• Unpopular Opinions V5: "I still don't like Half Life 2."
    5,001 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49305460]It would have solved a lot of problems, and I really don't think it would have prolonged the war by that much anyway.[/QUOTE] yes, fighting and defeating an army of twenty six million men at the height of their momentum and power while on the verge of bankruptcy at the tail-end of a war that everyone on Earth wanted to end wouldn't have been a big deal what fucking planet are you from?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49304677]We had no reason to enter the war, and our entrance only furthered the imperial attitudes of Britain and France. We sat idly by whilst the British and French tore apart the Middle East for their own desires, and enforced brutal and unneeded "treaties" upon the former Central Powers that did nothing but lead to the second world war. Not to mention that the declaration of war divided German/Irish Americans from local Americans, as the Germans were persecuted and seen as foreign outsiders, whilst the Irish were appalled to see the Americans assisting the British Empire. This Anti-German sentiment allowed the teetotaler movement to erupt as many of the large breweries in the United States were owned by Germans or of German-Ancestry families. Prohibition's sweep through America and thus the huge criminal culture that still lingers today comes entirely from the prohibitionists able to overcome the American populace by decrying "the Hun" America should have stayed out entirely and let Europe war itself out like it tended to. A huge majority of the problems we see today would not be here if the US hadn't stumbled into the Great War.[/QUOTE] Are we talking about mistake in the sense of the world is worse off or the US is worse off. Because WW2 was great for america. It left it rich and secure and everybody else in tatters and ripe for the taking. Post WW2 is where america made some of its biggest gains.
I don't get the reverence for piracy. It's always about 'the consumer' as a whole, but it usually comes off as self-serving to me.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49304677]We had no reason to enter the war[/QUOTE] We actually did, we had invested so much money into the Entente that we would have been utterly fucked if they lost. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49305460]I wish we would have kept on fighting WWII after we beat the Germans, pushing the Russians back to their original border. It would have solved a lot of problems, and I really don't think it would have prolonged the war by that much anyway. I think the world would be a much, much more stable place if the USSR had been firmly pushed out of Europe.[/QUOTE] Nobody in the Entente aside from the US and maybe Japan was in any condition to keep fighting. Prolonging the war like that would have just guaranteed uprisings in France and the UK.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49305460]I wish we would have kept on fighting WWII after we beat the Germans, pushing the Russians back to their original border. It would have solved a lot of problems, and I really don't think it would have prolonged the war by that much anyway. I think the world would be a much, much more stable place if the USSR had been firmly pushed out of Europe.[/QUOTE] Well the US and its allies would have had their asses kicked... and then Russia, exhausted would have lost another few million people.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;49305688]I don't get the reverence for piracy. It's always about 'the consumer' as a whole, but it usually comes off as self-serving to me.[/QUOTE] most of the time games are pirated because of lack of localized releases, the vocal people aren't the largest group of pirates. just the loudest.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49304677]We had no reason to enter the war, and our entrance only furthered the imperial attitudes of Britain and France. We sat idly by whilst the British and French tore apart the Middle East for their own desires, and enforced brutal and unneeded "treaties" upon the former Central Powers that did nothing but lead to the second world war. Not to mention that the declaration of war divided German/Irish Americans from local Americans, as the Germans were persecuted and seen as foreign outsiders, whilst the Irish were appalled to see the Americans assisting the British Empire. This Anti-German sentiment allowed the teetotaler movement to erupt as many of the large breweries in the United States were owned by Germans or of German-Ancestry families. Prohibition's sweep through America and thus the huge criminal culture that still lingers today comes entirely from the prohibitionists able to overcome the American populace by decrying "the Hun" America should have stayed out entirely and let Europe war itself out like it tended to. A huge majority of the problems we see today would not be here if the US hadn't stumbled into the Great War.[/QUOTE] Every single major political event in history since 1918 has been because of the Great War, either directly or indirectly.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49304269] At some point it's no longer "entitlement" like you're describing it, but just trying to preserve the sanctity of a situation. There was that blow-up a while ago about the GitHub project with one of the guys being transphobic.[/QUOTE] Private entities can censor people while they're working because the company needs to maintain a reputation and to some extent wants to have a positive work environment. I'm referring more towards people that want hate speech laws for in public and private and towards people that silence discussion of topics or viewpoints they deem offensive.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49305741]We actually did, we had invested so much money into the Entente that we would have been utterly fucked if they lost.[/QUOTE] actually whichever side won the war would have ultimately meant little for the us economy - europe still would have bought and sold much the same things, regardless of who won also the usa invested into germany, austria-hungary, etc all the same anyways. pretty much everything the US has intervened in (both world wars, 1898 spanish war, vietnam, maybe korea, etc) have been questionable and the costs involved have grossly exceeded the supposed benefits like, i honestly dont see what benefit there was to the usa getting geared up for a war with japan in ww2 and then demanding total surrender to the point they invaded shitty islet after shitty islet and wasted thousands of lives in the process. the cost of that conflict seemed completely unnecessary and overly grand on the part of the americans, who derived virtually no benefit from the sacrifices made in that war. a limited conflict where they just destroyed the japanese navy would have american foreign policy doesnt even make sense if you assume its being controlled by the corporations or cynical self-interest. no group (no matter how narrow or wide their interests) seems to derive any benefit from it. american foreign policy defies rational explanation. none of the conflicts it engages in seems to serve either national interest, or those of rich interest groups, or of any particular demographic. any initial entry seems to escalate into a grand scheme or project which usually goes awry and costs a substantial amount in terms of resources
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49305865]actually whichever side won the war would have ultimately meant little for the us economy - europe still would have bought and sold much the same things, regardless of who won also the usa invested into germany, austria-hungary, etc all the same anyways. pretty much everything the US has intervened in (both world wars, 1898 spanish war, vietnam, maybe korea, etc) have been questionable and the costs involved have grossly exceeded the supposed benefits like, i honestly dont see what benefit there was to the usa getting geared up for a war with japan in ww2 and then demanding total surrender to the point they invaded shitty islet after shitty islet and wasted thousands of lives in the process. the cost of that conflict seemed completely unnecessary and overly grand on the part of the americans, who derived virtually no benefit from the sacrifices made in that war. a limited conflict where they just destroyed the japanese navy would have american foreign policy doesnt even make sense if you assume its being controlled by the corporations or cynical self-interest. no group (no matter how narrow or wide their interests) seems to derive any benefit from it. american foreign policy defies rational explanation. none of the conflicts it engages in seems to serve either national interest, or those of rich interest groups, or of any particular demographic. any initial entry seems to escalate into a grand scheme or project which usually goes awry and costs a substantial amount in terms of resources[/QUOTE] It wasn't a matter of just trade and who purchased goods. US banks had loaned massive amounts of money to the UK and France, far more than they ever did to the Central powers. As for Japan, the desire for unconditional surrender was probably due to the nature of Pearl Harbor. It went from "we want economic dominance in the Pacific" to a personal matter. The US had long had economic interests in China and Japan was seen as a threat to those interests. The Spanish-American war was an attempt to gain more influence and further push European nations out of the Americas. Vietnam and Korea were purely ideological, Communism vs. The West.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49305926]It wasn't a matter of just trade and who purchased goods. US banks had loaned massive amounts of money to the UK and France, far more than they ever did to the Central powers.[/QUOTE] US spending in the great war was worth ten times the value of US global exports. i dont see how that kind of cost is justified in economic terms [url]http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf[/url] german victory would have meant little impact to trade since most of the us exports were to britain anyways, and germany ambitions didnt include british enslavement i mean the usa threw away 100,000 mens lives as cannon fodder for a mere years worth of fighting for the anglo-french forces? i dont see why they even had to enter at all in terms of their own interests [QUOTE=Anderan;49305926]As for Japan, the desire for unconditional surrender was probably due to the nature of Pearl Harbor. It went from "we want economic dominance in the Pacific" to a personal matter.[/quote] if they wanted revenge all they had to do was destroy their navy and bomb the home islands a bunch of times. if they wanted economic power all they had to do was sit back and not do anything because even before the US embargo the japanese "co-prosperity sphere" was already falling to pieces. i don't see what strategic goal was fulfilled by seizing control of a bunch of shitty rocks in the pacific at great expense of lives and resources. people go on about how the atomic bombings meant no invasion (and thus massive loss of life), but nobody realises how insane that even the invasion of okinawa was and how it made literally no strategic impact on the war despite the massive loss of life
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49306002]US spending in the great war was worth ten times the value of US global exports. i dont see how that kind of cost is justified in economic terms [url]http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf[/url] german victory would have meant little impact to trade since most of the us exports were to britain anyways, and germany ambitions didnt include british enslavement i mean the usa threw away 100,000 mens lives as cannon fodder for a mere years worth of fighting for the anglo-french forces? i dont see why they even had to enter at all in terms of their own interests[/QUOTE] You're forgetting the unrestricted submarine warfare policy practiced by Germany which was hitting US trade to the UK and France. Not to mention having a major trading partner lose a major war would probably result in a massive reduction of trade. The fact that Woodrow Wilson was utterly terrible at foreign affairs and a massive idealist probably contributed to the decision to join. [quote]if they wanted revenge all they had to do was destroy their navy and bomb the home islands a bunch of times. if they wanted economic power all they had to do was sit back and not do anything because even before the US embargo the japanese "co-prosperity sphere" was already falling to pieces. i don't see what strategic goal was fulfilled by seizing control of a bunch of shitty rocks in the pacific at great expense of lives and resources. people go on about how the atomic bombings meant no invasion (and thus massive loss of life), but nobody realises how insane that even the invasion of okinawa was and how it made literally no strategic impact on the war despite the massive loss of life[/QUOTE] I've never seen anything to suggest the Japanese co-prosperity sphere was on the verge of collapsing. As for why they didn't stop at just bombing probably the same reason France wanted to utterly dismantle Germany, because they wanted them to never be a threat again. WWII was at the point in history where war was starting to become more and more economically unfeasible, you can apply the logic "why have people die, you don't gain much" to most conflicts for the better part of the 20th century.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49306058]You're forgetting the unrestricted submarine warfare policy practiced by Germany which was hitting US trade to the UK and France. Not to mention having a major trading partner lose a major war would probably result in a massive reduction of trade. The fact that Woodrow Wilson was utterly terrible at foreign affairs and a massive idealist probably contributed to the decision to join.[/QUOTE] losing a war wouldnt damage trade for long though. all participating states had a degree of economic destruction and ruin during the war, but all of them (even russia) recovered rapidly in the 1920s again, even if the reasons for war seem justified in that context, im struggling to understand how they justified a massive expense that far, far exceeded the benefits gained from them. remember that the cost of the war greatly exceeded the total value of all american exports to europe, so if we are doing it by economic self-interest, then the rational thing to do would be to let the anglo-french lose the war and take a small hit to trade, then to spend massive amounts of money in the closing stages of a war that was already coming to an end [QUOTE=Anderan;49306058]I've never seen anything to suggest the Japanese co-prosperity sphere was on the verge of collapsing.[/QUOTE] the war in china was a massive drain on japan in terms of both manpower and resources that led to major domestic problems and a steady detoriatation of the country. the invasion of china (and the failure to subjugate it) remains the biggest and most important reason as to why japan lost the war, with the united states, britain, ussr, etc playing relatively minor roles in the eventual demise of the japanese empire. the entry of other countries into the conflict only just sped up what was inevitable, by 1939 the japanese advance into china had already been more or less stalled and there is effectively no scenario in which it could have ended well for japan at all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49306125]losing a war wouldnt damage trade for long though. all participating states had a degree of economic destruction and ruin during the war, but all of them (even russia) recovered rapidly in the 1920s again, even if the reasons for war seem justified in that context, im struggling to understand how they justified a massive expense that far, far exceeded the benefits gained from them. remember that the cost of the war greatly exceeded the total value of all american exports to europe, so if we are doing it by economic self-interest, then the rational thing to do would be to let the anglo-french lose the war and take a small hit to trade, then to spend massive amounts of money in the closing stages of a war that was already coming to an end[/QUOTE] Like I said the loans were a big part of it. Either the Entente wins and you get a return of investment or they lose and default and you get nothing and take hit to the economy. It's not like the money the US spent on the war evaporated into nothing. Farmers had a guaranteed market and factories had business producing war goods. And again, there was the unrestricted submarine warfare which was considered by several prominent politicians to be an outright act of war by Germany. The fact that Germany reigned in on their promise to not target US ships didn't help much. It's really just a standard case of relations deteriorating and a nation choosing the side they felt they had the most to gain from.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49306195]The fact that Germany reigned in on their promise to not target US ships didn't help much. It's really just a standard case of relations deteriorating and a nation choosing the side they felt they had the most to gain from.[/QUOTE] Kinda a dick move to have your passenger ships carrying military supplies while being neutral.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49305506]yes, fighting and defeating an army of twenty six million men at the height of their momentum and power while on the verge of bankruptcy at the tail-end of a war that everyone on Earth wanted to end wouldn't have been a big deal what fucking planet are you from?[/QUOTE]They would have been facing off against the collective force of the West, and would be subject to the strategic bombing might of the USAAF and RAF, the USSR had absolutely no aircraft that could even touch the high-level bombers and they lacked a great deal of anti-aircraft guns capable of shooting to that altitude. Eventually their factories would have been pummeled just like the Germans and their momentum would abruptly stall. [QUOTE=Anderan;49305741]Nobody in the Entente aside from the US and maybe Japan was in any condition to keep fighting. Prolonging the war like that would have just guaranteed uprisings in France and the UK.[/QUOTE]I think you mean "Allies" and not Entente, I wasn't talking about WWI. Anyway, maybe, but I doubt the war would last very long because by that time the Allied air power would have been in full swing and the Russians would have been entirely unprepared for a bombing campaign like that. Germany had struggled to get high-altitude fighters capable of taking on the bombers, they could get their planes up their but their endurance was abysmal; the Russians had nothing that could match that. Plus the P-51 and P-47 fighters outclassed anything the Russians were flying at the time too. The only real obstacle would be figuring out how long the forces on the ground could go with little to no supplies. It would likely take a year before the Pershing would be introduced fully, so it would be Shermans versus T-34s which historically has not fared well for the Shermans. (though they consistently won the engagements they were in) Overall if the USSR was pushed back it would have kept Europe far, far more stable during the 20th century and by extension the rest of the world would benefit from limited USSR influence. Now, a US/European dominated world without any political checks may or may not be a good thing, but there certainly wouldn't be as big of a global conflict as there is now and a lot of the third world would be far more stable because proxy wars wouldn't have been as attractive for the West. I doubt the concept of a socialist world revolution would seem as viable if the USSR lost most of of the targeted countries in it's sphere of influence.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49306453]I think you mean "Allies" and not Entente, I wasn't talking about WWI. [/quote] I misread WWII as WWI for some reason, my mistake. [quote]The only real obstacle would be figuring out how long the forces on the ground could go with little to no supplies. It would likely take a year before the Pershing would be introduced fully, so it would be Shermans versus T-34s which historically has not fared well for the Shermans. (though they consistently won the engagements they were in)[/QUOTE] The Pershing wouldn't have made much of a difference. It proved to be horribly unreliable in Korea and the E8 was generally much more favored for that reason.
I just got to play ESO again on the free weekend, and, well, contrary to seemingly popular opinion, it's actually [I]really[/I] fun. They've improved it a ton since the beta we all saw and I find myself wanting to play more and more. It's genuinely good now.
[QUOTE=simkas;49292954]What kind of comparison is that even? One is a completely linear instanced shooter while another one is a huge open world with a ton of stuff happening all at once.[/QUOTE] But open world games don't render and simulate their whole world all at once it's always just the area around the player that's active, save for minor calculations [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49295804]Gays should be able to donate blood. This isn't the 80's where nobody knows how to find HIV in blood almost instantly [/QUOTE] Testing blood for HIV isn't as quick and inexpensive as you seem to think it is
if we're gonna talk about the great war can we please talk about how everyone views the german empire as some sort of imperialistic evil while the british empire waged far more wars? british propaganda against germany was very strong and sadly we are still conditioned by it
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49304099]Main factor of disliking Kanye West is the negative attention the media brings that influences communities outside of hip-hop, ignorance is second one. He's a pretty chill dude, has helped a lot of people.[/QUOTE] Imo he has a problem with his ego, and he doesn't hide it, and that makes the media stir shit up anytime something involving him happens. Meanwhile other celebs are idolized despite in truth being complete scumbags. [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;49304103]I can't think of much of any serious practical problem in my life that wouldn't be solved with a lot of money. The saying "money can't buy happiness" is quite naive. Having little money certainly can get one quite a lot of unhappiness.[/QUOTE] Money can give you happiness to some extent, but you still can be unhappy while having money. I think it's true that money can't solve certain problems, although being unhappy is def. a lot more bearable when you've got money. [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=L'Citizen;49305823]Every single major political event in history since 1918 has been because of the Great War, either directly or indirectly.[/QUOTE] In fact you could back it up even further to the Napoleonic Era. Basically any political event happening in the modern era is one way or another connected to what went on during that time, The Great War and WWII being no exception.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49306453]They would have been facing off against the collective force of the West, and would be subject to the strategic bombing might of the USAAF and RAF, the USSR had absolutely no aircraft that could even touch the high-level bombers and they lacked a great deal of anti-aircraft guns capable of shooting to that altitude. [/QUOTE] I think you're overestimating the size of the Western Allies' armies. The US, Brits, Canadians and French had 7 land armies in North-western Europe and 2 in Italy, with the US providing 5 of those. Meanwhile the Soviets had like 40+ armies. [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] Oh and also the broken and battered remains of the Wehrmacht and the SS I guess
[QUOTE=Kentz;49307204]if we're gonna talk about the great war can we please talk about how everyone views the german empire as some sort of imperialistic evil while the british empire waged far more wars? british propaganda against germany was very strong and sadly we are still conditioned by it[/QUOTE] It was Moltke mainly, the Kaiser didn't put stock into war nearly as much as him after the Archduke's assassination. Moltke, Hotzendorf , Count Berchtold - those were the real Architects for the war (especially those last two, they designed the Ultimatum given to Serbia to be rejected so they could go to war. Moltke and the rest of the German general staff felt that they needed to go to War with Russia sooner rather than later, or Russia's railroads would make them far more effecient at mobilization). I mean jesus, on the eve of war, the Kaiser felt that the Ultimatium would jave been enough, and even remarked he would have never have ordered mobilization and that war was impossible.
[QUOTE=Murky42;49305546]Are we talking about mistake in the sense of the world is worse off or the US is worse off. Because WW2 was great for america. It left it rich and secure and everybody else in tatters and ripe for the taking. Post WW2 is where america made some of its biggest gains.[/QUOTE] I'm talking of the Great War, or WWI, not 2. [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;49307553]It was Moltke mainly, the Kaiser didn't put stock into war nearly as much as him after the Archduke's assassination. Moltke, Hotzendorf , Count Berchtold - those were the real Architects for the war (especially those last two, they designed the Ultimatum given to Serbia to be rejected so they could go to war. Moltke and the rest of the German general staff felt that they needed to go to War with Russia sooner rather than later, or Russia's railroads would make them far more effecient at mobilization). I mean jesus, on the eve of war, the Kaiser felt that the Ultimatium would jave been enough, and even remarked he would have never have ordered mobilization and that war was impossible.[/QUOTE] Not to mention the Schlieffen Plan more or less fed into the paranoia of Moltke and Berchtold, since they felt like the war was an inevitability rather than something easily prevented
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49304677]We had no reason to enter the war, and our entrance only furthered the imperial attitudes of Britain and France.[/QUOTE] This is apparently an impressively polarized opinion judging by the ratings. I'm kinda interested in seeing arguments against what you said now. Seems like an interesting discussioqn.
i don't like dreadlocks and manicures because to me, they look really unusual
[QUOTE=Trixil;49311626]i don't like dreadlocks and manicures because to me, they look really unusual[/QUOTE] They are two very different things. Did you mean to say manicures? Just wondering because it seemed really odd to put them together.
George Carlin was [I]not[/I] "truthful" or "inspiring" or "deep" It's called observational humor. He wasn't some sort of philosophical pioneer or some shit. Half of the time when people cite "OH MAN LOOK AT THIS THING HE SAID HE'S SO RIGHT" it's fucking common sense.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;49305688]I don't get the reverence for piracy. It's always about 'the consumer' as a whole, but it usually comes off as self-serving to me.[/QUOTE] What I don't get is why companies are convinced its cutting into their sales. I'm pretty sure most cases of piracy, the person would sooner not buy the product if they couldn't obtain it through piracy.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;49305688]I don't get the reverence for piracy. It's always about 'the consumer' as a whole, but it usually comes off as self-serving to me.[/QUOTE] It's absolutely self-serving, but someone's gotta do it. As I argued in the other thread, if companies are simply going to expect that you're going to put up with BS and no longer try to compete for you, buying their stuff will only tell them it's okay to do so.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.