|
Delerak, please don't sit there and try to tell me what is stupid and ridiculous. Listening to you change the basis for your agrument is weak and has no backbone to me ...
Your entire argument is based on comparison. I will assume that your education has included Math, Writing and Science, all of which tells us that to compare two or more things, they have to share some common quality or otherwise your argument is mute. Some factor has to be the same, time frame for the country (IE "age" of the country), reasons for the wars, people, or conditions, or you can't compare these two countries (groups of countries).
Obviously the people aren't the same, the conditions aren't the same (some wars some countries were involved in, others weren't), reasons weren't the same, etc. etc. So what I was trying do (and you failed to understand) was somehow put this ridiculous comparison on equal grounds so it could make sense! As I said before, I have no idea why you would want to continue proving your BIG BAD OLE USA theory by comparison. But if you must - then at least choose something to compare!
As for a weak argument, to me, comparing on the basis of "Age" of the country makes the most sense. When a country is new, it will almost always be involved in more wars as it tries to assert itself and make a name for itself. If you don't think so - why don't you compare the Eurpean countries, Russia, China, Africa, and the USA during their infancy as countries. You'll see what I mean. Oh wait, that's right - you're majoring in history and you already know this!
And that's why you don't want to compare it like that. Because as such - you have already lost the debate about The BIG BAD Ole USA vs. All That is Good = Europe" I wonder, is it England you think so wonderful? Might explain a few things ....
|