NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do you guys think?
Should we be the world police force and control others?
Should we send minimal troops to parts of the globe where we need?

What should we do?

Give me your thoughts Gyspie
-borat

You're asking for a flame-war, kid.

Aye. Run, run whilst you still can!

Stay in America unless specifically requested to aid a nation. Otherwise it is none of your business.

We decline to comment at the moment as any opinion expressed may not be welcomed by all and it hasn't been properly screened to ensure that it comes out the right hole. ;)

So what do you guys think?
Should we be the world police force and control others?
Should we send minimal troops to parts of the globe where we need?

What should we do?

Give me your thoughts Gyspie
-borat

Everywhere that even one person is imprisoned because of their faith or thoughts we should be spilling blood until they are free.

Everywhere that someone is tortured by a government, we should be spilling blood until that torture ceases.

Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.

http://www.pwn3d.us/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/shit-again.jpgEverywhere that even one person is imprisoned because of their faith or thoughts we should be spilling blood until they are free.

Everywhere that someone is tortured by a government, we should be spilling blood until that torture ceases.

Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.
Uh, sarcasm?

Everywhere that even one person is imprisoned because of their faith or thoughts we should be spilling blood until they are free.
Everywhere that someone is tortured by a government, we should be spilling blood until that torture ceases.Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.

Yay.....the Americans are going to declare war on Gitmo

http://www.pwn3d.us/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/shit-again.jpg
Uh, sarcasm?

No. I think that these are the only things really worth going to war over. That and defense if a nation is attacked.

No. I think that these are the only things really worth going to war over. That and defense if a nation is attacked.
You think it's worth going to war over endangered animals? Well... all right then...

and this would require bombing the whole world, by the way.

I think America should try to be more like Haiti, in the sense that it should try to solve its own problems before lecturing the world on how to do theres

and this would require bombing the whole world, by the way.

including all the rats and bunnies that breed too much :(

Everywhere that even one person is imprisoned because of their faith or thoughts we should be spilling blood until they are free.

Everywhere that someone is tortured by a government, we should be spilling blood until that torture ceases.

Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.

what you're advocating is a second american civil war then. no?

http://www.pwn3d.us/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/shit-again.jpg
Uh, sarcasm?

Puppet, not sarcasm. I tend to think it's satire. No one is that unbalanced and allowed out by themselves, and asylums rarely have net access for the wackos.

I'm an American. As an American I refuse to comment because regardless of what I say, in support of, or against what our current policy is I will be degraded, berated, and insulted until I'm drawn down to a level where my only coherent response will be one of two things.

A. Repeat the same arguments over and over without proof (Like Gee Dub)
B. Respond to all accusations with, "Yeah? Well STFU." Like Mr. Cheney

This is also satyre.

As an American I refuse to comment because regardless of what I say, in support of, or against what our current policy is I will be degraded, berated, and insulted until I'm drawn down to a level where my only coherent response will be one of two things.

why do you hate freedom?

America should mind its own buisness, it does more harm than good. :headbang:

It should only help if it is requested to and only if it is the right thing to do. Zimbabwe was alot worse off than Iraq but they go ther because of oil.

Everywhere that even one person is imprisoned because of their faith or thoughts we should be spilling blood until they are free.

Everywhere that someone is tortured by a government, we should be spilling blood until that torture ceases.

Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.

So you would like to see most of the world bombed to kingdom come then?
Tortured by a Gov't? So...the US?
Endangered animal's? So....everywhere, really?
These are not things worth killing and dying for. NOTHING is worth killing for, however righteous you may think you are.

why do you hate freedom?

I don't, I love freedom. It means I am free to severely loath the state of the world... I think the term 'omniloathe' is about right.

So you would like to see most of the world bombed to kingdom come then?
Tortured by a Gov't? So...the US?
Endangered animal's? So....everywhere, really?
These are not things worth killing and dying for. NOTHING is worth killing for, however righteous you may think you are.

You see... after apoint so many of us will be dead that we will no longer be interested in war for a century or so and nature will once again floorish and reclaim areas it was kicked out of eons ago.

Its a win-win situation.

The United States should actively seek partnerships with liberal-democratic states around the world, of both strategic and economic varieties. The countries of the European Union, democracies in Latin America, East Asian democracies and India should be embraced by the United States. We should allow them to play the game, and not be subordinate to our whims, and we should occasionally work with them to accomplish their own goals.

The US should continue to perform the role as the policeman of the seas, guaranteeing the peacetime freedom of the seas as our British predecessors did in the past. We should intervene abroad sparingly, only when the circumstances are most dire, and increase our cooperation with, and support for, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. With the latter two, we should aggressively push for reaching the millennium development goals on time and on target.

So you would like to see most of the world bombed to kingdom come then?
Tortured by a Gov't? So...the US?
Endangered animal's? So....everywhere, really?
These are not things worth killing and dying for. NOTHING is worth killing for, however righteous you may think you are.

The US must not torture anyone. Torture is not what America does. If there are any American torturers, they should be hanged. We need to have strong treaties for the benefit of endangered animals, and these treaties should be enforced militarily. All political and religious prisoners must be freed by force if necessary.

I agree with Jon Island. America does alot more harm and they should go to Zimbabwe. The problem is that they now cannot pull out of Iraq because they are too involved and if they do that means they leave our troops (UK troops). And we would get slaughtered. I admit we do owe our thansk for the two WWs but after that they have done nothing but caused more trouble than they try to solve. I.E. Vietnam: All they did was send their own men to get slaughtered and kill the inncoent Vietnamese. In the Gulf all they did was shoot civillians and us.

The US must not torture anyone. Torture is not what America does. If there are any American torturers, they should be hanged.

where have you been for the past 6 years? (though the idea of bringing back hanging cast doubts of whether or not you have rock real estate

We need to have strong treaties for the benefit of endangered animals, and these treaties should be enforced militarily.

why? people are worth more than animals sadly (also I doubt like the idea of some thug telling me to do things or else)

All political and religious prisoners must be freed by force if necessary.

yeah kill millions more people than what your going to save

The US must not torture anyone. Torture is not what America does. If there are any American torturers, they should be hanged. We need to have strong treaties for the benefit of endangered animals, and these treaties should be enforced militarily. All political and religious prisoners must be freed by force if necessary.

You see... after apoint so many of us will be dead that we will no longer be interested in war for a century or so and nature will once again floorish and reclaim areas it was kicked out of eons ago.


Barring that my explanation FTW?

I'm not 100% sure that america 'gets' the rest of the world. Individual americans are fine, but as a country america tends to wade in like the great big loud thing that it is and spoil the show for the rest of us. Don't get me wrong, it's a great place and it's and amazing social experiment where many nations have come together, all but kicked out the natives and have since preached about freedom. It some how works......But only in America.

Only America would invade a country in the name of freedom and then forget to leave and set up guantanamo. Oops that went a bit wrong didn't it? Then lets not mention the gun laws. It's in the amendmant which was written how long ago? Blind patriotism is a good term for it.

I reckon Switzerland has the best eithos: Don't get involved and get rich from it.

This is also satyre.

Perhaps you meant satyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr)? :p

These are not things worth killing and dying for. NOTHING is worth killing for, however righteous you may think you are.

So you wouldn't die if you knew it would enable your family to survive? War is a necesary evil but I don't feel it is up to one country to decide what is right or wrong. If America wants respect it should work with the U.N. and listen to its allies when they warn it against carrying out idiotic foreign policy e.g. Iraq.

Perhaps you meant satyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr)? :p

Damn you beat me to it :p

So what do you guys think?
Should we be the world police force and control others?
Should we send minimal troops to parts of the globe where we need?

What should we do?

Give me your thoughts Gyspie
-borat

The world has no need for such imperialist behavior.
By the way, take first care off your own trouble before you start with those of others.
Each nation has to deal with it's own problems there own way.

If America intervenes, it is lambasted for abusing its power.

if it refrains from doing so, it is accused of not stepping in and living up to the expectations of a hegemonic power.

It's lose-lose.

Damn you beat me to it :p

AH yes, cheap humour at other's expense...the stuff of legend, right Boo?

If America intervenes, it is lambasted for abusing its power.

if it refrains from doing so, it is accused of not stepping in and living up to the expectations of a hegemonic power.

It's lose-lose.
Well you can't please everybody.

An ideal world map would see America replaced with a large expanse of water called the 'South Canada Sea'.

I thought Canada was a myth?

The world has no need for such imperialist behavior.
By the way, take first care off your own trouble before you start with those of others.
Each nation has to deal with it's own problems there own way.

Except for the fact that there are indeed some truly international issues that the wealthier countries should take responsibility for, because they benefit so greatly from them. Guaranteeing the freedom and security of the seas, for example, is an important role. Acting as a mediator for regional conflict resolution is another.

An ideal world map would see America replaced with a large expanse of water called the 'South Canada Sea'.

That's not a particularly positive attitude... :(

Neither is Extraordinary Rendition, imprisonment without trial, or 'with us or with the terrorists'.

Fuck America, fuck it right in the ear.

My, you're the open minded civil type aren't you?

The US is far more than extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without trial or George Bush's Kriegchen. Of course, there's no way to overcome that impediment in your mind, so I wonder why I should even bother responding to an angry, prejudiced middle schooler like you.

I'm not angry, just right.
You and George Bush, it would seem.

And what the hell is a middle schooler? I left university 5 years ago.

The type of person whose posted content is similar to what I've seen out of you in this thread. Usually about 13 or 14 years of age.

Well I am halfway between those two numbers when each is doubled.

So don't be a condescending prick with me. O.K boy?

If anything, based on your erudite commentary regarding the matter of the United States role in the world community, I have every reason to tell you what I think of your debating skills. The only thing your post was missing was some gun smilies and a handful of "LOL's".

Now, if you'd like to begin a constructive conversation, instead of hurling polemics and invective across this already polluted realm of the internet, I'd be glad to start.

And as for waving your age around, well, that your immature commentary does not reflect positively on you. If you were indeed a middle schooler it would be far more understandable.

If you'd like, I shall start us off.

The United States has done far more good in the modern world than harm. It has used it's power to undergird an international liberal order since the end of World War II that was essential in rebuilding the nations of western Europe, and ensuring their continued prosperity. In confronting the expansionist Soviet Union the United States held a totalitarian superpower at bay for forty years, until it peacefully crumbled under it's own weight. Certain regrettable actions were taken during this period out of the atmosphere of fear and distrust that Mutually Assured Destruction bred, but they were a mere minority of the actions taken. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, through various means, economic liberalization fully supported by the US built the vassal states of the former Soviet empire into prosperous nations, and positive members of the international community. It has guaranteed the freedom of the seas and has opened foreign markets, where economic liberalization has driven industrialization and the increased distribution of wealth away from the Occidental countries and Japan, who have held most of the worlds resources since the 1700's. In recent years, the Bush administration has undertaken several regrettable actions, but the public backlash against him has increased over time, to the point where any further abuses will be met with harsh reprisals in support for even the most popular administration policies.

So don't be a condescending prick with me. O.K boy?

Well Mr fossil, I only see one condescending prick here. I'll give you a clue, its not Andaluciae.

I got it! It's you,isn't it!

Second clue, it is often the first person who resorts to name calling who is the perpetrator.

I got it! It's you,isn't it!

From what I've seen, it's certainly not SaintB, who is behaving civilly and respectfully.

From what I've seen, it's certainly not SaintB, who is behaving civilly and respectfully.

I try... *shrugs*

Right. I'll just leave you two to make sweaty shit covered bumove shall I.

I do hope you have a pleasant day. From what I've seen of you, you are most certainly the epitome of class.

If you'd like, I shall start us off.

The United States has done far more good in the modern world than harm. It has used it's power to undergird an international liberal order since the end of World War II that was essential in rebuilding the nations of western Europe, and ensuring their continued prosperity. In confronting the expansionist Soviet Union the United States held a totalitarian superpower at bay for forty years, until it peacefully crumbled under it's own weight. Certain regrettable actions were taken during this period out of the atmosphere of fear and distrust that Mutually Assured Destruction bred, but they were a mere minority of the actions taken. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, through various means, economic liberalization fully supported by the US built the vassal states of the former Soviet empire into prosperous nations, and positive members of the international community. It has guaranteed the freedom of the seas and has opened foreign markets, where economic liberalization has driven industrialization and the increased distribution of wealth away from the Occidental countries and Japan, who have held most of the worlds resources since the 1700's. In recent years, the Bush administration has undertaken several regrettable actions, but the public backlash against him has increased over time, to the point where any further abuses will be met with harsh reprisals in support for even the most popular administration policies.

Seeing as Bob Fossil seems unable to make a sensible arguement, I shall have a try for him.

Whilst no sane individual can argue against any of the examples of Americas previous achievements such as being the key figure in the rebuilding of Werstern Europe, it has also made many mistakes:

- It is equally at fault for the Cold War as the USSR is. Both countries seeked to gain influence over other nations and expand their own influence and ideas around the world. Yes Russia was totalitarian and wished to take over as much of the world as possible but there is an arguement that America only seeks to help nations when it has something to gain from the situation e.g. trade, resources or preventing allegiance to the USSR or other enemies.
- Vietnam and more recently Iraq presented how America is too frequently getting involverd in conflicts and situations where they do not need to intervene. Over Iraq, they went against the advice of their key allies and stirred up further conflict in the Middle East.
- Their Middle Eastern policies have angered many who live in the Middle East and has created the current "Jihad" that some Muslims have declared against the Western world.
- Finally, America was key in rebuilding Europe after the war but only when the USSR began taking over Eastern Europe and the USA feared losing European export markets(among other reasons). From my knowledge of British history, we gained an unfavourable loan from America that effectively removed Britain as a world power and ensured its dependence upon America. It was not until Marshall Aid that America seeked to help Europe and that was 2 years after the war had ended

I think it is best that America limits its interferance in international politics and keeps out of situations that do not concern them.

Right. I'll just leave you two to make sweaty shit covered bumove shall I.

Excuse me? I couldn't understand you over all the angst. Grow up...

I am grown up! This is a laugh.

You certainly don't act like it.

economic liberalization fully supported by the US built the vassal states of the former Soviet empire into prosperous nations

you where doing so well :(

America hasn't lifted a finger to help the former Soviet bloc out as shown by the conditions that are comparable to still being in the Soviet union now take a look at how much money the US gave to rebuilding Europe and Asia then read up on the lesson that showed

if anything the free market in the former Soviet empire consists solely of an arms trade to unsavory characters the rest is the signature state capitalism of before

C -
"Could do better. Sleeps too much in class."

It wasn't the angst, it was proably Andaluciae's thighs covering your ears.

I am grown up! This is a laugh.

Grown up? You are so grown up you come to a random internet forum and start insulting people. Very mature *claps* you are a model of what it is to be a mature responsible person. You have made no valid arguments and have done nothing but sling insults at us. Its pathetic, go take a nappy-nap Bobby Wobby, the grownups are trying to have a polite conversation. We'll call you back for cookies and milk when its over.

Where is a moderator when needed? Just like the cops.. get us little guys for the minor offenses and ignore the ones who need a kick in the pants.

I wonder if Anduluciae will respond to my post? Or is he still rising to the bait laid out by Bob Fossil?

Say Something Andaluciae, all I got is:

The US are gud! We don't not want trouble! Don't you like our Team America World Police?

I shall have a pleasant day, kind sir. Andaluciae, From what I have seen of you, you appear to be a stuffed shirt, pretentious imbecile with probably no social skill outside the internet.

All that's missing from this little n00bish post is the requisite gun smiley. Tone it down. You're new here, I doubt you want a mod boot imprint so soon on your little tush. There is no need to be rude.

So what do you guys think?
Should we be the world police force and control others?
Should we send minimal troops to parts of the globe where we need?

What should we do?

Give me your thoughts Gyspie
-borat

Relations with other countries aren't great. However I do feel its better than what it could be if say China was in the position the US is. The US is at least a democratic republic where the government is held responsible to its people, not so in China.

Stay in America unless specifically requested to aid a nation. Otherwise it is none of your business.
You're right. I can think of a couple times in the last century that we could have done just that, jawohl?

You're right. I can think of a couple times in the last century that we could have done just that, jawohl?

If you are referring to either World War, if I remember you were requested to join the war. You just refused at first and either joined at the end of the war (WW1) or joined when you were attacked (WW2).

I am arguing that America should keep out of affairs where its opinion or action is neither needed, requested or desired by those involved e.g. Iraq, Vietnam.

You're right. I can think of a couple times in the last century that we could have done just that, jawohl?

Fail for the bad reference to World War II.
Fail for forgetting your history - that Hitler declared war on the US.

I wonder if Anduluciae will respond to my post? Or is he still rising to the bait laid out by Bob Fossil?

No, Jolt is being the problem child that it is.

On the first point, I would argue that the USSR bears the brunt of the responsibility for how the Cold War developed. Stalin sought to expand Soviet influence to the English channel in an attempt to secure the Soviet Union against the external aggression Marxist-Leninist theory predicted would come from the western powers in the years following their reconstruction. The United States and the other western powers, as history has proven, had no such designs on Russia. They certainly could have taken further steps to allay Stalin's fears on the matter, but they do not bear primary responsibility for the Cold War.

I can't disagree on the second point. The US has made errors when estimating appropriate commitments in certain theaters around the world.

As to the third point, the US bears partial, but not sole, responsibility for this problem as well. Instead it is borne out of the ethnic and religious tensions that developed following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and exasperated by the competitions of the superpowers. The US support of Israel and several corrupt regional strongmen, combined with the repression of opposition groups Soviet-supported states (such as Syria and Egypt), and the failures of Arab nationalism to deliver the 'goods' to the people have led to the regional discontent that is currently so prevalent in the region, so you have partial agreement here.

On the fourth point, the United States was still overcoming internal debate about what it's role in the post-war world should be at this time. The voices of isolationists had been merely temporarily silenced during the war. Domestic economic concerns (many expected the rapid onset of the depression with the return of the military men into the economy, and the decrease in government contracts). It took divisive internal debate, and the realization as to how high the costs would be if the US failed to act, to develop a consensus regarding the appropriate actions to be taken. As we all know, democratic systems are not fast now, and they were even slower back then.

Why doenst the US use 1/2 its immense treasury for anything other than war

Random?

I run a zoo but have a small problem. I've lost the biggest animal in my zoo! It's a whatdoyoucallit, you know big grey leg-faced man. Last time I saw him he was talking to the big hairy hands feet man about bananas and buns.

I doubt you'll catch him looking on the internet, check a mirror or something. I can continue this stupid banter all day, its my only source of entertainment right now. Or since I'm online is it Intertainment? Whichever; you seriously need to stop being such a doofus before you have to find somewhere else to be spiteful at. I imagine it would be a difficult propostiion for one of your intelect to find another internet forum on a search engine.

If you are referring to either World War, if I remember you were requested to join the war. You just refused at first and either joined at the end of the war (WW1) or joined when you were attacked (WW2).

I am arguing that America should keep out of affairs where its opinion or action is neither needed, requested or desired by those involved e.g. Iraq, Vietnam.

I agree with you that we should maybe stay out of things. But, had we been asked, it would have made little difference to many.

Yes, we didn't join the fight in WWI until near the end, but join the fight we did.

Before joining WWII, we were giving arms to those Allied forces that were in need. We could have battled the Japanese once attacked and left Europe to fend for itself, but we didn't.

It's becoming my opinion that we should stay out of things these days even if asked for assistance. We should lock down our borders and tell the rest of the world to piss up a rope.

No, Jolt is being the problem child that it is.

On the first point, I would argue that the USSR bears the brunt of the responsibility for how the Cold War developed. Stalin sought to expand Soviet influence to the English channel in an attempt to secure the Soviet Union against the external aggression Marxist-Leninist theory predicted would come from the western powers in the years following their reconstruction. The United States and the other western powers, as history has proven, had no such designs on Russia. They certainly could have taken further steps to allay Stalin's fears on the matter, but they do not bear primary responsibility for the Cold War.

I can't disagree on the second point. The US has made errors when estimating appropriate commitments in certain theaters around the world.

As to the third point, the US bears partial, but not sole, responsibility for this problem as well. Instead it is borne out of the ethnic and religious tensions that developed following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and exasperated by the competitions of the superpowers. The US support of Israel and several corrupt regional strongmen, combined with the repression of opposition groups Soviet-supported states (such as Syria and Egypt), and the failures of Arab nationalism to deliver the 'goods' to the people have led to the regional discontent that is currently so prevalent in the region, so you have partial agreement here.

On the fourth point, the United States was still overcoming internal debate about what it's role in the post-war world should be at this time. The voices of isolationists had been merely temporarily silenced during the war. Domestic economic concerns (many expected the rapid onset of the depression with the return of the military men into the economy, and the decrease in government contracts). It took divisive internal debate, and the realization as to how high the costs would be if the US failed to act, to develop a consensus regarding the appropriate actions to be taken. As we all know, democratic systems are not fast now, and they were even slower back then.


Point 1 = The USSR may have had designs on the rest of Europe after the war but for the whole of the Cold war, both the USA and USSR are equally at fault for allwoing the stand-off to continue for so long.

Point 3 = I agree with you, many different nations are at fault for the current situation in the Middle East, with America being one of many over the last few centuries but one of the main ones in the last 10 years.

Point 4 = That is entirtely possible that there was much debate over America's role in the post-war world domestically. However, despite this, they were still slow to react to the crises in Europe and aid their war allies. They also failed to stand up to Hitler when it became obvious that Britain and France were unable to face Hitler in the build-up to the war (although the U.K. and France must take most of the blame as they carried out appeasement which was more damaging than America's non-intervention.

My, you're the open minded civil type aren't you?

The US is far more than extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without trial or George Bush's Kriegchen. Of course, there's no way to overcome that impediment in your mind, so I wonder why I should even bother responding to an angry, prejudiced middle schooler like you.

Will George [prick] Bush get done for war crimes post-presidency..????????

Put your handbag away you prissy little fuck. You have the comedic imagination of a big brother contestant.

That was uncalled for and extremely rude. You have stepped out of line.

If you'd like, I shall start us off.

The United States has done far more good in the modern world than harm. It has used it's power to undergird an international liberal order since the end of World War II that was essential in rebuilding the nations of western Europe, and ensuring their continued prosperity. In confronting the expansionist Soviet Union the United States held a totalitarian superpower at bay for forty years, until it peacefully crumbled under it's own weight. Certain regrettable actions were taken during this period out of the atmosphere of fear and distrust that Mutually Assured Destruction bred, but they were a mere minority of the actions taken. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, through various means, economic liberalization fully supported by the US built the vassal states of the former Soviet empire into prosperous nations, and positive members of the international community. It has guaranteed the freedom of the seas and has opened foreign markets, where economic liberalization has driven industrialization and the increased distribution of wealth away from the Occidental countries and Japan, who have held most of the worlds resources since the 1700's. In recent years, the Bush administration has undertaken several regrettable actions, but the public backlash against him has increased over time, to the point where any further abuses will be met with harsh reprisals in support for even the most popular administration policies.

rebuilding western europe...apart from the UK, to set it behind so its empire practically colllapses.

Ahem, the US and the UN help the commies at bay example...brits + french in vietnam, brit+french patrols in the north sea post war, brit air superiority over north sea post war,etc etc.

Freedom of the seas, US primarily,UK + france etc

and i agree with the end bit, Bush is a twit {*************************}

Point 1 = The USSR may have had designs on the rest of Europe after the war but for the whole of the Cold war, both the USA and USSR are equally at fault for allwoing the stand-off to continue for so long.
It was the distrust that was borne in those early years of the Cold War that drove the conflict as long as it did. The US perceived Soviet expansion around the globe in 1947, a viewpoint that was merely reinforced with the well equipped North Korean invasion of poorly equipped South Korea, which the US read as open military aggression by the USSR to spread it's interests. A climate of mistrust developed, and neither state was able to overcome it fully until Gorbachev and Reagan began to truly cooperate.

Point 3 = I agree with you, many different nations are at fault for the current situation in the Middle East, with America being one of many over the last few centuries but one of the main ones in the last 10 years.
Within the past decade the US has certainly not gone out of its way to smooth over relations in the Mid East, that's for certain. Although the actions of many regimes in the region, oftentimes not bearing US support, have also driven the problems further.

Point 4 = That is entirtely possible that there was much debate over America's role in the post-war world domestically. However, despite this, they were still slow to react to the crises in Europe and aid their war allies. They also failed to stand up to Hitler when it became obvious that Britain and France were unable to face Hitler in the build-up to the war (although the U.K. and France must take most of the blame as they carried out appeasement which was more damaging than America's non-intervention.

This is one of the important things to note in understanding American actions in the Cold War and post-Cold War world. The United States acted incredibly sluggishly to both World Wars, the economic depression of the 1930's and the rise of Soviet imperialism in Europe. This happened by virtue of the nature of the American political system. By the late nineteen forties the US had learned its lesson, all too well I might argue. In fact, what we learned from these experiences draw a direct line to the knee-jerk responses we saw to perceived potential threats in Vietnam and Iraq.

Lord knows the US has flaws, but I would argue that the American impact on the world has come down far more in the positive than the negative. Up until this administration we had been continuing to improve on our own moral credence, especially by developing a far more hands-off policy in Latin America. I'm certainly not happy about the actions of the current administration, but the options for change are limited until November of 2008.

Everywhere that even one person is imprisoned because of their faith or thoughts we should be spilling blood until they are free.

Everywhere that someone is tortured by a government, we should be spilling blood until that torture ceases.

Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.

We're going to have to start right here at home though, don't you think?

"We have lost the South for a generation." -- LBJ on the civil rights movement (specifically the Civil Right Act) of the 60's.

Unofrtunately, Bush is doing the same thing with world opinion of the US.

Put your handbag away you prissy little fuck. You have the comedic imagination of a big brother contestant.

It is still superior to your own. I've managed to keep up the banter without loosing control of my temper. I'm a little busy to be at my best form right now, putting up with unimaginative people with overblown egos and poor attitudes tends to do that to me. So please, before I start to really get less than freindly, clean the sand out of your vagina, knock back a cold one or two, and show some maturity.

I don't think I have.

Butt out of it anyway, you Canadian. Go and shoot someone in a school or something.

Just wondering but do you actually have anything beneficial you would like to add to the arguement or are you going to continue acting like a five year old?

You poor deluded fool.

Can you guess who I am?

Why don't you tell us?

I don't think I have.

Butt out of it anyway, you Canadian. Go and shoot someone in a school or something.

I have done nothing to deserve such malice. I only told you that you are being rude, which you are. Calling someone a 'prissy little fuck' is not the epitome of civil mannerisms.

I don't think you should speak like that here. This is a forum for people who want to have civil debates free of infantile insults. You are out of line and that is a fact.

If you wish to act like that then perhaps you could find a forum where they accept such behaviour. This may be a general forum but it does not mean we have to tolerate nasty comments. We are all people here and we have the right to be treated politely even if you don't like what we have to say.

This will be the last thing I write to you. I have attempted to be nice and point our your error but you took it the wrong way.

I made a post in moderation regarding your comments because I feel it is best for moderators to educate you on matters of accepted behaviour here on NSG.

If America intervenes, it is lambasted for abusing its power. Actually.. for the last century -most of the World- has been giving US the benefit-of-the-Doubt.. and sometimes we were cheered-like-saviors.

The War in Iraq has changed the viewpoint all over..
From now on -most- will not give US automatically the-benefit-of-the-doubt.

From now on, we need to be extra careful...
From now on, we better make sure we are doing the right thing.

You poor deluded fool.

Can you guess who I am?

Not who, but what. Angry, overbearing, and needing layed. You remind me of about 45% of the rest of the people online; they make porn for guys like you, not debates.

Lord knows the US has flaws, but I would argue that the American impact on the world has come down far more in the positive than the negative. Up until this administration we had been continuing to improve on our own moral credence, especially by developing a far more hands-off policy in Latin America. I'm certainly not happy about the actions of the current administration, but the options for change are limited until November of 2008.

I would argue that US intervention has shaped world politics since the war for the worse. The Cold War and current tensions in the middle east have all been partly influenced by American policy, although they have never been the only cause. America still exerts a strong influence over South America, something I feel it will have to reduce further in the future. I hope that eventuall, the USA can regain some of the trust and respect it once had in the future under a new government in 2008.

By the way, who exactly are you Bob Fossil?

Not who, but what. Angry, overbearing, and needing layed. You remind me of about 45% of the rest of the people online; they make porn for guys like you, not debates.
Oh calm down.

Stop rising to the obvious nonsense.

Behaving like a five yearold is preferable to the constant bickerink and fact throwing that goes on in these pointless arguments. I prefer dicking about and swearing to nationalistic dickwaving.

Then don't get involved and move to another thread or preferrably forum. I fyou don't like debates then ignore them and continue with whatever you would prefer doing such as tag or hide and seek or whatever activities young children enjoy doing.

Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.

Killing and dying? That's not even worth getting out of bed for.

Owner of a zoo, good freinds to my employees Vince Noir and Howard Moon. I like sky blue safari suits and can never remember the names of my animals.

Come with me on a journey through time and space.......

......The Mighty Boooooosh!

What country are you from?

Nuke em' all:gundge:
-Apart from britain-
-yes that includes themselves-

I would argue that US intervention has shaped world politics since the war for the worse. The Cold War and current tensions in the middle east have all been partly influenced by American policy, although they have never been the only cause. America still exerts a strong influence over South America, something I feel it will have to reduce further in the future. I hope that eventuall, the USA can regain some of the trust and respect it once had in the future under a new government in 2008.

You can't really blame the US for Middle Eastern Politics. You see... just before the crusades they did nothing much but squabble amongst each other and cut people's heads off. After the crusades, they conintued. Then we discovered how useful oil is, and how much of it is in the middle east. They still wish to squabble amongst each other and cut heads off, because thats the way they live. Now the entire western world is bothering them for oil, and tempting them with such things as democracy, and other strange concepts. The leaders of these people, being of the extremly conservative mindset... want to continue the squabbling and cutting off of heads. Its an endless downward spiral.

What country are you from?

That would be irrelevant. There are ill-mannered people wherever you go. Knowing his country would make no difference because rude people are a fact of life and they see to mar the outlook of others and sour our days with their negative rhetoric.

Nuke em' all:gundge:
-Apart from britain-
-yes that includes themselves-

Very progessive...?

Americas relations with other countries...hmmm, let me think...

BRITAIN->:fluffle:

That would be irrelevant. There are ill-mannered people wherever you go. Knowing his country would make no difference because rude people are a fact of life and they see to mar the outlook of others and sour our days with their negative rhetoric.

I know but I'm just hoping he isn't British because that would mean I share a country with him :p....I couldn't care less if he came from somewhere else.

The good old England.

And I have ram's legs. I am the Curious Moose.

Dammit. You aren't from Leeds are you?

I know but I'm just hoping he isn't British because that would mean I share a country with him :p....I couldn't care less if he came from somewhere else.

I see your point. Fair enough. :)

Oh calm down.

Stop rising to the obvious nonsense.

I was merely attempting to provide a public service by keeping him out of your debate with snide and unimportant comments. That and keep myself amused.

But since you don't like it, I have better things to do.. like.. work.

Very progessive...?
Well im working on it, it might not go down well with those....y'know, loser countries

Owner of a zoo, good freinds to my employees Vince Noir and Howard Moon. I like sky blue safari suits and can never remember the names of my animals.

Come with me on a journey through time and space.......

......The Mighty Boooooosh!

Never heard of you.

I was merely attempting to provide a public service by keeping him out of your debate with snide and unimportant comments. That and keep myself amused.

But since you don't like it, I have better things to do.. like.. work.
What a novel idea! :p

So what do you guys think?
Should we be the world police force and control others?
Should we send minimal troops to parts of the globe where we need?

What should we do?

Give me your thoughts Gyspie
-borat

Stay within your own borders unless a government asks for your aid OR you are on part of some UN peacekeeping/peacemaking mission

Nuke em' all:gundge:
-Apart from britain-


As long as Britain's safe *Breathes sigh of relief*

yay!MIGHTY BOOSH!

Soup, soup.......

What a novel idea! :p

No, in fact what I've been doing is pretty boring and unoriginal.

No, I ain't no terrorist.

We don't have those types where I come from.

Devonshire? I can't think of many places where terrorists haven't been arrested in the U.K.

So what do you guys think?
Should we be the world police force and control others?
Should we send minimal troops to parts of the globe where we need?

What should we do?

Give me your thoughts Gyspie
-borat

It was actually, give me your tears, gypsy, but i dont like to nit-pick, oh wait, i just did

No, in fact what I've been doing is pretty boring and unoriginal.

What? You mean work can be fun and original? :eek:

Oh and so it doesn't look like I'm totally off-topic... uh...

America is ok but its foreign policy is too aggressive for it to be properly respected as a harbinger of freedom and democracy. It needs to take a look in the mirror first and clean up its own yard before it bitches about the state of its neighbours' yards.

yay!MIGHTY BOOSH!

Soup, soup.......

I prefer Two Pints Of Larger and a Packet of Crisps.....thats a programme worth watching :D

No terrorists, but a mafia boss was arrested not 6 miles from my present location only last week.

Preston then?

Recipe for a better world;

Ingrediants;

1/2 tsp of not existing

Method;
Drink untill matter becomes soft, drink some more untill you phase out of existance

I prefer Two Pints Of Larger and a Packet of Crisps.....thats a programme worth watching :D
Two Pints is one of the most dire shows on telly.

Two Pints is one of the most dire shows on telly.

Agreed. So unfunny.

No, I ain't no terrorist.

We don't have those types where I come from.

Hmmmz


You do know that you've flamed several times, right?

Personally, if i were you, i'd calm down before somethin bad happens. Plus, you should read the One Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) and brush up on the rules. They are your bible on these forums, i'd live by them if I were you.

Near enough.

Two pints of lager...?

standard formula sitcom.

They don't have the moon talking about how a man came and walked on his ace, nor any sign of a 'jazz trance'.

standard sitcom yes but still entertaining. I've never really got into Mighty Boosh, I may have to watch it a bit when the next series comes out.

Two Pints is one of the most dire shows on telly.

I've only watched in once, and that was in france, it din;'t really appeal to me, maybe because of the language.

standard sitcom yes but still entertaining. I've never really got into Mighty Boosh, I may have to watch it a bit when the next series comes out.

Yeah, I guess you have to be criminally insane to really get it, like me.
Heh, Noel Fielding won the big fat quiz of the year with russel brand

Two Pints is one of the most dire shows on telly.

I quite like it although there is better comedy and sitcoms out there. Blackadder and Father Ted anyone?

I quite like it although there is better comedy and sitcoms out there. Blackadder and Father Ted anyone?

both, definatley. anybody who says any american rubbish like Fraiser should be shot

where have you been for the past 6 years? (though the idea of bringing back hanging cast doubts of whether or not you have rock real estate



why? people are worth more than animals sadly (also I doubt like the idea of some thug telling me to do things or else)



yeah kill millions more people than what your going to save

1) On Hanging. Torturers during wartime are serious war criminals. The serious war criminals do not deserve the honor of a soldier's death by firing squad. Instead they are hung as a dishonor. It is the military justice thing.

2. Worth of People and Animals. No. A worth of an animal just like any other commodity is its scarcity. An endangered animal is worth more than an overpopulated one.

3. Liberty vs. Death. Death is the price that we must pay to promote and preserve liberty. Liberty is more valuable than life. Nobody should have their inalienable rights stripped from them by an oppressive regime. As Democratic People we have the duty to oppose tyranny with our last breath and to free our political prisoners and religious prisoners from the prisons and everyone from torture chambers.

Damn tootin' I do.

One Stop Rules Shop - I'd wipe my arse on that bullshit if I didn't think my fingers would go through.

Then I wouldn't be supprised if you got a ban handed down to you. With an attitude like that, i'm supprised you havent been DEATed yet.

both, definatley. anybody who says any american rubbish like Fraiser should be shot

Seconded. Give me British comedy anyday.

Not to hijack or anything but...why do I think that Bob Fossil is Unholy Smite? The former poster who went out in a blaze of sour grapes via suicide by mod? :D

both, definatley. anybody who says any american rubbish like Fraiser should be shot
Well, Annie get your gun, because I’m a massive fan of both Frasier and Cheers. They’re one of the few American sitcoms I can stand.

Far superior to the half-arsed tripe that BBC Three comes out with.

Where’s Vic, Bob, Chris or Armando when you need them?

Well, Annie get your gun, because I’m a massive fan of both Frasier and Cheers. They’re one of the few American sitcoms I can stand.

Far superior to the half-arsed tripe that BBC Three comes out with.

Where’s Vic, Bob, Chris or Armando when you need them?

in their graves, i hope.

Anyway-most of the american rubbish that i've seen is unclever, unsophisticated, and unfunny.:mad:

in their graves, i hope.
You say you’re a fan of British comedy yet you wish death on Reeves & Mortimer, Chris Morris and Armando Iannucci?

Pooh to you, sah!

Pooh to you.

they're both washed up and desparate for jobs

now Rik Mayall, thats a PROPER british comedian, and Fry and Laurie, and of course, The Monty Pythons, so POOH back to you "Sah":mp5:

:gundge:any-hoo, i'm sure we are all getting SERIOUSLY off topic

wow i seriously made this topic a couple days ago...no one replied...i come back...120 posts holy crap...

anyways, i think we should not stop violence with violence. ( we should not send troops somewhere into violence to cause more violence). But send money to countries in need. ( not for military action, for food, shelter ect...)

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be out motto." ~Thomas Jefferson~

nice.

Thank you. I agree with him 100% too.

yet we knip and cut at our constitution weekly

We should abdicate our position as the world policeman and withdraw to ourselves, becoming isolationist. No one else should take up that position, nor should we be in any organization that might draw us into world policing.

we shouldn't be isolationists. what good will that do? i thnk ( like i said bfore) give aid to third world countries, and countries in need

we shouldn't be isolationists. what good will that do?

We won't end up in foreign entanglements that kill our soldiers, or encourage people to commit terrorist acts against us?

Everywhere that even one person is imprisoned because of their faith or thoughts we should be spilling blood until they are free.

Everywhere that someone is tortured by a government, we should be spilling blood until that torture ceases.

Everywhere that an endangered animal is having its natural habitat reduced we should be spilling blood until they have enough habitat to no longer be endangered.

These are the things worth killing and dying for.

So, you are saying we should be spilling blood in our own U.S.A.? We have many issues in our own nation (many areas could perhaps even be considered third world) that must be addressed.