|
Quote:
Quote:
All the bullshit between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. was NATO, not "The US". There were at least a dozen other countries involved in that whole mess, not counting the allies of the USSR. Quote:
It's funny that now that we're involved in the world, like everyone seemed to want in the 30's and 40's, they all think we should just keep to ourselves. Jeez, can't you guys make up your mind? I'm not even going to say anything about 9/11. It's obvious that you're a Loose Change brainwashee, so there's no point in going there. エヂト：I'd stick around for debate, but I need to leave for my new martial arts class ^_^ Assah!!! |
Quote:
sources/proof etc? I find that very hard to believe... |
[quote=Amnell;430860]Do you have any idea how ridiculous "Faux News" sounds? Are you even sure of how "faux" is pronounced? Sorry, I know this is irrelevant to the overall point, but still... (Btw, Fox News is no worse nor better than, say, MSNBC or CNN--they're all made up of biased sons of bitches with no interest in the news, only ratings)
Faux is French for false (False news) In my opinion Fox is way right-wing bias, and inaccurate |
[quote=Ramones1976;430867]
Quote:
|
We did that for a long time. Guess what happened? Japan bombed us--AND ON A FUCKIN' SUNDAY O_O . We stuck to the Monroe Doctrine for a good long time. Even WW1, where we did deploy forces to Europe, was a shortlived mission for the States and we immediately went back to trying to stay out of the affairs of the rest of the world (Johnson organized the League of Nations, then refused to actually join it. Isolationist? I think so). And then Pearl Harbour happened, and we all went, "OKAY! FINE! If you all are just gonna poke and jab us, then we'll be more sociable, JEEZ!"
It's funny that now that we're involved in the world, like everyone seemed to want in the 30's and 40's, they all think we should just keep to ourselves. Jeez, can't you guys make up your mind? I'm not even going to say anything about 9/11. It's obvious that you're a Loose Change brainwashee, so there's no point in going there. エヂト：I'd stick around for debate, but I need to leave for my new martial arts class ^_^ Assah!!![/quote] Well I know the us tried to remain neutral from WW1 but Germany attacked us ships with submarines. So I suppose the us tried to stay out of international affairs for a few decades... So, what difference does it make on a sunday? I know about the League of nations... Who the hell are you calling a brainwashee!? :mad: The brainwashee are the ones who thought war and paranoid are justified |
Funny, 'cause most of the military/peacekeeping action that has been undertaken by US Armed Forces in the last thirty years was at the behest of the United Nations. So why are you blaming the United States? To my knowledge, the only things we've done with our military since 1975-ish WITHOUT UN direction was Panama (iffy on that one) and Iraq II. I'm not sure at all about Vietnam, but since the French were there before we were, I would imagine that also was a UN thing, which would bump my year back to 1960-ish.
All the bullshit between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. was NATO, not "The US". There were at least a dozen other countries involved in that whole mess, not counting the allies of the USSR. Also Grenada I wasn't referring to what the UN and US did during the part 30 years, I was talking about now. Bush went ahead and declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan even though the UN was opposed. Formally Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam were know as Indochina, a French colony for 100 years (1857 - 1957). The French surrendered after years of colonial resistance, and turmoil. Then the us goes in there all arrogant and pompous (without UN support) that they can put an end to the colonial resistance and stop communism, but by 1975 look how that turned out... Their weakness was fighting in unfamiliar land against a determined group of inhabitants. Same reason Britain surrendered the 13 colonies Role of United States in the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Okay I'm done arguing and debating, this is going off topic, so I'm gonna bail out |
Quote:
I thought after the first Iraq war ended and before 2001 the us wasn't bombing the Mideast?? |
Quote:
|
the americans arnt there to rule the Japanese just so you know. i mean, yes there was the japanese-american war, but they made up and now are on good terms.so i think that they have a right to be there. from what i know, there is a Navy Base in Northern Japan correct? they use that for deployed families and to also represent the bonds they have with that contry.
|
Quote:
|
really?
I don't know about the Russian military, but I thought North Korea had the worlds largest miltary, at least thats what I read in the Guennis book of world records. |
Quote:
Korea is still testing with dumb bombs unlike russia who have more advanced bombs. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Well I hope nobody will be going to war... I guess Russia still has all those nukes and radar guided explosives from that whole arm race during the cold war? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ramones1976: First of all, "faux" does indeed mean "false". However, it is pronounced like "foe", so when you say it out loud, you sound like a complete moron. That aside, personally I like that Fox News is right-wing biased. I think there should be more right-wing biased news networks on the air, in fact. Poor Fox News is up there waving the Conservative banner all alone, standing defiantly against the sea of super-liberal news networks that have owned the airways for the last half-century.
If you want fair and balanced, you have to watch CNN for an hour, then watch Fox News for an hour. That way you get super-liberal and "super"-conservative viewpoints on the same bullshit. Better yet, don't even watch the news. It's all controlled by people who don't give a shit about giving you-the-viewer an accurate report of events, whose sole interest is making money, whose favourite form of self-amusement is sensationalizing something that makes no difference to anyone on the face of the planet and starting a nationwide panic-over-nothing (like global warming, for instance--it's true, but it's way played up). Actually, I believe Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN; it was Iraq that the UN was opposed to. We were neutral for a good long time, actually. Between 1812 and WW1, I don't believe that U.S. was involved in one conflict between European countries. That's more than a century. The sunday comment was just a joke XP . So, from my reading, Vietnam was not an officially UN-sanctioned war. However, as the motivation of the war was to halt communism, pretty much everyone in Western Europe was (initally, at least) on our side, even if they couldn't say so. You could argue that the attitude was one of pride, but it was more the restoration of reputation than it was about "we can kick your ass, just you watch". Anyway, my whole point about the UN was that everyone always complains about US military this-that without thinking about how many of the events they're talking about are really UN actions. The USMC is probably the best fighting force in the world. It would make sense, then, that whenever the UN had a little brush fire to put out that they would ask for US Marines whenever they could. Likewise for Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, etc. I think Tenchu has a point, though: a lot of the conflict right now is a dick fight. Especially with Iran and N. Korea. I don't wanna say anything about Iraq at the moment 'cause we're there and, well, we're there. Soshite, shikata ga nai. Ah, Tenchu, I don't suppose you have any links or anything to stories of U.S. bombings in ME between Gulf 1 and 2? I didn't know about that either, so I'd like to read a little about that. Hyakushi: Where exactly do you work? I thought saw a post from you a couple days ago where you said "come home from school"...???? |
Quote:
|
some people may feel the same as I do and some may disagree.......but from my stand point in the U.S. Government is that they will try their hardest to throw away ourmoney for some odd reason........I am an American citizen and will stand behnd the government even though they are the ones that will cause the next stock market crash........And sence I come from a family that runs their own business all the government wants is to screw the people out of their money.........but this is from my stand point....
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
[quote=Amnell;430984]Ramones1976: First of all, "faux" does indeed mean "false". However, it is pronounced like "foe", so when you say it out loud, you sound like a complete moron. That aside, personally I like that Fox News is right-wing biased. I think there should be more right-wing biased news networks on the air, in fact. Poor Fox News is up there waving the Conservative banner all alone, standing defiantly against the sea of super-liberal news networks that have owned the airways for the last half-century.
Who the fuck are you calling moron, ************ (angrily swears) Second, politically I'm very liberal, so Fox new is bloody bollocks If you want fair and balanced, you have to watch CNN for an hour, then watch Fox News for an hour. That way you get super-liberal and "super"-conservative viewpoints on the same bullshit. Better yet, don't even watch the news. It's all controlled by people who don't give a shit about giving you-the-viewer an accurate report of events, whose sole interest is making money, whose favourite form of self-amusement is sensationalizing something that makes no difference to anyone on the face of the planet and starting a nationwide panic-over-nothing (like global warming, for instance--it's true, but it's way played up). I watched a few minutes of Fox and I swear I wanted to bitch slap the news reporters, I couldn't stand listening to them, the things they said pissed me off :mad: Personally I like BBC news Actually, I believe Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN; it was Iraq that the UN was opposed to. No I don't think so We were neutral for a good long time, actually. Between 1812 and WW1, I don't believe that U.S. was involved in one conflict between European countries. That's more than a century. Bollocks, the US was far from neutral during the 19 century... The war of 1812, the war in Algeria, the war with Mexico... They oppressed, horribly treated, and stole land from the natives, stole Hawaii, and south west states from Mexico, bought Alaska, and during the war with Spain got a hold of the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Nicaragua. The sunday comment was just a joke XP . So funny I forgot to laugh So, from my reading, Vietnam was not an officially UN-sanctioned war. However, as the motivation of the war was to halt communism, pretty much everyone in Western Europe was (initally, at least) on our side, even if they couldn't say so. You could argue that the attitude was one of pride, but it was more the restoration of reputation than it was about "we can kick your ass, just you watch". Yes it was american arrogance... Well look how well the us did of 'kicking ass"... More like they got their asses kicked...by peasants with without as much technology Look I said I don't want to bicker and argue, so just drop it please |
Nope, they have modernized the armament of their strategic forces. A lot of the nuclear warheads that survived the collapse of Soviet union have now been re-utilized and put in-to new carrier missiles. Others have been dismounted and/or sold to other countries (rumors, o/c). [/quote]
Oh okay... |
I wasn't bickering, so I don't know what you're talking about there....
Quote:
"Politically very liberal".... Hmm, so you want National Healthcare, which will ultimately lead to a degradation of the quality of healthcare, want to increase benefits for people on Welfare even though they're one of the biggest drains on the national budget, downsize our military so that the rest of the world can shit all over us, centralize control of many utilities (water, electric) in spite of the common result of inefficiency and break-down, tax gasoline even more in an effort to stem global warming................ Okay then :vsign: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If I left that ambiguous before, I apologize. Quote:
hmm.... Again, I wasn't bickering. I might be a little sarcastic, sure.... (that's just how I am :P ) But whatever. If you think you can't hold a decent debate without it degrading into bitching, then don't reply. But next time you make assertions like you did when we first started this discussion, do back them up a little more :vsign: . |
Quote:
not only that, but the US forces first used the bolt-117 bomb 40 years ago... are you saying their technology has gone backwards since then? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I also recently heard purrsia is getting interested in the war as well, is this true?. If so then were screwed =/.
|
How do you work that out? Don't the yanks have bases in South Korea?
We do but they don't have the sufficient power capable of dealing with a desperate North Korean invasion. Unlike the 1950 event, any invasion by the North this time would be a do or die suicide assault given the dire straits the country is in. Japan holds most of America's air and naval power in the Western Pacific, bases for supply and material support and the airfields required should we lose Kimpo, Osan and Kunsan in a PDK Blitzkreig. The tactic is simple, to trade land for time, draw the DPK south into the central highlands of South Korea then cut their supply lines and slaughter them. Until we can finally effect the stablization of the Korean Penninsula or the collapse and end of the North Korean state, Japan will remain vital to the strategic defense of the North Pacific. |
Quote:
And during the beginning of this you asked what my thinking was so I gave you my honest opinion, and you gave yours... So I'm just gonna bail out of this unless someone else has something different to say... By the way about 9/11... http://www.japanforum.com/forum/gene...9-11-scam.html |
Yes they should leave...and stop rapeing people.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:29 AM. |