porous_grey_matter

Idk, has potential but I'm pretty sure cops are very hierarchical and not supposed to beat up their bosses

I guess they have to be the same, so they all have to be the maximum width of anything you might want to put in there.

Because she actually wants to go on the date and it's easier to miss on purpose than guarantee for sure getting it? Idk, it's awkward af but kids are awkward and there's all kinds of dumb gender stuff tied up in girls asking boys out directly so it's forgivable imo. Also, giving him an opportunity to be jokey and fun, "oh noooo, how could I have missed wink", show that he doesn't take himself too seriously and can play around. Which he failed lmao. (Yes yes I know it's fake)

Can you point to any period in history in which empires were just chill and sung kumbaya all day long, though?

Ok, you just keep doubling down on straw men and not actually responding to any points made, so I guess we're done here.

To be blunt, have you? If you had you would know that even among empires not every one behaved with the same level of bloodthirstiness every time. The leap from "people have been violent forever" to "therefore they must be the maximum amount of violent at all opportunities" is totally unsubstantiated.

Sure, what they can get away with to achieve their goals is one factor in how countries behave. But it is totally absurd to suggest that a country's culture would have no impact on the approach they take to foreign affairs. It has dramatic impacts on all their other laws and ways of doing things, by what possible crazy coincidence would foreign policy always be totally identical regardless of culture?

So yeah, things would be different. Way back in this discussion you snarkily characterised a straw man arguing that things would be perfect and people singing kumbaya, but nobody (here arguing against you in this thread) thinks that. This meme is about dropping bombs. We have substantial real world evidence that China does not prefer to take that approach. The USA absolutely does prefer to take that approach, even when other options would be more successful.

What is your idea that they "can't get away with dropping bombs" based on? They absolutely could, and they still don't do it. What it's based on is that you assume they would if they could, that's projection, because clearly you like the idea of bombing people for profit.

That's just a thing you made up to justify not feeling bad, there is no reason to believe that anyone else would act the same way.

Can you be more clear in your question?

No, the arms manufacturers just don't have the same level of influence over the government and armed forces that they do in America, and the people in the government who decide whether to drop bombs won't personally get rich if they buy more bombs.

That isn't something unique to China btw but basically almost every country except USA and a few others.

Source? This seems almost impossible

Idk, they probably have had the opportunity sometimes, but they don't have the same military industrial complex as the USA pushing for it at every chance. So the cost benefit analysis is different. Quite often it doesn't benefit "the USA" as much as a few specific people within, and that mechanic doesn't exist in the same way for China.

What do you mean, different? Every country is different from each other. If you were clear about what you're implying here, i.e. "different as in having no negative sides" then it would be obvious that your argument is against an absolute straw man. Nobody made such a claim.

It's not like China doesn't have issues but I think you don't understand or want to think about just how incredibly fucked up the USA is. China is definitely way less bad.

How many countries have they couped? How many civil wars in poor countries are they responsible for? To you in your comfy home this is just academic but these are the worst atrocities in human history, and the USA does them one after the other after the other.