Why Americans are Saying 'No'

Nice, but a massive pre-emptive strike is nicer. Then Israel can annex southern Lebanon. Cana is there, at which Christians say Jesus turned water into wine. So it has always been Jewish anyway.

 

It looks like he forced Syria to put its chemical weapons under Russian or UN control. Good enough for me, by golly. Bush could have gotten Saddam to put his WMDs under UN control but, alas, Saddam had no WMDs.

 

I wonder why Jews get the reputation of being war mongers....

 

Inherent GREED - being devoid of empathy towards non-Jews , callously grabbing every opportunity to profit/gain from chaos / other people's misery/misfortune .

....

...

 

Inherent anti-Semitism. Thanks for sharing.

 

Then later they will whine about being cast as the warmongers.

Sometimes in the very same thread.

See what I mean about that mindset?

 

Its okay, Jacko. The Umma will decide what to do.

 

The IDF tried that before. They failed.

 

Yes, the Nazis in 1939 would definitely agree with your assertion; they loved first strikes.

 

Ahhh, now you are getting close to understanding the real lessons of WWII, and the real reasons the US seems to be everywhere, monitoring everything. Yo world, we need help with this policing business, get your heads out of the sand.

 

That's not what he meant. He meant that the USA is almost like the new Nazis. People are actually getting their heads out of the sand and are openly rebel against the US foreign policies. Napoleon made a mistake, Hitler made a mistake and I'm certain you are going to make the same mistake. It's just to tempting to try.

 

If we were allowed to use logic, Bush must not have believed in the WMD story either, or else he wouldn't have sent ground troops in to get wiped out. It's the equivalent of Saddam having short-range nukes. If Bush had himself believed in his lies, he would have had to bomb the Iraqis into submission and starve them out before sending in the infantry.

 

Appeasers make mistakes too.

 

As the saying goes ,


"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

(G B - Shaw )


...:

 

We can always count on our European allies to give a limp wrist response to any international crisis.

 

Rather accurately describes the situation in the USA these days. By the way, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? It remains to be seen.

 

Well good luck with the next new rulers of global empire, you can hope they will be kind masters.

 

When it comes to dealing with an actual crisis our European allies(so called) don't have quite as much credibility as they seem to think. That's because they can't really back up any of their words with action. They don't just lack the political will, they don't have the capability. They are completely dependent on the US for their security, so it's funny to listen to Europeans talk about global security issues as if they were somehow relevant.

 

That is stunning observation. If that is the case, why don't you simply dismantle the NATO and all military bases you spread across the European continent? Why don't you simply bugger off from Europe if Europe is so irrelevant?

 

I can answer that. Agreements exist for however long the agreement last, administrations are but a blip.

 

All such 'agreements' should thus be declared null and void. They would have no legitimacy.

Boo hoo, what ya gonna do.

 

Because then you'd have to defend yourselves from each other.

 

What are you talking about?

 

I prefer to say no whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates to prosecute any war.

 

Why do you imagine the other members of NATO are so reluctant to have US forces leave?