Total posts: 2,472
-->
@dustryder
Yes. But in the idea of keeping a nation united, modern France was built up over centuries and the regions that comprised of modern France were more likely to have had a similar culture.This is rather different to Austria-Hungary, where it was a modern union of two distinctive and already established states with their own history and cultures.
If Austria Hungary had assimilated the locals that they conquered, then the country would still exist today possibly. The Country might have broken up like Czecosloviaka, but they would still retain huge parts of their former country.
With the countries that have actually broken up, it seems to be that hostile military action was more than culprit than anything else
Why would this nationalistic military action take place?
And yet it can't be ignored that despite being US citizens, they are still comparatively poor.
Their GDP per capita of PR in 2016 is about the same as the US in 1996 and only slightly poorer then Mississippi in terms of GDP per capita.
They lack representation.
They have representation, they just don't have as much because they are a territory.
And historically, it was ceded to the US without much say.
Spain agreed to sell PR with some other islands for $20 million. There was a war for it but Spain in the end got money for the land.
I mean.. I don't think they were for or against self-governance or unionization based on slavery in the first place
Can you rephrase this? I don't think it makes much sense.
Didn't you guys get California as a result of the mexican-american war?
It was a combination of war and purchasing. But why did the US want the land? I think it was because culturally similar to America as opposed to Mexico. Unless you or someone else can provide an alternative reason, I don't know what else was the cause. Gold wasn't discovered until after the Mexican American war for the Mexican cession, so the reason wasn't purely economic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Would there be any actual evidence that we were accomplishing anything whatsoever? Could we see, hear, or feel spirits?
From what I've read, the dead people would have bodies that don't die so we would be able to see them climbing out of hell or being lifted out of hell by a Geo thermal powered elevator. They probably would cause the US population to increase as well as our GDP.
What would prevent the God who put them there in the first place from recapturing them and placing them back in torment elsewhere?
He might do that. I don't know how he would do that. God claims to be all powerful but if he were, he would have made life noticeably better for Christians in an effort to get more worship. I don't know if God has the power to stop millions of people from fleeing hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
"Hitler!!! What's up my dude! 6 million jews! Phhfft. You need to be saved"
As terrible as Hitler is, he probably learned his lesson after burning in hell for about 75 years. He killed Jews because he thought it was what God wanted him to do. If he comes to Earth again, I don't think he'll be killing any more Jews since that at least partially was the cause of him to burn in hell. Also, most people in hell aren't as terrible as Hitler, so punishing everyone by denying them access to Earth for the crimes of Hitler is social justice, punishing people on their group identity.
That's why we train to be good people
It takes more then being a "good person" to go to heaven. The average person is going to go to hell forever unless a hole is dug to free them.
Also, this is in 1950s, where the race for power was on. This could have been fibbed by the Russians.
What incentive would the Russians have to lie about hell? Their claim should be verified to see if people are actually suffering below the surface of the Earth.
They probably hit the core
The Russians lacked this ability. Otherwise, the core would have frozen by now due to the coldness of space that would be touching the core. Then our magnetic field would be less prominent.
Hell doesn't exist on Earth. It's its own thing and own dimension.
It could be either way. However, in the event that it is on Earth, we have the ability to save our dead relatives from future suffering.
i really don't like talking about religion on this site due to certain users.
That's fine.
just let me believe what i believe. but i had to give my input
You can believe what you believe, that's fine. I hope my idea gets more support which is why I posted it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Even if he isn't all knowing, he's still pretty smart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I propose on a policy that saves them with a combination of geo thermal powered elevators and ladders. They are saved once they are on Earth. I hope that they survive. It's not like they will die again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't think that God is all knowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
God doesn't have to be perfect for him to be so powerful that he might as well be all powerful.
No one is perfect, not even God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
God's plan isn't always 100 percent effective. Otherwise, he wouldn't have destroyed humanity by a flood. He probably sent people there out of convenience since it was pretty close to the surface.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I meant released from hell and to send to earth again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? It's why they didn't dig any further, the Soviets were scared of hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand? I'm not trolling. I think people in hell should be saved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If the economy doesn't serve the interests of the people why shouldn't socialism "destroy" it?
It does. As the rich get richer, the poor get richer. Your link confirmed this. It's not a lot, but given that the captains of industry are the ones leading this, it makes sense that they benefit more. Would it be better if the rich barely got better and the poor barely got better? I don't think so.
There are flaws to completely open capitalism such as the potential for unregulated monopolies which lead to high prices on stuff and the workers might get treated badly(if they don't like their job, the gov can provide a better job), but other then that, what's wrong with Capitalism?
People don't burn in hell
Too many people in hell.
This is a contradiction. Hell sadly exists and people burn there according to the link I provided.
Healthcare?
A person's living expenses can be summarized in the FISTO acrinomn. This is:
Food
Insurance or as you put it, Healthcare
Shelter
Taxes
Other
Those who came from hell won't need food, insurance/healthcare, or shelter because whatever conditions they endure here on Earth will not be as bad as that in hell. If they get sick, they have experience dealing with worse. They won't die from it. Moreover if they want these things, they can pay for them on their own. They would get taxed just like any other citizen. This requires that they contribute to the economy. Same thing with the "Other" category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I would consider libertarian's part of the Republican party.
They are closer to the GOP then they are to the PDP but I think there are many major differences between libertarians and the GOP:
-Their stance on abortion.
-Their stance on weed.
-Their stance on homosexuality.
-Their stance on Free Speech. Many on the right want to censor kneelers for the National Anthem. I don't think censoring them is right.
Also, the libertarians haven't had a chance to fix the US debt. Both other parties have caused the debt to grow to a lot of money.
What are the flaws of both?
Socialism destroys economies. Minimally gov involved capitalism produces a high sustainable living standard for the average person in such a country. It's why the US has a GDP per capita rise, whereas it is unstable in even places like Scandinavia.
If God doesn't exist, then why do people burn in hell?
Too many people in hell. Too much money to get there. Fix the country before fixing other places.
I don't think it is expensive to dig a 12 mile hole to get to hell. The soviets did it, and it didn't cost them a lot of money. They did it for sport pretty much, to beat the Americans at something. Digging a hole to hell would be very cheap for the US gov and I imagine multiple holes can be dug to save people faster. I would want to dedicate $78.8 Billion towards this cause if I were POTUS. Also, since the people fleeing hell would be very loyal to America since we saved them, they probably would assimilate quickly, get legalized quickly and would be productive citizens to the nation. This nation is very fixed compared to hell and if we allow people from hell to come to the US, they would help solve some of our economic problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So you are a conservative atheist/agnostic?Bad combo.
I used to be really conservative, but I think I'm independent now. I'm basically an unaffiliated independent. If I had to describe my political ideology in a term other then independent, it probably would be a libertarian as of right now. I think I'm going through an ideological phase where I am extremely prone to change my positions.
What do you think of socialism?What do you think of capitalism?
I hate socialism and love capitalism.
Yeah God is bad and we would all be going to hell if the Bible was true.
I'm not sure if the bible is true, but God definitely exists. This can be explained because God is not always correct with the bible. He claims he is all loving in it. He exists, but he is not all loving, otherwise hell would not be a permanent punishment. Otherwise, how would hell exist?
What do you think of digging holes to hell to free those that are in hell?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Titanium
We could just kill 8 to reduce poverty by half which may be more sensible than my first plan. Bezos being one.
If you do that, then who would run these companies? The 1% contribute significantly to society for their wealth with the exception of inheritance. As the rich get richer, the poor get richer too, just not by as much since the rich are the ones making society better. Also, Bill Gates is a philanthropic. Why would you want to kill him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A way to curb international poverty is to buy their stuff. This way, the locals get money and their trading partner gets the resources at a reduced rate.
A way to curb US poverty is to make divorce illegal if the family has at least 1 kid. I don't know of a good punishment for illegal divorce yet. Single mothers and single fathers account for 11% of US families but account for 62% of the poverty stricken families. We need to eliminate divorce if we want poverty to be reduced substantially. Since this affects non whites disproportionally, banning divorce would also help reduce the racial divide in America while improving living quality for the offspring of both races.
Created:
Posted in:
The bible says that most of us will burn in hell forever and that hell is extremely painful. Look it up if you don't believe me because I'm too lazy to get links.
The soviets accidentally discovered hell when they were competing against America to see who could dig the deepest hole. They discovered hell in the process(http://www.amightywind.com/hell/aboutsounds.htm).
Based off of this information, the US should dig many holes to hell with ladders and geothermal powered elevators in order to free those in hell. Change my mind if you want to.
Created:
-->
@Stronn
There are 3 types of non religious people:
-The atheists, who believe with relative certainty that God does not exist.
-The agnostics, who just don't think that God exists.
-The unaffiliated, who believe God exists, but don't like him on usually moral grounds.
The CNN survey combined all those 3 into one group, "Not religious". This would be like combining the Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals into "Christians". Although I imagine non religious people will eventually outnumber religious people, right now, this is not the case.
I imagine your secular. Are you an atheist, agnostic, or unaffiliated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There's a winning chufty badge.
I think you should reduce the penalty for getting a vote removed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Not necessarily. If only 1 person signs up and only votes once, they won't necessarily get the badge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Is there a prize for winning?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
"Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big"
That something is France's common language and culture. Austria Hungary lacked this.
"That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum."
I think that France got it's size the same way the U.K got it's size. By conquering. By sending your own people to the conquered area. By assimilating the locals heavily. France assimilated the octillians(at least that's what I think they were called) that were South of France and they don't want to break away. Austria Hungary conquered but failed to assimilate the lands that nation conquered and as a result, they lost their land.
"Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?"
What else could it be in a way that is consistent?
"Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the(Puerto Rican) historical relationship with the US?"
The US treats PR pretty well. It is because of the US that the GDP per capita of PR is about double the Latin American average and easily the highest GDP per capita in Latin America, with one about as high as South Korea.
"I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery."
There are 2 contentions that I have with this:
1: If they were pro slavery at one point, would they have wanted to join Mexico once they became anti slavery?
2: This does not explain how we got California, which was anti slavery.
Created:
I think multiculturalism is dangerous for the future of the country because of the various former countries that have accepted multiculturalism and that have broken up on this basis. All immigrants should assimilate into their country before they enter the country. If they fail, they should assimilate in classes that they or their parents pay for. If they can't afford it, they take out a loan to pay for it just like college.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Will you add "Big boy argument extended" to your list? I say that sometimes during forfeit debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
We should modify the site's rules and CoC in order to prevent the type1s of the internet from being here but something that allows people to preach any honest opinion that they want. The CoC states that anti simetic speech is banned. I met this guy on DDO(Philipinoman) who had these views. He is not a spammer. He is not a troll. He just has extreme opinions on Jews. Should he be allowed on this site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Free and restricted cannot be together. If you add a restriction to speech it is restricted speech. If you don't have restrictions it is free speech. What part of that don't you understand?
So, then I advocate for minimally restricted speech. I don't want people with extreme opinions censored though. In some forums, I sound like I troll, but in reality, I just have extreme opinions on some issues. I don't want to get banned on the basis of extreme opinions.
What do you mean by technical restrictions?
Threats in general, yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause. I should have said a word other then technical.
Yes to number 1 if given enough warning and they still carry on.https://www.debateart.com/debates/691 For number 2 Ramshutu showed clear examples of him breaking the rules which does include harassment.
Type1 did not recieve warning. The CoC states:
Bans may also be issued, without being preceded by warnings
I'm not sure if harassment is bad. For #2, I don't think Ramshutu showed examples of harassment. He did show examples of other things though, such as:
-Being an anti-Semite. I disagree with him, but is being an anti-semite worth being banned? I know there is a rule against it, but can this be reformed to be more accepting of other viewpoints?
-Being a jerk. If he acts like a jerk, he should lose a conduct point in a debate. Being a jerk, even repeatedly should not be worthy of getting banned.
-Being a troll. If he wants to joke around with stupid claims, puts them in a debate, and then lose, that's a free win for the contender.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
If the US is more right wing then Canzuk, What's wrong with this? America been pretty united despite states like Texas being more right wing then states like NY.
And on that topic, why do we need to restrict it to English? The EU makes do with it's hodge podge of languages.
The EU came into existence when many European nations wanted to emulate the US. The main reason why they aren't one country yet is because of cultural differences. This isn't just language. Austria for example is culturally different from Germany. If they were culturally similar enough, they would be in the same country.
Why shouldn't, for example Switzerland also join in?
I don't think the Swiss would want to. You shouldn't force a country to join your alliance without just cause. If Switzerland won't join the EU, I doubt they would join Canzuk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Aren't you advocating for restricted speech?
I advocate for only minimal restrictions on free speech. Beyond the exceptions that I listed, I don't see any reason to ban any other speech.
The speech your are talking about is not actually free because there are restrictions. Do you concede that and stop using incorrect terminology?
I think I'm willing to concede this because there are technical restrictions.
Harassment is what I would also put on the list.
There are 2 contentions that I have:
1: Is Harassment bad enough that it deserves to be censored?
2: Did type1 commit harassment? If so, can you cite an example?
If Type1 was given a warning which I am sure he was and was still doing it what was Virtuoso and bsh1 supposed to do in that situation? Not ban him?
I don't think they should have banned him unless there is something about type1 that I don't know about. I don't interact with him much. I just think type1 acts immature and is a poor debater in general. Being a bad debater is not justification for being banned. If you have poor conduct in the debate, as what type1 has done, you deserve to lose a conduct point in the debate, you don't deserve to be banned just for being rude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Death threats, maybe threats in general, yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause should be banned.
Beyond that, I think all other free speech can be allowed.
Did Type1 make any death threats? Since I don't think he did the latter 2 exceptions for free speech (yelling bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded movie theater without just cause), I don't see why he should be banned if he didn't make any death threats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Even in developed countries they understand death threats and call to violence should not be tolerated which is a way free speech is reduced.
I should have been more specific. Death threats should be banned. However, it is not a good reason to ban type1 unless he has made death threat(s). If he has, I would support his ban. If he has merely said some mean stuff, being mean isin't a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
I know he acts like a jerk, but jerks should not be banned from this site. I know plenty of other people that act like jerks and they aren't banned. I support free speech for everyone, even for type1. I don't know if the mods can overturn bans, but if they can, they should limit bans to spammers and people who troll vote and leave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Have you accounted for American resistance at home, and proxy conflicts?
I imagine most of the protest will be peaceful. If people are against the invasion, they can protest it. If it turns violent, law enforcement would deal with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I think Ben Shapiro is right wing and not Alt Right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Can you rephrase your questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I think the US should take advantage of the economic potential that Africa has with it's natural resources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
remember, we would be sending sons and daughters to die
There also would be sons, daughters, babies, moms, dads, and the elderly that get saved by the invasion indirectly. Anyone who fights for this country and dies for it is consenting to the process. Soldiers have the mentality of willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the country. The vast majority of soldiers would be reluctantly okay with dying for the nation's interests.
Plus, we shouldn't want them to have more power either
It would be an overall win for the US. We have less people then China. If Africa were annexed, that could change. Eventually China will overtake the US economically if things are going as predicted. The US should take steps to prevent this from happening such as annexing new land.
we can't just be okay with Russia or China taking over countries and making it there own
Russia did this with Crimea and I think the UN will eventually recognize this as Russian territory. I'm fine with them doing this as long as they pay Ukraine a fair price for Crimea. The US can even offer to recognize the annexation of Crimea in exchange for Russia recognizing the US invasion of Africa. The US then restitutes Ukraine to stay on good terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
1: They would lose some natural resources. However, since Africa has a lot of them, it would barely make a dent in their overall stock of natural resources.
2: How would livestock die in significant numbers from the invasion?
3: Around 3 Million African and American soldiers would die (as a guess, it might be more, might be less). Once the invasion is complete:
-Millions of homosexuals that would have gotten killed for being gay would have their lives spared because an American ruled Africa would be nicer to homosexuals then some african countries.
-Infant mortality rate plummets, saving an estimated 1.1 million children annually.
-Life expectancy is expected to increase by about 10-15 years, saving about 1 million lives annually.
In other words, the number of lives saved would make up the number killed in less then 2 years.
4: Africa lacks economic and social freedom in the world. They need a western country to liberate them, to spread human rights. What's wrong with forcing America down the throats of areas that the US owned? American influence worked well for Puerto Rico. They have the highest GDP per capita in Latin America.
The UN wishes to eliminate poverty and an invasion would help do that. They want equal treatment of women. An invasion would help promote that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't think cities have to be destroyed. We just need to get Africa to surrender and then the continent would belong to the US.
Created:
Posted in:
I used to be on DDO. Then I couldn't log in. I didn't mind the trolls but I decided to come here anyway once I couldn't log in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
So from what i'm getting you think this idea should be more popular.
I hope the idea becomes more popular in the near future.
I personally think it's bc it's too much to ask American's to die for... solution would be to get a lot more to care.
To me, an innocent human life is an innocent human life. I would rather have 100 Americans die then 1000 foreigners die if everything else is consistent. More Americans would benefit since the country profits off of natural resources.
And, i think it would piss off the other powers in this world.
China and Russia probably will get pissed. This can be handled in 2 ways:
1. We can let them annex other countries to balance things out. Russia can annex much of the former USSR to become Russian territory and China can take South East Asia. Both countries will have to assimilate the locals within their countries in order to prevent them from developing cultural nationalism which leads to independence often but this can be achieved.
2: We can piss off our enemies in the short term but they would get used to it after time. Once this time passes, they would gradually recognize Africa as sovereign American territory. Russia would see their own hypocrisy in invading Crimea and China would see theirs in invading Tibet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Doesn't matter. Earth will end in 12 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I just don't think the rest of the world would be okay with that at such a large scale you are purposing.
Initially, most people don't accept new ideas. Most people used to be against homosexuality. Most people used to be against weed. The reason currently why most people would be against it is because they initially respond as being against the idea. Once the idea becomes more well known, many people would support the idea. I'm not alone. Thett3 and this black guy I know both support the idea. Also, it's kindof falling into peer pressure to be against an idea just because most other people are against it. If against an idea, you should be against it for reasons other then, "Because everyone else is".
If we had to kill 10 million people (high estimate) and once the continent is oursThat's a lot of people dude.
More people get saved in the long term. If the UN realizes this, they might be fine with it.
is there any money we can make off this war?
Once the US invades, we can get Africa to agree to trade deals that benefit the both of us. They get $500 Billion from the US and the US in exchange gets $800 Billion worth of natural resources. These natural resources are then sold to places like Europe and Asia for $800 Billion. Africa makes a profit. The US makes a profit. The invasion is profitable to both sides.
The idea is unpopular now, I hope people change their minds on this. There are so many economic and human rights benefits to the invasion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I personally think every religion that every god that ever existed is like a European colonial power and Earth is their Africa. Just as the Europeans conquered Africa, these Gods, which are really aliens decided to conquer the Earth. The rich Gods like Yahweh and Allah bought out/fought for various portions of the Earth which is why both religions are very widespread. The Buddhist "God" and the Christian God both have given autonomy to their earthbound colonies, which is why atheism exists within these regions prominently. When atheism becomes the overwhelming belief system within these places (over 90%), then that is basically the controlling God giving the region complete independence.
Does this theory have merit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Sorry about the formatting below but I don't know how to fix it. It was copied and pasted.
On the news, i just saw an American being held hostage. A beautiful blonde white girl. Was stolen from a car. It pisses me off why she would even be there... she is likely being raped by 20 guys a day. It really pisses me off... i think we should leave them alone... they deserve their hell.Just because some messed up Africans decide to rape and kidnap an American doesn't mean that the whole continent should suffer for it. The people who did the rape if I could decide their punishment would be life imprisonment. Rape is evil from what the victims say. But just because a few Africans raped a US girl does not mean that we should punish all of Africa for it. If your left of center, you feel this way about Muslims. If your right of center, you think this way about the police.Here, i'll compromise. Let's arm all the "seemingly good" citizens and let them work it out.While a supporter of the 2nd amendment for the mentally competent, arming all the Africans that are good enough to have the guns would cost around $200 billion, would be futile if the government takes their guns, and would be hard to figure out who is worthy of having a gun. People should buy their own guns. When the US funded rebel groups previously which is basically what your proposing, since these people will form groups, they ended up like Guatemala, which now has a bunch of people fleeing the nation. It also would result in the homicide rate skyrocketing because they are generally poor and they would be willing to kill for food since they are desperate. If the US invades, the US can provide jobs in natural recourse extraction for people that would resort to crime or prostitution otherwise for their needs and desires. These people would like the US influence on the continent.I don't want more Americans to die for a country that won't help itself.The way I see it, an innocent human life is an innocent human life. I would rather kill 1 US solider then kill 2 innocent Africans because it is more innocent human life.They need to fight for it if they want it bad enoughI imagine most Africans want to escape poverty. They just don't know how to do it. America can show them the way. They resort to crime to temporally avoid starving on an individual level. Many of them can't afford to come to the West and if they can, they don't know how to come legally, so they just stay in Africa generally. Even if the US had open borders, plane tickets Africa is fiscally liberal and this has hurt their economy drastically. They are mainly fiscally left wing because the leaders took influence from the anti-imperialist soviets who were socialist and this has influenced how Africa generally thinks, at least that's what I think is true. Since their oppressors were capitalist, they wanted to be as little like the west as they could with exceptions (like language because it's hard to get rid of and religion because they care about the afterlife).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Unless, you are saying only Libya or something. But, as i'm aware... that isn't the only country in need of a change. This would be a big war dude... it's not small.
If we invade the capitols with the US's big military, the US has 2 million troops. 40,000 troops per capitol can locate the capitol building of each country and invade that via sending planes there. From there, the leader is forced to surrender sovereignty to the United States at gunpoint. If he refuses, he gets shot. If he gives in, he is removed from office and the locals can elect their own representatives that would get send to D.C.. I would want every African territory to have between 3.5 million and 7 million people in it so every area gets 1 representative, unless they are a territory or a state, then they would get more representation. If a country has more then 7 million people, the area is broken up into many small territories. If the area is too small, it gets merged with other small areas. This would mean that every African colony gets representation within the US gov and all of Africa would initially have about 200 representatives. They get more if they become a territory or a state. Becoming a territory requires adherence to some human rights standards and being a state requires a high enough GDP per capita (I would say $25,000 per person or higher) as well as having enough people(at least 500,000).
I'm just guessing and not looking up numbers... but i'm afraid we would have to kill a lot more than a million.
If we had to kill 10 million people (high estimate) and once the continent is ours, the US saves 2 million per year, in 5 years, we save as many lives as what was taken in the invasion. Then, more lives get saved since 2 million lives saved per year would continue to be a consistent rate.
You are killing children, not adults that know what they are doing.
This is not an explicit rule. Some children would know what they are doing and some adults wouldn't know. I think most soldiers children and adult wouldn't know what they were fighting for except with some basic information because that's how people are in general.
I can see a racist not be affected by it
I don't think this has anything to do with race. I know a black person that agrees with me on this issue.
but most people with empathy will be devastated that they had to kill children
Many people support treating children the same way they treat adults under the law. This includes being an enemy solider.
I don't think the war would be that longSeriously dude? You are talking about invading a continent... when was the last time we had such a large scale war like that?
Europe for the most part invaded all of Africa and Europe was very divided when they did it. A united american force of superior strength probably can win in a comparable amount of time, even with Africa being 4x more powerful then when Europe did it.
Culture divides people among cultural lines.That's not true.
It happened with Austria Hungary. They tried to be multicultural and they broke up. The reason why the EU didn't yet unify in the same way the US did (in other words, a United States of Europe) is because of cultural division.
So devalue ourselves? Cut heads off and torture and rape?
I don't think that is what I meant by fighting dirty. Fighting dirty would mean things like not taking prisoners, by killing all soldiers who attack us, gurrilla warfare and basically fighting tough.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
The right supports economic freedom and capitalism. It has made America one of the richest societies in the world.
Created: