true but doesn't every country have its own agenda?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-18 21:40 ID:Fye+6Iwz
Not every country topples democratically elected governments through subterfuge, and hypocritically forces democracy elsewhere.
Name:
sumarugatu2007-04-18 21:43 ID:5s7jEsMI
i like your thinking, yes we are forcing democracy on another country. what exactly do you mean by subterfuge? do you mean our presidents inability to speak and then is portrayed as an intelligent man?
>>8
amerika earnt its independence. doesnt mean you should shove the same shit down every other coutries throat. how can THEY appreciate "freedom" otherwise huh?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-20 13:36 ID:huY+aUx3
Think that USA need to handle their economic problems before minding other countries' business...
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-20 17:01 ID:VFpS2I8a
Then what about the Amerikan dollar? The reason why people trying to rant about North American Union in the States?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-20 23:16 ID:moScfv7/
is that why other countries are dumping the us$ then? euro and the pound are looking better for longterm.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-20 23:42 ID:btOqRhUW
>>14
In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros. When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the U.S. dollar.
Enforcing the use of the US dollar in trade was the most important reason for the US invasion.
You can guess what other major oil exporter is planning to switch to the petroeuro.
>>16
I take it you hate america, so you must be a socialist. Right? Well state owned currency is a SOCIALIST policy.
Libertarians would privatise currency and their philosophy is so correct that it would be popular amongst muslims and all of the tyrant oppressing them would be overthrown within a decade.
Why have you neglected to mention these facts? Do you really love socialism so much that you wish to ignore it's flaws and cause sufferring by supporting it? I thought socialists were supposed to like poor people. You're a huge twat you know that?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-21 8:10 ID:6ev1JS/B
>>11 >>9 is trying to pull the "electoral college doesn't count even though the constitution says so" thing, saying that al gore beat bush. don't mind him.
>>17
Socialism? WTF!?
You're diversions, straw men, caricatures, and simple lies are unabashedly foolish.
Please, please kill yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-22 5:26 ID:oCbWoqJ0
>>17
Wow, you must be a protégé of the great intellect and master of debate; Sean Hannity, your overt use of logical fallacies, straw men, lies, distortions and nonsensical suppositions are truly the work of a self-aggrandizing and superior-caliber idiot.
"their philosophy is so correct that it would be popular amongst muslims and all of the tyrant oppressing them would be overthrown within a decade."
Lemme do one! Their philosophy is so correct that it will bring Keith Moon back from the grave and everybody will be filled with love and happiness and bunnies. Then, Santa Claus will be real.
I don't know why people neglect to mention these facts. Maybe they love Satan too much. Or they're just huge twats.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-22 13:20 ID:8Rxesdei
>>19 >>20
Take a look at the facts. I said nothing about america. Just their right to national self determination and the liberty of their people. Libertarian principles strong in their religion, just tucked under the carpet by abusers of Islam.
>>21
It clearly states in the Koran that a truly pious man has the balls to stand before a tyrant and tell him the truth. Muhammed was like a minuteman fighting against tyranny. If religions were all about fooling people into being subservient then we would have 10000s of religions like in the Roman empire. Religions become famous because of their correlation with libertarian principles. No one invented libertarianism, it is more of a collection of 1000s of years of experience from ancient texts and wise people to devise a method of preventing tyranny and ensuring human progress and happiness. The ancient Chinese, Babylonians and Greeks all envisaged it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-22 13:59 ID:IpTNK0BT
Just their right to national self determination and the liberty of their people
This was America's policy for Germany after world war one, which led to Nazism.
Islam is in no way libertarian, it has it's own politik which was all hardline beleivers follow.
It clearly states in the Koran that a truly pious man has the balls to stand before a tyrant and tell him the truth. Muhammed was like a minuteman fighting against tyranny.
Sounds like this is where Usama bin Laden got his inspiration.
If religions were all about fooling people into being subservient
They're not, but can be easily used as such.
Religions become famous because of their correlation with libertarian principles.
Religions gain success through persecution of diverging heresies, promise of reward or punishment after death, and proselytism.
No one invented libertarianism
WRONG it is more of a collection of 1000s of years of experience
WRONG The ancient Chinese, Babylonians and Greeks all envisaged it.
WRONG
>>23
It was America's policy, but it wasn't France's policy.
If it is where Osama got his inspiration, he would be standing in front of tyrants and telling them the truth instead of bombing civilians on the other side of the planet, retard.
So you agree with me.
You missed the point, any religion can persecute heretics, promise divine rewards and neat ceremonies, what made these religions spread across entire continents were their core concepts which are all libertarian. Libertarianism is in effect the best of religions minus the dubiousness.
No one invented libertarianism, it is a set of ongoing discoveries dating to ancient times and many of it's concepts were envisaged on seperate occasions by many culture's most wisest philosophers who made it clear that people who are not libertarian are uncivilised barbarians.
>>25
America is the tyrant in the eye of the worlds muslims.
what made these religions spread across entire continents were their core concepts which are all libertarian
False. It's proselytism, which is strongest in Christianity and Islam. Judiasm rejects proselytism, and that's why there are so few. No one invented libertarianism wisest philosophers who made it clear that people who are not libertarian are uncivilised barbarians
Once again, you repeat lies. Perhaps you're thinking of Athenian Democracy. But you still wont stop spewing shit from your whore mouth.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-29 5:43 ID:Uo7UHoLp
This was America's policy for Germany after world war one, which led to Nazism.
o rly?
The Treaty of Versailles played a large roll in leading to the worst slaughter ever seen on this planet, and you don't know how it was made?
This is just pathetic. I hope you're not American.
Wilsonianism This principle was first applied to the modern international relations context by Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points of January 1918, in which he set out a blueprint for a just and lasting peace in Europe after World War I. The Wilsonian approach influenced the idealist tradition in International Relations, which has at times supported military intervention in support of self-determination.
Since there had been strong isolationist sentiment before and after the United States entered the war in April 1917, many Americans felt that they should get out of European affairs as rapidly as possible. The United States of America took a more conciliatory view towards the issue of German reparations. Americans also wanted to ensure the success of future trading opportunities and favorably collect on the European debt.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-29 20:39 ID:uswoSXqp
too bad america forgets its own history.
something about fighting an imperialist rule comes to mind here. something about a war of independence...?
but our glass house is thicker than everyone elses, and we have the guns.
Here's a quote for you Eurofags "don't bite the hand that feeds you"
we all know that if the U.S. hadn't gicen you Limeys all those supplies when you were trapped on your little island; you would havebeen ultra fail and hitler would have sent his vastly superior infantry against you. If America hadn't opened up a second front Hitler would have had an easier time of focusing the entirety of his military might on the Russians and utterly pwned them.
You Eurofags also seem to forget the existence of the Marshall plan as well (you know that whole thing with the giving away of hundreds of millions of dollars to get the poor Euro bastards up on their feet).
And you say we shouldn't throw stones?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 10:10 ID:zzJSDfts
>>32
Um, no. When did the normandy landings take place? June 1944. When did the battle of Stalingrad take place? February 1942. When did the battle of Kursk take place? July, 1943. In summary, the two biggest and most decisive battles on the eastern front were fought and won a full year before that 'second front' in France was opened (and even 2 months before the invasion of Italy had taken place). By June 44 the Russians had reclaimed all Soviet territory bar the Polish areas they gained through the Nazi-Soviet pact. In other words, the war was over bt the time Yankee-doodle showed up with a few hundred thousand men, while the Russians and Germans threw millions at each other. Your fail is extensive, sir.
But you did save us from Stalin, I'll give you that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 10:11 ID:zzJSDfts
>>33
Meant to say Feb 1943 for Stalingrad (giving the date it finished rather than started), my bad.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 10:14 ID:Zz0gnJSt
>>33
So you think the marines who died at Normandy deserved to die because they were fighting for EVIL AMERIKKAN IMPERIALI$STS whilst the soviet communists fighting on the eastern front were the real heros?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 10:18 ID:zzJSDfts
>>35
Yeah, that's exactly what I think, because after all, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, SEE, LOOK, IT'S RIGHT THERE, IN THE 3RD LIN- OH FUCKING HOLD IT!!!!!!!
I DIDN'T SAY THAT, DID I?
WEEPING JESUS ON A 12-FOOT STICK, THIS MEANS I WAS SIMPLY POINTING OUT THE GROSS HISTORICAL INACCURACY AND GENERAL BULLSHIT CONTAINED WITHIN POST >>32
Asshat.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 15:48 ID:Zz0gnJSt
>>36
Wow, your mom must really be a morbidly obese dirty bitch. It was a simple yes no question and my point was that 1000s of non-soviet soldiers sacrificed a lot and you can't say they were doing the wrong thing or they didn't count for nothing.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 19:31 ID:mwSVuiDO
>>37
Wow, you must be an idiot. I'm not talking about the sacrifice of one side or the other, merely stating the historical fact that 75% of German troops in WW2 fought on the eastern front, and that by the time the Normandy landings took place all the major battles on that front had been fought, with an inevitable Soviet victory already in sight. I'm not saying Americans did the wrong thing, or that they died for nothing, because if I had wanted to say that believe me, I would.
What I was saying is that you were wrong. Your statement:
"If America hadn't opened up a second front Hitler would have had an easier time of focusing the entirety of his military might on the Russians and utterly pwned them"
is a load of shit, because by the time said second front was opened the Soviets had ALREADY 'pwned' the Wermacht, and were on their way into Poland. This isn't about American soldiers 'being wrong', it's about YOU being wrong, so stop trying to twist my words to disguise the bullshit history lessons you espouse.
Asshat.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-30 21:04 ID:lFNRb0Hi
ZOMG @ TEH USA DIDNT HAS INTENTIONS TO AMERIKKKAN IMPERIALI$M!