At 12/8/13 04:23 PM, Decky wrote: This suggests that you think the countries of the world want the US to do something about their problems. I still say that they'd rather be left alone and them maybe they'd be less of the anti-american attitude.

They'd rather be left alone, except when it's best for them to not get their hands dirty. The US does everyone a favor by being very willing to get its hands dirty to solve others' problems. The Arab League was clamoring for the US to go into Syria. Why? The Arab countries are right there, they should do it. They wated the US to do it to be able to solve their problem whilst being able to take the side of whomever won, by claiming they never did anything against Syria.

Still the war crimes should have been sorted by the UN and not the US.

In short you'd rather have the problems not solved at all?

At 12/8/13 04:23 PM, Decky wrote: This suggests that you think the countries of the world want the US to do something about their problems. I still say that they'd rather be left alone and them maybe they'd be less of the anti-american attitude.

Oh no they definitely do, and Western Europe in particular wishes it was doing as much as the US is. Biggest example being France, they constantly intervene in Western and North Africa, like invading Mali recently after the Taureg rebelled. When they began the movement to attack Libya and establish a no-fly zone, they asked the US for support because they weren't capable of doing it solely on their own. So the US mostly just fueled the British and French planes and gave them some munitions when they ran out. The #1 attack on the US I heard was that the US was being cowardly by not fighting as much themselves. It was even hilarious hearing a person from Denmark say how proud they were that their military was supporting Democracy in Libya. These same people would go back and condemn the US for doing the same things they believe in.

At 12/8/13 01:46 PM, Warforger wrote:

Strongly disagree.

I said See: Africa, but you don't have to stop there, you can go to Asia to places like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Myanmar etc. and see so many countries that Britain, the Netherlands and France fucked up and left crippled due to their policies. The US yes has done bad things, but not to the scale of Europe.

Still the war crimes should have been sorted by the UN and not the US.

Well the UN did address them but again didn't do much and let most of the war criminals go.

I don't see how it is any of America's business. You don't get foreign leaders going the the US to "sort out their problems" (I understand that there are no real human right offenses and what not to sort in America so there's no need anyway, but even if there was...).

Mostly because the US took the lead as the premier military power. NATO is a good example, each country is supposed to spend at least 5% of their GDP on military expenses, but very few countries in NATO actually do that and so the US actually has to make up for them. And again, if the US doesn't intervene people will complain that the US stood by and let all these human rights abuses happen even though they could've done something about it, if they do intervene people complain that the US is sticking its nose in affairs that don't involve it. It's a lose-lose situation because they've already made up their minds of what they think of the US i.e. they don't like it and seek a reason to not like it.

At 12/8/13 04:23 PM, Decky wrote: This suggests that you think the countries of the world want the US to do something about their problems. I still say that they'd rather be left alone and them maybe they'd be less of the anti-american attitude.

You would think so, but the problem is that they shirk from their responsibilities, (much of it is their doing) and rely on us to clean up their messes. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't become ungrateful hypocrites by bad-mouthing us for doing the things that they should've done done themselves. That's one of the reasons why we bad-mouth the French so much during the early days of the Iraq war.

Strongly disagree.

No, he's actually right. Hell, much of the problems of today started with European powers pissing around in the Middle East and in Africa, and guess who had to clean up those messes?

Still the war crimes should have been sorted by the UN and not the US. I don't see how it is any of America's business. You don't get foreign leaders going the the US to "sort out their problems"

First off, the UN wouldn't do jack shit with war crimes, which is rather toothless anyway, considering that rogue nations and terror groups don't seem to care at all. Second, it's our business because we're the only ones who acts like adults where most everyone else acts like ungrateful children, burying their heads in the sand until it's too late. It's a no win situation, if we were as apathetic as they are, then we would be crucified for doing nothing, but if we do what we're doing now, then they accusations of being warmongers and being nosy will be there.

It's very apparent that Iran wants war.

At 12/15/13 07:31 PM, Lemonardo wrote: It's very apparent that Iran wants war.

It would be rather foolish for Iran to go to any type of war with America. Especially since the new president is a moderate who seeks to re-establish diplomatic ties with the West.

At 12/17/13 11:51 AM, orangebomb wrote: It would be rather foolish for Iran to go to any type of war with America. Especially since the new president is a moderate who seeks to re-establish diplomatic ties with the West.

Pretty sure the post you're responding to was saying that it is NOT Iran that wants war, but the US.

ME thinks America is probably the most hated in actuality

At 12/29/13 06:36 PM, Light wrote:

It's either the U.S. or Israel. It probably differs in different years.

Probably america, because without america, israel would have been disestablished by its neighbors.

At 12/29/13 06:00 PM, FAN773 wrote: ME thinks America is probably the most hated in actuality

I would have thought North Korea or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe or Uganda or the Congo or Sudan, no?

At 12/30/13 08:47 PM, Light wrote:

At 12/29/13 07:07 PM, randomperson23 wrote:

At 12/29/13 06:36 PM, Light wrote:

It's either the U.S. or Israel. It probably differs in different years.

Probably america, because without america, israel would have been disestablished by its neighbors.

True, but Israel violates human rights without even being told to do so by America most of the time.

Lol Israel violates human rights? Those savages in Gaza are no better. Using civilian infrastructure like hospitals police departments and schools as missile launching sites and Israel is suppose to step back and take that?

At 12/30/13 09:26 PM, Light wrote: "Palestinians violate human rights too!"

That's irrelevant. My point is that Israel violates human rights. I never said the Palestinians were morally superior or insinuated anything along those lines, but Israel is an egregious human rights violator. There's no justification for that. None.

as does palestine but I don't see people bitch about them. israel may do it often but so does the palestinians. and out of the middle east israel is nothing compared on human rights issues than most of its neighboring countries.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm going with the US on this one. Our interventionist foreign policy isn't making us any friends, this is for sure. Not to mention, we've gained quite the habit of drone striking civilians. Did anyone else read about the wedding in Yemen that got hit? Something like 15 people got taken out. I can say with absolute certainty, if some group of foreigners came in and took out my family with a drone, I'd be one hate-filled individual.

At 12/30/13 08:47 PM, Light wrote:

True, but Israel violates human rights without even being told to do so by America most of the time.

I understand that Israel isn't afraid to kill foreigners without american approval, but without American support, Israel would have been take out long ago by its neighbors, and that is why America is more hated, because Israel would've been destroyed if it wasn't for all of that american support.

Russia probably has a worse rap in the Middle East these days than the US, except for in Egypt. They've propped up Qaddaffi and Assad, and they specifically decided to host the Olympics in a city that is symbolic of their oppression of the Chechens. They're starting to get a steady flow of suicide bombers and violence already. The US has lost the Syrian opposition to Islamists after years of drawing red lines and backtracking, which has left moderates with distaste for the West for abandoning them to their fates, but aside from that, they've generally kept their noses clean when it comes to intervention under Obama. Especially in his second term. Putin's definitely been the one sticking his dick in an anthill lately.

At 12/31/13 04:42 AM, AJ wrote: Russia probably has a worse rap in the Middle East these days than the US, except for in Egypt. They've propped up Qaddaffi and Assad, and they specifically decided to host the Olympics in a city that is symbolic of their oppression of the Chechens. They're starting to get a steady flow of suicide bombers and violence already. The US has lost the Syrian opposition to Islamists after years of drawing red lines and backtracking, which has left moderates with distaste for the West for abandoning them to their fates, but aside from that, they've generally kept their noses clean when it comes to intervention under Obama. Especially in his second term. Putin's definitely been the one sticking his dick in an anthill lately.

Um Sochi has nothing to do with Chechnya, in fact it has to do with the Circassians who had made Sochi their capital and were removed from their homeland by the Russians. They also are Muslim and were a very prominent group not just in the Ottoman Empire but also as Mamelukes across the Muslim world. Otherwise Russia already had a steady stream of suicide bombers. This wasn't going to change anything. But yah people forget that Russia and China are more unpopular.

Whoops. Meant to frame that as Caucasian Muslims in general rather than just Chechens. Nice catch.

The United States has this strange ability to think it isn't an invading force. We fund a Country built on stolen land, that we gave to people over crimes that neither the U.S., or the original owners of the land, committed. Now there were tons of other countries involved, but who has the biggest presence in the middle east now? We have our own issues to work out, and need to get out of all foreign countries. So what if some Asian country can't defend itself, so what if some Jews can't protect there holy land without our funding, it really isn't our business.

At 1/7/14 05:27 AM, ASmallOstrich wrote: The United States has this strange ability to think it isn't an invading force.

It's not strange, it's very common in fact. Everyone thinks they're liberators.

We fund a Country built on stolen land,

Which one? Turkey? France? Russia? Britain? Germany? Australia? Mexico? Burma? South Africa? The United States of America?

that we gave to people over crimes that neither the U.S., or the original owners of the land, committed.

True, but Israel was given the land according to the Mandate the Jews struck with the UK in WWI.

Now there were tons of other countries involved, but who has the biggest presence in the middle east now? We have our own issues to work out, and need to get out of all foreign countries.

That's a very common argument and it doesn't make any sense. You can solve domestic issues while conducting wars and diplomacy. If anything it often makes domestic policy more difficult.

So what if some Asian country can't defend itself, so what if some Jews can't protect there holy land without our funding, it really isn't our business.

Trade connections are, and there are many of those Asian and Jewish people care about what happens to their countries.

At 1/7/14 05:27 AM, ASmallOstrich wrote: The United States has this strange ability to think it isn't an invading force.

The difference between invasion and liberation is merely point of view.

We fund a Country built on stolen land, that we gave to people over crimes that neither the U.S., or the original owners of the land, committed.

Actually, we returned land to them that they had been kicked out of. But that is nothing new. Many pieces of land have conquered and reconquered numerous times throughout history. Very few people originated in the land they curently call home.

Now there were tons of other countries involved, but who has the biggest presence in the middle east now?

I'd have to say Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.

We have our own issues to work out, and need to get out of all foreign countries. So what if some Asian country can't defend itself, so what if some Jews can't protect there holy land without our funding, it really isn't our business.

Trade. The network of global trade is like a the human body. Neglect one part and it can kill the entire thing. Lose one part and the entire thing must hobble along without it.

As the center of world trade and the largest economy, relying heavily on other nations, even such small ripples can create problems. One diseased cow shot beef prices through the roof and killed exports. One GMO wheat scare killed wheat exports. Slight oil disruption doubled oil prices in a span of 5 years. A strike in Italy shut down the US's ability to ship container goods to Africa in the usual 3 week time period (turned to 6 months). Piracy in the Red Sea raises prices of importing and exporting goods worldwide.

As the US has the ability to police to the world market (and as many of our trading partners openly ask the US to do so) the US takes it upon itself to do the dirty work to ensure everyone in the world can enjoy the spoils of trade.

At 1/7/14 05:27 AM, ASmallOstrich wrote:

I just realized something, it seems like people who have no quality posts or who are total noobs have the same argument, and are just as ignorant, and frankly, its getting a little sickening.

The United States has this strange ability to think it isn't an invading force.

Let's see, an invading force doesn't sound as pleasant as to say liberators. We are not the only ones who believe this, and from a certain point of view, we are actual liberators, though some don't want to along with the program.

We fund a Country built on stolen land, that we gave to people over crimes that neither the U.S., or the original owners of the land, committed.

I'm sorry, but a lot of other countries were built this way, and no one dares to compare that to us. We didn't steal the land as much as we took it for a price, (I.E. Louisiana Purchase) and we did give the Native Americans some of their land back via reservations, most other countries would not be so kind to do so. Now, we cannot, either in good conscience or technicality, deny and bad behavior of the Indians, but in the grand scheme of things, it's really not that big of a deal compared to other genocides.

Now there were tons of other countries involved, but who has the biggest presence in the middle east now?

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, they have far more of a presence in that region than we do. It's easy to say us because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we aren't going to be there permanently, (considering that we're already out of Iraq) and it's not like Israel isn't going to give up their land anytime soon.

We have our own issues to work out, and need to get out of all foreign countries. So what if some Asian country can't defend itself, so what if some Jews can't protect there holy land without our funding, it really isn't our business.

Oh but it is, Your naive ignorance is showing. You have to realize that other countries (particularly Europe) wanted us to do something about this, and have begged to clean up some of their messes that they caused during the heyday of European Imperialism. Plus, Israel is a key ally in that region, in which many of the other countries are either ruled by dictatorships/absolute monarchies, or are in complete ruins, and even without our help, Israel has whooped much of the Middle Eastern armies (Egypt, Jordan and so on.) and I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do so.

And this doesn't include all of the economic ramifications and responsibility that we possess as a nation. If anything, we're the adults in a would that seems to have an attitude of a petulant child (Middle East, Latin America) or are literal man-children. (much of Europe, sometimes Canada)

At 1/7/14 11:58 AM, orangebomb wrote: We didn't steal the land as much as we took it for a price, (I.E. Louisiana Purchase) and we did give the Native Americans some of their land back via reservations, most other countries would not be so kind to do so.

I think he was talking about Israel, not the growth of the US.

At 1/7/14 10:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/7/14 05:27 AM, ASmallOstrich wrote: The United States has this strange ability to think it isn't an invading force.

The difference between invasion and liberation is merely point of view.

Holy fuck you are truly blinded by the propaganda. If a populous does not want to be as you say liberated and brought around to see the American way of living like a fat lazy pig then it is called invasion which is in fact a cowardly act of terrorism.

We fund a Country built on stolen land, that we gave to people over crimes that neither the U.S., or the original owners of the land, committed.

Actually, we returned land to them that they had been kicked out of.

So kicking people out of their own homeland is alright you say ? America did not return the land to it's original inhabitant's they taxed their asses and use them as guinea pigs. You American scum make me sick and I hope an act of god makes you american pigs see the light without blood shed. How would you feel if another country invaded your homeland and kicked your ass to the curb ?

We have our own issues to work out, and need to get out of all foreign countries. So what if some Asian country can't defend itself, so what if some Jews can't protect there holy land without our funding, it really isn't our business.

Trade. The network of global trade is like a the human body. Neglect one part and it can kill the entire thing. Lose one part and the entire thing must hobble along without it.

Well I am glad you can understand that it's a global econmy and not just all american. America is the weak link in the economic chain right now. No country want's to be on the petro dollar anymore though many have to be by way of the initiation of force. Canada, Russia and China will crush the American pigs like a bug if they work together. Truth be told I don't want to see America fall rather i want them to come around and see the light. When a country fall's the rest of the functional world must pick up the slack which is what what the rest of the world is doing with America right now.

As the center of world trade and the largest economy, relying heavily on other nations, even such small ripples can create problems. One diseased cow shot beef prices through the roof and killed exports. One GMO wheat scare killed wheat exports. Slight oil disruption doubled oil prices in a span of 5 years. A strike in Italy shut down the US's ability to ship container goods to Africa in the usual 3 week time period (turned to 6 months). Piracy in the Red Sea raises prices of importing and exporting goods worldwide.

As the US has the ability to police to the world market (and as many of our trading partners openly ask the US to do so) the US takes it upon itself to do the dirty work to ensure everyone in the world can enjoy the spoils of trade.

Your propaganda is not fooling anyone Nazi !

At 1/7/14 01:27 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Holy fuck you are truly blinded by the propaganda. If a populous does not want to be as you say liberated and brought around to see the American way of living like a fat lazy pig then it is called invasion which is in fact a cowardly act of terrorism.

Invasion is a bening word. Liberation is merely adding a slant to the word. The only person who's blinded here is you. You're so blinded by your hatred of America and the American culture that you ignore fact sand jump to your own conclusions. I also fin dit funny that a Canadian ridicules the American way of life. Self hating, no?

So kicking people out of their own homeland is alright you say ? America did not return the land to it's original inhabitant's they taxed their asses and use them as guinea pigs. You American scum make me sick and I hope an act of god makes you american pigs see the light without blood shed. How would you feel if another country invaded your homeland and kicked your ass to the curb ?

The Israelites had control of that land in historical times. They were then kicked out by other peoples in the region. History is amazing if you put in the bare bones effort needed to learn it.

Well I am glad you can understand that it's a global econmy and not just all american. America is the weak link in the economic chain right now. No country want's to be on the petro dollar anymore though many have to be by way of the initiation of force. Canada, Russia and China will crush the American pigs like a bug if they work together. Truth be told I don't want to see America fall rather i want them to come around and see the light. When a country fall's the rest of the functional world must pick up the slack which is what what the rest of the world is doing with America right now.

First off, Canada is America Junior. Its economy is attached the US like a calf to it's mother's teet.

Second, the Chinese and Russian economies may crush the US economy, but their economies (much of which are false) would die as well. The US isn't as relatively strong as it used to be, but the US still drives the World economy as the biggest spender, and the biggest importer. China and Russia would be living on fumes if it were not for the US' economy.

Your propaganda is not fooling anyone Nazi !

You do realize that Canada can spend so much money on healthcare because it doesn't need a military, right? You do realize that Alberta (Canada's cash cow) is only rich because the US buys its goods, right?

You are like a child who drinks from the bountiful fountain all the while cursing the fountain as a spawn of Satan.

At 1/7/14 10:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/7/14 05:27 AM, ASmallOstrich wrote: The United States has this strange ability to think it isn't an invading force.

The difference between invasion and liberation is merely point of view.

We fund a Country built on stolen land, that we gave to people over crimes that neither the U.S., or the original owners of the land, committed.

Actually, we returned land to them that they had been kicked out of. But that is nothing new. Many pieces of land have conquered and reconquered numerous times throughout history. Very few people originated in the land they curently call home.

Now there were tons of other countries involved, but who has the biggest presence in the middle east now?

I'd have to say Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.

We have our own issues to work out, and need to get out of all foreign countries. So what if some Asian country can't defend itself, so what if some Jews can't protect there holy land without our funding, it really isn't our business.

Trade. The network of global trade is like a the human body. Neglect one part and it can kill the entire thing. Lose one part and the entire thing must hobble along without it.

As the center of world trade and the largest economy, relying heavily on other nations, even such small ripples can create problems. One diseased cow shot beef prices through the roof and killed exports. One GMO wheat scare killed wheat exports. Slight oil disruption doubled oil prices in a span of 5 years. A strike in Italy shut down the US's ability to ship container goods to Africa in the usual 3 week time period (turned to 6 months). Piracy in the Red Sea raises prices of importing and exporting goods worldwide.

As the US has the ability to police to the world market (and as many of our trading partners openly ask the US to do so) the US takes it upon itself to do the dirty work to ensure everyone in the world can enjoy the spoils of trade.

So it's worth the blood of our guys, and theres for some trade here and there? It's everyones fault that it succumbs to that yes, but it's still ridiculous none the less that we're staging huge global wars- I mean U.N. Military police mandates- Simply for some goods here and there, and cheaper gas on the market. We buy from a cartel, that supports the guys we're against anyways, and if our foreign policy weren't "bomb 'em into democracy" maybe we wouldn't have trouble trading with the other guys, who were there first. It doesn't matter how small the amount of land, or who was in charge of it first, the sheer fact that world powers, and Governments are all in support of taking Holy land from one guy, and giving it to another that pisses them off. arguing the semantics of how much there was, and what was given back, doesn't really help. I could care less if I gotta pay more for gas, I live out in MN, I've walked to and from work these past few days, and still plan to for as long as my legs work. The middle east isn't exactly abound with tons of goods that we need, and they're just as reliant on the money we give 'em for the goods, as we are the physical goods, they'll make it for a little while sure, but after a few years, it'd go back to business as usual.

US takes it upon itself to do the dirty work to ensure everyone in the world can enjoy the spoils of trade.

So it's worth the blood of our guys, and theres for some trade here and there? It's everyones fault that it succumbs to that yes, but it's still ridiculous none the less that we're staging huge global wars- I mean U.N. Military police mandates- Simply for some goods here and there, and cheaper gas on the market. We buy from a cartel, that supports the guys we're against anyways, and if our foreign policy weren't "bomb 'em into democracy" maybe we wouldn't have trouble trading with the other guys, who were there first. It doesn't matter how small the amount of land, or who was in charge of it first, the sheer fact that world powers, and Governments are all in support of taking Holy land from one guy, and giving it to another that pisses them off. arguing the semantics of how much there was, and what was given back, doesn't really help. I could care less if I gotta pay more for gas, I live out in MN, I've walked to and from work these past few days, and still plan to for as long as my legs work. The middle east isn't exactly abound with tons of goods that we need, and they're just as reliant on the money we give 'em for the goods, as we are the physical goods, they'll make it for a little while sure, but after a few years, it'd go back to business as usual.

*Misread your retaliation to the Israel topic, and really my issues with it now days is why were sending the funds we send them, it's there land, let them "strive" off it, and if we're so keen on "giving land back" why are the natives still locked on reservations, while we squander what was theirs in the first place? The whole it was this guys first argument doesn't stand for either side of the topic, what I think it boils down to is that the middle east isn't a huge fan of Jews and to plop a Jewish country on em, and constantly support it, is bound to cause problems.