(Sidenote: I'm replying like this because for some reason, I can't use the "MultiQuote" feature)

 

Yard1: I know Africa is not a continent, but most of it is considered a part of the third world. You should take a look at this map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World#mediaviewer/File:Cold_War_alliances-mid-1975.svg

 

unre3al: First, don't be disrespectful to me, I'm not being disrespectful to you, the example was meant to show how some people from a first-world country like the United States, can be racist with people from a third-world country like Mexico, don't take that as an offense. The term "third-world" today, though less used, is used to denote either a developing country, or a poor country. I can, Argentina was going to become a first-world country during the 40's, but a coup took us that opportunity away, then, on the 1970's, again, the same history. Interestingly, most interventions in Latin America, after Independence wars, were caused by the United States, starting in the 1800's, and finishing in the 1980's, here in South America, your politicians were the responsibles of many deaths and coups, your current politicians must help us, because the damage caused by your country is actually nothing compared to your actual help to our sub-continent, nor to Central America. Today, we are still better than most South and Central American countries, yet, we're considered a "third-world country"

 

I3ubba: No, I don't want your opinions of every third-world country in the World, and I know the situation in most third-world countries are different to each from each other

 

CriminalKillaz: But tell me, do you live in Africa to take such a conclusion? Why is Africa considered the poorest continent in the world then? Most of Africa is considered the third world, the only countries which are way healthier than most of Africa are South Africa and Egypt, but the rest of the countries in the continent are sadly, poor, and most people in Africa live in the worst conditions, an example is Mali, no roads, low life expetancy, and one of the poorest countries in Africa.

You don't need to reside somewhere to know of it's current status. Africa is considered the poorest continent in the world, because people are racist, ignorant, and believe in what they see on TV. I still can't believe that people actually trust those TV commercials about the starving African children. Africa isn't the only place that has starving children. Almost every part of the world other than Europe and North America is considered the "third world". Why do you think "first world" countries are facing mass immigration? South Africa and Egypt aren't the only developed countries in Africa. Every country in Africa has enough resources to survive, maybe not for a long time under the best condition, but they do have the resources. They aren't being born then dying the next day, as TV propaganda would have you believe. There are less than 6 African nations that are in absolute poverty and chaos. In-fact, most African nations have iPhone's available for it's people to purchase.

Edited October 12, 201411 yr by CriminalKillaz

unre3al: First, don't be disrespectful to me, I'm not being disrespectful to you, the example was meant to show how some people from a first-world country like the United States, can be racist with people from a third-world country like Mexico, don't take that as an offense. The term "third-world" today, though less used, is used to denote either a developing country, or a poor country. I can, Argentina was going to become a first-world country during the 40's, but a coup took us that opportunity away, then, on the 1970's, again, the same history. Interestingly, most interventions in Latin America, after Independence wars, were caused by the United States, starting in the 1800's, and finishing in the 1980's, here in South America, your politicians were the responsibles of many deaths and coups, your current politicians must help us, because the damage caused by your country is actually nothing compared to your actual help to our sub-continent, nor to Central America. Today, we are still better than most South and Central American countries, yet, we're considered a "third-world country"

No, you are being disrespectful to me, whether you mean it or not. Your lumping me and all my fellow citizens in with bunch of people who paint all people who speak the same language as the same race. That's not fair to me or to anyone else, so you're no better than them for coming out and saying that. And don't pin all of your countries problems on me, I don't owe you anything, and I don't think our current government does either. America intervened in your country's affairs before by giving weapons and money like we've done with several countries in the past to try and assist in the establishment of a better government to better serve the U.N. and NATO, some times with success and other times without. And I feel empathy that things didn't work out the way the politicians of the day pictured it.

However, it's not fair of you to sit there and tell everyone that we have to rebuild your country for you. You know what country was way worse off than you in the 1940's? Germany. America, England and Russia utterly destroyed that country by 1945 due to World War II. People in Berlin had no running water, no power, no telephones, no hospitals, no police, no army, no air force and had a significantly reduced male population due to all the military conscripts casualties. A lot of current day third world countries have a lot of the things Germany didn't have. Germany is still paying back, or just finished paying back reparations money from WWI and WWII if my memory serves me correct (a German resident of this forum can fill us in on this properly) and the re-construction of Berlin alone, never mind other cities in Germany, wasn't complete until the 1980's. Germany lost two world wars, wound up split in half between the Soviet Union and NATO for around 50 years, and have come back from utter poverty to regain it's status as one of the most civilized, modern and well-to-do western countries in the world today.

And they did that on their own. If they can do it, I believe other countries can too.

Edited October 12, 201411 yr by unr3al

And don't pin all of your countries problems on me, I don't owe you anything, and I don't think our current government does either. America intervened in your country's affairs before by giving weapons and money like we've done with several countries in the past to try and assist in the establishment of a better government to better serve the U.N. and NATO

Yeah and it worked out sooo well...

Believe it or not, but most native Afghans that I've met blame Pentagon/CIA for the pitiful conditions of their country. And there are Americans like yourself who sit at home believing that they did the world a huge favor by intervening in the nations and toying with their regional political situations there which they have absolutely no concerns with. And I can tell you right here and now that there are more Americans on this forum who think that it was a wrong move and that the US should have better spent all that money in their own country to solve their people's problems and clearing debts rather than poking their nose where it doesn't belong.

 

However, it's not fair of you to sit there and tell everyone that we have to rebuild your country for you. You know what country was way worse off than you in the 1940's? Germany. America, England and Russia utterly destroyed that country by 1945 due to World War II. People in Berlin had no running water, no power, no telephones, no hospitals, no police, no army, no air force and had a significantly reduced male population due to all the military conscripts casualties. A lot of current day third world countries have a lot of the things Germany didn't have. Germany is still paying back, or just finished paying back reparations money from WWI and WWII if my memory serves me correct (a German resident of this forum can fill us in on this properly) and the re-construction of Berlin alone, never mind other cities in Germany, wasn't complete until the 1980's. Germany lost two world wars, wound up split in half between the Soviet Union and NATO for around 50 years, and have come back from utter poverty to regain it's status as one of the most civilized, modern and well-to-do western countries in the world today.

Wow! Now, thats just plain ignorance. I won't even go on to counter that claim. Read some Asian history and you'll get to know how most British colonies were forced into WWs and are now "actually" suffering under the third-world countries tag. Germany is faar better in terms of suffering.

No, you are being disrespectful to me, whether you mean it or not. Your lumping me and all my fellow citizens in with bunch of people who paint all people who speak the same language as the same race. That's not fair to me or to anyone else, so you're no better than them for coming out and saying that. And don't pin all of your countries problems on me, I don't owe you anything, and I don't think our current government does either. America intervened in your country's affairs before by giving weapons and money like we've done with several countries in the past to try and assist in the establishment of a better government to better serve the U.N. and NATO, some times with success and other times without. And I feel empathy that things didn't work out the way the politicians of the day pictured it.

However, it's not fair of you to sit there and tell everyone that we have to rebuild your country for you. You know what country was way worse off than you in the 1940's? Germany. America, England and Russia utterly destroyed that country by 1945 due to World War II. People in Berlin had no running water, no power, no telephones, no hospitals, no police, no army, no air force and had a significantly reduced male population due to all the military conscripts casualties. A lot of current day third world countries have a lot of the things Germany didn't have. Germany is still paying back, or just finished paying back reparations money from WWI and WWII if my memory serves me correct (a German resident of this forum can fill us in on this properly) and the re-construction of Berlin alone, never mind other cities in Germany, wasn't complete until the 1980's. Germany lost two world wars, wound up split in half between the Soviet Union and NATO for around 50 years, and have come back from utter poverty to regain it's status as one of the most civilized, modern and well-to-do western countries in the world today.

And they did that on their own. If they can do it, I believe other countries can too.

 

Did I say all Americans were racist with Mexicans? No, I didn't, but you shouldn't deny that some Americans are quite racist with Mexicans. I know, I'm not better than anyone else here, we are all humans. I'm not saying that your current goverment is the cause for my country's problems, but your former goverments certainly caused many problems in the past and that are still not resolved at all, that's why I think your goverment must help Latin America. Your country's intervention in South America were meant to kill almost every president in South America, and establish dictatorships, the name of such intervention was: "Operation Condor" and didn't help at all, no one likes living under military pressure, would you like to? it just caused many deaths, more people on the line of poverty, many disappeared people, censorship, etc. All dictators of the 70's in South America were behind this operation. The countries affected were: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela, almost the whole sub-continent was affected.

 

Some countries can recover from a war, and some sadly, can't. Germany could, and is today a global potence, and developed country. Yes, other countries can, but most countries in the third-world have corrupt goverments, and these goverments just steal money from the people, it's not like one's country can become a first-world country in like 5 years, becoming a first-world country takes time.

 

 

Yeah and it worked out sooo well...

Believe it or not, but most native Afghans that I've met blame Pentagon/CIA for the pitiful conditions of their country. And there are Americans like yourself who sit at home believing that they did the world a huge favor by intervening in the nations and toying with their regional political situations there which they have absolutely no concerns with. And I can tell you right here and now that there are more Americans on this forum who think that it was a wrong move and that the US should have better spent all that money in their own country to solve their people's problems and clearing debts rather than poking their nose where it doesn't belong.

Yeah because Afghanistan would have been way better off being under the control of the Soviet Union, right? Get a grip. We don't just give random sh*t to countries unprovoked. We are looked to for mass production of arms and vehicles by everyone. We gave weapons and money to Afghanistan to fight off the Russians, and they did successfully. In hindsight, due to the conflicts we had in the 2000's, that unfortunately ended up hurting us, but hindsight is always 20/20. Alliances change, factions dissolve, governments get overthrown in the "3rd world" as we know it today. But don't sit there and bullsh*t me trying to say that having a communist middle east would have been better for the world.

And no, I don't think we did a huge favor. As said before, America intervenes if it benefits NATO and the U.N. The Afghanistan war with Russia was during the cold war, so the western allies had something to lose if that region fell into the grip of communism. That's why we had a concern with it. And I agree plenty of Americans on here will disagree with me, but the vast majority of them know little to nothing about history and politics throughout the past 100 years. 

 

 

Wow! Now, thats just plain ignorance. I won't even go on to counter that claim. Read some Asian history and you'll get to know how most British colonies were forced into WWs and are now "actually" suffering under the third-world countries tag. Germany is faar better in terms of suffering.

 

 

I like how you said you wouldn't go on to counter that claim, and then you followed up by trying to do so. Germany was no better in terms of suffering in April 1945. At leas 5,000 women in Berlin alone committed suicide due to mass rape at the hands of the Russians, there was no running water, no food, many homes were destroyed, no government, no military and a significantly reduced male population. And they bounced back from it by working hard. Japan didn't even get a land invasion. Casualties for X-Day were projected to be 1,000,000 Japanese and 100,000 Americans, so despite the two nukes, they got off easy compared to what could have happened with us, never mind the fact that Russia broke down their back door in the last few weeks of the war and was quickly sweeping through China on their way to Japan. Most British colonies were forced into the war by Britain, not America. And that's one of the reasons why they don't own most of those colonies anymore. It was a stipulation of us providing assistance in WWII. Many countries suffering in Asia were or still are under either a dictatorship, imperial rule or communist leadership. Countries that worked hard to modernize themselves and wound up using a more democratic form of government are the ones doing well, barring China who has made communism work for its government at the expense of many of its citizens. World War II has long been over and China got the worst of the Japanese invasions, yet here they stand as one of the world's economic powers. Any country can bounce back with enough hard work. Germany and China both proved that.

 

Some countries can recover from a war, and some sadly, can't. Germany could, and is today a global potence, and developed country. Yes, other countries can, but most countries in the third-world have corrupt goverments, and these goverments just steal money from the people, it's not like one's country can become a first-world country in like 5 years, becoming a first-world country takes time.

 

In order to overthrow a dictatorship and help you, guess what would have to be done? We'd either have to give you weapons and money and let you do it on your own, or we'd have to do a full scale land invasion and install a puppet government, which would upset people like Troy who think we shouldn't get involved in world affairs. Maybe you two better have a chat and come to terms that sometimes intervention is necessary like it or not. America tried to leave everybody alone physically during both WWI and WWII, and we got dragged into it anyway on both occasions. During WWI Germany sent Mexico a message asking them to attack us to keep us busy so we wouldn't end up in Europe. We caught wind of it, and took the fight to them. During WWII when Japan didn't like us installing economical sanctions that would urge them to stop massacring people in China, they attacked our main Naval base to keep us away from Asian shores for 6 months so they could finish taking over the rest of that area.

Edited October 12, 201411 yr by unr3al

Yeah because Afghanistan would have been way better off being under the control of the Soviet Union, right? Get a grip. We don't just give random sh*t to countries unprovoked. We are looked to for mass production of arms and vehicles by everyone. We gave weapons and money to Afghanistan to fight off the Russians, and they did successfully. In hindsight, due to the conflicts we had in the 2000's, that unfortunately ended up hurting us, but hindsight is always 20/20. Alliances change, factions dissolve, governments get overthrown in the "3rd world" as we know it today. But don't sit there and bullsh*t me trying to say that having a communist middle east would have been better for the world.

Riiight. So to help Afghans fight off the Soviet union, its okay to fund Al-Qaeda. You are the one who needs to get a grip. To answer your first question, I indeed think Afghanistan would have been way better off being under control of the Soviet Union than being pathetically infested and controlled by your covert CIA program's backfire, better known as Al-Qaeda. I wonder if you caught my meaning when I mentioned CIA/Pentagon in my previous post addressing the same issue.

 

And no, I don't think we did a huge favor. As said before, America intervenes if it benefits NATO and the U.N. The Afghanistan war with Russia was during the cold war, so the western allies had something to lose if that region fell into the grip of communism. That's why we had a concern with it. And I agree plenty of Americans on here will disagree with me, but the vast majority of them know little to nothing about history and politics throughout the past 100 years.

Yeah. And the world is made out of chocolate and there's rainbow-farting unicorn in my backyard. On one hand you talk like an expert on the issue, and on the other hand you act as if you were an innocent gullible person who thinks all of the official statements released by the President's office are nothing but pure truth.

 

I like how you said you wouldn't go on to counter that claim, and then you followed up by trying to do so.

Happy much?

Germany was no better in terms of suffering in April 1945. At leas 5,000 women in Berlin alone committed suicide due to mass rape at the hands of the Russians, there was no running water, no food, many homes were destroyed, no government, no military and a significantly reduced male population. And they bounced back from it by working hard. Japan didn't even get a land invasion. Casualties for X-Day were projected to be 1,000,000 Japanese and 100,000 Americans, so despite the two nukes, they got off easy compared to what could have happened with us, never mind the fact that Russia broke down their back door in the last few weeks of the war and was quickly sweeping through China on their way to Japan. Most British colonies were forced into the war by Britain, not America. And that's one of the reasons why they don't own most of those colonies anymore. It was a stipulation of us providing assistance in WWII. Many countries suffering in Asia were or still are under either a dictatorship, imperial rule or communist leadership. Countries that worked hard to modernize themselves and wound up using a more democratic form of government are the ones doing well, barring China who has made communism work for its government at the expense of many of its citizens. World War II has long been over and China got the worst of the Japanese invasions, yet here they stand as one of the world's economic powers. Any country can bounce back with enough hard work. Germany and China both proved that.

I don't even know why you're stuck on Germany. It sounds as its the only thing you remember from the history book you read. I have so much to write here but then again, it is too much to be written. But still, just to rejog your memory: WW II was triggered almost solely because of Germany invading Poland. They were able, development-centric and prospering country then, and even after war, like you said yourself, they stood back up on their feet. But whats important here to remember is that they were able to bounce back BECAUSE of their pre-WW II condition. This thread is about third-world countries, and almost all of them were NOT able, development-centric and prospering and neither are they now. Conclusion is clear. Post-WW II, only a handful have been able to progress beyond that bar. For instance, India was a British colony pre-WW II. During WW-II, they were fighting for independence and getting their young children forced into the war across the globe at the same time. Indian PoWs back then were used as live targets for Japanese army recruits practice sessions and to satisfy their cannibalism hunger. At home, their parents were tied to houses and burned alive with their entire village by the British for participating in independence movements. Thousands of armed soldiers used to slaughter unarmed crowds with their guns from a safe distance. So stop thinking like Germany was the only country which had its fate sealed during WW II. You don't seem to know what was happening in other parts of the world at that time.

 

Riiight. So to help Afghans fight off the Soviet union, its okay to fund Al-Qaeda. You are the one who needs to get a grip. To answer your first question, I indeed think Afghanistan would have been way better off being under control of the Soviet Union than being pathetically infested and controlled by your covert CIA program's backfire, better known as Al-Qaeda. I wonder if you caught my meaning when I mentioned CIA/Pentagon in my previous post addressing the same issue.

 

Al Queda didn't exist until the end of Afghanistan's war with Russia. You must not be very old to understand how sensitive nuclear tensions were even into the 1980's. Sure lets give Russia more countries available for Russian missile launch sites, weapons storage and development territories or more conscripts for their army. Hell, why not let them take over the whole continent? Why not? What's the worst that could happen?
 

 

Yeah. And the world is made out of chocolate and there's rainbow-farting unicorn in my backyard. On one hand you talk like an expert on the issue, and on the other hand you act as if you were an innocent gullible person who thinks all of the official statements released by the President's office are nothing but pure truth.

Looks like you ignored the second part of the paragraph you quoted, so I'll spell it out for you if you can read it. Guess what? The countries that matter in the U.N. or even NATO, despite it already being a small group, are very few in number. America is one, England, France, Germany, Canada, Israel and Australia are among the others that I can think of mattering to us the most, primarily because they are the biggest cooperators with our military, they buy from us, trade stuff with us and they share our ideals of democracy more than others. No matter their coordinates on the globe, all of the countries mentioned had something to lose if the communists took over two continents. You'd have to be ignorant or just simply ignoring facts just to continue arguing with me in order to debate that. Many conflicts throughout the cold war era were because of that the ever looming threat of a third world war spearheaded by Russia and the U.S. But like I said earlier, what's the worst that could happen if we had just let Stalin do what he wanted in Asia and left Germany on May 9th and not stayed behind?
 

 

I don't even know why you're stuck on Germany. It sounds as its the only thing you remember from the history book you read. I have so much to write here but then again, it is too much to be written. But still, just to rejog your memory: WW II was triggered almost solely because of Germany invading Poland.

 

Speaking of history books, you may want to crack one open some time. World War II's start wasn't with the invasion of Poland. Mass casualties in that era started with Japan cutting into China and slaughtering people practically at will years before 1939. Or if you want to ignore the start of the Pacific campaign entirely, you can still go back to 1918 to find the start of WWII in Europe. The Versailles Treaty was the main cause of Germany's eventual rise to power and it's conflict with the rest of Europe. Really it was WWI that started WWII. The treaty had so many unfair conditions including having them foot the bill for all damage and forbidding them from having an effective military that it was only a matter of time before someone with political power would get angry over it, or someone who was angry over it would gain political power; which is what happened. Compounding on top of that was the depression that swept the world and eventually hit Germany, which was one of the countries that got hit the hardest by it. Even after the perfect storm had brought Hitler to real power in 1933, it took many years and several violations of the Versailles Treaty to have Europe break out into all-out war again. WWII and the holocaust didn't just magically happen after the invasion of Poland. You had the annex of Austria, then the absorption of Czechoslovakia, the unveiling of the Luftwaffe, the secret re-armaments program, the Nuremberg laws, battles in the streets with opposing political factions, and much more. As you seem to enjoy saying: "It's too much to be written." And that's just about the start of the war in Europe. I didn't get into detail about Japan having virtually no input at the Versailles negotiations or America's position or potential at that time.

Germany's pre-WWII position was shit. Granted many people there were living in buildings with foundations made out of rock, concrete and metal, but that's because as many other nations in Europe and North America did; they worked hard and managed to move out of the bronze age on their own, unlike many other countries that are still around today. And yes India was a colony of England at one time and yes they had hardships there, but they weren't the only ones. You seem to constantly be ignoring Japan's role in the war. How about the germ warfare they tested on the Chinese? What about the bayoneting of civilians in the streets and torpedoing of ships that had Americans and Europeans on them that attempted to leave the ports of cities that were being destroyed by machine gun and cannon fire? What about the Bataan death march (and many others like it) or the "medical experiments" on living prisoners from all allied countries? Or if you'd rather talk about the middle east and how America is somehow the cause of all of the problems there since "forever", why don't we take a trip through the pages of history to when England controlled much of that area also? How they occupied it with troops like we do today and the constant quelling of ethnic squabbles that occur over there on a yearly basis.

But getting back on the topic of third world countries friend-o, humans are humans, and the evolution and stabilization of any country is possible given the right people in charge and the right work ethic. Make whatever excuses you wan't about where it's geographically located or what war's they've had in the past. It doesn't matter. Hell, you may even live to see it if revolutions in the middle east don't get steamrolled by groups like ISIS. But that's a discussion for a thread that was created a few months ago.

Edited October 13, 201411 yr by unr3al

In order to overthrow a dictatorship and help you, guess what would have to be done? We'd either have to give you weapons and money and let you do it on your own, or we'd have to do a full scale land invasion and install a puppet government, which would upset people like Troy who think we shouldn't get involved in world affairs. Maybe you two better have a chat and come to terms that sometimes intervention is necessary like it or not. America tried to leave everybody alone physically during both WWI and WWII, and we got dragged into it anyway on both occasions. During WWI Germany sent Mexico a message asking them to attack us to keep us busy so we wouldn't end up in Europe. We caught wind of it, and took the fight to them. During WWII when Japan didn't like us installing economical sanctions that would urge them to stop massacring people in China, they attacked our main Naval base to keep us away from Asian shores for 6 months so they could finish taking over the rest of that area.

Actually That's not why we went to war in WWI. If you're referring to the Zimmerman telegram, it actually asked Mexico to only attack us if we declared war on Germany. The sinking of the Lusitania caused us to go to war.

Al Queda didn't exist until the end of Afghanistan's war with Russia. You must not be very old to understand how sensitive nuclear tensions were even into the 1980's. Sure lets give Russia more countries available for Russian missile launch sites, weapons storage and development territories or more conscripts for their army. Hell, why not let them take over the whole continent? Why not? What's the worst that could happen?

You're blowing things out of proportion. The same can be said about US. From a non-US resident standpoint, I can too say: "Sure, lets sit back and see the CIA manipulate governments in the middle-east and South America. Let them cause more chaos in this region so they can use the regional natural resources for their own profit and keep the world superpower  throne to themselves which earns them even more rights to bully third-world countries. Let them grow more Al-Qaedas in every corner of the world. Hell, why not let them take over the entire planet? Whats the worst that could happen?"

Spewing bullshit is no solution, lad. We could do this all day long.

 

 

Looks like you ignored the second part of the paragraph you quoted, so I'll spell it out for you if you can read it. Guess what? The countries that matter in the U.N. or even NATO, despite it already being a small group, are very few in number. America is one, England, France, Germany, Canada, Israel and Australia are among the others that I can think of mattering to us the most, primarily because they are the biggest cooperators with our military, they buy from us, trade stuff with us and they share our ideals of democracy more than others. No matter their coordinates on the globe, all of the countries mentioned had something to lose if the communists took over two continents. You'd have to be ignorant or just simply ignoring facts just to continue arguing with me in order to debate that. Many conflicts throughout the cold war era were because of that the ever looming threat of a third world war spearheaded by Russia and the U.S. But like I said earlier, what's the worst that could happen if we had just let Stalin do what he wanted in Asia and left Germany on May 9th and not stayed behind?

 

No offense, but I think the USA can do just about anything and get away with it, today. So, in my humble opinion, what you wrote above about NATO being a fraternity is nonsense. Other countries won't isolate the US like they can/are doing with Russia. USA is undeniably the world superpower right now. And if I'm fair enough to admit this, I'm fair enough to admit the fact that they're abusing their influence in world politics. Which is only fair. One who's got the stick, will swing it with force to keep others under tab.

 

Speaking of history books, you may want to crack one open some time. World War II's start wasn't with the invasion of Poland.

Yes it was. It took time for WW II to spiral into WW II. See below.

 

Mass casualties in that era started with Japan cutting into China and slaughtering people practically at will years before 1939. Or if you want to ignore the start of the Pacific campaign entirely, you can still go back to 1918 to find the start of WWII in Europe.

Thats why I said:

WW II was triggered almost solely because of Germany invading Poland

Tensions were high indeed. But the real WW II was triggered mainly after German invasion into Poland.

Edited October 13, 201411 yr by Troy

 

You're blowing things out of proportion. The same can be said about US. From a non-US resident standpoint, I can too say: "Sure, lets sit back and see the CIA manipulate governments in the middle-east and South America. Let them cause more chaos in this region so they can use the regional natural resources for their own profit and keep the world superpower  throne to themselves which earns them even more rights to bully third-world countries. Let them grow more Al-Qaedas in every corner of the world. Hell, why not let them take over the entire planet? Whats the worst that could happen?"

 

The Russian dictatorship was arguably one of the worst ones since Nazi Germany. There's nothing to be blown out of proportion about censorship, spy rings, mass killings of your own people and slave labor camps. Let's be clear; nobody but the country that founded Al Queda caused Al Queda to start up. Leaving behind M16's doesn't magically give them the power to recruit people based on established religious ideals. Islam can be a very peaceful religion, it's fanatics like Osama Bin Laden with radical ideals and public speaking power that convert people over to the extreme side. It has nothing to do with a crate full of munitions, and you know it.
 

 

No offense, but I think the USA can do just about anything and get away with it, today. So, in my humble opinion, what you wrote above about NATO being a fraternity is nonsense. Other countries won't isolate the US like they can/are doing with Russia.

That's because we're one of the countries that keeps the globe growing and evolving. Computers came from here, the internet came from here, mobile phones came from here, nuclear fusion and fission came from here, some of the best weapons developments came from here. But no country is invulnerable. Although we're an island nation, we're landlocked between two very large countries, and because of intercontinental planes and missiles, nobody is truly safe against a determined opponent. You can't possibly tell me that NATO partnerships are nonsense. Look at who came to war with us first in Iraq. England, Germany, Canada, Israel, France and Australia. It doesn't mean that all of  those countries are best friends with us, but we are their most important ally.
 

 

And if I'm fair enough to admit this, I'm fair enough to admit the fact that they're abusing their influence in world politics. Which is only fair. One who's got the stick, will swing it with force to keep others under tab.

If you have a better idea of how to play world politics, there's no need to tell me. Get on the horn with President Obama and let him know how you'd fix it. Or you could run for President yourself.
 

 

Yes it was. It took time for WW II to spiral into WW II. See below.

 

Thats why I said:

Tensions were high indeed. But the real WW II was triggered mainly after German invasion into Poland.

 

That's like saying a single hamburger at McDonalds caused someone to have a heart attack and it was the main reason for it. That's not the case. There was a lot of other sh*t that happened first. Poland was merely the last straw. If Hitler had asked for the port of Danzig before focusing on Czechoslovakia, he probably would have got it. His last land request that was granted to him by England and France was under the condition that he would have no more territorial demands. Hitler kept betting on England and France not having the stomach for another world war, and for a few years, he was correct. If not for Neville Chamberlain making that stupid treaty in an effort to calm Europe down, World War II might have happened earlier and been shorter.

Actually That's not why we went to war in WWI. If you're referring to the Zimmerman telegram, it actually asked Mexico to only attack us if we declared war on Germany. The sinking of the Lusitania caused us to go to war.

That's not true. The Lusitania happened in 1915, the U.S. didn't enter the war until 1917. The Zimmerman telegram came in early 1917. I'll grant you that the repeated sinking of allied ships past the Lusitania didn't help.

Edited October 13, 201411 yr by unr3al

I always love when debates skyrocket like this. I'm rooting for you unr3al.

I always love when debates skyrocket like this. I'm rooting for you unr3al.

Thanks for the support, but I hate topics like these because they always trigger fights, which end up getting off topic anyway. In all the years I've worked with the public, a common suggestion for employees is to never talk with customers about three things:

1.) Politics

2.) Religion

3.) Sex

This forum (among many others) has topics about all of them regularly so lord knows it's only a matter of time before we see some drama or history lectures.