Post: #1

I think in terms of women I think we can all agree on what the answer is. But this is about more than women. I'm honestly trying to figure out if there is a true heroic country fighting for good in this world that actually has good moral values.

My belief is that ISIS are pretty much paid mercenaries and them and Syria are basically the pawns and chess board in a much larger game being played. Living in the United States, I have seen plenty of our news propaganda and have checked out Russia's on YouTube as well. Frankly, the game I'm seeing is that they automatically blame each other for every little accusation and I'm getting kind of tired of them underestimating our intelligence.

But, Russia and the USA are not the only ones I'm applying this question to. I'd argue that Russia is not nearly as villainous as the USA makes them out to be, but they're far from being the Batman of the world. However, the USA has arguably caused more international damage than anyone since post-WW2 and have a reputation as being the "police" of the world. The same can be asked about any superpower such as China, England, France, Germany, Brazil (SA superpower), and more.

What about countries like Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, and others that don't really get involved in global political conflict? Again, I'm separating the women aspect of these countries because I think we can all agree these are not the most desirable, I'm more discussing their political impact on the world.

Or even smaller countries not exactly recognize as the big boys such as Thailand who has become an expat hub, Taiwan who basically just wants their own identity, Japan who has a villainous past but have made positive contributions to the world in the last 50 years and are recognized as the Asian destination, and any other countries I haven't mentioned?

Who do you guys think are the heroes and who do you guys think are the villains?

Post: #2

I'm not sure this is asking the right question.

Post: #3

Got a feeling this thread won't end well, but anyway--

Quote:However, the USA has arguably caused more international damage than anyone since post-WW2 and have a reputation as being the "police" of the world. The same can be asked about any superpower such as China, England, France, Germany, Brazil (SA superpower), and more.

The US has a reputation for being the "police" of the world because they're the only ones who historically have been any good at it.

If you require proof, take a look at what happened when the body that thinks it should be the police of the world, the UN, intervened in Rwanda. Kofi Annan was personally responsible for the death of nearly 80,000 people on his watch because despite being from the same fucking continent as the other brown folk he decided it was wise to just let the Tutsi and Hutu sort out their historical differences with machetes.

Were it not for overwhelmingly US-backed efforts, the entirety of the Korean peninsula, and not just North Korea, would be an impoverished security state right now.

Were it not for overwhelmingly US-fronted efforts, Kuwait would be just another part of Iraq.

It is also clear from the historical record from the Russians and Chinese themselves that if there had been sufficient political will and less traitors back home on US soil, Vietnam could have been kept a democratic nation and, by extension, Cambodia stopped from turning into something out of Dante's Inferno under Pol Pot.

Again and again, when the UN decides to intervene, it's the US it calls on to provide the majority of muscle. NATO certainly had its purpose while the Cold War was on, and NATO was principally the US Armed Forces, European Section.

Notice that you mention countries like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia that don't get involved in global political conflict: this is untrue. In every single US-led conflict each of these countries has been present in one way or another. Australia usually sends in the absolute cream of its armed forces: its commando force, the SAS. And the reason they do it is mainly because the US is their main defensive bulwark: Australia and New Zealand and the US are together under the ANZUS treaty, and therefore don't have to spend a massive proportion of their budgets on defence. Australia provides deep port docks for US naval forces and intelligence support via Pine Gap, Jindalee and similar.

As for England causing more "international damage" than any other: it's England who basically created the modern world. Try reading Niall Ferguson's Empire for an overview of 400 years of history through which the English, more than the US, more than the pretentious French, more than any other "superpower", brought light and civilisation to the world.

Are any of these nations' legacies untainted in some way? No. You will not find any nation that is. Switzerland likes to prance around pointing to its neutrality in every global conflict. This would be a cute position if it weren't a major banking hub and therefore enabling war, leaving aside its collaboration with the Nazi regime essentially as Hitler's banker. There's a reason Hitler never put troops into Switzerland, and it had nothing to do with the oft-suggested idea that the Swiss would blow up supply lines through the Alps.

In short: there are no clear heroes or villains - not by the criteria you seem to be imposing.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #4

Also, without the yanks in the Pacific, Aussies would be talking Japanese today.

A line from a grand old Aussie anthem sums it up best singing about an old Aussie soldier:

"he did his time in Vietnam, still mad at Uncle Sam"

Post: #5

(02-03-2017 12:00 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Also, without the yanks in the Pacific, Aussies would be talking Japanese today.

Australians wouldn't be speaking Japanese any more than the Japanese ended up speaking English.

They may have ended up with some small pockets of territory, but it wouldn't have been much, and they wouldn't have held it for long once our boys came back from France.

Post: #6

Sometimes I think Paracelsus is two people.

The 5 year old who causes chaos in the delete thread.

Then the wise educated sage who can talk intelligently on any topic. And writes clearly and simply for the masses.

And he seems to be a voracious reader, who gave me a great suggestion one time about the sacrifices made by the Poles during WW2.

I appreciate your contributions.

Post: #7

(02-03-2017 12:36 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  Sometimes I think Paracelsus is two people.

The 5 year old who causes chaos in the delete thread.

Then the wise educated sage who can talk intelligently on any topic. And writes clearly and simply for the masses.

And he seems to be a voracious reader, who gave me a great suggestion one time about the sacrifices made by the Poles during WW2.

I appreciate your contributions.

Hey, hey, hey, I have to object to that characterisation.

I am 6 years old, not five, and I cause fucking insanity in the delete thread.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #8

I think this is relevant, if you listen to the speech:




I'm not sure any particular nations are villains now, other than the obvious North Korea. Nations like China and Russia might not be our friends, but it doesn't mean they're villains.

The new villains are the international trouble-causing syndicates, funded by men like Soros.

Post: #9

Isn't it a little simplistic to define the political world,if not the entire recorded history of humanity in a Saturday Matinée cartoon moral spectrum?

Were the Akkadians good guys or bad guys? Were the assyrians? The persian empire? Were the mayans the good guys and the toltecs the bad ones? Were the aztec imperials good people and the tributary tribes who helped the spaniards and/or these themselves the bad people?
Is your family member who doesn't agree with your political views a bad or a good person?
Are the wolves bad and the sheep good?

Post: #10

In International Relations there are no friends and no enemies: there are interests.

Post: #11

(02-03-2017 11:28 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  In International Relations there are no friends and no enemies: there are interests.

Bingo! Give the man a loolipop!

While from a personal moral standpoint we can think of countries as heroes or villains for their actions, in the end countries have interests, and will act accordingly.

Post: #12

The difference between angels and demons depends largely upon where you're standing at the time.

Post: #13

Every country pursues its self interests and every subgroup within it does the same.

With that said, the US does have more power therefore its policies produce the most effects. And they have often been devastating.

For the poster who mentioned Kuwait, remember that Saddam invaded kuwait in 1990. That same Saddam who was propped up and armed throughout the 80s by the US, and who was pushed and enouraged and supported to attack Iran by the US.

I have no doubt that Saddam had had received a green light by the US before invading Kuwait. And the US has, as a result of that, a military grip on the worlds oil countries and their regimes.

Iraq was invaded and thousands killed based on lies.

Jihadi terrorism started with the US in afghanistan, then Bosnia, then Syria. The US has supported far more jihadis than it has fought.


All in all, as far as the caricature of evil goes, i would say North Korea for what it apparently does to its people, Saudi Arabia for the islamic terrorism it spreads, and Israel for fucking up a whole region and propping up retarded regimes for its benefit.

Im not too well informed on Africa.

Post: #14

(02-03-2017 06:26 PM)Beirut Wrote:  Every country pursues its self interests and every subgroup within it does the same.

With that said, the US does have more power therefore its policies produce the most effects. And they have often been devastating.

For the poster who mentioned Kuwait, remember that Saddam invaded kuwait in 1990. That same Saddam who was propped up and armed throughout the 80s by the US, and who was pushed and enouraged and supported to attack Iran by the US.

I have no doubt that Saddam had had received a green light by the US before invading Kuwait. And the US has, as a result of that, a military grip on the worlds oil countries and their regimes.

Iraq was invaded and thousands killed based on lies.

Jihadi terrorism started with the US in afghanistan, then Bosnia, then Syria. The US has supported far more jihadis than it has fought.


All in all, as far as the caricature of evil goes, i would say North Korea for what it apparently does to its people, Saudi Arabia for the islamic terrorism it spreads, and Israel for fucking up a whole region and propping up retarded regimes for its benefit.

Im not too well informed on Africa.

There is no way the US gave Sadaam the green light to invade Kuwait. The US had supported Iraq earlier, but relations had soured by the point.

Jihad terrorism was in not created by the US. The mujahadeen were given weapons to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, but the US was not behind the clerics who spread the ideology. Short sighted move, but i don't think anyone saw past the cold war at the time.

Post: #15

(02-03-2017 12:00 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Also, without the yanks in the Pacific, Aussies would be talking Japanese today.

A line from a grand old Aussie anthem sums it up best singing about an old Aussie soldier:

"he did his time in Vietnam, still mad at Uncle Sam"

Working Class Man was written by an American (Jonathan Cain), not specifically from the perspective of an Australian soldier, but there's enough ambiguity in the lyrics for it to be embraced by either audience. Classic 80's rock ballad by the way.

Post: #16

(02-03-2017 09:10 PM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:00 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Also, without the yanks in the Pacific, Aussies would be talking Japanese today.

A line from a grand old Aussie anthem sums it up best singing about an old Aussie soldier:

"he did his time in Vietnam, still mad at Uncle Sam"

Working Class Man was written by an American (Jonathan Cain), not specifically from the perspective of an Australian soldier, but there's enough ambiguity in the lyrics for it to be embraced by either audience. Classic 80's rock ballad by the way.

It's Australian because an Australian sang it: Jimmy Barnes, the ex-lead singer of the quintessentially Baby Boomer band Cold Chisel.

In passing, Cold Chisel's best-known song was Khe Sanh. Morons regularly call it a great Australian anthem, should be our national anthem maaaaaaate ... mainly because they've never actually listened and contemplated what the song's lyrics actually mean. It's actually a pretty Red Pill song; leave aside the way it portrays Vietnam veterans as a people apart in Australia, it directly advocates fucking off from Australia and looking for SEA pussy.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #17

(02-03-2017 11:27 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  In passing, Cold Chisel's best-known song was Khe Sanh. Morons regularly call it a great Australian anthem, should be our national anthem maaaaaaate ... mainly because they've never actually listened and contemplated what the song's lyrics actually mean. It's actually a pretty Red Pill song; leave aside the way it portrays Vietnam veterans as a people apart in Australia, it directly advocates fucking off from Australia and looking for SEA pussy.

I love its ruthless portrayal of a vets interrupted and broken life.

"each year finds me aimless, one more year the worse for wear".

Hes purple pill, because although drawn to the poosy paradise of SEA, "the answer sure aint there"

But hes man enough to "drifting north to check things out again" - the best fake love a broken man can get dispensed, is in the back road bars of Thailand.

Post: #18

(02-03-2017 12:24 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:00 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Also, without the yanks in the Pacific, Aussies would be talking Japanese today.

Australians wouldn't be speaking Japanese any more than the Japanese ended up speaking English.

They may have ended up with some small pockets of territory, but it wouldn't have been much, and they wouldn't have held it for long once our boys came back from France.

I disagree, but I love your naive patriotism.

Our boys punch above their weight no doubt (I've been to Guinea where we made our last stand) but there's no doubt we would have been fucked if were not for the might of the US navy and all those young yank lads getting cut in half on those little islands on the way to Tokyo.

That still holds true today... without the might of Uncle Sam behind us, Indonesia Would cultivate our deserts into rice paddies by hand.

Love or hate the states, we owe our existence to them.

Post: #19

(02-04-2017 12:07 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:24 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:00 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Also, without the yanks in the Pacific, Aussies would be talking Japanese today.

Australians wouldn't be speaking Japanese any more than the Japanese ended up speaking English.

They may have ended up with some small pockets of territory, but it wouldn't have been much, and they wouldn't have held it for long once our boys came back from France.

I disagree, but I love your naive patriotism.

Our boys punch above their weight no doubt (I've been to Guinea where we made our last stand) but there's no doubt we would have been fucked if were not for the might of the US navy and all those young yank lads getting cut in half on those little islands on the way to Tokyo.

That still holds true today... without the might of Uncle Sam behind us, Indonesia Would cultivate our deserts into rice paddies by hand.

Love or hate the states, we owe our existence to them.

While I don't want be the America is the greatest country in the world guy, because we have our own problems and we are a collection of people from all over the world, it is cool for you to acknowledge Coral Sea and the tons of metal resting in iron bottom sound.

But I have always been fond of nations of the Commonwealth (Canada not so much lately) and appreciate the sacrifices that have been made with us. I personally don't appreciate what happened recently with Trump and Australia.

While America may be powerful, we can't think we can just shit on our loyal friends.

Post: #20

I was talking to a European a few months ago and he started crapping on the US.

He brought up the ME and all the BS going on there.

I tried to explain to him it takes two to tango. No one seems to want to blame Saudi Arabia and the other countries for wanting to make money selling their oil. If they didn't want to sell their oil, and I exclude armed takeover and installing a friendlier government, then many countries wouldn't be doing any business in the ME.

But few people ever argue fairly, by doing so they deprive themselves and really their egos from feeling like they are superior. And now these days, this feeling is more wanted than ever in our history it seems. By arguing fairly, you would have to let in evidence, facts and opinions that you refuse to want to believe.

Post: #21

(02-03-2017 12:24 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:00 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Also, without the yanks in the Pacific, Aussies would be talking Japanese today.

Australians wouldn't be speaking Japanese any more than the Japanese ended up speaking English.

They may have ended up with some small pockets of territory, but it wouldn't have been much, and they wouldn't have held it for long once our boys came back from France.

Your boys wouldn't have gotten back from France without the US. Or even into France.

Post: #22

Not trying to be a dick.

But didn't France surrender like a 5 dollar whore during WW2? So the Aussies were not there then.

They were there in WWI, but in WWI Japan was on the Allied side, right?

Just want clear facts.

But really I am just disappointed in Paracelsus for not pointing this out sooner. . I am sure he wants me to crawl back under that rock.

Post: #23

The Frech army did give a god fight, i was the goverment who surrendered when they found thenself overwhelmed. The french keep a resistance that keep the nazis more than busy, and gave a lot of vital intel to the allies.

Post: #24

Mekorig, respectfully, I disagree based on some of my readings. Ww1 took a lot out of the French. They paid a huge price. They were not up for another round.

Post: #25

I can't believe George Soros has so far only been mentioned once in this thread.