Notice the dollar value attached to all this Fear mongering, it's amazing how much our United Corporate Nations (UCN-you heard it here first
) care about us.Flyin to America?
- Thread starter skidder
- Start date
) care about us.
I know, I was just using your remark as a proxy reply to gyroscope's remark. Clever, huh?
At the time America forgave the WWII debt, what the US owed to Europe was miniscule by comparison. The $5 trillion you claim the US "owes" is not so much a debt as it is an investment on the worlds' part. The safest country in which to invest in is the USA, bar none.
I was talking about the invasions of the aforementioned countries by the Soviets, not the subsequent defenses thereof by the US.
As demostrated by the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
I think you're confusing NATO with the UN.
By your previous remarks I somehow question that you "suddenly" began to question the purity of our actions.
Which would seem to validate our "over reaction."
Consider your logic for a moment. How would the killing of innocent Iraqis give us access to the oil? Wouldn't the killing of the guilty regime members be a quicker path to the oil?
That European drug addicts buy most of the Afghan drugs.
None of which can happen without proper cause and a court order.
Who said that the proponents of finger printing was paranoid? Wouldn't it be easier to just plant some drugs or explosives while they were going through your suit case in customs if an agent really had it in for you? Sure beats waiting around looking for a crime scenes in which to plant your prints. And just how would the agent having it in for you go about doing that? "Excuse me officer, I know this is not my jurisdiction and all, but might I take a gander at the murder weapon?" Without the law couldn't they dust the counter your hand recently touched slap some tape on it, or no, wait! They could just follow you to the bathroom and....Originally posted by skidder
Real bad if someone has it in for you, they could plant your fingerprints at the scene of a crime, how? because they already have them on record cool! (wait that's far too ridculous isnt it?)
Okay, I'm staying off the political thing here, but I just need to put this remark in perspective.
First of all, the US has a far larger drug problem than any western European country, and even though it is true that the large majority of opium produced in Afghanistan is sold to Europe, about 95% of the opium produced in what is called "The Golden Triangle" (A gargantuan part of South East Asia) is sold to the US, and this area produces an amount of opium that dwarves what is being sold to Europe.
I'm getting a wee tired of political threads. All you guys do is just throw the same old tired ass points back and forth, while never agreeing on anything. The world is a ****ty place, and it'll only get worse before it gets any better...
"The war on terrorism and those countries that support terrorism"
GWB
If you lot have got the time you can look at the public records of MI5 and MI6 this contain declassified files.
What's the point you ask,
well the records confirm that a large percentage of the weapons and funding for the IRA originated in the good old USA .
So the question is if groups within the USA actively supported the IRA (and there is proof of this) in it's campaign of terror, should the UK impose similar security measures on American's flying to the UK.
After all last time I checked the IRA had not declared peace just a cease fire.
GWB
If you lot have got the time you can look at the public records of MI5 and MI6 this contain declassified files.
What's the point you ask,
well the records confirm that a large percentage of the weapons and funding for the IRA originated in the good old USA .
So the question is if groups within the USA actively supported the IRA (and there is proof of this) in it's campaign of terror, should the UK impose similar security measures on American's flying to the UK.
After all last time I checked the IRA had not declared peace just a cease fire.
The US heroine market primarily buys from Mexico and South America, with SE Asia and Afghanistan being a distant second and third respectively, but I was not implying that the US does not have a drug problem while Europe does. I was replying to the statement that the US "made" Afghanistan the number one producer of illegal drugs in the world. Even though they've always been near the top, with al Qaeda and the Taliban garnering much of the profits from their sale, but it still takes a market in which to sell it, and by and large that market is Europe. After liberating the Afghan people from the Taliban tyranny, we would've won no friendships by immediately setting fire to their opium fields. Although I wish they were doing a better job convincing farmers to raise different crops, as well as increasing the subsidies to a level comparable to the money they get from growing opium (which isn't all that much), a better drug enforcement policy of their intended markets would also help matters.
For the record I've never started a political thread (and I'm not implying that you said I did). I simply defend my nation's policies whenever I see them questioned. In my heart of hearts I've enjoyed the challenge, although some of you are less challenging than others.
As much as this, I feel that only good things can come about from these exchanges, even though both sides never seem to budge, I feel that the continued understanding of one another (even in a slight way) makes up for it. Never any hard feelings,
Mark
D
duffistuta
Guest
I’m don’t think that America is over reacting, (in most cases) but wasn't America’s stance on terrorism a lot softer when it was Russia and Israel that were at risk.
And with regards to the treatment of detainees as combatants, under the Geneva Convention, classification as combatants has to be determined by a neutral party. Which has not been done. A technicality, but non the less a breach of the Geneva convention.
And with regards to the treatment of detainees as combatants, under the Geneva Convention, classification as combatants has to be determined by a neutral party. Which has not been done. A technicality, but non the less a breach of the Geneva convention.