Goddamnit, America.. America has problems.. So I heard that New Zealand found some - Did say oil?. dont worry Norway will be next to be 'liberated' Polandball america estonia poland Tank
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (108)
[ 108 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#1 - mudkipfucker
Reply +61 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
dont worry
Norway will be next to be 'liberated'
User avatar #15 to #1 - captnnorway
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Please do. It's been a whole 4 weeks since we got a new government, I don't know if I can't take it.
#63 to #15 - gerfox
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
> Implying the old government was any better
> Implying the new government has had any chance to show what they can do

You should a bit longer than 4 week to judge them.
User avatar #93 to #63 - captnnorway
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Why should I look away from what they've already done just because it's only been 4 weeks? When they weren't in the government, FrP wanted to cut 150ish million to bureaucratic, somehow that number went down to 1 million once they had power for the selves. It's also said that measures to reduce crime rates in Norway is being cut, as well as the police doesn't get a huge increase in money as promised. Out of all the tax cuts they've made, 40% of it goes to those with more than 2 million in income, meaning those who need it doesn't get tax cut and those who doesn't need it get. The idea that we should take care of those less fortunate is somehow lost to everyone on this ******* site it seems.
#99 to #93 - gerfox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
That you bash them for the budget is faulty. The budget they will submit is hugely based on the last government, and there are few changes they themselves can make until the next budget economy-wise. Wait until the next budget with bashing regarding the police, bureaucracy and tax cuts.

FrP doesn't have the power to push through their wishes. They're too small compared to Høyre. If it had been the other way around they might have gotten more of their policy through. In a multi-polar system you have to form coalitions, meaning you have to compromise to get anything through at all to get in government. They had to compromise with Venstre, Høyre and KrF, and the main case of FrP recent years has been their immigration policy, which of course has been lowered by the compromises, but that's where you see the clearest presence of FrP.

And again, don't worry about the budget. If there's one thing Høyre is good at, it's making a budget balance - and cutting if necessary.

I'm not sure if you're socialist, but what you said about tax cuts looks like it. The taxes in Norway are ridiculous as you said, but not punishing the ones with more than two mill income might be smart - since these people actually re-invest their increased revenue into the economy to create growth and more money for themselves. They already have such a high standard of living that they need not worry about anything - therefore they will not invest in new stuff to the same extent as the working class, who, in case of a tax lift - usually will buy themselves a new car, or something - meaning only that they will improve their standard of living on the short term, but not contribute with growth in the economy on the long term. Of course, increased liquidity for the working class means more income for businesses and more growth, but the liquidity of the Norwegian market is already massive.
User avatar #105 to #99 - captnnorway
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
To be fair, I'm bashing FrP for their views on people. It's easier to get a point across with facts, rather than viewpoints so I tried that first. I got nothing against høyre, I might vote for them next time around. The thing I dislike about the current government is how much power FrP has. FrP, in my eyes, is the absolute scum in Norway, no matter how I look at it they are a party made to **** up the lives of immigrants. Some how they think it's better to use money building a road to Nordland instead of helping people who actually need it. They look at everyone without blue eyes and blond hair like something lower than insects.
#106 to #105 - gerfox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Looks like someone has misunderstood FrP.
Shocker. If people actually had read their political program they would not have been as hated by some, and had the same popularity by others.

FrP isn't anti-immigrants, they are anti-immigration. They do not wish for us to let more people into our country which has nothing to offer. Like for instance gypsies, who sit in the street and beg for money. That's all they do. They are not interested in jobs, and they cash in welfare. FrP wishes rather to help people where they are, and not necessarily by throwing money at them, which was the policy of the previous government - but through other means. Such as the last government did in Africa, with the donation of several hundreds of old Army trucks to help with transportation.
FrP is a populist party, a party that focuses on what people in Norway actually want to get support. Our infrastructure is ****, and I've seen better roads on Top Gear when they are driving through the heart of Africa. They focus mostly on Norwegians rather than foreigners, and is that bad - considering they're in the NORWEGIAN government?

How much power FrP has??? YOU JUST WROTE THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO FULFILL THEIR CAMPAIGN PROMISES!!! FrP is perhaps the weakest link in the current government. Venstre and KrF, the supporters, are much more powerful - they can turn to the left and make a coalition, or they can do, as they have done, seriously limit what Høyre and FrP can do in government. While FrP has no other option than accept what Venstre and KrF wishes, because they can't form any other government, they can turn away and extort the government. Høyre is the biggest party in Norway and therefore the most powerful in government. FrP has had to abolish their most extreme immigration policies, and their bureaucratic cuts - as an example.

Norway is a small country, we can't do **** worldwide without help - and our diplomatic effort is immense. We can't save the world, no matter what you think.
#90 to #15 - northard
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Pssst. Our current government is more similar to the American government.
User avatar #2 to #1 - andranadu [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
'Murica
#25 to #1 - anon id: 8117d2cf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
************ pls go and stay go
#75 to #1 - ultrarustle **User deleted account**
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Come at us bro
User avatar #21 - zzforrest
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
I'm just wondering...
Can anyone actually provide examples of America invading a place for the express purpose of getting oil?
User avatar #55 to #21 - mrhotwings
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
I found a Wikipedia page about it, enjoy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
User avatar #81 to #21 - thebtardist
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
If you believe the Iraq war wasnt for oil interests then your being abit niave. Also Operation dessert storm was to protect kuwait, an oil rich, american backed country.
#28 to #21 - anon id: 7efc6f15
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
It's never actually happened. The situation that happened in Iran was to protect British interest in oil, not America's.

Iraq was not fought for oil, even if some oil companies got the benefits of certain contracts. However, those contracts ran out after a couple years and it has been the EU and China fighting for oil in places.

Finally, the US is now the world's largest producer of oil. We don't need to invade anyone for it
#54 to #28 - retepraamrod
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
It's not the world's largest producer, but it's finally broken eaven, so for the first time it 2 decades it is producing more oil than it consumes.
#53 to #28 - anon id: e3255930
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
British interest in oil = US interest in oil, those 2 are buddies and I'm sure there was some deal somewhere.

And then for what reason did the US invade Iraq? WMD's? That's even less likely then oil

anon because unpopular opinion, thumb away
User avatar #37 to #21 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
well no, usa has never invaded for oil, they invade of other reasons and use the oil and the disguise to cover up wat theyre really doing

User avatar #65 to #37 - fistymcbeefpunch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
I believe that the first gulf war was about oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait and was a threat to the US's oil supply.

This wasn't a hidden agenda though, Bush sr. was up front about it.
User avatar #66 to #65 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
well yeah the first gulf war was about kicking out the old leadership and installing Saddam as the american puppet to allow OPEC in to deal with oil....problem beign when Saddam got into power he denied OPEC and got his own people to sell the oil at their own rates rather than america's rates

and that was one of the reasons usa invaded iraq.....they were sick of saddam having independant control of the oilfields, they wanted the arab oil slaved to the usa market
User avatar #68 to #66 - fistymcbeefpunch
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Saddam was in power long before the First Gulf War and he wasn't put in power by the United States.

Also he was the one who invaded Kuwait to begin with.
#70 to #21 - bummerdrummer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Well I'm not an expert on the subject, but here's a wall of text with my understanding.

in the 80's we were on good terms with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, part of OPEC, and not so good terms with Kuwait, also part of OPEC. OPEC sets a certain amount of oil each country can produce to keep gas prices from becoming too competitive so that OPEC makes more money. Kuwait decides to say **** that were gonna produce more oil so we can lower our prices and sell more oil. Saddam says **** you Kuwait I'm just gonna come over and take your oil fields. This ***** with america's gas prices (among other things) so we decide to go to war in Kuwait to help them even though they were not our allies. oil prices stabilize and much happiness is USA.

tl;dr read up on the gulf war *****
#71 to #70 - bummerdrummer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
wow that looked like more of a wall in the comment box
#91 to #21 - byzantinian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Well it happened like I don't know..2 years ago in a coutry called Libya,before that in Iraq and it has almost been done in Syria now,but Syria is a little tougher than it was expected and also it has occupied south Serbia in 1999 for mining resources worth over 110 billion dollars,yes I wrote it correctly 110 billion,so yeah there are 3,4 examples.
User avatar #107 to #91 - InflictorOfPain
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/18/2013) [-]
[Citation needed]
We didn't even focus on Libya that much. And if we really wanted oil, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia. Quit living on conspiracy theories.
#108 to #107 - byzantinian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/18/2013) [-]
Saudi Arabia? Really? You are either completely unfamiliar with the middle east or trolling,Saudi Arabia is the biggest american ally there after Israel,I thought that every single person on the planet knows that and why did you invade Libya then? To save the ,,innocent civilian rebels,, that came from other countries to fight? And as far as I remember you didn't need to ,,focus,, on Libya because Gaddafi had a weak army full of deserters,so it was a different situation than Afghan or Iraq.
User avatar #109 to #108 - InflictorOfPain
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/18/2013) [-]
The other countries wouldn't stop whining until we did. It was a big thing in the news. Your English is so flawed, I'm starting to think you're the one ************. Not to mention most of our troops in Iraq have withdrawn. If we wanted their oil, we'd have it by now.
#110 to #109 - byzantinian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
Flawed..where? I am not a native English speaker,so I didn't know that I am ,,required,, to have perfect English,but its ok..and you obviously have no idea how politics work,why should you have your troops in Iraq,when you control their government politically,control their energy companies and so on,like you do in other countries you invaded,that's the important thing and not where the troops are..
User avatar #111 to #110 - InflictorOfPain
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
Troops in the area =/= Total control over their government, lives, companies. There are also European troops there too. Most foreigners on this site usually do speak English fluently. Probably because it's an international language and they use it daily to interact on the internet. And like I said, most of the troops are gone in Iraq. You're missing the point. There's no proof for conspiracy theorists like you, all you do is try to explain in backwards logic.
#113 to #111 - byzantinian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
How many times do I have to repeat,you don't have to have a single ******* soldier in order to control another country,you do it politically,is it really that hard to understand? If americans buy the main electric company in Iraq,then Iraq is NOT under the control of it,in 1953 you had a situation like that,brits controlled most of Irans companies,but Iran decided to nationalize them (take them under its control) and then the west staged a coup in which they placed the shah pahlavi and I still don't see where I am flawed..also how is this a theory of conspiracy? Its 101 of economy and politics,kids in kindergarten probably understand it..
User avatar #114 to #113 - InflictorOfPain
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
You're a special kind of stupid are you? They may have to abide by international rules which are enforced by the US, but we don't control every single decision they make. There are major companies here that were bought by foreign companies, but does that mean the country itself that these companies are from control this country? Nope.
#115 to #114 - byzantinian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
You are the one who is stupid so I will put it as simple as I can,1.america gets a important,rich company (in case it can't then it bombs the country like it did 100's of times before) 2.america gets money from that company ,there is it really that hard to understand? And who gave America the right to bomb Yugoslavia for instance? It was against the UN resolution,Libya was also not 100% justifiable,but I think that China and Russia didn't tried preventing it,but they did tried preventing bombing of yugoslavia and what does the idiotic usa do? It bombs Yugoslavia..
User avatar #116 to #115 - InflictorOfPain
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
You can't even speak English, and you don't even provide proof to back what you're saying. Prove that we bomb countries just because we haven't bought their oil companies. European countries have done that before though. We didn't even want to attack Libya, but of course, the countries who are part of NATO made us. If you want a country that does these sort of things look at China and it's extraction of resources from Africa.
#117 to #116 - byzantinian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
Wtf are you talking about? I just asked 2 different americans on one forum and they both said that I speak it perfect,yes they actually said that,so I really don't know what you are trying to say..And you are an idiot if you really think that usa or any country for that matter will say ,,we are going in war with them because we want their oil,, ,you just don't do that,the only one that actually did do it was saddam when he invaded Kuwait for oil,but then usa took it back,why? Well certainly not because it gives 2 ***** about a country smaller than a parking lot,its because of the oil,everything is about the oil in one way or another or other resources..in 1999 when nato came to Serbia,after it had withdrawn from Kosovo the FIRST ******* THING they did was take control over Trepca mines that are worth about 100 million dollars,they did it under the pretext that its not ecologically safe,so they have to ,,protect it,, ,its 2013 and american companies are the ones who have the control over that mine,there I gave you an example,if you want you can google it if you don't believe me **** you.
#123 to #116 - semidemon
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2013) [-]
youre a blind idiot mate
go read a book or two, watch some news, get educated
(and by the way byzantinian's english is just fine)
User avatar #124 to #123 - InflictorOfPain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2013) [-]
Oh, look a faggot. I'm obviously more educated than both of you combined. And considering you can't notice the flawed English with insufficient grammar and spelling errors, then you are in fact subhuman yourself.
User avatar #78 to #21 - niggernazi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
omg they invaded 9-11 to steal oil
User avatar #23 to #21 - bottleofwater
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
If you ask me, the joke was pretty much milked dry years ago.
#32 to #21 - bluenebula
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
I never understood where this came from either. A lot of people claimed that America invaded Iraq for it's oil, but I never understood that. Other countries wen't in with us, some staying all the way until 2012. For some reason, America got the most flak for being there.

I once get a figure saying that if America took all the money they've spent on Iraq in the last 13 years (One trillion dollars) then we would have enough oil to fill the entire Mediterranean Sea and then some. Sooooo I don't think we were there to war profit on oil. Just a thing I like to point out.

Every countries have their own little things people like to poke fun at. Americans are fat, Canadians ride moose to work, the French are pussies, the Great Britten doesn't know what tooth paste is, Mexico is a garbage can, Australia is a large death trap, India employs 10,000,000 telemarketers, North Korea has Kim Jung Un, and Japan is just ******* Japan.
#39 to #32 - trollxmaster
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
I enjoy your picture
User avatar #86 to #32 - mans
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
pretty sure india has more telemarketers than that actually... huge population mate.
#38 - nighthawxx
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
for future use
#48 to #38 - andranadu [OP]
0 123456789123345869
Comment deleted by andranadu [-]
User avatar #131 to #48 - jonglio
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/20/2014) [-]
x]
#50 to #48 - artige
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#122 to #50 - anon id: dd35b43b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/23/2013) [-]
**anonymous rolled a random image posted in comment #111 at The highscore **
#88 to #38 - juha
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
#56 to #38 - andranadu [OP]
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Here's a better version.
User avatar #27 - somedumbcomics
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Oh, I get it. Americans will invade your country for oil. Clever.
#89 - StormEagle
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
#61 - rappwr
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Wow! A tank!
(Estonians will get it)
User avatar #72 to #61 - snakefire
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
So like two people on the entire site?
#80 to #72 - anon id: bb00fcfd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
I'm Mr.Mollike. I found about 6 Estonians here there's probably more but I know 5 with users and one who anon-s
#95 to #80 - learned
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
make it 7 now
User avatar #112 to #95 - chillijalapeno
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/19/2013) [-]
Count me in!
User avatar #74 to #72 - rappwr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
About 3, I'd say.
#73 to #72 - kewwu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
maybe more than two
#26 - ggggotmethisname
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
#96 - wamegor
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
#92 - delio
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
User avatar #16 - Konigsteiger
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
We don't have oil...we don't have oil....
User avatar #22 to #16 - cakeninjatigerlily
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
pft we can take them... hehe... earthquake pls?
#41 to #16 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
#20 to #16 - carthonasi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
[ 108 comments ]
Leave a comment