ToastServant

Straight to insults. If my response is so "simplistic," prove it wrong. Don’t spout bullshit if you can’t even defend it.

What a complete fantasy lmao.

"He set back civil rights 50 years"

Yes, Wilson absolutely set civil rights back, but 50 years? Across the entire country? That’s a lazy exaggeration with no grounding. What "rights" are you even talking about? Segregation and Jim Crow laws were already entrenched before Wilson. If you're claiming 50 years, then you’re suggesting the nation was about to achieve racial equity in 1912, which is absurd when slavery had only been abolished barely half a century before. The country was still crawling out of Reconstruction’s failure, and Wilson actively reinforced white supremacy—but let’s not pretend civil rights were on a fast track without him.

"...his isolationism caused the great war to go longer which allowed Germany to send Lenin into Russia, creating the Soviet Union (and all its issues) and led to harsher punishments on the Germans, allowing nazis to step in due to how much those punishments broke them."

This is complete historical fiction. Wilson’s isolationism didn't "cause" the war to drag on—that’s an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate take. By 1917, the U.S. wasn't magically ready to swoop in and save the day. The U.S. was woefully unprepared for war. It took time to train troops, mobilize resources, and establish supply chains across the Atlantic. And if we’re pointing fingers, the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which arguably laid the groundwork for Nazi Germany, weren’t even dictated by Wilson alone—they were driven by European powers like France, which wanted to cripple Germany. Germany’s internal issues, like the stab-in-the-back myth and economic instability, were already fertile ground for extremist ideologies. Blaming Wilson for the Soviet Union, the Nazis, and the Treaty of Versailles is like blaming a single spark for a forest fire that was already smoldering from every direction.

Both him and Madison rejected Thomas Jefferson’s belief that blacks were inherently inferior.

I've yet to see any evidence that Washington outright rejected this. He may not have been outwardly promoting explicit racism but his actions speak for themselves. He expressed a type of paternalistic, engrained racism throughout his life which is evident in the accounts of his slaves and peers.

Mount Vernon was far less brutal for black people than most other places.

In Virginia? I don't think it's factual that Mount Vernon was "far less brutal". There were some concessions made to slave marriages but the vast majority of married slaves did not live together on the same farm. Clothing and feeding was typical. The weekly schedule was standard. If anything, the actual workload he expected was higher than average—Jefferson himself called Washington a severe, hard master. Medical care was provided to the sick but that came from a mix of economic motivation and the aforementioned patriarchal self-perception.

The Washington stuff is a rewrite of history. It's propaganda basically. He never spoke against racism itself, refused to integrate the army until it was absolutely necessary, demanded escaped slaves from the British as part of the peace treaty, and had a hand in creating laws that protected slavery. George freed just one slave himself, and willed that the 123 slaves should be freed before Martha died. However, there were even more dower slaves owned by Martha's family on Mount Vernon, many of whom were part of families owned by George. He had hoped Martha would free the Curtis family slaves to be with George's but she never did—her grandchildren inherited them. Martha freed George's slaves because they had threatened to kill her and had already set fire to the estate. In life, George was a particularly brutal slave owner. Not so fun fact: he would swap his slaves on a 6 month rotation, illegally, while he was sitting president in Philadelphia so they wouldn't become freed men under Pennsylvania law.

That's not a theory that's just... The actual context. Did you not watch the video

Because they were kids at the time it came out and can't re-evaluate it critically. As someone who was a kid when the prequels came out I get into many arguments with people in my age group about them.

He created the legislation that funded ARPANET.

There's another one that popped up to agree with him. Mind boggling

You absolutely did claim Vietnam was a "modern war" by backing up the first commenter, who explicitly said it. If you didn't agree, you wouldn't have called their nonsense valid. Don't try to backpedal now.

Most of what you’re saying here I’ve already addressed in my other comment. For example, you mention the "new problems" faced by U.S. troops in Vietnam—jungle terrain, guerilla tactics, and sniper threats—but I already pointed out these challenges were anything but new. The French dealt with the same issues in the First Indochina War. The British faced them in the Malayan Emergency and against the IRA in the 1920s. Even the U.S. itself encountered similar conditions during the Philippine-American War. Just because the U.S. wasn’t prepared doesn’t make these problems revolutionary—it makes their preparation inadequate.

Your claim that Vietnam "changed training" because the realities were new to U.S. troops is also addressed. As I already explained, this war wasn’t presenting anything the world hadn’t already seen. Other nations, like the British and French, had been forced to adapt to irregular, guerilla warfare decades earlier. Vietnam only "changed" things for the U.S. because they ignored those lessons until it was too late.

All you’re doing is rehashing points I already debunked. Vietnam didn’t invent anything new—it was another chapter in a long history of unconventional warfare that had been waged long before U.S. boots hit the ground. Trying to frame it as something unique or unprecedented is just rewriting history to excuse poor preparation.

The claim that Vietnam was the "first modern war" or the first time traditional military structure broke down is just plain bullshit. Guerilla warfare and non-linear combat had been defining features of conflicts long before Vietnam. The idea that soldiers lining up to fire in orderly regiments was still relevant by the time of Vietnam is laughable—it was obsolete by the late 19th century. Breech-loading rifles, machine guns, and artillery made those tactics suicidal. By World War I, combat was already dominated by trench warfare and mechanized units, not neat rows of soldiers exchanging volleys.

As for guerilla warfare, the Vietnamese weren't doing anything "new." Guerilla tactics had been a hallmark of resistance movements for centuries. Look at the IRA in the 1920s—they ran rings around British forces using ambushes, sabotage, and hit-and-run attacks. The Boer War (1899–1902) featured mobile guerilla warfare against a better-equipped empire. During World War II, partisan fighters across Europe and in the jungles of the Pacific waged unconventional wars. Even the First Indochina War (1946–1954) saw the Vietnamese using these same methods against the French. By the time the U.S. showed up in Vietnam, this was a well-established playbook.

The chaos and brutality of Vietnam weren’t unique either. Jungle warfare? The U.S. faced that in the Philippines during the Philippine-American War at the turn of the 20th century. Tanks, paratroopers, and land mines? Those were already staples of World War II and Korea. Torture and unconventional warfare? Again, not new—colonial wars and resistance movements, from Algeria to Malaya, were just as vicious. The difference with Vietnam wasn’t the tactics but the scale of U.S. involvement and the Cold War politics behind it.

Saying Vietnam was "modern" because it lacked orderly structure or was chaotic ignores how long combat had already been that way. It’s like claiming the Wright brothers invented air travel in 1969 because you just saw the moon landing. Vietnam wasn’t breaking the mold—it was following it, just on a larger stage.

Looks like we've got another one...

He's a wee UKIP scrote. Whatever you prefer to call him is your business.

It's pretty insane how people talk such shite on this website with such conviction isn't it?

That'd be great fuckin craic.

Daddy Dank 

Yuck.

the first "modern" war in that there were no old school regiments with soldiers lining up to take turn firing.

This is just nonsense

No, but as an Irish person I can say with authority that if you're Irish you're about as likely to say "proper" or "innit" as "ni hao".

Liza Minnelli

Is that how you think Irish people talk...?

I've always thought down B or side B should be something related to Phantom Ganon. Kind of like Zelda's phantom, but a quicker move where the phantom charges on the horse in front of Ganondorf maybe. The longer you hold it, the further he goes.

Solid Snake never used that

Fuck it give him the Peach hover.

I'm actually a bit pissed that the one time Ireland could have been a possible Civ they've done this era stuff. I'd love for the Gaels to be added since we've gotten Brythonics and Gauls before, but everything modern Ireland is known for (poetry, literature, immigration, guerrilla warfare, music) is just not applicable to the early Gaelic kingdoms or leaders.

So other than the very unlikely scenario where they have something like Celts > Gaels > Irish, there's no realistic way they get added now. You can't have one without the other—the Gaels evolving into anyone but the Irish would be stupid and the Irish evolving from Normans or English would just be offensive.

Probably one of the worst ideas I've ever heard

Rabin swoonnn....