This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
American Imperialism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
@IronGolem - Thanks for your research and views. I would like to stress that I do not personally agree with the topics I posted in the origional post. I am just proposeing a discussion on the possibility.
@ASHelmy - Anytime the US is brought up there has to be some goon that jumps up and yells 'zomg Iraq'. Try posing some well thought out arguements please.
@Ivokk - No matter if the US acts or doesn't act, it will be criticised.
Ok, wise guy, I actually thought you were getting at something smarter/deeper then "leik lets go and invade an entire continent", but it seems that you are actually suggesting something as stupid as this.
Wow....
Ok.... let me state this very clearly, again.
I
DON'T
think invading Africa is a good idea. I think it would make an interesting discussion though, so that's why I proposed it.
One more time.. I
DON'T
think it is a good idea.
Post by
ASHelmy
@IronGolem - Thanks for your research and views. I would like to stress that I do not personally agree with the topics I posted in the origional post. I am just proposeing a discussion on the possibility.
@ASHelmy - Anytime the US is brought up there has to be some goon that jumps up and yells 'zomg Iraq'. Try posing some well thought out arguements please.
@Ivokk - No matter if the US acts or doesn't act, it will be criticised.
Ok, wise guy, I actually thought you were getting at something smarter/deeper then "leik lets go and invade an entire continent", but it seems that you are actually suggesting something as stupid as this.
Wow....
Ok.... let me state this very clearly, again.
I
DON'T
think invading Africa is a good idea. I think it would make an interesting discussion though, so that's why I proposed it.
One more time.. I
DON'T
think it is a good idea.
So why discuss it? You know the answer very well.
Post by
MyTie
It gives a good opportunity to examine the pros and cons of large scale imperialism, as well as the effects worldwide of an ambitious super power. Other things might come up... AIDS... genoside... corruption... oil wealth... racism...
This has the potential to become a very juicy debate.
Post by
294032
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You do understand by juicy debate you are making some people not understand you thus making them fear , thus making them hate you , thus needing to vent on me o.O?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Can someone translate this for me please.
Post by
ASHelmy
It gives a good opportunity to examine the pros and cons of large scale imperialism, as well as the effects worldwide of an ambitious super power. Other things might come up... AIDS... genoside... corruption... oil wealth... racism...
This has the potential to become a very juicy debate.
Oh. Well, I guess we have to consider America's military strength, and judging by recent events, it's not that good (that's why I brought up Iraq; I am not a goon). And even if they had the strength, I don't think it would be a moral thing to do (not to mention unfair). And then we'd look at the disadavangtes, which I guess are a lot. Do you have any way to make this moral, profitable (to both sides) and, quite frankly, logical?
Post by
294032
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It gives a good opportunity to examine the pros and cons of large scale imperialism, as well as the effects worldwide of an ambitious super power. Other things might come up... AIDS... genoside... corruption... oil wealth... racism...
This has the potential to become a very juicy debate.
Oh. Well, I guess we have to consider America's military strength, and judging by recent events, it's not that good (that's why I brought up Iraq; I am not a goon). And even if they had the strength, I don't think it would be a moral thing to do (not to mention unfair). And then we'd look at the disadavangtes, which I guess are a lot. Do you have any way to make this moral, profitable (to both sides) and, quite frankly, logical?
No. There is no situation where all sides are complete winners. In order for it to work, the US military would have to be willing to kill lots of people, and lots of innocent people. That will never happen due to the PR loss from every single civilian death. If it weren't for PR, the US could completely conquor Africa in less than a week. The international response would be huge though.
Post by
294032
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
But there is a situation where noone loses or dies
And that is?
Post by
294032
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
It gives a good opportunity to examine the pros and cons of large scale imperialism, as well as the effects worldwide of an ambitious super power. Other things might come up... AIDS... genoside... corruption... oil wealth... racism...
This has the potential to become a very juicy debate.
Oh. Well, I guess we have to consider America's military strength, and judging by recent events, it's not that good (that's why I brought up Iraq; I am not a goon). And even if they had the strength, I don't think it would be a moral thing to do (not to mention unfair). And then we'd look at the disadavangtes, which I guess are a lot. Do you have any way to make this moral, profitable (to both sides) and, quite frankly, logical?
No. There is no situation where all sides are complete winners. In order for it to work, the US military would have to be willing to kill lots of people, and lots of innocent people. That will never happen due to the PR loss from every single civilian death. If it weren't for PR, the US could completely conquor Africa in less than a week. The international response would be huge though.
Ok. I think I will need a little proof that America can take Egypt, Libia, Sudan, Morocco and many, many more all at the same time. And people dying can be justified if there are a lot of long term benefits, so, is there?
Post by
MyTie
@ shamzilla - no, if there is peace, people still die. In fact, peace may be more deadly considering the genocide currently under way there.
@ ASHelmy - I could be wrong, but if the US were to strategically strike the continent of Africa, they could probably knock out all the air fields in about 3-4 hours. After that the entire continent would be sitting ducks. The only hope would be a military response from other countries. They would probably be to shocked to mount an offensive within a week.
The long term benefits is a different story. That one I can't answer.
Post by
294032
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
@ shamzilla - no, if there is peace, people still die. In fact, peace may be more deadly considering the genocide currently under way there.
@ ASHelmy - I could be wrong, but if the US were to strategically strike the continent of Africa, they could probably knock out all the air fields in about 3-4 hours. After that the entire continent would be sitting ducks. The only hope would be a military response from other countries. They would probably be to shocked to mount an offensive within a week.
The long term benefits is a different story. That one I can't answer.
That is the most &*!@#$nag-ish response i have ever heard , i mean really
You say that war would be better than peace?WRONG!War solves nothing , it only spurs anger and pain and suffering.
History would categorically disagree with you. Sometimes, war solves nothing, but sometimes war is necessary.
Post by
Random0214
@ shamzilla - no, if there is peace, people still die. In fact, peace may be more deadly considering the genocide currently under way there.
@ ASHelmy - I could be wrong, but if the US were to strategically strike the continent of Africa, they could probably knock out all the air fields in about 3-4 hours. After that the entire continent would be sitting ducks. The only hope would be a military response from other countries. They would probably be to shocked to mount an offensive within a week.
The long term benefits is a different story. That one I can't answer.
That is the most &*!@#$nag-ish response i have ever heard , i mean really
You say that war would be better than peace?WRONG!War solves nothing , it only spurs anger and pain and suffering.
I'm pretty sure that if we had not have destroyed Nazi Germany, the Final Solution would've been finished...
An estimated millions of Jews killed, you know? MyTie has a logical point, there.
Post by
294032
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
@Molfsontan and MyTie
I was talking about offensive wars , i mean really: attacking someone just because you think that they're inferior just plain sucks , but defending yourself and other against many is necessary.
You assume too much you two salckers o.O, i was talking purely for offense as MyTie talked about attacking africa , not defending it.You two guys seriously need to stop quote mining me :P.
1) I never said to attack Africa because it was inferior.
2) Molf's analogy is about Nazis... and we attacked thier country, not vice versa.
3) What in the world is 'quote mining'?
Post by
294032
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Random0214
@Molfsontan and MyTie
I was talking about offensive wars , i mean really: attacking someone just because you think that they're inferior just plain sucks , but defending yourself and other against many is necessary.
You assume too much you two salckers o.O, i was talking purely for offense as MyTie talked about attacking africa , not defending it.You two guys seriously need to stop quote mining me :P.
1) I never said to attack Africa because it was inferior.
2) Molf's analogy is about Nazis... and we attacked thier country, not vice versa.
3) What in the world is 'quote mining'?
1)By inferior i meant solve their problems since you probably think they cant solve problems alone and that it would help them,well you atleast did say march which almost always means attack.
2)WTF do you mean by attacked theirs?whos we and theirs?
3)Quote mining is when you quote someone and pull it out of context , basicly another fancy word for pulling ot of context.
You pulled the war thing out of context. He said invading Africa would be beneficial because we would come in and stop the genocide happening there. (Although that logic is broken, there's a reason Europe pretty much left Africa.)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.