Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
And that is unbelievable why? Do you realise, and seemingly you don't, just how much the world wars advanced American power whilst simultaneously castrating the British? Without the world wars, we are looking at a completely different USA. One that most likely would never have developed the A-bomb in 1945 let alone rose as quickly as it did to become THE superpower without the need to dedicate so much effort to advancing its industry base to fight the Nazis and the Japanese. One that would have been competing with a Britain that hadn't lost the bulk of its army to the Somme and the Blitz, one that still had half the planet as its industry base.
Would the USA still have rose to what it is today? Who knows, this is informed guesswork. But the 20th century would have been WILDLY different.
The debate started about why on the devil's green hell woudl Britain attack the United States and how would it even attempt top conquer it.
And I pointed out that the British Empire was stupid. Facts such as ''this is a bad idea'' rarely stopped us when we saw something we wanted - ask those fighting the Second Boer war. Little history lesson: the reason the British Empire never decided to retake the colonies was the fact that Europe was more dangerous due to its proximity and power. The USA was nothing in comparison to Europe in the 19th century. If it wasn't for the other empires and - arguably - its love of tea and exotic spices and foods which made it want to put so much effort into the likes of India and Africa, the BE would have tried. Because that is the sort of assholes we were back then.
The BE reached the height of its power in 1922 and that was with the devastation brought by WW1 and the Spanish flu. The USA hasn't been the big dog for all that long and was helped immensely by WW2 wiping out what was left of old Europe. Ergo, the USA without the two world wars would have been weaker than it was.
PS Just checking, you do know I am arguing an alternate history whereby WW1 and 2 never happened? Not what would have happened in our reality? Because that is rather important.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
And that is unbelievable why? Do you realise, and seemingly you don't, just how much the world wars advanced American power whilst simultaneously castrating the British? Without the world wars, we are looking at a completely different USA. One that most likely would never have developed the A-bomb in 1945 let alone rose as quickly as it did to become THE superpower without the need to dedicate so much effort to advancing its industry base to fight the Nazis and the Japanese. One that would have been competing with a Britain that hadn't lost the bulk of its army to the Somme and the Blitz, one that still had half the planet as its industry base.
Would the USA still have rose to what it is today? Who knows, this is informed guesswork. But the 20th century would have been WILDLY different.
The debate started about why on the devil's green hell woudl Britain attack the United States and how would it even attempt top conquer it.
And I pointed out that the British Empire was stupid. Facts such as ''this is a bad idea'' rarely stopped us when we saw something we wanted - ask those fighting the Second Boer war. Little history lesson: the reason the British Empire never decided to retake the colonies was the fact that Europe was more dangerous due to its proximity and power. The USA was nothing in comparison to Europe in the 19th century. If it wasn't for the other empires and - arguably - its love of tea and exotic spices and foods which made it want to put so much effort into the likes of India and Africa, the BE would have tried. Because that is the sort of assholes we were back then.
The BE reached the height of its power in 1922 and that was with the devastation brought by WW1 and the Spanish flu. The USA hasn't been the big dog for all that long and was helped immensely by WW2 wiping out what was left of old Europe. Ergo, the USA without the two world wars would have been weaker than it was.
PS Just checking, you do know I am arguing an alternate history whereby WW1 and 2 never happened? Not what would have happened in our reality? Because that is rather important.
Attacking the Boers is like attacking the United States in 1900?
I never argued about big power status. I just said it would be unwise for Britain to attack the United States.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
TrueMetis wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 7:46 pm
I mean I'll give you the first because American's tend to be belligerent assholes. But the second?
It had brief periods of overreach but is pretty much desinged in way taht can be the host of an overseas Empire but it cannot opressed like the Soviet Union did to it's own citizens or even like France during ww2.
But it did, it used to do that to a significant percent of it population all the time. And currently is doing similar thing to refugee's and minority. Or what the fuck do you call putting children in cages and what Alabama just passed in regards to abortions? The fuck type of rose tinted glasses are you wearing writ the US? It's spent most of its existence being a Quasi-dictatorship. It can't oppress its citizens like the Soviet Union did? Black People and Native Americans would beg to fucking differ.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
TrueMetis wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 7:46 pm
I mean I'll give you the first because American's tend to be belligerent assholes. But the second?
It had brief periods of overreach but is pretty much desinged in way taht can be the host of an overseas Empire but it cannot opressed like the Soviet Union did to it's own citizens or even like France during ww2.
But it did, it used to do that to a significant percent of it population all the time. And currently is doing similar thing to refugee's and minority. Or what the fuck do you call putting children in cages and what Alabama just passed in regards to abortions? The fuck type of rose tinted glasses are you wearing writ the US? It's spent most of its existence being a Quasi-dictatorship. It can't oppress its citizens like the Soviet Union did? Black People and Native Americans would beg to fucking differ.
Soviets did to everybody. They had their phases going after certain ethnicities asnd professions, but they did it to everybody!!!!!!
How are minorities opressed?
I was not aware that not allowing in anyone who claims to be a refugee in was oppression.
Slash Gallagher wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 10:06 pm
Soviets did to everybody. They had their phases going after certain ethnicities asnd professions, but they did it to everybody!!!!!!
That... actually doesn't make it better. Like not at all.
How are minorities opressed?
I was not aware that not allowing in anyone who claims to be a refugee in was oppression.
Have you just been paying no fucking attention to what's been happening in the last couple years?
I'm not sure if this is ignorance or malice, either way you sicken me.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
And that is unbelievable why? Do you realise, and seemingly you don't, just how much the world wars advanced American power whilst simultaneously castrating the British? Without the world wars, we are looking at a completely different USA. One that most likely would never have developed the A-bomb in 1945 let alone rose as quickly as it did to become THE superpower without the need to dedicate so much effort to advancing its industry base to fight the Nazis and the Japanese. One that would have been competing with a Britain that hadn't lost the bulk of its army to the Somme and the Blitz, one that still had half the planet as its industry base.
Would the USA still have rose to what it is today? Who knows, this is informed guesswork. But the 20th century would have been WILDLY different.
The debate started about why on the devil's green hell woudl Britain attack the United States and how would it even attempt top conquer it.
And I pointed out that the British Empire was stupid. Facts such as ''this is a bad idea'' rarely stopped us when we saw something we wanted - ask those fighting the Second Boer war. Little history lesson: the reason the British Empire never decided to retake the colonies was the fact that Europe was more dangerous due to its proximity and power. The USA was nothing in comparison to Europe in the 19th century. If it wasn't for the other empires and - arguably - its love of tea and exotic spices and foods which made it want to put so much effort into the likes of India and Africa, the BE would have tried. Because that is the sort of assholes we were back then.
The BE reached the height of its power in 1922 and that was with the devastation brought by WW1 and the Spanish flu. The USA hasn't been the big dog for all that long and was helped immensely by WW2 wiping out what was left of old Europe. Ergo, the USA without the two world wars would have been weaker than it was.
PS Just checking, you do know I am arguing an alternate history whereby WW1 and 2 never happened? Not what would have happened in our reality? Because that is rather important.
Attacking the Boers is like attacking the United States in 1900?
I never argued about big power status. I just said it would be unwise for Britain to attack the United States.
Are you deliberately being ignorant at this point? I said that attacking the Boers was an example of why the British Empire was stupidly overconfident.
Slash Gallagher wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 10:06 pm
Soviets did to everybody. They had their phases going after certain ethnicities asnd professions, but they did it to everybody!!!!!!
That... actually doesn't make it better. Like not at all.
How are minorities opressed?
I was not aware that not allowing in anyone who claims to be a refugee in was oppression.
Have you just been paying no fucking attention to what's been happening in the last couple years?
I'm not sure if this is ignorance or malice, either way you sicken me.
Soviet Citizens would have rather lived in current day USA.
People in the United States are not opressed right now. They have every tool to change things.
Claiming it insulting to the people who were truly opressed in history.
I don't give a fuck if i sicken you. Tis is SFDEBRIS!!!!!!! The Killing Steppe where you have to argue like it or not.
This ain't like the rest of your Progressive INTERNETS!!!!!!!!
Well, I disagreed with his views on some of the edits in the Special Edition, but that's okay, because taste is subjective. The snarking on Hayden Christensen replacing Sebastian Shaw had me laugh.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
I would say that I kind of disagreed with him once during a review he did of SGA that involved McKay getting possessed by Cadman because, it's one of my favorite episodes because of the acting involved during the possession scenes and it does stick the landing with a lot of comedic moments.
However, I have to agree with Chuck that Cadman did cross a lot of personal and ethical lines with McKay during the episode.
I rewatched his review of Torchwood: Miracle Day, recently and I still don't know why Chuck finds monsters like Oswald Danes unrealistic. I have seen tons of documentaries about serial killers who have done and said things like Danes did and the documentaries keep talking about how they were "born to kill", and one documentary series comes to the conclusion that "serial killers are just evil." again, I have talked about two of America's earliest serial killers, one who was the real life bad seed and basically said she wanted to eventually wipe out the entire human race, one murder at a time, and Charles Manson said the same thing at his trial.
and he's also said that having a villain who is just pure evil is bad writing, again, I linked to a video about Frieza from the Dragon Ball franchise that says otherwise. and what about Micheal Myers from the Halloween series? any attempt to humanize that character is almost universally hated.
but on another topic, I read some possible explanations for the breakdown of the internal logic of the Anti-Time anomaly in "All Good Things." on TV Tropes, they could probably explain it better then I can.
and since it keeps happening, even in the newest episode, I am still very much stuck on the antagonists and even protagonists always getting off easy or just plane getting away scott free in My Little Pony and Chuck's complete lack of comment on it. I've thought about imaginging consequences off screen but does the show really allow me to think that without using retcons in my headcannon? the show always presents it as all is forgiven and forgotten. like Tempest Shadow from the movie, the main six may have a reason to forgive her but what reason does the rest of Equestria?
