• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Why does everyone hate America?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigLutz

Banned
If you were confused about why I left the debate earlier, you have answered your own question. I concentrate on forming coherent, sensible arguments

Sorry I couldn't read past this, I was just laughing too hard.

You misunderstand. I would LOVE to think that nobody behaves exactly the way their stereotype dictates, but you have proven repeatedly that this is not the case. If you still don't understand me, I am saying you are the Texan stereotype in human form. I can back that up with quotes from your posts, not just because you're from Texas.

And of course this is where you fail, see as I have said over and over again only you can stop sterotyping people. I cannot stop you from being a bigot, only you can.

Just because the UN isn't doing it the same way that USA would doesn't mean it isn't doing anything at all. Violence and death isn't ALWAYS the answer you know :rolleyes:

Why don't you tell that to the people of Darfur, I am sure they love the UN.

Alright then, since this is a debate about the problems of America, and you are so adamant that you don't believe America is perfect, then name problems with it. Name some REAL things that would make people hate America.

Hating is subjective, I have already named one thing I believe that is a problem with America, and I could name some others ranging from Bush's policy on Gay Marriage to Illegal Immigration. I have never claimed America is perfect, you and May's Brother are the one that made that connection.

See the things is there are problems with America, just like their are problems with every country, like Austrailia. The problem is you have not actually focused on many of the actual problems and focused on things YOU do not like politically about it.

The Washington Post is not a Liberal source. If a Liberal person admitted that x source was Liberal, then that would be valid. But otherwise, you can always put the response down to someones political opinion.

I never said the Washington Post was a liberal source, I said the Washington post did a review saying the movie had a liberal slant to it. One does not need to be Liberal to know a movie has a Liberal Slant, and when it comes to reviews of a product, the Washington Post is more than fair in it's judgement. As it did look at both the pros and cons of the movie, what it did right, and what it did utterly wrong.

I mean really, anyone can say "Your source isn't valid because I think it's right-wing". It doesn't consititute a rebuttal (not a valid one anyway).

Except of course if the movie's political leaning effect's it's content. In this case the movie did not even attempt to provide a balanced approach, nor did not even attempt to contact Fox News to get their side of the story. Now this could obviously be poor film making on the part of the producer, or it could deal with the producer's political leanings and deal with the fact that the movie was financed by far left political organizations.

Great, you know what they're about. But how can your refute the individual facts stated by each source unless you watch it?

So far there has been no individual facts provided by the source.

Here's what economical genius Bush should have done then: subsidised more money. The Bush Administration has spent hundreds of billions 'bringing peace and stability to Iraq' through warfare, why can't they do the same to farmers in Afghanistan in the form of money so they will grow food?

That is a good question, why not email Bush and ask him?

Are you serious? Why on Earth would Afghanistan donate its aid money back to the donor countries? That's preposterous! No, I meant that too much of aid money donated by x country ends up back in x country, which is not an effective approach.

Except there are reasons why it is circulated back, mainly becuase they are paying for goods and services provided by that country such as independent contractors. The money is recirculated, but Afghanistan is reciving a good or service becuase of it.

If being able to maim people during wartime is barely justifiable under the Geneva convention, then why is it sensible that it be legal for any person in America to hold a weapon at any time?

Other than it is legal by our constitution which trumps the Geneva Convention as the law of the land? Other than Americans have a right to protect theirselves, their home, and their property? Other than the Government was created to fear the people, not for the people to fear the Government?

In your opinion, my argument is pathetic. Therefore, in your opinion, I am pathetic. But if my pathetic posts are receiving praise from independent members, then why aren't your glorious words being worshipped by everybody?

Becuase this is a debate, not a popularity contest among 14 year olds?

But you said that the news was designed to lower the support for the war, and you gave reasons why. But you support the war even more now! How can that be?

Becuase I typically get my news source outside of 30 minute news casts, as well as believe in the worthy cause of finishing the job in Iraq. Now, for one you have comitted the falacy of equating my support to all of the American People, but that isn't the point. What is the point is that when the violance was the highest in 2006, when support for the war was dropping becuase of the violance seen on nightly news casts. Why didn't the American Government censor that? Why not go "Okay well you can no longer report on the car bombings happening, and if you do, we will remove you from Iraq and ship you home".

See the thing is you do not have a answer for that question, nor do you have a answer for this one. "What news has the American Government censored in Iraq." I mean if you believe so much that the American Government has censored news in Iraq, then you must have proof correct?

Rofl!! Here's your sentence, reworded.

"The media obviously isn't censored, we only get to see bad things!"

Pretty much, if the Government was censoring the media, why would they purposly undermind their effort to provide support among the American public? I'll await your answer.

How can anybody find out that there is news they aren't supposed to hear, if they never get to hear it?

A variety of ways, one is the blogs of various reporters, they do have internet access in Iraq and Afghanistan and things like that do get leaked. Not to mention when those reporters get back to the states, they will go blabbing to everyone about what the Government stopped them from saying.

See that is the problem with your argument, people do not like being told what to say, and eventually the truth gets out.

Does that make them right? You don't hesistate to call me inconsiderate or whatever, and here you are saying that everybody who dies during a war has no reason to be upset by it.

Woah I never said they had no reason to be upset, you again are putting words in my mouth.

If the Eritrean government decided to go to war with America and your family ended up maimed or dead from it, would you be concerned at all? Or would you just accept that it was the for the better and move on with no complaint?

I would have to accept it being a part of war time, but I would already be a part of the US Military fighting the Eritrean Government. Now are you saying if the US was already taken over and my family died? At that point I would have to accept it and move on, perputrating violance does nothing but cause more families to end up dead, when we should be moving toward the betterment of the country.

So my argument in this area wins and your rebuttal is moot. America goes around with reckless disregard killing all those in its path, much like the people you endless chase after.

If you seriously believe America goes around killing all those in it's path, you have some serious problems.

Wait a minute, you are saying the US army is SO incompetent that it cannot invade a country without killing 500000 innocent people and destroying two cities? Well maybe it shouldn't be responsible for looking after the world's affairs then (its self-appointed job).

Ahh another pretty much pathetic rebuttle. You do realize that if America was to invade Japan, it would not be welcomed with open arms. The Japanese Civilians were so set in their hatred against America that they would fight tooth and nail with what ever they had. That leads to Civilian Casulties. Not to mention the suicidal deaths. Occupying Japanese cities would also be incredibly hard to do becuase of this.

As for destroying two cities, how about destroying all of their cities. Mortor attacks and fire bombing runs on all of their cities would make it look like World War 2 France.

You at least acknowledge that what happens during wars is horrible, but amazingly, you do not think that wars are an unnecessary cause of suffering. You seem to think that wars are great, a wonderful answer to any dilemma, whatever the destruction that results. But if the same thing is done in peace time, well that's just a sin.

No, I have never said wars do not cause suffering. Yet some times it is a necessary evil, becuase the suffering created by not going to war, can be even larger. Such as in the case of Darfur, such as in the case in Afghanistan.

None of them. In my opinion, the best option is to solve the problem diplomatically and without any form of violence. Your assumption that violent tactics are the only answer ever just reinforces my reason to believe that you are a war-head with no consideration to non-US life.

And how would you have solved it diplomatically? The Government had to be changed and a Military Coup was about to happen. Not to mention the Soviet Union was about to invade Japan causing even more loss of lives.

So in other words how would you have brought a quick end to the war, when any diplomatic efforts would have caused a Military Coup, and any time wasted could mean Japan would be under Soviet rule.

Sorry, but how exactly did wiping out two whole cities save more lives than doing nothing? I don't believe what al Qaeda did to America is right, thus it follows that I also don't believe what America did to Japan is right. "It's war time" is not an excuse to kill anything and everything in sight. It just isn't.

Becuase as I have said, wiping out two whole cities was able to bring a speedy and less bloody end to the war, considering the other two options on the table at that time.

If you remove the war-time facade that you're hiding behind, then what aQ did to the WTC is exactly like what America did to Japan, except instead of killing a few thousands it was a few ten thousands, and instead of destroying two buildings it was destroying two cities.

Umm no it isn't, maybe in your twisted little mind it is. But that is the only place it makes sense.

I want to say America does nothing more than anyone else. YOU say that America should do everything because no one else will. So, why is there a complete lack if women's rights in Saudi Arabia? Why is there a problem even there are US troops there.

Becuase at this moment, invading Saudi Arabia and messing around with them could cause them to swing even more Islamic and cause even more rights lost. Not to mention America does not have the pressure to do it right now. The rest of the world does, but for some reason they just do not care.

If I remember correctly, the USA is the only country to have EVER killed civilians (or people) with nuclear weapons. With a record like that, you should be last people to be allowed them.

Yeah just becuase we used them to bring a speedy end to a war 60 years ago, should mean we should not have them. Oh what great logic...[/sarcasm]

And if these weapons are too dangerous to let Iraq or North Korea or Iran or any other legitimate country have, then no one should be allowed them. Nuclear weapons are too clumsy to use only on military opponents. Using them will surely result in civilian death. The very nature of the way they are effective contravenes the Geneva convention.

Differnce is, that Iraq and North Korea and Iran would not place the safeguards on them that other countries like France and Britain have. They can have them, if they would treat it properly and not sell them to terrorist or have them end up on the black market. The problem is that with countries like Iran, North Korea, and Iraq, that is exactly where they would go.

I have a reading disorder? Look at my quote, for a start.

"Therefore, you now have no reason to believe Iraq should not be treated equally."

If you had taken the time to actual pay attention to what I said, you notice I typed the opposite of what you just based your insult on.
:rolleyes:

Again we are talking about two different time frames. Iraq wasn't treated equally becuase of Saddam, now that Saddam has been removed and Iraq is struggling to find it's place in the world again, there is nothing to stop it from being treated as a equal.

You know what I find hilarious? That you just called us all pathetic losers and a few hours later you have a little cry and call a mod into the debate because we called you arrogant/Republican/redneck.

Yeah becuase pathetic losers = republican c0cksucker.... what a fool you are.

If by valid points, you mean points that help to prove your argument correct, then you're right.

Yeah that is pretty much what valid points are.

Who does he remind me of...

I have no idea who that reminds you of. I would suggest reading up on MacArther and his insanity during the Vietnam and Korean war.

Gasp!!!! They produced food too! Did you know food is used in war time?! We should bomb ALL food-producing cities when at war! =/

So you pretty much glazed over there entire military production, and are using the excuse that they produced food as a defense as to why we shouldn't bomb them? Wow... just.... wow how pathetic.

Whether a military city or not, that does not justify destroying it along with 80000 innocent civilians.

Yeah it does, as a military city it was already a target for attack as shown by the fire bombing of it before. Also as a Military City the destruction of it would have provided less material support to the Japanese army if a invasion were to happen, and would have caused less lives on both sides.

Well, their aim as terrorists was to put fear in the hearts of their enemies (in this case Americans) and it has certainly been proven that they succeeded in this.

So you agree it wasn't a military target, meaning that even if they were at war, they were not justified in attacking it.

Dear me. Pure hatred? I really do think that is a bit of an overstatement. Calm down, BigLutz. We are criticizing your country's ways, that does not constitute pure hatred. But it's probably already too late for us, we'll be on a no-fly list by now :rolleyes:

You really have shown nothing more than pure hatred in this topic, which is kind of sad... I do feel a bit of pity for you.

Also, I said you shouldn't have dropped the atom bomb on Japan. I DIDN'T say you should have invaded. Don't assume that because I'm not A I'm automatically B. I don't think you should have done either.

Then you believe that we should have just waited Japan out, let them starve to death in the thousands, while we wait for them to come to terms diplomatically, while hoping the Soviet Union does not decide it wants to aquire the land. So instead of losing 100,000 people becuase of a nuke, you are losing 200,000 to hunger, maybe 300,000.

Stop having a sook and get on with the debate. So we disagree with you. Get over it. Just refute the content and ignore the petty insults like the rest of us.

How about giving up on the petty insults yourself, before you end up banned.
 
Last edited:

firepokemon

Fire and Ice
You know quoting everything someone says does not make you smart, it certainly doesn't make you a better debater it just makes you like an idiot. This is the problem with debates on anything and on any pokemon forum, because a bunch of idiots think they are smart because they can use "quote" on everything. I can';t even believe people bother debating anything with the way several people here just quote and quote and reply and reply. It doesn't make the arguments any better, it justs looks pathetic.

Now I am not going to go see what everyone else typed up. America has its faults such as entering the war etc, but switching opinions so fast is also wrong. So someone becomes for the war in Iraq but then suddenly because the US is long, they must pull out? How pathetic. But thats not this debate is meant to about why everyone is against America. Well thats just not true, countries have disagreements with America such as over free trade, the war in Iraq etc etc, and people may voice their disagreements of America. But that doesn't mean they're against and anyone that thinks it is, well they're just idiots. And had I come to SPP earlier when this thread was smaller, perhaps I would have made a proper post of what I though. But looking at all the debate threads, it would be just quoted and requoted and replied against. Thats just silly in my books and I simply won't do it.

And thus to anyone that debates by quoting and quoting what others say. Next time pull one or two quotes that were important to the discussion. Theres no need to be an idiot and rip someone apart on smaller statements that were made. And hell, its not like you have to quote anything. So using a bunch of quotes a prior person made and replying on those points are just stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 

bowspearer

Well-Known Member
Sorry I couldn't read past this, I was just laughing too hard.

How about giving up on the petty insults yourself, before you end up banned.

You know what I find funny about your actions- on the surface you play the innocent (just like the US govt tends to), but behind the scenes you're countering your claimed derision of our presence by chasing us down on MSN and sending us private messages demanding to know why we're not back in said debate thread because we've given up arguing with someone who is clearly brimming with the ultimate in arrogant ingnorance! So which is it, do you view us in such low regard that you wished we were no longer in this thread expressing our viewpoints, or are you determined to keep us here so you can play the persecuted victim (but then again, the USA was FOUNDED on the identity of a persecuted people- as was Israel and Rome- funny about that...)?
 

BigLutz

Banned
You know what I find funny about your actions- on the surface you play the innocent (just like the US govt tends to), but behind the scenes you're countering your claimed derision of our presence by chasing us down on MSN and sending us private messages demanding to know why we're not back in said debate thread because we've given up arguing with someone who is clearly brimming with the ultimate in arrogant ingnorance!

You do realize why I contacted you on Private Message? Becuase you still had not responded, to the 9/11 topic. You come on and claim such outrageous things, and when they are actually challenged, you run off like a coward. I was wanting the debate to continue, and was wondering if you were ever going to respond so that we can continue our useful debate. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to be pissy becuase I was curious to see how you would respond to the 9/11 debate, since you were the only 9/11 conspiracy nut that decided to respond with Lord Tsukasa gone, then that is your right. But do not talk as if it was a act of arrogance or malace on my part.

Also if you want to see some one briming with the ultimate in arrogant ignorance then you have many to pick from, starting with Chuboy and ending with yourself.

Edit: Also just to clarify so that no one thinks I went off and attacked you in the one PM I sent you. The only thing that message said was "Are you going to post again in the WTC topic?" Just a simple question.
 
Last edited:

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
I'll return to this debate when BigLutz gets over himself. I have a reply saved and ready to post when he realises that he ISN'T better than everyone else, that his opinion does not prevail over others', that he will have to stop moaning about being insulted OR stop insulting altogether, and that if he wants to participate in good debates then he has to refute arguments constructively rather than stating they're wrong with no objective evidence whatsoever.

Firepokemon said:
You know quoting everything someone says does not make you smart, it certainly doesn't make you a better debater it just makes you like an idiot. This is the problem with debates on anything and on any pokemon forum, because a bunch of idiots think they are smart because they can use "quote" on everything. I can';t even believe people bother debating anything with the way several people here just quote and quote and reply and reply. It doesn't make the arguments any better, it justs looks pathetic.
Go away. You clearly have NO insight into how the debate forum works, so just leave.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
I'll return to this debate when BigLutz gets over himself.

In other words you conceed the debate, that is fine, one less bigot in here. If you want to place the blame of getting out on me, that is fine. It is a pretty cowardly thing to do. But your arguments of late have been pretty weak, such as the censorship argument. So maybe you just want to get out before you lose even more.
 

firepokemon

Fire and Ice
Go away. You clearly have NO insight into how the debate forum works, so just leave.

I know how debate works and it does not require quote, quote, quote to debate a subject. Debate is about debating general ideas or debating unique things, debate is not HOWEVER about debating meaningless details like yourself and others do. And BigLutz it is not a great achievement to beat someone in a debate on a pokemon forum. Get over yourself.

Edit: And I am going to kill my keyboard.
 
Last edited:

muumajii23

Well-Known Member
Well want the biggest piece of proof? Remember when Saddam's statue was pulled down? Remember the celebration going on that US troops had already arrived? We were greated as liberators when it came to that country.

It may not seem like that now, but mind you for the past 4 years we have had a very failed stratgey in Iraq. It wasn't till last year that we finally started to get it right. And you know what happened? The Iraqi People came to the US in droves to tell us where Al Qaeda terrorists were hiding.


HOLY CRAP!! YOU WERE NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY THERE! Don't you go and start making claims that you did everything while all the other countries barely did anything. (That is exactly what happened during WW2. To many, apparantly it was an American victory. Bull! They came in in the last 2 years!)
There were Canadian soldiers in the most dangourous part of Iraq for the longest time, waiting for some reinforcements. Canada did just as much in Iraq as the U.S., and I am glad that Canada is (hopefully, unless Stephen Harper betrays us all) pulling out in 2009!

Oh, and by the way. Our countries are in Iraq because of an Alliance or Treaty (or something, I forgot what it is officially) with many of the major countries, including America. The rest of us are just there because of it.
 

Eszett

one love
You guys have pushed the envelope too far. I knew I was prophetic back when I closed this the first time.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top