Obama Wins! 461 replies

Please wait...

IKS

Fuck FIFA and fuck France

32,240 XP

15th February 2006

0 Uploads

2,974 Posts

0 Threads

#451 10 years ago
AlDaja;4698973 That shit is really about to hit the fan for America and the world as a consequence of the void that will follow.[/quote] Void? What void?

AlDaja;4698973 Based on the numbers America will be finished as a strategic superpower by 2025 limiting our economic and military ability closer to home. [/quote] Thats because you decided to invade a country without legitimate reason and were dragged into a dogfight that you cannot back down from. Simple as that.

AlDaja;4698973ability to offer humanitarian or military assistance to curtail or defend aggressive actions against Europe and mass genocidal warfare on other fledgling democracies from Middle Eastern a renewed militaristic Russia and Asian threats (China) will be unavoidable. [/quote] When was the last aggressive action against Europe? World War II and thats almost 70 years ago. The Arabs, Russians and Chinese weren't the aggressors there.

Name me any account of mass genocidal warfare against "fledgling democracies" by a middle eastern country?

When was the last time Russia instigated mass genocide?

And while we are on the subject, China?

AlDaja;4698973 The new superpowers to arise (China, North Korea, India, Iran and Russia) will be less compelled to do anything about atrocities in the world and more compelled to bolster their own economic gain and strategic standing…even if that means rendering sovereign nations useless in the process. Existing powers (including the US)not directly affected by military action would need to cater to the global economy established by these new powers. [/quote] What a load of shite. India are not a superpower and neither are Iran. In fact Israel have a more effective armed forces than both yet America never whines on about them because they are your ally. Israel, one of the most belligerent states in the world, has a massive arsenal of Nuclear weapons, The US Defence Intelligence Agency believes the Israelis to be in possession of 80-100 Nuclear weapons yet why aren't they being pressured to yield their nuclear mobilization or why aren't they to be sanctioned?

AlDaja;4698973 Which could result in corrupt governments and powerless ones reacting to their whims impacting environmental and social stability. Increased tensions amongst the new powers without America’s influence to intervene estimates a better than “good” rating that nuclear exchange will occur in Europe and Asia before the middle of this century. [/quote] Are you for real? Anyone thinking of singing the Team America theme tune?

[quote=AlDaja;4698973] America’s stabilizing influence on the world.

You mean America's interfering influence? Let's see, who gave Bin Laden the military and financial backing to arm his mujahadeen? America

Who instigated a coup d'etat in Iraq in order to put Saddam Hussein in office? America

Who gave the jews the financial and military support to build up an armed forces to kill arabs in the middle east? America

Who provided Israel with intelligence on the Egyptian Air Force bases prior to the six day war giving the Israelis a massive advantage? America

Who spent billions on arming and reinforcing the South Koreans and Vietnamese to stop communism thus destabilizing the whole area? America.

Who gave Saddam Hussein billions to fight his personal war against the Iranians? America

Who dropped two atomic bombs on civilian cities during World War two, two of the worst attrocities EVER committed? America

So don't give us that neo-patriotic propaganda when history points to america's wrongdoing in several accounts throughout history.

[quote=AlDaja;4698973] but America will be their to hopefully keep that nation from falling or move it toward a more stable form of government (despite our relations with them) or damn sure step in to keep other powers (Russia) from destabilizing the region (Georgia) until internal provisional powers (Afghanistan,Iraq) can resume, stabilize and take over.

America will be there to serve her own interests. Not protect others.

[quote=AlDaja;4698973] If America does not contend with these growing powers head on while placing our own economic and social dynamics back on a path that stabalizes and grows our nation we are screwed.

How can you spent money on military budget, fix your your crumbling education system and your substandard health system all at once? The overspending in the military budget in the last 8 years has led to all these problems that america is facing.. where are you going to get the money from to finance all this you propose? [quote=AlDaja;4698973] America will reestablish its place and position as a global influence. If not, than he/we will be unable to advert global catastrophe and Obama will be remembered as the preverbal firing pin.
America lost its "bigger brother" allure when it went into Vietnam and did what it did. It never fully recovered from that war. It is no longer seen as what it once was during the world wars. [quote=AlDaja;4698973] They indicated a high probablity of a terrorist attack on a major Eastern US city before 2005).

Yeah but what did they do about it? Nothing

See thats what I love about the American "siege" mentality that some Americans portray ever since 9/11.. its all bullshit. If I were American I would distance myself from this rhetorical pompous warmongering idiocy. The "everybody" hates us pitch is growing tiresome by now.

And no, before you state it, I am not anti-american. I simply don't fall for the bush apologists who cling on to this bullshit like a dog with a bone




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#452 10 years ago

I'm sorry you were saying something?




IKS

Fuck FIFA and fuck France

32,240 XP

15th February 2006

0 Uploads

2,974 Posts

0 Threads

#453 10 years ago
AlDaja;4715607I'm sorry you were saying something?

Ah come on, I expected a better response than that. Not used to having an adult discussion or have you not found an article online that can counter what I said?




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#454 10 years ago

Just kinda breezed in here to see whats going on. Just a few points: Wars in Europe POST WWII -Balkans -ongoing -Recent fiasco involving Georgia and the Russians -continued tense situation that has occaisonally flared into fighting between Greece/Turkey/Cyprus etc -Hungarian revolt -Chechnya

Mass genocidal actions by a Middle Eastern Country? well that would include every conflict Israel has ever been in. Of course lets not forget Saddams programs against the Kurds. And then theres Turkey and the Kurds...and Armenians. The ongoing genocide in Southern and western Sudan, aided by arab governments...

Basically the above is a good run down as to why, following WW2 the US took it upon itself to subsidize and fund Western Cultures military by itself. Under the Aegis of US military dominance, the various nations of NATO and to a great degree many pacific nations were able to rebuild following WW2 and in addition jump start their economies and begin competeing in the following decades. The US didnt just arbitrarily decide to have a huge military, we were kind of the only nation outside of the Soviet bloc capable at the time of doing it. The strategy NOW is to realign our military so that it is NOT as all inclusive as in the 'good ole days'. This is hampered by -Our allies unwillingness to re-arm their OWN militaries -Our commitment to the UN. The UN's lack of unified command and political/military will basically means the US will do much of the heavy lifting when it comes to crisis management The US military budget, as a percentile of the GDP has DECREASED steadily for oh about 25 years now.

We view China as a threat because -they nominally support N. Korea. a nuke wielding nation next door to 2 strategic allies -they have aggressive designs on Taiwan, another ally -they have nukes making the above reason all the more threatening.

We view India as a 'super power' for much the same reason people view china as one. A hugely expanding economy, large military (India has more combat Naval power now then either China or Russia combined) and close proximity to a historical advesary who is ALSO nuclear armed. As far as the indian subcontinent goes, India is a real shot caller. you cant do much without them giving the go ahead.

Americas big brother allure was always based on who you were and where your from. Western Europe loved the shiat out of right up until '92 when the USSR folded. then it was GTFO, but oh keep your military bases here so i dont have to spend MY money on defense. For as much angsting as nations do over how mean the US is, whenever stupid shit goes down people are quick to ask why were arent doing something about it such as Georgias little adventure. and of course everything that has ever happened in Africa EVER...




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#455 10 years ago

Roaming East...talking to sand. America is a bunch of evil, self appointed, intruisve assholes don't ya know. Of course this is coming from folks who's nations have benifited from American influence, but we won't really go into that or talk about it much, stop bring it up and lets point out the negatives instead. Stupid American.=p




IKS

Fuck FIFA and fuck France

32,240 XP

15th February 2006

0 Uploads

2,974 Posts

0 Threads

#456 10 years ago

Preferably I'm waiting a proper response from AlDaja which actually counters what I said instead of being an ass about it though thanks for the counter points you have given Roaming East, though I must say I have to disagree. I countered the ridiculous statements made by AlDaja.

Roaming East;4715762Just kinda breezed in here to see whats going on. Just a few points: Wars in Europe POST WWII -Balkans -ongoing -Recent fiasco involving Georgia and the Russians -continued tense situation that has occaisonally flared into fighting between Greece/Turkey/Cyprus etc -Hungarian revolt -Chechnya [/quote]

Balkans - Not a Major threat to European Stability, in effect it was an internal yugoslavian matter, a civil war.

Georgia is not technically in Europe and its geographical position is not imperative to Europe's stability.

Greece/Turkey/Cyprus - UN Peacekeepers in place, again not a Major threat to Europe. Not requiring United States of America's intervention

Hungarian revolt - The revolt was not a major threat to the stability of Europe again, the same way the troubles in Northern Ireland were no major consequence to Europe.

Chechyna is part of Russia and is an internal Russian matter and no other European country is directly affected by the consequences of this conflict

Roaming East;4715762Mass genocidal actions by a Middle Eastern Country? well that would include every conflict Israel has ever been in. [/quote] Yes and they are your main ally in the middle east. Their military is backed by yours. You gave them their weapons to kill kids who were throwing rocks at their American built tanks.

Roaming East;4715762 Of course lets not forget Saddams programs against the Kurds. And then theres Turkey and the Kurds...and Armenians. [/quote] America put Saddam in charge and didn't bat an eye lid as he slaughtered the Kurds

Turkey is a major ally of the United States and is the only muslim country to have US air force bases in it. You didn't give two shits about Armenia and Kurdistan back then either.

Roaming East;4715762The ongoing genocide in Southern and western Sudan, aided by arab governments...[/quote] That is an internal Sudanese matter and unless my education failed me I believe Sudan is in Eastern Africa and is not the Middle East.

Roaming East;4715762 Basically the above is a good run down as to why, following WW2 the US took it upon itself to subsidize and fund Western Cultures military by itself. [/quote]

Not Really, the outcome of the all of these conflicts have no consequence to America. You can't go around sticking your oar in all the time. America had one thing on its agenda from 1946 to 1991 - the USSR. Every war fought between 1946 and 1990 was a result of a ridiculous power struggle between the NATO led USA and the USSR - Korea, Vietnam, USSR-Afghanistan War were all a bi-product of this struggle for dominance.

Roaming East;4715762 Under the Aegis of US military dominance, the various nations of NATO and to a great degree many pacific nations were able to rebuild following WW2 and in addition jump start their economies and begin competeing in the following decades. The US didnt just arbitrarily decide to have a huge military, we were kind of the only nation outside of the Soviet bloc capable at the time of doing it. [/quote] I'm sorry but NATO is just the same as the old Warsaw Pact just more transparent in its implemenation. If you studied history and the cold war you would see that NATO was really in essence no different.

[quote=Roaming East;4715762] The strategy NOW is to realign our military so that it is NOT as all inclusive as in the 'good ole days'. This is hampered by -Our allies unwillingness to re-arm their OWN militaries -Our commitment to the UN. The UN's lack of unified command and political/military will basically means the US will do much of the heavy lifting when it comes to crisis management The US military budget, as a percentile of the GDP has DECREASED steadily for oh about 25 years now.

You mean the fact that other countries are less inclined to over spend on military assets because they simply do not need them. You Strategy NOW is to reassert your power and reclaim lost ground which you so willfully pissed away in Iraq. The USA since the Vietnam war has been a declining power, if you don't believe me Mr Google shall throw light on it but I prefer if you read the actual books discussing this facet of the US Military psyche.

Your "commitment" to the UN? Please, that just threw your case out the window. The United States never properly committed itself to inclusion in UN operations instead falling back to its Nato doctrine because it was the central figure in Nato Command. The last UN mission you guys undertook was in Somalia and you pulled out after Mogidashu.

[quote=Roaming East;4715762] We view China as a threat because -they nominally support N. Korea. a nuke wielding nation next door to 2 strategic allies -they have aggressive designs on Taiwan, another ally -they have nukes making the above reason all the more threatening.

That is not good enough reason, America simply wishes to be the biggest power in the world and does not want China to surpass them. Even if the Chinese held the same capitalistic "democratic" values of the USA the American Military would still view them as a threat.

[quote=Roaming East;4715762] We view India as a 'super power' for much the same reason people view china as one. A hugely expanding economy, large military (India has more combat Naval power now then either China or Russia combined) and close proximity to a historical advesary who is ALSO nuclear armed. As far as the indian subcontinent goes, India is a real shot caller. you cant do much without them giving the go ahead.

India is viewed as hostile by the USA because the USA does not exert enough control over India. India does not like Pakistan, not one bit. India doesn't give two shits about the rest. Its just defending its sovereignty and rightly so, because the Americans cannot dictate policy to India they view them as a sort of Maverick "super power"

[quote=Roaming East;4715762] Americas big brother allure was always based on who you were and where your from. Western Europe loved the shiat out of right up until '92 when the USSR folded. then it was GTFO, but oh keep your military bases here so i dont have to spend MY money on defense.

Incorrect, as part of the peace accords signed after World War II, Germany's military was handicapped and limited to certain conditions. Germany can never under the accords rearm itself with nuclear weapons. The bases you have in Germany are part of the Cold War and this little treaty. Actually the French told you to "GTFO" (as you stated) when Charles de Gaulle became president because he did not wish for the US Military to have illegal bases on French soil. And before you give me the whole "we saved the French in WWII" the French gave you your independence, when good old Georgey boy and his ragtag militia men were getting routed at yorktown by good ol' Cornwallis it was the French Naval forces that saved you. Read a history book, you may be enlightened about these things.

[quote=Roaming East;4715762] For as much angsting as nations do over how mean the US is, whenever stupid shit goes down people are quick to ask why were arent doing something about it such as Georgias little adventure. and of course everything that has ever happened in Africa EVER...

Well lets get real about this. Georgia as an ally of the USA was attempting to join your little club of Nato-ites. When the Russias heard about this they weren't very happy so the USA told the Georgians to sit tight and don't take shit from the schoolyard bully, when the Georgians decided to go gun-ho into Ossetia the Russians pummelled them and the Americans cried havoc...Now the Americans have ample reason to add Georgians to Nato in order to "protect it"...It was all part of the plan and it worked like a peach.

My god are you people actually blind? Stop watching CNN and actually see what is happening in the world.

You are not the biggest kid in the schoolyard anymore and because of this you must reassert your military and political power once again thus you start shaping up to so called "dangerous super powers". Thats about the bottom line of it.

[quote=AlDaja;4715815]this is coming from folks who's nations have benifited from American influence, but we won't really go into that or talk about it much, stop bring it up and lets point out the negatives instead. Stupid American.=p

You should remember where your nation came from and who built it - European immigrants or perhaps you are unable or unwilling to delve into your country's history either




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#457 10 years ago

I think the point has been made by Roaming East. Niether of us would discount America's faults, but to ignore our triumps and benefitial results in much of the world regardless of motive far outweighs those faults in my opinion. My guess, this elitist positioning many Europeans take on the world by distancing their respective nations from anything considered not cool or politically incorrect only further forces a wedge that fosters contempt for Europeans by many American's and peoples from other corners of the globe - Middle Eastern entities for sure, given that European interests seem to be the prime target by terroist groups claiming responsiblity more so than those against the US.




IKS

Fuck FIFA and fuck France

32,240 XP

15th February 2006

0 Uploads

2,974 Posts

0 Threads

#458 10 years ago

AlDaja;4715876 I think the point has been made by Roaming East. Niether of us would discount America's faults, but to ignore our triumps and benefitial results in much of the world regardless of motive far outweighs those faults in my opinion. [/quote]

Triumphs? What Triumphs? back up what you are saying with fact instead of pseudo-patriotism Are we talking about foreign policies, wars or just toppling governments when it suits?

If we speak about war then let's break it down - The only triumph you've had is World War 2 and even at that historical and military fact points to the Russian's campaign against the third reich during the latter years of the war on the Eastern European Front as the turning point for allied success. World War 1 was not a triumph but a stalemate, Korea too thus we have the Demilitarized Zone, Vietnam was a withdrawl, Panama, Bay of Pigs, Gulf War were all unresolved. The Iraq war was a mistake and the United States is loosing control of Afghanistan. Kosovo and the Balkans were policing actions that involved bombing campaigns which failed to see a constructive end to hostilites - proof being the Kosovo troubles with ethnic Albanians and Serbs in the region. Lebannon was a disaster, Israel was an illegal state setup to serve American needs in the Middle East, backing the Afghans against the soviets back fired, installing Saddam backfired, Liberia back fired after the US government released Charles Taylor from prison in 1985 and sent him back to Liberia to instigate a coup d'etat on the Liberian goverment led by Samuel Doe. Shall I talk about Congo and how the US financed Mobutu to seize control?

[quote=AlDaja;4715876] My guess, this elitist positioning many Europeans take on the world by distancing their respective nations from anything considered not cool or politically incorrect only further forces a wedge further that foster contempt for Europeans by many American's and peoples from other corners of the globe - Middle Eastern entities for sure, given that European interests seem to be the prime target by terroist groups claiming responsiblity more so than those against the US.

Where is the proof of this? Give me one solid shred of evidence which backs up that statement about Europe backing off..maybe Iraq? Nope didn't think so because Iraq was a falsified invasion which was illegal and against the ruling of the UN which the United States continues to undermine at every turn

Look I like America, I really do, I spent a good 8 months of my life living there and I intend to go back but you cannot turn your back on your governments failings in the past, every government will do the wrong thing but the American administrations since World War 2 have consistently messed things up. If 911 was such a call to arms why didn't your government go after the terrorists that did it? Why didn't they go after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who train and fund these anti-american islamist groups? because Pakistan is being courted by the US Governement for allegiance and Saudi Arabia feeds your hunger for oil.

Care to answer that?




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#459 10 years ago

Funny how small internal issues suddenly become major ones when left alone. WW1 was started by a small internal situation that spiralled out of control. WW2 was a minor thing with Germany annexing German speaking city-states. I could go on. Serbias relationship with Russia alone meant that further issue could have occured. Snuffing small flames keeps them from becoming major fires.

I will agree with much of the first point, i wasnt trying to bring about American interventionalism, just pointing out that Europe is FAR from peaceful and the relative calm being felt in western europe NOW is an effect of their being, right at this very moment, men with guns from various outside nations FORCING peace.

Ive gone in depth as to why i dont support the US' unabashed support of Israel, but to make your comment reaks of ignorance of the situation. The PLO, REFUSED peace with Israel for a myraid of unaltruistic reasons ill be more then happy to share with you. The PLO's weapons are mostly of US manufacture cause the US spends more money on Palestinian aid then any nation period. That they continue to fight against Israel is their own fault. While throwing rocks at tanks they are also using bombs on such legitimate military targets as school buses, cafe's and pizzarias. Sticking up for terrorist dirtbags isnt a good way to plead ones position.

NATO was and is nothing like the Warsaw pact. WP countries didnt voluntarily enter, they were forced because the purpose of the WP was to buffer the Soviet Union. You must remember that after WW2, Russia didnt have the manpower to repel perceived American aggression (their was, at the time, rumblings that Patton should just press THRU Germany into russia...) So to make up for those shortages, they pressed conquered/liberated countries into a defensive line whose main purpose was to absorb an Allied offensive. They were meatshields. NATO on the other hand was a defensive line that America stationed its very best troops and equipment in. Whereas Poland to the Russians was just open space in which to bide time and through untrained meat into the grinder, Germany to the US was a piece of terrain that had to be protected at all cost.

Yep, we put Saddam into power because he was anti communist and anti islamist. He provided a Bulwark against Iranian extremism and kept a very volatile region very stable. Then he found himself at odds with US interest in regards to Kuwait and we cut him lose. Whats your point? That the US put a man in power and for 20+ years he was a fairly decent guy, made some bad decisions and lost his star power with us?

The US' primary threat to Germany in regards to everything from trade to NATO issues is that we will pack our shiat up and leave. The pentagon doesnt want us in Germany, GERMANY wants us in Germany. And until you realize that you cant even really begin to discuss geo-political aims on the subject. Your age has you at 21. get out a little more and let me know how you feel on the subject. Almost all of your counterpoints are really just repeating the mantra "its not THAT big an issue yet". Your grasp of history outside of the 'official line' is weak as well. France left NATO because France wanted to be able to broker an independant peace with Russia should Russia invade Germany. It was a case of 'why put my ass on the line for ze Germans' and had about as much to do with 'military bases' as shit does with rain. De Gaulle was a lot of things, but 'dumb' was not among them. He told NATO military forces to get bent and then begged his ass off to stay on the policy comittee so that IF the Soviets ran thru Germany, NATO would still save his country.

As far as Georgia goes? They were dumb. They thought Bush had the political clout here in the US to do shiat all for his country and chose possibly the WORSE time ever to atagonize Russia. End result was the Bush camp publicy was sad for them and privately relieved the Russkies came in and set shiat straight.




IKS

Fuck FIFA and fuck France

32,240 XP

15th February 2006

0 Uploads

2,974 Posts

0 Threads

#460 10 years ago

Roaming East;4716047 Ive gone in depth as to why i dont support the US' unabashed support of Israel, but to make your comment reaks of ignorance of the situation [/quote] You want to talk about ignorance?

Roaming East;4716047WW1 was started by a small internal situation that spiralled out of control. [/quote] Really? World War 1 was that predictable and pointless that millions died over some archduke of a yugoslavian state? Thats ignorance on your part sir. That was but a catalyst, a shadowed excuse to go to war over years of attriction, economic and military competition between the main powers of Europe and the struggle for dominance in a bitterly divided Europe. World War 1 started all the way back in the 1870's it just spilled into an all out war in 1914.

Roaming East;4716047 WW2 was a minor thing with Germany annexing German speaking city-states. [/quote] I will pretend I did not read that and let that slide because that comment doesn't deserve the proper response to explain why that is so off the mark.

Roaming East;4716047I could go on. Serbias relationship with Russia alone meant that further issue could have occured. Snuffing small flames keeps them from becoming major fires. [/quote] you think the Russians would go to war over a few serbs? Jesus Christ you really don't know how the world works do you?

[quote=Roaming East;4716047] Ive gone in depth as to why i dont support the US' unabashed support of Israel, but to make your comment reaks of ignorance of the situation. The PLO, REFUSED peace with Israel for a myraid of unaltruistic reasons ill be more then happy to share with you. The PLO's weapons are mostly of US manufacture cause the US spends more money on Palestinian aid then any nation period. That they continue to fight against Israel is their own fault. While throwing rocks at tanks they are also using bombs on such legitimate military targets as school buses, cafe's and pizzarias. Sticking up for terrorist dirtbags isnt a good way to plead ones position.

Look Roaming East, My argument was against AlDaja and his feverent support of US interventionalism which has destabilized and caused wars down through history but you had your say and I appreciate that because you do make valid points and I value that. Its good to hear a counter statement to what I say but please don't start insulting me because that is not going to be taken. Israel was an illegal state which caused the formation of those groups, if the state was not formed none of that would have happened. Israels policy of forced relocation and plantation of Jews on Arab owned land instigated the troubles.. Same shit happened in Ireland with the British Empire. You cannot forcefully push people out of their homes and expect to be left alone. There is no right or wrong in the Israel-Palestine situation just those who allowed the creation of the state to blame.

[quote=Roaming East;4716047] NATO was and is nothing like the Warsaw pact. WP countries didnt voluntarily enter, they were forced because the purpose of the WP was to buffer the Soviet Union. You must remember that after WW2, Russia didnt have the manpower to repel perceived American aggression (their was, at the time, rumblings that Patton should just press THRU Germany into russia...) So to make up for those shortages, they pressed conquered/liberated countries into a defensive line whose main purpose was to absorb an Allied offensive. They were meatshields. NATO on the other hand was a defensive line that America stationed its very best troops and equipment in. Whereas Poland to the Russians was just open space in which to bide time and through untrained meat into the grinder, Germany to the US was a piece of terrain that had to be protected at all cost.

Yes the Warsaw pact was a Dominion in effect, but America's intiation of NATO was based on warmongering. It doesn't matter how you join, NATO was at the very whim of US control and the US dictated what NATO did and did not do..to me that is just the same as what the Russians had with the Warsaw Pact.

[quote=Roaming East;4716047] Yep, we put Saddam into power because he was anti communist and anti islamist. He provided a Bulwark against Iranian extremism and kept a very volatile region very stable. Then he found himself at odds with US interest in regards to Kuwait and we cut him lose. Whats your point? That the US put a man in power and for 20+ years he was a fairly decent guy, made some bad decisions and lost his star power with us?

My point is America's interventionalism has proved disastrous on multiple occasions. Saddam being the main one, you sent Charles Taylor to Liberia and instigated a bloody civil war..You funded the very people, Osama Bin Laden, who wish to eradicate you.. Doesn't matter what your motives were, you constantly put in unstable militaristic rebels into power in a country and leave them there as you set off into the sunset on another quest to fix the world's problems.

[quote=Roaming East;4716047] Your age has you at 21. get out a little more and let me know how you feel on the subject. Almost all of your counterpoints are really just repeating the mantra "its not THAT big an issue yet". Your grasp of history outside of the 'official line' is weak as well.

Look I didn't come here to be insulted and if you are not capable of articulating yourself without insulting someone then please do so. By insulting me you are only diluting your own argument. So please refrain from doing so. I know my history and you seem to be running out of steam with this argument thats why you insist on throwing dirt. Just stick to the political side of the argument ok?