Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

2 words

nuclear weapons

Well they became the richest when they enforced slavery, heaps of work and no pay?
Also they are one of the biggest countries in the world (population wise), and their ability to bomb anything they want with the whole worlds support :)

At 3/23/06 12:18 AM, red_skunk wrote: If slavery was not a successful economic model, then the South would not have been using it.

Worst. Logic. Evar.

Therein lies the proof of it's economic viability.

Proof? What?

Your posts are just uneducated guesses.

Would you say that to U. B. Philips, Eugene Genovese and Eric Williams?

You have no idea about the difference in cost of slave or wage labor.

Or maybe that is you, considering that the only thing you used to "prove" your point was absolutely ridiculous.

Hey I think it was was WWII that made us a super power, the Atomic Bomb!

At 3/23/06 12:18 AM, red_skunk wrote: If slavery was not a successful economic model, then the South would not have been using it. Therein lies the proof of it's economic viability. Your posts are just uneducated guesses. You have no idea about the difference in cost of slave or wage labor. I fail to understand why some people try to downplay the economic success of slavery.

That is just... bad. Standing in a line and walking towards the enemy isn't a very good tactic, but it was still used up until the Civil War.

Slavery wasn't economically viable for agriculture when you start getting up to the Civil War, and it becomes increasingly expensive as time goes on. Slavery remained a business model so long somewhat due to self-perpetuation more than because it was so great. Mechanized forms of agriculture were becoming quite a bit more prevalent and effective.

As far as slavery making us a superpower... not really. After all, we weren't a superpower when slavery ended, so how did that make us a superpower? Did it set us up to become a superpower? Probably not, our industry is a far, far more likely candidate. Previously mentioned "wage slavery" that actually occured in more industrial parts of America was probably more helpful in building the nation than slavery itself.

Slavery was agriculture. We advanced mostly through industry. I'd say slavery helped prevent the US from becoming a superpower, but we managed to thrive regardless.

At 3/22/06 10:24 PM, Papa_Smuff wrote: How about you tell us some of these tactics?

instead of concerntrating all of your forces in places with heavy resistance, find lighter areas and smash through. just for an example.

At 3/22/06 05:44 PM, pt9_9 wrote: I'm really confused.....I hope I'm not sounding stupid.

After World War two, we had successfully used an Atomic Bomb, making us the only country with a nuclear weapon(for now) and we also had little to no rebuilding to d.

At 3/23/06 06:04 PM, Joodah wrote: instead of concerntrating all of your forces in places with heavy resistance, find lighter areas and smash through. just for an example.

PSHH lol your so funny.

I can cite that has been known since the times of ancient Mesopotamian kingdoms you fool.

Based on my understanding, oppression of a certain class wage-wise leads to profit.

In antebellum America's case, slaves.

The fact that America was one of the few nations that had imported slaves start families, creating long lines of servile progeny, was evidence of the ability to maintain the slaves' livelihood, thus meaning that not only was it easy to sustain slaves, it was easy to make a profit out of them.

Of course, methods akin to wage slavery are amoral, however, that doesn't mean that they won't be implemented. Pro-profit does not go hand in hand with morals all the time.

In response to ~TheloniousMonk~

:I need a link to Northern advocates of slavery/aboltionism if any one has one, ty.

At 3/23/06 06:25 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

PSHH lol your so funny.

thanks, i try.

I can cite that has been known since the times of ancient Mesopotamian kingdoms you fool.

well yeah. but if you look at maps from ww1, you'll notice that it's all a huge slugging match 'till america enters, then things speed up greatly.

At 3/22/06 05:50 PM, Joodah wrote: in ww2, we also won, but we didnt get any reparations. you could argue that america got where it is now from ww2.

Who was the first in Berlin? Who was the first in Hitler's bunker?

USSR had won the war in Europe.

At 3/23/06 07:18 PM, zase81 wrote:

At 3/22/06 05:50 PM, Joodah wrote: in ww2, we also won, but we didnt get any reparations. you could argue that america got where it is now from ww2.

Who was the first in Berlin? Who was the first in Hitler's bunker?

USSR had won the war in Europe.

How many casualties though? 20, maybe 28 million? Thats no victory in my books

Who was the first in Berlin? Who was the first in Hitler's bunker?

Russia and Russia. Kinda made sense though, didn't it. You WERE closer.......

USSR had won the war in Europe.

Riight, the massive amounts of soldiers on the Western Front and the great Battle of the Bulge would have been futile if directed against the mainly unarmed suicide charges of Russian farmers/soldiers on the East..........

I think Hitler's Last Offensive, if it had been directed at the Russians, would have crippled Russia PAINFULLY. It did a good number on the US, and it would have been difficult for Russia to fight back without that all powerful Russian Winter to rely on......

What the hell's with all the morons who think Russia could have won solo, or Britain could have won solo? I haven't heard anyone saying the US could have won solo yet, but if they do, they're morons too.

Jesus H. Christ! The BBS just grows stupider by the hour!!! WTF mates?

At 3/23/06 07:28 PM, Imperator wrote: What the hell's with all the morons who think Russia could have won solo, or Britain could have won solo? I haven't heard anyone saying the US could have won solo yet, but if they do, they're morons too.

I had a debate with Jimsween back when I was just here about whether or not the US could've gone it alone. I recall him kicking my noob ass, but I remember the geography being a problem and the issue of actually how many soldiers the Axis had in Europe. Seriously, you can get a huge range on answers online.

I think if it had been Germany and Russia one on one (which ironically was what the Western world had been hoping for) and Germany hadn't had the genius plan of attacking into Winter, then the Germans would've done it.

You can't count on everyone to have an advanced knowledge of WWII. Most only know the basics - France suck, Germany lost.

At 3/23/06 06:53 PM, Joodah wrote: well yeah. but if you look at maps from ww1, you'll notice that it's all a huge slugging match 'till america enters, then things speed up greatly.

Tell me, since America had such good tactics for a trench war they were unprepared and unfamiliar with, which American army made the breakthrough to win the war and with what tactics they introduced, with citations?

At 3/23/06 07:28 PM, Imperator wrote: Russia and Russia. Kinda made sense though, didn't it. You WERE closer.......

USA had troops in Europe too. If they won the war, then THEY would have devided Germany.

Riight, the massive amounts of soldiers on the Western Front and the great Battle of the Bulge would have been futile if directed against the mainly unarmed suicide charges of Russian farmers/soldiers on the East..........

The only reason the war turned out so painful for the Russians was the surprise attack (they did sign a peace treaty with Germany) and Stalin's idiotic "no retreat" tactics. Most of the weapons were kept in eastern Russia. As soon as they arrived in the west, the war began to turn.

I think Hitler's Last Offensive, if it had been directed at the Russians, would have crippled Russia PAINFULLY. It did a good number on the US, and it would have been difficult for Russia to fight back without that all powerful Russian Winter to rely on......

The powerful Russian winter is bad for the Russians too. They are using gunpowder just like the Germans, they fight just like the Germans, so you can't say that Russia had won all their wars due to the winters. It's cold for them too.

At 3/23/06 07:35 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: Germany hadn't had the genius plan of attacking into Winter, then the Germans would've done it.

Germany invaded Russia in June. They expected for Russia to collapse in less than a few months after the invasion. They clearly underestimated their enemy. You all think that Russians are drunks who wear those fur hats all the time. That's exactly what Germany thought, that is why they lost.

At 3/23/06 07:42 PM, zase81 wrote: The powerful Russian winter is bad for the Russians too. They are using gunpowder just like the Germans, they fight just like the Germans, so you can't say that Russia had won all their wars due to the winters. It's cold for them too.

You cannot deny that the Russian Winter was a huge factor in this theatre. The difference was that the Russians were more prepared because, well, they live there.
Napoleon's Invasion of Russia - The Russians Retreat further and further into their country so that they didn't have to engage the French Army and......the winter takes care of Napoleon.

Stalin urged the Western Allies to open up another front (D-day) to relieve the pressure on the Russians. That doesn't sound like someone who'd going to easily win it all on his own. The Western Troops took away huge numbers that wouldve caused fatal damage to the Russians.

Oh and gunpowder?! Wtf's up with that?

At 3/23/06 07:14 AM, TheloniousMONK wrote: Worst. Logic. Evar.

The basic tenets of capitalism? K.

At 3/23/06 04:35 PM, Lhotun wrote: That is just... bad. Standing in a line and walking towards the enemy isn't a very good tactic, but it was still used up until the Civil War.

It was a good war tactic before the use of accurate firearms. People do not just do things for no reason at all. There is a rational reason for why things happen – especially when looking at systems. Do you know how pointless trench warfare would be with muskets? Nobody would ever die. Military tactics change. Economic factors change. People change with the times.

Slavery wasn't economically viable for agriculture when you start getting up to the Civil War, and it becomes increasingly expensive as time goes on. Slavery remained a business model so long somewhat due to self-perpetuation more than because it was so great. Mechanized forms of agriculture were becoming quite a bit more prevalent and effective.

I never said that slavery would remain profitable indefinitely, although it most likely could. And changing agricultural methods don't invalidate a slave system either. If slavery was not a successful system, then it would have been abandoned. It was never abandoned, it was forcibly outlawed. You might grasp at straws and say that it would have changed, then sure. It might have. But for the bulk of the time, slavery was a highly successful system. There really isn't much to debate about.

As far as slavery making us a superpower... not really. After all, we weren't a superpower when slavery ended, so how did that make us a superpower? Did it set us up to become a superpower? Probably not, our industry is a far, far more likely candidate. Previously mentioned "wage slavery" that actually occured in more industrial parts of America was probably more helpful in building the nation than slavery itself.

Industry doesn't just spring up by itself. If we hadn't had a successful agricultural sector, then we would have been wasting time and capital getting those products from elsewhere. Our industry was also dependent on the resources had by slave labor. Textiles don't magically appear from factories. Slavery had a hand in putting us where we are today, just like every other successful turn of our nation. We build from what we have.

At 3/23/06 07:49 PM, zase81 wrote:

At 3/23/06 07:35 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: Germany hadn't had the genius plan of attacking into Winter, then the Germans would've done it.

Germany invaded Russia in June. They expected for Russia to collapse in less than a few months after the invasion. They clearly underestimated their enemy. You all think that Russians are drunks who wear those fur hats all the time. That's exactly what Germany thought, that is why they lost.

Since the June invasion was so nearly successful, what do you think wouldve happened if they had invaded when had meant to? And the only stereotype I know about Russians is how they all say "Nuclear Wessels"

At 3/23/06 08:03 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

At 3/23/06 07:49 PM, zase81 wrote:

At 3/23/06 07:35 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

Since the June invasion was so nearly successful, what do you think wouldve happened if they had invaded when had meant to? And the only stereotype I know about Russians is how they all say "Nuclear Wessels"

Of course It was.

The amount of Land the Germans Travelled, how close they came to the Center of Moscow, how they had Stalin pulling a Hilter in a bunker.

Withouth the Winter, I could see Soviet Russia falling.

It was a good war tactic before the use of accurate firearms. People do not just do things for no reason at all. There is a rational reason for why things happen – especially when looking at systems. Do you know how pointless trench warfare would be with muskets? Nobody would ever die. Military tactics change. Economic factors change. People change with the times.

However, the "walking line" tactic was still used a surprising amount of time after it had become obsolete. It took some time for armies to realize that modern technology had made that tactic pointless.

Also, what if you walked in a straight-line towards sheltered enemies (say, behind a short wall, or in a trench)? They'd be able to fire a volley, then duck and cover. While you might not take insane losses, you'd take more than they did before you even got to the actual fight (which would probably be melee). Of course, guns used to not a long enough range to make the losses severe; but you got to admit... it seems like a bad idea.

This somewhat fleshes out the analogy, even. While the tactic used to not be all that bad, now technology had made it relatively inefficient.

Industry doesn't just spring up by itself. If we hadn't had a successful agricultural sector, then we would have been wasting time and capital getting those products from elsewhere. Our industry was also dependent on the resources had by slave labor. Textiles don't magically appear from factories. Slavery had a hand in putting us where we are today, just like every other successful turn of our nation. We build from what we have.

I figured you would come back with this, because it is a valid point. We do build on what we have.
But there is so much America has to build on in the past that would fuel it to become a superpower beyond slavery. Slavery happened, and slavery probably helped, but I wouldn't consider it a factor as big as WWII or our dreams of manifest destiny (and our resulting conquests towards the Pacific).

I suppose you could even argue slavery hurt us more than helped, as without it, we wouldn't have had the Civil War; but that is getting far too technical. Who knows, perhaps the large plantations would've been smaller and still been an effective source of agriculture due to the poor whites that couldn't compete with slaves nor buy slaves or land of their own actually having their own soil to till. But then again, maybe that would have slowed our western expansion, hurting us. Now I think I've ventured into pure speculation, but anyway...

Besides, why say slavery when you could expand it to include the "wage slavery" as well. Overall oppression of workers, so to speak. Then you'll have what fuelled both our agricultural and industrial sectors for quite a long time, beyond the Civil War.

I might've rambled a bit much, but I think it's readable.

basically by making money off of war.

this country is the most immoral country ever. successful, no doubt, but still heartless. If you look into the grassroots of american economy, it follows this pattern: depression- war- profit- depression- war- profit.

Its called new imperialism and its completly immoral. Bartering off of countries for you own needs.

I guess i am biased as hell, being korean. My nation was bartered between USA and USSR and plus, clinton that dipshit gave kimjongill nukes.

yea i have beef with this "moral nation"

At 3/23/06 08:25 PM, Lhotun wrote: This somewhat fleshes out the analogy, even. While the tactic used to not be all that bad, now technology had made it relatively inefficient.

Sure.

Slavery happened, and slavery probably helped, but I wouldn't consider it a factor as big as WWII or our dreams of manifest destiny (and our resulting conquests towards the Pacific).

I agree. My first post in this thread cited WW2 as the primary reason, and I would never say slavery has been a particularly huge factor.

I suppose you could even argue slavery hurt us more than helped, as without it, we wouldn't have had the Civil War; but that is getting far too technical.

That's what I was objecting to, people trying to say that slavery either didn't help or actively held the country back. If it was not profitable to use slaves, then people would not have used them. Slave-holders were rational, self-interested human beings just like any of us.

At 3/23/06 08:27 PM, S_W_A_R_M-generation wrote: I guess i am biased as hell, being korean. My nation was bartered between USA and USSR and plus, clinton that dipshit gave kimjongill nukes.

I bet you would have just rather the USA either nuked all of North Korea to win the war or just left you to the communists, huh?

And Clinton gave Kim Jong Ill nukes, right.

At 3/23/06 07:49 PM, red_skunk wrote: The basic tenets of capitalism? K.

Profit was obviously not the only thing keeping the South in a slave economy. It was mostly about control over an inferior race. Communism was not a successful economic model, yet various countries continued to use it for a very long time. You see, social and political ideologies can influence an economic system more than profit.

I suggest you read some of the work U. B. Philips, Eugene Genovese and Eric Williams did in regards to slavery before you make any more ridiculous comments.

At 3/23/06 08:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: That's what I was objecting to, people trying to say that slavery either didn't help or actively held the country back. If it was not profitable to use slaves, then people would not have used them. Slave-holders were rational, self-interested human beings just like any of us.

There it is! What is good for a country's economy and what is good for slave-holders are not necessarily the same! I am saying that our country would have flurished more economically (and in every other dimension) without slavery and you are arguing the contrary because slave-holders were profitting. Of course people with free labor will make more money, but is it good for the national economy? The answer is a resounding "no" for the aforementioned reasons!

At 3/23/06 09:45 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote: There it is! What is good for a country's economy and what is good for slave-holders are not necessarily the same! I am saying that our country would have flurished more economically (and in every other dimension) without slavery and you are arguing the contrary because slave-holders were profitting. Of course people with free labor will make more money, but is it good for the national economy? The answer is a resounding "no" for the aforementioned reasons!

Whether or not the country would have flourished more without slavery is an entirely different subject altogether. I was saying that slavery was profitable. It was.

At 3/23/06 10:17 PM, red_skunk wrote: Whether or not the country would have flourished more without slavery is an entirely different subject altogether. I was saying that slavery was profitable.

Uh no?

At 3/23/06 08:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: That's what I was objecting to, people trying to say that slavery either didn't help or actively held the country back.

Nice try though.

At 3/23/06 10:23 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote: Uh no?
Nice try though.

Slavery was profitable for both those immediately profiting and the country. I didn't "try" anything. You need to work on reading comprehension.