Sorry - An asideOriginally Posted by thesameguy
Desperate re-write of history!
The UK declared war on Germany to protect other countries, not itself.
And the USA was not "prompt" in helping, it only joined after it was attacked.
I think your logic is apply flipped, UK helped others before they were attacked.
USA joined only when attacked.
But carry on...
You own guns so you can win world wars and save the free world...
Sorry about the shitty rewrite of history, but you have completely overlooked my entire point splendidly.
Hint: Correlation does not equal causation.
Good thing the US didnt do anything silly like supply war materials even before declaring war in 1941 right? Glad we didnt supply the Allies loads and loads of guns and such.
Or food. The UK would have starved without boatload after boatload of it.
Maybe worth noting at this time that war-mongering Euros still broke from WW1 couldn't pay for the supplies that legally neutral gun toting wackos in America provided? I don't know.
It's beside the point. The point is that all groups of people have pros and cons, and maybe our pro is routinely providing aid for foreigners and our con is we kill ourselves. I don't know. But the suggestion that the legality of guns CAUSES gun deaths is not provable, and sufficient evidence exists on both sides of the argument to render the argument pointless, notwithstanding the simple fact that changing the legal status of guns is s preposterous notion from an implementation standpoint much less a legislative one.
Yes the US helped prior to 1941.
But the attitude that you, and only you, came to fight when asked is not only untrue, its almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
Other countries came when asked for help. The US only entered the war when attacked. The example you gave was terrible as you should have swapped UK and USA to make it accurate.
So please continue with trying to justify your fallacy.
And to be more specific - I mean the fallacy about ww2, not the fallacy about guns.
And I do actually wonder if the propaganda that is burnt into Americans (like "we won ww2 and saved everyone") is part of the national psyche that has enabled this gun culture.
John Wayne, Rambo and the US military kicking butt - hoo rah!
The nations identity does seem very tightly tied to the gun.
How would WWII have gone had the Japanese not attacked the U.S. and the U.S. had stayed out of it? Do you think that the allies would have prevailed?
Curious how long you lived here, and how long you were enrolled in schools here...
I dunno about you tsg and op, but I value my time too much to go down the rabbit hole with the same yapping mouths on this subject once again.
I lived in the USA in 1989
Didn't do school there.
Have been to 38 states.
My schooling was in Australia (and while at school my dad served in Vietnam war and no, it wasn't for America)
So which school taught you about ww2 and how the USA decided to save the world?
Do you think this wide spread ignorance is a fault of the school system, maybe it's cultural self denial mixed with ego. Or is it a result of propaganda?
Why do Americans have such a different attitude to guns than most other countries?
Maybe these issues are related.
I think the "we are the best" attitude explains why people resist comparisons to other countries, especially if it doesn't match your strongly held view. Also easy to ignore how much of an issue it is when you haven't experienced life in places where gun grime is much lower. Even ignoring the crime, the number of accidental gun deaths is huge.
Stats say having in a gun in the house is higher risk than not having a gun, but I doubt there would be many gun owners who thinks that applies to them. Their guns protect them.
Is the amount of climate deniers, creationists, anti-vax and other "don't believe the science" types also a reflection of this?
Is the "it's my god damn right" attitude too strong. It's my right to deny, my right to a gun.
Has people's right to do stupid things become so strong, so "the American way" that's it's more important than lives?
Interesting question.
I strongly suspect yes they would. The Battle of Britain and the German troubles on the eastern fronts with Russia probably stopped Germany from winning. They may have held on for a stalemate and a better compromise to end the war.
But I also guess that it could easily have ended with Russia simply winning and dominating most of Europe.
Asia and the pacific would have been a lot different. Especially Australia. Japan may have even invaded.
I wasn't saying the USA didn't play a major role.
Just a little disappointed to see such a blatantly wrong view of it.
Especially the "nobody asked the UK", yet they stepped up. Effectively they (and France) started it as a world war by declaring war against Germany. It is strongly suspected that Hitler thought Britain would remain neutral.
The U.S. was asked many times and said no. They stayed neutral until attacked.
Which would be considered the more noble act?
Why do many Americans have the view that it the other way around?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote