Sorry, I forgot about the coalition of the willing... America, Britain, Afrika Bambata & the Zulu Nation and a whole host of Eastern European nations that will do absolutely anything you ask for the promise that one day you might show them a picture of a pot of jam. America (and secondly Britain) were the architects and leaders of the war on Iraq. If you want to blame Poland, Australia and all the other lapdogs then you are being very selective with the truth.Pug wrote:
Well, travelling abroad isn't going to change the opinions of others. You and others once said something along the lines of "I like Americans, I just dislike the American foreign policy." So when you saw an American in your street, did you walk up to them and say "Nice day...I think Iraq sucks"? Do you honestly believe Americans are consistently prompted overseas into a political discussion on foreign policy? I don't think so.CameronPoe wrote:
I meant it in the sense that it won't (temporarily anyway, time will tell) be a domestic political liability for any of our leaders to express support for your country's policies and American tourists will no longer feel ashamed enough to wear Canadian badges on their rucksacks in order to avoid awkward conversation.Pug wrote:
When did we leave again?
The US will continue most of its policies unfortunately, no matter who's president. I'm surprised you don't see that.
@Brad - I think you're talking about a large US-only force that went into Iraq right? You know the invasion that only has US troops? Obama better get the troops out. Imagine what happens if he doesn't. Problems of a campaign promise - this time with global repercussions.
Selective with the truth? Apparently your memory sucks. True at some point Iraq support went down the tubes... Bought? Oh I get it. Like they really had no choice. (Ps. disturbs me this happens too).Braddock wrote:
Sorry, I forgot about the coalition of the willing... America, Britain, Afrika Bambata & the Zulu Nation and a whole host of Eastern European nations that will do absolutely anything you ask for the promise that one day you might show them a picture of a pot of jam. America (and secondly Britain) were the architects and leaders of the war on Iraq. If you want to blame Poland, Australia and all the other lapdogs then you are being very selective with the truth.
Your error is that the international community isn't the citizens - it's the governments. There hasn't been too much interference with US government relations, mostly the friction is due to the whining citizentry. I'm surprised you don't see that.
yeah, made me sick aswell
Obviously the International community is not the citizens themselves... the same goes for the Bush administration and the US people themselves. Thankfully Spain and Australia eventually had elections through which they could oust the regimes that capitulated so freely to US requests for assistance. The fact of the matter is that the US were quite obviously the ring leaders for the war in Iraq. It was Colin Powell who gave that tremendous presentation at the UN, it was Bush and Rumsfeld who led the push to put pressure on Iraq in the UN, it was the US who held the opinion that there was no use in waiting to see if diplomacy might succeed. All others followed your lead.Pug wrote:
Selective with the truth? Apparently your memory sucks. True at some point Iraq support went down the tubes... Bought? Oh I get it. Like they really had no choice. (Ps. disturbs me this happens too).Braddock wrote:
Sorry, I forgot about the coalition of the willing... America, Britain, Afrika Bambata & the Zulu Nation and a whole host of Eastern European nations that will do absolutely anything you ask for the promise that one day you might show them a picture of a pot of jam. America (and secondly Britain) were the architects and leaders of the war on Iraq. If you want to blame Poland, Australia and all the other lapdogs then you are being very selective with the truth.
Your error is that the international community isn't the citizens - it's the governments. There hasn't been too much interference with US government relations, mostly the friction is due to the whining citizentry. I'm surprised you don't see that.
so people are stupid and dont fact check?
And, follow this thru to the second part...was the Iraq and non-Iraq foreign policies and non-war agendas a "complete failure" due to not being part of the "international community"?Braddock wrote:
Obviously the International community is not the citizens themselves... the same goes for the Bush administration and the US people themselves. Thankfully Spain and Australia eventually had elections through which they could oust the regimes that capitulated so freely to US requests for assistance. The fact of the matter is that the US were quite obviously the ring leaders for the war in Iraq. It was Colin Powell who gave that tremendous presentation at the UN, it was Bush and Rumsfeld who led the push to put pressure on Iraq in the UN, it was the US who held the opinion that there was no use in waiting to see if diplomacy might succeed. All others followed your lead.
Or you can continue to ignore this and talk about Iraq....
lewl..............................Braddock wrote:
held the opinion that there was no use in waiting to see if diplomacy might succeed.
ahahahahahahahahahahah
holy fuck.
Don't want to talk about Iraq?Pug wrote:
And, follow this thru to the second part...was the Iraq and non-Iraq foreign policies and non-war agendas a "complete failure" due to not being part of the "international community"?
Or you can continue to ignore this and talk about Iraq....
Next subject, the economy... Shit. That's totally fucked as well.
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
He provided an excellent figure for ridicule. The comedians and satirists have never had it so good.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Don't want to talk about Iraq?Pug wrote:
And, follow this thru to the second part...was the Iraq and non-Iraq foreign policies and non-war agendas a "complete failure" due to not being part of the "international community"?
Or you can continue to ignore this and talk about Iraq....
Next subject, the economy... Shit. That's totally fucked as well.
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
Why don't you re-read how we got to this post? You're the first to talk about the economy.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Don't want to talk about Iraq?Pug wrote:
And, follow this thru to the second part...was the Iraq and non-Iraq foreign policies and non-war agendas a "complete failure" due to not being part of the "international community"?
Or you can continue to ignore this and talk about Iraq....
Next subject, the economy... Shit. That's totally fucked as well.
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....TheAussieReaper wrote:
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
Except the beltway snipers.usmarine wrote:
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....TheAussieReaper wrote:
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
lol. How did he prevent that, pray tell? What did he do?usmarine wrote:
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....TheAussieReaper wrote:
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
Voodoo.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. How did he prevent that, pray tell? What did he do?usmarine wrote:
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....TheAussieReaper wrote:
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
that didnt really affect the world or the rest of the country at all tbh. so that example fails.Bertster7 wrote:
Except the beltway snipers.usmarine wrote:
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....TheAussieReaper wrote:
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
lol...lewl...lol...lewl. how the fuck do i know. its a fact though. cant argue that.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. How did he prevent that, pray tell? What did he do?usmarine wrote:
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....TheAussieReaper wrote:
Okay, so what did Bush do that was good?
So what. It's a valid example. They were terrorists. They were even Islamic terrorists. They conducted terror attacks on US soil since 11/9 and were sentenced for terrorism.usmarine wrote:
that didnt really affect the world or the rest of the country at all tbh. so that example fails.Bertster7 wrote:
Except the beltway snipers.usmarine wrote:
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....
so what? hippies in seattle get charged with terrorism. get a grip ffs.
Yes you can, because it is plainly untrue, as I've just pointed out.usmarine wrote:
lol...lewl...lol...lewl. how the fuck do i know. its a fact though. cant argue that.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. How did he prevent that, pray tell? What did he do?usmarine wrote:
no terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.....
no....not really. you tried to fit your agenda, no matter how stupid you sound.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes you can, because it is plainly untrue, as I've just pointed out.
So your point about there being no terrorist attack on US soil since 11/9 is complete bollocks. That's what.usmarine wrote:
so what? hippies in seattle get charged with terrorism. get a grip ffs.
yes ok you win. lol. good lord.Bertster7 wrote:
So your point about there being no terrorist attack on US soil since 11/9 is complete bollocks. That's what.usmarine wrote:
so what? hippies in seattle get charged with terrorism. get a grip ffs.
And the Anthrax letter attacks, there's another one I've just been reminded of.usmarine wrote:
yes ok you win. lol. good lord.Bertster7 wrote:
So your point about there being no terrorist attack on US soil since 11/9 is complete bollocks. That's what.usmarine wrote:
so what? hippies in seattle get charged with terrorism. get a grip ffs.
ya that really was a huge attack. lolBertster7 wrote:
And the Anthrax letter attacks, there's another one I've just been reminded of.