3 ms·

You start out with a fair critique of the US, but the later stretched points undermine your argument: > Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the o

You start out with a fair critique of the US, but the later stretched points undermine your argument: > Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the only country known to have used two of those in a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, just as the war was ending and the enemy was surrendering. I was not aware that the mainstream view was that Japan was surrendering before the atomic bombings. > Everywhere country A invaded in the last 10 years, they brought mass instability, civil tension or war and chaos, in the name of "bringing democracy". Coincidentally it's mostly in strategic places with lots of natural resources. Easier said for Iraq than Afghanistan. It already had chaos, civil war, etc. at the onset of the invasion. Expected returns from mineral wealth hardly justify the cost. > They have also assassinated their two most prominent anti-segregation activists I'm guessing you mean King for one. Not sure who'd other would be? (Malcom X? He advocated racial seperation). Either way, it's a tall argument that the country (government?) assassinated them. > Finally, country A practices the death penalty as much as country B, Iran executes people at not only a far higher rate but even in absolute numbers. It also applies death penalty to a far wider range of crimes. > and has a lot of religious fanatics among its population, too Sure, but they aren't running the government > It's a known fact that an openly atheist would never, as it is, get elected to the top office in country A. As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B.

batista 15y ago
the later stretched points undermine your argument A little maybe. But also consider that I wanted to show how people from other countries think of the situation too. I mean, people tend to think of country B in country's A terms and framing of the discussion, so I tried to do something like the opposite. I was not aware that the mainstream view was that Japan was surrendering before the atomic bombings. That view is widely held all around the world. Try to find some Europeans thinking the bombs were "needed". There is also evidence that us leaders knew about it, it was just a showcase, mainly to scare off USSR. Besides, it's of little consequence if Japan was surrendering or not: the war was going on with conventional weapons even in more dire times, including the Normandy invasion, so nothing called at that time to drop atomic bombs on civilians (if anything ever does). Especially considering that Japan was at the time under attack by conventional bombs, tons of them, that had burned most of its cities and killed hundreds of thousands. Easier said for Iraq than Afghanistan. It already had chaos, civil war, etc. at the onset of the invasion. Expected returns from mineral wealth hardly justify the cost. It had the Taliban rule, but not much civil war anymore. And certainly no mass chaos and deaths, like it does post invasion. And it's not just "mineral wealth", it's also setting foot in a strategic area. I'm guessing you mean King for one. Not sure who'd other would be? (Malcom X? He advocated racial seperation). Was thinking of X, yeah. Well, even if he advocated racial separation, just means he was killed just as a pro-black activist, instead of a anti-segregation activist. Both reasons seem bad to me. Either way, it's a tall argument that the country (government?) assassinated them. Who said the government? I said "the country". To show it in the same vain as people that blame other countries for things done not only by the government but also by local religious nuts, teams etc. Iran executes people at not only a far higher rate but even in absolute numbers. It also applies death penalty to a far wider range of crimes. Not much consolation. One's too many for my tastes. YMMV. Sure, but they aren't running the government No, they only run the previous government. And no one can talk openly against them, or they will lose office pronto. As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B. You mean like in the Salem trials? What, that was long ago? Then tell me, why Country A, that stopped practicing slavery later than other countries, introduced women's voting later than other countries, stopped racial segregation later than other countries, has not yet stopped practicing the death penalty unlike other countries, etc etc, thinks other countries should all be on the same timeline as it does, as to what laws they have?
- yareally 15y ago
  As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B. You mean like in the Salem trials? What, that was long ago? Europe was still trying people for heresy in the 17th century around the time of the witch trials. The inquisition was still very much alive throughout Europe (and enforcing the death penalty if needed). Galileo came very close to being a heretic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair Then tell me, why Country A...introduced women's voting later than other countries... The US: 1920 --Women can vote (with many states doing so before then) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_S... The UK: 1928 – Women received the vote on equal terms as men (over the age of 21) as a result of the Representation of the People Act 1928. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_K... Germany: In Germany, women's suffrage was granted in the new constitution of the Weimar republic in 1919. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#Germany France: Suffrage was extended to women in France by the 21 April 1944 ordinance of the French provisional government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#France
  - batista 15y ago
    30-33 countries had the women's vote before the US, from 1 year before to several decades. Not to mention how many countries had abolished slavery before the Civil War time.

batista 15y ago

the later stretched points undermine your argument A little maybe. But also consider that I wanted to show how people from other countries think of the situation too. I mean, people tend to think of country B in country's A terms and framing of the discussion, so I tried to do something like the opposite. I was not aware that the mainstream view was that Japan was surrendering before the atomic bombings. That view is widely held all around the world. Try to find some Europeans thinking the bombs were "needed". There is also evidence that us leaders knew about it, it was just a showcase, mainly to scare off USSR. Besides, it's of little consequence if Japan was surrendering or not: the war was going on with conventional weapons even in more dire times, including the Normandy invasion, so nothing called at that time to drop atomic bombs on civilians (if anything ever does). Especially considering that Japan was at the time under attack by conventional bombs, tons of them, that had burned most of its cities and killed hundreds of thousands. Easier said for Iraq than Afghanistan. It already had chaos, civil war, etc. at the onset of the invasion. Expected returns from mineral wealth hardly justify the cost. It had the Taliban rule, but not much civil war anymore. And certainly no mass chaos and deaths, like it does post invasion. And it's not just "mineral wealth", it's also setting foot in a strategic area. I'm guessing you mean King for one. Not sure who'd other would be? (Malcom X? He advocated racial seperation). Was thinking of X, yeah. Well, even if he advocated racial separation, just means he was killed just as a pro-black activist, instead of a anti-segregation activist. Both reasons seem bad to me. Either way, it's a tall argument that the country (government?) assassinated them. Who said the government? I said "the country". To show it in the same vain as people that blame other countries for things done not only by the government but also by local religious nuts, teams etc. Iran executes people at not only a far higher rate but even in absolute numbers. It also applies death penalty to a far wider range of crimes. Not much consolation. One's too many for my tastes. YMMV. Sure, but they aren't running the government No, they only run the previous government. And no one can talk openly against them, or they will lose office pronto. As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B. You mean like in the Salem trials? What, that was long ago? Then tell me, why Country A, that stopped practicing slavery later than other countries, introduced women's voting later than other countries, stopped racial segregation later than other countries, has not yet stopped practicing the death penalty unlike other countries, etc etc, thinks other countries should all be on the same timeline as it does, as to what laws they have?

yareally 15y ago
As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B. You mean like in the Salem trials? What, that was long ago? Europe was still trying people for heresy in the 17th century around the time of the witch trials. The inquisition was still very much alive throughout Europe (and enforcing the death penalty if needed). Galileo came very close to being a heretic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair Then tell me, why Country A...introduced women's voting later than other countries... The US: 1920 --Women can vote (with many states doing so before then) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_S... The UK: 1928 – Women received the vote on equal terms as men (over the age of 21) as a result of the Representation of the People Act 1928. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_K... Germany: In Germany, women's suffrage was granted in the new constitution of the Weimar republic in 1919. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#Germany France: Suffrage was extended to women in France by the 21 April 1944 ordinance of the French provisional government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#France
- batista 15y ago
  30-33 countries had the women's vote before the US, from 1 year before to several decades. Not to mention how many countries had abolished slavery before the Civil War time.