At 11/11/13 10:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I find it quite interesting that those who are saying America is the most hated country come from countries that keep their hands clean SOLELY because they ask America to do their dirty work for them.

Canada
UK
France
Germany
et al

I'm looking at all of you.

While we're at it, let's lump Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Granted, it was a rather poor choice in supporting a megalomaniac dictator in Hussein and the Mujaheddin who beneath the surface, mostly hated each other or at least very distant towards others. That said, however, we did a solid for supplying them against both Iran and the Soviets only to backstab us from behind, and it's no wonder why much of the world hates them and carries on the stereotype that people in the Middle East {and Afghanistan} are religious psychopaths who kill at the drop of the hat.

I guess this shows how ungrateful they really are when America does a solid to them. I mean, we {and Britain} only save France twice for the Germans in the world wars, and we were the main deterrent against the Russian aggression in Western Europe during the Cold War, but to them, it didn't mean very much. Probably one of the reasons why we have to end up cleaning other people's messes is they lack the spine to do so, even if it is for their benefit or if it was their fault during the days of imperialism.

At 11/11/13 10:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I find it quite interesting that those who are saying America is the most hated country come from countries that keep their hands clean SOLELY because they ask America to do their dirty work for them.

Canada
UK
France
Germany
et al

I'm looking at all of you.

1. Those countries keep their hands clean?

2. Why does it matter where somebody's from as to whether their opinion has any merit?

3. I could just as easily say the only people defending America being the most hated country are all Americas, it doesn't mean anything. It's a pretty trivial point in the discussion.

4. I like making lists.

At 11/12/13 12:08 AM, Fim wrote: 2. Why does it matter where somebody's from as to whether their opinion has any merit?

It matters because they act as if they're holier than thou because their countries do not partake in certain acts. This is disingenuous because the only reason they don't partake is because US does it for them. IF it weren't for the US' willingness to get its hands dirty these countries would either have to get in the muck themselves or face the bad consequences (such as dramatically reduced trade) of keeping clean.

3. I could just as easily say the only people defending America being the most hated country are all Americas, it doesn't mean anything. It's a pretty trivial point in the discussion.

It's been made pretty clear that a large portion of Americans are not happy that we pick up the developed world's slack only to receive ire for doing it in return. In short, we don't like being hated for no rational reason, and therefore we have the right to respond in our favor.

At 11/12/13 12:08 AM, Fim wrote: 2. Why does it matter where somebody's from as to whether their opinion has any merit?

because they act like they're shit doesn't stink when they do the same exact shit (believe me they do) just on a lesser scale, and especially since they let the US do most of it.

3. I could just as easily say the only people defending America being the most hated country are all Americas, it doesn't mean anything. It's a pretty trivial point in the discussion.

we're not happy that for the last 16 years we've voted for idiots like Bush and Obama, but we're the only country in the world that has the balls to do shit when it comes to under and developed countries. I don't see the UK or France doing anything much less the UN (when thats its whole purpose), then we get criticized for it because some minor shit happens like some some peasant villagers die.

At 11/11/13 10:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I find it quite interesting that those who are saying America is the most hated country come from countries that keep their hands clean SOLELY because they ask America to do their dirty work for them.

Canada
UK
France
Germany
et al

I'm looking at all of you.

You are very arrogant to say that. The truth is that the USA bribes, manipulates, subjugates and ultimately oppresses other countries into submission to the American policy. Tactics used by the American's to bring countries under submission are #1 Finance and if that does not work then they bring in the Military to rule by the machine gun hand until either there is nothing left or the Government is overthrown and begins to see the American's way of thinking as the only option for survival. USA is the most roofless and dangerous Country in the world because they have so many people brainwashed into thinking that they are the good guy's. This is just how the Nazi Empire operated and as they say history repeats. Many countries today are off the American Petrol Dollar because they see the US for what they are which is Terrorist's . Terrorism ... America smelled it and they in fact dealt it.

I didn't know that 'having balls' or 'getting your hands dirty' were synonyms for aggressive illegal foreign policy...

I'm not saying my country is perfect by any means, and I challenge you to find a comment in this thread up till now where anyone criticizing the US has tried to big up their own country at the same time. In my first reply to this thread I even stipulated that every american person I've ever met has been great, and I don't hold it against the citizens whatsoever, there is a disconnect between the american people and the american government.

At 11/12/13 05:59 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: USA is the most roofless Country in the world

This statement is just wrong. Every building I have been to had a roof.

At 11/12/13 09:13 AM, Fim wrote: I didn't know that 'having balls' or 'getting your hands dirty' were synonyms for aggressive illegal foreign policy...

Here's the thing, those actions aren't illegal to begin with because most everyone either signed off on it, or are irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that everyone else seems to pass the buck when it comes to personal responsibility, we often have no choice but to be aggressive because no one else has the balls to fix the problem.

You really shouldn't defend apathy from other countries.

Let's also not forget that the US entered into Libya at the behest of the French.

The UK, France, and the Arabic Countries were begging the US to enter into Syria. These countries, so unwilling to get their hands dirty, went from begging for action to seemingly forgetting there was even a conflict at all in Syria once the US said no.

So, in short, the countries that tend to be loudest saying the US overreaches have a foreign policy of wanting to do something they know is unpopular, and then asking the US to do it for them.

At 11/12/13 11:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The UK, France, and the Arabic Countries were begging the US to enter into Syria. These countries, so unwilling to get their hands dirty, went from begging for action to seemingly forgetting there was even a conflict at all in Syria once the US said no.

No we weren't; we were dead against going to Syria and our Parliament voted against it; the loss of our support could've been one of the reasons that Obama went back on action against Syria.

We in the UK have not 'kept our hands clean', we are as complicit as the US in a hell of a lot of their stupid foreign escapades

At 11/12/13 11:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So, in short, the countries that tend to be loudest saying the US overreaches have a foreign policy of wanting to do something they know is unpopular, and then asking the US to do it for them.

There's a fundamental misconception about this in America. France was strongly against going into Iraq, and the same for Britain against going into Syria, and the French/ British public has always been strongly anti-war in middle eastern countries we don't feel we have a stake in.

However, when ex-colony of ours enters dire straits, our political establishments will favour America as a strong partner in foreign intervention. This is pretty much only the case if this country is an ex-colony. This is why America was supported by the British government in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the usually anti-American French government supported war in Vietnam, Libya and Syria. Europe doesn't speak as a monolithic block on foreign intervention, and our motivations usually have deeper roots than Americans seem to understand.

At 11/12/13 05:41 PM, AxTekk wrote: Europe doesn't speak as a monolithic block on foreign intervention, and our motivations usually have deeper roots than Americans seem to understand.

I don't really care what Europe's motivations are. The facts are still the same. There are numerous times where European countries will have a foreign policy problem and it's always up to America to fix it for them, yet after the fact, the people of these countries act as if America was the driving force and evil for acting on its own interest above the opinions of everyone else. Frankly, for a country with power the World over, America bends over backward to not step on others' toes. Does it happen occasionally by accident? Absoutely. Are there even some times where it is done recklessly or intentionally? Yeah.

Don't also forget NATO and the UN, where US world power keeps problems off of the backs of Western Europe and Canada. It is not the Canadian Navy that keeps Canada safe. It is not the threat of the French military (SCOFF) that keeps France safe. It is not the German Navy that keeps the DAL container ships safe through the gulf of Aden.

The mere existence of the US on the World stage lifts a severe amount of pressure off of the rest of the developed World.

At 11/12/13 09:23 PM, Entice wrote: but some people make it sound like we're on the edge of sending people into the gas chambers just because the NSA exists and weed isn't legal.

Bengahzi allowing US citizens to die, Killing US citizens with Drones with no Habeas Corpus or right to trial. NSA Spying on Us citizens and allies.

At 11/12/13 07:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't really care what Europe's motivations are. The facts are still the same. There are numerous times where European countries will have a foreign policy problem and it's always up to America to fix it for them, yet after the fact, the people of these countries act as if America was the driving force and evil for acting on its own interest above the opinions of everyone else.

Only point I'm trying to make is that the British/ French press and public that criticises American foreign policy is separate from the British/ French government in it's support/ opposition for various engagements. The French and British people generally want money spent at home and as few soldiers killed as possible while the French and British political classes seek to maintain order in ex-colonies. The only reason for this inconsistency in French/ British domestic foreign policy and opinion is that you're grouping together people who shouldn't be grouped together.

At 11/12/13 05:46 PM, Light wrote: This has been quite illuminating. Thanks for the information.

Glad you found the comment worth reading!

At 11/12/13 09:23 PM, Entice wrote: American citizens enjoy more freedom then almost any other country in history (personally I'd remove the 'almost').

Just out of curiosity, in what respects do you believe that Americans enjoy more personal liberty than the Dutch or the Swiss?

At 11/12/13 10:55 PM, Entice wrote:

At 11/12/13 10:53 PM, Entice wrote: I can't think of another country with looser firearm laws.

...that isn't an anarchistic wasteland

Lol fair enough. Can't say I get why loose firearm laws mean so much to you guys, but in terms of gun control I guess America is the freest country.

Do not understand how your politicians think allowing their people to possess recreational drugs is reckless and damaging to society's morality while freely purchasing instruments of death is a basic freedom. My country isn't much better though, idk.

At 11/12/13 11:07 PM, Entice wrote: As much as I'd like recreational drugs to be legal, I consider gun rights to be more important simply because they give people the ability to defend themselves.

Yeah, I guess there's some truth to that actually and if I moved to America, I would sure as hell get a gun. If there was no danger that having a gun would offer protection from though, would the right to bear arms still be as important to you? Or if you knew that adding qualifications to that right would result in more people being able to successfully defend themselves?

Step 1: make thread quoting Netanyahu quoting Kahmenei.
Step 2:
Step 2: Discussion!

You may resume your hate mongering now, or your anti-hate mongering.

I think the world is a big big place, and only a fool would believe that humanitarian concerns are anything but a variable, manipulated, and acted upon, by those who recognize and wield true power.

At 11/12/13 11:43 PM, Entice wrote: I could rant all day about this lol, but there's simply no logic behind most weapon laws

True. There are only two types of weapon laws that really make sense: registration/qualification, and total bans.

At 11/12/13 11:43 PM, Entice wrote: I think there should be qualifications, but not an outright ban. For example, I'd be fine with a law which required fully-automatic firearms to be registered so long as it meant I could own one.

already in place you need a Class III license issued by the ATF and a totally clean record, no misdemenors or anything. hell I don't think I am even qualified due to some traffic violations because its so fucking strict.

Another example comes from the National Firearms Act. If I put a stock and forward pistol grip on my handgun without getting an NFA tax stamp I'd be committing a felony, but I could go out and buy a folding pistol-caliber carbine (a roughly equivalent weapon, albeit a bit larger) without one.

not to true. you can put a pistol grip and stock one it if its third party accessories.

At 11/13/13 02:20 AM, Entice wrote: I should have worded that differently. I wish that it was legal to manufacture new full autos for civilian sale. If it was, then they'd be more affordable and I'd take what I could get.

they already do but like I said only for civilians with Class III weapon licenses (which is the HOLY GRAIL) you just have to get that and contact the maufacturer with your license information and a few background checks. and if you want a full auto just buy a AR-15 and modify the guts it only takes $100 worth of metal and a hour or two of time, and I don't see what the big deal with Full Auto is seeing as its a waste of bullets.

Not without going through some NFA bullshit

when the fuck did that happen? fucking ATF thugs.

At 11/13/13 02:40 AM, Entice wrote: From ATF website:
"An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency."

You can get a pre-ban receiver and install it in your AR but it's not really "new".

or you make your own, not like the ATF would know those idiots are so under staffed and under budgeted they are up to they're eyeballs in paperwork nearly 10 cases per field agent and it can take a year and a half to get to a single case.

thanks NRA! besides shouldn't they be worried about criminals than some dude who modified his piece?

I don't know. Fun? Accurate replicas of older weapons? I just don't see the necessity in it being illegal.

not really all that fun and not worth the wasted rounds. and they're not illegal just HEAVILY REGULATED you have to jump through alot of hoops to get em.

Not without going through some NFA bullshit

I'd guess that many people don't know about the law and install those things on their handguns anyways without getting noticed, but it's definitely been illegal for a while.

so a forward grip on a pistol is illegal what kind of retardation is that if I want to put a ergonomic grip on my pistol or AR I can what kind of bullshit is that? I don't see how thats illegal, shit then I should be getting 50 years in prison right now with my firearms.

At 11/12/13 11:43 PM, Entice wrote: I don't understand why millions of law-abiding should be stripped of their livelihoods and hobbies based on the fear of a potential crime.

Well, being British, I think that fear's at least worth a few extra bells and whistles with gun laws. However, I understand that there are a million contemporary and historical factors why both guns and federal interference are a bigger deal to Americans.

Going outside of guns: I can't carry a switchblade or a balisong but I can carry a thumb stud knife, many of which can open faster than a switchblade. This is even more hilarious in Texas because I can legally carry a fixed blade up to 5 and a half inches, which obviously "opens" faster than any folding knife.

Does sound like a great deal of unnecessary bureaucracy in this... There must be a way to efficiently streamline the system while keeping all the necessary checks in place. I mean, I would agree that handguns might not require as heavy regulation as assault weapons, but the way the system sounds now is really pointlessly complicated. Like, for example

At 11/13/13 08:40 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: not illegal just HEAVILY REGULATED you have to jump through alot of hoops to get em.

heavily regulated and having to jump though a lot of hoops shouldn't be synonymous. That's how you know you have a shitty way of regulating them lol but I guess guns are an emotive subject, so as long as the subject is being dealt with by politicians....

At 11/13/13 12:44 PM, Entice wrote: True for preban weapons, everything else is totally illegal.

they aren't illegal they are regulated you just have to get a class III weapons license.

At 11/13/13 06:33 PM, Entice wrote:

At 11/13/13 06:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: they aren't illegal they are regulated you just have to get a class III weapons license.

I really don't know what to tell yah. If a firearm is classified as a machine gun by the ATF you can't own it unless the firearm or the receiver was registered before the cutoff date in the 80s.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-machine-guns.html

There are not newly manufactured full autos for legal civilian sale in the US.

After the 80s cutoff you need a Class III to own machine guns you can legally own them its just that they are heavily regulated because the NRA lobbied and that's how it is. Of course the ATF won't tell you that on they're website.

At 11/13/13 09:10 PM, Omegeist wrote: Turkey. Everyone hates the Turks

Yeah, all my Central European/ Nordic buds are... not keen... on Turkish people. It's funny, I mean I've only been to Istanbul but the Turks there seemed cool enough. Like, a lot of hustlers but also a fair few just decent and honest people. Maybe speaking Arabic helps on that side of things though...

At 11/13/13 10:39 PM, Omegeist wrote: That's really funny because I don't actually have anything against the Turks but my statement actually came from what some European friends of mine think about the place. It just doesn't make any sense.

There might be a class of Turks over in Central European countries that are rougher I suppose, just like how there's a criminal class of Romanians in London. Says nothing about Romanians or Turks really, just that a number of them abroad turned to hustling to survive. Suppose like how a number of Mexicans turned to working ridiculous hours of honest labour for cheap in America.

Funny how the Mexicans got just as badly stereotyped as the Romanians and Turks lol.

At 11/13/13 11:27 PM, AxTekk wrote: Funny how the Mexicans got just as badly stereotyped as the Romanians and Turks lol.

As an American who grew up in a community with a large latino (and thus I assume large Mexican) population, I can tell you the stereotype of Mexicans has nothing to do with hard work.

The stereotype is born out of gang affiliation. Where in a reality it's a sad symptom of the need for immigrant parents to work extremely long hours for little pay (thus resulting in the children having little of material worth and parents who are far too often not around), the view is that Latinos are prone to having children at age of thirteen whilst being a part of the local MS13 or Mexican Mafia chapter.

In short, they're labelled for the same reason you claim Romanians are labelled in London.

At 11/13/13 11:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In short, they're labelled for the same reason you claim Romanians are labelled in London.

Enlightening, thanks man.

Although the Polish in Britain do get stereotyped for working stupid long hours for cheap. So the stupid just ended up elsewhere.

At 11/14/13 01:16 AM, GameChild214 wrote: These two

but those two are the most fun.