I can not believe you actually think you won that argument. You really *are *a stupid cunt.
Then you should have written it “Police actions, like Serbia or GW1, should be handled by international groups, not at sole US discretion.” That would have cleared it up.
Big fan of De Beers, eh?
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were a former freedom fighter. No, you aren’t to blame, but all the people who continued to work in and for the former RSA are for supporting that regime, except for the medical services.
Thanks. Believe me, my wife and I argue about comma placement all the time. Would you believe I usually use too many?
When De Beers blows up my cousin’s wedding, we’ll talk.
Not freedom fighter, just an activist. The difference is in the not shooting people. But hey, we won that war. Anyway, this is a bit of a hijack, isn’t it - we’ve had our Truth and Reconciliation Comittee, so the moral baggage of the past is mostly done with. Well, outside of Orania, anyway. The moral baggage of the current US occupation is still - well - current.
So the US military is stalled outside Bagdhad, unable to make forward progress, and Saddam is still holed up and issuing defiant bulletins?
Dibble’s stupidity is contagious! Run away! Run away!
Regards,
Shodan
Regards,
Shodan
Ahhh fair enough. Hug da pugs for me 
Very droll, but since the thread in question can be found right here I think I can say I definitely won. Well, at any rate, I had credible cites while **monty **just had his “no, you the jackass” routine.
Wow. Just wow. Is this a serious question? You have no perpesctive. Nor common sense. Since you need the help, let me try to dumb it down enough for you. (Being a humanitarian of this magnitude is really eating to my spare time.)
We have bases in other NATO countries, because they were under constant threat from the Soviet Union and couldn’t safely depend on thier own defenses. They needed, and asked for, the US to have a strong presence to counteract the Soviet influence.
Now look at the US. No really, go get an atlas, I’ll wait.
OK, look at the continent of North America. See how the US is just to the south of Canada? Canada looks big and scary on a map. They have a relatively strong economy and a decent sized population, but they aren’t really the type of people to pose a great threat to the US. Plus, they’re a military ally anyway. Not much to worry about there. Well, except for a guy named Bill on Maple street in Winnepeg. But the locals are able to keep him in line.
Now look south of the US. See Mexico? Again, a formidable presence on a map, but not a great threat that could easily overpower the US. In fact, I think they may spend more on thier soccer teams than the military. (Well, maybe not, but it’s a fun concept to entertain.)
Now look at the US. We have a better than mediocre military. We can sleep pretty easy at night knowing there’s little threat of another nation being able to launch a full scale attack on us. We seem to have a little more money to spend than the other NATO countries.
Why in hell would they build bases here? What could possibly be the benefit? If England ever did need to send some ass-kickers over here, I suspect we’d allow them to land at one of our tidy strips.
Why would any NATO country spend the money to maintain a base here when we seem to be holding down the fort just fine by ourselves?
This is insane that things this obvious to everyone else need to be drilled into your head. I’m wondering if we should get a pool going to buy you a steam shovel to help you out with all this digging.
It appears you’re too late, and have succumbed to the first sign of stupidity: constructing blatantly obvious strawmen.
Daniel
I understand why you used to have bases in Europe. Tell me why you have bases in Europe now. European countries have reasonable militaries now, and are hardly under threat of invasion, and haven’t been for over 20 years. Yet the US bases remain. I know some in e.g. Germany close down, but then others open up, like in the various Ethnicity-stans. Or the ME. Sounds more like after you get one area pacified, you move further into the hinterland. Kinda like Rome.
Oh, and that bit about them “asking you” for the bases? You just don’t get it. Who’s going to say no to US. especially post-war West Germany. What other choices had you left them after Dresden et al.
That you do not realise that this has applied to modern Europe for decades is the crux.
Hey, that’s a fun tactic you have there! Make up your own definitions of words, and then follow it with what you pretend is the geo-political situation in Europe. :rolleyes:
Hey, that’s a fun tactic you have there! Pick a word whose definition you can argue about, and then follow it up with a content-free, insult-heavy hijack. :rolleyes:
Which words am I misdefining this time, oh semantic wunderkind?
Just pointing out your prior proclivity to dishonestly portray certain individuals as mercenaries when they, in fact, aren’t. Just pointing out your pretense as to what the geo-political situation was in Europe at the end of WWII.
But, then, I don’t expect you to let facts get in your way.
I’d love to know how in monty-world, pointing to an argument you lost, and suggesting it says anything negative about me, paints you as anything but insane.
Also,
a) what have I said about the WWII-era geo-political situation that’s so wrong?
b) what possible fucking relevance does that have to the moral culpability of the current US occupation troops in Iraq?
…and please, try and make your own arguments rather than have Shodan make them for you, then jumping up and down, like the trained monkey you are, going “Ohh, ooh, what he said!”
I doubt you’d recognize a fact if it burst from your chest in a bloody mess.
Yep, the insanity is coming through quite clearly. I give you post #235 as the prime evidence.
or, to paraphrase:
“No, you the jackass”
Meanwhile, over here , Monty shows he can’t tell the difference between saying “I like what you posted” and the “Me, too” monkeydance he did so well upthread.
Depends on who’s deciding the reasonability I guess.
Ummmm, the Berlin wall was still up in 1985…
So the bases are moving away from the stable areas and toward areas with less stable political regimes? Huh, I wonder why that is…
It could be also that the nations in question like the bases there because it brings in a lot of money for the local businesses. But why let the nations in question make these decisions when some dude in South Africa can make far better decisions than they can? :rolleyes:
I guess it does.
Right, up until the very second the Wall fell, the West was in constant deadly danger of being invaded - and when the Wall fell, it magically stopped being in danger. And the Red Menace was exactly as bad as the Americans always made it out to be, if not worse.
note for the humour-impaired - this is sarcasm
Because unstable regimes are easier to [del]invade[/del] [del]regime-change[/del] bring democracy to, silly.
I’ve never questioned the sense in sucking up to the world’s only superpower. I can fully understand all sorts of reasons for wanting the bases there. That doesn’t make the imperialistic overtones of the whole setup any less so.
Guess the bases in Saudi must have suddenly gotten unprofitable, huh?