It’s over: MPs say the special relationship with US is dead
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 15:36
VIEWED: 12277
PAGE 15 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just have to comment on the title "It’s over: MPs say the special relationship with US is dead".
Part of me wants to note that it was probably over between us after 1776 ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
I think they are referring to the relationship between man and poodle is done
They learned that some folks just can't be trusted when they say " No problem, we know what we are doing "
Sad thing is the pricks knew exactly what they were doing... and they need to pay the piper for it
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And if WW2 had not of occurred and Nazi Germany was the world power
would you be making the argument that the Japanese would be worse...
is the premise of the question that the US is currently or historically comparable to Nazi era Germany? lets keep this in perspective, America didnt start ww2, or ww1 for that matter. in some ways, that would have made the US an axis power(ironically). as it turns out, most AMericans didnt want to get involved in either of those wars, and but for the attack at Pearl Harbor its possible we may not have. not to say there werent some war proponants, like FDR. only God knows how things would have turned out otherwise. either way, we're in a position of damned if you do/damned if you dont. look i advocate staying out of the worlds business.. then we could be criticized for not coming to anyones aid.
im not going to be apologetic for things i didnt do and cant change. we break our own laws when we dont follow our own CONSTITUTION, which prohibits these things. unfortunately that was too little government for some around here.. so we've since scrapped that. things have coincidentally gotten worse since then. but atleast at one time, our original form of government was based on a document called the bill of rights, and not mein kampf or the communist manifesto. that should be a pretty clear gauge for people.. the closer America returns to that model the better
Quote:
Madeline Albright
Mass Murder and War Criminal
do you let her slide because somebody else may have done worse...
certainly not. would you go as far as to call her a terrorist? what kind of mindset or ideology prompts or compells an individual or entity to do such things; pursue such egregious policies? its a worldview, its an ideology- its a set of personally held principles or beliefs. how can we best stop terrorism? the only way to truly preempt evil is a positive change of heart. i dont believe in central planning like Albright did, just as i dont when Bush or Obama do it. i cant re-write history, but what i can do is promote libertarianism, since(i believe) it allows for the most personal liberty and freedom from tyranny. and tyranny comes in all shapes, sizes and countries
so get on board already,
the world has to be changed from the inside outwe all know the NWOs the real puppeteer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
but what i can do is promote libertarianism
that is good, such ideals could well serve to improve our world
but we still cannot forget justice for crimes that have been committed is necessary before one can really move on. Without that how can we have trust and understanding.
Especially crimes of the magnitude we are discussing
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by Gino-
but we still cannot forget justice for crimes that have been committed is necessary before one can really move on. Without that how can we have trust and understanding.
Especially crimes of the magnitude we are discussing
i agree, who doesnt want to see the guilty brought to justice. unfortantely when its government policy, the accountability gets diluted through the beauracracy. if the UN didnt exist, or the US wasnt a participant, its likely any unwarranted meddling wouldnt be so easily condoned. in your example with Albright, Clinton and the democrats didnt seem to regard what happened as evil or war crimes. to prosecute people for these things, we're going to have to expose the ideologies behind policies that promote coercion and intervention. thats my only point.. its a battle of ideas, hearts and minds more then anything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
posted by Gino-
but we still cannot forget justice for crimes that have been committed is necessary before one can really move on. Without that how can we have trust and understanding.
Especially crimes of the magnitude we are discussing
i agree, who doesnt want to see the guilty brought to justice. unfortantely when its government policy, the accountability gets diluted through the beauracracy. if the UN didnt exist, or the US wasnt a participant, its likely any unwarranted meddling wouldnt be so easily condoned. in your example with Albright, Clinton and the democrats didnt seem to regard what happened as evil or war crimes. to prosecute people for these things, we're going to have to expose the ideologies behind policies that promote coercion and intervention. thats my only point.. its a battle of ideas, hearts and minds more then anything.
hearts and minds are part of it
tearing down a system that protects such... people
might be necessary to prevent it from happening again and again
sad thing is so many are willing to point at Bush and say it was him...
The rot goes so much deeper
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Experienced generals TOLD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THAT IT WOULD TAKE MANY MORE TROOPS TO SECURE THE COUNTRY.
I think Bush is an idiot, you think he's a gleeful war criminal(?). Both explain the above, but my theory is somewhat less wild. But 'idiot' and 'psychotic war criminal' are not interchangeable just because they can have the same end result.
Quote:
MAYBE because in Germany we specifically sought to rebuild to protect ourselves from an economically-driven repeat of the WWI reparations, but in IRAQ Richard Bremmer sought to spread Iraq's legs for corporate rape and make Iraq pay for it's own invasion? (Like what was done to Germany post WWI.)
I don't like the WW1 comparison; there was no talk of 'punishing' Iraq for its actions, and no desire to cripple it's future power like Germany's. Are you saying the Iraq invasion was a kind of corporate imperialism? I'm ready to hear your 'capitalism's sinister role' argument.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And you seem to think, naively as possible, that everything we do is for the best, that we're always for "freedom", despite mountains of evidence laid at your feet. The U.S. is ALWAYS out only for what's best for the U.S.; we don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, except as it impacts our business interests.
But the ideas are not incompatible, sometimes U.S interest in foreign countries IS for stability, prosperity and freedom. Like Europe post ww2, and during the cold war. Whatever the motivations the positive benefit of U.S 'intervention' in these cases has been incalculable. Make sure you have that fact in your heads, lefties.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
And you seem to think, naively as possible, that everything we do is for the best, that we're always for "freedom", despite mountains of evidence laid at your feet. The U.S. is ALWAYS out only for what's best for the U.S.; we don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, except as it impacts our business interests.
But the ideas are not incompatible, sometimes U.S interest in foreign countries IS for stability, prosperity and freedom. Like Europe post ww2, and during the cold war. Whatever the motivations the positive benefit of U.S 'intervention' in these cases has been incalculable. Make sure you have that fact in your heads, lefties.
Heads should roll
And whatever the motivations, the NEGATIVE impact of U.S. intervention in just about anyplace south of the US-Mexico border has been just as incalculable. So make sure you have THAT fact in your head, righty.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
the NEGATIVE impact of U.S. intervention in just about anyplace south of the US-Mexico border has been just as incalculable.
Disagree - not on the same scale.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Experienced generals TOLD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THAT IT WOULD TAKE MANY MORE TROOPS TO SECURE THE COUNTRY.
I think Bush is an idiot, you think he's a gleeful war criminal(?). Both explain the above, but my theory is somewhat less wild. But 'idiot' and 'psychotic war criminal' are not interchangeable just because they can have the same end result.Quote:
MAYBE because in Germany we specifically sought to rebuild to protect ourselves from an economically-driven repeat of the WWI reparations, but in IRAQ Richard Bremmer sought to spread Iraq's legs for corporate rape and make Iraq pay for it's own invasion? (Like what was done to Germany post WWI.)
I don't like the WW1 comparison; there was no talk of 'punishing' Iraq for its actions, and no desire to cripple it's future power like Germany's. Are you saying the Iraq invasion was a kind of corporate imperialism? I'm ready to hear your 'capitalism's sinister role' argument.
Heads should roll
Explain the sanctions then ?
Was that not set up to punish Iraq ?
Were the results of that policy not only known but a part of the public record ongoing for over a decade with UN reports, etc ?
At the time many countrys on the security council said the sanctions were not working, also looking back they were based on even less evidence than the case made for the Bush invasion ?
So not just Bush, but this stains Clinton as well
They say ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, outright stupidity shouldn't be either...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME