What's you're political Idoligy

[Lenticular_J]

Quoi speaks good words. I do think that is interesting.

 

 

 

Do I really have to explain the ideologies I follow? I'm pretty sure all Americans are fairly indoctrinated on why it's so evil and wrong anyway

 

Just saying, you sound equally indoctrinated. Have you visited the United States period, and let alone visited multiple diverse areas?

 

 

 

It's just ignorance. My teacher, who has a major degree in U.S. history, barely understands that communism is economic, that it's just been hand-in-hand with dictatorships in practice (for the most part).

 

 

 

Now I make a witty joke calling you a Commie and go eat my freedom fries.

[user1991]

Quoi speaks good words. I do think that is interesting.

 

 

 

Do I really have to explain the ideologies I follow? I'm pretty sure all Americans are fairly indoctrinated on why it's so evil and wrong anyway

 

Just saying, you sound equally indoctrinated. Have you visited the United States period, and let alone visited multiple diverse areas?

 

 

 

It's just ignorance. My teacher, who has a major degree in U.S. history, barely understands that communism is economic, that it's just been hand-in-hand with dictatorships in practice (for the most part).

 

 

 

Now I make a witty joke calling you a Commie and go eat my freedom fries.

 

 

 

I've been to the US a few times, and from my observations of a) your politics, B) the people I've met, c) the people I've talked to on the internet, d) American news channels, I have come to the conclusion that YES, America is pretty much as bad as everyone says.

 

 

 

You have large amounts of extremist Christians/neoconservatives/general right wing d-bags etc. Combine that with interventionist foreign policy, a huge nuclear arsenal, and a chimp president, is it really that hard to see why the world generally dislikes you?

 

 

 

I mean, we also have these things in the UK, but we aren't even in the same league as the USA. You don't even have Universal Health Care. I mean.. what the ****!?! Aren't you like the only western country that doesn't have it yet? Maybe if you weren't giving billions to rich wall street bankers/funding wars across the world you would actually be able to afford it.

 

 

 

You have to question the intelligence of a nation where Sarah Palin can NEARLY become VP without knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is..

[Quoi_Tu]

I've been to the US a few times, and from my observations of a) your politics, B) the people I've met, c) the people I've talked to on the internet, d) American news channels, I have come to the conclusion that YES, America is pretty much as bad as everyone says.

 

 

 

You have large amounts of extremist Christians/neoconservatives/general right wing d-bags etc. Combine that with interventionist foreign policy, a huge nuclear arsenal, and a chimp president, is it really that hard to see why the world generally dislikes you?

 

 

 

I mean, we also have these things in the UK, but we aren't even in the same league as the USA. You don't even have Universal Health Care. I mean.. what the ****!?! Aren't you like the only western country that doesn't have it yet? Maybe if you weren't giving billions to rich wall street bankers/funding wars across the world you would actually be able to afford it.

 

 

 

You have to question the intelligence of a nation where Sarah Palin can NEARLY become VP without knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is..

 

 

 

Well... well, you brits wear funny clothes! HA!

 

 

 

Seriously, we're not that bad.

[Lenticular_J]

Yeah, seriously. What's with your ruffled blousi? Baha.

 

 

 

Really though. You're basing even part of your opinion of 300 million people on the Internet.

[user1991]

Yeah, seriously. What's with your ruffled blousi? Baha.

 

 

 

Really though. You're basing even part of your opinion of 300 million people on the Internet.

 

 

 

If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet?

[Lenticular_J]

No, but you shouldn't use it to judge 300 million people.

 

 

 

How about I go to 4chan and find aaaaaaaany British poster on /b/? I'm pretty sure if I based my opinion on you Brits by him, you wouldn't appreciate it much.

[user1991]

No, but you shouldn't use it to judge 300 million people.

 

 

 

How about I go to 4chan and find aaaaaaaany British poster on /b/? I'm pretty sure if I based my opinion on you Brits by him, you wouldn't appreciate it much.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it was from just ONE guy. If over the course of 5-7 years you noticed a certain mentality of the British people, then yes you could make a criticism.

 

 

 

Plus, I pay attention to your politics, I watch your news channels, and I've spent about two months in various cities in the USA before.

[jackattack]

Yeah, seriously. What's with your ruffled blousi? Baha.

 

 

 

Really though. You're basing even part of your opinion of 300 million people on the Internet.

 

 

 

If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Anyone who thinks Iraq was justified is an idiot and a neocon jew. I mean it's not like the British thought the same thing.

[user1991]

Yeah, seriously. What's with your ruffled blousi? Baha.

 

 

 

Really though. You're basing even part of your opinion of 300 million people on the Internet.

 

 

 

If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Anyone who thinks Iraq was justified is an idiot and a neocon jew. I mean it's not like the British thought the same thing.

 

 

 

British government.

 

 

 

In terms of the population, I think the majority were anti-invasion of Iraq, not sure. If not, it was close.

 

 

 

And wtf @ "jew"

 

 

 

I never said anything about jewish people..

 

 

 

Oh and now it's been revealed that there were no WMDs, the vast majority of the people here are against it. Plus it isn't just Iraq - all the "pro-life" (ironically named pro-life, considering a lot of them are military nuts. Maybe they're only pro-life whilst you aren't alive. That'd make sense.,) anti-Universal health care, Reagan freaks are a lot of things we don't have in such great proportions.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to make out Britain is an amazing place,far from it. But I would be lying if I said that we have the same percentages of neocons/fundamentalist Christians as you..

[Quoi_Tu]

Yeah, seriously. What's with your ruffled blousi? Baha.

 

 

 

Really though. You're basing even part of your opinion of 300 million people on the Internet.

 

 

 

If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Anyone who thinks Iraq was justified is an idiot and a neocon jew. I mean it's not like the British thought the same thing.

 

 

 

British government.

 

 

 

In terms of the population, I think the majority were anti-invasion of Iraq, not sure. If not, it was close.

 

 

 

And wtf @ "jew"

 

 

 

I never said anything about jewish people..

 

 

 

So when the British government supports something that doesn't reflect on the people, but when the US government supports something that must mean the American people support it.

[user1991]

Yeah, seriously. What's with your ruffled blousi? Baha.

 

 

 

Really though. You're basing even part of your opinion of 300 million people on the Internet.

 

 

 

If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Anyone who thinks Iraq was justified is an idiot and a neocon jew. I mean it's not like the British thought the same thing.

 

 

 

British government.

 

 

 

In terms of the population, I think the majority were anti-invasion of Iraq, not sure. If not, it was close.

 

 

 

And wtf @ "jew"

 

 

 

I never said anything about jewish people..

 

 

 

So when the British government supports something that doesn't reflect on the people, but when the US government supports something that must mean the American people support it.

 

 

 

Not at all.

 

 

 

For the issues I'm talking about, the American people did support it. Plus, I said earlier I only dislike those certain fundamentalists. I dislike your government more. I'm not trying to say all American people are like this - but you DO have far more of them than any other western country.

[Lateralus]

I agree with America's interventionist foreign policy. It's a major point of argument between me and most of my liberal friends.

[user1991]

I agree with America's interventionist foreign policy. It's a major point of argument between me and most of my liberal friends.

 

 

 

Why? With interventionist foreign policy, things like Iraq can easily happen.

[magekillr]

I agree with America's interventionist foreign policy. It's a major point of argument between me and most of my liberal friends.

 

 

 

Why? With interventionist foreign policy, things like Iraq can easily happen.

 

 

 

Because interventionism is a liberal view point, technically.

 

 

 

I agree with interventionism, but I do not agree with America acting alone. THAT is where I disagree. Also, the War in Iraq could have been successful with a real plan, and a mix of military/diplomacy/policing, rather than just "let's invade and take over...but now what?" There was no plan. It could have been a success. I still probably wouldn't have supported it, but I could have been a lot less cynical about our involvement.

 

 

 

If the world acts as one about certain issues, we can certainly take care of more of the world's problems. I think it's immoral for the world's leading powers with all of their wealth to sit around doing nothing, while ruthless dictators mistreat millions of uneducated, starving people.

[Lateralus]

I agree with America's interventionist foreign policy. It's a major point of argument between me and most of my liberal friends.

 

 

 

Why? With interventionist foreign policy, things like Iraq can easily happen.

 

 

 

I was for the invasion of Iraq. That's not to say I agree with the way the invasion was conducted, but I agreed with the principle of it. I'm going to bed, and if you don't mind I'd rather do this over PM. Is that alright with you?

[Lenticular_J]

Because interventionism is a liberal view point, technically.

 

 

 

I agree with interventionism, but I do not agree with America acting alone. THAT is where I disagree. Also, the War in Iraq could have been successful with a real plan, and a mix of military/diplomacy/policing, rather than just "let's invade and take over...but now what?" There was no plan. It could have been a success. I still probably wouldn't have supported it, but I could have been a lot less cynical about our involvement.

 

 

 

If the world acts as one about certain issues, we can certainly take care of more of the world's problems. I think it's immoral for the world's leading powers with all of their wealth to sit around doing nothing, while ruthless dictators mistreat millions of uneducated, starving people.

 

This is probably my favorite post by you, ever. It really reflects my views a lot on the war.

 

 

 

Huh, never know that was liberal, though.

[magekillr]

Historically, it is. If you look at "real" conservatives, they were all isolationists when it came to war, while the liberals wanted to intervene. The neo-cons have taken interventionism, and turned it on its back. However, LBJ had a similar issue when it came to Vietnam, and he's probably America's most liberal President of all time (either him or FDR); there was no real set plan....just go in and wage war on the "communists". It's faulty policy, and exhibits no real plan/leadership.

 

 

 

With a plan, and an action as one world...many things can be achieved through interventionism. Interventionism doesn't necessarily include war, either.

[jackattack]

I agree with America's interventionist foreign policy. It's a major point of argument between me and most of my liberal friends.

 

 

 

Why? With interventionist foreign policy, things like Iraq can easily happen.

 

 

 

Because interventionism is a liberal view point, technically.

 

 

 

I agree with interventionism, but I do not agree with America acting alone. THAT is where I disagree. Also, the War in Iraq could have been successful with a real plan, and a mix of military/diplomacy/policing, rather than just "let's invade and take over...but now what?" There was no plan. It could have been a success. I still probably wouldn't have supported it, but I could have been a lot less cynical about our involvement.

 

 

 

If the world acts as one about certain issues, we can certainly take care of more of the world's problems. I think it's immoral for the world's leading powers with all of their wealth to sit around doing nothing, while ruthless dictators mistreat millions of uneducated, starving people.

 

 

 

We didn't act alone on Iraq. There was a pretty large coalition of nations right there with us. Just because most of them have bailed doesn't mean they weren't there when it started. Even before the war he did what Tony blair asked and got another U.N. resolution. France was the country that didn't support a second one if I remember correctly. That is probably the biggest lie about the Bush administration. This whole "cowboy diplomacy" garbage is unfounded. We have talked with Iran and we got Korea to back down on the nuclear program with like 6 of countries. And how many Pro-American leaders are there in Europe now?

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]

Yeah, seriously. What's with your ruffled blousi? Baha.

 

 

 

Really though. You're basing even part of your opinion of 300 million people on the Internet.

 

 

 

If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Anyone who thinks Iraq was justified is an idiot and a neocon jew. I mean it's not like the British thought the same thing.

 

 

 

British government.

 

 

 

In terms of the population, I think the majority were anti-invasion of Iraq, not sure. If not, it was close.

 

 

 

And wtf @ "jew"

 

 

 

I never said anything about jewish people..

 

 

 

So when the British government supports something that doesn't reflect on the people, but when the US government supports something that must mean the American people support it.

 

 

 

Not at all.

 

 

 

For the issues I'm talking about, the American people did support it. Plus, I said earlier I only dislike those certain fundamentalists. I dislike your government more. I'm not trying to say all American people are like this - but you DO have far more of them than any other western country.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Pretty much at least 80-90% of people labeled as neocons are jews. Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith. All jews. David Duke uses the word neocon pretty much interchangeably with jew.

 

 

 

edit: didn't finish a sentence.

[magekillr]

Please, even if we weren't completely "alone", there was no plan. The next thing you're going to tell me is that the Georgians helped us too :|

 

 

 

The UN did not agree with our intervention, plain and simple. We violated so many international laws to do what we did, and that I do not agree with unless the signers of those laws agree to make them void for that particular action.

[jackattack]

I never said we had a good plan. Until Petreaus and McCain came along we were in hell. Now we have a plan though. And even if the U.N. didn't sanction it, we didn't act unilaterally like most people say. There were like what, close to fifty nations supporting us?

[Saru Inc]

I agree with America's interventionist foreign policy. It's a major point of argument between me and most of my liberal friends.

 

 

 

Why? With interventionist foreign policy, things like Iraq can easily happen.

 

 

 

Because interventionism is a liberal view point, technically.

 

 

 

I agree with interventionism, but I do not agree with America acting alone. THAT is where I disagree. Also, the War in Iraq could have been successful with a real plan, and a mix of military/diplomacy/policing, rather than just "let's invade and take over...but now what?" There was no plan. It could have been a success. I still probably wouldn't have supported it, but I could have been a lot less cynical about our involvement.

 

 

 

If the world acts as one about certain issues, we can certainly take care of more of the world's problems. I think it's immoral for the world's leading powers with all of their wealth to sit around doing nothing, while ruthless dictators mistreat millions of uneducated, starving people.

 

 

 

Tell me, how has the war in Iraq not been a success?

 

 

 

Let's recap:

 

 

 

 

 

Iraq:

 

U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,193 US troops

 

Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers' funds. In June 2008, President Bush signed a bill approving about 200 billion more for 2008, which brings the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.

 

 

 

U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008

 

 

 

5 Years

 

 

 

Saddam Hussein dead.

 

 

 

WWII:

 

United States 413,000 Dead

 

 

 

Cost: One Trillion back then.

 

 

 

6 Years

 

 

 

Hitler dead (And others, such as the Japanese)

 

 

 

 

 

Now, WWII was considered a success, so why, once you compare them, would you not say Iraq isn't a success?

[magekillr]

Let's see...

 

 

 

1.) The world hates the United States

 

2.) Saddam Hussein being dead has allowed terrorists to infiltrate Iraq

 

3.) Civilians have needlessly been killed, and their homes destroyed

 

4.) Guantanamo Bay and torture has been allowed under our watch

 

5.) We've spent billions, if not trillions

 

6.) Terrorists have reacted to our involvement by mass-recruiting, successfully, because "The Great Satan" is destroying any hope that the recruits may have had

 

 

 

I could go on and on about the failures of this war, but the most important thing is that we did not achieve what we sought to do.

 

 

 

To compare WWII and Iraq is pathetic, ignorant, and shows a lack of understanding of the circumstances. Iraq posed no threat to the United States; the Japanese attacked our bases and people. Had the Japanese not attacked us, there's a chance we wouldn't have been involved. You act like we were involved for the entire duration of WWII, when we barely were involved at all until the end of it when Germany's armies had been exhausted from fighting the Russians on the Eastern Front.

 

 

 

You're calling the atomic bomb a success? I call it man's worst invention.

[Rebdragon]

You're calling the atomic bomb a success? I call it man's worst invention.

 

Please don't go down that road.

[Zonorhc]

Maybe America wouldn't be such a hole if you guys weren't so allergic to taxes.

[Saru Inc]

Oh sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I see where you're going with the reasons, Iguess I mistook your original post. I guess I what I should have meant is, by comparing the figures, how could one be a success and not the other.