FAil to do WHAT????????? What exactly are you saying and how does it relate to the sectarian ways of Iraqis? If it doesnt have ANY relation to that, then your reply is useless at best. Im sorry dude but after the past 24 hours of this stuff from you i can not talk, jest, debate or whatever with you anymore. This and the PM i sent will be the last time i respond to or ask you anything. Even I am not so insensative to other people or people from other countries. No matter who it is. Me and Cam dissagree almost every day, But i actually respect his views even though they differ 100% than mine, and i have yet to lose respect for the guy, unlike you sir. Yes i KNOW this is the internet, But for gods sakes, Some of the trolling posts really do make your blood boil. Words and Intent, even on the internet can be hurtfull.Bubbalo wrote:
Something which Americans themselves fail to do.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
IF the newer generation would disgard that traditional thinking
The French for cow is vache. Boeuf is the word for beef.Bubbalo wrote:
That's like saying that beef means cow because it comes from the French beouf (sp?).
Americans themselves typically inherit ways of thinking from past generations. The same is true of people worldwide.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
FAil to do WHAT?????????
Well........my 3 or 4 years of French were clearly useless...................Bertster7 wrote:
The French for cow is vache. Boeuf is the word for beef.Bubbalo wrote:
That's like saying that beef means cow because it comes from the French beouf (sp?).
ok then both words come from the greek υπέρ and they mean exactly the same thing. Υπέρ.
lol
lol
ƒ³
Actually, Bubbalo has a point here. Our religious right is basically a less extremist version of the Islamists we fight. Thankfully, extremist Christians don't usually kill people nowadays, but they still have outdated ways of thinking that hinder social progress in America.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
FAil to do WHAT????????? What exactly are you saying and how does it relate to the sectarian ways of Iraqis? If it doesnt have ANY relation to that, then your reply is useless at best. Im sorry dude but after the past 24 hours of this stuff from you i can not talk, jest, debate or whatever with you anymore. This and the PM i sent will be the last time i respond to or ask you anything. Even I am not so insensative to other people or people from other countries. No matter who it is. Me and Cam dissagree almost every day, But i actually respect his views even though they differ 100% than mine, and i have yet to lose respect for the guy, unlike you sir. Yes i KNOW this is the internet, But for gods sakes, Some of the trolling posts really do make your blood boil. Words and Intent, even on the internet can be hurtfull.Bubbalo wrote:
Something which Americans themselves fail to do.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
IF the newer generation would disgard that traditional thinking
Sure but.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower ..oug wrote:
I don't think that the Bush administration was caught unprepared by the developments in Iraq. After all, they've had enough experience with the war in Afghanistan to know that things would eventually come to this point.
Either ways, the USA's status as superpower cannot be compromised by such little and controlled economy-boosting conflicts.
Edit: Hyper: Direct translation of the Greek word υπέρ meaning super. Thus hyperpower = superpower.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Anyone who thinks that Iraq is NOT a failure really needs to tune into reality.
in my books, America will remain a superpower ( or hyperpower, the difference doesn't really matter, does it ), even if the Iraq affair ends in a defeat or anything like a defeat. Or should I say once the Iraq affair has ended in a defeat. I am sure the US Government will find a more politically correct term for it, though.
The US remains a dominant force on the planet, militarily, economically, politically and culturally, and a defeat in Iraq won't change that.
So, if you believe the term itself is still valid these days ( it's a cold war term after all ) my answer would be yes.
The US remains a dominant force on the planet, militarily, economically, politically and culturally, and a defeat in Iraq won't change that.
So, if you believe the term itself is still valid these days ( it's a cold war term after all ) my answer would be yes.
True democratic nations wouldn´t have to rely on their armed forces to stay a superpower,they would use politics and knowledge.