|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention?
|
On September 03 2013 04:30 bosnia wrote:
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention?
Answer my second question. If international intervention ends up being air strikes and no boots on the ground, which is the most popular idea at the moment, how does that get the US land?
|
On September 03 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:30 bosnia wrote:
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention? Answer my second question. If international intervention ends up being air strikes and no boots on the ground, which is the most popular idea at the moment, how does that get the US land?
To be honest the best solution would be to do Cold War puppet gov't after throwing out Assad, but for some reason that seems out of the question, especially considering how Egypt went down.
|
On September 03 2013 04:33 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:30 bosnia wrote:
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention? Answer my second question. If international intervention ends up being air strikes and no boots on the ground, which is the most popular idea at the moment, how does that get the US land? To be honest the best solution would be to do Cold War puppet gov't after throwing out Assad, but for some reason that seems out of the question, especially considering how Egypt went down.
Puppet government =/= democracy
|
On September 03 2013 04:33 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:30 bosnia wrote:
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention? Answer my second question. If international intervention ends up being air strikes and no boots on the ground, which is the most popular idea at the moment, how does that get the US land? To be honest the best solution would be to do Cold War puppet gov't after throwing out Assad, but for some reason that seems out of the question, especially considering how Egypt went down.
Oh no, that would be one of the worst possible solutions. We've tried that often in the Mideast. It only got us chaos and worse situations in those countries where it happened. A few examples of the end political product of our interventions is the Islamic Republic in Iran (we overthrew a democracy in Iran to reinstate the very brutal Shah who was logically overthrown, just by the worst possible person), an Islamic government in Libya, and a semi-Islamist Shiite dictatorship in Iraq that's in bed with Iran.
|
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provinces, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/
|
On September 03 2013 04:35 Zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:33 wei2coolman wrote:On September 03 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:30 bosnia wrote:
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention? Answer my second question. If international intervention ends up being air strikes and no boots on the ground, which is the most popular idea at the moment, how does that get the US land? To be honest the best solution would be to do Cold War puppet gov't after throwing out Assad, but for some reason that seems out of the question, especially considering how Egypt went down. Puppet government =/= democracy
Well, democracy also included the clusterfuck that was Egypt post Mubarak.
|
On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provinces, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/
Well 30% of the US population agree that New York is the capital of the US !
|
On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provinces, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/
We know what you mean. We (USA) are a very powerful imperialist nation and like any other we aim to expand our dominance and interests. That's just the way these things work. Also, our military spending is only 20% (which is still significant) of our budget in 2012, not 60 lol.
|
On September 03 2013 04:39 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:35 Zeo wrote:On September 03 2013 04:33 wei2coolman wrote:On September 03 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:30 bosnia wrote:
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention? Answer my second question. If international intervention ends up being air strikes and no boots on the ground, which is the most popular idea at the moment, how does that get the US land? To be honest the best solution would be to do Cold War puppet gov't after throwing out Assad, but for some reason that seems out of the question, especially considering how Egypt went down. Puppet government =/= democracy Well, democracy also included the clusterfuck that was Egypt post Mubarak.
Don't forget Libya that went from the most advanced country in Africa to an extremist, islamic, tribal hell hole without a bottom.
|
On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/
It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin. As a nation, we aren't going to act against our self-interest, but figuring how that interest actually looks is a whole different ballgame.
|
On September 03 2013 04:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/ It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin.
If you think those are petty insults then I feel bad for you. Your talking about limiting airstrikes when in fact the States have no business being there in the first place, makes no sense, why are you trying to make it sound like the Americans have to be in every country to "help out" which is not the case at all. Doesn't matter what president is next it's always the same focus, step in, take over. The Bush family has been friends with the Bin Ladens for almost 2 decades and after 9.11 they all went in claiming terrorism trying to control land, oil. Now you're so blind still to accept that it's really all again about the same resources.
|
On September 03 2013 04:49 bosnia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:43 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/ It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin. If you think those are petty insults then I feel bad for you. Your talking about limiting airstrikes when in fact the States have no business being there in the first place, makes no sense, why are you trying to make it sound like the Americans have to be in every country to "help out" which is not the case at all. Doesn't matter what president is next it's always the same focus, step in, take over. The Bush family has been friends with the Bin Ladens for almost 2 decades and after 9.11 they all went in claiming terrorism trying to control land, oil. Now you're so blind still to accept that it's really all again about the same resources.
Did you just claim 9-11 was a ploy for USA to get land and oil?
|
On September 03 2013 04:49 bosnia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:43 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/ It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin. If you think those are petty insults then I feel bad for you. Your talking about limiting airstrikes when in fact the States have no business being there in the first place, makes no sense, why are you trying to make it sound like the Americans have to be in every country to "help out" which is not the case at all. Doesn't matter what president is next it's always the same focus, step in, take over. The Bush family has been friends with the Bin Ladens for almost 2 decades and after 9.11 they all went in claiming terrorism trying to control land, oil. Now you're so blind still to accept that it's really all again about the same resources.
Do you then think Assad using chemical weapons is ok and everybody should just stand by and watch it happen? I mean come on, what's the alternative here?
|
On September 03 2013 04:49 bosnia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:43 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/ It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin. If you think those are petty insults then I feel bad for you. Your talking about limiting airstrikes when in fact the States have no business being there in the first place, makes no sense, why are you trying to make it sound like the Americans have to be in every country to "help out" which is not the case at all. Doesn't matter what president is next it's always the same focus, step in, take over. The Bush family has been friends with the Bin Ladens for almost 2 decades and after 9.11 they all went in claiming terrorism trying to control land, oil. Now you're so blind still to accept that it's really all again about the same resources.
You have to remember that these airstrikes and other military assistance aren't very cheap. Regardless of if you think the US should do it or not, we will probably end up doing because no other countries want to do anything. It seems like most countries in the world want to US to do everything, pay for everything, and then use them as the scapegoat for anything that goes wrong. Its obvious you don't like the United States, but its getting to the point where you are devolving into conspiracy theories and anti-US rants.
|
On September 03 2013 04:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:33 wei2coolman wrote:On September 03 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:30 bosnia wrote:
Ok so what do those countries have to do with Syria, why do so many countries hate on the states?If you're so smart please explain yourself, the world is not stupid we all see it on tv except not always the truth just what they want us to believe. It's doesn't matter to me at all if you agree with me or not, fact is I actually know what I'm sayin while your just re-posting trying to prove your opinions and not facts. All those countries you just stated are all allies with the states LOL...so why wouldn't they be for intervention? Answer my second question. If international intervention ends up being air strikes and no boots on the ground, which is the most popular idea at the moment, how does that get the US land? To be honest the best solution would be to do Cold War puppet gov't after throwing out Assad, but for some reason that seems out of the question, especially considering how Egypt went down. Oh no, that would be one of the worst possible solutions. We've tried that often in the Mideast. It only got us chaos and worse situations in those countries where it happened. A few examples of the end political product of our interventions is the Islamic Republic in Iran (we overthrew a democracy in Iran to reinstate the very brutal Shah who was logically overthrown, just by the worst possible person), an Islamic government in Libya, and a semi-Islamist Shiite dictatorship in Iraq that's in bed with Iran.
Jordan, Kuwait, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Oman, there are more countries in the middle east you know, and a lot of them friendly dictatorships with pretty happy people.
And come to think about it, its also a list of countries that listened to their people and changed their countries faced with the protests of the arab spring. Wonder if the connection to the US influenced that.
|
On September 03 2013 04:56 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:49 bosnia wrote:On September 03 2013 04:43 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/ It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin. If you think those are petty insults then I feel bad for you. Your talking about limiting airstrikes when in fact the States have no business being there in the first place, makes no sense, why are you trying to make it sound like the Americans have to be in every country to "help out" which is not the case at all. Doesn't matter what president is next it's always the same focus, step in, take over. The Bush family has been friends with the Bin Ladens for almost 2 decades and after 9.11 they all went in claiming terrorism trying to control land, oil. Now you're so blind still to accept that it's really all again about the same resources. Did you just claim 9-11 was a ploy for USA to get land and oil?
This rumor will always live. Deal with it^^
|
On September 03 2013 04:56 crayhasissues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:49 bosnia wrote:On September 03 2013 04:43 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/ It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin. If you think those are petty insults then I feel bad for you. Your talking about limiting airstrikes when in fact the States have no business being there in the first place, makes no sense, why are you trying to make it sound like the Americans have to be in every country to "help out" which is not the case at all. Doesn't matter what president is next it's always the same focus, step in, take over. The Bush family has been friends with the Bin Ladens for almost 2 decades and after 9.11 they all went in claiming terrorism trying to control land, oil. Now you're so blind still to accept that it's really all again about the same resources. You have to remember that these airstrikes and other military assistance aren't very cheap. Regardless of if you think the US should do it or not, we will probably end up doing because no other countries want to do anything. It seems like most countries in the world want to US to do everything, pay for everything, and then use them as the scapegoat for anything that goes wrong. Its obvious you don't like the United States, but its getting to the point where you are devolving into conspiracy theories and anti-US rants.
That's the thing though, The U.S. doesn't pay for everything that's why they have allies, that's why other countries ally with the States because they seem the most powerful and have a bit more influence. When you're rich even if you are wrong you are right.
|
On September 03 2013 05:00 bosnia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 04:56 crayhasissues wrote:On September 03 2013 04:49 bosnia wrote:On September 03 2013 04:43 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2013 04:38 bosnia wrote:
I never said it gets the U.S. land read my posts, I said it get's them military positions. The U.S. spendS 60% on military you think they don't want to be in control ?You think they don't want to set up bases in every corner of the world just because they feel it's the right thing to do, how would you feel if you were poor and I was rich and I told you I'm going to put cameras in your house because I want to see what you're doing even though I'm much more powerful than you. If I asked you what the capital of Canada was you wouldn't even know without having to google it, where in Canada a lot of people know almost all states and you couldn't even tell me 5 provices, that's just you being an American, blind to what's going on outside of your bubble. Anyways I have to go, feel like I wasted the last half hour for nothing =/ It's probably better that you not post then, seeing as how you can't refrain from using petty, childish insults alongside some of the most ridiculous and grammatically incorrect illogic I've seen since this morning. There is a very good chance that the US will limit it's involvement to strategic air strikes only, and that means no bases and no soldiers on the ground. This would be in pursuit of forcing Assad to come to the table, which, admittedly, may or may not happen, but the fact remains that Iraq/Afghanistan style involvement isn't even being discussed yet by the President, relegating your continued insistence that the US only acts in pursuit of "military positions" to the waste bin. If you think those are petty insults then I feel bad for you. Your talking about limiting airstrikes when in fact the States have no business being there in the first place, makes no sense, why are you trying to make it sound like the Americans have to be in every country to "help out" which is not the case at all. Doesn't matter what president is next it's always the same focus, step in, take over. The Bush family has been friends with the Bin Ladens for almost 2 decades and after 9.11 they all went in claiming terrorism trying to control land, oil. Now you're so blind still to accept that it's really all again about the same resources. You have to remember that these airstrikes and other military assistance aren't very cheap. Regardless of if you think the US should do it or not, we will probably end up doing because no other countries want to do anything. It seems like most countries in the world want to US to do everything, pay for everything, and then use them as the scapegoat for anything that goes wrong. Its obvious you don't like the United States, but its getting to the point where you are devolving into conspiracy theories and anti-US rants. That's the thing though, The U.S. doesn't pay for everything that's why they have allies, that's why other countries ally with the States because they seem the most powerful and have a bit more influence. When you're rich even if you are wrong you are right.
Oh, thats why the world loves the US so much!
Oh wait, no, we're the butt of all stupidity jokes, and people hate us for recent wars, we are also one of the most indebted countries in the world.
Also, if the USA performs an operation, like launching missiles, we had to buy the missiles from other countries, or manufacture them ourselves, cruise missiles are VERY expensive, and don't be so ignorant to believe that other countries sponsor bombs...
Why are you in this thread spewing bullshit?
|
On September 03 2013 04:22 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:14 zezamer wrote:On September 03 2013 02:00 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:
It wasn't long ago that the US got 48 countries to support a ground invasion of Iraq, actual boots on the ground. There was no war going on, chemical weapons were not being used, but 48 countries agreed to invade.
Now you have Syria, where an actual war is taking place, chemical weapons have been used, over 100,000 people killed, and nobody even wants to launch a few rockets from miles away. Not even Great Britain will join the US, won't even lend a plane to strike. France is the only supporter?
My, how quickly and how high the pendulum swings, how fickle populations are. We swing from one extreme to another. People were shocked about 9/11. Now arabs/terrorist/AQ/radicalists haven't done anything major in years Nice how you equall arabs with terrorists and AQ and radicalists in this post. Guess this is the way manny people see the world now,its sad kinda what the world has become to  The end of the cold war should have brought an era of peace and mutual understanding, but the complete opposite has happend.People now hate arabs like they hated communists and the empire of evil.
to be perfectly honest : right now in France, a good deal of young arabs are a very vocal minority and among the most hateful, racist, and intolerant people I've ever seen, while shouting "look look they are racists against us" when they are the worst. Most of them are perfectly fine, but those shits don't help the rest of us to like them. And it's a shame, cause most if not all "older" arabs are the coolest folks ever.
This, added to the rest, leads to amalgams among dumb people. Sadly. It's adding fuel to the fire instead of showing it's wrong and quenching it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
