This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Weekly Debate #6: Team America, World Police
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Random0098
Hi everyone. So for this week's debate, we have an interesting question.
Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good?
This applies to all other countries as well, but the USA has been described as ‘the world’s policeman’ - Do they have the right to police the world? Is their influence helping or hindering the stability of the political and social climate of the world?
Feel free to discuss all countries, not just the U.S.A. This is a global issue.
Post by
TheMediator
Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good?
Kind of a bull*!@# question. My answer is C, while they do help promote stability world wide, it doesn't make them "good".
Post by
338937
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
No, they don't have the right, unless asked..
Post by
Sagramor
The United States have no right to invade a country, no matter what intention they claim to have, to act as world police force. Unless said country asks for their help, or the invasion is approved by the UN, doing so is breaking
international law
and should be punished severely.
Post by
Sagramor
Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good?
Kind of a bull*!@# question. My answer is C, while they do help promote stability world wide, it doesn't make them "good".
The US doesn't help promote stability world wide. Much, much, much to the contrary.
Post by
TheMediator
Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good?
Kind of a bull*!@# question. My answer is C, while they do help promote stability world wide, it doesn't make them "good".
The US doesn't help promote stability world wide. Much, much, much to the contrary.
Germany, Japan, etc. would be %^&*holes if the US didn't help them recover.
Post by
Sagramor
Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good?
Kind of a bull*!@# question. My answer is C, while they do help promote stability world wide, it doesn't make them "good".
The US doesn't help promote stability world wide. Much, much, much to the contrary.
Germany, Japan, etc. would be %^&*holes if the US didn't help them recover.
Lol.
Japan was completely destroyed by the US. More so than it should have been (I get it that they needed to invade Japan, but what they did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unnecessary to reach their supposed goals), than stayed in there, which basically forced Japan to buy everything they lost from the US, making it US' b!itch (I apologize for the term, if it might offend someone).
Germany was basically the same thing, the only difference was that the Russians destroyed Germany, the US just got lucky with it because of the outcome of the Cold War.
Post by
MyTie
Lol.
Japan was completely destroyed by the US.
I don't actually remember this happening in any history book I've ever read.
Post by
Sagramor
Lol.
Japan was completely destroyed by the US.
I don't actually remember this happening in any history book I've ever read.
Please refrain from sarcasm.
Post by
Skyfire
Lol.
Japan was completely destroyed by the US.
I don't actually remember this happening in any history book I've ever read.
Please refrain from sarcasm.
That wasn't.
Post by
MyTie
Please refrain from sarcasm.
I'll get right on that.
Post by
Sagramor
Lol.
Japan was completely destroyed by the US.
I don't actually remember this happening in any history book I've ever read.
Please refrain from sarcasm.
That wasn't.
It was either sarcasm or he's an idiot. Which do you think is most likely?
Post by
TheMediator
Japan was hardly destroyed. The nukes saved the Japanese people from total annihilation. If the aliies had launched a land invasion of Japan, hundreds of times more people would have been killed.
Post by
Sagramor
Japan was hardly destroyed. The nukes saved the Japanese people from total annihilation. If the aliies had launched a land invasion of Japan, hundreds of times more people would have been killed.
Wrong.
The Allies did not need to invade Japan, it had already lost. The USA could have easily took all 5 islands without nuking it, and the death total would have been lower. The nukes just increased the death total, and have effects which are still visible in the people from those areas.
The only real reason the US nuked Japan was to show the world it's new toy, because he knew what was about to follow WWII.
Also; "hardly destroyed"? Really?
Post by
MyTie
It was either sarcasm or he's an idiot.I wonder what has you riled up. I simply pointed out that Japan had never been completely destroyed before. Does that offend you?
Post by
TheMediator
Japan was hardly destroyed. The nukes saved the Japanese people from total annihilation. If the aliies had launched a land invasion of Japan, hundreds of times more people would have been killed.
Wrong.
The Allies did not need to invade Japan, it had already lost. The USA could have easily took all 5 islands without nuking it, and the death total would have been lower. The nukes just increased the death total, and have effects which are still visible in the people from those areas.
The only real reason the US nuked Japan was to show the world it's new toy, because he knew what was about to follow WWII.
Also; "hardly destroyed"? Really?
You know very little. Japan was very very stubborn and only seeing that the entire population of Japan could be annihilated with little resistance pushed them to surrender... and they had to be shown it TWICE, that's how stubborn Japan was. They would have never surrendered without almost totally wiping out the Japanese people otherwise.
Post by
Sagramor
It was either sarcasm or he's an idiot.I wonder what has you riled up. I simply pointed out that Japan had never been completely destroyed before. Does that offend you?
Not really. I said "idiot" because you are being one. 2 atomic bombs. Thousands of regular bombardments, besides the land and sea invasions. And you say that Japan wasn't destroyed?
Post by
Sagramor
You know very little. Japan was very very stubborn and only seeing that the entire population of Japan could be annihilated with little resistance pushed them to surrender... and they had to be shown it TWICE, that's how stubborn Japan was. They would have never surrendered without almost totally wiping out the Japanese people otherwise.
The US could have invaded Japan, taken it's capital, and forced it to surrender, and the death total would have been smaller. Also the two bombardments happened very closely to each other, it was not because one wasn't enough.
Post by
TheMediator
The US could have invaded Japan, taken it's capital, and forced it to surrender, and the death total would have been smaller.
No they couldn't have. Read a book. Learn the facts.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
