I won't get into this matter, it would turn easily into a flaming war. But... I'll gather some books, written by Americans themselves, showing what it's like now on Iraq, and how, by whatever reason, the people don't love them at any rate.
Hehe... yes, we're not very bright economically speaking.
Anyway, that proposal was certain death for our economy. I doubt Bush's advisors are that incompetent as not to see that. Rather, I have to assume they didn't care.
That doesn't speak bad for them... it's not their country or their people, the don't have to care. We were just worried that our own president wouldn't either have the guts to reject the proposal (for, in fact, the US has us by the balls due to all that FMI-thing), or just be incompetent enough not to realize of the danger in accepting it (it wouldn't be the first time).
That would be silly... the US would have never leaved the Pacific to the Japanese, it would have been an invitation for an invasion on US territory.
I thought that was the reason for attacking even when it was certain to draw the US into the war: they were already going to anyway.
But perhaps, as with many things, it was just an excuse.
That's a valid point... but I still think something has to be done to avoid that flagrant violation of civil rights.
...that list is even bigger than I expected.
And the little things count on the minds of the countries involved... and they're many.
Ok... this is tiresome. I'll say this one more time only. I'm not angry about it... I don't even think it's wrong... it's only the way I think it is... not right or wrong. Wrong would be for my own president not to care.Bandit LOAF said:He's not the President of Argentina, you know - what you're angry about is that the US doesn't have a magic solution to your problems, not that they're trying to insult you.
There's many reasons why the Japanese plan didn't work. The obvious one is that the attack was a failure in the sense that they'd have liked to knock out the Pacific Fleet. Japan failed to sink the carriers and so we'll never know how America would have reacted had they actually lost their offensive capability on the first day of the war
Having the United States' support for a cause and having the United States go to war are two very, very different things.
scheherazade said:18) chile (overthrow) 73'
It wouldn´t change that much. The u.s. already build more carriers, than the japanese did and so they could replace their loss more easely than the japanese could.
Actually not, since countries which were equipped by the u.s. (Afghanistan, Iraq etc.) usually were attacked by them later.
If the rest of the world is blaming the US for its own stupid conflicts because the US invents all the good weapons, they don't deserve our consideration
'm not sure you're clear on what "usually" means, since at this point pretty much every military in the world is using and buying American made weapons to some extent.
. Having the United States' support for a cause and having the United States go to war are two very, very different things
So, the leader of the free world bothered to come down to your country
Superhannes said:Who has trained the Taliban to fight against the russian occupying force? Who armed Saddam Hussein, so that he was able to attack the Iran?
Superhannes said:The leader of the free world? How can a free world have a leader?
And who armed a hundred other countries that didn't later get attacked by the US?
Who has trained the Taliban to fight against the russian occupying force? Who armed Saddam Hussein, so that he was able to attack the Iran?
The leader of the free world? How can a free world have a leader?