| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
america isnt the first country to invade a country to invade another nation to exploit their natural resources and they wont be the last
i think the americans have been a lot less heavy handed than the previous global hyperpower the british. the brits wiped out whole groups of people such as the tasmanian aboriginals. the brits whiped them out in under 100 years!
#199 to #178
-
goodcod (03/12/2012) [-]
See the difference is that America likes to portray itself as a forward thinking enlightened society, the so called "Land of the Free." As a nation it puts itself at the top of the food chain and has claimed a moral superiority to other, particularly non-Christian, countries.
This isn't true. America has no moral mandate to dictate what other countries are allowed to do, be or believe. But they do it anyway. We're supposed to be past the destructive imperialism of the past, we as people are supposed to have learned from the past but the American government are just wantonly ignoring it, setting themselves up however unintentionally as he new imperialist power in the world. I would happily see the American system torn down.
This isn't true. America has no moral mandate to dictate what other countries are allowed to do, be or believe. But they do it anyway. We're supposed to be past the destructive imperialism of the past, we as people are supposed to have learned from the past but the American government are just wantonly ignoring it, setting themselves up however unintentionally as he new imperialist power in the world. I would happily see the American system torn down.
*DISCLAIMER: im an australian* i think the fact america helped re-build a devastated europe and to a degree warded off "communist" USSR post world war one reflects how in some circumstances, america does have a moral mandate to police the world..... although i agree this mandate has been battered by the wars in iraq
Perhaps at one point they had a higher moral standing but the slow regression it has been going through for the past number of years, more pronounced since 11/9, has lowered their credibility significantly. There seems to be a victim mentality since 2001 that's led to them lashing out in some sort of pre emptive defensive strategy. The current warmongering talk involving Iran is just a continuation of that.
When the American government failed to help its own people in the wake of Katrina and still hasn't rebuilt New Orleans, that's pretty much when I lost faith in them. Whatever about helping to rebuild Europe way back when, they should look closer to home. The most rebuilding they have done as a country was Iraq, after they had destroyed it.
When the American government failed to help its own people in the wake of Katrina and still hasn't rebuilt New Orleans, that's pretty much when I lost faith in them. Whatever about helping to rebuild Europe way back when, they should look closer to home. The most rebuilding they have done as a country was Iraq, after they had destroyed it.
They're as bad as each other. Both corrupt. The American government is more hypocritical though. They preach about human rights with Guantanamo still open and a horrific record of wartime abuses. I honestly believe the entire Bush Kony, the Ugandan heroistration should be brought before the ICC for war crimes.
I've been following the campaign and I know why Paul hasn't been well received but at the same time I can't understand it. Shocking that for such a patriotic segment of voters, that the candidate with the most support from the soldiers themselves gets so little from those who say they support their soldiers.