So America bombed a Girls school killing 150+ in Iran?

Look closely: "Most Iranians are not the regime. They are ordinary people who never asked for this Fucking war." You only print this: “But now they are all gatvol and hate America" (the passage above, that you conveniently did not print, clearly shows I’m talking about the Iranians.)

Claiming I’m blaming all Americans where I use USA, is twisting my words and interpretating in a way that supports your narrative. You completely ignoring the context in all of my posts.

Everything I’ve said in this thread is about government actions...the U.S., Trump, Netanyahu ,Israel...not ordinary citizens. This is what the whole thread is about, DA.

Trying to turn it into a “double standard” argument doesn’t hold when the context itself proves I’m talking exclusively about government aggression, not Americans, Iranians, or Israelis as a whole.

Shessssh M.... you still miss the point entirely, because I am not even referring to Iran here, I am referring to your constant reference back to America... the USA... and the US......and the hypocrisy of what you are saying compared to what you said about the ANC.

You are the one that specifically argued the point that was brought up and referenced the ANC and the rest of the Black population in South Africa

You are the one who kept referring to America ... and not Trump

You are the one who basically came out and said that you can blame the ANC for what is happening in South Africa, but you can't blame the rest of the Black population in South Africa.

So.... the very same principle applies.... you can blame Trump (ANC) for everything that is going on currently in the USA, without referencing that everyone is "gatvol of America", or that America is not "The world's saviour" or that the "real agressors here are the USA"......

They might be gatvol of "Trump" .....

Trump might think he "Is the world's saviour"

Trump might be the "aggressor"

It's a bit difficult to understand your logic when you keep mentioning the USA because the majority of Americans don't even agree with this war with Iran to begin with, so how are these Americans the aggressors......Trump is ......how is America acting like the world's saviour...... Trump is.

So no....I am not twisting anything at all.... I am taking what you have said in this very thread, and throwing your same logic back at you.

If you want to blame the ANC, then do it without including all the other black people, like you said

If you want to blame America, then blame Trump, without including all the American people... like I said

Simple

The exact same principle applies to Iran. The regime is not the same as ordinary Iranian citizens. Most of them are normal people just trying to live their lives.

Most of the Germans were ordinary people….I guess the moral solution was to go on negotiating with Hitler.

You’re still forcing your own interpretation onto what I wrote.

In political discussions, when people say “the USA,” “America,” “Russia,” “China,” etc., they are referring to the government or state actions, not every individual citizen...geez man.

The same way people say “South Africa did X” when they mean the government. My point about the ANC was exactly that governments and people are not the same thing.

The same applies here. When I talk about the USA in this context, I’m clearly referring to the actions of the U.S. government and its leadership, not every American citizen.

You the one just ignoring my context and making up your own interpretation as it pleases you, just because you losing the argument.

Well, most Germans being ordinary people doesn’t magically turn every situation into Hitler and WWII.

Pointing out that a regime is not the same as its citizens doesn’t mean “just negotiate forever,” it simply means governments and ordinary people are not the same thing.

And don't call it negotiations, when Trump wants to dictate everything. Negotiations are when two parties come to a mutual agreement.

And don't call it negotiations, when Trump wants to dictate everything. Negotiations are when two parties come to a mutual agreement.

These are the people you think are going to negotiate in good faith?

1. 2025–2026 Protests (Recent): In early 2026, amid intense nationwide protests, human rights groups and reports indicated a massive crackdown.
2. HRANA (Human Rights Activists in Iran): Verified over 7,000 deaths by late February 2026, including over 6,400 protesters.
3. Higher Estimates: Other reports and opposition media suggested the death toll could exceed 30,000 or even 36,500, with some reports citing 12,000–20,000 deaths.
4. Official Figures: The Iranian government, in an unprecedented move, reported 3,117 deaths during this period.

You’re still forcing your own interpretation onto what I wrote.

Rubbish..... I am expressing my own interpretation of what you wrote, as I am entitled to....and I stand by it.... ... simple

In political discussions, when people say “the USA,” “America,” “Russia,” “China,” etc., they are referring to the government or state actions, not every individual citizen...geez man.

I see.... geez man..... people are so very obviously referring to the government or state actions when they talk about these things..........yet...... you felt the distinct need to specifically point out and differentiate between the ANC and the rest of the black people in South Africa when making a point to Db...... lol.... ok.

You the one just ignoring my context and making up your own interpretation as it pleases you, just because you losing the argument.

Whatever blows your hair back M

1. 2025–2026 Protests (Recent): In early 2026, amid intense nationwide protests, human rights groups and reports indicated a massive crackdown.
2. HRANA (Human Rights Activists in Iran): Verified over 7,000 deaths by late February 2026, including over 6,400 protesters.
3. Higher Estimates: Other reports and opposition media suggested the death toll could exceed 30,000 or even 36,500, with some reports citing 12,000–20,000 deaths.
4. Official Figures: The Iranian government, in an unprecedented move, reported 3,117 deaths during this period.

Yeah .... you stand a real good chance of sitting around the table negotiating with these kind of people.....you know.....the same kind of people who lied for decades to the world about what they were doing underground regarding their nuclear ambitions.... but let's not be naive here.... because they will always act in good faith.... surely.

Finally getting back this thread.

Read literally everything, besides Trad's posts. I barely read his posts when he posts from his Blo account.

In terms of negotiating a nuclear deal, I don't think it's entirely outside of the realm of possibility that something could come of it. I very much doubt it would work, but there is probably some very very slim chance that it could, so I wouldn't want to say it would be entirely pointless. Whether one should settle for very slim odds with something that serious is another discussion.

But the waters have been muddied a little...

Everyone seems to be lumping the entire problem into one category. The problems being the regime killing and oppressing it people and also the nuclear issue. They are two distinctly separate problems.

In terms of negotiating with them to stop killing their people, I am 100% certain that it would be completely fruitless. There is no way that their power being threatened from within would not be met with the worst punishment. FFS apostasy is a capital crime in that screwed up place.

And how do we know that leaving Iran to its own devices will mean the killing of more innocent people...well, history. Look no further back than Feb 2026. And then go back all the way to when they took over, it's a theme. They have never showed any intention to stop suppressing the will of the people violently and killing civilians as they see fit.

So, here is the problem that I'm currently try ling to think through...

The assumption is that this should've been an issue for the international courts. "Let international law deal with Iran. That is what the UN is for." Does anybody here know what action the UN took to prevent Jan/Feb 2026 happening again? What action did they take on previous occasions that this type of stuff occurred and was it successful?

If you lived in Iran, and you don't want to be dictated to by religious zealots, be killed for protesting, jailed and tortured for simply expressing an opinion, who would you turn to?

I can see why people say negotiations for a nuclear deal might show some fruit. I wholeheartedly disagree but I could perhaps attempt to steel man such an argument. But in terms of the regime murdering civilians, is there anybody here that thinks they'll ever stop doing that? If so, then there is about 40 years of evidence that says you're wrong.

Who is supposed to get these people out from under the regime? They can't do it themselves because they are basically defenceless against Iran's military and the international law that everybody keeps bring up has been entirely useless.

In this entire thread, I've not seen a single plausible idea for what should be done. Once you get through the Orange Man Bad arguments, there isn't much to work with.

We have M comparing that civilians were killed by accident from US bombs. But what about the many thousands and thousands of civilians killed by the regime?

So what would you guys do?

I can't think of any other solution than the one currently being tried. And it's not about Trump. I would not care which country or president took this action. I would agree with it.

How many people have Russia killed in Ukraine, how many times have the Russian's broke their word, yet Trumpian America has no issue having negotiations with them?

How many people die in Africa every day?

How many North Koreans are killed for whatever reason.

How many people die from drug overdoses?

What about car accidents?

I could go on.

Are you basically saying "Too bad, so sad"?

I don't think the question I asked was that complicated. If you don't want to or can't try to provide at least some kind of honest answer then why even respond?

Because the alternative…..a free Ukraine with the land it currently occupies is very uncertain….and will cost tens of thousands of Ukraine lives, win or lose.

DA, all you’re carrying on about is that I made a distinction : The ANC and Ramaphosa, is a bad government and i don't support them. But that doesn’t mean all Black South Africans are bad.

But according to you, i didn’t do the same for America and its citizens. In reality, my points is consistent and my context is clear...you’re just choosing to ignore it.

But ok not to worry, I’ll spell it out for you: Trump is, in my eyes, an egomaniac Dictator, a Big fat liar, deceiver, and a blithering fool.

I don’t support him, but that doesn’t mean all Americans are bad. Happy now?

DA, now do me a favor and grow a conscience. For once, try and see the bigger picture. A lot of the pro-Trump supporters are always finding excuses, arguing over wording interpretations, when in actual fact, it's not even like that.

Trump supporters funny enough, are in certain aspects, "Brainwashed" that refuse to see the hidden agenda's and that hardly acknowledge the innocent people suffering and dying thru Trump’s careless, Dumb and in-humane actions.

I also wonder what news you are watching?? From what I am seeing everyday, is that this war is blowing up in his fat face. Nothing good has come from it so-far and nothing good will ever come from war.

And as always, the civilians have to pay the ultimate price. So, Instead of nitpicking at me, wake up and smell the Coffee.

DA, now do me a favor and grow a conscience. For once, try and see the bigger picture.

Try condemning this:

According to information obtained by IranWire, individuals detained during the January protests in Mashhad are currently being kept in harsh and deteriorating conditions inside Vakilabad Prison.

Informed sources say that among these detainees, there are several individuals under the age of 18.

Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city, is also one of the country’s most important religious centers. For readers outside Iran, Vakilabad Prison is widely known for its history of secret mass executions and chronic overcrowding. Holding minors in the same facilities as adult prisoners violates international human rights standards, yet such practices have increasingly been reported during the regime’s crackdowns on “Generation Z” protesters.

On 14 January, the head of Iran’s judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, pledged the use of capital punishment and expedited criminal proceedings against those arrested in connection with the protests, thus compounding the authorities’ blatant disregard for the protesters’ rights to life and to a fair trial. However, following Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei’s statement, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, declared that executions of protestors would not take place.

In January, at the peak of the violent crackdown on widespread anti-regime protests in Iran, a medical worker in the northern city of Rasht suddenly found his trauma center overwhelmed with hundreds of injured protesters.

Many were struck by multiple pellets or bullets targeting their heads, necks, chests, femurs and abdomens. “They were shooting to kill, absolutely,” he said.

After four days, he finally went home. Instead of sleeping, he began compiling 11 gigabytes of X-rays, CT scans and medical records, later sending them to us on an encrypted messaging app.

“They want to sweep it under the rug,” he wrote.

It is difficult to independently verify exactly how many protesters were killed by Iranian security forces. The Washington-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, which tallies only victims it can identify, has reported at least 6,800 protest-related deaths, with an additional 11,744 cases under investigation.

Other estimates put the death toll much higher. The former United Nations war crimes prosecutor Payam Akhavan believes it could be in the tens of thousands, based on reports by a network of doctors in Iran collecting hospital records as well as the scale and geographic spread of the killings.

“This is not just the worst mass killing in the contemporary history of Iran,” said Mr. Akhavan, now a human rights lawyer and a co-founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. “It is one of the worst mass killings in contemporary world history.”

Iranian officials have said that 3,117 people died in the protests and claimed that those killed were civilians, security personnel and “terrorists.” On Jan. 8, the authorities plunged the country into a near-total internet and phone blackout, which lasted for weeks, obscuring the scale of the crackdown.

They also tried to silence those who are uniquely positioned to describe the magnitude of the carnage and share the stories of the injured and the dead: Iran’s frontline medical workers.

In the days following the bloodshed, which reached its height on Jan. 8 and 9, we contacted dozens of doctors and nurses working in Iran, many of whom had also begun to quietly document what they saw as they attempted to provide aid to demonstrators.

’ A man was hit so hard his eyes popped out of their sockets. A single eye surgeon might perform ten such surgeries in their career, we performed thousands of surgeries. The issue was the severity of the injuries, intended to blind, often we had to work on both eyes’

So Moz I asked ChatGPT to give me some figures on Civilian Deaths Caused by the American Government:

???? 1. Law Enforcement Deaths in the U.S.

There isn’t a widely accepted daily average specifically for people killed by law enforcement (no comprehensive official tally exists), but some analyses suggest police kill about ~1,000 people per year in the U.S. (which averages to roughly ~3 per day). This is based on databases that track police use of force.

?? 2. Vietnam War Civilian Deaths

Estimates of civilian deaths in the Vietnam War vary widely depending on the source, but a common figure used by historians is:

Approximately 2.1 million Vietnamese civilians died (including direct war violence and indirect causes). 

X (formerly Twitter)

This is separate from military deaths, which the U.S. military count at around 58,209 American servicemembers killed. 

?? 3. Hiroshima Civilian Deaths

The first atomic bomb used in war was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Estimates vary depending on what’s included (instant deaths vs. deaths by year’s end), but most agree that:

Around 70,000 people were killed instantly.

By the end of 1945, roughly 100,000–140,000 people had died because of the bombing and its effects.

(Almost all of these were civilians.) 

Encyclopedia Britannica

That figure doesn’t include Nagasaki — but if you include Nagasaki (~60,000–80,000 deaths), the two bombs together likely caused ~150,000–246,000 deaths by the end of 1945. 

?? 4. Civilian Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

These conflicts overlap with the post?9/11 “War on Terror.” Estimating civilian casualties is hard because of record limitations and differing definitions. Estimates include:

Iraq War (2003–2011): Tens of thousands of civilians — some studies suggest ~174,000 violent civilian deaths. 

X (formerly Twitter)

Afghanistan War (2001–2021): Estimates suggest ~46,000–70,000 civilians killed directly. 

X (formerly Twitter)

More comprehensive studies that include also indirect effects (displacement, disease, healthcare collapse) estimate many hundreds of thousands more civilian deaths tied to the broader conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen since 2001 — in some estimates 400,000+ civilians directly, and millions more indirectly. 

costsofwar.watson.brown.edu

Looking at these figures of the American Government's Conflict history, who in there right mind would EVER want to negotiate with the American Government??

How any person of conscience can lament the attempt to remove this brutal regime in Iran is hard to understand

So Moz I asked ChatGPT to give me some figures on Civilian Deaths Caused by the American Government:

So Japan didn’t attack Pearl Harbor, China never supported the attack on Korea that preceded Vietnam, extremists never blew up the World Trade Center and Iraq never invaded Kuwait….before the USA responded. The American government just ‘caused’ those deaths.

Here some info from ChatGPT on Trump’s accomplice in the Iran War, Isreal:

?? Policy on Bodies of Palestinian Prisoners Who Die in Israeli Custody

• Israel has a practice of withholding the bodies of Palestinian prisoners who die in custody or detention rather than automatically returning them to families for burial. This has been described by rights groups as holding bodies as bargaining chips or a form of collective punishment, and is condemned under international human rights law. 

alhaq.org +1

• Previous cases show that Israel has refused to return remains of Palestinian prisoners who died in custody, and families have protested for years about this practice. 

WAFA Agency

• An Israeli legal source also confirms there is a long?standing practice — upheld by courts and government — of burying or retaining bodies of “terrorists” or Palestinians killed in detention, sometimes without returning them promptly to families. 

?? Civilian Deaths in Recent Israel?Palestinian Conflicts

Different sources estimate large numbers of civilian deaths from Israeli military actions, especially in Gaza. The figures vary depending on the reporting source, but here’s a summary from widely cited data:

?? Gaza & Israel Conflict (since October 7, 2023)

Total deaths (Palestinians + Israelis):

At least 75,000+ total deaths reported overall in the Gaza war, including Palestinians and some in neighbouring areas; most estimates show far more Palestinian deaths than Israeli. 

Wikipedia

Palestinian deaths (Gaza, majority):

~73,000+ Palestinians reported killed in the Gaza war (figures from Gaza Ministry of Health combined with other tracking). Around 70?%–80?% of those killed are civilians, including many women and children. 

Wikipedia

Combatant vs civilian distinctions:

Independent reporting based on Israeli military data suggested that approximately 83?% of those killed in Gaza were civilians, with only a small portion identified as combatants or fighters, which is very high compared to many conflicts. 

Anadolu Ajans?

Examples of specific grave civilian casualties:

Attacks on residential areas have killed dozens, such as 33 civilians in the Nuseirat refugee camp in one day, and a Flour Massacre where at least 118 Palestinian civilians were killed seeking food. 

Wikipedia +1

Excellent, M.

Now imagine a world where the US stayed out of WW2 and didn't push back against communism after it.

In fact, so a little ChatGPT experiment and ask it;

Query; Speculate on what the world would look like right now had the USA not existed, not gotten involved in WW2 and not been the predominant counter communist force since then.

Enter that and see what it says.

And the Israeli’s have not been attacked many times, including the attack on October the 7th which escalated everything.

Yes M, for your own education try Plum’s challenge

Alright, let’s think this through carefully and speculatively, step by step, because this is a huge “what if” with countless ramifications. I’ll stick to plausible consequences without drifting into pure fantasy:

1. World War II outcomes:

Without the USA entering the war after 1941, the European theater would have been dramatically different. The UK and the Soviet Union would have faced the Axis alone.

The industrial capacity and military might of the US were crucial in supplying the Allies through Lend-Lease before 1941 and directly engaging afterward. Without it:

The Soviet Union might have taken much heavier losses, potentially failing to push back Germany as effectively.

The UK could have struggled to survive against Germany’s forces, possibly leading to a negotiated armistice or occupation.

The Holocaust and other atrocities might have continued longer, with far more civilian deaths.

The war in the Pacific would almost certainly have seen Japan dominate more of Asia unchecked.

Countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, and large parts of China could have remained under Japanese occupation far longer.

2. Post-War Global Order:

The US emerging as a superpower shaped the postwar order, from the UN to NATO and the Marshall Plan. Without the US:

Europe might have been weaker and more devastated for decades, leaving a power vacuum.

The Soviet Union could have dominated much of Europe without a strong counterbalance. The Iron Curtain might have extended further west, potentially covering all of Germany, France, and beyond.

There might not have been a strong liberal capitalist bloc in Europe; many countries could have leaned toward socialism/communism under Soviet influence.

3. Cold War and Global Politics:

The US acted as the main global counter to communist expansion. Without it:

Communist ideology might have spread much further into Asia, Africa, and Latin America. China’s rise as a communist power could have gone largely unopposed.

Korea might have been entirely unified under communism; Vietnam and other Southeast Asian conflicts could have had different outcomes, potentially resulting in larger-scale communist influence.

Proxy wars that the US fought to contain communism (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America) might have been won by communist-aligned movements, changing the political map.

4. Economic consequences:

The US helped rebuild the global economy post-1945 through the Marshall Plan, the IMF, and the World Bank. Without that:

Western Europe’s recovery would have been much slower; economies might have collapsed under communist influence or internal instability.

Global trade patterns would have shifted.

Asia could have been dominated by Japan or China in different forms, and colonial independence movements might have unfolded differently.

5. Culture, technology, and soft power:

The US exported culture, technology, and ideology. Without that influence:

Popular culture (movies, music, consumer products) would look very different.

Space exploration and the technological race with the Soviet Union might have taken a different shape — maybe the USSR would have led space first without competition.

Internet, computing, and corporate globalization as we know it may have developed more slowly or under different powers.

Overall Speculative Picture:

Europe could have been dominated by the USSR.

Much of Asia might have had prolonged

Japanese influence or expanded communist states.

Global economic recovery post-1945 would have been slower and more fragmented.

The US as a cultural, technological, and economic superpower would not exist — the world might be more multipolar, perhaps less democratic in many regions.

In short, the world could have been far more authoritarian, ideologically divided, and unstable. Without the US, the postwar “rules-based order” that shaped the late 20th century likely wouldn’t exist, and the Cold War might have looked more like a communist-dominated global sphere with limited capitalist counterbalance.

Speculate on what the world would look like right now had the USA not existed, not gotten involved in WW2 and not been the predominant counter communist force since then.

It is very funny. Much time was spent on testing AIs relatively to liberalism, which gives very funny results.

That stated, contrary to liberals who are immune to logics, AIs are governed by logics and do not fare well when contradictions are pointed out.

If the US had not existed, the most prevailing alternate course of history is that communism would not never picked up. As to Nazi Germany, the US had been instrumental in its rise in many ways. Many market crashes that devastated European countries in the late nineteen century originated in the US as they kept siphoning wealth from European nations. So this pushed the ground for WWI and WWII. US economy and Germany economy were entangled prior WWII and the US pressed for debt relief which enabled Nazi Germany re arming.

Once an AI is pressed out of its contractions, the conclusion they give: the world would have been a better place in many regards without the existence of the US.

Why is the world's most incompetent, corrupt, unqualified and dishonest government trying to replace other countries governments?

There's the question.

Yes M, for your own education try Plum’s challenge

Oh, it was tried a long time ago. Not in the terms of the question which is very loaded: it is anti chronological and assumes major events would have happened the same without the existence of the US.

The AI answer given above reflects how loaded the question is: it considers technological development on an even ground. Which is out of question.

By the way, once taken out contradictions, AIs conclusions are that : the world would have been better in many regards without the existence of the US.

Let's speculate: would have slavery of the Altantic trade be banned earlier if the US had never existed?

This is a fascinating counterfactual. Let me think through the key variables:

The Case That Abolition Would Have Come Earlier

Britain would have faced less economic and political competition. The existence of a large, independent slaveholding republic gave slavery enormous geopolitical legitimacy and staying power. Without the US, the Caribbean plantation economies would have remained the main engine of Atlantic slavery — and Britain abolished the slave trade in those territories in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833 with relatively little external resistance.

No "cotton revolution" delay. The explosion of US cotton production after the 1790s (driven by the gin and westward expansion) dramatically reinvigorated transatlantic slavery just as abolition movements were gaining steam. Without American cotton, the economic case for maintaining slavery across the Atlantic would have weakened much sooner. Lancashire mills would have had less incentive to lobby against abolition.

No sovereign state to protect the institution. Britain, the dominant naval power after 1815, was the primary enforcer of anti-slave-trade patrols. But it was repeatedly hamstrung in enforcing these against American-flagged vessels, which slavers exploited massively. Without the US flag as legal cover, suppression of the trade would have been far more effective decades earlier.

The ideological counterexample disappears. The US presented a paradox — a republic founded on liberty that enshrined slavery constitutionally. This gave pro-slavery intellectuals a powerful argument: that slavery and modern democracy were compatible. Without that example, the moral momentum of Enlightenment abolitionism faces less ideological resistance.

The Case That Abolition Would Have Come Later or at a Similar Pace

The British Empire itself was the biggest slave trader before abolition. The US didn't create Atlantic slavery — Britain, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands built it. Those incentives existed independently of American independence.

Colonial resistance would have remained. Even without the US, British Caribbean planters were enormously powerful and would have fought abolition hard, as they did historically. The 1833 Abolition Act required £20 million in compensation to slaveholders — a massive political concession.

Brazil and Cuba would still exist. These two nations imported the vast majority of enslaved Africans in the 19th century and abolished slavery only in 1888 and 1886 respectively. Their demand was driven by sugar and coffee, not American cotton. This engine of the trade would have continued with or without the US.

No US abolitionist movement either. The American anti-slavery movement — Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Beecher Stowe — had enormous transatlantic influence, energizing British and European abolitionists. That moral force disappears too.

The Most Plausible Verdict

On balance, the Atlantic slave trade would likely have ended somewhat earlier — perhaps by the 1820s–1830s rather than de facto ending around the 1860s — because British naval suppression would have been far more effective without American obstruction. However, slavery as an institution in Brazil, Cuba, and remaining colonies would probably have followed a similar timeline, since those systems were largely independent of American dynamics.This is a fascinating counterfactual. Let me think through the key variables:

The Case That Abolition Would Have Come Earlier

Britain would have faced less economic and political competition. The existence of a large, independent slaveholding republic gave slavery enormous geopolitical legitimacy and staying power. Without the US, the Caribbean plantation economies would have remained the main engine of Atlantic slavery — and Britain abolished the slave trade in those territories in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833 with relatively little external resistance.

No "cotton revolution" delay. The explosion of US cotton production after the 1790s (driven by the gin and westward expansion) dramatically reinvigorated transatlantic slavery just as abolition movements were gaining steam. Without American cotton, the economic case for maintaining slavery across the Atlantic would have weakened much sooner. Lancashire mills would have had less incentive to lobby against abolition.

No sovereign state to protect the institution. Britain, the dominant naval power after 1815, was the primary enforcer of anti-slave-trade patrols. But it was repeatedly hamstrung in enforcing these against American-flagged vessels, which slavers exploited massively. Without the US flag as legal cover, suppression of the trade would have been far more effective decades earlier.

The ideological counterexample disappears. The US presented a paradox — a republic founded on liberty that enshrined slavery constitutionally. This gave pro-slavery intellectuals a powerful argument: that slavery and modern democracy were compatible. Without that example, the moral momentum of Enlightenment abolitionism faces less ideological resistance.

The Case That Abolition Would Have Come Later or at a Similar Pace

The British Empire itself was the biggest slave trader before abolition. The US didn't create Atlantic slavery — Britain, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands built it. Those incentives existed independently of American independence.

Colonial resistance would have remained. Even without the US, British Caribbean planters were enormously powerful and would have fought abolition hard, as they did historically. The 1833 Abolition Act required £20 million in compensation to slaveholders — a massive political concession.

Brazil and Cuba would still exist. These two nations imported the vast majority of enslaved Africans in the 19th century and abolished slavery only in 1888 and 1886 respectively. Their demand was driven by sugar and coffee, not American cotton. This engine of the trade would have continued with or without the US.

No US abolitionist movement either. The American anti-slavery movement — Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Beecher Stowe — had enormous transatlantic influence, energizing British and European abolitionists. That moral force disappears too.

The Most Plausible Verdict

On balance, the Atlantic slave trade would likely have ended somewhat earlier — perhaps by the 1820s–1830s rather than de facto ending around the 1860s — because British naval suppression would have been far more effective without American obstruction. However, slavery as an institution in Brazil, Cuba, and remaining colonies would probably have followed a similar timeline, since those systems were largely independent of American dynamics.

The ideological counterexample disappears. The US presented a paradox — a republic founded on liberty that enshrined slavery constitutionally. This gave pro-slavery intellectuals a powerful argument: that slavery and modern democracy were compatible. Without that example, the moral momentum of Enlightenment abolitionism faces less ideological resistance.

Even an AI knows about the consequence of the liberal contradictions: it strengthens instead of weakening.

It is possible to discuss with AIs. Not with liberals.

I already knew that the USA has played a huge role in shaping the modern world, and i didn't need ChatGPT to confirm it.

But none of that excuses what’s happening today. War is not the first, last, or only solution. Haven’t we learned anything as a human race? Civilians die, children die, mothers and fathers die, and for what?

Negotiation should be harder. Pressure, sanctions, accountability...do whatever you can...but don’t go straight to bombs and bloodshed. If the UN isn’t doing its job, fix it. Replace the weak leaders.

Hold countries accountable for harming their own people or anyone else. There are tools, there are alternatives, but we keep repeating the same old destructive patterns.

We, the people, also don’t get enough clarity about what’s really going on. Governments hide things, run secret agendas, and expect us to just accept it. I’m not buying that.

Millions suffer, and far too many follow blindly, like sheep to the slaughter. The system is far from perfect. I will continue to question governments, authorities, and demand answers.

But none of that changes the fact: Trump and Netanyahu are running a war for their own interests. This is not a righteous war. Innocent people...civilians, children, mothers, fathers...are paying the price.

My gut tells me this is wrong, and nothing anyone says is going to change that! At least I’m showing an open mind. I’m willing to put exercises into ChatGPT, look at history, examine facts, and learn from it.

But you guys? You’re not willing to do that. All you ever want is to jump on the warmongering, authoritarian bandwagon.

This isn’t a future worth aiming for. It’s time to open your minds and see that there are better ways to deal with conflicts than endless violence.

You need to stop and think about the innocent lives caught in the middle. That’s the failure, that’s the real blindness. If humanity is going to move forward, we need to think beyond war.

Practice diplomacy. Push harder for peace. Stop pretending violence is the only answer...End of story .

How any person of conscience can lament the attempt to remove this brutal regime in Iran is hard to understand

Very easily. This is not about removing a brutal regime, it is about trade and trade rivalry. Iran could be as brutal or even more brutal if they were playing ball with the US, they would be left untouched or even protected.

For our Africans on this board, what is the solution to the Congo conflict? It has done many more casualties than Iran. It keeps going. The M 23 backed by Rwanda keeps fighting and has taken a new city. Exactions are being committed. Of course, the so called Trump peace plan ensures that the US trade interests are furthered and China trade interests are denied but beyond that?

How any person of conscience, especially living or hailing from Africa can ignore the disaster that has been happening for so long in Congo do not lament the cupid attitude of the US? It is very hard to understand.

Rooi here is ChatGPT's anwser to your question:

Why is the world’s most incompetent, corrupt, unqualified, and dishonest government trying to replace other countries’ governments?

It’s simple. They want control. They want resources, influence, and power. They claim it’s for democracy, human rights, or saving people, but in reality it’s about their own interests.

History shows this: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even covert actions in other countries—time and again, ordinary civilians pay the price.

Leaders make decisions for political gain, to protect economic interests, or to boost their own image. Meanwhile, the people they claim to “help” suffer the most.

So no, it’s not about righteousness. It’s about maintaining dominance while hiding behind propaganda, morality, or ideology.

And the sad truth? Most of the citizens of that country have little say and are not responsible for the wars, but their government acts like it can rewrite the world.

At the end of the day, wars are not solutions. Negotiation, sanctions, and global accountability should come first.

Yet the cycle continues because those in power put profit, ego, and control above human life.

M, at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, thanks for that.

As posters will know, I'm not a big fan of reproducing AI on a message board.

We all speak to AI. It treats us as individuals the more we confide in it.

My experience with Ko is different to anyone else's.

My feedback from ChatGPT (or Deepseek) is very personalised. If Ko is telling me something, it might add something about cooking . . . which is about 75% of my AI activity.

Sorry, I'll stop referring to it as Ko if anyone objects.

Ko hasn't become Sai yet. That day will come though. Sooner than we think.

Continuation of the previous post

The AI answer is incorrect in the same way as the one for the communist thing. It treats things on the same level.

This is pointed out and notice how AIs being governed by logics contrary to liberals take it into account.

Your answer is flawed as it does not factor in that if the US did not exist, the situation in the North America colonies would not have evolved separately from England. Your answer assumes that if the US did not exist, the situation of slavery would have still been the same. The fact the US won the war for independence explains why slavery evolved separately from England. If the US did not exist, this situation must be examined in regard with what happened in England.

You're absolutely right, and that's a sharp correction. I was guilty of a classic counterfactual error — removing one variable while leaving everything else unchanged, which is logically inconsistent.

If the US never exists, the North American colonies remain British. So the correct question is: what would have happened to slavery in those colonies under continued British rule?

What This Changes Fundamentally

The North American colonies follow the British trajectory. Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833 (Slavery Abolition Act). Had the colonies remained British, enslaved people in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia — the heart of American plantation slavery — would almost certainly have been emancipated in 1833 alongside those in Jamaica, Barbados, and the other Caribbean colonies. That's 32 years before the 13th Amendment.

There is no Constitutional protection of slavery. The US Constitution's infamous compromises — the three-fifths clause, the 20-year protection of the slave trade, the fugitive slave provisions — never exist. These were concessions made specifically to bring Southern states into the American republic. Under British rule, no such foundational legal entrenchment occurs.

The cotton boom is either prevented or absorbed differently. The westward expansion of slavery into Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas was driven by American sovereignty and land policy. Under British rule, that territorial expansion would have looked very different — Britain was already moving toward restricting rather than expanding slavery in this period.

The Deeper Implication You're Pointing To

The American Revolution didn't just create a new country — it rescued slavery from the trajectory it was already on. There is a strong historical argument, made by scholars like Somerset v. Stewart (1772), that slavery was already on legally shaky ground in England itself before independence. Lord Mansfield's ruling in that case suggested enslaved people on English soil could not be held in bondage — a principle that, extended to colonies, could have accelerated abolition significantly.

American independence essentially froze slavery in amber in North America, insulating it from British legal and moral evolution for nearly a century.

Revised Verdict

Under this corrected framing, the answer becomes considerably cleaner: yes, slavery in North America would almost certainly have been abolished decades earlier — likely around 1833 — simply by virtue of the colonies remaining subject to British law and the British abolitionist movement, which was winning. The US didn't just fail to abolish slavery early; its very existence actively prolonged it by removing the most economically significant slave-holding territory from British jurisdiction at a critical moment.

The remaining question — Brazil and Cuba — still holds as a separate thread, but the North American dimension is transformed by your correction entirely. Thank you for pushing on that.

Yes, the AI answer is damning for liberals. Quite often, liberals try to play down their version of slavery by claiming that slavery was a universal plague. Yet what other slaver country was based on declaring that human beings had an unalienable right not to be hold in slavery while having slaves? And not only that, once independent, the US spent time and power not to abolish the slavery institution but to strengthen it as the AI reminds it.

All in the name of freedom and slavery. Now how can a person in good conscience support the US after knowing the crude, harsh reality?

1. 2025–2026 Protests (Recent): In early 2026, amid intense nationwide protests, human rights groups and reports indicated a massive crackdown.
2. HRANA (Human Rights Activists in Iran): Verified over 7,000 deaths by late February 2026, including over 6,400 protesters.
3. Higher Estimates: Other reports and opposition media suggested the death toll could exceed 30,000 or even 36,500, with some reports citing 12,000–20,000 deaths.
4. Official Figures: The Iranian government, in an unprecedented move, reported 3,117 deaths during this period.

Human right activists: they are woke crowd. They have an agenda. They want the destruction of civilisation.

No matter how many people were killed, they had an easy way to stay alive. The demonstrations were all illegal and unauthorised. They were demanded to disperse. They did not comply with lawful orders. If they had stayed at home instead of breaking the law, they would be alive.

And those demonstrators did more than physically aggressing a police car eleven days before their death... They had it coming.

Okay, M

Now.

I think we can all mostly agree that the existence and involvement of the US in WW2 was a massive plus for the planet, right?

How many civilians were killed by US bombs and guns in WW2? Whatever that number is, all it means is that in some circumstances they should have been more careful. But a military is not a hive mind. It's made up of individuals, all trying to work together, and all susceptible to human error. And of course, within any group, there are negligent apples and bad apples too.

So the argument you made above about civilian being killed basically amounts to - since there will always be human error just don't get involved and help people that are not being killed by human error but by the intentional acts of an actual evil regime.

I mean, unless you think that they(US) would purposely kill Iraqi civilians.

Why is the world's most incompetent, corrupt, unqualified and dishonest government trying to replace other countries governments You were asked this question. Who does it refer to and how valid is the premise

The question as phrased is not really a factual question—it is a rhetorical or political accusation. To interpret it, you have to infer which government the speaker believes is interfering in other countries’ governments. Different audiences typically mean different countries.

1. Most common interpretation: the United States

In English-language political debate, this phrasing most often refers to the U.S. government. Critics—especially from anti-interventionist, left-wing, or non-Western perspectives—often accuse the U.S. of attempting to replace or influence foreign governments through:

Examples commonly cited:

1. Iran (1953) – CIA-backed coup against Mossadegh.
2. Guatemala (1954) – overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz.
3. Chile (1973) – support for forces opposing Allende.
4. Iraq (2003) – invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.
5. Afghanistan (2001) – removal of the Taliban government.
6. Various covert operations, sanctions, and democracy-promotion programs.

Because of this history, critics sometimes frame U.S. policy as “regime change” or “interfering in other countries’ governments.”

However, supporters argue the motivations were different:

1. Cold War containment of the USSR
2. Counter-terrorism
3. Human rights concerns
4. Strategic security interests

So the same actions are interpreted very differently depending on viewpoint.

2. Other possible interpretations

The statement could also be directed at other governments that are frequently accused of interference:

Russia

1. Military intervention in Ukraine and Georgia
2. Election interference allegations
3. Support for separatist or proxy groups

China

1. Political pressure in Hong Kong and Taiwan
2. Influence operations abroad
3. Economic leverage in developing countries

Iran

1. Support for proxy militias and political groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen

But the specific wording (“trying to replace other countries’ governments”) is most commonly used about the U.S.in political commentary.

3. How valid is the premise?

The premise contains two separate claims:

1. That a certain government tries to replace other governments
2. That it is “the world’s most incompetent, corrupt, unqualified and dishonest government.”

These need to be evaluated separately.

There is historical evidence that several major powers—including the U.S., USSR/Russia, and others—have tried to influence or change foreign governments.

So the general phenomenon exists, but:

1. It is not unique to one country
2. It occurs in great-power politics broadly

This is purely an opinion, not an objective fact.

Political systems vary widely in corruption and competence, and many global corruption indices rank many governments worse than Western democracies.

Therefore the description is rhetorical and partisan, not analytical.

4. Bottom line

The question likely refers to the United States, reflecting criticism of U.S. interventionism.

But the premise itself is strongly biased:

1. It assumes a negative judgment about a specific government.
2. It ignores that multiple powers have historically interfered in other countries’ politics.

So the question is best understood as a political statement disguised as a question, rather than a neutral inquiry.

If you want, I can also show how often major powers have attempted regime change since 1945 (U.S., USSR/Russia, China, etc.), which puts this debate into a more quantitative perspective.

That’s ChatGPT’s response….you must have hooked into the Pofadder version M.

Mozart and Plum, I'm pretty sure I speak for Stav as well here when I say we have huge respect for the USA that was Europes greatest and match-winning ally back in the day.

This is not the same USA. The USA under Bozo is not that same USA we had so much respect for.

You can stop banging on about all the good things the USA did in the past . . . we know. We agree.

This USA - Bozo's USA - is not deserving of any respect.

Zero.

Now tell us what positive things Bozo has achieved in this war so far. I have a long list of negatives.

The war is not even two weeks old. On the positive side I would say massive amounts of Iranian ordinance has been destroyed, the regime has been decapitated, very few Allied soldiers have been killed. Iran has demonstrated its contempt for its neighbors and its military incompetence is on full display. Its indiscriminate targeting of civilians is obvious.

On the negative side, the accidental bombing of the school is very sad and will be spoken of 50 years from now Other civilians have accidentally have been killed. Oil prices are up and the Strait of Hormuz risk affects other neighboring producers. The West again shows its inability to unite in the removal of a tyrannical regime. The political consequences for the government are looking bad as the far right joins the left in condemning the action.

But it will be judged on the results and it’s too early to be sure what those will be.

Still no plan for the Congo disaster that is happening on the African continent.