What does it mean when they say...

[The Dewbliners]

If we don't watch it guys, he's going to put us in "The Camel Clutch", fuck us in the ass and humble us "Old World style".

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

if we did it for the Oil then why is gas over $4 per gallon?

If the proportional net decrease in the availability in oil coupled with rising populations globally is unsuccessfully buffered by the discovery of a single new source. I mean, we do only have x amount of years with oil left, somewhere within a century I believe. You can see the geometric rate at which oil prices have increased all the while new avenues for oil recovery have been discovered. I doubt even a huge vein of oil at this stage would stabilise oil prices for any length of time.

 

[ABMorales787]

Lex Luthor became president once. That didn't stop Superman from stopping his plan to use a kryptonite meteor for his own benefits. Even if it meant been seen as a traitor. Point is they do what they do because they feel it's the right thing to do no matter what.

 

[Smartie]

yeah I said large-scale terrorists are run by government, and by government I didn't mean the technical elected-by-people one, I mean the ones in power.

an easy example that I can give you is hezbollah who are in Lebanon and Iranian government runs them.

 

[Tastycles]

What's your point? No country that America has invaded in the last 20 years at least has had a democratically elected government. All of them have either posed a direct threat to the US by attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Iraq) or by aiding and abetting terrorism (e.g. Libya, Afghanistan). They attack these countries because a) their actions pose a threat to the USA and b) their actions pose a threat to the USA's allies. I am probably one of the most opposed to the war in Iraq on these forums, yet you are making literally the worst possible arguments against the US that it is frankly embarrassing.

 

[Smartie]

I'm saying that America is taking advantage of these weakened countries and yet hold themselves like the world's sole savior.

They tell Americans that by attacking these countries we are defending America which is bullshit and they tell the attacked countries people that we are here to bring you freedom and democracy which is another lie so I think embarrassment is for America and peple who believe their claims, not me.

 

[Tastycles]

What do you expect them to say? "We're doing this to make Israel happy"? If history has taught us one lesson over and over again it's that not a lot of good comes from blaming the Jews.

Putting spin on actions is what everyone does, and not doing so is a disaster. The US army's actions do, however indirectly, affect the defence of the country, so saying that isn't a lie, it's just overemphasising a minor point. To use your John Cena analogy, it would be like when the commentators over emphasise that he was attacked from behind, when there's more to it than that. The heel has still hit him from behind, and everything Cena does can be justified within that context.

 

[The Dewbliners]

I'm saying that America is taking advantage of these weakened countries and yet hold themselves like the world's sole savior.

They tell Americans that by attacking these countries we are defending America which is bullshit and they tell the attacked countries people that we are here to bring you freedom and democracy which is another lie so I think embarrassment is for America and peple who believe their claims, not me.

Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

Get over yourself, bro.

 

[Smartie]

Well, to me overemphasizing a minor point is only a fancy equivalent for lie.

Even though I don't even fully believe in those minor points to be true.

 

[Tastycles]

How is saying something that is true the equivalent to a lie?

 

[The Dewbliners]

How is saying something that is true the equivalent to a lie?

Isn't the answer obvious? I mean, they're lies because he doesn't believe them to be true. If only I knew this when I was younger, and didn't agree with people. I spent way too much time having polite discussions, while I could have been accusing everyone of lying.

 

[Dwayne_Jason]

What's your point? No country that America has invaded in the last 20 years at least has had a democratically elected government.

Cold War:

GREECE: 1947-49--U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
Philippines: 1948-54-- US fight against Huk Rebellion
Puerto Rico 1950 Independence crushed down
IRAN 1953 overthrew democracy, appoints Shah

While I agree that in the 90's the US didn't invade a democratic country but during the Cold war, they sure as hell helped out dictators.

All of them have either posed a direct threat to the US by attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Iraq)

Not all.

or by aiding and abetting terrorism (e.g. Libya, Afghanistan). They attack these countries because

a) their actions pose a threat to the USA

We'd see a full on invasion two miles away. And don't bring 2001 attacks into the equation because that was not organized by military but militants.

and b) their actions pose a threat to the USA's allies.

Particularly the corporations.

I am probably one of the most opposed to the war in Iraq on these forums, y

et you are making literally the worst possible arguments against the US

While his argument is somewhat weak, I think what he means is that the US troops are still fighting for a cause that is extremely debatable. He's blaming the workers for a defective product, and not the CEO (figuratively speaking) who sanctioned it.


Also, this thread should probably go into the Cigar lounge as you'll have an artillery fire of a backlash.

 

[Shadowmancer]

Err... Do you not understand international politics at all?

International Politics is defined as One Country attempting to Buttfuck another country while avoiding being buttfucked by a different country.

This is paraphrased and expanded on something that was written in a Tom Clancy Novel. I think its Debt of Honor