Ryan Miller

1.) Accidentally getting someone in trouble in 3rd grade because I threw paper in the trash (I sorry)

2.) Arriving to school one day with too much hair jell (like boi, I got roasted the whole day )

.

Oh gawd no. Quebec wouldn't survive in the long term. Most of Canada's oil comes from Alberta (around 95% of it) and if Quebec decides to leave Canada, guess they'll have to start importing a lot of oil.

This though... nice tattoo.

4 hours ago, schirminator said:

There already is one of these. It was surprising very active. It's on page 2 of the forums and spam section.

 

Oops, thanks. My bad. 

The game is simple. Just simply predict who is going to post next.

For me, i don't know, dabawss.

Should Scotland be a country? No, but that's my opinion.

3 minutes ago, Dabawss said:

Just like if another country makes ANY moves the US sees as a "threat" to their hegemony anywhere in the world, it's a treat to national security and requires sanctions and more often than not, an illegal invasion and bombing of innoocents...yet the US is the peaceful nonagresssive country

Another example is when the US has nuclear missiles on Italy and Turkey, they call it "protection". However, when the Soviet Union does the same thing (missiles in Cuba), the US thinks it's the end of the world.

When the United States sees another country declare war, they call them warmongers

However, when the United States declares war, they call it "peace keeping" *cough* *cough* *Iraq*

What were the Japanese Internment Camps?

     During 1942, the US has just recently entered World War 2 after the Japanese have launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) on December 7, 1941. In response, the US declared war on Japan the day after. On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt (President of the United States at the time) signed Executive Order 9066 stating that the Secretary of War could place Japanese in America (many of which were citizens of the US) in selected military zones. Simply put, Japanese Americans were put in camps simply because of their Japanese ancestry.

Conditions in the Camps

     The conditions in the camps were terrible. Often, camps were overcrowded and had terrible living conditions. The camps where the Japanese lived were like barracks where there was no plumbing or cooking facilities there. Not to mention that food was rationed between the people to save enough food. The Government however allowed internees to leave to camp if they decided to join the US military. Other than that, life was awful.

Arguments

     To some, the Japanese Interment Camps were justified because it would ensure security of the United States and not get in the way of the US war effort. Another reason as to why they were justified is due to the fact that conditions in the camps were much better than what you'd see from the enemy. What that means is that the way the US government treated the Japanese internees wasn't as terrible as those seen from the axis where captive allied civilians and prisoners of war would be slaves and often be executed.

     On the other hand, the Japanese Interment Camps weren't justified as it was a violation of the 5th amendment due process (a right given in the Bill of Rights where citizens of the United States are to be given fair treatment by the Judicial System), especially if most of the Japanese internees were American citizens. Furthermore, Japanese Americans in the US were often forced to leave their homes and way of life. This sometimes meant having to lose your business, home, etc. for many of those internees. In addition, living conditions were terrible inside the internment camps. Lastly, death was often a punishment for those trying to escape the camps, refusing orders, or committing treason.

In December 17, 1944, President Roosevelt had ended the internment of Japanese in the US. In 1988, President Reagan (US president at the time) gave reparations for over 100,000 Japanese who were in these camps. These reparations would give $20,000 surviving victim. Some say that this wasn't enough to compensate for how much the Japanese in the camps have lost as a result. This is one of those examples in history where liberty is being traded for security. It's what makes historical moments so controversial. What do you think? Do you think that the interment of Japanese living in the US was justified? Why or why not?

What is Manifest Destiny

Manifest Destiny was a belief supposedly by god that the Americans had to acquire land from sea to shining sea (taking land from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean). In the early 19th, the United States was in a stage of acquire large amounts of land. After winning their independence from the British, the United States went on to continue their land grabs.

List of land gained by the United States

1. Louisiana Purchase (1803): The United States bought around 827,000 square miles of land from the French for $15,000,000 (not adjusted for inflation). Doubling the size of the United States.
2. Florida Annexation (1819): When run away slaves escaped from Georgia to Florida (at the time was controlled by Spain), the US sent in federal forces to annex Florida.
3. Texas Annexation (1845): After declaring their independence from Mexico, the Union (United States) agreed to allow Texas become part of the United States.
4. Oregon Treaty (1846): A deal between the United States and Canada that agreed to split the territory of Oregon (at the time was controlled by both the United States and Canada) at the 49th parallel. This would give the United States land where Washington (state), Oregon, Idaho, parts of Montana, and parts of Wyoming are today.
5. Mexican Cession (1848): War was declared by the United States on Mexico after Mexican forces attacked American forces stationed in Mexico. Land was gained where California, Nevada, Utah, parts of Wyoming, parts of Colorado, parts of New Mexico, and parts of Arizona are today.
6. Gadsden Purchase (1853): The United States wanted to connect cities in the south by railroad. The only problem was that there were mountains in the way. So the United States bought land from Mexico for $10,000,000 (not adjusted for inflation) where the United States would build railroads around the Rocky Mountains.

(Of course there are other events of the United States acquiring land related to Manifest Destiny, these are just the most iconic ones)

Argument

One of the main reasons as to why the United States wanted to acquire land from the Atlantic all the way to the Pacific was because of the resources available throughout North America. Not to mention after the US bought Louisiana from the French, the United States would be able to control the Mississippi river (which at the time was important for transporting Americans from the east coast to the Mississippi as it was hard to cross the Appalachian Mountains). Another argument as to why Manifest Destiny was justified because it would give the United States ports on the Pacific Ocean, thus strengthening their navy.

However, on the counter argument, there are reasons as to why people would think that Manifest Destiny wasn't justified. One of it was that in order for the United States to acquire land, they'd have to take it from someone. By someone, we mean taking land from the Spanish, Mexicans, and most importantly, the Native Americans already living there. The way the United States treated Native Americans was brutal as they would often take their land by force as seen with many engagements with the Native Americans and the United States. Another reason why people wouldn't think that Manifest Destiny wasn't justified was because People who believed in American exceptionalism thought we were inherently superior to the other colonial powers and to the indigenous peoples.

There are of course many arguments as to why people would think Manifest Destiny was or wasn't justified. These are just a couple reasons for each side. What do you think?

During the last year of World War 2 in Europe, the already crumbling German army was struggling to fight against the United States, British, Soviet, and French forces as Germany was surrounded on two fronts. At the same time, the Allies in Europe had a race to see who would reach Berlin first. Knowing that the United States was a democratic capitalist nation and the Soviet Union being a authoritarian communist nation, it would make sense to capture as much land in Europe under your influence.

The ways the United States and Britain would do was to conduct strategic bombings all throughout Germany. Operations conducted by the US Air Force and Royal Air Force would bomb factories and other targets in Germany to cripple their economy. One of the most infamous of these raids was the allied bombing of Dresden where US Air Force and the RAF would bomb Dresden. The raid was a victory for the United States and Britain as strategic targets were destroyed, however they also bombed civilians along the way. Around 20,000 Germans were killed as a result of the bombing.

One of the arguments for stating that the bombing was justified was that if would speed up the end of the war by crippling the German economy and moral. The United States wanted to make sure that most of Europe wouldn't be occupied and/or influenced by the Soviet Union. However, the counter argument would be that the war was already easy to win in the first place and carpet bombing a city was unnecessary. The raid also targeted innocent civilians along the way.

What do you think? Do you think that the allied bombing of Dresden was justified because it would speed up the end of the war, or not because thousand of innocent civilians were killed as a result?

Cats being scared

In 1793, France went through what was known as the Reign of Terror where nearly 20,000 Frenchmen were guillotined  Some say it was to protect the revolution and not fall into a monarchy ever again while others argue that it was wrong to execute innocent Frenchmen. What do you think?