7 year old dies protecting his sister from a rapist.

[Garbad_the_Weak]

it gives others the impression that you are envious of that "cultural wellness factor".

I could always stop shaving/bathing and enjoy euro culture right here at home! :yes:

Give us something to substantiate your claim to cultural and moral superiority.

We had/have unqualified military supremacy (especially in 1945-50) and did not invade/subjugate other nations, unlike every other example in history.

-as will the other side, then

-the US is young, so how will you score? will see the crimes relatively compared to time? will you just sum up all crimes?
however anyone scores, it doesn't mean he is morally superior or inferior. a country that has a lot of dirt and repents I would like to think superior to a country that has medium sized dirt and points fingers (not looking at any country in particular here). i just think that you shouldn't statistically rack up negative and positive scores for whatever a countries people at any time did... and then judge that your country scored better is therefore better and be a *insert synonym for weenie* about it

-don't bring that commercial word "trade" in here when you're talking about kindness, you "share" it to those in need, and when you're talking about a country with a kind heart then you're overgeneralizing... look at the opposite, what is a country with a mean heart? if you give that title to any country, that wouldn't be fair to the kind individuals in that country, now would it?

-look at the poorest countries in the world and tell why they did not die...
then consider this: social darwinism only gets real when we make it real, like in wars/cold wars; as long as we stop being ****heads, it isn't an issue
example: nowadays weak countries have a much better chance of survival, because we have learned not to be such ****heads, but use our power to protect, therefore we can all have better chances to thrive and put our minds to other things that matter... like cultural wellness, feeling happy with yourselves, etc.

Let's end the bullet points; its getting old. But yes, its about survival. In the game of global superpowers, you either rule or you get ruled. While the US has been a pretty benevolent empire, that can change, and the next dynasty almost certainly won't be as kind to its subjects. Feeling warm and fuzzy is all good, but it didn't work in 1938 and it won't work the next time.

 

[HegemonKhan]

as to this debate of U.S. vs europe:

i see it more as this kind of debate:

agressive action vs passive inaction

what i mean by this:

there's two philosophies involved.

1. agressive action (force-war). is the only way to deal with people/groups of terrorism. these terrorists' goal is to destroy, so diplomacy and sanctions and other non-war means has no effect on them. they aren't gonna change their mind and stop their pursuit and desire of world-human destruction. they can NOT be reasoned with.

2. passive inaction (diplomacy and sanctions and other like means). if we just pull out of iraq and leave the middle east alone, than all the violence, terrorism, conflict with isreal, iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, will stop and there will be world peace and harmony. if we just ignore all this evil, it'll go away and dispear. if i jsut close my eyes this nightmare will go away and disappear. the middle east is only violent and engaging in terrorism because of isreal being in the middle east and the other countries' military and non-military being in the middle east. if we stop this and move out, than all the problems of the middle east will vanish and the middle east will become as peaceful and reasonable as europeans. all the bombings around the world will stop. no more innocent families being blown up on busses, in restaurants, and at weddings. they will sit down and peacefully settle their differences, just like us, europeons and americans. they are reasonable, it's just that all these other actions are preventing them from sitting down and peacefully-diplomatically settling the conflicts between us (america and europe and isreal) and them (middle east).

this is what i see as the debate. it is NOT limited to the U.S. vs europe. Within my U.S. we have these two philosphies. republicans have the agressive action philosophy and democrats have the passive inaction philosphy. it is NOT only that europe has the passive inaction philosophy and the U.S. has the agressive action philosophy, in a U.S. vs europe. but this VS even goes on within my own country of the U.S., and i'm sure european countries also has this division within their countries as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
as for my own views, if anyone is interested:

if dick cheney is darth vader, than i'm the emperor!

here's how i would deal with the middle east:

nuke the middle east into an "eastern meditterean sea" world peace at last! (excluding, within africa, anyways)

(well, okay, as a science person, i'm well aware of NEVER using and would NEVER use a nuke, due to it's many bad effects, but i think u get my "hawkishness" though and that was the purpose)

(well, i'm not sure what should be the response if a nuke by someone else, like iran, is used....i guess the best response, would be a non-nuclear eradification, can't spell, of whoever stupid enough to use a nuke. a bunch of conventional or non-nuclear bombs, can blow up a country just as well as a nuke and without all the fallout too that would come from a nuke).

i'd like/want to think that iran isn't this stupid...but thinking a "madman or mad-country" isn't mad is absurd and, unfortunately, frighteningly scary for humans on earth...

 

[lAmebAdger]

I could always stop shaving/bathing and enjoy euro culture right here at home! :yes:

you can stop being an a** now, mr. prejudice

We had/have unqualified military supremacy (especially in 1945-50) and did not invade/subjugate other nations, unlike every other example in history.

what you did in the past doesn't make you morally superior in the present

Let's end the bullet points; its getting old. But yes, its about survival. In the game of global superpowers, you either rule or you get ruled. While the US has been a pretty benevolent empire, that can change, and the next dynasty almost certainly won't be as kind to its subjects. Feeling warm and fuzzy is all good, but it didn't work in 1938 and it won't work the next time.

stop talking about dynasty and empires, you sound like a monarchist

as said, it's only about survival if we stay jerks. i like the situation today because we are trying to not be those jerks (at least the media depicts us as that)

@ HegemonKahn:

1.even terrorists can sometimes be reasoned with, that is, 0.001% of the time (don't get angry, i had to )

2. i think you're being sarcastic, or i'd have to see you as a wee bit naive (not that that's a bad thing, gogo ideals!)

also, i thank you for finally broadening the view and making a step out of this silly nationalist bull...

btw: excuse my ignorance, but what is hawkishness? (also, be careful, there might be nice persons of middle eastern origin here)

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

what you did in the past doesn't make you morally superior in the present

You are the sum of what you have done in the past.

as said, it's only about survival if we stay jerks

No, life is always about survival. You euro lemmings want to imagine that you if play "lets all get along" everyone else will too. Sadly, that isn't reality, and I hope you have another Churchill lined up to save yourselves from yourselves.

as to this debate of U.S. vs europe:

i see it more as this kind of debate:

agressive action vs passive inaction

Nah, don't imagine this is about the Bush Doctrine. That's both relatively recent and tangential, as far as I am concerned.

Its about the fact that the US has enjoy a position as unchecked superpower for the last 60 years, and has done more to promote/improve the liberty, safety, and standard of living for the entire world than any other superpower in the history of the world, including each of your euro empires. Not only have we not colonized and subjugated you, like virtually any other nation would, we have actively shared with you the fruits of our labor. The truth is we paid the bill for international security in blood and butter for the last 65 years, and you largely freeloaded. Europe is FAR better off because of us, which is why Euro antiamericanism is both naivete and ungrateful.

 

[HegemonKhan]

imeabadger:

@ HegemonKahn:

1.even terrorists can sometimes be reasoned with, that is, 0.001% of the time (don't get angry, i had to )

HK (me):

terrorists and criminals are VERY EASY to reason with, u put a "gun" to their head! they being violent themselves, fully understand the implications and power of u having that "gun" to their head.

force-violence-war turns even the most rabid and mad and insane person or group into reasonable and sane people. even the most insane-mad person still has full capacity to understand survival. and that "gun" at their head "speak volumes" of survival, their survival and wow is it effective!!!!! (NO sarcasm).

it worked for the japanese, unconditional surrender 3 days later..that's unheard of in war.

i wonder if a nuke to iran would have the same effect or not. are iranian's as sane as japanese and will unconditionally surrender their pursuit and acts of human destruction ? or maybe i should wonder how MANY nukes it'll take to blow a hole in their insane and mad thick-stubborn heads-skulls....

u don't fight fire with water, u fight fire with fire. u fight violence with violence. and don't bring up "violence only breeds more violence". violence undisputedly ENDS violence, at least until some other person/group chooses to be a monster and do horrible things, which again require violence to stop them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
hawk-ish-ness=warmonger. a person who believes in the power of war to solve problems. for example: the bush administration. dick cheney is a hawk. he is hawkish. (the use of hawk, probably comes from it being a bird of prey and also in that it is/was often used by humans for both hunting-recon-war. both of these things explains why hawk has come to be sinonomous, can't spell again, with war)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have NO issues with middle east people who don't engage, desire, or pursue human destruction.

i do HOWEVER have issue with u allowing your neighbor to strap a bomb to himself and blow up innocent families on busses, in restuarants, or at weddings. by doing nothing, you are saying that it is acceptible and that makes u as guilty as the terrorists actually commiting the acts of human destruction.

"people are responsible for people"

if i was to sit and watch a lil girl get raped, i am saying to them and the rest of humanity loud and clear that, the rape of a lil girl is perfectly acceptible. i am no different than those actually raping the lil girl.

this is the same for the middle east and terrorism. as long as u sit and let others commit terrorism, u are no different than they.

the same is true for hitler and germany-germans. if u sit and let hitler genocide 6 million jewish people, you germans are no different than hitler and the germans who are actually murdering those 6 million jewish people. (i'm talking about the germans who lived during hitler's time, NOT the germans of today as most of u seem ashamed and angry of the holocaust, which nets u my complete respect)

until the middle east people clean up their own countries violence and terrorism i have NO compassion or mercy for u. when u start a "cleansing" (revolution) or even just a noticible outcry-protest to end terrorism and your dictatorially governments, i'll than have compassion and gladly (well my country anyways) will help (as it already is) u in the effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
garbad the weak:

i AM an american! i am NOT an european!

our, american, arrogance isn't without reason

publicly the world, trashes the U.S., in private they thank the U.S. in prayer

i'd love to see how the world (other countries of the world) likes how the world would be if there never was the U.S. *grins*

it's easy to insult. pfft. that takes a lot of skill !!! (sarcasm).

it's not easy to do all the overwhelming good that the U.S. does. i challenge any country or people to do more good around the world than that which the U.S. does!!!!! come on any people or country wanna take up my challenge? i dare anyone or any country to try it!!!!!

or does only the U.S. get a bar set so high by u and not other comparable countries in power?

why not have such a high bar for china or russia or india? they are reasonably comparable to the U.S. in terms of power. why don't u criticize russia, india, china, for not doing more (good) for the world. where is all the russian or chinese or indian or german or french or british effort to make the world better? oh wait i see, only the U.S. is expected to be so saintly at the same time u publically demonize the U.S. hmm..... such hypocrisy...and very hard to take the rest of the world seriously cuz of it.

we americans have good reason for our arrogance, as i just pointed out above

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

u don't fight fire with water, u fight fire with fire

A rather unfortunate metaphor, I think. I'm reasonably confident no fire department on earth tries to put out fires with blowtorches.

 

[lAmebAdger]

there is an anti-fire strat well-known also at US fire departments: you controlledly burn down "lines" at the locations a bush fire is going to reach and then the bush fire is not going to have any materials to keep itself "healthy" when it reaches those destinations



also, don't underestimate the powers of humane thought even on an international scale
and: churchill is british, not european (joke! lighten up)

 

[stephan]

We had/have unqualified military supremacy (especially in 1945-50) and did not invade/subjugate other nations, unlike every other example in history.

You are quick to forget about Vietnam, meddling in Iran/Iraq and so on. I'm sure you have your reasons, but so did every other example in history.

If that's all you got then I'm sorry, but you've failed the test.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

You are quick to forget about Vietnam, meddling in Iran/Iraq and so on. I'm sure you have good reasons, but so did every other example in history.

If that's all you got then I'm sorry, but you've failed the test.

No, looks pretty mild tbh. But again, I didn't say the US was perfectly beneficent; I said we were better than you, or any other superpower in history. Meddling in Iran/Iraq is quite mild compared to subjugating a couple of continents.

 

[lAmebAdger]

You are quick to forget about Vietnam, meddling in Iran/Iraq and so on. I'm sure you have your reasons, but so did every other example in history.

If that's all you got then I'm sorry, but you've failed the test.

i like to think there is no test, and i'm sure you feel the same way, you're just trying to beat garbad under his own terms

my opinion: *sigh* how many times do i have to post that we shouldn't narrow things down to nationalist §$$%

also: we are not the sum of what we did in the past. countries have renewing powers due to the sheer dynamic of generational change

 

[stephan]

No, looks pretty mild tbh. But again, I didn't say the US was perfectly beneficent;

Actually you did say that, but so be it.

I said we were better than you, or any other superpower in history. Meddling in Iran/Iraq is quite mild compared to subjugating a couple of continents.

Well tbh, you really weren't that superior. Maybe you could have subjugated Africa, but who really wants that these days? Any valuable resource there is already controlled by western civilization anyway, which leaves famine, aids and war.

 

[lAmebAdger]

and i'm sure every other problem on this friggin planet can be linked in some way to some country, but that kinda debate doesn't lead anywhere, now does it?

 

[HegemonKhan]

A rather unfortunate metaphor, I think. I'm reasonably confident no fire department on earth tries to put out fires with blowtorches.

not so, here's the science:

fire needs 3 things:

1. fuel
2. spark
3. oxygen

water does NOT eliminate any of these things. it only PREVENTS a spark from occuring in the first place.

fire on the other hand, eliminates both fuel and oxygen, and u only need to eliminate 1 of the 3 NEEDED things for a fire, to "kill" (put-out) a fire.

the problem with using fire against fire...is controlling it, itself, and than u got wind (air currents both "indoors-inside" and "outdoors-outside") as an additional interference with controlling fire as well.

 

[Johnny]

Garbad really exaggerates americas contribution to the second world war. You might have made the biggest effort in bringing up your few exploits (as is your right. After all, the second world war was the last time you got to play the good guys) but your effort was in context small (about 12% of the total german forces engaged).

 

[Johnny]

not so, here's the science:

fire needs 3 things:

1. fuel
2. spark
3. oxygen

water does NOT eliminate any of these things. it only PREVENTS a spark from occuring in the first place.

fire on the other hand, eliminates both fuel and oxygen, and u only need to eliminate 1 of the 3 NEEDED things for a fire, to "kill" (put-out) a fire.

the problem with using fire against fire...is controlling it, itself, and than u got wind as an additional interference with controlling fire as well.

You could just have pointed out that they use explosives to put out oil fires on water.

Or that often chemical plants have to be allowed to finish burning because using water to put out the fires runs the risk of having dangerous chemicals pour into vital water sources.

Meanwhile water works so well against fire because it absorbs heat incredibly fast. Water quickly cools down burning materials and the fire first has to evaporate all water and then reheat the material before it can catch fire again.

 

[HegemonKhan]

i'm a science person, i had to post the science of it

that science is also support for my "claim", whereas explosives is just an example, but not an explaination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's completely true about water and it's ability with the heat part of a fire (makes it less dangerous), but again, it does NOTHING to eliminate a fire, because it does NOTHING to eliminate any of the 3 things a fire needs to be a fire.

let's look at rain:

rain merely wets the fuel (the brush-vegetation: bushes, trees, leaves, plants, grass, etc). this PREVENTS the fire from having access to more fuel. the rain does NOT "put-out" the fire, it merely PREVENTS the fire from accessing more fuel. the fire dies on its own due to using up its oxygen and fuel. the rain does not "kill" (put-out) the fire.

think of extra-additional fuel and oxygen as a fire's means of "reproduction". rain PREVENTS a fire from "reproducing", but it is powerless to kill the fire. the fire will die of "old age" (it uses up its fuel and oxygen) and since it can't also "reproduce", the fire goes out (ends). the fire does NOT "die" (goes out) from the rain. the fire "dies" of "old age", not rain. rain (and water) has NO effect on "killing" (putting out) a fire.

 

[Johnny]

You don't practise science. You practise social science. Your examples have less to do with science and more to do with making things sound unnecessarily complicated. Making something take more words than needed to say it. Multiplying words might sound like math but math is simplicity. Hence what you do being sociology. "If this young man expresses himself in terms to deep for me then what a singularly deep young man this deep young man must be"

 

[jmervyn]

Jmervyn, thanks for the civil answer.

Sorry, I'm busy today. I'll do better in the future. :crazyeyes:

Regarding the Iraq, are you denying that the US sold weapons to the Iraq while they were at war with the Iran ? Are you trying to tell me that the US support ed the Iran at that time as well ?

No, the way your claim was worded is identical to that of fringe American leftists trying to pretend that America was the primary supplier of weapons to Iraq (and bio/chem weapons in particular). That's such an insane statement that only those who are truly delusional make it honestly.

but it's BS to tell us that the US fought the Iraq because they were "evil".

Untrue, we went after Manuel Noriega once he strayed too far from the path as well. I'm not about to pretend that the U.S. hasn't coddled its share of evil dictators, but neither is it false to claim that we choose to go after them due to malevolent actions. At best one can point to hypocrisy for supporting evil (generally in hopes of preventing a perceived greater evil) before eliminating it.

The official reason to invade Iraq: So the "evidence" presented in the UN were actually genuine ? The US government admitted that they were fakes, did you miss that ?

If you're referring to the "16 words" controversy, you're wrong. More here. This is what I'm referring to when I talk about the filtering.

"Feck you sideways"

Beginning with U.S. protectionism. Don't worry, you'll probably emerge from the small depression long before we do if things progress as they seem to be doing. But weakening of NATO will happen in due course as well, and y'all will have to start dishing out much more of your GDP.

Sarah Palin was more like the opposite of a good vice-president. It was utterly unthinkable for me that this woman would be president if MCain died e.g. of old age (which wouldn't have been that improbable).

Again, filter.

Germany had no housing bubble at all, we are just suffering from the problems which people have elsewhere, as Germany makes a lot of money with exports, and a few people invested into US housing and lost a lot of money.

The interwoven world finance markets are the issue - as the Obama administration whips the horses faster into the abyss, your economy gets dragged along with our bandwagon.

Babykillers: To be honest, when I hear of that term, I see images of American protesters in the early 70s before my eyes, not people from Europe.

I guess it's because I'm older than you then; I remember the Greenham Common women and the protests against cruise missiles in Europe (to say nothing of the attitude towards Reagan, which was even more hateful than that against Bush).

Saddam's butchery: What's untrue about what I said ?

Maybe it was translation, but you appeared to be claiming that Saddam's activities didn't rise to the level of North Korea's. That's untrue; if anything they were far more malevolent. Plus Saddam had a more recent track record of foreign aggression, while Kimmy boy is just starving his populace.

You are quick to forget about Vietnam, meddling in Iran/Iraq and so on. I'm sure you have your reasons, but so did every other example in history.

If that's all you got then I'm sorry, but you've failed the test.

Speaking of failure, I'm sure you simply forgot that the U.S. was protecting Vietnam against an invasion by Soviet- and Chinese-backed troops, just as it did in Korea. Not doing the invading, as you appear to be claiming.

Garbad really exaggerates americas contribution to the second world war.

Not really. Only by eliminating the lend-lease program and the Marshall Plan/reconstruction of Europe can you spin it thus.

 

[Johnny]

Not really. Only by eliminating the lend-lease program and the Marshall Plan/reconstruction of Europe can you spin it thus.

The "fight communism and we will give you money" program. oh yeah no hidden agenda there. Afghanistan got the same deal but the Ak-47's you sent there ended up being pointed in a different direction.

 

[HegemonKhan]

You don't practise science. You practise social science. Your examples have less to do with science and more to do with making things sound unnecessarily complicated. Making something take more words than needed to say it. Multiplying words might sound like math but math is simplicity. Hence what you do being sociology. "If this young man expresses himself in terms to deep for me then what a singularly deep young man this deep young man must be"

science is science, i don't need to defend science against some one who "claims" science isn't science.

your post is a bit offensive.....but i'll (try to) ignore that (maybe a moderator won't, if they deem it offensive)

indeed, i don't practice science, but i do know science, and many fields of science from physics to psychology to sociology to biology to etc....

maybe that's true, that i just take longer to say something.

OR

maybe i'm critically thinking about things, compared to "most" (this is used in a very general term, referencing the entire human population of ~6-7 billion) people who sadly prefer or only able to engage in "soundbites", probably because their literacy is lacking (it's a fact that reading is dying, at least in the U.S. and reading is your literacy, your ability to read and write, your ability to think).... and/or......(see below)

in psychology and according to psychology, in terms of a brain's cognitive development, most people don't reach the final stage of development, and are unable to critically think. (if u wanna argue this take it up with them, not me. they came to those conclusions).