Debate: Is USA awesome or what ?
Side: No

"I am truly flummoxed at your brash attempts to insolently degrade the image of the United States, especially without proper knowledge of history."There's only one person here who doesn't have a proper knowledge of history, and it isn;t me."Calling the USSR a country is just one example of your blatant disregard of history"I know that technically speaking the USSR wasn't a country, a simple technical error in speech like that hardly bolsters the validity of your ridiculous accusation."Now to hopefully again alleviate your stupidity,"Hey, why not try disupting my actual argument instead of throwing around baseless insults that only serve to highlight your own deficencies, just a thought."They engaged in a war with the U.S., a war to produce the greatest military equipment. The problem with this plan is obvious, that it is clear that they could not contemplate economic intelligence. America had a vastly supieriour economy compared to the soviets, allowing them to produce equipment at a pace that the soviets could not ectype, helping expostulate the greatness of America."Wow, that sounds like a nice bed time story,however, it completely neglects historical fact, firslty, before the Bolshevik revolution took place Russia was an extremely impoverished society, but people always ask the stupid question how did the USSR compare with Europe or the US, the answer is badly, obviously it compared badly, back in 1900 it was a third world country, there was no industrial revolution in Russia but I'm not surprised you don't know that, you clearly don't know much.So, it's simply not a fair comparison, these economies haven't been comparable for hundreds of years. I mean, historically Eastern Europe had always been a third world service for the West. A fair comparison would be to compare latin america with Russia prior to the implementation of the Soviet development model as they were both extremely impoverished and had virtually no infrastructure, and had not modernised, unlike Europe or the US at the time, the fact is the Soviet development model was extremely successful, and this is apparent when it is compared against a country that was in a similar economic situation to itself prior to it's implemnetation. The reality in Russia is that during a succession of five-year plans, the USSR was transformed from a primitive, largely agricultural backwater, into a superpower, second only to the United States in its international political influence, military capability and industrial strength.Or even just compare Russia today to what it used to be, the same could be said of China, the Soviet development model allowed them to modernise quickly, but don't take my word for it, the world bank released a report in 1990 (a time when Russia was doing quite badly actually after the fall of the USSR) i.e. "The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have until recently been among the most prominent examples of relatively successful countries that deliberately turned away from the global economy. But their vast size made inward-looking development more feasible than it would be for most countries, and even they eventually decided to shift policies and take a more active part in the global economy"Source: http://www.trocaire.org/sites/trocaire/files/pdfs/tdr/DR1990_TheWorldBankandDevelopment.pdf I think we can both agree the world bank is a pretty impartial source, in fact, if anything it is pro-western, which is exactly why they used the language: "their vast size made inward-looking development more feasible", instead of using the truth which was: "their "vast size" made it possible for [the Soviet Union and China] to withstand the refusal of the West to allow them to takepart in the global economy on terms other than traditional subordination" Now, they acknowledged the success of the soviet development model, and you can be sure america did as well, you why, because its true, and it was a serious worry to the US at the time of the cold war,i n fact, it was one of the principal reasons for the cold war i.e. fear that other impoverished countries would leave the global economy and follow the Soviet model which would allow them to gain economic independence, and thus extricate themselvse from Western exploitation. But the Soviet economy stagnated largely due to internal contradictions, it finally began to decline and then went into free fall in the 80s, which led to the break up of the USSR, this never happened to China who started trading int he free market, and look at them now."Now your views on the Korean war show your minute knowledge of the war, Korea was already split in two, the ideals of each side were established before the fighting. "What are you talking about, the country was broken up due to American, Chinese, and Russian intervention, how do you swallow this garbage, do you think all the Koreans just woke one day and said, shit i really hate having a unified coutnry, I think we should separate the North and South. America was largely responsible but the USSR and China played their part as well."On the other side, you have Democratic People's Republic of Korea,supported by China and the USSR. This difference started after WW2, when the soviets got the north and Americans the South. This lead to the North setting up a communist government and the South, more American So this shows ur already wrong"How on earth does it do that, I'm not being facetious, you seem to think you'be proven something here but I really can't see it."the Americans did not set up a tyrant leader like you so nievly suggested, this was already in place thanks to the soviets."No, america setup a puppet tyrant dictator just like it does all over the world, I provided the link, why not try educating yourself before you spout factless nationalistic drivvle: This is a peer reviewed paper from the Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal, so I'd very much like to see try to refute it.Source: http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol2n1/coldwar.xml "The North invaded the South, but America protects them, and allows them to keep their freedom."My God, your ignorance and nationalistic indoctrination is breathtaking."The South now acts as if it is forever in debt to America, and one of her strongest allies."Actually large segment's of opinion in the South rightly despise the US for what was done to them i.e. http://www.twq.com/03winter/docs/03winter_kim.pdf "But I need not say that, South Korea's modern day actions dispute your argument,"Hey, why not try to back up a single stupid thing you've say with some evidence, it seems like all you can do is spout your ideological bullshit, but i haven't seen once once of proof for anything you've said."help show ur idonious discription, an uninformed jack ass."This argument is incredibly weak and your continued hurling of insults only show to be the desprectful person your are, BTW the current state of South Korea proves nothing, simple as.