Not really, I read exactly what you said. It isn't my fault you came off poorly.
It's not my fault you lack basic reading comprehension and are jumping at shadows.
That is one definition, and I'll produce another, "Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate". And this is closer to what I meant, by saying this. Words are contextual you said, so I am holding you to the same standard.
A definition so broad as to, in most contexts (including this one) be completely useless, and indeed not a negative whatsoever, as
all combat would be an act of "bullying", completely undercutting your
own post.
Remember? Your shitty attempt at a zinger? "OH SO YOU'RE SAYING AMERICA IS A BULLY THEN? I DONT THINK AMERICA IS A BULLY."
*two posts later*
"OH BULLYING IS WHEN YOU USE FORCE TO DOMINATE OR INTIMIDATE"
Then... then you do, in fact, think america is a "bully" because the very fundamental enterprise of warfighting involves using force to dominate or intimidate.
You walked, right into that one.
And this fits your proposed system to a T.
I did not, in fact, propose a system you colossal brain trust.
And why is that? Why would it merit such a thing? Why are people asking to be destroyed for simply doing something your country doesn't like? Should countries be able to do what they want as long as they don't interfere with the actual affairs of others?
"Grug just walk blindfolded toward cliff, grug not ASKING to fall off cliff, cliff unfair."
Failing to recognize basic practical realities is asking for it.
You keep trying to badly morph this into a "should". "Should they be destroyed for X?" Thats irrelevant, if not for the singular beneficence of their opponent, they *WOULD* be destroyed for X.
And really, that can be applied to so many other things. The Soviet Union, the rioters, the mafia, the Roman Empire and so on. Would you still hold the same principle for those?
The principle that it's unfathomably dangerous to antagonize (or get in the way of whatsoever) an entity with a monopoly of force? And that it's retarded to pretend that act doesnt come with the consequences you should expect? Yeah, thats a good principle in the majority of cases.
I am sure you appreciated it when the British were enforcing it too.
We're talking about several orders of magnitudes difference, and yes, we did in fact appreciate it, and even paid for it.
That metaphor is apt, you spoil the goods you pay for them. I am happy you made it.
I hope you understand that the metaphor presents the non american country as on the receiving end of a violent dicking it had no way to stop, with absolutely no recourse but to beg for help afterwards, right?
Yawn, lame come back. I'll be sure to practice better judgement in the future when it comes to editing. All you are saying is, "No you are a towel". Get a better come back.
You calling your opponent an idiot as if it holds any weight is lame, turnabout is literally fair play, especially when you're acting a fool in a clear, on screen, unambiguous way.
And then the time of American Empire will come to an end, and you will wish you had paid more attention. Or maybe you won't, but either way you'll have to care then. But both of us will likely be long gone by then. And it depends on how the American Empire ends.
"You'll regret it at the heat death of the universe, then you'll be sorry"
Complete nonsequitor, next flimsy point please.
That would be wise. I actually appreciate American protection for the most part.
Clearly not.
And when did any of these countries attack the USA? Iran did and I certainly haven't seen any smashing, besides measured retaliation. Which of any of the recent countries you have invaded has attacked you first? Because as far as I know none of them have. All of them is foreign junkets.
An attack on an ally of the hegemon is an attack on the hegemon.
So I will have to correct you. No, if you attack them and break them, you should fix the place up.
America not pulverizing every one of it's enemies into a fine powder is a thousand times what you'd get from anyone else, what arrogance it is to demand more. It's generosity, our own moral need, that causes us to
give more,
give, and what do we get for it? Nothing but more bitter seething.
I am not pretending at all, because that is what you sound like to me.
Yes you are struggling quite a bit.
And by comparing the USA to a tiger you are implicitly comparing your country to a wild animal, because the tiger is probably going to maul you either way. That is not the most flattering comparison, if you wanted a better one you'd use a vehicle or force of nature. Which is probably what you are going for.
You fail at basic metaphors. The tiger represents the possible reactions of a polity that could dominate you militarily, the
one tiger that spares you out of all possible tigers is the USA. It's not the USA until you hit it and it doesnt eat you.
God this is
basic school shit.
Standards of an era. We live in an age of relative civilization, where even our savage fucks are less savage. So it makes sense that the hegemonic empire is going to be nice and follow the standards of the era.
Yeah OUR era, OUR standards, the only reason theres a fucking precedent is because WE set the precedent.
And what does the context seem to say? Especially in light of your words above? And as said above you didn't care about context when it suited you.
Meaningless non-sequitur because you diddnt seem to understand what I said.
It depended on the hegemonic empire. Some where content to simply have you suck their dick and send token tribute, others wanted a bit more, some would go all genocide or slavery, and so on. Depends on the time and place really, if the USA came earlier I wouldn't doubt they would have been savage as any of the past empires were.
I am more than content to have the little mini-countries suck our hegemonic dick, but I'll settle for having no relationship whatsoever, because it's nothing but a drain for us, everything we give is thrown away arrogantly. I really do want the world to see what happens when daddy isn't around to clean up the mess anymore.
It is almost as if the USA is best off staying isolationist and making bank exporting to the world. It is almost as if we agree on 90% of things, (edit adding in something I forgot to add) but have different moral bases, mine being based on among other things just war theory.
Yes, many of my interlocoteurs find themselves confusedly in agreement with me later, though it usually takes a few days to set in because they thought they knew what I was talking about but, well, diddnt.
Running in and burning down a place sounds like a steppe horde to me.
1. Destroy your enemy's ability to fight, infrastructure
2. leave
not found:
2. Loot
3. Engage in genocide
4. leave
You literally said that anyone who does stuff the USA likes deserves to be destroyed
I also said that America would not be morally right to
give them what they deserved, and that it is a moral good that America
doesn't give them what they deserve, but it's the height of arrogance to act like that's the
standard rather than a
supreme act of chairity. You following yet?
