[Gio]

It seems to me that there are a lot of negative feelings about the U.S. from numerous people around the world. Most of the negativity that I have recognized has come from Europe. Now the only reason I am posting this topic is to see what the other members of this forum that live outside of the states think about the U.S. And if there are negative feelings, I want to know why. I am not trying to argue with any of you about. This is just to feed my curiosity on this matter.

[Moonear]

Actually, I'd have to day that tons of negativity has been coming from the Middle East and it probably will be for a long time. They have good reasons to feel hostile towards us though. We've invaded there several times, poked our nose in their business, and tried to force democracy on them.

I love this Jay Leno quote:

"There's this new book out that lists all the countries that hate America. It's called the World Atlas."

[Gio]

I will definitely agree with that quote. I just want to know why everyone hates us. I mean middle eastern negativity is simply self-explanatory, I want to know why European countries feel negativity towards us.

[Caael]

Because you're wankers. I have no idea how it started, but its recent.

[TheEnglishman]

I wouldn't go that far, but it's true there's a general dislike. Mpst people dislike the control the US has over world events because of its size. There's also a dislike of American patriotism. It feels forced. When you have to have holidays like Thanksgiving and do things like the Pledge of Alligence, it feels like you're being orderedto be proud. I'm perfectly happy to wave the Union Jack without all that stuff needed to motivate me.
I think the main reason for European dislike is the 'We saved your ass in World War II,' attitude. Whilst I don't deny that that American support was essential in winning the war, but it doesn't help that a number of games and movies produced since just happen to show America going toe-to-toe with Hitler, whilst there is little or no mention of the Allies.
Overall I'd say I like Americans, but I'm not wild on the country itself. I certainly wouldn't choose to live there, maybe just to visit.

[Kuchiyose]

I live in the European area (England to be precise) and I don't have any negative feeling against the U.S, however I think the reason why the European countries have the most negativity towards America is because there jealous? Well America is one of the richest countries in the world, has its own independence, popular areas (Hollywood, MountRushmore), has a massive chunk of the world. I think the other countries are jealous, maybe the reason there is negativity from other countries.

[Moonear]

I really don't think there is any jealousness towards the US. As Me111 said, Europe probably dislikes our attitude and excessive patriotism combined with our invasive and controlling ways.

[TheEnglishman]

I'd agree with that. If there is any jealousy, I think it comes from the US's influence.

[Someone Else]

Right now there's a lot more bad about our country than there is right. If you can't see that then you're a Republican, and a stupid one at that. Really, what has America done for the benefit of the world, since, gee, the fall of the Soviet Union? What has America done in the past 10 years for the benefit of anyone besides itself?

[TheEnglishman]

The US does get involved in affairs around the world, in which it can be seen as intrusive rather than helpful. I would say that, no matter what your opinion is on the Iraq war, they did remove Saddam Hussain from power and I'm in no doubts that they were right to do that.

[Caael]

I can answer this in one word:

Bush.

[Gio]

Wind Dude, on Feb 20 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

Right now there's a lot more bad about our country than there is right. If you can't see that then you're a Republican, and a stupid one at that. Really, what has America done for the benefit of the world, since, gee, the fall of the Soviet Union? What has America done in the past 10 years for the benefit of anyone besides itself?

Well before for I state what good that America has done in the past ten years I would like to say that the job of our government is to look out for the interests of OUR nation. Not England's or France's interests. I don't see anywhere in constitution that requires use to help other people...do you? Also I don't really see any country making any attempts to help the U.S. with things that we want to do. Know don't you think there should be a little give and take? There isn't and it is always going to be that way. While I will say that it is good to give to people, people are naturally selfish and always will be. Meaning that this country and every other country will always be naturally selfish.

Now about the good we have done in the world. Well let's see, like it was said earlier, we removed Saddam Hussein from power, we are making an attempt to subdue terrorism in the world, we having the largest food surplus of any country in the world and we use it to send aid to countries that need it, for example we sent aid to the tsunami victims.

[Eugine]

NASA outweighs all the bad of the US. Naw...

Anyway, Gio, your last post possibly paints the entire picture.
Always for the US best interest, rather than the respective countries best interest. The US main aim is to stay on top at all cost. Unfortunately at the rate the US is going, it is destined to be the shortest lived superpower.

It really amazes me how Canada, the country which will benefit the most from Global Warming is actually sacrificing economic development to save the world. Noble. The republicans can care less about global warming.

And yeah, it is great to see that the US still has great people. Unfortunately, most of the time it is used as leverage. "I slap your back, so you slap mine when I need.".

[Gio]

Well how would you feel if the government of your country was serving the U.S. cause? And don't feed me that crap that if it betters the world we live in.

[Someone Else]

Gio, on Feb 20 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

Well before for I state what good that America has done in the past ten years I would like to say that the job of our government is to look out for the interests of OUR nation. Not England's or France's interests. I don't see anywhere in constitution that requires use to help other people...do you? Also I don't really see any country making any attempts to help the U.S. with things that we want to do. Know don't you think there should be a little give and take? There isn't and it is always going to be that way. While I will say that it is good to give to people, people are naturally selfish and always will be. Meaning that this country and every other country will always be naturally selfish.

I'd like you to meet:

Quote

It really amazes me how Canada, the country which will benefit the most from Global Warming is actually sacrificing economic development to save the world. Noble. The republicans can care less about global warming.

So much for the US being progressive.

[Gio]

Wind Dude, on Feb 20 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

I'd like you to meet:

why's that?

[Eugine]

Even if I do not show it, the Caribbean and Latin/South America (except Cuba, Venezuela, and possibly Brazil) are actually pro-America.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with being pro-America. I just think its a one way relationship x.x (benefits the US more).
I dunno if there are any clause with our EU/China relationship (I'm actually getting annoyed with our Chinese relationship >>), but the EU has done way more for us man. Far more than the US actually.

The US also has some strange policies. China, Russia and Venezuela has far less human rights than Cuba, yet they create embargos on only Cuba.
Yeah, we love democracy! Yet it is in bed with Pakistan. Batista was faaar more ruthless than Fidel, yet they had no embargos.

My point: The US doesn't really care, as long as the they benefit. That's why I love Barack. He realises this, and is willing to work things out.

[Gio]

Obama gives empty speeches. I don't see how anybody knows anything about his policies. All he does is speak and yet nothing is said.

[Eugine]

Care to reply to my other points also? I really want to understand the American logics x.x

[Gio]

It depends on the person you talk to. PM me tomorrow to remind and I will post on your other topics. I want to get my thoughts straight so it doesn't come out like a bunch of insults.

[Eugine]

Well, yeah. Honestly want to hear the logics from a 'conservative'.

[Gio]

I PMed you eugine. Please just remind me tomorrow.

[Toasty]

Me111, on Feb 20 2008, 08:56 AM, said:

I wouldn't go that far, but it's true there's a general dislike. Mpst people dislike the control the US has over world events because of its size. There's also a dislike of American patriotism. It feels forced. When you have to have holidays like Thanksgiving and do things like the Pledge of Alligence, it feels like you're being orderedto be proud. I'm perfectly happy to wave the Union Jack without all that stuff needed to motivate me.
I think the main reason for European dislike is the 'We saved your ass in World War II,' attitude. Whilst I don't deny that that American support was essential in winning the war, but it doesn't help that a number of games and movies produced since just happen to show America going toe-to-toe with Hitler, whilst there is little or no mention of the Allies.
Overall I'd say I like Americans, but I'm not wild on the country itself. I certainly wouldn't choose to live there, maybe just to visit.

All I have to say about that, is that if anyone is in the US and isn't proud or happy to be here, then they can go live in another country that they DO like. If you're not going to support us, then don't live here.

And don't worry Me111, I know you're British, and that rant wasn't directed at you.

@Eugine: I guess my rant kind of hints at our logic. We like where we live, and we're not going to let anyone try and take our country away from us, or destory it. Not illegals, not Extremeists, and CERTAINLY not Russian Communists. That's part of the reasoning for the war in Iraq, actually.

[Eugine]

No one will destroy the US, but the US itself.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it is destroyed from within."

Fortunately, there are many Americans who realise the situation, and are fighting to change it.

[Laharl]

Quote

Roots Of Negativity Towards The U.s., from Europe

people like Toasty.

who are blinded by patriotic zeal to the point the will disagree with sound logic because its doesnt adher to their own beliefs. people who controlled bty paranoia and fear. people who'd rather 'fix' the world rather than fix their own damn country.

i like Americans who think like Wind Dude
i disliike Americans who think like Toasty

that is all

[Saturos S.]

Me111, on Feb 20 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

I wouldn't go that far, but it's true there's a general dislike. Mpst people dislike the control the US has over world events because of its size. There's also a dislike of American patriotism. It feels forced. When you have to have holidays like Thanksgiving and do things like the Pledge of Alligence, it feels like you're being orderedto be proud. I'm perfectly happy to wave the Union Jack without all that stuff needed to motivate me.
I think the main reason for European dislike is the 'We saved your ass in World War II,' attitude. Whilst I don't deny that that American support was essential in winning the war, but it doesn't help that a number of games and movies produced since just happen to show America going toe-to-toe with Hitler, whilst there is little or no mention of the Allies.
Overall I'd say I like Americans, but I'm not wild on the country itself. I certainly wouldn't choose to live there, maybe just to visit.

Mainly that and the idea that they control the world. France and Russia actually veto'd the Iraq war when America wanted them to support. They didn't want America to invade it. They went anyway, ignoring the whole point. Which made them undermine the system they helped create.

Gio, on Feb 20 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

Well before for I state what good that America has done in the past ten years I would like to say that the job of our government is to look out for the interests of OUR nation. Not England's or France's interests. I don't see anywhere in constitution that requires use to help other people...do you? Also I don't really see any country making any attempts to help the U.S. with things that we want to do. Know don't you think there should be a little give and take? There isn't and it is always going to be that way. While I will say that it is good to give to people, people are naturally selfish and always will be. Meaning that this country and every other country will always be naturally selfish.

Now about the good we have done in the world. Well let's see, like it was said earlier, we removed Saddam Hussein from power, we are making an attempt to subdue terrorism in the world, we having the largest food surplus of any country in the world and we use it to send aid to countries that need it, for example we sent aid to the tsunami victims.

The "goodness" of the Iraq war and all the other "good things" America has done is a matter of perspective. Look at the situation in Iraq now, it's unstable as hell, as divided as ever, it lives off the UN support and no country at all is willing to invest there. Why? The war.
"We went and defeated the evil lord." Wake up, this is real life. It's not going to be a Walt Disney ending, new problems arise.

But this belongs in the Iraq war topic.

[TheEnglishman]

Saturos Striker, on Feb 21 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

Mainly that and the idea that they control the world. France and Russia actually veto'd the Iraq war when America wanted them to support. They didn't want America to invade it. They went anyway, ignoring the whole point. Which made them undermine the system they helped create.

It's similar to the League of Nations during the World Wars. The idea came from Woodrow Wilson, but America didn't actually join.

[Gio]

Saturos Striker, on Feb 21 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

Mainly that and the idea that they control the world. France and Russia actually veto'd the Iraq war when America wanted them to support. They didn't want America to invade it. They went anyway, ignoring the whole point. Which made them undermine the system they helped create.
The "goodness" of the Iraq war and all the other "good things" America has done is a matter of perspective. Look at the situation in Iraq now, it's unstable as hell, as divided as ever, it lives off the UN support and no country at all is willing to invest there. Why? The war.
"We went and defeated the evil lord." Wake up, this is real life. It's not going to be a Walt Disney ending, new problems arise.

But this belongs in the Iraq war topic.

I will admit that Bush has made mistakes, but what President hasn't. I am not going to say that the war was a mistake. I will say that the way we went about going to war was a mistake. When the U.S. went to Afghanistan we had an entry and an exit plan for both failure and success. When we went to Iraq all we had was a half-baked entry plan. That in my opinion is the biggest mistake made.

Me111, on Feb 21 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

It's similar to the League of Nations during the World Wars. The idea came from Woodrow Wilson, but America didn't actually join.

The only reason America didn't join the League of Nations is because the U.S. senate said no, and personally I have mixed feelings about the UN

[Drizzy Drake]

Gio, on Feb 20 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Also I don't really see any country making any attempts to help the U.S. with things that we want to do. Know don't you think there should be a little give and take? There isn't and it is always going to be that way. While I will say that it is good to give to people, people are naturally selfish and always will be. Meaning that this country and every other country will always be naturally selfish.

.eugine, on Feb 20 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

It really amazes me how Canada, the country which will benefit the most from Global Warming is actually sacrificing economic development to save the world. Noble. The republicans can care less about global warming.

And yeah, it is great to see that the US still has great people. Unfortunately, most of the time it is used as leverage. "I slap your back, so you slap mine when I need.".

PWND.

America is the most selfish country in the world, even more selfish than Middle-Eastern countries.

[TheEnglishman]

America seems to get involved in the affairs of others when they don't ask for it.
@Gio: What don't you like about the UN?

[Gio]

.eugine, on Feb 20 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Even if I do not show it, the Caribbean and Latin/South America (except Cuba, Venezuela, and possibly Brazil) are actually pro-America.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with being pro-America. I just think its a one way relationship x.x (benefits the US more).
I dunno if there are any clause with our EU/China relationship (I'm actually getting annoyed with our Chinese relationship >>), but the EU has done way more for us man. Far more than the US actually.

The US also has some strange policies. China, Russia and Venezuela have far less human rights than Cuba, yet they create embargos on only Cuba.
Yeah, we love democracy! Yet it is in bed with Pakistan. Batista was faaar more ruthless than Fidel, yet they had no embargos.

My point: The US doesn't really care, as long as the they benefit. That's why I love Barack. He realises this, and is willing to work things out.

I will agree with you that when it comes to the economy that we have some really strange policies. The main reason I think we have embargos against just Cuba is because we helped put Fidel into power and we thought he was going to create a democracy, but he lied to us and created the dictatorship. I think that is why we have embargos. I don't disagree or agree with it. I really have no opinion. I don't like China and I don't think I ever will, and I don't like trading with them because it hurts the American companies

(btw i am not 100% conservative)

Quote

America seems to get involved in the affairs of others when they don't ask for it.
@Gio: What don't you like about the UN?

I don't nesacerilly dislike the UN. I dislike the confrontation and the large amount of disagreements it causes between countries. I realize that the UN was created for a good cause, but sometimes things aren't all that great and sometimes they are.

[Eugine]

Don't think the US helped Fidel gain power over Cuba, but I'm not sure.

Gio, on Feb 21 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

I don't like China and I don't think I ever will, and I don't like trading with them because it hurts the American companies

Wait...

Gio, on Feb 17 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

Our economy is a capitalist economy and was created by the great Adam Smith and it is based on free entrepreneurship which would me that businesses are mostly privately owned(as capitalism says they should be) and therefore have the right to ship the jobs in their business anywhere they like granted they have the money to do so.

So, what exactly is your position?

[Gio]

Basically I think they have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Sorta weird isn't it?

[Eugine]

Alright. So do you agree or disagree with democrats removing tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas (to China), and putting them on companies who keep jobs in the USA?

[Gio]

I don't know.

I would have to think about it. I could see how it would help to promote free Enterprise. but I don't like our jobs shipped overseas. I haven't quite figured out where I stand here.

[Eugine]

Gio, on Feb 20 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

Well before for I state what good that America has done in the past ten years I would like to say that the job of our government is to look out for the interests of OUR nation. Not England's or France's interests. I don't see anywhere in constitution that requires use to help other people...do you? Also I don't really see any country making any attempts to help the U.S. with things that we want to do. Know don't you think there should be a little give and take? There isn't and it is always going to be that way. While I will say that it is good to give to people, people are naturally selfish and always will be. Meaning that this country and every other country will always be naturally selfish.

But isn't the democrats policy looking out for the interests of YOUR nation?

[Gio]

Yes I would have to say so in this case.

but I don't like China ^_^

[Eugine]

Anyway, so um, why are you and Toasty protraying the democrats as the party that is destined to send America to its doom?

Anyway, don't really dislike China myself. I just love democracy, and dislike communism. I do know, if the trend continues, they are destined to be the next super power. China is basically buying out the entire world (including the US).

[Gio]

I think that terrorists will rejoice the day a democrat comes into office. I believe that the terrorist will do something to the U.S. an the dems will let them get away with it.

[Toasty]

laharl the slayer, on Feb 21 2008, 05:47 AM, said:

people like Toasty.

who are blinded by patriotic zeal to the point the will disagree with sound logic because its doesn't adhere to their own beliefs. people who controlled bty paranoia and fear. people who'd rather 'fix' the world rather than fix their own damn country.

i like Americans who think like Wind Dude
i dislike Americans who think like Toasty

that is all

You mean sound logic like global warming right? Or maybe the whole 9/11 conspiracy? Yeah, that's sound. Heck, the only reason why we went into Iraq was for oil! ^_^

I could care less about whether or not the "sound logic" adheres to my own beliefs. I care FAR more about keeping my OWN country on it's feet. I want the US to give one final big push in Iraq and get the dang thing over with. Pulling out not only is a stupid and retarded idea, it's unacceptable. And NOT because it doesn't "adherer to my belief's," but because pulling out will make all of the lost lives worth nothing, and will make people hate us EVEN MORE. Whether we stay or go, people will hate us.

I don't care about fixing the world. They have their own effing problems that they're more than capable of fixing themselves. But there are terrorists in the Middle East who are bent on killing us all, Chinese who want to Nuke us, and Russians who want to become the new world power and control everyone. So we're kinda FORCED to put our noses into our ENEMY'S business.

And I'm not one to be scared of anything but being useless. Paranoia and fear of anything but being useless does not control me.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Feb 22 2008, 08:45 AM, said:

You mean sound logic like global warming right? Or maybe the whole 9/11 conspiracy? Yeah, that's sound. Heck, the only reason why we went into Iraq was for oil! ^_^

Global warming is fact, the cause is debatable.

Toasty, on Feb 22 2008, 08:45 AM, said:

I don't care about fixing the world. They have their own effing problems that they're more than capable of fixing themselves. But there are terrorists in the Middle East who are bent on killing us all, Chinese who want to Nuke us, and Russians who want to become the new world power and control everyone. So we're kinda FORCED to put our noses into our ENEMY'S business.

And I'm not one to be scared of anything but being useless. Paranoia and fear of anything but being useless does not control me.

I'll agree on the Russian and Middle East threat. But the Middle East is too hidden to effectively do anything, Afganistan and Iraq were both examples of that. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't do anything. I just want something effective to happen there. How? No idea, that's the problem.

Russia is starting to become a threat. The elections there a month ago were a good example of that. It shows how much power Poetin has there. He's starting to ignore EU/UN will and keeps pushing it further.

Chinese wanting to nuke you seems a bit extreme. There might me extremists movements in China who have plans like that. But blaming a whole government is a bit too much, especially without evidence of sort.

[Eugine]

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD STABILITY!
(If you want an ignorant debate, bring it on!)

Come on, I don't like Russia either, but you are being really ignorant in the issue. The USA has done many atrocities, and you just defend them.

It's so great to see that your 'conservative' base is a dieing base. Honestly, I've always liked republican principles, but I have no idea how you think the neocons like George Bush are doing any good. Fortunately, you represent only 20% of Americans.

Oh, and sorry Gio. I know you are a conservative also, but people like Toasty just get me worked up >>. Atleast you aren't being arrogant on the issue.

[Gio]

I understand and agree with a lot of toasty's points and I admire his patriotism. Unlike him though I have been trying to make my debating tatics a bit less aggressive than normal. I usually get really worked up and I have been trying to fix that.

[Toasty]

Saturos Striker, on Feb 22 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

Global warming is fact, the cause is debatable.

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear with that statement. What I meant was the whole "CO2 is causing global warming! We must sacrifice our country for something that hasn't been completely proven!"


And Eugine, name the atrocities, name the President who was in office during said atrocities, and read a nice little book titled "Liberal Fascism." You might change your mind a bit.

[Quacnar]

Does anyone besides me (please dont attack me brutally!!) think that if communism was done correctly (with everyone ACTUALLY being equal) it wouldn't be such a bad idea??

[Toasty]

The only way communism would work, is if the people in power did what the citiczens wanted. But since the people in power have the ability to do whatever they agree on, they don't have to listen to the citiczens at all if they don't want to.

It's possible, but the chances of a communism actually being good is one in a million.

[Gio]

killercoz, on Feb 23 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

Does anyone besides me (please dont attack me brutally!!) think that if communism was done correctly (with everyone ACTUALLY being equal) it wouldn't be such a bad idea??

On paper communism is the most effective type of government, but I do got to agree with toasty. As long as one man is in complete power the amount of power will get to him and he or she will do what they want not what the people want.

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Feb 23 2008, 05:34 AM, said:

And Eugine, name the atrocities, name the President who was in office during said atrocities, and read a nice little book titled "Liberal Fascism." You might change your mind a bit.

i'd say every middle east conflict and Vietnam were pretty atrocious, if you try and defend Vietnam you really are retarded and i wont be taking you seriously ever again.

as for the 'OH NOES! TEH RUSSIANS! TEH RUSSIANS!", paranoid much? or are you still bitter about a conflict that ended before you were even born?

[Someone Else]

killercoz, on Feb 22 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

Does anyone besides me (please dont attack me brutally!!) think that if communism was done correctly (with everyone ACTUALLY being equal) it wouldn't be such a bad idea??

In theory communism is awesome, but in actual practice... not so much. It has way too much faith that humans are inherently good (which they're not) and basically what Gio and Toasty said. Communism would only work well with a small amount of people in a smaller country.

I do agree with Socialism on the economic side a bit, we all know Capitalism isn't really a totally free market, but definitely not all of the communist ideas.

[Toasty]

laharl the slayer, on Feb 23 2008, 07:56 AM, said:

I'd say every middle east conflict and Vietnam were pretty atrocious, if you try and defend Vietnam you really are retarded and i wont be taking you seriously ever again.

as for the 'OH NOES! TEH RUSSIANS! TEH RUSSIANS!", paranoid much? or are you still bitter about a conflict that ended before you were even born?

The Russians declared an arms race, despite the fact that we're not raising up an army to attack us. Oblivious much? Or are you still bent on the false idea that America is always wrong and is the most evilest country on the planet?

And the Vietnam War was a disaster. Though, if given time (a lot of time, actually), the communist government of Vietnam could've posed a serious threat. Especially so if they had gotten a hold of nukes, which thankfully, they didn't.

Basically, we didn't have a good reason to go over there, but we could have if we had waited two or so decades. By then, it's possible that they would've posed a threat, though no one can really say for sure.

On the other hand, we DO have a good reason for being in Iraq. Despite what your conspiracy prone mind may think, we're not there to terrorize the residents. We're there to obliterate the terrorist cells which hate our guts to the point that they'd go kamikaze on our asses without a second thought.

In many ways, this is sort of like the Vietnam war, only instead of going over to the middle east earlier when we only had assumptions and hadn't been attacked, we went when we had a perfectly good reason to. Though I'll say this again, it can't be said for certain if the Vietnamese government would've attacked us if given the chance.

[Gio]

Also another reason we went to Iraq is because we believed they had nuclear weapons. They didn't and I will give you that, but we did discover facilities that were specifically built to house nuclear weapons, so even though there were no nuclear weapons, there was still and intent to get them.

[Eugine]

Wait, then why aren't you guys invading N Korea, Iran, Russia or Cuba?

[Gio]

Probably has to do with the fact that Saddam Husain posed a bit of a problem for the older Bush and his son probably had a bit of suppressed hate towards Saddam.

[Laharl]

wait a second, a country's decision decided solely by it's leader? Sounds like a dictatorship to me :b

[Gio]

ignorance shouldn't speak


Edit: Sorry that was a bit mean, ok it was really mean.

[Eugine]

But honestly, Bush never went to your congress to go to war. Doesn't congress/parliament send a country to war and not the President/Prime Minister?

[Gio]

That is true but they are allowed to due what our judicial branch calls and implied amendment or something like that. I forget the name. Basically means if multiple Presidents in the past have sent troops to other countries without declaration of war then we are not allowed to tell the president he can't do it now. It doesn't make much sense to me either. My government teacher said you have to get really deep into the topic to understand it.

[Laharl]

Gio, on Feb 23 2008, 11:29 PM, said:

ignorance shouldn't speak

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z254/laharl_the_slayer_07/Bush_O_RLY.jpg

hypocrites shouldnt speak either prick

[Eugine]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/im...kupsidedown.htm

lol.

And Gio, I am having a hard time understanding you. Shouldn't the 'past Presidents' get approval from congress in the first place?

[Gio]

Yes but they didn't and society ignored it when they did it. And so the next president figured he could do it then so on. So since sending troops to an area without congressional approval has been accepted by the society countless times for multiple presidents, the judicial branch considers it to be and implied amendment. It is just really weird.

[I'm Always BROKE]

Truely, every sort of negativity from Europe is because most Americans think of their country as the greatest and the best on the planet. Of coarse not every American is like that, but in general Americans are rather arrogant and look down on all other nations. And having Bush as a leader doesn't help either.

[TheEnglishman]

This dialogue from Destroy All Humans gives an indication of the situation.

Quote

Silhouette: Fool... do you think America is the only civilization on this planet?
Cryptosporidium: Well, all the Americans seem to think so.

There just seems to be a lack of interest in the affairs of other countries from ordinary Americans.

[Someone Else]

Have either of you been to America or talked with Americans?

If you're speaking about the Americans on the East Coast, I agree with you. :P

[TheEnglishman]

I've been to Florida before. It was pretty nice there.
America just isn't helped by the portrayal of their people as ignorant. I know that not all Americans are dumb, but when I saw a bunch of them over here before all they were interested in was 'doing Britain'. To them that meant seeing various tourist attaractions in London and leaving without even considering the fact that they could see the rest of the country.

[Someone Else]

I've been to the UK twice so far. One time it was looking at a lot of the UK and not just Britain, went to Wales and Scotland.

It's silly to stereotype American in a "generalization". Most Europeans don't understand just how HUGE America is. Culturally, some clusters of states can count for their own country. Try talking with people in the state of New York, then Texas, then California, and you'll see that they are completely different kinds of people.

[Eugine]

Yeah. I think USA is bigger than Europe?

[TheEnglishman]

Wind Dude, on Feb 24 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

I've been to the UK twice so far. One time it was looking at a lot of the UK and not just Britain, went to Wales and Scotland.

It's silly to stereotype American in a "generalization". Most Europeans don't understand just how HUGE America is. Culturally, some clusters of states can count for their own country. Try talking with people in the state of New York, then Texas, then California, and you'll see that they are completely different kinds of people.

I've got no doubt that the US is big and that people vary depending where you are. That occurs around here too.

[Toasty]

The stereotypical American, in my opinion, would be found in New York for the most part. Though not all New Yorker's are steretypical Americans.

But the lack of interest in anything but America by most Americans is also something that burns me up. So many teenagers don't even care what's going on outside of their own state, and Hollywood. The reason being that there hasn't been a reason for them to be. The Government does all of that for them. The only way that Americans like that will open up their eyes and see that there's a whole nother world out there, is if we go into a WWIII. And even then, most would still just continue to live like nothing was going on. Those are the people who don't truely care about their country, but only themselves. Those are the people I hate.

Wind Dude, on Feb 24 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

Have either of you been to America or talked with Americans?

If you're speaking about the Americans on the East Coast, I agree with you. :D

East coast and the people in Hollywood, at least. :)

Dang self absorbed child actors....

[Golden Legacy]

I'm sure this has been said before, but the United States is hated for its hypocrisy - all that arrogance and all that patriotism about how great the country is, and yet it neglects health care for 47 million of its people? All that talk of spreading 'democracy' and combating 'terror', when all its done is torn peoples and nations apart?

And don't get me started on the education system here, and how absolutely broken and neglected it is - and how far it has to go to even come close to matching the education in most developed nations.

[Toasty]

GL, there's no way in hell that America's government could afford to provide healthcare for that many people. Even if we WEREN'T in debt.

And America isn't the only hypocrit. We're just the most watched because we're the world power.

And in most cases, the said nations who we're torn apart would've annhialted eachother if we weren't there to keep them from arming their weapons. For example, even though people like to say that the turmoil in Iraq is being caused by us, it''s be a hell of a lot worse if we weren't there.

But I agree, our educational system could use a little....work.

[Saturos S.]

.eugine, on Feb 24 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

Yeah. I think USA is bigger than Europe?

LIES.

Toasty, on Feb 25 2008, 08:59 AM, said:

GL, there's no way in hell that America's government could afford to provide healthcare for that many people. Even if we WEREN'T in debt.

Because of things like this I sometimes think that America's a bit too big for their own good. One thing that kind of supports that is that the President of America is the most powerful man in the world by having control over the biggest/best equipped army of the world. I know the states all have their own little government system, couldn't the healthcare issue be fixed on state level? I know it wouldn't work in all states at the same time, but a few could start and eventually others would follow.

[Gio]

You know I have thought about that to SS. I think that there are a lot of things that the federal government really needs to just let the states handle. The only reason the states don't have as large of a say in the government as these used to, is because senators are elected by the people, where as they used to be chosen by the state legislature. By removing the states representation in our federal government, we significantly weakened their say in what goes on.

[Caael]

Having Bush in charge of the US is like putting a kid inside a massive toy shop.

I love my analogies :D

[Eugine]

I dunno about you, but I think Bush is the smartest President ever.
He does so many stuff, and no one can tell him shyt about it.

[Saturos S.]

"I wanna play with me tanks today"
"Uhmm.. mr. Bush, I wouldn't use those real tanks"
"Shuddup, I wanna play!"
"Germany and Russia don't want you playing either"
"Screw the rules, I have money too much power"

[Eugine]

Oh, Area:
Europe - 10,180,000 km²
USA - 9,826,630 km²

Close enough x3

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Feb 25 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

GL, there's no way in hell that America's government could afford to provide healthcare for that many people. Even if we WEREN'T in debt.

So clearly the government should just sit back and not try to provide healthcare for ANYONE because there are just too many people. The people don't matter nor deserve healthcare. Fair enough.

Quote

And America isn't the only hypocrit. We're just the most watched because we're the world power.

That doesn't change that the USA is the biggest hypocrite in the world. And that doesn't excuse us from not doing anything about it.

Quote

And in most cases, the said nations who we're torn apart would've annhialted eachother if we weren't there to keep them from arming their weapons. For example, even though people like to say that the turmoil in Iraq is being caused by us, it''s be a hell of a lot worse if we weren't there.

How ignorant a statement can this be? Notice that the violence erupted after our invasion and after we took down their government and brought our so-called "flawless democratic ideals".

Quote

But I agree, our educational system could use a little....work.

A little work? Let's start by getting rid of the No Child Left Behind act which had absolutely atrocious results, and then the USA still has a long way to go.

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 25 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

How ignorant a statement can this be? Notice that the violence erupted after our invasion and after we took down their government and brought our so-called "flawless democratic ideals."

No their nation was pretty much in turmoil before. Saddam was killing people just because they posed threats. They has pretty much always been turmoil there. I will admit that us going there stirred it up a lot, but we went there with good intentions of getting rid of a nuclear threat. There were facilities there built to house nuclear weapons, so even if we found no nuclear weapons, there was still the intent.

[Golden Legacy]

Gio, on Feb 25 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

No their nation was pretty much in turmoil before. Saddam was killing people just because they posed threats. They has pretty much always been turmoil there. I will admit that us going there stirred it up a lot, but we went there with good intentions of getting rid of a nuclear threat. There were facilities there built to house nuclear weapons, so even if we found no nuclear weapons, there was still the intent.

What do you mean by "turmoil"? The country was well-structured and was even flourishing in some aspects - besides having a healthy economy, it also was known for having some of the best higher-education institutions throughout the Middle East. Say what you will about Sadaam, there is no denying that he did kill a few hundred people (Kurds I believe), but he had a lid the country and kept it in control. It was much better off with him in power, instead of having thousands slaughtered and millions displaced like today.

Nuclear weapons? Facilities? Evidence please.
And even so, the point is they weren't there. No decent country in the world would invade because they think that there is maybe an INTENT to create that technology.

[Gio]

I will have to look for an article with the facilities in it. I remember seeing in on the news. Also I think that Saddam would have made a pretty good leader if he hadn't slaughtered his own people. I also believe we invaded Iraq due to poor intelligence. I believe if we had better intelligence reports we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but seeing as what has happened is done there is no use for those certain people out in the world complaining that we shouldn't have gone.

[TheEnglishman]

Gio, on Feb 26 2008, 03:44 AM, said:

I believe if we had better intelligence reports we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but seeing as what has happened is done there is no use for those certain people out in the world complaining that we shouldn't have gone.

I'd disagree with that. It would be like a murderer saying he shouldn't have a trial because he's already killed someone and they won't come back.

[Eugine]

Or, it's like a doctor giving a sick patient wrong medicine. If we found out the medicine (and dosage) was wrong, and is infact making the patient health worse, should we continue?

[Gio]

Yeah but right now we are fixing what we dorked up in Iraq. we are putting their government back together, and you can't deny that the troop surge is working.

[TheEnglishman]

In my opinion, you can only see how successful the US were when they let the country move on without their influence.

[Eugine]

Yeah Gio. I wouldn't doubt there seems to be some progress in Iraq. I dunno why, but I'm a bit skeptical though...

[Gio]

Do you have reason's to be skeptical?

I mean I won't lie to you. I think we are trying to do a good thing in Iraq, but I am skeptical to. I am not sure if Iraq can be put back together or not now.

[Eugine]

I'm a skeptical cuz it was more due to the Iraqi's themselves the violence decreased. Most signed peace treaties, and like GL indicated already, some extremists called for a cease fire.

[Gio]

Well more troops being there probably scared them into a ceasefire. I mean that would make sense. I am only guessing though.

[Eugine]

Think they stopped before the surge. Not sure.

[Gio]

The only way to know is look it up, and I don't feel like it. lol

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 25 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

So clearly the government should just sit back and not try to provide healthcare for ANYONE because there are just too many people. The people don't matter nor deserve healthcare. Fair enough.


That doesn't change that the USA is the biggest hypocrite in the world. And that doesn't excuse us from not doing anything about it.


How ignorant a statement can this be? Notice that the violence erupted after our invasion and after we took down their government and brought our so-called "flawless democratic ideals".


A little work? Let's start by getting rid of the No Child Left Behind act which had absolutely atrocious results, and then the USA still has a long way to go.

The way the government would try to provide healthcare (more specifically, the way that either Hillary or Barrack would try) would not only fail miserably, it would cost us a butt-load of cash that we need to use on other things, or at LEAST use more eficiently. The thing is, the government SHOULD NOT be in charge of healthcare. The roads that it could and will lead down are not pretty in the least.

What about Russia? They claimed that they became a Democracy, when in fact, they never stopped being commies. And how exactly are we hippocrits? We say that some countries shouldn't invade other countries? Those countries in question would be worse off than we are now for going to war with eachother, and in most cases, their reasons for going to war are for nothing more than that they just hate eachother. We got attacked by terrorists who'd be more than happy to do it again. Sitting by and letting it happen would've been THE WORST move that any President could've made, so don't tell me that we didn't have a reason to go to the middle east. Regardless of what people say, we may have taken Saddam out of power, bu we've STILL been fighting terrorist cells this WHOLE TIME.

The reason why it's not flawless, is because the guy who's in office right now is almost as bad as Saddam, and then on top of that, there's still people who don't want a Democracy because they wouldn't have power any more, thus there's the insurgents. We'll be there until the insurgents either give up, or are irradicated, and after that, once the government is stable enough to stand on it's own two feet.

By the way, the reason why there was more turmoil after we went in, is because the insurgents who want us out of there, and are thus causing the turmoil, want to have a dictatorship again. Their leaders figure that since the government is unstable, that now would be the perfect time to try and take over. THAT is where the turmoil is comming from, and NOT because "the US is being cruel to the citiczens of Iraq," because we're not. We're giving them freedom from a dictator who'd much rather kill them then talk to them.

GL, I'm not quite sure what the No Child Left Behind act did, but it's apparent that something caused our education system to decline. What we need to do is make it harder for kids to graduate. We need teachers who asctually like to teach (like my Advanced algebra teacher) and boot out the ones wo obviously don't (like my english teacher last semester who taught us NOTHING).

Golden Legacy, on Feb 25 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

What do you mean by "turmoil"? The country was well-structured and was even flourishing in some aspects - besides having a healthy economy, it also was known for having some of the best higher-education institutions throughout the Middle East. Say what you will about Sadaam, there is no denying that he did kill a few hundred people (Kurds I believe), but he had a lid the country and kept it in control. It was much better off with him in power, instead of having thousands slaughtered and millions displaced like today.

Nuclear weapons? Facilities? Evidence please.
And even so, the point is they weren't there. No decent country in the world would invade because they think that there is maybe an INTENT to create that technology.

If you call a dictator killing his own people well-structured, then sure.

There was turmoil before, and there was more turmoil after. Once we leave, there will be less turmoil, but ONLY if we finish what we went there to do in the first place.

And Gio, Weapons of Mass Destruction doesn't mean nukes alone. It means chemical weapons, dirty bombs, nukes, and biological weapons. There's a number of weapons that they had, though I don't know exactly what they are.

And GL, don't be ignorant yourself. We found proof that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time, and far more likely than not, that point in time was just before we invaded.

The UN had gone over there numerous times to search, and though they found nothing, there's a pretty good reason for it that WAY too many people would gladly overlook so that they could say that Bush didn't have proof.

Every time that the UN went in there, SADDAM HIMSELF would dictate where they looked. Do you know how EASY that would make it for him to keep them in the dark? But not only did he do that EVERY TIME, the UN did nothing to stop him from doing so, and to look where he said they couldn't.

The fact is GL, Iraq DID have WMD's, and we DID have a reason for going in there ON TOP of the WMD's. We de-throned Saddam, which saved us a lot of future problems. Did you know that Hitler built a supercannon for use on France during the second World War? Well Saddam tried to build a bigger one for use on neighboring countries. If he could build a megacannon to use on neighboring countries, then it'd ba a cinch for him to get WMD's, and ways to launch them onto US soil.

[Laharl]

................................................................................

you cant be serious about the megacannon >>;;;;

i'm getting bored of your "ONLY I AND AMERICA ARE RIGHT" views. The fact you can accuse the UN and not doing their job properly is just pathetic, as are the evermore ridiculous claims you come up with to try and justify yourself

[Gio]

Yet you said nothing to disprove anything he said.

[Laharl]

OH I'M SORRY BECAUSE I DIDNT WASTE SOME OF MY LIFE REPLYING TO HIS BULL**** THAT INSTANTLY MAKES IT ALL TRUE???????

I'm done with this bollocks, you are both irritatingly idiotic, gripped by such a zealous fervor that if the US army started raping and murdering toddlers you'd stil ****ing defend it to the last

laharl the slayer, on Feb 21 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

people like Toasty.

who are blinded by patriotic zeal to the point the will disagree with sound logic because its doesnt adher to their own beliefs. people who controlled bty paranoia and fear. people who'd rather 'fix' the world rather than fix their own damn country.

i like Americans who think like Wind Dude
i disliike Americans who think like Toasty

that is all

[Gio]

All I am saying is that he is making an argument based on what he says is right if he can back it up then cool and if he can't then so be it. My point is that all you are doing is ranting and rambling on about how everything he says is Bullsh** yet you never make a valid point yourself. I guess ignorance is bliss isn't it?

[Laharl]

dont push your luck

you clearly arent reading my posts in any detail

i'm not the one living in a deluded ignorant fantasy world where you'll do anything for your homeland and completely ignore the consequences on the rest of the world.

Well, enjoy your petty power trip because the USA is going o be history's shortest lived super power and you're only going to have yourselves. i ****ing hope that day is in my lifetime so i can laugh my arse off.

If you're so patriotic, dont you feel remorse for the inocents your military is murdering?

Of course not they're not american therefore insignificant

all the war on terror crap is just a front so america can do what it wants. I remember when yu guys "won" in Afgahnistan and claimed the Taleban had been wiped out, but now they've magicallty reappeared because you need a scapegoat to mask your own incompetence

[Gio]

I was talking about this post in particular. It had no point. Basically all it was, was a giant insult with know facts to base your opinion upon. I find that pretty low and might I add unintelligent.

laharl the slayer, on Feb 27 2008, 05:54 AM, said:

................................................................................

you cant be serious about the megacannon >>;;;;

i'm getting bored of your "ONLY I AND AMERICA ARE RIGHT" views. The fact you can accuse the UN and not doing their job properly is just pathetic, as are the evermore ridiculous claims you come up with to try and justify yourself

This post was better. You actually had a point.

Quote

dont push your luck

you clearly arent reading my posts in any detail

i'm not the one living in a deluded ignorant fantasy world where you'll do anything for your homeland and completely ignore the consequences on the rest of the world.

Well, enjoy your petty power trip because the USA is going o be history's shortest lived super power and you're only going to have yourselves. i ****ing hope that day is in my lifetime so i can laugh my arse off.

If you're so patriotic, dont you feel remorse for the inocents your military is murdering?

Of course not they're not american therefore insignificant

all the war on terror crap is just a front so america can do what it wants. I remember when yu guys "won" in Afgahnistan and claimed the Taleban had been wiped out, but now they've magicallty reappeared because you need a scapegoat to mask your own incompetence

I hope I am alive to the day the U.S. falls, for more religious reasons might I add. I will laugh alongside you, so one can hope.

[Laharl]

Gio, on Feb 28 2008, 03:41 AM, said:

I was talking about this post in particular. It had no point. Basically all it was, was a giant insult with know facts to base your opinion upon. I find that pretty low and might I add unintelligent.

flaming and baiting is always more effective than logic when dealing with zealots :b

you get some points for not being a religious zealot :/

[Gio]

Because I definitly have brought it up a whole lot.....o wait...I didn't...just once.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Feb 27 2008, 04:47 AM, said:

The way the government would try to provide healthcare (more specifically, the way that either Hillary or Barrack would try) would not only fail miserably, it would cost us a butt-load of cash that we need to use on other things, or at LEAST use more eficiently. The thing is, the government SHOULD NOT be in charge of healthcare. The roads that it could and will lead down are not pretty in the least.

Better that the cash be used for the people than for a useless war.

Quote

What about Russia? They claimed that they became a Democracy, when in fact, they never stopped being commies. And how exactly are we hippocrits? We say that some countries shouldn't invade other countries? Those countries in question would be worse off than we are now for going to war with eachother, and in most cases, their reasons for going to war are for nothing more than that they just hate eachother. We got attacked by terrorists who'd be more than happy to do it again. Sitting by and letting it happen would've been THE WORST move that any President could've made, so don't tell me that we didn't have a reason to go to the middle east. Regardless of what people say, we may have taken Saddam out of power, bu we've STILL been fighting terrorist cells this WHOLE TIME.

We are hypocrites because of our double standard - we say that other countries deserve to be "liberated", that their governments and leaders are corrupt and need to be saved, when we have so many domestic issues and flaws at home. Homelessness? Among the worst education systems in the world? Millions uninsured? The widening gap between poor and rich, and wealth inequality? Tackle those issues first.

Quote

The reason why it's not flawless, is because the guy who's in office right now is almost as bad as Saddam, and then on top of that, there's still people who don't want a Democracy because they wouldn't have power any more, thus there's the insurgents. We'll be there until the insurgents either give up, or are irradicated, and after that, once the government is stable enough to stand on it's own two feet.

Or the insurgents will continue to have reason to fight back so long as the United States interferes.

Quote

By the way, the reason why there was more turmoil after we went in, is because the insurgents who want us out of there, and are thus causing the turmoil, want to have a dictatorship again. Their leaders figure that since the government is unstable, that now would be the perfect time to try and take over. THAT is where the turmoil is comming from, and NOT because "the US is being cruel to the citiczens of Iraq," because we're not. We're giving them freedom from a dictator who'd much rather kill them then talk to them.

Nope, we're being cruel to the citizens. Don't you see the reports of US soldiers who simply shoot and kill, regardless of whether the targets are civilians or militants? The turmoil is coming from the fact that AFTER the US invaded, there was no solid government to put in its place. Notice, AFTER the US invaded. That's why there's turmoil - did you get that? I'll make it clear.

WE invaded. THEY suffered. THEY are fighting back because WE invaded.

Quote

GL, I'm not quite sure what the No Child Left Behind act did, but it's apparent that something caused our education system to decline. What we need to do is make it harder for kids to graduate. We need teachers who asctually like to teach (like my Advanced algebra teacher) and boot out the ones wo obviously don't (like my english teacher last semester who taught us NOTHING).

So basically, you agree that Bush did a @#$% job? Yes? Bush, a conservative, messed up here? Good.

Quote

If you call a dictator killing his own people well-structured, then sure.

There was turmoil before, and there was more turmoil after. Once we leave, there will be less turmoil, but ONLY if we finish what we went there to do in the first place.

And the US hasn't authorized the murders of other people? And yes, quite frankly, Saddam was accused of crimes against humanity against the Kurds, a few hundred or so were killed is what he is charged with. Compare THAT with the THOUSANDS that are dying today and MILLIONS that are displaced.

Saddam had a well-structured government, despite what he did - you COMPLETELY ignored my post when I said that under his reign, the country was so well-together that it became the center for higher education and medicine in the Middle East, and unemployment was at its lowest.

Quote

And GL, don't be ignorant yourself. We found proof that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time, and far more likely than not, that point in time was just before we invaded.

Then prove me wrong and find the evidence.

Quote

The UN had gone over there numerous times to search, and though they found nothing, there's a pretty good reason for it that WAY too many people would gladly overlook so that they could say that Bush didn't have proof.

Every time that the UN went in there, SADDAM HIMSELF would dictate where they looked. Do you know how EASY that would make it for him to keep them in the dark? But not only did he do that EVERY TIME, the UN did nothing to stop him from doing so, and to look where he said they couldn't.

The fact is GL, Iraq DID have WMD's, and we DID have a reason for going in there ON TOP of the WMD's. We de-throned Saddam, which saved us a lot of future problems. Did you know that Hitler built a supercannon for use on France during the second World War? Well Saddam tried to build a bigger one for use on neighboring countries. If he could build a megacannon to use on neighboring countries, then it'd ba a cinch for him to get WMD's, and ways to launch them onto US soil.

Find me evidence on the WMD's (and now a megacannon, what the hell?), you're trying to change history into your own words. It was never found - NEVER - wherever the UN searched, and saying or believing that there were WMDs doesn't change it to your own liking.

And taking down Saddam has turned nearly the entire world around us - we are responsible for the demise of thousands, displacement and humanitarian crises of millions, all in the name of a falsified act.

[Gio]

Quote

So basically, you agree that Bush did a @#$% job? Yes? Bush, a conservative, messed up here? Good.

our education system has sucked since I have been in school.

[Golden Legacy]

That much is true - Bush definitely made it deteriorate, however.

And I very much like how you responded to just that small, single part of my post.
~4100~

[Gio]

Quote

That much is true - Bush definitely made it deteriorate, however.

maybe, but no president has been perfect with everything.

Quote

And I very much like how you responded to just that small, single part of my post

I am tired. that would be why. lol

[Toasty]

laharl the slayer, on Feb 27 2008, 03:54 AM, said:

................................................................................

you cant be serious about the megacannon >>;;;;

I'm getting bored of your "ONLY I AND AMERICA ARE RIGHT" views. The fact you can accuse the UN and not doing their job properly is just pathetic, as are the evermore ridiculous claims you come up with to try and justify yourself

Yet you spew conspiracy theories that have been disproved many times over.

I don't think that America is ALWAYS right, but Saddam WAS trying to build a megacannon. There's PROOF of it. I was surprised when I found out about it, but it's true. Do some (unbiased, key word there Laharl) research.

And if you actually took the time to read up on the conduct of the UN, you'd find out that they're pansies bent on world peace. Something that unfortunately, is impossible. They need to wake up and smell the coffee, because the only time the world will be at peace, if you believe in Christianity, is for a little while in the beginning of the apocalypse.

And again, Laharl, before you refute my facts by claiming that I'm too biased to tell the truth, do the research yourself before you make a tard out of yourself. I have seen nothing but conspiracy theories (which haven't been proved), and claims of me and anyone else who defends America of being biased.

Don't be a hypocrite. You're more biased than I am.

laharl the slayer, on Feb 27 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

don't push your luck

you clearly aren't reading my posts in any detail

i'm not the one living in a deluded ignorant fantasy world where you'll do anything for your homeland and completely ignore the consequences on the rest of the world.

Well, enjoy your petty power trip because the USA is going o be history's shortest lived super power and you're only going to have yourselves. i ****ing hope that day is in my lifetime so i can laugh my arse off.

If you're so patriotic, dont you feel remorse for the inocents your military is murdering?

Of course not they're not american therefore insignificant

all the war on terror crap is just a front so america can do what it wants. I remember when yu guys "won" in Afgahnistan and claimed the Taleban had been wiped out, but now they've magicallty reappeared because you need a scapegoat to mask your own incompetence

Actually, you're living in a diluted, ignorant fantasy that America has, and never will do anything good for the world, nor will it make it a better place to live in.

If Bush doesn't use his executive order to open up ANWR and give support to oil refineries, then our economy will fail, and you will laugh yourself to death (finally) as we fall off the pedestal of "World Super Power."

And while we're trying to rebuild our economy you'll still be blaming us (if you didn't die from laughter) for everything that goes on in the world while Russia is in power. Believe me, if Russia becomes the next Super Power, you'll be begging to have America back.

Any soldier who unjustly murders an innocent bi-standard is convicted and either sent to prison or given the death penalty. It's not unjust as long as the person being shot at is pointing a gun at the soldier. And on top of that, I'd like you to show me a chart that shows the number of civilians killed by US SOLDIERS in the last year or so. And then show me a list of civilians killed by TERRORISTS AND INSURGENTS. Then tell me how it's a bad thing that we're killing the terrorists and insurgents.

We give hundreds of billions, sometimes trillions of dollars a year to other countries in Africa, or other 3rd world countries/countries that are in need of supplies for some reason. More than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. Yet we STILL get flak about that from people like you who are so blinded by their mindless and meaningless hate for America that they'll find anything they can, even make false accusations, just so they have something bad to say about us. So don't you dare go off saying that we don't care about people other than ourselves.

There's other terrorist cells out there who want us dead besides the Taliban, numbnuts. They weren't the only ones we were fighting in the first place. Fact is, we've been fighting them for years. You're only hearing about it now because we're over there now, and we can finally shove our foot in their asses to get them off our backs.

And besides the terrorist cells, there's insurgents in Iraq who're under the commend of people who had power under Saddam's reign, and want to take over. That's who we've been fighting the most lately.

So Laharl, quit making false accusations, quit being so biased, quit being blinded by your hatred of America, and quit being a hypocrite.