Obongo the Paultifex

-6

5

4

2

>4 far-leftists

6

>Middle East >human rights Lmao

5 Commies btfo

0

(I should mention for Roz Wei's sake that I'm just joking about the alliance invading thing.)

Banned for having a meme as your avatar.

Granted, but you fly over restricted military airspace. Once the US finds out you have the power of flight, you are captured, tortured, and ultimately dissected by the staff of Area 51 as part of the new Project Valkyrie, as they attempt to make a new line of super soldiers capable of flight. I wish I could wash the blood from my hands.

That would imply that I can read.

It's true. Sometimes I forget what the buttons do and accidentally declare war on everyone in an alliance within my war range. Old habits die hard I guess.

I at least partially blame that on there being 11 people on one stage trying to 1. Outgun Trump and 2. Start having their names heard. There really wasn't much hope to hear any cohesive or interesting debates on issues when they were all trying to one-up eachother. That being said, keep an eye on Pataki. He had a lot of reasonable opinions, even if he is a nobody right now.

Well they shitposted about "hurr muh colonists are illegal immigrants" and ruined the thread from being a circle jerk into a discussion

ikr We've had more meaningful discussion here than all 15 of the republican hopefuls had last night.

We didn't do exactly what the Romans did with the barbarians surrounded them. Even though George Washington himself thought of the natives as equals, we still ended up forcing some natives to assimilate. That, on top of treaties made to get the natives out of land we wanted, and culminating in the Removal Act, is the broad picture of American - Native relations. Sure, the natives sided with America during the wars they faced during the first hundred years of its status of an independent nation, but much like the Indians during World War II, their willingness to assist the civilization that ruled over them was out of the naive hope that this would somehow cause the rulers of these civilizations to repay them for their efforts by giving them independence. That obviously turned out not to be the case. It's probably a leap in logic to say that just because the Americans benefited from the depopulation of native territories due to disease, the deaths of natives due to small pox was deliberate (although we've had a vaccine for it since 1798 and we didn't start programs for vaccinating native Americans until almost a hundred years later), and therefore I guess I can't keep using the term "genocide was inevitable". What I will say in place of that is we had ruined the native population of North America the moment we made contact with them. The deaths of millions due to treatable diseases (especially in the case of the West Coast natives, since we had a small pox vaccine for decades by the time we reached there) overshadows even the most oppressive and brutal movements against natives. The infamous Trail of Tears consisted of "only" 100,000 natives being forced out of their homeland, compared to the (up to) 18 million native deaths from disease since the Spanish arrived. The depopulation made the forced removal and relocation of surviving natives much easier, and our forefathers capitalized on it. Was it right? No, but we can't rewind two hundred years of history and progress that was built upon those acts. What little we did do in return is probably as good as it's gonna get, considering that a majority of the land in the US is privately owned. That and since there's only a couple million natives around, they don't need huge swaths of land anyway, but that's ignoring the fact that a large majority of them don't live on reservations, but within cities. The logic there isn't "Most of the natives already died, might as well kill the rest". It's more of "Well, most of the natives have already died from disease. Might as well use this to our advantage." Which could relate to "Well, there's already a bunch of illegal immigrants here, might as well use that to our advantage to show how we need to close the border now and offer amnesty to the ones already here".

I should probably clarify my views on land ownership. I don't advocate for land ownership by conquest, but what I do argue is that the nations that are successful in doing so don't need to justify their holdings because their successful military is all the justification they need. If a nation overtakes another with a military and forcefully relocated the original inhabitants, they likely don't care about any sort of diplomatic or moral complications from doing so. At that point, the only way to overturn what they've done is to overpower their military and through that remove their only claim to the land they took. We did try to unify cultures, although it was through the scope of religion and that didn't turn out well. Also lets not forget that cultures don't always mesh well, and if one is spreading it's likely at the expense of the other. Nobody has cared about cultural diversity until historically recently. One important thing to remember about the barbarians that were accepted into the Roman fold is that they were Romanticized. They gave up their barbarian heritage to become Roman, much like a successfully converted native would lose their native heritage to become American. At least at that time. Spreading culture is just the second step to controlling people after you've taken their land from the previous owners by force. The Romans' treatment of the tribal states that existed around their empire was different from how the natives in America were treated by the colonial Europeans. When I said earlier that their genocide was inevitable, I meant it because even if we never brought up arms against them, disease would do the slaughtering for us. Our very existence in the new world facilitated the depopulation of native lands because we brought our diseases with us. Funny enough, it was that same reason why the Europeans didn't colonize sub-Saharan Africa until the late 1800's. We had no resistance to Malaria, so the colonizers died.

It's funny you say that when just a few posts later I described the difference between occupation and conquering. Don't be dumb. Actually, I take it back. I'm not leaving it at that. I'll show you why you're wrong. Hitler's Reich started expanding in 1938 and stopped expanding by 1943, ultimately ending in total defeat in 1945. Within those 8 years, much of Europe was occupied by the Germans. However, while the countries themselves had been overrun, the Allies managed to liberate the occupied nations with their combined military and re-establish the, until then, exiled governments while overthrowing the government put in place by Germany. Sure, if Hitler had managed to beat back the Americans, English, and the Soviets and hold onto the entirety of Europe for the next hundred years, it would effectively be German land. And there really would be no need to justify that because the strength of the Germany military alone would be all the justification anyone would need. Might still made right in that situation because Hitler made too many enemies and couldn't solidify his claims in Europe. Same goes for any failed expansionist leader.

Pataki was the only Losers Debate personality that I consistently agreed with. Carson was a lot more reasonable than Trump and Fiorina held her own very well.

The genocide of native Americans wasn't acceptable. Genocide is never acceptable. Unfortunately for them it was inevitable and our forefathers capitalized on it. Sure people feel bad about it now but the damage has been done for so long that there's not much that can be done aside from apologizing and building memorials. If we're gonna be technical here, the land wasn't mine in the first place. I'm renting the property from the government, who, upon you invading my land with your small army, would be retaken by their larger army, which again loops back into the whole right of land ownership is backed by military strength argument. Also, occupation is different from conquering. Germany occupied many nations during World War II, and for a few years a lot of Europe was considered to be part of Germany, yet the citizens there still spoke their native languages, retained (most of) their values, culture, and government. They just had to answer to the government they had been conquered by. Sure, if Germany never lost and the trend continued for hundreds of years, there's a good chance that the occupied nations would eventually be absorbed into the German cultural sphere and for all intents and purposes become German, but that's the endgame of a generations-long process.

As if you knowing a native American makes anything I said incorrect. Also way to go for the knees with the name-calling. You know very well what I mean when I say civilized. Loose tribal federations that haven't left the stone age do not compare to budding industrialized nations with a complex political, economic, and cultural structure. I honestly don't care whether or not me stating fact offends him, because I don't buy into the concept of the "noble savage".

Much like how the Europeans handled Africa, those treaties likely were either meant to pacify the natives into submission to avoid having to kill them all, or were just an outright lie so they could buy time to get more Americans moving out West to displace their already low populations. While the whole situation, both here and around the world in that era, was shitty, hypocritical, and morally abhorrent by modern standards, diplomacy has always been a luxury for nations that have a competent military and means of defending themselves. The natives were neither a nation nor a competent fighting force. Whether from sheer lack of modern military training or lack of numbers and equipment, they couldn't defend any land that they claimed to own and that allowed the United States to treat the land as if it was owned by other nations (Read: The Louisiana Purchase), or overruled whatever meaningless treaty they made with the natives to accomplish their true goals (Like the Removal Act). We are natives, and we can argue against illegal immigration. We were the first civilized nation to form on this continent's soil, and our ownership of the entirety of the modern United States is backed by our military and mutual agreements with other civilized nations.