are you not hearing me? this is what the world wanted from us (obama).
Blame Norway.Mekstizzle wrote:
It's not about that, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if Argentina decided to invade the Falklands again, whether the US would help or not. Can't recall much help last time that happened
The fact that he/they're deciding to stay neutral on it all is the silliest thing, basically what FEOS said. I can understand if the US does that when it comes to other situations in the world, but not when it comes to arguably its biggest ally
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Without a doubt its biggest ally.Mekstizzle wrote:
arguably its biggest ally
much of the time its only ally (pacific islands not included).LostFate wrote:
Without a doubt its biggest ally.Mekstizzle wrote:
arguably its biggest ally
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-02 10:08:58)
The U.S. will never have such a good president again.Bertster7 wrote:
Yeah - at least Reagan gave us missiles....ghettoperson wrote:
I have no idea how he can say that. It's not like there's any question as to who should be allowed control of the Falklands, and as a US ally you'd think the least they could do is say they're supporting us, even if they're not physically doing anything.FEOS wrote:
Obama has already said the US is "remaining neutral" about this. Fucking facepalm junior varsity foreign policy.
Anyway, the UK could still kick Argentina's a$$ without US support. I don't know about if other South American countries team in though.
Edit:
Also, I think when the shit hits the fan and the UK and Argentina are fighting for oil, I think the US will change it's mind and help the UK.
Oh boy I wonder why
Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2010-03-02 10:16:52)
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
We have the earthquake machine, just give us a long./latitude position
So far he's going down as one of the worst presidents in history... thanks for playing.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The U.S. will never have such a good president again.Bertster7 wrote:
Yeah - at least Reagan gave us missiles....ghettoperson wrote:
I have no idea how he can say that. It's not like there's any question as to who should be allowed control of the Falklands, and as a US ally you'd think the least they could do is say they're supporting us, even if they're not physically doing anything.
Anyway, the UK could still kick Argentina's a$$ without US support. I don't know about if other South American countries team in though.
Edit:
Also, I think when the shit hits the fan and the UK and Argentina are fighting for oil, I think the US will change it's mind and help the UK.
Oh boy I wonder why
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
aahh I think he meant reagan.JohnG@lt wrote:
So far he's going down as one of the worst presidents in history... thanks for playing.
although that's an equally stupid statement, probably more so.
thanks for playing?
Falklands is a slightly different kettle of fish compared to Afghanistan. Considering Afghanistan is a central strategic point in the world, filled with whackos and used as a base by more whackos to plot/launch attacks on surrounding places.
In comparison, the Falklands is a small territory that doesn't need a huge coalition to fight over.
In comparison, the Falklands is a small territory that doesn't need a huge coalition to fight over.
lawl, this morning i saw a license plate frame that saidJohnG@lt wrote:
So far he's going down as one of the worst presidents in history... thanks for playing.
what would
Ronald Reagan do?
and as far as any other South American country coming to the defense of Argentina?
Wonder if 'ugo will put on his war hat.burnzz wrote:
lawl, this morning i saw a license plate frame that saidJohnG@lt wrote:
So far he's going down as one of the worst presidents in history... thanks for playing.
what would
Ronald Reagan do?
and as far as any other South American country coming to the defense of Argentina?
Equally stupid statement? The guy came in on a wave of 'hope and change' and all he's managed to pass (with a supermajority no less) was a government takeover of GM and a 'stimulus' bill that did nothing more than save State employees jobs. The health care bill is a mess that no one wants and which is modeled on Massachusetts' failing system.ruisleipa wrote:
aahh I think he meant reagan.JohnG@lt wrote:
So far he's going down as one of the worst presidents in history... thanks for playing.
although that's an equally stupid statement, probably more so.
thanks for playing?
Granted he just entered his second year in office but so far he's accomplished nada except polarizing the country even more than it was before he took office.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-03-02 10:27:36)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
he would if it were the US. Venezuela, hell not one other S.A. country stepped up the last time the UK rolled into the Falklands . . .M.O.A.B wrote:
Wonder if 'ugo will put on his war hat.
Aye.burnzz wrote:
he would if it were the US. Venezuela, hell not one other S.A. country stepped up the last time the UK rolled into the Falklands . . .M.O.A.B wrote:
Wonder if 'ugo will put on his war hat.
Sorry maybe I misunderstood. I think shifty meant reagan was the best president ever, but you thought he meant obama, which is why i said 'i think he meant reagan'. I didn't mean your statement was stupid, I meant the idea that no US president will ever be (or has been) 'better' than reagan was stupid.
The British don't need our support, if they shit hit the fan, of course we would support the U.K., but until that happens expect Obama to keep his mouth shut. He doesn't need to give Hugo any more fuel for his "the imperialistic gringos are trying to take over South America" tirade.
zactly. they bitch when they get bush talk then bitch when they dont.Commie Killer wrote:
The British don't need our support, if they shit hit the fan, of course we would support the U.K., but until that happens expect Obama to keep his mouth shut. He doesn't need to give Hugo any more fuel for his "the imperialistic gringos are trying to take over South America" tirade.
You're right, I didn't see he was quoting something about Reagan. Everything up to that point in the thread had been bitching about Obama bailing on the UK.ruisleipa wrote:
Sorry maybe I misunderstood. I think shifty meant reagan was the best president ever, but you thought he meant obama, which is why i said 'i think he meant reagan'. I didn't mean your statement was stupid, I meant the idea that no US president will ever be (or has been) 'better' than reagan was stupid.
Eisenhower was the last good president this country has had. Reagan had charisma but he was the quintessential deficit spender.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Just a way of saying things differentlyruisleipa wrote:
Sorry maybe I misunderstood. I think shifty meant reagan was the best president ever, but you thought he meant obama, which is why i said 'i think he meant reagan'. I didn't mean your statement was stupid, I meant the idea that no US president will ever be (or has been) 'better' than reagan was stupid.
But yeah he was an amazing public speaker and if I recall correctly most people had a job. He was great military wise too.
Again...AFAIK.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
There's a difference between invading other countries, and making a simple speech rejecting Argentina's illegitimate claim to the Falklands.11 Bravo wrote:
are you not hearing me? this is what the world wanted from us (obama).
no really? a difference between those two?ghettoperson wrote:
There's a difference between invading other countries, and making a simple speech rejecting Argentina's illegitimate claim to the Falklands.11 Bravo wrote:
are you not hearing me? this is what the world wanted from us (obama).
dont try and assume i agree with obama not saying anything, but you get what you ask for tbh.
Massive Retaliation was a pretty big downside to his admin imhoJohnG@lt wrote:
You're right, I didn't see he was quoting something about Reagan. Everything up to that point in the thread had been bitching about Obama bailing on the UK.ruisleipa wrote:
Sorry maybe I misunderstood. I think shifty meant reagan was the best president ever, but you thought he meant obama, which is why i said 'i think he meant reagan'. I didn't mean your statement was stupid, I meant the idea that no US president will ever be (or has been) 'better' than reagan was stupid.
Eisenhower was the last good president this country has had. Reagan had charisma but he was the quintessential deficit spender.
I don't think anyone's ever claimed they don't want the US to have anything to with the world, we just resent it when you wander off invading people for no reason.11 Bravo wrote:
no really? a difference between those two?ghettoperson wrote:
There's a difference between invading other countries, and making a simple speech rejecting Argentina's illegitimate claim to the Falklands.11 Bravo wrote:
are you not hearing me? this is what the world wanted from us (obama).
dont try and assume i agree with obama not saying anything, but you get what you ask for tbh.
afghan was no reason? righto
lol from falklands to afghan...11 Bravo wrote:
afghan was no reason? righto
whats afghanistan got to do with anything exactly?