3 ms·

> Mainly because Americans just aren’t they kind of people. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United

by V__ 4y ago

> Mainly because Americans just aren’t they kind of people. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America - "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families" - Trump You are right, how could anyone ever think that the US government is that kind of people.

ericmay 4y ago
Sorry. Not accepting this narrative. Doubly so for the comment I was replying to which was suggesting that the US may “nuke half the world” if it were the only country with nuclear weapons. We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. > - "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families" - Trump Who cares? Should I go dig up a quote by some French politician and then suggest they are the kind of people that would “nuke half the world” too? You can make better arguments, though unlikely on this topic.
- Cpoll 4y ago
  > We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? I remember people stating the same sentiment about, say, the American people electing Trump. I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. And once it's in swing, you have no choice but to believe it's a just war, because your country isn't the kind of people to start an unjust one.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? Here’s a proposal: Convince me that the Norwegians, Vietnamese, or Chileans are the kind of people that would nuke half the world (as put forth in the OP regarding America and nuclear proliferation), and then I’d be open to seriously entertaining an argument that the same is true of the United States. If the point here is to single out the US as a country and people that would nuke half the world if nobody else had nuclear weapons, I’m sorry but you might as well be trying to convince me that cows are made of lettuce. The premise is almost never starting from an honest place. > I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. Then why are we suggesting anything about the United States as though is unique here? Would New Zealand nuke half the world if they had nuclear weapons first and stopped proliferation? If your answer is no than your “kind of people” point is rather peculiar because what you’re really saying here is “we’re all the same” but under the same breath you are suggesting that the people of America aren’t because they’d, as the OP put it, nuke half the world. It’s especially peculiar because the United States has effectively held that option in the past, not used it even though it would have made strategic sense, and has fired multiple generals and military personnel during active conflicts who have suggested we should use nuclear weapons at all.
    - Cpoll 4y ago
      > has fired multiple generals and military personnel during active conflicts who have suggested we should use nuclear weapons at all. So by your own admission, the only thing that's prevented the use of nuclear weapons in the past is a certain military structure enforced by people who, unlike you, believe that there is a possibility. Incidentally, I don't think the Norwegians are special, any country or group of people will deploy nukes if they have means, opportunity, and the right political climate. Vigilance, not wishful thinking in the form of "we would never", is the only barrier to that.
    - yywwbbn 4y ago
      I did not necessarily mean that US would literally nuke half of the world. However it’s hard to imagine a country in a dominant position such as this (i.e. being the only country with nuclear weapons in the world). If given the choice between sending thousands of young Americans to die in a foreign country fighting communism and using nuclear weapons to force their opponents to submit do you really believe Americans would have always made the first choice? For instance do you really think US wouldn’t have used nuclear weapons during the Korean if there was no real threat of escalation?
- V__ 4y ago
  > We aren’t that kind of people. The US illegally invaded Iraq, overthrew democratic governments all over the world, etc. Why wouldn't anybody think that the US would have gone further if it had the means? Sure, they wouldn't have nuked half the world, they would just threaten it. > I’d never be convinced otherwise. Well, then this is a moot reply anyway.
- d0mine 4y ago
  It is unlikely that ordinary Americans have any say in what country will be bombed next. Whatever happens there always be an excuse that the general public will eat up: propaganda would find a reason for further nukes like they found for the first one. Mutual assured destruction is the real reason that stops the lizards who control US military from deploying nukes. You know, given the advances in AI/drones, etc the believe in MAD might weaken so you may possibly witness nukes yourself (and likely approve their deployment for "reasons").

by V__ 4y ago

ericmay 4y ago

Sorry. Not accepting this narrative. Doubly so for the comment I was replying to which was suggesting that the US may “nuke half the world” if it were the only country with nuclear weapons. We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. > - "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families" - Trump Who cares? Should I go dig up a quote by some French politician and then suggest they are the kind of people that would “nuke half the world” too? You can make better arguments, though unlikely on this topic.

Cpoll 4y ago
> We aren’t that kind of people. I’d never be convinced otherwise. Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? I remember people stating the same sentiment about, say, the American people electing Trump. I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. And once it's in swing, you have no choice but to believe it's a just war, because your country isn't the kind of people to start an unjust one.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > Isn't this kind of a dangerous sentiment, which precludes rational thought? Here’s a proposal: Convince me that the Norwegians, Vietnamese, or Chileans are the kind of people that would nuke half the world (as put forth in the OP regarding America and nuclear proliferation), and then I’d be open to seriously entertaining an argument that the same is true of the United States. If the point here is to single out the US as a country and people that would nuke half the world if nobody else had nuclear weapons, I’m sorry but you might as well be trying to convince me that cows are made of lettuce. The premise is almost never starting from an honest place. > I'm not entirely convinced the 'kind' of people is relevant when a government makes a decision to go to war. Then why are we suggesting anything about the United States as though is unique here? Would New Zealand nuke half the world if they had nuclear weapons first and stopped proliferation? If your answer is no than your “kind of people” point is rather peculiar because what you’re really saying here is “we’re all the same” but under the same breath you are suggesting that the people of America aren’t because they’d, as the OP put it, nuke half the world. It’s especially peculiar because the United States has effectively held that option in the past, not used it even though it would have made strategic sense, and has fired multiple generals and military personnel during active conflicts who have suggested we should use nuclear weapons at all.
  - Cpoll 4y ago
    > has fired multiple generals and military personnel during active conflicts who have suggested we should use nuclear weapons at all. So by your own admission, the only thing that's prevented the use of nuclear weapons in the past is a certain military structure enforced by people who, unlike you, believe that there is a possibility. Incidentally, I don't think the Norwegians are special, any country or group of people will deploy nukes if they have means, opportunity, and the right political climate. Vigilance, not wishful thinking in the form of "we would never", is the only barrier to that.
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    I did not necessarily mean that US would literally nuke half of the world. However it’s hard to imagine a country in a dominant position such as this (i.e. being the only country with nuclear weapons in the world). If given the choice between sending thousands of young Americans to die in a foreign country fighting communism and using nuclear weapons to force their opponents to submit do you really believe Americans would have always made the first choice? For instance do you really think US wouldn’t have used nuclear weapons during the Korean if there was no real threat of escalation?
V__ 4y ago
> We aren’t that kind of people. The US illegally invaded Iraq, overthrew democratic governments all over the world, etc. Why wouldn't anybody think that the US would have gone further if it had the means? Sure, they wouldn't have nuked half the world, they would just threaten it. > I’d never be convinced otherwise. Well, then this is a moot reply anyway.
d0mine 4y ago
It is unlikely that ordinary Americans have any say in what country will be bombed next. Whatever happens there always be an excuse that the general public will eat up: propaganda would find a reason for further nukes like they found for the first one. Mutual assured destruction is the real reason that stops the lizards who control US military from deploying nukes. You know, given the advances in AI/drones, etc the believe in MAD might weaken so you may possibly witness nukes yourself (and likely approve their deployment for "reasons").