The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-Worth it?

Originally posted by Robtard
Asking you to show some facts for each of these claims would be too much, I take it?

Probably is too much. As much as he likes to point out that America has *gasp* propaganda, he's getting his info from propaganda from the other side, although I'd wager non of the info in their propaganda is verifiable.

allow me to give some examples of when america has "moved" out of altruism rather than self interest.

- thailand tsunami: millions given to help the dispossessed after that natural disaster

- African Aids program: again millions given to educate and treat the disease

There's 2 examples, a few little internet searches can probably find more. And if you add in private contributions and service to that of the government, you really have America - the most generous country on earth.

Originally posted by Robtard
So says like guy who comes in a thread will a blanket post full of condescension.

Repeat: Are you exempt from your claim?

Originally posted by docb77
Probably is too much. As much as he likes to point out that America has *gasp* propaganda, he's getting his info from propaganda from the other side, although I'd wager non of the info in their propaganda is verifiable.

allow me to give some examples of when america has "moved" out of altruism rather than self interest.

- thailand tsunami: millions given to help the dispossessed after that natural disaster

- African Aids program: again millions given to educate and treat the disease

There's 2 examples, a few little internet searches can probably find more. And if you add in private contributions and service to that of the government, you really have America - the most generous country on earth.

Its not the amount of contribution when compared to other nations that counts but the amount of contribution in ratio to what you have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh come one, how is America the most generous country? Maybe generous with bombs.

Leo, take a look at my response. Then you'll see how you're supposed to reply properly to "convince" the opposition.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html

Bardock, the US gives the most in foreign aid.

However, you're correct when you say "generous" would be inaccurate.

Generousity would be more a measure of aid given, per capita.

The numbers are not in favor of the US.

You could also run the numbers a percentage of GDP.

Now if you REALLY really REALLY wanted to give an accurate measurement, it would be a function of disposible incomes per household.

Now, foreign aid is not the only measure of generosity. The US may very well lead all categories that i described. You can help me with the numbers...studying for a histroy test. It's like.....all of world histroy from 1000AD to 1650. It covers tons of information. Sure I hope get a 100.

Edit -

Originally posted by GCG
Its not the amount of contribution when compared to other nations that counts but the amount of contribution in ratio to what you have.

You bastard. Don't respond with one of my points before I'm done typing them. 😠

😆

Originally posted by lord xyz
That was an insulting observation, not patronising.

It was a faulty observation.

Can't answer, I see. Anyhow, few more years, like I said.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You bastard. Don't respond with one of my points before I'm done typing them. 😠

😆

Its your move ! 😂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Leo, take a look at my response. Then you'll see how you're supposed to reply properly to "convince" the opposition.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html

Bardock, the US gives the most in foreign aid.

However, you're correct when you say "generous" would be inaccurate.

Generousity would be more a measure of aid given, per capita.

The numbers are not in favor of the US.

You could also run the numbers a percentage of GDP.

Now if you REALLY really REALLY wanted to give an accurate measurement, it would be a function of disposible incomes per household.

Now, foreign aid is not the only measure of generosity. The US may very well lead all categories that i described. You can help me with the numbers...studying for a histroy test. It's like.....all of world histroy from 1000AD to 1650. It covers tons of information. Sure I hope get a 100.

That said America still does pretty good. We lead in percentage of GDP given to charity with 1.7%. Britain is second with 0.73%.

As a percentage of disposable income we give 2.3%. I couldn't find any info for the rest of the world with which to compare it.

source: http://blogofbile.com/tag/disposable-income/
found other sources, but this is the most condensed.

Originally posted by GCG
Its not the amount of contribution when compared to other nations that counts but the amount of contribution in ratio to what you have.

Hahahahahaaa, no.

If you're a third world country going through an epidemic and large amounts of money could help.What would you rather have?

A) 10 million from a country who's GDP is 20 million, ie 50% of their wealth

or

B) 20 million from a country who's GDP is 200 million. ie 10% of their wealth

(The answer is 'B', and that would be the country who would be helping you
directly the most, in real terms)

Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahahahaaa, no.

If you're a third world country going through an epidemic and large amounts of money could help.What would you rather have?

A) 10 million from a country who's GDP is 20 million, ie 50% of their wealth

or

B) 20 million from a country who's GDP is 200 million. ie 10% of their wealth

(The answer is 'B', and that would be the country who would be helping you
directly the most, in real terms)

The term being argued was "generous."

Certainly, it looks like the US is more charitable, though...but that is towards its own people, mostly.

But, yes, I would agree with your assessment.

Not to mention our military presence in other nations. That alone should be in the tens of billions of dollars in costs. That's foeign aid but is not counted. (We don't do it for free. teehee)

Ah, I see. Still falls under 'generous', by definition.

Find it funny the shitting on, when good intentions alone don't pay for food, clean water, clothing, shelter and medicine, cold hard cash does.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahahahaaa, no.

If you're a third world country going through an epidemic and large amounts of money could help.What would you rather have?

A) 10 million from a country who's GDP is 20 million, ie 50% of their wealth

or

B) 20 million from a country who's GDP is 200 million. ie 10% of their wealth

(The answer is 'B', and that would be the country who would be helping you
directly the most, in real terms)

Its subjective. The one giving you half their wealth are making more of an effort to helo out, but obviously I would need the maximum any country can give me.

Good Point

leonheartmm don't abuse the report button

Originally posted by Paola
leonheartmm don't abuse the report button

...and stay on topic

Kid got owned.

Bombs are bad, mmkay.

Massive reporting?

Hilarious.

snickerBustedsnicker

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the greatest error ever by the Americans!!!

I think its when they all seemed sometime ago start saying "...Could care less" when obviously meaning to say "...Couldn't care less."

Its a hideous thing to almost nationally have wrong, as it infers the completely opposite meaning that the speaker intends.
Such a simple mistake can be avoided by thinking about what you say or type.

But yeah, after that, the bombings were probably were right up there with that. 😖hifty: