Kuwait owed Iraq a lot of money, and Iraq needed their money back. US's actions can be seen as one of two things, firstly a defense of oil interests in Kuwait, and secondly as a pre-emptive defense of Israel - with whom Iraq is openly hostile against.
Originally Posted by Onimaru
9/11 was an attack on Americans that was probably in response to Bush Jr. winning the 2000 elections.
Incorrect, the fatwa was declared in 1998. In addition, Al-Qaeda stated their three reasons for the attack; US presence in Saudi Arabia, US support of Israel and sanctions against Iraq. For reference, at that time Al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan, they objected to US sanctions on Iraq because Iraq was openly aggressive towards Israel.
Originally Posted by Onimaru
The US still maintain presence in the area to defend the US assets in the area.
Yes, they maintain a presence in order to defend the presence that they are maintaining.
Originally Posted by Onimaru
The US has never 'Warmongered'.
Yeah?
Noun
A sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.
In the last 20 years the US has invaded 6 countries? The US is openly hostile towards asia minor (excluding Israel). The US even invoked NATO article-5 when they invaded Iraq. Explain how that isn't warmongering? The invocation of article-5 is as warmongering as possible.
Even to think that they would invade a country on suspicion of having weapons, or they would invade after a few deaths from terrorism. US just loves to take the path that involves them starting a war. Then they say "oh they started it, this one time Sadam said he had weapons so we have no choice but to invade".
Originally Posted by Onimaru
The US is a country not based in geography but principal.
I think you will find the the US is definitely based in geography. Your civil war in the 1860s is proof of that. The only thing that united US is geography, that's why they are so hung up on "hurrdurr Cali is best state" "hurrdurr NYC is best city" "hurrdurr Ol' Miss is best university". The USA is very much a country based on geography and nationalism.
Originally Posted by Onimaru
The home of the free and land of the brave!
Ironic don't you think? US is a lot less free than most other countries.
'He who talks most about freedom, doubts he truly has any' or something to that effect, right?
Originally Posted by Juntalis
FYI, going line by line to dispute an obvious troll doesn't actually enhance your credibility - it just makes you look gullible.
I guess people are going to think I'm gullible after reading this post then huh. In all seriousness I'm not going to go around ignoring posts just because they might be a troll, people ACTUALLY believe what he said, eg you do...
Originally Posted by Juntalis
"hurrdurr Cali is best state" bit was not a reflection of geographical pride, but of a negative change in the youth culture of most developed countries over the last 20 years
> over the last 20 years
Disagree, nationalism has existed for far longer than 20 years. In addition it is more useful to consider USA to be an empire of smaller countries, thus applying nationalism to Cali is obvious. Americans are proud of everything they do to a sickening degree. The school they go to, the state and city they live in, it's all about the names to them.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
further pressing that point by referencing the feeling of superiority that citizens of Perth feel over citizens of Melbourne. (or vice-versa - I don't really follow you hicks)
Lulwut? I have no idea how you thought of this. But there is no rivalry between the west and anything else. Even in the east it's not like there is any real rivalry. Rivalry based on geographic location is pretty dumb.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
From there, I'd go on to dispute the cause of the American Civil War, making the argument that it was a war based on economics, not on geography.
The cause of the civil war doesn't even matter. The point was that the civil war united people of CLEARLY different principals, just because they are in the same geographic area.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
Lastly, I'd argue the definition of "warmongering" and "freedom", and how they apply to the United States.
warmongering - to advocate war
freedom - the power to act, speak or think as one pleases
Not sure how you can argue either of them to make it seem like USA has freedom but isn't warmongering.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
Somewhere in there, I'd refer to Australia as, "british prison"
Which has no bearing on anything relevant.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
just to remain consistent with the whole douche bag persona that we all know and love.
I liked it better when you just argued impersonally.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
You're going to respond with an equally critical and hostile counter-rebuttal, dedicating a paragraph or two to argue the usage of the word, "privilege" instead of the word, "entitlement".
That seems like a silly tactic. I'm not even hostile.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
I'd fire back, making sure to point out the comma you neglected to add on line 437 of your response.
An equally silly tactic
Originally Posted by Juntalis
You'd call my sister a whore.
I wouldn't say this...
Originally Posted by Juntalis
The thread would die off.
And then Fish would delete my posts and add his own sarcastic post!
Originally Posted by Juntalis
To be completely honest, I've gotten somewhere around three or four hours of sleep over the last seventy-two hours, and while I can't deny that I enjoy the back and forth, I simply don't have the energy today. Even so, I felt it was important for me to tell you that you're wrong, dumb, and that you should feel bad. Just this once, let's just agree to disagree.
No.
Get some sleep and make a proper post or don't post at all. Your post where you threaten to post is completely stupid, and ending with a flame is just as dumb.
Next time fight me properly, it pissed me off to even reply to this half arsed shitty post.
Originally Posted by Juntalis
Edit: Why the hell doesn't vBulletin use Markdown. BBCode is awful.
\_(o_o)_/
