King Arts
Well-known member
It's almost because there are some ethnicities that you can join, and others that you can't.The *almost* however completely compromises the argument about race being special in that regard. If nationality, then also culture, if culture, then also ideologies that demand dramatic change of culture can be covered, in the end it boils down to individual times and places having their own "changeable" and "not really changeable" allegiances according to own changing needs, whims and interests, and related to how convincing someone may be in pretending, versus how trusting the other side is towards forced converts.
No it's not the people noticed there was a differance the big one was that indentured servants were limited and were free afterwards while slaves were not.In practice the difference from slavery in average treatment was hard to tell and a lot of variation also happened between variations of slavery, and as the link shows, even the people of the age noticed that difference being mostly theoretical from the point of view of the victim.
It's a double standard not legalism. The US was built off the idea of all men being equal they had to lie and bullshit around the topic of blacks.And back then it covered free people only, so legalism wins you nothing.
It's not self flagellation it's either recognizing something is bad or is not bad. If it's bad it was wrong when your people did it if it's not wrong it's not bad if the other side does it. I also look with scorn those who don't have a moral compass beyond "What is good for me in a certain instance."That's not what the other side thinks about themselves though, and if we humor such SJWish self-flagellation, that's only to their benefit through demoralization, hence i will remain hostile to such sentiments and treat any who promote them with scorn.
Ironically that means India and other nations should destroy the west for what they do in the past, are doing now, and will do in the future.I refuse to humor the temporal guilt jujitsu - "West was doing mean things 200 years ago like everyone else, so we should tolerate everyone doing mean things, even to us, now and in the future".
By that logic, we need to destroy CCP for things they will do in the future.
Besides, if you want to be cynical, those who had the martial power would do terrible things to those who back then did such mean things to their own, and that's a custom we should absolutely bring back.
So can you give me a moral argument assuming I was a black person or whatever to be against affirmative action or other things that hurt white westerners? After all it seems like your beliefs are whatever is good for you, or those that are somewhat like you in the moment. And black people can definitely get bennefits from affirmative action and taking things from whites and making them second class citizens.And?
Who cares about some tokenism, except the usual suspects of course? Not me...
99.9% of peasant's sons in North Korea won't be getting a high status position either. And the handful who do, well who gives a fuck about them, it won't make the rest any less hungry or oppressed. I categorically refuse this whole framework which oh so coincidentally and conveniently makes the communist pattern of oppressing societies look "less bad" than the favorite "just listing bad things" historical western practices.
Screw that, let's make it reverse - if a society oppresses almost everyone, it's worse than oppressing just some.
The point is to protect OUR ships from pirates. We don't need to patrol EVERYWHERE. We can let other people patrol some places.Because freedom of navigation is a 24/7 operation....do you think pirates will not be out there when we arnt around?
The founding charter of the USN literally mentions protecting world trade aka freedom of navigation
If we were isolationists those nations would not be our adversaries would they?if we stagnate and get complacent we will lose anybadvantage we have.
Yes our tech is so far ahead right now.
But in 20 years if we don't make sure we are ahead we may nit be anymore and that is not good.
Because believe it or not, our adversaries would gladly make sure we are isolationists
You don't know much about history do you? No the English are not our oldest allies the French are. Also if we bombed London and broke the British nation, or sanctioned them or made them a 3rd world shithole thats starving they'd teach their kids to hate us no shit......yes our oldest ally is going to try and invade us with one of the weakest militaries in all of NATO....
Who isn't technically underneath them anymore and can operate by themselves....
None of our allies are starting wars to claim territory as thier own for them to have breathing room between them and an adversary.
They are our enemies because they have made it a point to teach thier entire population to hate us and despise us.
North Korea? Has games for thier kids where they stab bales if hay painted as Americans.
China is teaching its kids to hate America and want to see it destroyed.
Russia has been feeding its own people that we are a threat to them just for existing.
iran literally has chants fir death to america.
The Houthis flag has death to America on it!!
This is delusional, also if they would abandon us because we lost a war in Ukraine then Trump was right and we should abandon NATO.i am saying if we let Ukraine fall, our allies in europe, not necessarily Ukraine, will not see us as capabke of helping them, and potentially willing to negotiate with having Russia be thier buddy buddy, and even letting NATO countries get given to russia to apease the bear.
Or the other possibility is that Ukraine falls, Poland and the Baltic states gear up for war because Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would not be able to do whta Ukraine did, and NATO may not be able to react in time and now Russia has 4 mkre countries under its claws.
poland is not almost completely surrounded by Russia and we are getting closer to the USSR returning....
So you are saying you'd disobey orders to attack an enemy? Zach that's pretty treasonous you don't get to decide if the UK is an ally or not our political leaders do. If congress gives the president military authorization to do something and the president issues a lawful order(not a warcrime or something) you must follow it. If you are ordered to artillery strike a concentration of British soldiers you fucking follow it. Not decide that the British are good allies, and the French aren't. Shit like this makes me think the army needs to be neutered and lose power and funding. Soldiers job is not to think or question orders(unless they are unlawful) if you get a lawful order you follow it. It doesen't matter if you like it or not.the guard only obeys the fedd if the governor allows them to be activated on title 10 orders... learn how yhis works....
and what is the reason? Them saying it is legal doesn't mean it is legal, and are we at war, we're we attacked? Was congress involved?
And we wouldmt attack UK....maybe france but they might deserve it.
because they are literally a ling standing ally.
unless they attack us we wouldt attack them because that is how it works.
or if an ally calls for aide against one if them....
I seriously doubt that, National Guards would obey that when they know that they can be nationalized against the wishes of the governor. After all the national guard did not fire on the army when desegregation was imposed in Little Rock.the governor can use his troops how ever he wants. Ifbhe wants tobinvade another state sure.
national guard troops are and are not apart of the federal chain or command. Because national guard troops are not federal troops. Thier command and chief unless on active orders, is thier governor. They have thier own state leaders and everything.
If NG and Federal troops get into a fight si be it.
Federal government can only force NG into being federal under certain circumstances. Most states don't turn it down because more money and training for thier troops.
The state has to approve the use of thier soldiers....
This isn't some thing where the NG are all federal being loaned to the state. No, national guard are strictly states having thier own armies that the feds get loaned to them every now and then
Just because the British don't call what they have an empire doesen't mean it's not an empire. Britain has a commonwealth and it has territories outside of the island of Britain you have Gibraltar you have islands in the Caribbean, you have the Maldives/Falklands.Okay, curiosity got the better of me, so I decided to click on "show ignore" to see what was going on.
Glad to see @King Arts' rabid Anglophobia is on full display again. 😮💨 FYI, the British Empire legally ended in 1997, but de facto it ended pretty much a decade or so after the Second World War.
Please stop being retarded. Browse Wikipedia (of all places) once in a while for basic knowledge.
I mean all the shit you say I can also turn around and argue towards China. Oh you have "sinophobia" you are just using liberal arguments, because you want to build yourself as a victim.
LordsFire listen to me. We are debating about the Watchman position itself. I'm saying we should not be the watchman we don't want to be world policemen enforcing "international law" We don't need to guard everyone's sea lanes 24/7 We can guard important ones that we consider strategic, and have our partners guard other ones. Let others be the watchmen in some parts of the world.This, once again, shows that you are fundamentally not someone to be taken seriously when it comes to world politics and military affairs, and that your screen name is poorly chosen.
It is basic bitch understanding to know that if you only post a watchman a fraction of the day, that's worse than useless for detering theft. You have to pay the watchman, but the thieves will always wait until the watch has ended to commit their dirty deeds.
Do you think that banks leave their doors and safes unlocked all night?
Last edited: