Why does Amrica need so much military?

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

And who's to say which country can decide what's best for another country? Shouldn't that be left to the country itself to decide?

That's where war comes in. There's nothing stopping Canada from deciding that it really ought to obliterate the Quebecois, or Mexico from deciding to reclaim the Gadsen Purchase. But military might is what keeps a country, a country.

It may go down the drain, but whatever happens will be the fault of that country alone, when you go to war, you're bound to hurt innocent people, and all of the sudden, the other country is at fault as well, so it's best to stay out of someone else's affairs, that way you can't do anything wrong.

And that's the position of American isolationists. They did not want to enter WW1 or WW2, just as many didn't want to shield Europe from the USSR. International treaties are largely used to ensure America stays entangled with the weaker European and Asian countries (to say nothing of Israel) thereby keeping the peace. If the U.S. deliberately weakens itself, as seems likely, expect plenty of blood.

Also, I have nothing against military research, as long as it's intended and implemented only for defending your country, not attacking some other country for any reason.

Since you're not a professional, I'll suggest you contemplate the old chestnut, "the best defense is a good offense". The reason nukes are maintained is to establish the validity of reciprocity, not because we plan to use them.

Really, howmuch do the US spend on a simple rocket that could shoot any weapon of mass destruction above the ocean before it reaches the US, and howmuch do they spend sending their troops into war? Atleast the former doesn't take the lives of anyone, no soldiers die, no civilian casualties at all!

Yet interceptor weapons are the ones directly targeted by the current Executive, because they're both expensive and politically incorrect. Part of the reason for these decisions is also that keeping troops where they will do the most good pours money into foreign nations and irritates the local nationals, while keeping troops and facilities in poorly-situated American areas helps stimulate Congresscritters wallets and brings home the bacon (a phrase referring to the Congressional desire to win money for their state, thus garnering votes).

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

That's where war comes in. There's nothing stopping Canada from deciding that it really ought to obliterate the Quebecois, or Mexico from deciding to reclaim the Gadsen Purchase. But military might is what keeps a country, a country.

How about Switserland? They never meddle in any affairs, aren't relatively a big country, but are free of war and enjoying a rich life?

And that's the position of American isolationists. They did not want to enter WW1 or WW2, just as many didn't want to shield Europe from the USSR. International treaties are largely used to ensure America stays entangled with the weaker European and Asian countries (to say nothing of Israel) thereby keeping the peace. If the U.S. deliberately weakens itself, as seems likely, expect plenty of blood.

Those wars are over, and the victorious wrote the history, nobody can predict what would have happened if the US never took part in any World War?

Since you're not a professional, I'll suggest you contemplate the old chestnut, "the best defense is a good offense". The reason nukes are maintained is to establish the validity of reciprocity, not because we plan to use them.

I disagree with that, if you challenge someone who is bigger/meaner than you, offense doesn't sound like a good idea, just stay put and don't provoke them, if that doesn't work, you can defend yourself.

I learned that the hard way, if a bully picked on me during school, he was usually a lot stronger than I was, and fighting him was pointless, so offense is of no use here, but when you defend yourself and show that you're not scared, he'll be impressed and leave you alone, you don't even have to beat him, he would just get revenge on you with a group of his friends.
(I've never hit anybody in my life, and always walked away without injuries)

Yet interceptor weapons are the ones directly targeted by the current Executive, because they're both expensive and politically incorrect. Part of the reason for these decisions is also that keeping troops where they will do the most good pours money into foreign nations and irritates the local nationals, while keeping troops and facilities in poorly-situated American areas helps stimulate Congresscritters wallets and brings home the bacon (a phrase referring to the Congressional desire to win money for their state, thus garnering votes).

Why on this green earth would interceptor weapons be politically incorrect?
Surely the loss of even 1 soldier would be unacceptable and priceless compared to the cost of a missile that can stop nukes?
And if those weapons can defend a country against any attack, without the loss of any life on either side, wouldn't it be the most perfect solution to any problem out there?

 

[Galabab]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

And who's to say which country can decide what's best for another country? Shouldn't that be left to the country itself to decide?
It may go down the drain, but whatever happens will be the fault of that country alone, when you go to war, you're bound to hurt innocent people, and all of the sudden, the other country is at fault as well, so it's best to stay out of someone else's affairs, that way you can't do anything wrong.

I think you are simplifieng it a little. An other country is not always just like an other person who should be left alone to do what it pleases.
If a country tourtures people, then it is OUR DUTY to save the people. No matter where it is.
For example I believe we should immidiatly go to war with African states which practice female circumsision. IMMIDIATLY! No kidding. Every second we let it happen we are nearly just as guilty of it. Eventhough it would result in more suffering, it will be good for future generations.

Dawnmaster, i bet your perents have never beaten you. I think so becouse you seem to be a very peacefull person.
Do you know that most violent people have been beaten as children?
Basicly the experience of being beaten breaks that barrier in one's brain. After you have been beaten into a bloody pulp or seen some close person killed or raped you start thinking:
"I know the real pain. That pain was for real. What bad is it if i punch somebody in the face?"
And they really WANT it. They are really satisfied to see somebody crawl up and cry or even watchi somebody die. It makes them feel free:
"Now look at him feeling the pain. Its not me, its HIM. Feel my pain *****!"
A vicory over traumas of the past for a little while.

 

[llad12]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Do some of you actually believe it is about our national defense?

ROFL

There's a sucker born every minute ... PT Barnum

Do you really want to know we spend so much?

It's all about profit, power, and empire.

Go watch Why We Fight

----------

War is just a collective expression of our still individual aggressive nature on one hand, and our nature-given instinct for self-preservation. Probably war is the distinct feature of any intelligent species.

Oh really? Go tell that pearl of wisdom to the only other species on this planet that makes war upon itself.

Ants

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

I think you are simplifieng it a little. An other country is not always just like an other person who should be left alone to do what it pleases.
If a country tourtures people, then it is OUR DUTY to save the people. No matter where it is.
For example I believe we should immidiatly go to war with African states which practice female circumsision. IMMIDIATLY! No kidding. Every second we let it happen we are nearly just as guilty of it. Eventhough it would result in more suffering, it will be good for future generations.

Dawnmaster, i bet your perents have never beaten you. I think so becouse you seem to be a very peacefull person.
Do you know that most violent people have been beaten as children?
Basicly the experience of being beaten breaks that barrier in one's brain. After you have been beaten into a bloody pulp or seen some close person killed or raped you start thinking:
"I know the real pain. That pain was for real. What bad is it if i punch somebody in the face?"
And they really WANT it. They are really satisfied to see somebody crawl up and cry or even watchi somebody die. It makes them feel free:
"Now look at him feeling the pain. Its not me, its HIM. Feel my pain *****!"
A vicory over traumas of the past for a little while.

Other country = different culture, the moment you start to meddle in their affairs, they're gonna meddle in yours, and you'll both be fighting eachother, you may save those few women, but you'll get both yours and their country at war, risking the lives of countless innocents people on both sides.

I'd say: leave well enough alone.

And actually, both my parents believed in a strict discipline, and my father espescially was not afraid of using his strong arm.

You are however correct about one assumption, if someone close to me would get killed/raped by someone, I have no idea how I would respond (but then again, I didn't start the senseless violence, and it would not be a war)
But revenge would not be better, only defence.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

I was wondering how long it would take our "rezident" expert on American Hegemony to show up... This thread is like a big, juicy steak to him. :girly: Hey, Ill, have any more "facts" for me to debunk today?

EDIT:

Oh really? Go tell that pearl of wisdom to the only other species on this planet that makes war upon itself.

Ants

Whew, you never disappoint. Apes/chimps/monkeys of various types, dogs, wolves, whales, dolphins, porpoises... I can probably find more.

That being said, I'm not in *complete* disagreement with Ill; our military-industrial complex is definitely in the business of padding pockets as much as it is of national defense.​

How about Switserland? They never meddle in any affairs, aren't relatively a big country, but are free of war and enjoying a rich life?

The reason they've had the luxury of being neutral is that they basically caved to Hitler. I'd discuss the Swiss profiteering off of Hitler's dead Jews as regards their 'rich life', but that's unpleasant and not directly related to the issue.

Those wars are over, and the victorious wrote the history, nobody can predict what would have happened if the US never took part in any World War?

Only the blatantly stupid would unreservedly defend such a claim. Yes, Stalin might have killed himself in a fit of conscience. Furry green creatures from Alpha Centauri might have turned Hitler into a typewriter, thus ending the war. But America's propping up of both Britain and the USSR were essential in preventing their defeat. The primary reason Operation SeaLion wasn't launched was that Hitler had made the silly mistake of trying to fight a two-front war without being able to prevent American supply on both sides of the globe.

I disagree with that, if you challenge someone who is bigger/meaner than you, offense doesn't sound like a good idea, just stay put and don't provoke them, if that doesn't work, you can defend yourself.

Again, trust me, I'm a professional (or at least, I <was>). It doesn't work that way, primarily because you're discounting the timeliness issue. If you are able to prevent someone from becoming bigger and meaner, as in the example of both Iran and North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons, or Israel's first strike against Egypt, then offense is a far better idea than pure defense. Otherwise you very well can find yourself with your back figuratively against the wall.

(I've never hit anybody in my life, and always walked away without injuries)

Though common, playground analogies often fail when discussing military issues. This claim of yours is a perfect example.

Why on this green earth would interceptor weapons be politically incorrect?
Surely the loss of even 1 soldier would be unacceptable and priceless compared to the cost of a missile that can stop nukes?
And if those weapons can defend a country against any attack, without the loss of any life on either side, wouldn't it be the most perfect solution to any problem out there?

The reason they're politically incorrect is that not only do they move aside the twin daggers of North Korea and Iran, but they also take a bit of the edge off the arsenals belonging to China and Russia. And many Progressive Liberals believe that the arms balance that existed during the Cold War ought to be maintained or even weakened (as in, decrease American strength in order to make China and Russia feel safer).

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

The reason they've had the luxury of being neutral is that they basically caved to Hitler. I'd discuss the Swiss profiteering off of Hitler's dead Jews as regards their 'rich life', but that's unpleasant and not directly related to the issue.

I think this is where we got different stories in education.

Only the blatantly stupid would unreservedly defend such a claim. Yes, Stalin might have killed himself in a fit of conscience. Furry green creatures from Alpha Centauri might have turned Hitler into a typewriter, thus ending the war. But America's propping up of both Britain and the USSR were essential in preventing their defeat. The primary reason Operation SeaLion wasn't launched was that Hitler had made the silly mistake of trying to fight a two-front war without being able to prevent American supply on both sides of the globe.

Again, this is another difference in education, in Europe most people are being taught that the Americans caused more harm to us than good during the World War, in America, people are taught that Americans were the big saviors of Europe, who's right, I have no idea, but claiming either side is right shows a serious lack of intelligence.
This is not a personal opinion, not being warlike, I could care less about whose fault what was, I just want people to stop engaging in war altogether.

Again, trust me, I'm a professional (or at least, I <was>). It doesn't work that way, primarily because you're discounting the timeliness issue. If you are able to prevent someone from becoming bigger and meaner, as in the example of both Iran and North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons, or Israel's first strike against Egypt, then offense is a far better idea than pure defense. Otherwise you very well can find yourself with your back figuratively against the wall.

Professional what exactly? Warmonger?
The only reason those countries attack you is because you were either meddling in their affairs, and/or you took action in preventing them from creating a defense?
Again, why not simply hold those interceptors on standby and let them do whatever they want in their country?

Though common, playground analogies often fail when discussing military issues. This claim of yours is a perfect example.

I'm a little confused here, are you agreeing with me, and in what way exactly? Care to elaborate a little on this point?

The reason they're politically incorrect is that not only do they move aside the twin daggers of North Korea and Iran, but they also take a bit of the edge off the arsenals belonging to China and Russia. And many Progressive Liberals believe that the arms balance that existed during the Cold War ought to be maintained or even weakened (as in, decrease American strength in order to make China and Russia feel safer).

This part I still don't understand, interceptors are pure defense, no offense.

If I give someone a gun (the nuke), I give them an offensive weapon, but if I give them a bulletproofvest to stop the gun (interceptor to stop the nuke), it is defensive only?

So why would interceptor weapons threaten any other country out there?

And don't give me the advantage argument, "they can fire missiles and shoot our missiles" because from a defensive stand of view, you wouldn't need any offensive missiles anymore, so other countries wouldn't need to worry about that.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

It's easy to see why the missile shield is a problem.

It's like if 3 people are in a room and they all have guns pointed at each other. If one person shots then everyone else does as well but because everyone wants to live that keeps all 3 from shooting and has keept all three safe that way for half a century.

Now all of a sudden one of them is putting on bulletproof armor, but he assures the other 2 that he won't shot them once the armor is on. It's not that he feels threatened by them or anything. He is just adding some harmless defence and they would be foolish to think it had anything to do with them.

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

It's easy to see why the missile shield is a problem.

It's like if 3 people are in a room and they all have guns pointed at each other. If one person shots then everyone else does as well but because everyone wants to live that keeps all 3 from shooting and has keept all three safe that way for half a century.

Now all of a sudden one of them is putting on bulletproof armor, but he assures the other 2 that he won't shot them once the armor is on. It's not that he feels threatened by them or anything. He is just adding some harmless defence and they would be foolish to think it had anything to do with them.

As I just pointed out, if all people throw their guns away and go their seperate ways, the problem would be solved.

And even if the guy put on a bulletproof vest, if he puts down his gun, the others know he won't shoot them and only seeks to defend himself.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

As I just pointed out, if all people throw their guns away and go their seperate ways, the problem would be solved

Yeah but suggesting that is like teaching abstinence in school. Pretty ****ing pointless so how about you come live in the real world with the rest of us and try to think of a real world solution.

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Yeah but suggesting that is like teaching abstinence in school. Pretty ****ing pointless so how about you come live in the real world with the rest of us and try to think of a real world solution.

Abstinence is merely a form of discipline.

And I know darn well that my "solution" isn't realistic, people want guns, they want wars, but I can't seem to figure out why everyone thinks it's better when everyone kills eachother?

Why do we want to destroy things, control eachother, inflict pain and misery? Well more to the point, why do most people feel like that, and why do I not? Why do I like it better when everyone is happy?

 

[llad12]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Whew, you never disappoint. Apes/chimps/monkeys of various types, dogs, wolves, whales, dolphins, porpoises... I can probably find more

They only thing you can find for sure is your asswipe.

Let me know when chimps, dogs, wolves, whales, etc, form gigantic raiding parties; invade the nests of others; fight it out to the death with soldiers, and take slaves.

They don't ...

Your soldier mentality fits right in with the ants. You are both programmed idiots.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

As I just pointed out, if all people throw their guns away and go their seperate ways, the problem would be solved.

Scenario

You and another man are in a room.
You both have a briefcase with 10 million dollars in it.
You both have a gun pointed at the other.
You are both aware that if one of you shoots, the other will too.

First Case

The man across the room from you says, "This is silly. We should put down our guns."
"I agree," you say.

You continue to stare at each other for a while.

"You go first," says the other guy, after an awkward silence.

What do you do?

Second Case

Same scenario as above, but instead of agreeing to put your guns down, the other guy starts putting on bullet-proof armor.

"It's just for my protection," he explains.

What do you do?

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Scenario

You and another man are in a room.
You both have a briefcase with 10 million dollars in it.
You both have a gun pointed at the other.
You are both aware that if one of you shoots, the other will too.

First Case

The man across the room from you says, "This is silly. We should put down our guns."
"I agree," you say.

You continue to stare at each other for a while.

"You go first," says the other guy, after an awkward silence.

What do you do?

Second Case

Same scenario as above, but instead of agreeing to put your guns down, the other guy starts putting on bullet-proof armor.

"It's just for my protection," he explains.

What do you do?

There are some problems with that scenario, why on earth would we both be holding guns, I assume the purpose of this ridiculous example is that the other guy wants the 10million dollar?

You might as well go into a bank with that gun, and ask for 100million dollar, that sounds even more realistic than this!

You just put me into a situation, which I clearly said I wanted to avoid happening in the first place, if we both stay in our own rooms, he can never shoot me, hell, he doesn't even know I have 10million dollars, and I'm the one who is in favor of putting on the armor INSTEAD of using the gun, not both putting on the armor and still keep the gun pointed at the other guy?

Now if the other guy puts his gun away and wears a bulletproof vest, that was what I suggested before (well to be more precise, I wanted to put on the vest and put away the gun myself already so)

Doesn't anyone read my replies properly?
All you guys try to trick me into giving in to your thoughts by using these examples that don't apply to me and/or my logic.
I'm not an idiot you know.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

As I just pointed out, if all people throw their guns away and go their seperate ways, the problem would be solved.

No it won't, because guns aren't the problem. The underlying issue is what people are using the guns for, and getting rid of guns does nothing to change that issue.

And your hypothetical presupposes that everyone will live happily with what they already have. Human history has clearly shown that not to be the case.

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

No it won't, because guns aren't the problem. The underlying issue is what people are using the guns for, and getting rid of guns does nothing to change that issue.

And your hypothetical presupposes that everyone will live happily with what they already have. Human history has clearly shown that not to be the case.

The human race is hopeless, I'm giving up on this discussion.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

I think this is where we got different stories in education.

No doubt.

Again, this is another difference in education, in Europe most people are being taught that the Americans caused more harm to us than good during the World War, in America, people are taught that Americans were the big saviors of Europe, who's right, I have no idea, but claiming either side is right shows a serious lack of intelligence.

I disagree, and I find your description truly astounding. Is this really what is taught in Euro schools? Because even the ex-NDSAP type I worked with admitted that if it hadn't been for American involvement, all of Europe would have been in ruins. Most Europeans over 50 or so who I knew would have never entertained the belief that America caused more harm than good in WW2. Can you tell me exactly what the grounds of this claimed harm were?

Professional what exactly? Warmonger?

Yes, at least according to the spittle sprayer I'm responding to later in this post. :jig: But in seriousness, I was an active duty U.S. Army officer for 5 years, and a reservist for about twice that. You'd be surprised at the amount of introspection one is required to undergo before one is deemed trustworthy enough to tell someone to "move out and draw fire".

The only reason those countries attack you is because you were either meddling in their affairs, and/or you took action in preventing them from creating a defense?

Well, in the case of North Korea, their "affairs" are pretty well established. And Iran has become the most feared and suspected nation in the middle east - to the point where the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis are cooperating with Israel.

Again, why not simply hold those interceptors on standby and let them do whatever they want in their country?

Because what they want to do involves their neighboring countries, which happen to be allies of ours.

I'm a little confused here, are you agreeing with me, and in what way exactly? Care to elaborate a little on this point?

Your claim was, "I've never hit anybody in my life, and always walked away without injuries" Obviously that doesn't even make sense in a geopolitical venue.

This part I still don't understand, interceptors are pure defense, no offense.

Johnny summed it up rather well, I'd say. And don't worry, I didn't take offense. :crazyeyes:

The human race is hopeless, I'm giving up on this discussion.

Pity, I think you might have been learning something.

Unlike...

They only thing you can find for sure is your asswipe.

You really ought to wipe your spittle off with that Gold Pal you hide behind - "They only thing"?

Let me know when chimps, dogs, wolves, whales, etc, form gigantic raiding parties; invade the nests of others; fight it out to the death with soldiers, and take slaves.

They don't ...

Such things do, actually, occur - despite your attempts at weasel-word modifiers like "gigantic" (since animal communities rarely form with massive numbers aside from fish, and even birds will attack other birds en masse). Bottlenose dolphins and chimps actually plot strategy. Here's a great example of gang activity!

You're so good at being wrong; don't ever change.

Your soldier mentality fits right in with the ants. You are both programmed idiots.

You're soo cute when you're mad. And terribly, repeatedly, ignorant. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to respond to those... what, 5 threads now where you've made this sort of laughably stupid claim? Maybe Dawnmaster was right about that 'hopeless' statement, at least in your case. But hey, you're a Progressive, the truth doesn't matter now that you're in power. :thumbup:

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

The human race is hopeless, I'm giving up on this discussion.

The human race is hopeless because man's past and present actions don't line up with what you think it should be?

edit: I'm surprised at how well this thread has side-stepped the genocide question.

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

No doubt.
I disagree, and I find your description truly astounding. Is this really what is taught in Euro schools? Because even the ex-NDSAP type I worked with admitted that if it hadn't been for American involvement, all of Europe would have been in ruins. Most Europeans over 50 or so who I knew would have never entertained the belief that America caused more harm than good in WW2. Can you tell me exactly what the grounds of this claimed harm were?

Well, I don't have any textbooks about it, nor can I remember if it was actual schoolmaterial, but I do remember that my old teachers, and older people I've met who've been in the war, were not too fond of Americans to say the least.
Now, ofcourse you're gonna say you have the right story, and the people here say they have the right story, anyway, I'm reluctant to believe either.
There's probably a middleground, but both parties will only see their point of view.

Personally I don't care toomuch about what really happened/is true.
I tend to live down-to-earth, in the present day.
But I do have to admit that the Americans that I've met in real life confirmed (not themselves, but what they said/did) things that made me raise my eyebrows a little.
I'm going into details about it, seeing how I wanne withdraw from this discussion.
However, whoever is right, I've simply accepted the fact that we're a different culture, and eventhough I might not like some of the American points of view, that doesn't mean I don't like America, it has a lot of interesting stuff and options, as well as people.
(Hell, I don't even like Belgian points of view, and I live here)

Yes, at least according to the spittle sprayer I'm responding to later in this post. :jig: But in seriousness, I was an active duty U.S. Army officer for 5 years, and a reservist for about twice that. You'd be surprised at the amount of introspection one is required to undergo before one is deemed trustworthy enough to tell someone to "move out and draw fire".

Well, the way you talk about this subject, tastes a little too warlike for me, but it does sound like you're an honorable person, and I can certainly appreciate and respect someone like that :thumbup:

Well, in the case of North Korea, their "affairs" are pretty well established. And Iran has become the most feared and suspected nation in the middle east - to the point where the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis are cooperating with Israel.
Because what they want to do involves their neighboring countries, which happen to be allies of ours.

Hm, the problem of having "friends", I can relate to this point of view (protecting/helping your allies)
I have a similar problem in real life with a friend of mine, she just keeps getting into troubles, and despite my best efforts (advice) she won't listen and just keeps rolling from bad into worse.
At this very moment I have no idea how to help her, maybe taking extreme action myself (going to "war") would make a difference, but then I would be meddling in other's affairs as well as changing lives, and how can I know what would be for the best, what will it all end up to?

Your claim was, "I've never hit anybody in my life, and always walked away without injuries" Obviously that doesn't even make sense in a geopolitical venue.

Obviously not, but remember, we both have different points of view, you don't understand my "bulletproof vest and putting the gun down" as well as I don't understand your "keep the guns pointed at eachother, nobody will pull the trigger"
As far as I see the latter, people would try to shoot first, and atleast one person would walk away alive.
(even if they all have the same point of view as you do, it only takes on guy with a short temper/fuse/itchytriggerfinger to start a war)
So really, wouldn't it be better if all tree people would just wear bulletproof vests and don't point guns at eachother or even have guns at all, it's the same standoff, but with less tension/danger?

Johnny summed it up rather well, I'd say. And don't worry, I didn't take offense. :crazyeyes:

Well, I take great pride in the fact that along all those lines I've typed, I made a minimal of typo's, considering English is not my native language.

Pity, I think you might have been learning something.

Don't worry, I've learned more than you think.
Eventhough everyone has been unable to convince me of another opinion's value or change my point of view on the subject, I do have a clearer vision of your thoughts, and that's valuable enough for me.

At the end of my part of this discussion, I feel like I've played a series of chess games, I didn't win any, but I did learn some new tactics and most important of all, how the other players think, for those lessons, I thank you all :nod:

The human race is hopeless because man's past and present actions don't line up with what you think it should be?

edit: I'm surprised at how well this thread has side-stepped the genocide question.

Well, to be perfectly honest and put it bluntly: Yes.
But remember, that's just my point of view, don't hold a grudge if yours is different, I certainly won't :thumbup:

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Well, to be perfectly honest and put it bluntly: Yes.
But remember, that's just my point of view, don't hold a grudge if yours is different, I certainly won't :thumbup:

Fair enough. I think some of us, myself included, are lucky enough to be in a place where we truly don't need to use any force or fighting. Other than self-defense, I can't ever see why I would need to physically fight for anything.

But I'm not starving and looking at a warlord hoarding food. And I don't lay claim to a piece of land that someone else has. And I don't hate someone to the point where their very existence means I think they should die.

As far as your opinions on Americans, I'd be interested to hear them. I always find our reputation abroad interesting (whether it's bad or good), especially in Europe. Frankly, I think Americans are hard to put in a bucket because we're so diverse, but I know only bits and pieces make it out of the country, just like only bits and pieces of Europe only make it into the US.