Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Agent Cobalt
Reload this Page Conversation Between Agent Cobalt and Gold warehouse

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.



Conversation Between Agent Cobalt and Gold warehouse
Showing Visitor Messages 16 to 20 of 20
  1. Agent Cobalt
    November 18th, 2009 03:28 PM
    Agent Cobalt
    Yeah that's what I thought.

    Next time you want to challenge someone that actually knows what they're talking about, make sure you're not biting off more than you can chew. Don't waste my time next time, guy.
  2. Gold warehouse
    November 18th, 2009 03:25 PM
    Gold warehouse
    lol, I can't be bothered to read all of that BS, I just don't give a damn about your blind pro-America ramblings + I find it hard to take anyone who has a picture of George Bush in their signature seriously. I'm sorry that you have been brainwashed by propaganda.
  3. Agent Cobalt
    November 18th, 2009 03:17 PM
    Agent Cobalt
    Quote:
    This was not a selfless act to fight against tyranny, as you make it out to be, Lend-Lease brought benefit to the US, they were making profit from a war they refused to take part in
    I never used the word selfless, now did I? In fact, I never even made that point. I was responding to your claim that we weren't concerned about the Axis before Pearl Harbor, which is absolutely false and something you've failed to acknowledge as such. Again, you plugging historical revisionism into the topic and me correcting the record was the point of that comment, nothing else.

    Even then, though, you're distorting the purpose of Lend-Lease into being some war profiteering effort, which it wasn't. The goal of Lend-Lease was to halt the spread of Fascism and preserve the Allies. You're framing this around whether the US benefited from it, rather than why it was done, and that's not going to get you anywhere.
    Quote:
    You failed to notice my sarcasm here, of course the Soviets were selfish and aimed to conquer parts of Eastern Europe. My point is, America is no better, no nations are really. Even Britain and France only declared war because they were fearful of Germany's increasing power.
    I didn't fail to notice anything. You were using sarcasm, but perhaps you misunderstood how you were using it.

    And had you any grasp of history you wouldn't have made such a foolish remark to begin with. The United States was absolutely better than the Soviets. Only one who's either blind to the actions of both nations in that war and afterward or one who is ignorant of reality would claim the role of the US to be no better than that of the USSR. Which nations in that war did the US enslave and turn into puppet colonies? Last time I checked, the people were trying to flee the East for the West, and I think you know why.

    The Soviets were no different than the Nazis in their brutality, actions, policies, and goals. I can never understand moral relativists that actually have it in their heads that all nations are equal in standing. The USSR and USA were incomparable when it came to anything, other than maybe size. To say that the United States, no nation even, is better than the Soviet Empire was is to play the fool.
    Quote:
    What about China, Russia and North Korea? I don't seem to recall America "liberating" them, oh that's right, they're too powerful and there's no easy way the US can screw their country up.
    Last time I checked, we did liberate China in WWII. The ROC was under Japanese control and fighting a losing war trying to hold on to anything outside of Manchuria. It was a little thing called the Second Sino-Japanese War. The Pacific War saw American action throughout Asia and the Pacific, and we along with the Australians and a few others wiped the region clean of Imperial Japan. Do I regret our failure to take an even more active role in China during the Chinese Civil War? Of course. That doesn't change the fact that we funneled millions of dollars to the KMT to assist them. And Russia? In WWI we intervened in Russia's Civil War to fight the Bolshevists and maintain order. Did it work out? Not really. But we wouldn't have sent the American North Russia Expeditionary Force and American Expeditionary Force Siberia in the North Russia Campaign and Siberian Campaign respectively. We tried our hand there. And for North Korea, we did liberate them once. It was called the Korean War. Unfortunately for us, once we pushed past the thirty-eighth parallel and took the whole Korean Peninsula, the Chinese entered the war and pushed UN forces back to the sea, then we pushed back to the parallel, and then a stalemate. You've either not read up on the history or you're ignoring it if you think we haven't made attempts.
    Quote:
    Korea was split up due to the allies in the first place due to the aftermath of WWII, it was in America's own interest to prevent the North from conquering them. The same applies for all the countries you listed, it was all part of the feud between the USSR and the USA, not because America wanted to protect those countries at all.
    That's nonsense. How was it in our interest to send forces into Russia after WWI? That was motivated by altruism, not selfishness. I think you need to learn the difference between selfishness and self-interest. You can be looking after your self-interests and still be acting altruistically for the benefit of others. By fighting off Communism in Grenada, we were aiding the world in its fight against totalitarianism. America has historically looked after weaker nations. Why did we oppose larger nations annexing Poland after WWI? We wanted them to have a chance at self-governance. We had absolutely nothing to gain. And even in situations where we did benefit, we still gave blood and treasure to help others.
    Quote:
    It's funny that you should mention Afghanistan, the very country that our nations are fighting against at this moment; America provided them with plenty of weapons to shoot the Soviets with, they're probably using the same weapons to shoot back at their suppliers now.
    We're not fighting "against" Afghanistan, but for Afghanistan. We've liberated it and are now fighting an insurgency. Regardless, you're ignoring the constant state of civil war that nation has been in for decades. We only armed a small faction of Afghan rebels, completely unrelated to the Taliban. You're also apparently ignoring that everyone was involved in Afghanistan, from Pakistan to the PRC. It's not surprising there are weapons lying around. However we were very discreet with our tools and funding, funneling everything through the ISI. Even if it was our weapons, the Mujahideen wouldn't be firing at us.
    Quote:
    Germany was weak because of the Treaty of Versailles, put upon them by the Allies. That is why the Nazis came to power, even then nobody retaliated because they didn't care until after they started becoming too powerful and conquering neighbouring nations.
    Right. ...and? All you've done is validate my point that tyrants are tempted when the free are weak and cannot deter.
    Quote:
    Killing helps keep the peace? What. Of course peace arrives after everything's been destroyed and thousands have been killed, because there's nothing left to fight for. You seem to be forgetting the definition of the word 'world' in this case.
    I'm pretty sure South Korea, Japan, Germany, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, and Iraq are still standing.
    Quote:
    The Taliban only came to power because America failed to aid Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan war, once the war was over and the Soviets had withdrawn there was nothing to gain by continuing to interfer in Afghanistan's matters, so they were left to fight amongst themselves.
    They were already at war with themselves. The Soviets came in *after* conflict there. The country had been in a state of civil war for decades. Communists, Islamists, and factions of all kinds were fighting. The Soviets invaded to aid the Communists, assassinate leaders, and expand their empire. Our involvement was to defend Afghan sovereignty. The best way to do that was arm freedom fighters, the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen won the Soviet-Afghan War. The reason we didn't get involved more after that was, foolish of us or not, we thought they could handle it. We were wrong. And yet, we rectified that error by rejoining the Mujahideen in their civil war. The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance and we helped them retake their country and squash the Taliban.
    Quote:
    The military causes just as many problems if not more than the amount it solves.
    Bull. Crap. The military rarely causes problems, and even then they fix them. The military has been central to ending all three global conflicts of the last century, destroying countless dictatorships, freeing millions of people, bringing tyrants to justice, and delivering food, medicine, and supplies to countless people from Somalia to Bangladesh.
    Quote:
    I'm not a pacifist and I realise that war is sometimes inevitable, but you're trying to claim that war brings good to the world
    I'm saying it can, especially when carried out by the US military.
    Quote:
    and that America is on a mission to save the world by killing "barbarians" whilst aiding and saving the innocent in an act of complete selflessness, which is entirely untrue.
    No, we're on a mission to stop barbarians, however the benefit extends to all people. Not that it's totally selfless, but that it's altruistic self-interest. Our enemies are the world's enemies. I don't buy into that nihilistic apathy.
  4. Gold warehouse
    November 18th, 2009 12:52 PM
    Gold warehouse
    Quote originally posted by Agent Cobalt:
    The United States got in late, absolutely. Once in, though, our goals were clear. And even before entering, we made it a huge part of our policy to fight the Axis Powers through programs like Lend-Lease. We did our best to arm, aid, even feed our allies in an attempt to undermine and halt the Axis Powers. So throw away the historical revisionism.
    This was not a selfless act to fight against tyranny, as you make it out to be, Lend-Lease brought benefit to the US, they were making profit from a war they refused to take part in.
    Quote:
    Three words- The Phony War. The Soviets, up until their invasion by the Nazis, were the willing co-conspirators of the Nazis and Axis Powers. For some time the USSR was considered by many as part of the Axis. They worked alongside the Nazis to conquer, dominate, and tear apart Europe for their empire.
    You failed to notice my sarcasm here, of course the Soviets were selfish and aimed to conquer parts of Eastern Europe. My point is, America is no better, no nations are really. Even Britain and France only declared war because they were fearful of Germany's increasing power.
    Quote:
    I think South Korea, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe would disagree.
    What about China, Russia and North Korea? I don't seem to recall America "liberating" them, oh that's right, they're too powerful and there's no easy way the US can screw their country up. Korea was split up due to the allies in the first place due to the aftermath of WWII, it was in America's own interest to prevent the North from conquering them. The same applies for all the countries you listed, it was all part of the feud between the USSR and the USA, not because America wanted to protect those countries at all.
    It's funny that you should mention Afghanistan, the very country that our nations are fighting against at this moment; America provided them with plenty of weapons to shoot the Soviets with, they're probably using the same weapons to shoot back at their suppliers now.
    Quote:
    That equation is missing something. What did we do after the war? Oh right, we disarmed, as did the world. I'll repeat myself- War comes, not when the forces of freedom are strong, but it's when they're weak that tyrants are tempted.
    Germany was weak because of the Treaty of Versailles, put upon them by the Allies. That is why the Nazis came to power, even then nobody retaliated because they didn't care until after they started becoming too powerful and conquering neighbouring nations.
    Quote:
    Killing sure ended the Pacific War and brought peace there. It ended the War in Europe. Killing has done a lot of good and helped keep the peace. When's the last time Germany's invaded a democracy? It's called the Democratic Peace. The United States is not actively liberating everyone, no, but it is benefiting the world with its actions against our enemies, for our enemies are the world's enemies.
    Killing helps keep the peace? What. Of course peace arrives after everything's been destroyed and thousands have been killed, because there's nothing left to fight for. You seem to be forgetting the definition of the word 'world' in this case.
    Quote:
    I think the Afghans would disagree. Or should we have bribed the Taliban?
    The Taliban only came to power because America failed to aid Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan war, once the war was over and the Soviets had withdrawn there was nothing to gain by continuing to interfer in Afghanistan's matters, so they were left to fight amongst themselves.
    Quote:
    Yeah, and how effective are they? I still see global warming activists running around, but every day I'm learning we're even closer to Armageddon. My point was that I'm actually being active in solving real problems for real people.
    The military causes just as many problems if not more than the amount it solves.

    I'm not a pacifist and I realise that war is sometimes inevitable, but you're trying to claim that war brings good to the world, and that America is on a mission to save the world by killing "barbarians" whilst aiding and saving the innocent in an act of complete selflessness, which is entirely untrue.
  5. Agent Cobalt
    November 17th, 2009 05:31 PM
    Agent Cobalt
    Done.

All times are UTC -8. The time now is 03:49 AM.