Heh, I'll dropp the communist issue, I'm still holding on my arguments, but I see that we'll be spinning in a circle if it goes on like this. Also, I'm not really up for long posts as my fingers are pratically destroyed at the moment, I play guitar, you see.

Essentially, yes. Have you taken a good hard LOOK at society recently? Brainwashed.
That's where I win my argument. But it's called a change in culture, not brainwashing. I dont want to transform them to dumb people, and I would never like to keep people from having oppinoins. I'd rather "brainwash" them to pacifists, hippies, lovers of peace and other people.

Actually, the war with Japan could have gone on for another DECADE if we stuck with conventional weaponry. Their government was designing a new super-plane (by back then's standards) that was faster than anything we had by far, had better firepower, was more manuverable, and could carry a heavier missile/bomb payload. Analysts believe that the things could have taken on our planes in 3 to 1 odds, and still won the battles. And, whatever you want to say about it, the Japanese pilots were just *BETTER* than ours in the sky. Mostly because our pilots wanted to live, and theirs would rather die in combat than return in defeat. Oh, we would have eventually won, after their population started starving to death, but not any time before then. So, sometimes, the ultimate weapon is the only weapon that works.
We, I'm no we. And I'd rather side with Japan on this issue, tough, becouse of the Hiroshima bomb, and becouse I prefere "their" culture by far over the American one, and I prefere "their" food. Oh and "they" dont have a John Wayne. They had the Rape of Nanking, so to be honest, I'd rather side with nether of the two groups... But I would never fight a war with the American flag on my back, that's an outrage, they're to matherialistic.
The Americans wouldn't have won that war, it would end up as a tie, like the Vietnam war, I think. Why would they start to starve? Them Americans would also start to starve, especially after the Japanese had made that super plan, they would take out the american food resorts, I guess.
But you forget a fundamental thing here, tough: This is a war. Violence was alreddy in use. Why was it alreddy in use? becouse sommeone started to use violence in that war, I have no idea who, tough, but this is just a prrof that violence leads to more violence. I think the Japanese started with an attack agaisnt China. China called for help and the US responded. Then the Japanese came to attack the US, also becouse they sided with Hitler and Mussolini, Mussolini sided with Hitler becouse the alternative ally was the US, and he found them to be way to materialist.

haven't you ever heard of this? Or did Vietnam escape your history lessons.
Why should I have about Vietnam in my history lession? I'm not American, why should I care about the Vietnam war? why do you assume that I'm an American? this is an offence.
I didnt learn much about various wars in my class becouse unlike the US, my Nation dosnt try to participate in every war that excist, and it dosnt interfeer with foregin nations at the same level as the US. I'm a Norwegian person, why should the US even be involved in this debatte? this is an outrage!

I've never heard that, but what does it change?

America LOST that war (uh, "police action"), not because we got beat in the field, but because the people back home WANTED US TO LOSE!!! Therefor, public reaction crushed that army.
Great! You lost it. I couldn't be more happy. You'd lose ether way becouse they were just better wariors, with traps and such.
Oh, and they didnt win ether.

I know Ghandi's people were pacifists, no one would disagree with that, but the only ones who knew it THEN, were his people.
They could have taken India back afterwards. And beside, they knew it. A militant violent man would never boycott food for peace, he'd rather fight.

As for King, his marches were certainly non-violent, which is why they attracted so many non-blacks. However, it was a CLEAR show of force. Klan members could have marched strait at them, and been trampled underfoot as they moved forward. Numbers are the greatest power humans have. And his way drew in numbers, and thus power.
Power, but no violence.

People clearly realized that they should give blacks a chance, politicans aswell.

The best response I ever gave to a bully was the time in 5th grade a bully was getting up in my face.
5th grade? yes.
Hes culture was alredy changed, he was alredy using violence thoward you. You could have done something else, buy there shouldnt be a reason.

If you feel to be violent, it's better to use violence.

But if you can see another solution, it's clearly a better one.


To be the man you have to beat the man.
Or we could do this:
I'm the man.
Therfor I decide that you're the man, and that lady over there is "the woman."
Hey, were all the "man" or "woman" together! We're all very special induviduals.

I feel that we need more requirements rather than just a HS diploma which means ANYONE can go out there and shoot someone saying its in self-defense.
So your logic stands as following:
If you got an high education, you're a gentle man, nice guy, you never lie and you're great!
I must say that I disagree with this.
There should be stronger laws against guns, that's all. In all the world. Gun fabrics should be demolished, tanks should be destroyed, there should be no military, every existing gun should be destroyed, bombs to. Only hunters should be allowed to keep them, and these guns should be armed with sleeping bullets, they should carry a knife to kill the animal with afterwards.

Of course, this would take ages to do, but it's worth it.

Going against the cops? look, without the cops, this world would be in serious hell.
Think about it.
Tought about it. We'd be in serious hell on some issues such as rape, but "harmless" drugs such as Marijuana would be legal, what means that there would be less criminal youngsters in every rich country, think about that.