First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
USA: The Yankee Empire
531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / O CANADA!
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

MidnightZorya wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:

Sorry, but this is stupid. I don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. And now this is just prejudice. Since you don't know the political backgrounds. You are only speculating, but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil?...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing.

Flo~


please tell me the relation between 9/11 and Iraq. There is none. The perpetrators were Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi. Bin Laden is based in afghanistan. Saddam and Bin Laden hate each other so why would saddam help bin laden? he wouldn't and didnt.


Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Then he changed the pre cursor to human rights. which is crap because under US occupation not much has changed hell its even worse.

Why didnt Bush Sr? go in 1991? Cause he couldnt gas the Kurds off of there lands to get their oil. So he waited till saddam did it and then let his son go in later.

where is your proof for going to Iraq? Oh thats right they are all lies.


Its the oil stupid.


Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that.

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.

Flo~





Sorry, but this is stupid. you call this debate stupid don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. you think that the most technologically advanced military in the world with spending equivalent to the next 8 biggest spenders in NATO put together isnt "that strong anymore" And now this is just prejudice. offering no facts of your own you call prejudice Since you don't know the political backgrounds. analize the situation, doesnt take a genius You are only speculating,again, you are speculalting but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil? this is the line which prompted my post to give you reasons ...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing. again discrediting without your own contradicting research



Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. maybe stupid was harsh I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that. so you dont give an opinion but discredit someones opinion, which can give the impression that you are taking an adverse stance

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this. None of my arguments are biased bullshit, they are all facts. Look them up. The only speculative comment was George Bush Seniors decision to leave Saddam in power to gas the kurds. I typed my post up quickly and left some steps out but its enough proof, yes, proof look it up, to make a connection between 9/11 as a precursor to the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq and the vast oil resources contained in that country.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.
calling me an idiot will not change the fact you meant to discredit someones opinion, I defended it and that you offered none and then tried to discredit my facts and 1 speculation with name calling.

Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:

Sorry, but this is stupid. I don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. And now this is just prejudice. Since you don't know the political backgrounds. You are only speculating, but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil?...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing.

Flo~


please tell me the relation between 9/11 and Iraq. There is none. The perpetrators were Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi. Bin Laden is based in afghanistan. Saddam and Bin Laden hate each other so why would saddam help bin laden? he wouldn't and didnt.


Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Then he changed the pre cursor to human rights. which is crap because under US occupation not much has changed hell its even worse.

Why didnt Bush Sr? go in 1991? Cause he couldnt gas the Kurds off of there lands to get their oil. So he waited till saddam did it and then let his son go in later.

where is your proof for going to Iraq? Oh thats right they are all lies.


Its the oil stupid.


Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that.

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.

Flo~





Sorry, but this is stupid. you call this debate stupid don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. you think that the most technologically advanced military in the world with spending equivalent to the next 8 biggest spenders in NATO put together isnt "that strong anymore" And now this is just prejudice. offering no facts of your own you call prejudice Since you don't know the political backgrounds. analize the situation, doesnt take a genius You are only speculating,again, you are speculalting but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil? this is the line which prompted my post to give you reasons ...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing. again discrediting without your own contradicting research



Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. maybe stupid was harsh I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that. so you dont give an opinion but discredit someones opinion, which can give the impression that you are taking an adverse stance

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this. None of my arguments are biased bullshit, they are all facts. Look them up. The only speculative comment was George Bush Seniors decision to leave Saddam in power to gas the kurds. I typed my post up quickly and left some steps out but its enough proof, yes, proof look it up, to make a connection between 9/11 as a precursor to the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq and the vast oil resources contained in that country.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.
calling me an idiot will not change the fact you meant to discredit someones opinion, I defended it and that you offered none and then tried to discredit my facts and 1 speculation with name calling.



Okay, let's analyse this situation now.hmm..When I said this is stupid, I wasn't referring to the topic.
You want my opinion? Well, I won't make any researches to proof my thoughts, that's also why I didn't express my opinion here. All I was asking the people that say that they think that it was all due to the oil to give me some proof. Since I am not from America I hoped someone from America could give me more information about this. Okay, the way I typed it might have had a bad impression...

Here is my opinion: Yes, I think you are definitely right, it was the oil that had happen to be the main unofficial purpose of why the USA went to Iraq. But please don't think that only the USA was after the oil..(.Europe secretly too, just they wont admit that.). The USA was merely the first one who started to act. Europe would have done something about this sooner or later if the USA wouldn't have interfered first. But to emphasise it, this is only my opinion and it might be that my views are influenced by the media somehow, though I don't watch tv anymore....

Anyways, I am too lazy to look this facts up. And I thank you for the vulgar end, which you obviously edited in the last second before I answered.
And I won't argue with you on that topic, since I am not enough informed about it to insert my two cents. All I wanted was to see some facts based on reliable ressources. If that sounds like an attack then it must have been one.


welook 
17501 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / havent u noticed...
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

BlackMokonaHolic wrote:

Most powerful military. We havent been beat yet.


lmao thats complete BS. US lost in veit, korean wars, and the now war is going down hill

531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / O CANADA!
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

MidnightZorya wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:

Sorry, but this is stupid. I don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. And now this is just prejudice. Since you don't know the political backgrounds. You are only speculating, but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil?...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing.

Flo~


please tell me the relation between 9/11 and Iraq. There is none. The perpetrators were Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi. Bin Laden is based in afghanistan. Saddam and Bin Laden hate each other so why would saddam help bin laden? he wouldn't and didnt.


Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Then he changed the pre cursor to human rights. which is crap because under US occupation not much has changed hell its even worse.

Why didnt Bush Sr? go in 1991? Cause he couldnt gas the Kurds off of there lands to get their oil. So he waited till saddam did it and then let his son go in later.

where is your proof for going to Iraq? Oh thats right they are all lies.


Its the oil stupid.


Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that.

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.

Flo~





Sorry, but this is stupid. you call this debate stupid don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. you think that the most technologically advanced military in the world with spending equivalent to the next 8 biggest spenders in NATO put together isnt "that strong anymore" And now this is just prejudice. offering no facts of your own you call prejudice Since you don't know the political backgrounds. analize the situation, doesnt take a genius You are only speculating,again, you are speculalting but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil? this is the line which prompted my post to give you reasons ...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing. again discrediting without your own contradicting research



Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. maybe stupid was harsh I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that. so you dont give an opinion but discredit someones opinion, which can give the impression that you are taking an adverse stance

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this. None of my arguments are biased bullshit, they are all facts. Look them up. The only speculative comment was George Bush Seniors decision to leave Saddam in power to gas the kurds. I typed my post up quickly and left some steps out but its enough proof, yes, proof look it up, to make a connection between 9/11 as a precursor to the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq and the vast oil resources contained in that country.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.
calling me an idiot will not change the fact you meant to discredit someones opinion, I defended it and that you offered none and then tried to discredit my facts and 1 speculation with name calling.



Okay, let's analyse this situation now.hmm..When I said this is stupid, I wasn't referring to the topic.
You want my opinion? Well, I won't make any researches to proof my thoughts, that's also why I didn't express my opinion here. All I was asking the people that say that they think that it was all due to the oil to give me some proof. Since I am not from America I hoped someone from America could give me more information about this. Okay, the way I typed it might have had a bad impression...

Here is my opinion: Yes, I think you are definitely right, it was the oil that had happen to be the main unofficial purpose of why the USA went to Iraq. But please don't think that only the USA was after the oil..(.Europe secretly too, just they wont admit that.). The USA was merely the first one who started to act. Europe would have done something about this sooner or later if the USA wouldn't have interfered first. But to emphasise it, this is only my opinion and it might be that my views are influenced by the media somehow, though I don't watch tv anymore....

Anyways, I am too lazy to look this facts up. And I thank you for the vulgar end, which you obviously edited in the last second before I answered.
And I won't argue with you on that topic, since I am not enough informed about it to insert my two cents. All I wanted was to see some facts based on reliable ressources. If that sounds like an attack then it must have been one.




It was a mod edit. im glad you saw it though and you're very welcome.
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

BlackMokonaHolic wrote:

Most powerful military. We havent been beat yet.



Vietnam, primitive fighting schools American Army
6203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08
USA as a world power? Yes. As an Empire? Not even close. Even if we are a world power, we aren't that great of one; just look at our happy little recession that we're going through. Note the plummeting debt and what the value of a dollar has decreased to.

People saying China is parring up with U.S. on this is crazy. Sure, they made a good start with their economy, but how certain are you of how long it is going to stay like this. Their poor:rich ratio is so borked since the distribution of their economy is so unbalanced, not to mention dozens of people willing to leave it. In terms of fighting, China's Military industrial complex is so out of date and they still use weapons that date back to God who knows when. Pretty much any technology they have that is based on their military is "epionaged", so to say, off of the U.S.. China is just not willing to put their Billions into actually researching things
1337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / East Coast
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08
the USA's influence on the world is terrifying. Mostly because most US citizens know nothing of what goes on outside.

Like hardly any Americans know that the majority of the dictators in places like Central America were assisted into power by the United States.
2792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / The Midwest
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

welook wrote:


BlackMokonaHolic wrote:

Most powerful military. We havent been beat yet.


lmao thats complete BS. US lost in veit, korean wars, and the now war is going down hill



The U.S. did not lose Veit. If you look back there was not one battle that we lost. If you find one, please tell me. Saigon fell two years after the Americans left. We cant lose a war we werent there for. There was an agreed armstice, and a treaty was made. The only thing that the U.S. failed in was making a capital gov't for people over there. And for the Korean Wars there was another armstice, and peace was made. Neither of those wars did the United States lose. Once again, if you find somewhere were they lost, please tell.
welook 
17501 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / havent u noticed...
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

BlackMokonaHolic wrote:


welook wrote:


BlackMokonaHolic wrote:

Most powerful military. We havent been beat yet.


lmao thats complete BS. US lost in veit, korean wars, and the now war is going down hill



The U.S. did not lose Veit. If you look back there was not one battle that we lost. If you find one, please tell me. Saigon fell two years after the Americans left. We cant lose a war we werent there for. There was an agreed armstice, and a treaty was made. The only thing that the U.S. failed in was making a capital gov't for people over there. And for the Korean Wars there was another armstice, and peace was made. Neither of those wars did the United States lose. Once again, if you find somewhere were they lost, please tell.


look at the over all picture, what happened in the end. i wont argue with such nonsense displayed on the table
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

liwancito wrote:

This thread is about USA as empire

In my perspective..i think its this is true...USA has become the most powerful country [[better say political organization]] in the world..so they think they can rule the world [[what is so true]]..coz they can manipulate the economy of any country or influence the politic of any country [[like when they want to change Cuba]]...or simply they take over a country through their power...[[Iraq's case]]...using a stupid pretext just to take over of what they need....so im sure in few years..maybe 5 or 6...USA will become an empire..the Yankee empire...

so what r ur opinions??


lol you should watch this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
817 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Cebu City, PH
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08
The U.S. is a world power, but not an empire if you speak about political things like territorial gains, etc. Neo-colonialism is what the former colonial powers are doing in our world today. Former colony nations are given indepence, but if the government of that nation lacks the economic and political backing of its former master, it would fall apart.

Take for example the Philippines (former U.S.-held territory) - if the Arroyo government loses favor from the U.S. it would collapse to the destabilization plots that attack it. Britain is also doing this case to their former colonies in Africa.

The rise of America as a world power since World War II has ushered an era different from what was before it. If America loses influence on the third world countries, then a new era will begin.
2792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / The Midwest
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

welook wrote:


BlackMokonaHolic wrote:


welook wrote:


BlackMokonaHolic wrote:

Most powerful military. We havent been beat yet.


lmao thats complete BS. US lost in veit, korean wars, and the now war is going down hill



The U.S. did not lose Veit. If you look back there was not one battle that we lost. If you find one, please tell me. Saigon fell two years after the Americans left. We cant lose a war we werent there for. There was an agreed armstice, and a treaty was made. The only thing that the U.S. failed in was making a capital gov't for people over there. And for the Korean Wars there was another armstice, and peace was made. Neither of those wars did the United States lose. Once again, if you find somewhere were they lost, please tell.


look at the over all picture, what happened in the end. i wont argue with such nonsense displayed on the table


Please tell me the over all picture, I would like to know your opinion on that.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 1/27/08 , edited 4/21/08

liwancito wrote:

This thread is about USA as empire

In my perspective..i think its this is true...USA has become the most powerful country [[better say political organization]] in the world..so they think they can rule the world [[what is so true]]..coz they can manipulate the economy of any country or influence the politic of any country [[like when they want to change Cuba]]...or simply they take over a country through their power...[[Iraq's case]]...using a stupid pretext just to take over of what they need....so im sure in few years..maybe 5 or 6...USA will become an empire..the Yankee empire...

so what r ur opinions??


wow what a coincidence. i just started reading a book about that. its called "confessions of an economic hit man" by john perkins. i'm only one chapter in, but basically the guy goes to poor-assed nations offering huge loans from the U.S. government for construction projects for dams, powerplants, etc.. the only condition is that american companies build the projects. so lots of money is paid to american corporations, and the poor country is secretly expected to default on its loans within a few years. the U.S. uses that as leverage to either put military bases in the country or exploit its natural resources. so then the country is stuck paying off its debt with most of its income, and leaving little of it to actually help its people.

they author said that there are people who are sent in if the "hit men" fail, known as "jackals" and that they're even more brutal. he hasn't gone into depth about them yet, but i'm only one chapter in. he said that the last resort to adding a country to the empire is the military (panama, vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, etc.)

*EDIT: the author is a retired hit man himself
Posted 1/28/08 , edited 4/21/08

OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:


MidnightZorya wrote:

Sorry, but this is stupid. I don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. And now this is just prejudice. Since you don't know the political backgrounds. You are only speculating, but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil?...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing.

Flo~


please tell me the relation between 9/11 and Iraq. There is none. The perpetrators were Saudis. Bin Laden is a Saudi. Bin Laden is based in afghanistan. Saddam and Bin Laden hate each other so why would saddam help bin laden? he wouldn't and didnt.


Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Then he changed the pre cursor to human rights. which is crap because under US occupation not much has changed hell its even worse.

Why didnt Bush Sr? go in 1991? Cause he couldnt gas the Kurds off of there lands to get their oil. So he waited till saddam did it and then let his son go in later.

where is your proof for going to Iraq? Oh thats right they are all lies.


Its the oil stupid.


Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that.

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.

Flo~





Sorry, but this is stupid. you call this debate stupid don't think that the USA is that strong anymore. you think that the most technologically advanced military in the world with spending equivalent to the next 8 biggest spenders in NATO put together isnt "that strong anymore" And now this is just prejudice. offering no facts of your own you call prejudice Since you don't know the political backgrounds. analize the situation, doesnt take a genius You are only speculating,again, you are speculalting but do you have a proof that the USA used the 9/11 just to start a war in Iraq and get the oil? this is the line which prompted my post to give you reasons ...please....some proofs are required before you are blabbering nonsense that is based on nothing. again discrediting without your own contradicting research



Eh, I don't know why you are attacking me. maybe stupid was harsh I didn't say that the 9/11 was the purpose to go to Iraq....nor that the oil is...I was referring to some here who did, and I referred to the OP...who is obviously thinking like that.
I didn't say that I have proofs. Since I am not aware of the secret political backgrounds, I won't start to speculate about things I am not sure, and which I can't proof.
You should next time read it thoroughly before starting to attack me. I didn't even give my opinion on that. so you dont give an opinion but discredit someones opinion, which can give the impression that you are taking an adverse stance

Yes, it might be the oil, but I can't agree with it 100% since nobody brought up any persuasive facts or proofs about that. Your argumentations are biased bullshit with no proof or fact as a basis. Don't come on me with lame attacks like this. None of my arguments are biased bullshit, they are all facts. Look them up. The only speculative comment was George Bush Seniors decision to leave Saddam in power to gas the kurds. I typed my post up quickly and left some steps out but its enough proof, yes, proof look it up, to make a connection between 9/11 as a precursor to the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq and the vast oil resources contained in that country.

And calling me stupid won't change the fact that you are an idiot who is apparently unable to read my post, and get it's meaning.
calling me an idiot will not change the fact you meant to discredit someones opinion, I defended it and that you offered none and then tried to discredit my facts and 1 speculation with name calling.



Okay, let's analyse this situation now.hmm..When I said this is stupid, I wasn't referring to the topic.
You want my opinion? Well, I won't make any researches to proof my thoughts, that's also why I didn't express my opinion here. All I was asking the people that say that they think that it was all due to the oil to give me some proof. Since I am not from America I hoped someone from America could give me more information about this. Okay, the way I typed it might have had a bad impression...

Here is my opinion: Yes, I think you are definitely right, it was the oil that had happen to be the main unofficial purpose of why the USA went to Iraq. But please don't think that only the USA was after the oil..(.Europe secretly too, just they wont admit that.). The USA was merely the first one who started to act. Europe would have done something about this sooner or later if the USA wouldn't have interfered first. But to emphasise it, this is only my opinion and it might be that my views are influenced by the media somehow, though I don't watch tv anymore....

Anyways, I am too lazy to look this facts up. And I thank you for the vulgar end, which you obviously edited in the last second before I answered.
And I won't argue with you on that topic, since I am not enough informed about it to insert my two cents. All I wanted was to see some facts based on reliable ressources. If that sounds like an attack then it must have been one.




It was a mod edit. im glad you saw it though and you're very welcome.


Oh yeah, I am glad too. Now at least I can tell for sure at what kind of smutty level you are.

PS: I forgot to say, when I said that the USA ain't that strong anymore, I thought that it was clear that I wasn't referring to the military force, but to the economical situation. Now really, can't you use logic at least for a bit?
11728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 1/28/08 , edited 4/21/08
anyone here read "Jennifer Government" by Max Barry? He's an aussie author, and it's sort of about a "Yankee empire" where the US controls everything now, and they've turned the world into a corporate run mess. Good read.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.