yeah but the blame/glory tends to go mostly to the one who started itThe_Jester wrote:
They are not alone in Iraq either.
Do what crap? Appropriate land illegally?Miller wrote:
Tell me palestine does not do this crap all the time and I will then consider it a valid statement. Also, Kmarion, by giving up land Isreal won't get peace, just more bombs in a more condensed area.Bertster7 wrote:
None of these actions have been legal or, in any normal sense, moral.Bertster7 wrote:
I didn't go that far.
I only got upto the original partition plan, which of course was rejected by the Arab states and led to the war in which Israel expanded its borders beyond those laid down by the UN.
I was speaking of how Israel were not given the land, they took it and declared it their own. Only after that fact, and due entirely to the backing of the US, was the state of Israel given any kind of international legitimacy.
They've never done either of the two things I mentioned.
I don't get your point. You're not making any sense.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-08 16:03:14)
*sigh* Brits...Bertster7 wrote:
Do what crap? Appropriate land illegally?Miller wrote:
Tell me palestine does not do this crap all the time and I will then consider it a valid statement. Also, Kmarion, by giving up land Isreal won't get peace, just more bombs in a more condensed area.Bertster7 wrote:
None of these actions have been legal or, in any normal sense, moral.
They've never done either of the two things I mentioned.
I don't get your point. You're not making any sense.
You can't just say words and expect them to mean something.Miller wrote:
*sigh* Brits...Bertster7 wrote:
Do what crap? Appropriate land illegally?Miller wrote:
Tell me palestine does not do this crap all the time and I will then consider it a valid statement. Also, Kmarion, by giving up land Isreal won't get peace, just more bombs in a more condensed area.
They've never done either of the two things I mentioned.
I don't get your point. You're not making any sense.
You asked me to tell you Palestine does not do this crap all the time, while we're talking about appropriating land, and I've told you that is the case. I hope you now consider it a valid statement, because I can assure you the Palestinians don't do "that crap" ever.
*sigh* propaganda believing americans...Miller wrote:
*sigh* Brits...Bertster7 wrote:
Do what crap? Appropriate land illegally?Miller wrote:
Tell me palestine does not do this crap all the time and I will then consider it a valid statement. Also, Kmarion, by giving up land Isreal won't get peace, just more bombs in a more condensed area.
They've never done either of the two things I mentioned.
I don't get your point. You're not making any sense.
most Palestinians are decent people who are just trying to get on with their lives
unfortunatly most of them cannot get on with their lives because they live in refugee camps or cannot live in the small scrap of land that Israel 'gracefully' gave them
Palestine was split in a something like 60/40 ratio
then over various wars Israel has illigally taken the rest of Palestines land
you think that won't create at least a few terrorists or a negative feeling towards Israel?
Therefore most Palestinians will do pretty much anything to get their land back, but thats all they want, once they have their land back (and it really is their land) it is probable that they will stop fighting and hold a shaky truce with Israel (unfotunatly the bad feelings memories and the manufactured terrorists will probably not dissapear for decades if not longer)
Last edited by sfarrar33 (2007-03-09 09:28:14)
And who was it that decided to give them the land in the first place? I believe it was under a British mandate. While it may be the case the Brits did not have the right to give them the land, the land was not simply taken by Israel. It was assigned to them under a failed colonialism policy in that region. We both know our history better than that. Failed the European colonialisms in the 19th and early 20th centuries forcing bad borders. Tens of millions of people who wish to live together are divided and hundreds of thousands who wish to live apart are forced together. They did not take into account the amount of affinities or hatred of the local population. It is true that the majority of support Israel receives is from the US. But I assure you this conflict is not "due entirely to the backing of the US". The British planted this bomb. The UN allowed it to explode. The expansion is wrong, but you have to look further back to understand it. Cause and effect.Bertster7 wrote:
For a start, we're both talking about different land, which confuses matters a bit. They took land during the war, which was a result of the Arab rejection of the partition plan. But Israel itself (even within the borders laid out by the partition plan) was taken, rather than given. Once the sustained campaign of terrorism drove the British from Palestine the Zionist organisation along with it's militant/terrorist branches were the dominant force in the region and declared Israel a state 1 day (I think) before the mandate had expired.Kmarion wrote:
That was my question. Didn't they take it during the war? Or was the war a result of them taking the land? I think it should be returned of course if there is to be any chance at peace.Bertster7 wrote:
I didn't go that far.
I only got upto the original partition plan, which of course was rejected by the Arab states and led to the war in which Israel expanded its borders beyond those laid down by the UN.
I was speaking of how Israel were not given the land, they took it and declared it their own. Only after that fact, and due entirely to the backing of the US, was the state of Israel given any kind of international legitimacy.
That is the taking of land I was refering to. They have also continually taken more and more land over the years, expanding Israel and pushing back the borders of Palestine.
None of these actions have been legal or, in any normal sense, moral.
I am speaking terms of the origin of the problem of course. There probably is some confusion if you are speaking directly to the expansion. I had already declared my disapproval at that though. I am aware that the US has a history of vetoing any resolution against Israel. I wonder why the UK has a history of abstaining from a vote that involves a nation state in which they played a critical role in creating. Perhaps that should be a question you should be asking as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6430951.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258000,00.html
BBC poll biased? Here's Brazil's response to the visit of Bush!
Of course the spin FOX puts on it is that they were 'communists' although if you take a look at FOX's photos of the event you won't see one communist flag - just flags about Iraq and American military misadventure outside its own borders.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258000,00.html
BBC poll biased? Here's Brazil's response to the visit of Bush!
Of course the spin FOX puts on it is that they were 'communists' although if you take a look at FOX's photos of the event you won't see one communist flag - just flags about Iraq and American military misadventure outside its own borders.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-09 00:21:29)
The Brazillians are just desperate to get close enough to shake his hand and congratulate him on how great they think he is. They've even been letting off fireworks. It's a celebration of American love!
I think Bush is in Brazil to talk about Ethanol. The Brazilians have it down to a fine art. They use Sugar cane were as US farmers use corn stalks. It takes more energy to harvest the corn than it saves.
I think Brazil uses 80% ethanol to power its cars.
Bush wants south America to produce more ethanol and this visit is to boost his green credentials. But I don't think he is there to save the planet but is trying to drive town the price and demand for Venezuelan oil in the area.
I think Brazil uses 80% ethanol to power its cars.
Bush wants south America to produce more ethanol and this visit is to boost his green credentials. But I don't think he is there to save the planet but is trying to drive town the price and demand for Venezuelan oil in the area.
Well, Brazil is already frustrated about USA's foreign policy. Did you know that Brazil has to pay 500 Pounds - 1000 dollars - extra to get a working visa in the USA than any other country? You know why? Neither do most Brazilians. Brazil rose their prices as the US prices rose (for visas, I think), so the USA decided to have 'the last word'. Great stuff.
-konfusion
-konfusion
The British didn't give them the land. That's the whole point. They took it. There is an enormous difference to being given leave to immigrate, under the condition your presence does not prejudice the rights of the indigenous populace, and being given leave to take over a country and rule it. They were never given the land.Kmarion wrote:
And who was it that decided to give them the land in the first place? I believe it was under a British mandate. While it may be the case the Brits did not have the right to give them the land, the land was not simply taken by Israel. It was assigned to them under a failed colonialism policy in that region. We both know our history better than that. Failed the European colonialisms in the 19th and early 20th centuries forcing bad borders. Tens of millions of people who wish to live together are divided and hundreds of millions who wish to live apart are forced together. They did not take into account the amount of affinities or hatred of the local population. It is true that the majority of support Israel receives is from the US. But I assure you this conflict is not "due entirely to the backing of the US". The British planted this bomb. The UN allowed it to explode. The expansion is wrong, but you have to look further back to understand it. Cause and effect.Bertster7 wrote:
For a start, we're both talking about different land, which confuses matters a bit. They took land during the war, which was a result of the Arab rejection of the partition plan. But Israel itself (even within the borders laid out by the partition plan) was taken, rather than given. Once the sustained campaign of terrorism drove the British from Palestine the Zionist organisation along with it's militant/terrorist branches were the dominant force in the region and declared Israel a state 1 day (I think) before the mandate had expired.Kmarion wrote:
That was my question. Didn't they take it during the war? Or was the war a result of them taking the land? I think it should be returned of course if there is to be any chance at peace.
That is the taking of land I was refering to. They have also continually taken more and more land over the years, expanding Israel and pushing back the borders of Palestine.
None of these actions have been legal or, in any normal sense, moral.
I am speaking terms of the origin of the problem of course. There probably is some confusion if you are speaking directly to the expansion. I had already declared my disapproval at that though. I am aware that the US has a history of vetoing any resolution against Israel. I wonder why the UK has a history of abstaining from a vote that involves a nation state in which they played a critical role in creating. Perhaps that should be a question you should be asking as well.
The land was simply taken by Israel. That is beyond question. For a long time prior to the establishment of the state of Israel the British were trying to prevent immigration into Palestine, because there was a massive flood of illegal Jewish immigration, often known as Aliyah Bet. The British pulled out because of a sustained terror campaign which meant it cost more to maintain order in the region. It is a shame that the British did withdraw allowing the Jewish militants to seize power.
Why did the British abstain rather than veto? Pressure from the US who we owed big time.
It is due entirely to the backing from the US - if the US had not backed Israels claims to statehood from the start, then no one else would've done and Israel would not be recognised. Although it's hard to say exactly what would've happened in those circumstances.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-09 07:43:38)
The 33 countries that voted in favour of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukranian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela.
After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration.
The US was not a member of UNSCOP. So how could the creation of Israel be "due entirely to the backing from the US"?
After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration.
The US was not a member of UNSCOP. So how could the creation of Israel be "due entirely to the backing from the US"?
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-09 14:16:36)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Because the immediate backing of the US after the creation of the Israel gave their illegal actions some semblance of legality. This is what prompted the UN to act as it did. None of these things would have happened if Israel (or the Jewish state, as Truman calls it in his letter backing them) had not been given that initial backing by the US, which led to backing by Russia soon after (the only reasonable explanation for Russia backing the nation - Stalin had never looked favourably on Zionism even going so far to create a less reactionary Soviet Jewish homeland - the Jewish Autonomous Oblast). Without such international weight behind them the state of Israel would never have come to exist and the US set the ball rolling on accepting the state as being legitimate.Kmarion wrote:
The 33 countries that voted in favour of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukranian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela.
After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration.
The US was not a member of UNSCOP. So how could the creation of Israel be "due entirely to the backing from the US"?
None of it would have happened without the US's initial backing and so the creaton of Israel is "due entirely to the backing from the US".
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-10 06:35:09)
So let me get this straight,Bertster7 wrote:
Because the immediate backing of the US after the creation of the Israel gave their illegal actions some semblance of legality. This is what prompted the UN to act as it did. None of these things would have happened if Israel (or the Jewish state, as Truman calls it in his letter backing them) had not been given that initial backing by the US, which led to backing by Russia soon after (the only reasonable explanation for Russia backing the nation - Stalin had never looked favourably on Zionism even going so far to create a less reactionary Soviet Jewish homeland - the Jewish Autonomous Oblast). Without such international weight behind them the state of Israel would never have come to exist and the US set the ball rolling on accepting the state as being legitimate.Kmarion wrote:
The 33 countries that voted in favour of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukranian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela.
After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration.
The US was not a member of UNSCOP. So how could the creation of Israel be "due entirely to the backing from the US"?
None of it would have happened without the US's initial backing and so the creaton of Israel is "due entirely to the backing from the US".
1) The Brits established the mandate that allowed the Jews to immigrate to Palestine in the first place.
2) In 1922 the league of nations approved the Palestine Mandate which said "Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including securing the establishment of the Jewish national home, and safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
These two actions are what I deem as "getting the ball rolling." Neither of which had anything to do with Truman. Enitrely due to the US? I don't think so.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Canada is the nation with the most positive image? Awesome...
OK, 1) isn't true - The League of Nations established it.Kmarion wrote:
So let me get this straight,Bertster7 wrote:
Because the immediate backing of the US after the creation of the Israel gave their illegal actions some semblance of legality. This is what prompted the UN to act as it did. None of these things would have happened if Israel (or the Jewish state, as Truman calls it in his letter backing them) had not been given that initial backing by the US, which led to backing by Russia soon after (the only reasonable explanation for Russia backing the nation - Stalin had never looked favourably on Zionism even going so far to create a less reactionary Soviet Jewish homeland - the Jewish Autonomous Oblast). Without such international weight behind them the state of Israel would never have come to exist and the US set the ball rolling on accepting the state as being legitimate.Kmarion wrote:
The 33 countries that voted in favour of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukranian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela.
After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration.
The US was not a member of UNSCOP. So how could the creation of Israel be "due entirely to the backing from the US"?
None of it would have happened without the US's initial backing and so the creaton of Israel is "due entirely to the backing from the US".
1) The Brits established the mandate that allowed the Jews to immigrate to Palestine in the first place.
2) In 1922 the league of nations approved the Palestine Mandate which said "Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including securing the establishment of the Jewish national home, and safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
These two actions are what I deem as "getting the ball rolling." Neither of which had anything to do with Truman. Enitrely due to the US? I don't think so.
2) is true - to an extent. I assume what you are talking about is Article 4 of the terms of the mandate? But I can't say I agree with you about that.
An argument that could quite easily be made is that Britain neglected responsibilities to "[see] that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power" or "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights" or many similar things that did not happen and came under their list of duties, but given the events that followed the establishment of the mandate it is easy to see why they did not happen. What is much more difficult to understand is the US's blind support of the Zionist organisation following their reign of terror against a close ally.
1) Right, I encourage you to read specifically what the League of nations concludedBertster7 wrote:
OK, 1) isn't true - The League of Nations established it.Kmarion wrote:
So let me get this straight,Bertster7 wrote:
Because the immediate backing of the US after the creation of the Israel gave their illegal actions some semblance of legality. This is what prompted the UN to act as it did. None of these things would have happened if Israel (or the Jewish state, as Truman calls it in his letter backing them) had not been given that initial backing by the US, which led to backing by Russia soon after (the only reasonable explanation for Russia backing the nation - Stalin had never looked favourably on Zionism even going so far to create a less reactionary Soviet Jewish homeland - the Jewish Autonomous Oblast). Without such international weight behind them the state of Israel would never have come to exist and the US set the ball rolling on accepting the state as being legitimate.
None of it would have happened without the US's initial backing and so the creaton of Israel is "due entirely to the backing from the US".
1) The Brits established the mandate that allowed the Jews to immigrate to Palestine in the first place.
2) In 1922 the league of nations approved the Palestine Mandate which said "Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including securing the establishment of the Jewish national home, and safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
As you can see it still comes down to Britain holding up it's responsibilities.
These two actions are what I deem as "getting the ball rolling." Neither of which had anything to do with Truman. Enitrely due to the US? I don't think so.
2) is true - to an extent. I assume what you are talking about is Article 4 of the terms of the mandate? But I can't say I agree with you about that.
An argument that could quite easily be made is that Britain neglected responsibilities to "[see] that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power" or "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights" or many similar things that did not happen and came under their list of duties, but given the events that followed the establishment of the mandate it is easy to see why they did not happen. What is much more difficult to understand is the US's blind support of the Zionist organisation following their reign of terror against a close ally.
In June 1922 the League of Nations approved the Palestine Mandate with effect from September 1923. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", and "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
It should be noted I agree with the current confusion with the lack of understanding the blind support of Israel as well. When most Americans are made aware of the Billions we have given to Israel they are shocked.Where I differ is looking back throughout the entire history of the situation and saying "due entirely to the backing from the US". I just don't see that as the case entirely.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-14 15:01:52)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
1) That isn't exactly relevant. The mandate was established, along with all other class A League of Nations mandates in 1920 at the San Remo conference.Kmarion wrote:
1) Right, I encourage you to read specifically what the League of nations concludedBertster7 wrote:
OK, 1) isn't true - The League of Nations established it.Kmarion wrote:
So let me get this straight,
1) The Brits established the mandate that allowed the Jews to immigrate to Palestine in the first place.
2) In 1922 the league of nations approved the Palestine Mandate which said "Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including securing the establishment of the Jewish national home, and safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
As you can see it still comes down to Britain holding up it's responsibilities.
These two actions are what I deem as "getting the ball rolling." Neither of which had anything to do with Truman. Enitrely due to the US? I don't think so.
2) is true - to an extent. I assume what you are talking about is Article 4 of the terms of the mandate? But I can't say I agree with you about that.
An argument that could quite easily be made is that Britain neglected responsibilities to "[see] that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power" or "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights" or many similar things that did not happen and came under their list of duties, but given the events that followed the establishment of the mandate it is easy to see why they did not happen. What is much more difficult to understand is the US's blind support of the Zionist organisation following their reign of terror against a close ally.
In June 1922 the League of Nations approved the Palestine Mandate with effect from September 1923. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", and "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
But anyway, that's not the point. I see what you're getting at and I agree the British could maybe have done more to prevent things getting so out of hand. You must remember that they were under attack from terrorists for decades until they gave up and went home, which was actually when the mandate expired (well, one day early) and along with it their (legal) responsibilities.
What happened next is what really shocks me. When the Zionist organisation declared themselves head of the nation of Israel, the rest of the world should, and I believe would, have been pissed off and done something about it, but there was no time for anyone to be shocked by that announcement because about a minute later they had full US backing and no one is going to do anything to stop them with that.
Wow , yeah, God bless America indeed. Dont flatter yourself mate. This is where people get this impression of Americans, people coming out with crap like that.superfly_cox wrote:
How quickly people tend to forget things like:
1) WWI
2) WWII
3) Reconstruction of Europe/Japan
4) Cold War/Communism
Nothing the US has done in the past 15 years warrants a world poll that puts the USA in such negative company.
Look at all those countries that were polled and if you put their collective positive accomplishments from the past 100 years together you would no even come close to what the USA has done for modern civilization.
You want to disagree with US policy. Fine. But show some fucking respect and don't group em with Iran and North Korea cause its American money and blood which allows most of us around the world to be where we are today.
Hands down, america is the most hated country in the world...
you dont need a corporate sponsored fixed poll to know..
You just need to live in reality..
...They are all so high on cocaine they think their bullshit washes with the rest of the world..ie..they think we're all dumb.
you dont need a corporate sponsored fixed poll to know..
You just need to live in reality..
...They are all so high on cocaine they think their bullshit washes with the rest of the world..ie..they think we're all dumb.
I think most people "do" judge america on its population...brainwashed, apathetic, greedy, lazy, selfish, dishonest, spiteful and vindictive and vengeful...oh, and without any sense of decent morals.Drexel wrote:
Ok, I've read up to page 5 but times running out for me to post, so I will without finishing the rest. Here are my quick overviews and responses that I remember to post:
This is obviously a post about how people outside of America hate America. This country was based on freedoms and the pursuit of happiness. We tended to stay out of wars until it was affecting us directly. (This is why we didn't join the world wars until late) We broke out the Atomic Bomb on Japan because it was the only way to defeat them. Their armies would fight to the death, and if we were to try to take mainland Japan, the Americans would have had the biggest death toll of the war.
The world is a unified economy, this statement is true. We are very successful and because of this America wants to protect this. Think of it as a game of BF2, you are all working together on your team, but if you see an opportunity to go and get some extra points at the same time, wouldn't you go do it? If someone was going for your UAV trailor, would you just let him blow it up and then go repair it? No, you'd defend it forthright and save yourself time and effort. What I mean by this is, yes, America is working with the world economy, but we're not just going to sit back and let other countries come in and disrupt our workings. I admit, I feel that the war in Iraq is mainly a quest for oil, but still, if not doing anything causes our economy to slip and sending troops over causes the economy to grow, which would you choose.
I admit, I'm one of those people who think along the lines of "If they aren't attacking us, why interfere? That's how the country was founded." But don't get me wrong, I will never disrespect our troops who risk their lives every second being in hostel territory. I may disprove the war, but we're in it, and so is my support.
Don't judge a country because of who runs it. I'm sure most Germans during WWII were noble people, but because of one group of people, it will forever be marked in history. Same goes for America and every other country that exists. Don't judge a country by their politicians, rather their populations.
i tend to think of america collectively as a big vicious,evil machine that wants to corrupt & hurt everything it comes in to contact with..for no reason other than self glorification..
Seriously man.Superglueman wrote:
I think most people "do" judge america on its population...brainwashed, apathetic, greedy, lazy, selfish, dishonest, spiteful and vindictive and vengeful...oh, and without any sense of decent morals.Drexel wrote:
Ok, I've read up to page 5 but times running out for me to post, so I will without finishing the rest. Here are my quick overviews and responses that I remember to post:
This is obviously a post about how people outside of America hate America. This country was based on freedoms and the pursuit of happiness. We tended to stay out of wars until it was affecting us directly. (This is why we didn't join the world wars until late) We broke out the Atomic Bomb on Japan because it was the only way to defeat them. Their armies would fight to the death, and if we were to try to take mainland Japan, the Americans would have had the biggest death toll of the war.
The world is a unified economy, this statement is true. We are very successful and because of this America wants to protect this. Think of it as a game of BF2, you are all working together on your team, but if you see an opportunity to go and get some extra points at the same time, wouldn't you go do it? If someone was going for your UAV trailor, would you just let him blow it up and then go repair it? No, you'd defend it forthright and save yourself time and effort. What I mean by this is, yes, America is working with the world economy, but we're not just going to sit back and let other countries come in and disrupt our workings. I admit, I feel that the war in Iraq is mainly a quest for oil, but still, if not doing anything causes our economy to slip and sending troops over causes the economy to grow, which would you choose.
I admit, I'm one of those people who think along the lines of "If they aren't attacking us, why interfere? That's how the country was founded." But don't get me wrong, I will never disrespect our troops who risk their lives every second being in hostel territory. I may disprove the war, but we're in it, and so is my support.
Don't judge a country because of who runs it. I'm sure most Germans during WWII were noble people, but because of one group of people, it will forever be marked in history. Same goes for America and every other country that exists. Don't judge a country by their politicians, rather their populations.
i tend to think of america collectively as a big vicious,evil machine that wants to corrupt & hurt everything it comes in to contact with..for no reason other than self glorification..
I may not like some of America's attributes or their policies, but they are the greatest nation on this planet for a reason - and I don't think it's because they're all snake oil bastards.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
oh and by the way, i never revisit my posts after i post them, so flame away...to your hearts content.
swedish all hate them
America is ahead of other countries simply for 1 reason...
They had Henry Ford who developed the assembly line. In other words, they got a head start by around 50 years.
Nothing to be proud of.
They had Henry Ford who developed the assembly line. In other words, they got a head start by around 50 years.
Nothing to be proud of.
Alpha as fuck.