Yes please use Wikipedia as a source! PLEASE.

Wikipedia is the only true encyclopedia. It offers an unbiased viewpoint on a variety of subjects because anybody can edit it, and an administration system so that people can't troll, or regular people who help out here and there. Wikipedia articles also usually have a healthy amount of credible sources, so there's that.

tl;dr have some faith in humanity.

>Funny story.
>Present.
>Surfing the WL forums.
>Havetowalkthroughallthedebategarbage.jpg
>Find a link.
>Instinctively click on it.
>Old Lawlz thread "Dont lie to yourselves".
>Finds good quote that summarizes these political debates very well.

"

I am highly tempted to take the bait. But why stir a debate regarding Israel-Palestine ? The views each person holds would be too dear to them and it would be a ceaseless debate with no practical outcome.

"
-Ehrmantraut

>Applaud.

Worth trying.

They've also been in Georgia on more than one occasion, and there is the matter of their current meddling with Ukraine. (Not just referring to Crimea.)

The Russian Federation was just fighting a Soviet war still going on, and it's just like when you are the new PM during a war: You don't just immediately sign a peace treaty, it won't get accepted, or it will be accepted with losses to you. The war started as a Soviet civil war contained in the GeoSSR, and the rest was just the going on with it.

And also, I thought Novorossiya was very obvious.

I'm not even going to dignify your post with a proper response until you learn how to debate without ad-hominems and personal attacks.

Had to translate ad hominem...still didn't make sense. Please speak English.
Also, this isn't a debate, it's a quarrel.

and now we watch as Xypapy continues to rape two kittens and a dog. and... OH WAIT , WHATS THIS?! HES HAVING ANAL SEX WITH THEM! A round of applause for Xypapy everyone!

Had to translate ad hominem...still didn't make sense. Please speak English.
Also, this isn't a debate, it's a quarrel.


A simple Google search would of helped, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
That part of my post wasn't even directed at you though.

Online a quarrel just equals people flaming each other and throwing around insults, seems pretty pointless to me. I'd rather have a civil debate but maybe that's not possible here.

You can't tell apart Latin and English. In normal worlds, they call it "Attacking person, not idea", not in Neo-Roma USA 2015.

And frankly, being called a fool is not that big an insult; you should be able to take that without whining too much.

@Genghis

Maybe unbiased but its a sufficiently reliable source. Anyone can edit, but who actually edits? Experts? I don't think so.

Edited 3/26/2015 12:44:37

Typical Ek loose. Ignore valid points which you cannot answer by criticising argument style. Grow up.

The only ones who need to grow up are the ones who can't debate without throwing out petty insults.

I'm not going to let this degrade to a flame war.

A flame containing Latin remains a flame. If you were morally superior you would mention flawed arguement in passing and actually respond to the valid points made. Answer Taisho properly. Can you?

I'm starting to consider asking for this thread to be locked.

So much controversy. It's like the Anti-USA part thinks USA is some Orwellian-type government, whose acting like one big power bloc of the world, blind patriots, critically-thinking and well-reasoned patriots who are criticized because of patriotism, and then people like me who are tired of people arguing like the USA congress so often spoke poorly of:

A. Nothing gets done.
B. Nobody changes their mind.
C. More useless information because it does not affect the situation whatsoever.

Just degrades into flame wars and trolling. Can we just debate on an issue that isn't primarily political?
I.e.
Equal pay for women.
Proper food distribution.
Gas price situation in US.
What would've happened if...
etc.

I know I'm not the only one who hates these heated arguments.

Rabble rabble rabble (if you get the reference congratulations)

To Taisho: I'm not even going to dignify your post with a proper response until you learn how to debate without ad-hominems and personal attacks.

Is an insult still an insult when it's true (i.e. a fact)?

fool

noun
1.
a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.

In this case, my declaring that I have gathered enough evidence to prove you are in fact a fool, is directly related to the stance you take on the issue at hand. Why, you ask? Because you seem incapable of providing a sufficient rebuttal to any points brought up, diverting focus from the main point and squabbling over definitions. You also fail to provide facts for your claims.

The very ways you present your arguments are weak and half-assed and yet you expect others to treat you with some degree of recognition.

When a country supplies another country with weapons, ammunition and supplies necessary to sustain an army, it's directly involved in an invasion.

When a country sends advisers, it's directly involved.

When a country sends bombers, it's directly involved.

When a country has covert operations which are declassified 20-50 years later proving military involvement, it's directly involved.

Now, saying the US didn't start these wars. Well, to this day there are those who believe that US started the war with Japan by applying an economic embargo against the Empire of Japan.

http://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harbor

One of many sources that show what I'm getting at.

America has done an excellent job in the past of making it look like the other guys "fired the first shot", but in all reality, the US was already neck deep with said countries long before it came to military conflict.

Let me reiterate, because people are again saying that I'm anti-US. I'm not. I even consider myself a patriot of sorts, but that doesn't stop me from openly criticizing the US government, military and economy for its unacceptable conduct in regards to the rest of the world.

Edited 3/27/2015 14:52:44

Wow taisho, way to act like a dick.

You're one to talk.

To Taisho:

Now, saying the US didn't start these wars. Well, to this day there are those who believe that US started the war with Japan by applying an economic embargo against the Empire of Japan.

Sanctions don't mean war, it means worsened relations. America was certainly getting rich from all that selling weapons to Europe, but getting involved in the war I don't think America wanted to do; that would mean spending the new riches.

Edited 3/27/2015 15:57:30

Wow taisho, way to act like a dick.

Which is exactly why I'm not responding to him anymore. If he wants to be a jerk about it that's fine but I'm not going to indulge the flame war.

Everyone should read Genghis' last post, because he is completely right. Continuing this topic is pointless: Neither side is going to change at all, neither will convince the other of anything, we will not reach a logical conclusion.

Again, it's worth trying.

Жұқтыру, the US did more than sell weapons and pass embargoes, but selling weapons is certainly a form of participation. Sanctions are a form of economic war.

If you have the time and interest, you should read Clausewitz "On War", you'll have a better understanding of where I stand on the issue.

Eklipse, you don't need to agree with myhand, Ottoman or myself. We don't have the all the pieces to the picture, but it's safe to say we have a better view than you and whether you choose to agree with us or not, doesn't change reality.

Hence the saying, ignorance is bliss.

the US did more than sell weapons and pass embargoes

Like what?

Selling weapons isn't a preparation form, it's a way to get money (what you do with that money is infinite). Often, in many wars, neutral countries sell weapons to both sides. Brazil sold weapons to both sides in World War 2, and then, after America was involved and blockaded Brazil, Brazil was pressured to join the Allied side, in which it did (half-assedly).