I was worth 50 sheep

[Molyneux]

Americans whining about the Marshall Plan is hilarious, considering that in many nations it was actually a net benefit to the USA. For example, Germany received a total of 14 billions under the plan. In exchange, it honored and paid back 16 billion of pre-war debt they had no legal obligation to pay as the claims were unenforcable. And it is paying back the Marshal plan even now, so it is not as if the money disappeared.


And guess what - even if all the money had disappeared into a huge sinkhole, it still bought 50+ years of allegiance and friendship to the USA, as well as providing an enormous market for US goods.


Anybody who claims the money was a missed investment is either very, very misinformed or very, very dumb.

Moreover, it's a damn sight easier to sell/buy products from a country that's not utterly wrecked; helping rebuild Europe helped America as well in the long run.

[Thanas]

Which is what I intended to say with my "as well as providing an enormous market for US goods".

[Molyneux]

Which is what I intended to say with my "as well as providing an enormous market for US goods".

Well, there goes my reading comprehension...sorry, didn't mean to echo you.

[Thanas]

Nah, no problem.

[Count Chocula]

While the last couple of pages have been fascinating, I have an indirect interest in WWII (grandfather, deceased, N. Africa and Italy, 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Silver Star, 1 Bronze Star with clusters), but I have a direct interest in Afghanistan (cousin, 2 tours, Ranger, commendations undisclosed, lost teammates, still a little fucked in the head over it). The cultural situation in Afghanistan is abominable and frankly, to me, irredeemable. We've increased the boots on the ground; not much has changed. We're chasing Taliban into border areas, missing some target verifications due to cultural differences and (possibly) a gung-ho approach, and killing civilians and severely pissing off our allies the Pakistanis.

In my view, we have two approaches that would provide any benefit to the US:
1. Withdraw ALL of our fighting forces from Afghanistan and let the Afghanis govern themselves as well or poorly as they see fit. Any military aid would be to Pakistan at the border, at their request and with their target information.
2. Perform Extreme Makeover: State Edition. Send hundreds of thousands of troops and civilian volunteers to Afghanistan and turn the fucking place into an American territory. We'd institute a new government, play whack-a-mole with the Taliban, and allow free exercise of the Muslim faith with the exceptions of gross abuse of females and minors, honor killings, sexual slavery, underage marriage, stonings, and the other medieval aspects of Islam in Afghanistan. Maybe in 50 years Afghanistan would be like the Phillippines is today. I'm not holding my breath for approach #2.

My opinion? Pull out all troops, give a CMP 1911 and M1 Garand to every man, woman and child over the age of 14, along with a translated copy of the Constitution, and allow over-50 American History teachers to spread the word (with Rangers for protective details). Yah, it's a pipe dream, but it has more long-term potential than what we're doing now.

Hmmm. I guess my middle name is "Rumsfeld."

(edited for spelling)

[Thanas]

All theories are idiotic. #1 has the most value, but as we all know the US right would just blame Obama for running away as well as not properly conducting the war.

#2 is just impossible. How are you going to feed the people and troops? Google "Sea Skimmer" and "logistics Afghanistan" and you'll see why constantly supplying hundreds of thousands of additional troops and civilians is at the moment impossible. Unless you built major railroads etc and even then it is pretty much a pipe dream. Also, the moment you do this the Taleban are just going to play the "IMPERIALISM" card and you just handed them the greatest propaganda victory ever.

#3 is just idiotic. What, the constitution is a magical item that will suddenly allow democracy to spread, along with tales about US history? The greatest accomplishments are not going to garner much sympathy with the Afghans (like, freeing slaves when the Afghans do not particularly care about the fates of African slaves/Americans), while the tale of white settlers/crusaders displacing natives and genociding them for their resources will just play straight into the hands of the taliban.

[Serafina]

Not to mention that the US-constitution is hopelessly outdated and should be reformed. Writing a new one for the Afghans would be preferable. Incidentally, that's what was done in Germany after WW II.
Regardless of that, it's still an insane impossible dream.

[PeZook]

My opinion? Pull out all troops, give a CMP 1911 and M1 Garand to every man, woman and child over the age of 14, along with a translated copy of the Constitution, and allow over-50 American History teachers to spread the word (with Rangers for protective details). Yah, it's a pipe dream, but it has more long-term potential than what we're doing now.

...

What?

No, seriously. You really think there's a little American inside every Afghani, waiting to get out?

[Count Chocula]

Way to look for the negative in #3, Thanas! And way to affirm my assertion that #2 is unlikely. Here's my view for what it's worth: cultural norms are determined by traditions. Afghanistan's cultural norms are sickening by Western (particularly US) standards. The way to change a culture is to change the thinking about what is normal and what is not. I happen to think that cultural norms of the United States are, on balance, the best available. But of course I'm biased. Option #3, yes a pipe dream, would help introduce a new way of thinking about the culture. Call it cultural competition, with the participants able to do their own cost/benefit analysis.

And Thanas, you really, really, really do not want to compare 100+ year old American sins to 65+ year old German sins. If you DO want to go there, well we might as well open a new HoS thread RFN. Let's just deal with the last 40 years or so, what do you say? I don't want to look at photos of Luftwaffe F-104s and F-4s and think "Thanas is an asshole!" instead of "goddamn those pilots have iron balls!"

Oh, and Serafina? IIRC, America has the longest-lasting republican (little R) constitution in the world, with an amendment process. While I agree with you that the Afghanis would probably have to create a new constitution, ours seems to be working fairly well.

PeZook, it's a matter of viewpoint. Three keys as I see it are individual power (the 1911s and Garands to everyone over 14, not just the men), individual liberty and responsibility, and limited government. I don't think there's a little American inside every Afghani, but the women would certainly take a second look.

[Bakustra]

So your approach is imperialism, pure and simple. Thanas is not looking for the negative, it's out in front, waving its jackboots in your face, but apparently you can't see why that would be bad.

I don't think you get what Thanas was saying- he's not proposing German imperialism concerning Afghanistan, so your nationalistic rage is meaningless unless you want to suggest that Germans can never criticize anything, in which case you still have a Pole and American who agree with what Thanas said.

The American constitution is flawed in a number of ways. I can outline them for you, if you like.

Why exactly should the role of the US, even in the case of imperialism, be to impose or inculcate American pseudo-Libertarianism as opposed to other American ideals in the Afghani people?

[Thanas]

Way to look for the negative in #3, Thanas! And way to affirm my assertion that #2 is unlikely. Here's my view for what it's worth: cultural norms are determined by traditions. Afghanistan's cultural norms are sickening by Western (particularly US) standards. The way to change a culture is to change the thinking about what is normal and what is not. I happen to think that cultural norms of the United States are, on balance, the best available.

Almost all of Europe would disagree with you on that.

But of course I'm biased. Option #3, yes a pipe dream, would help introduce a new way of thinking about the culture. Call it cultural competition, with the participants able to do their own cost/benefit analysis.

So.....

option a) believe what your forefathers always believed or b) believe the guys who invaded your country, installed a corrupt government, caused collateral damage and trust people who have shown themselves to be the weaker of the two? Here's what would happen in that situation. The Afghans would smile, take the weapons and then either laugh their heads off once the idiots are gone or just take potshots at them.

Do you really think there is no attempt at civil education ongoing? Hint: There is. It has tremendous funds available. It also is currently not doing much.

And Thanas, you really, really, really do not want to compare 100+ year old American sins to 65+ year old German sins. If you DO want to go there, well we might as well open a new HoS thread RFN. Let's just deal with the last 40 years or so, what do you say? I don't want to look at photos of Luftwaffe F-104s and F-4s and think "Thanas is an asshole!" instead of "goddamn those pilots have iron balls!"

Hey idiot - whereever did I compare US to German history in this thread? You are seeing words that are not there. What I am saying is - what is there in US history that would hold special appeal to the Afghan people?

Oh, and Serafina? IIRC, America has the longest-lasting republican (little R) constitution in the world, with an amendment process. While I agree with you that the Afghanis would probably have to create a new constitution, ours seems to be working fairly well.

Incorrect. The honor of longest-lasting democracy in the world belongs to the Greek city states. The honour of longest-lasting democracy outside of antiquity belongs to the Swiss.

I don't think there's a little American inside every Afghani, but the women would certainly take a second look.

Yeah, give the women guns and everything will be improved.

[Serafina]

Oh, and Serafina? IIRC, America has the longest-lasting republican (little R) constitution in the world, with an amendment process. While I agree with you that the Afghanis would probably have to create a new constitution, ours seems to be working fairly well.

Your constitution essentially enforces a two-party system, which is responsible for most of the problems with your political system.
It also unites the representative and administrative head of state in a single person and gives that person a lot of political power. Almost no other modern democracy does that, for reasons germans could explain very well to you

There' a lot more, but that would warrant a separate thread.


Giving all Afghans copies of the US-constitution would amount to handing them free toilet paper.


Edited thanks to Thanas, and for spelling.

[Thanas]

Serafina, you are wrong on the last point. The French also have a very strong president for once.

[Sarevok]

I don't think it is correct to say Afghans are barbaric. They are a poor and completely broken nation that never had the chance to develop. If America had to go through such devastation I daresay you would hear worse stories than selling women for 50 cattle.

That is the crux of the matter. No one wants to highlight their nations lowest point. Saying Afghan culture is backward and barbaric is wrong. These people had a long and proud history. Their honor, integrity and helping hand towards strangers is quite a legend in my part of the world. Our national poet Rabindranath Tagore wrote a famous poem honoring the Afghans.

The Afghans have a lot to be proud of as a people. Saying their culture is backward and savage and they should import American culture to replace it is quite an insult. Europe went through many dark periods in it's history. European countries are some of the most progressive and democratic of amongst nations now. Does this mean they ceased all connection with their past and heritage ? Why should Afghans do it then replacing their tradition and culture with a mockery of what it truly means to be an American ?

Edit :

This post was in response to Chocula.

[PeZook]

PeZook, it's a matter of viewpoint. Three keys as I see it are individual power (the 1911s and Garands to everyone over 14, not just the men), individual liberty and responsibility, and limited government. I don't think there's a little American inside every Afghani, but the women would certainly take a second look.

Yeah, because who cares about stability, infrastructure, education, rule of law...the keys to making a country great is guns for everyone! Funny that two out of three items here are present in paradises like Somalia (everyone has guns, everyone is free), yet it hasn't spawned a stable and democratic country.

You really think Afghan women would force the improvement of their fate at gunpoint? Really? You envision, say, a housewife brought up in the local culture going back home and waving her 1911 around in an attempt to force her husband to be nicer? Maybe a post-50 American History teacher can have her back and stop her community from enforcing its cultural norms with social pressure and possibly violence?

A great many smart people have tried to pacify Afghanistan. A lot of these people had built somewhat succesful and stable dominiums out of ENTIRE CONTINENTS, yet failed miserably in Afghanistan. Could it be, perhaps, that the issues stopping its, uh "Westernization" (of a sort) are more complex than "women don't have guns and they never read THE CONSTIPITUTION"?

P.S.

Sarevok's post has had me thinking, and I've come to realize something: Afghans are actually more independent than Americans in their mindset. So much more of their history had been framed around resisting foreign invasion, that you could possibly find their attitudes towards that topic are not too dissimilar from Americans who look down upon them

[Sarevok]

Well they have the right to bear arms, they fear god and mistrust big government. In Shroomspeak Afghanistan is living the American dream.

[Thanas]

To add:

Three keys as I see it are individual power (the 1911s and Garands to everyone over 14, not just the men), individual liberty and responsibility, and limited government. I don't think there's a little American inside every Afghani, but the women would certainly take a second look.

Really now? What improvements have the three, in tandem, ever brought to the USA throughout its history? Heck, Lincoln's administration was the very antithesis to limited government and it brought the greatest extension of freedom to americans in the entire history of the USA.


And you cannot get much more limited government than the one in Afghanistan. And your other two suggestion would directly contradict with the limited government idea. You did not think any of this through, did you?

[Count Chocula]

Hey idiot - whereever did I compare US to German history in this thread? You are seeing words that are not there. What I am saying is - what is there in US history that would hold special appeal to the Afghan people?

Really? Bringing up centuries-old US history to make your point invites comparison. Surely you can see that.

Bakustra, I think that Option #2 is the scenario most likely of long term success if the US were to do the whole Empire joint and say "Afghanistan is OURS Goddamnit and we're taking it!" BUT...we haven't acted like previous empires and seem to have no interest in doing so today. I personally would not favor that approach.

I think Scenario 1 would actually get a lot of favorable traction in the US. Independents (those not in the so-called two-party system) are a plurality of voters; not Republicans, and not Democrats. I feel if we pulled out of Afghanistan with the proviso that we had rights of passage to bomb military targets in Afghanistan (and over the border in Pakistan), with some SF still in country for local intel, and IF the President could clearly articulate the reasons for our withdrawal and back it up with post-pullout strikes against AQ personnel, a majority of voters would agree with the decision.

Thanas: Greek's current constitution took force in 1975. SORree. Switzerland's Federal Constitutin was adopted in 1848 - or is it 1999? Try again. Really, I'm a knuckle-dragging Yankee - do I have to out-Google you on European history?

Really now? What improvements have the three, in tandem, ever brought to the USA throughout its history? Heck, Lincoln's administration was the very antithesis to limited government and it brought the greatest extension of freedom to americans in the entire history of the USA.


And you cannot get much more limited government than the one in Afghanistan. And your other two suggestion would directly contradict with the limited government idea. You did not think any of this through, did you?

Well, force of arms during the Revolutionary War was convincing enough to bring the French on our side at Yorktown. The Japanese during WWII, it is said (I don't have time to Google it), dismissed an invasion of America because of their view that everyone had a gun. And, of course, our thriving gun industry helped the British during WWII! Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freeing the Southern slaves was subordinate to his purpose of preserving the Union:

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So yeah, I did think it through. Do I think scenarios 2 and 3 are going to happen? Nope. I personally favor scenario 1. Afghanistan's handicapped IMO because they're moving to a parliamentary government to replace millennia of warlords and tribalism; such a transition will take time IF it succeeds, and is an albatross that the Colonies did not have when we fought for our independence.

[Thanas]

Really? Bringing up centuries-old US history to make your point invites comparison. Surely you can see that.

No. I cannot, nobody can see that, especially not when I spoke of how US history would not look that great for an Afghani citizen. How the heck do you jump from "does not look good to Afghanis" to "an afghan would not like it = GERMANY HAS BETTER HISTORY 1!1!!!!!1?

Thanas: Greek's current constitution took force in 1975. SORree. Switzerland's Federal Constitutin was adopted in 1848 - or is it 1999? Try again. Really, I'm a knuckle-dragging Yankee - do I have to out-Google you on European history?

Are you this uneducated? Look up. I mentioned ancient greek city states as having the longest-lasting constitutions. Google Solon, Perikles and "Ancient Athens". You'll find that the greek city state democracies lasted much longer than the USA did. Heck, the Roman Republic lasted much longer as well. And the Swiss have been a democracy since the middle ages, so your point is again wrong.

Knuckle-dragging, indeed.

Well, force of arms during the Revolutionary War was convincing enough to bring the French on our side at Yorktown.

And that had what to do with limited government and individual responsibility? When Von Steuben arrived to train the Americans, the first thing he did was to eliminate individualism as it led to terrible defeats in the past.

The Japanese during WWII, it is said (I don't have time to Google it), dismissed an invasion of America because of their view that everyone had a gun.

This is pathetic. Source, now.

And, of course, our thriving gun industry helped the British during WWII! Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freeing the Southern slaves was subordinate to his purpose of preserving the Union:

Dodging the point. I said that Lincoln was the opposite of limited Government.

[Count Chocula]

The honor of longest-lasting democracy in the world belongs to the Greek city states. The honour of longest-lasting democracy outside of antiquity belongs to the Swiss.

and

Are you this uneducated? Look up. I mentioned ancient greek city states as having the longest-lasting constitutions. Google Solon, Perikles and "Ancient Athens". You'll find that the greek city state democracies lasted much longer than the USA did. Heck, the Roman Republic lasted much longer as well. And the Swiss have been a democracy since the middle ages, so your point is again wrong.

Knuckle-dragging, indeed.

You're shifting the goalposts, and I think you know you are. America is NOT a democracy, it's a republic. Your attempt to rebut me by inserting "democracy" both ignores history and is surprisingly ignorant.

I Googled Solon. He is "often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy." Note "democracy," for a SINGLE city-state, where a significant portion of the populace were slaves or thralls.

I Googled Perikles. He "turned the Delian League into an Athenian empire and led his countrymen during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War." Can you say model for Rome? Sure you can.

I Googled "Ancient Athens." Again, DEMOCRACY. And for how long? "Athenian democracy was established in 508 BC under Cleisthenes following the tyranny of Hippias. This system remained remarkably stable, and with a few brief interruptions remained in place for 180 years, until 322 BC (aftermath of Lamian War)." 2011-1788 equals how many years, again? More than 180. By the way, where's the Sparta love? Athens wasn't the only city-state in Greece 2,000 years ago, you know.

Your (new) point about the Roman Republic, at 482 years, is correct. So what? I was comparing CURRENT systems of government, as you should have been well aware. You had to go back to a Republic that fell in 27BC to bring up a counter, which indicates to me you knew your Athens bullshit was just that.

Okay, how about Switzerland? Well, they became a Confederation in 1291, then a "Helvetic Republic" under France from 1798 to 1803, when Napoleon reorganized Switzerland into cantons (back to the Confederation), then, after 1847, "the Swiss drew up a constitution which provided for a federal layout, much of it inspired by the American example." All references are Google/Wikipedia, emphasis added.

Four out of five, you fail.

And that had what to do with limited government and individual responsibility? When Von Steuben arrived to train the Americans, the first thing he did was to eliminate individualism as it led to terrible defeats in the past.

Sure, Von Steuben may have had raw civilians as clients and not Hessians, but at least THEY HAD GUNS!

This is pathetic. Source, now.

(referring to Japanese invasion).
Okay, I concede this one. The quote's widely attributed to Japanese Admiral Isokoru Yamamato, but there's no written proof. The attributed quote is "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Dodging the point. I said that Lincoln was the opposite of limited Government.

The greatest accomplishments are not going to garner much sympathy with the Afghans (like, freeing slaves when the Afghans do not particularly care about the fates of African slaves/Americans), while the tale of white settlers/crusaders displacing natives and genociding them for their resources will just play straight into the hands of the taliban.

and

Heck, Lincoln's administration was the very antithesis to limited government and it brought the greatest extension of freedom to americans in the entire history of the USA.

Your interpretations of Lincoln's actions and mine are different, which is no surprise. He made the Proclamation for political expediency and the war left over 600,000 Americans on BOTH sides of the Mason/Dixon line dead. His actions to "preserve the Union" indirectly led to the bloated, bankrupt central government we have today. Civil rights for blacks took another hundred or so years to come to fruition, thanks to Republicans and brave black Americans (yes, and old white guys too) in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not dodging the point, and YOU are re-stating your own positions or improperly stating them. The more I read your posts, the more I conclude you're being a disingenuous asshole.

Anyway, it's secondary now. Teh newz is abuzz over the fact the WE'VE KILLED OSAMA BIN LADEN IN PAKISTAN! I find it amusingly ironic, to cross threads, that "The Apprentice" was pre-empted just before the "you're fired!" moment, when NBC came out and said that they've been aware but not allowed to report the news until ~10:45! Curious timing that, and a ballsy "fuck you!" to Trump. Well played, Mr. President. Well played.

[Bakustra]

Curious tactic you have, Chocula, of throwing a gigantic wall of bullshit up which is so fucking wrong and downright offensive that people are tempted to respond.

The US is a republic; but it is a democratic republic! It can quite reasonably be described as a democracy despite your unease with that word, since direct democracies are not the only form of democracy, and democratic republics are not the sole alternative either. Switzerland has had different constitutions- but that is the case for a great many nations. Would you say that republican rule in France dates only to the founding of the Fifth Republic, and thus French democracy has lasted for only fifty-odd years? It would hardly be unreasonable to characterize French governmental history as having been generally democratic from 1871 with a four/five-year interruption under Vichy rule. Similarly, to say that Switzerland was democratic for long periods of time with again, brief interruptions under Bonaparte is not inaccurate, despite your religious obsession with the Holy Constitution and the relics of the Founding Fathers. Counting from Solon, as Thanas probably would, and ending with Macedonian conquest in 322 gives us 270 years of Athenian democracy- still well ahead of the US.

Finally, your characterization of everything about Lincoln and the civil rights movement is frankly offensive.

[K. A. Pital]

Do you really think there is no attempt at civil education ongoing? Hint: There is. It has tremendous funds available. It also is currently not doing much.

Information on secular education in Afghanistan and its enormous funding?

[Simon_Jester]

Sure, Von Steuben may have had raw civilians as clients and not Hessians, but at least THEY HAD GUNS!

Since when is "I brought my own gun" a major qualification for military service, Choc? I can think of a bunch of more important qualifications off the top of my head.

Jeez, man, get your history of American guerilla warfare right. Guns are the easy part; men are the difficult part. Muskets can be found, or made, much more easily than men fit to use them to defeat regular troops in battle.

What made the American militia useful was communal arsenals maintained by townships for collective defense, combined with the dispersal and sheer numbers that made it impossible for the British to permanently defeat them. Which meant they kept swarming British forces like antibodies, harassing foragers and flying columns, and providing the mass the properly trained Continental Army necessarily lacked when trying to defend two thousand miles of coastline against an opponent with naval supremacy.

Taking away the privately owned firearms in colonial America and replacing them with, say, pointy sticks (such as the kind of spear or pike any blacksmith can pound out in short order) would have made the American colonial militia less effective... but not that much less effective.

[Thanas]

I Googled Solon. He is "often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy." Note "democracy," for a SINGLE city-state, where a significant portion of the populace were slaves or thralls.

Still a democracy. Or are you claiming the US only became a democracy with the civil rights movement?

I Googled Perikles. He "turned the Delian League into an Athenian empire and led his countrymen during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War." Can you say model for Rome? Sure you can.

You can't. But you have shown tremendous ignorance already, so.....

I Googled "Ancient Athens." Again, DEMOCRACY. And for how long? "Athenian democracy was established in 508 BC under Cleisthenes following the tyranny of Hippias. This system remained remarkably stable, and with a few brief interruptions remained in place for 180 years, until 322 BC (aftermath of Lamian War)." 2011-1788 equals how many years, again? More than 180. By the way, where's the Sparta love? Athens wasn't the only city-state in Greece 2,000 years ago, you know.

BS. Greek democracy started in Athens with Solon. His laws were followed. Modified, yes, but so was the US constitution.

I was comparing CURRENT systems of government, as you should have been well aware. You had to go back to a Republic that fell in 27BC to bring up a counter, which indicates to me you knew your Athens bullshit was just that.

Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you.

Okay, how about Switzerland? Well, they became a Confederation in 1291, then a "Helvetic Republic" under France from 1798 to 1803, when Napoleon reorganized Switzerland into cantons (back to the Confederation), then, after 1847, "the Swiss drew up a constitution which provided for a federal layout, much of it inspired by the American example." All references are Google/Wikipedia, emphasis added.

They were a democracy with some reforms happening to them and a brief interruption. So what? Even if you say "it stops after France and what came was new" (which is idiotic), that still far outlasts the USA.

Sure, Von Steuben may have had raw civilians as clients and not Hessians, but at least THEY HAD GUNS!

I......

you are trolling, right? You have to be trolling. C'mon man, don't make me think this was supposed to be a serious rebuttal.

PS: Everybody living in rural Europe (and the vast majority of male city-dwellers) also had a gun. Did not equal democracy there either.

Your interpretations of Lincoln's actions and mine are different, which is no surprise. He made the Proclamation for political expediency and the war left over 600,000 Americans on BOTH sides of the Mason/Dixon line dead. His actions to "preserve the Union" indirectly led to the bloated, bankrupt central government we have today. Civil rights for blacks took another hundred or so years to come to fruition, thanks to Republicans and brave black Americans (yes, and old white guys too) in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not dodging the point, and YOU are re-stating your own positions or improperly stating them. The more I read your posts, the more I conclude you're being a disingenuous asshole.

Are you a retard? How the heck did the GOP help the civil rights movement?

And it is nice to know that the abolition of slavery counts for nothing in your book, or less than the death of people who fought in defence of slavery.

At the end of the day, either you acknowledge that a democracy can have reforms and still be a continous democracy and that a democracy may also have inequality among its people, or you must concede that the US is only a democracy since the 1960s. In which case, I guess Germany is a much longer-lasting democracy than the USA, seeing as how we have our Grundgesetz.

Of course, only an idiot would argue that way. I would ask whether you are one, but you have pretty much answered that yourself in this thread.