A flame containing Latin remains a flame. If you were morally superior you would mention flawed arguement in passing and actually respond to the valid points made. Answer Taisho properly. Can you?

I'm starting to consider asking for this thread to be locked.

So much controversy. It's like the Anti-USA part thinks USA is some Orwellian-type government, whose acting like one big power bloc of the world, blind patriots, critically-thinking and well-reasoned patriots who are criticized because of patriotism, and then people like me who are tired of people arguing like the USA congress so often spoke poorly of:

A. Nothing gets done.
B. Nobody changes their mind.
C. More useless information because it does not affect the situation whatsoever.

Just degrades into flame wars and trolling. Can we just debate on an issue that isn't primarily political?
I.e.
Equal pay for women.
Proper food distribution.
Gas price situation in US.
What would've happened if...
etc.

I know I'm not the only one who hates these heated arguments.

Rabble rabble rabble (if you get the reference congratulations)

To Taisho: I'm not even going to dignify your post with a proper response until you learn how to debate without ad-hominems and personal attacks.

Is an insult still an insult when it's true (i.e. a fact)?

fool

noun
1.
a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.

In this case, my declaring that I have gathered enough evidence to prove you are in fact a fool, is directly related to the stance you take on the issue at hand. Why, you ask? Because you seem incapable of providing a sufficient rebuttal to any points brought up, diverting focus from the main point and squabbling over definitions. You also fail to provide facts for your claims.

The very ways you present your arguments are weak and half-assed and yet you expect others to treat you with some degree of recognition.

When a country supplies another country with weapons, ammunition and supplies necessary to sustain an army, it's directly involved in an invasion.

When a country sends advisers, it's directly involved.

When a country sends bombers, it's directly involved.

When a country has covert operations which are declassified 20-50 years later proving military involvement, it's directly involved.

Now, saying the US didn't start these wars. Well, to this day there are those who believe that US started the war with Japan by applying an economic embargo against the Empire of Japan.

http://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harbor

One of many sources that show what I'm getting at.

America has done an excellent job in the past of making it look like the other guys "fired the first shot", but in all reality, the US was already neck deep with said countries long before it came to military conflict.

Let me reiterate, because people are again saying that I'm anti-US. I'm not. I even consider myself a patriot of sorts, but that doesn't stop me from openly criticizing the US government, military and economy for its unacceptable conduct in regards to the rest of the world.

Edited 3/27/2015 14:52:44

Wow taisho, way to act like a dick.

You're one to talk.

To Taisho:

Now, saying the US didn't start these wars. Well, to this day there are those who believe that US started the war with Japan by applying an economic embargo against the Empire of Japan.

Sanctions don't mean war, it means worsened relations. America was certainly getting rich from all that selling weapons to Europe, but getting involved in the war I don't think America wanted to do; that would mean spending the new riches.

Edited 3/27/2015 15:57:30

Wow taisho, way to act like a dick.

Which is exactly why I'm not responding to him anymore. If he wants to be a jerk about it that's fine but I'm not going to indulge the flame war.

Everyone should read Genghis' last post, because he is completely right. Continuing this topic is pointless: Neither side is going to change at all, neither will convince the other of anything, we will not reach a logical conclusion.

Again, it's worth trying.

Жұқтыру, the US did more than sell weapons and pass embargoes, but selling weapons is certainly a form of participation. Sanctions are a form of economic war.

If you have the time and interest, you should read Clausewitz "On War", you'll have a better understanding of where I stand on the issue.

Eklipse, you don't need to agree with myhand, Ottoman or myself. We don't have the all the pieces to the picture, but it's safe to say we have a better view than you and whether you choose to agree with us or not, doesn't change reality.

Hence the saying, ignorance is bliss.

the US did more than sell weapons and pass embargoes

Like what?

Selling weapons isn't a preparation form, it's a way to get money (what you do with that money is infinite). Often, in many wars, neutral countries sell weapons to both sides. Brazil sold weapons to both sides in World War 2, and then, after America was involved and blockaded Brazil, Brazil was pressured to join the Allied side, in which it did (half-assedly).

Eklipse, you don't need to agree with myhand, Ottoman or myself.

No, but apparently I'm a "fool,sheep,puppet,etc" if I commit the insufferable act of not agreeing one-hundred percent.

but it's safe to say we have a better view than you

You certainly have an arrogant one that's for sure.

whether you choose to agree with us or not, doesn't change reality.

I could say the same to you, but like I stated, I'm not arguing on the topic of this thread any longer.

You want to sit around being paranoid that "the evil U.S government" is going to destroy humanity one day? Well I suppose that's your business, have fun with that.

Edited 3/27/2015 16:22:58

Ghengis wrote:

It's like the Anti-USA part thinks USA is some Orwellian-type government

Let's follow Ghengis and take some 1984 quotes:

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental , nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink”
― George Orwell, 1984

hmmm, waging a "War on Terror" while being the biggest supporter of terrorists, waging a "War on Drugs" while being the biggest drug dealer, calling an operation "Operation Enduring Freedom" etc just to name a few examples

Side note (quote of Noam Chomsky "Terrorism: The politics of language"):
The word "terrorism" came into general use at the end of the 18th century, and it was then used to refer to acts of violent states that suppressed their own populations by violence. Terror was the action of a state against its own citizens. That concept is of no use whatsoever to people in power, so, predictably, the term has come to be changed. Now it's the actions of citizens against states; in fact, the term "terrorism" is now almost entirely used for what you might call "retail terrorism": the terrorism of small, marginal groups, and not the terrorism of powerful states. We have one exception to this: if our enemies are involved in terrorism, then you can talk about "state terrorism."

“Big Brother is Watching You.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Can we all agree that the NSA is big brother?

“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
― George Orwell, 1984

El Salvador, Honduras, Iran, Chile, Ukraine, Lybia and many many more.

“Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.”

― George Orwell, 1984

USA : 214 years of endless war. If you pick a random year since 1776 you have a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that year. The USA didn't EVER have a decade of peace.


No one ever claimed the USA to be Orwellian, but now that you said it, you are making a fine point Ghengis.

From the link I already provided:http://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harbor

Before the US entered WWII:

the U.S. navy conducted "shoot [Germans] on sight" convoys

The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons
development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British
military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the
British then attacked.

The U.S. government undertook in countless ways to provide military and other supplies and assistance to the British, the French,
and the Soviets, who were fighting the Germans. The U.S. government also provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and
pilots, to the Chinese, who were at war with Japan

Selling weapons isn't a preparation form, it's a way to get money (what you do with that money is infinite).

participation

noun

the action of taking part in something.

synonyms: involvement, taking part, part, engagement, contribution

Even if they sell weapons to make money and claim to be neutral, they are still taking part, ergo participating.

Often, in many wars, neutral countries sell weapons to both sides.

They may have started that way, but as you pointed out

Brazil sold weapons to both sides in World War 2, and then, after America was involved and blockaded Brazil, Brazil was pressured to join the Allied side, in which it did (half-assedly).

They eventually took a side, albeit unwillingly. That tends to happen to neutral countries who sell to both sides. Like the US during the Napoleonic Era.

Interesting fact, Argentina was the only South American country not to declare war on Nazi Germany. -> Scratch that, they did on the 27th of March 1945, about 1 1/2 months before Germany surrendered.

Edited 3/27/2015 16:31:37

No, but apparently I'm a "fool,sheep,puppet,etc" if I commit the insufferable act of not agreeing one-hundred percent.

I may think it, as I have every right to. That shouldn't bother you, if you're satisfied with yourself. The reason it bothers you so much, I suspect, is because you can see we make a good point. And we don't agree with you, which bothers you most of all.

You certainly have an arrogant one that's for sure.

I back my claims with facts, facts you can't deny or even address. Arrogant is certainly not the right word, though you're welcome to think that, if it makes you feel superior in your ignorance.

I could say the same to you, but like I stated, I'm not arguing on the topic of this thread any longer.

Well, my reality is backed with evidence provided from scholarly sources, intellectual minds not dependent on major corporations for their livelihood, many of whom are well renowned and respected.

Yours is largely based on CNN, BBC and undoubtedly Fox News.

You want to sit around being paranoid that "the evil U.S government" is going to destroy humanity one day? Well I suppose that's your business, have fun with that.

They're doing a bang-up job of destroying the earth (along with other major economies such as China and India), which will inevitably result in the destruction of humanity if it continues.

Getting out there and trying to changes things a little bit at a time seems more productive.

Wel, then the entire world is an oligrachy...

Okay then the entire world is an oligarchy.

And we don't agree with you, which bothers you most of all.

Actually it would seem you are the one who's bothered that I don't agree, considering you're also the one who's thrown out the majority of the labels and insults.

I back my claims with facts, facts you can't deny or even address. Arrogant is certainly not the right word, though you're welcome to think that, if it makes you feel superior in your ignorance.

I addressed all your points until I made the conscious decision to cut off the argument. (Due to you being uncivil and realizing the overall pointlessness of the debate). Arrogant is definitely the right word, from the start you've acted superior and tried to belittle my position as "Oh well you're just ignorant and stupid, so what you say doesn't matter"


Well, my reality is backed with evidence provided from scholarly sources, intellectual minds not dependent on major corporations for their livelihood, many of whom are well renowned and respected.

Yours is largely based on CNN, BBC and undoubtedly Fox News.

Everyone has a bias. Just because a source isn't tied to a major company doesn't mean everything they say is true. (Some independent sources can be just as bad or worse) On the flip side not everything a major media company says is a lie.

Good job pulling the "Fox News" card, never seen that one before. The fact that you're making assumptions about me only adds to my point about you behaving arrogantly.

They're doing a bang-up job of destroying the earth (along with other major economies such as China and India), which will inevitably result in the destruction of humanity if it continues.

Getting out there and trying to changes things a little bit at a time seems more productive.

1. What in blazes does U.S foreign policy have to do with the environment? If it's Global Warming you're concerned about then make a topic about that instead, I could almost guarantee it would make a more productive discussion then this one.

2. Arguing with people on Warlight forums (A gaming forum) does not count as "getting out there". It's not really productive either. Nothing you say here is going to affect anything unless world leaders have started playing Warlight

Edited 3/27/2015 18:32:00

Will admit myhand, that was some clever distortion.

If you think that NSA makes people disappear at will, whenever and at the slightest suspicion, that's pretty paranoid.
They spy, sure, but they monitor in a case of transmission of key words, and they usually drop a suspicion because you're innocent. You don't notice any difference in your daily life,and it's like any other day. Have fun distorting what i say, be my fox news for the day.

P.s. you misused the eurasia quote.

EDIT : At the same time myhand, you prove my point that you think the u.s. is an orwellian-esque, so thanks pleb/prole.

Edited 3/27/2015 21:34:42

If you think that NSA makes people disappear at will, whenever and at the slightest suspicion

It's a valid thought, and they very well could be.
The reason you don't hear about it is because Our Lord does not want you to hear about it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0xpAqxH2Kzw

Adressed to this theard