• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama's Foreign Policy: Chavez, Castro, Putin Endorse Obama

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
We re waiting on I'm-ina-Jihan to pipe up.

The latest [dictator] to publicly announce his support for the commander-in-chief’s reelection bid was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez... The America-bashing strongman made the announcement on state-owned television...

Earlier in the year... daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S....

... “Will Obama stand up against Putin’s abuses?” Unlikely, now that the Russian dictator has extended his endorsement.
Click to expand...
 
the western allies of the USA fear Romney winning and much prefer Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...336c56-1b84-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_story.html

Obama remains widely popular abroad, and there are signs that many leaders are unprepared for a Romney presidency.

In Western Europe, few people can imagine Romney in office. From the Scottish Highlands to the heel of Italy, it’s Obama country all the way. One survey last month from the German Marshall Fund found Europeans breaking 75 percent for Obama and 8 percent for Romney.
Click to expand...
 
I guess the likely conclusion is that pretty much the entire world outside the USA, and including half of the USA, dislikes romney.
 
Panopticon said:
the western allies of the USA fear Romney winning and much prefer Obama
Click to expand...

And you know what the Far Right Wingers on this site will say about that?

"The rest of the world likes Obama because he's weak".

But idiots will say idiotic things.

As a South African, British, Canadian (soon to be New Zealander) I don't think Obama is perfect but he is much more preferable for the world in general than Romney.
 
Yeah, I know...sigh. When Obama gets into a tiff with russia, he's endangering the world with his amateurish foreign policy - when russia supports him, he's endangering the world with his amateurish foreign policy. Of course, the exact same logic, in reverse, applies to their own guy
 
zimmer said:
We re waiting on I'm-ina-Jihan to pipe up.
Click to expand...

Actually it is more like they endorse Romney. By openly endorsing Obama, they turn people like you on, which in theory would make people vote for Romney.... With Romney they would have a person from a party that loves war and confrontation, which would keep them in power indefinitely.
 
PeteEU said:
Actually it is more like they endorse Romney. By openly endorsing Obama, they turn people like you on, which in theory would make people vote for Romney.... With Romney they would have a person from a party that loves war and confrontation, which would keep them in power indefinitely.
Click to expand...
ROTFLOL... I can see your reverse psychology view... but not with these egos.
 
Panopticon said:
Yeah, I know...sigh. When Obama gets into a tiff with russia, he's endangering the world with his amateurish foreign policy - when russia supports him, he's endangering the world with his amateurish foreign policy. Of course, the exact same logic, in reverse, applies to their own guy
Click to expand...

It's when Obama whispers Tell Vlady that after the election I'll have more latitude... that's what's concerning. We still don't know what he meant by it, though one can guess.

His view on terrorists... and failure to call it what it is... terrorism... lame.

His lead from behind... weak.

When enemies see this... they salivate.
 
zimmer said:
ROTFLOL... I can see your reverse psychology view... but not with these egos.
Click to expand...

Oh there egos is exactly why I suspect it. These guys have not stayed in power for so long for nothing.....

Plus look at the facts. GOP President tend to be rash, hot-headed and a shoot first ask questions later types. This is exactly what these guys want. They can blame their problems on the so called "evil American Empire". The response to 9/11 was a goldmine for Al Q and terror organizations because of the Bush governments overreach and tactics.
 
Jetboogieman said:
And you know what the Far Right Wingers on this site will say about that?

"The rest of the world likes Obama because he's weak".
Click to expand...
Enemies love weakness.

But idiots will say idiotic things.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. Mirror, mirror on the wall...

As a South African, British, Canadian (soon to be New Zealander) I don't think Obama is perfect but he is much more preferable for the world in general than Romney.
Click to expand...
Collecting passports from the Common Wealth are we?
Yes... that is true for Socialist leaning countries. The EU loves it when America adopts socialism. As noted... I think Merkel could be the exception, as well as the Czechs, Poles, Estonians and a few other former Soviet dominated countries. But Old Europe... certainly.

The Poles cannot stand Obama. His dismantling of the future shield (on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion), and then his remarks about Poland and Concentration Camps did not sit well with them at all.

NOW THAT'S A FOREIGN POLICY!
 
PeteEU said:
Oh there egos is exactly why I suspect it. These guys have not stayed in power for so long for nothing.....

Plus look at the facts. GOP President tend to be rash, hot-headed and a shoot first ask questions later types. This is exactly what these guys want. They can blame their problems on the so called "evil American Empire". The response to 9/11 was a goldmine for Al Q and terror organizations because of the Bush governments overreach and tactics.
Click to expand...

The comment "Evil Empire" gave hope to millions of oppressed people. It let them know someone on the other side knew their fate; that they were not forgotten.
911 was an overreach? After 911 all the kooks were watching. Bush had to move troops to Iraq to get some action from Saddam (who everyone believed had WMD... even Hans Blix). Bush gave Saddam one last chance after 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions and he failed to take it.

AQ went from strength to strength when we did nothing. Bombing African embassies, our navy. So we should sit and watch threats mount a'la Clinton? It really solved the problem didn't it?
 
PeteEU said:
Actually it is more like they endorse Romney. By openly endorsing Obama, they turn people like you on, which in theory would make people vote for Romney.... With Romney they would have a person from a party that loves war and confrontation, which would keep them in power indefinitely.
Click to expand...

You give leaders of nations too much credit. Most of them are usually idiots with a good speech. Very few are actually proper leaders and Obama isn't one of them... but neither is Romney.

Anyway. Back to the topic at hand.

Bush had a terrible foreign policy. It was inconceivable that anybody can do a worst job than he did... and it mostly came true with Obama. Obama did better than Bush did in most European countries, African countries and asian countries. He made good bonds and gave these countries a reason to not doubt their partnerships, in both military and diplomatic affairs with the USA. However... this doesn't mean he did a good job. It just means he did a better job than the utter failure Bush did.

I don't think he did much in the way of latin america or south america. Except for the whole sending weapons to drug cartels in mexico, there is no other act that can be interpreted as foreign policy from him that I am aware of.... maybe the fact that he still keeps the embargo on Cuba... but w/e.

On his relationship with Russia, China and India... he had a very childish approach. He didn't represent the USA as the superpower and economic powerhouse that it is and instead treated with these countries like they were all a bunch of children in a kindergarten. I mean, reset button with Russia? Seriously? that was the joke of the entire world.

On his middle eastern politics... I have to say that Bush raised the bar pretty high. It would take a huge effort for someone to become more hated in the middle east than Bush is... but Obama managed to pull this off rather effortlessly. Why? Because they despise 2 things over there:
a) weakness
b) meddling in their affairs.

Obama had both... Bush was only guilty of b). In their eyes, Obama is most likely some sort of dhimmi.

On a personal note, I despise OBama's foreign policy in relation to my country. The president of my country comes from a party that has become very unpopular with the people over time because of their inept way to govern our country, broken promises and numerous persecution programs against the people. I remember last winter there were a number of villages who were left isolated from the world in 5m tall snow and the government blamed the old men and women who lived in those villages for being too lazy to dig themselves out of the 5m tall snow... ****ing politicians. Anyway, this party lost majority in the government and the new party decided to make a referendum against the president. Despite overwhelming majority of people voting for the president to be removed from office, the US ambassador and hillary clintons envoys saw it fit to support and lobby on behalf of our president against the will of the people and launching slanderous accusations on the people who voted for the president to be removed from office. For this reason alone, I would very much like for Obama and his staff to f*ck off. I do however acknowledge the successes of Obama's foreign policy on the world scale... I just hate his policy in regards to my country. I don't know if romney will have the decency to f*ck off and leave sovereign states alone and not have his ambassador take sides and insult the people who are sovereign in my country.
 
Chavez, Castro and Putin aren't supporting Obama because they want Romney. Two of the three are like peas in a pod with Obama... the other knows Obama is a unilateral disarming *****... and the guy loves *****.
 
zimmer said:
The comment "Evil Empire" gave hope to millions of oppressed people. It let them know someone on the other side knew their fate; that they were not forgotten.
Click to expand...

Horse****. Propaganda is very effective.. just look at the US.. hence people in those countries will actually believe the US is evil in some way.

911 was an overreach? After 911 all the kooks were watching. Bush had to move troops to Iraq to get some action from Saddam (who everyone believed had WMD... even Hans Blix). Bush gave Saddam one last chance after 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions and he failed to take it.
Click to expand...

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 dude... so yes that was overreach.

AQ went from strength to strength when we did nothing. Bombing African embassies, our navy. So we should sit and watch threats mount a'la Clinton? It really solved the problem didn't it?
Click to expand...

AQ only exists because of overreach. Had the US not backed the Sha, not backed Saddam, then the US would not have been forced with the rest of the world to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and hence not placed forces in Saudi Arabia, which Bin Laden has stated many times was the main reason for his hatred against the US.

Like it or not, US meddling around the world, has caused much of the terror against the US... it is a sad fact. And much if not most of that meddling happened under GOP presidents.

Being a bully does not project strength.. it projects being a bully and people hate bullies.
 
zimmer said:
Chavez, Castro and Putin aren't supporting Obama because they want Romney. Two of the three are like peas in a pod with Obama... the other knows Obama is a unilateral disarming *****... and the guy loves *****.
Click to expand...

Your version of reality is so whacked.
 
Rainman05 said:
You give leaders of nations too much credit. Most of them are usually idiots with a good speech. Very few are actually proper leaders and Obama isn't one of them... but neither is Romney.

Anyway. Back to the topic at hand.

Bush had a terrible foreign policy. It was inconceivable that anybody can do a worst job than he did... and it mostly came true with Obama. Obama did better than Bush did in most European countries, African countries and asian countries. He made good bonds and gave these countries a reason to not doubt their partnerships, in both military and diplomatic affairs with the USA. However... this doesn't mean he did a good job. It just means he did a better job than the utter failure Bush did.

I don't think he did much in the way of latin america or south america. Except for the whole sending weapons to drug cartels in mexico, there is no other act that can be interpreted as foreign policy from him that I am aware of.... maybe the fact that he still keeps the embargo on Cuba... but w/e.

On his relationship with Russia, China and India... he had a very childish approach. He didn't represent the USA as the superpower and economic powerhouse that it is and instead treated with these countries like they were all a bunch of children in a kindergarten. I mean, reset button with Russia? Seriously? that was the joke of the entire world.

On his middle eastern politics... I have to say that Bush raised the bar pretty high. It would take a huge effort for someone to become more hated in the middle east than Bush is... but Obama managed to pull this off rather effortlessly. Why? Because they despise 2 things over there:
a) weakness
b) meddling in their affairs.

Obama had both... Bush was only guilty of b). In their eyes, Obama is most likely some sort of dhimmi.

On a personal note, I despise OBama's foreign policy in relation to my country. The president of my country comes from a party that has become very unpopular with the people over time because of their inept way to govern our country, broken promises and numerous persecution programs against the people. I remember last winter there were a number of villages who were left isolated from the world in 5m tall snow and the government blamed the old men and women who lived in those villages for being too lazy to dig themselves out of the 5m tall snow... ****ing politicians. Anyway, this party lost majority in the government and the new party decided to make a referendum against the president. Despite overwhelming majority of people voting for the president to be removed from office, the US ambassador and hillary clintons envoys saw it fit to support and lobby on behalf of our president against the will of the people and launching slanderous accusations on the people who voted for the president to be removed from office. For this reason alone, I would very much like for Obama and his staff to f*ck off. I do however acknowledge the successes of Obama's foreign policy on the world scale... I just hate his policy in regards to my country. I don't know if romney will have the decency to f*ck off and leave sovereign states alone and not have his ambassador take sides and insult the people who are sovereign in my country.
Click to expand...

US foreign policy will always be based on egotistic issues. The US supports dictators when it suits them and when the tide turns then they dont support them.. this is regardless of who is in power. The difference is that the GOP Presidents have a bad tendency to start wars against nations for no reason what so ever. Reagan did it, Bush Sr did it, Jr did it and so on. War is used as a political ploy to attempt to unite the country against something.... only one it did not work was for Bush Sr, but worked nicely for Jr and Reagan. It is the same principle Saddam and other dictators use to stay in power.. create a crisis of some sort and start pissing on basic democratic principles to stay in power.

Just look at Zimmers comments about this.. confrontational from start to finish, trying to unite people against Obama by linking him to 3 of the "most hated" by the GOP. Fact is Chavez is democratically elected, Castro is dieing and reforms are taking foothold on the island despite US sanctions, and Putin is .. well Putin. He would not hurt a fly as long as the petro dollars are flowing in.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Your version of reality is so whacked.
Click to expand...

You telling me Chavez and Castro aren't endorsing this guy because they see a fair bit of their agenda's in Obama???
You also telling me Putin is for Obama because he sees strength? You obviously know absolutely nothing about Russians.

That isn't "whacked"... it is the truth as hard as it may be for you to swallow. Denying reality is a terrible thing to do. It's also dangerous on a geo-political level.
 
PeteEU said:
US foreign policy will always be based on egotistic issues.
Click to expand...
No... it is based on National Interests... as it should be. We support freedom wherever we can... sometimes there isn't that option so we have to put up with the best despot of the moment to prevent greater ills.

The US supports dictators when it suits them and when the tide turns then they dont support them.
Click to expand...
.
True. What is the other option? Tell me... would you rather have the Shah of Iran or the nutjobs they have had terrorizing the world for the past 26-years????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

We supported freedom fighters vs. communists... we supported dictators that weren't communists over communists. You don't always have Cinderella as an option; would be nice, but in some parts of the world we took the best steps towards Cinderalla; Chile is a good example.


The difference is that the GOP Presidents have a bad tendency to start wars against nations for no reason what so ever.
Click to expand...
Really. "For no reason whatsoever?
Pure unadulterated BS.
Reagan and Greneda? When the first student kissed the ground upon landing in the US... that told the story. You should learn history.
Bush 41 and Iraq? So you wanted to see Saddam tear through the ME as he had in Kuwait?
Bush 43 after 911; Saddam was a threat and everyone thought he had WMD; The German had a paper on the threat of WMD and how many would get killed and the effect that would have on the world. Wasn't pretty, and because it wasn't Gerhard Schroeder during his election campaign tried to bury it.

Just look at Zimmers comments about this.. confrontational from start to finish, trying to unite people against Obama by linking him to 3 of the "most hated" by the GOP.
Click to expand...
I am simply pointing out reality. These people support Obama and they have their reasons... which are transparent.

PS. When The Balkans was in turmoil... The BALKANS... IN EUROPE'S BACKYARD... the Europeans couldn't do the job... so what happened?????????????? The Europeans protested to get America involved... where we had no National Interest. You folks are quick to piss in our faces when we do... or when we don't. That's why listening to you and your repeated failed foreign policy isn't much worth listening to.
 
Last edited:
I'm so confused right now. Where do you people come from? Are you trained in some kind of right wing insane asylum? Are you released into the wild as an experiment? Its like seeing the history of the world viewed through an alcoholic's delerium tremens, combined with an absolute psychotic break from reality. What kind of sick, twisted reality presents itself to you in the morning? You wake up and Hitler is on tv, giving orders to decapitate every baby in the U.S., its up to you to stop it. Your neighbors all have grenades and they're out to get you, they do it because they're terrified socialists who haven't worked in 20 years but cash your checks on a daily basis. The mailman comes, he's a secret liberal with a Swastika for a tattoo under his uniform, if he gets a chance he'll eat your cat cuz he's a commie.

It's gotta be a tough life I tell ya.
 
Rainman05 said:
I don't know if romney will have the decency to f*ck off and leave sovereign states alone and not have his ambassador take sides and insult the people who are sovereign in my country.
Click to expand...

And what country is that?
 
zimmer said:
No... it is based on National Interests... as it should be. We support freedom wherever we can... sometimes there isn't that option so we have to put up with the best despot of the moment to prevent greater ills.
Click to expand...

More right wing horse****. The US has NEVER supported freedom wherever you can. It has been propoganda from day one.. first to dismantle the British Empire and then the Soviets and to replace them with the empire of United States of America. The reality is that the US supports people who support them, dictator or democracy.

I find it always hilarious when I read US history books that they US wanted the British Empire to be dismantled for democracy and freedom to its colonies, all in the while the US had its own colonies (and still has) which it did not want to give the same freedom or democracy... freaking hypocrites. The US always saw the British Empire up to WW2 as their main threat. From war plans to invade Canada (British at the time) to plans to counter the British elsewhere in Asia, Africa and the Americas.

Or South Vietnam.. fighting communism, when the communist could have been far less harsh on the population than the right wing US backed dictatorship in South Vietnam.

True. What is the other option? Tell me... would you rather have the Shah of Iran or the nutjobs they have had terrorizing the world for the past 26-years????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

Get a history lesson. The Shah was put in power by the US and UK because the Iranian people elected a left wing government and the US feared that the Soviets would be able to extend their sphere of influence and take Iranian oil.. which was the policy of the left wing government, to nationalise the British and American oil companies in Iran. "The nutjobs" that are there today, were next to non-existent in Iranian politics before this coup and they were not much around until the Shah and his death squads started to operate.. after US training via former Nazi's. Fact is the Shah eliminated the "leftist" factions in Iran and left the right wing religious zealots alone for political and religious reasons.. and when they finally turned on him because of the abuse of the people, then there was no one one to counter them.

We supported freedom fighters vs. communists... we supported dictators that weren't communists over communists. You don't always have Cinderella as an option; would be nice, but in some parts of the world we took the best steps towards Cinderalla; Chile is a good example.
Click to expand...

Then dont say you support freedom and democracy, because you dont! You support your own interests when and wherever possible.

Really. "For no reason whatsoever?
Pure unadulterated BS.
Click to expand...

Oh lets see..

Reagan and Greneda? When the first student kissed the ground upon landing in the US... that told the story. You should learn history.
Click to expand...

Yes nice propaganda picture, but the reality is you sent in thousands of troops on a training exercise and it failed on almost every front. Almost all US casualties came from friendly fire, because your navy could not talk to your airforce and army and visa versa. Sure you rescued the students, but were they really in danger? Of course not.

Bush 41 and Iraq? So you wanted to see Saddam tear through the ME as he had in Kuwait?
Click to expand...

Did I write Iraq? Try Panama. A "friendly" dictator that was being used by the CIA during the cold war, and pushed drugs into the US with the full knowledge and acceptance of the US, suddenly became persona non grata.. so the US used military force to hide their problem. After all the GOP could not have another Iran-Contra type scandal.

Iraq was thrown at Bush.. he did not start it... well directly anyways.

Bush 43 after 911; Saddam was a threat and everyone thought he had WMD; The German had a paper on the threat of WMD and how many would get killed and the effect that would have on the world. Wasn't pretty, and because it wasn't Gerhard Schroeder during his election campaign tried to bury it.
Click to expand...

Saddam was ALWAYS a threat, but he was not behind 9/11! You took your eye of the ball.. just admit it!

And taking out Saddam only empowered Iran! Bush Jr was a moron from start to finish as was the neo-cons of the GOP. They have never understood the middle east and still dont.

I am simply pointing out reality. These people support Obama and they have their reasons... which are transparent.

PS. When The Balkans was in turmoil... The BALKANS... IN EUROPE'S BACKYARD... the Europeans couldn't do the job... so what happened?????????????? The Europeans protested to get America involved... where we had no National Interest. You folks are quick to piss in our faces when we do... or when we don't. That's why listening to you and your repeated failed foreign policy isn't much worth listening to.
Click to expand...

Ahh the Balkans, more propaganda from the US. First off, you did not singlehanded "fix" that problem. You did not invade Bosnia or anything. You and the west including the Russians knew that invading the area would have been foolish and not solved the problem. Hence they required a ceasefire and getting the 3 sides to the table before doing anything and THAT is what happened.

Now we Europeans, with the French did send in humanitarian peacekeepers during the fighting, we put our troops in the line of fire, while the US stood back and did nothing .. which is typical of the US when it comes to UN peacekeeping... the do nothing loud mouth. At least the Japanese just provide funds and shut the hell up for the most part.. the US wants cake and pie or whatever the proverb is.

And then there was Kosovo.. yes the US and the allies did not want genocide there so they stepped in.. who were the first boots on the ground.. oh yea the British and French. The US provided most of the air power and logistics.

But if we listen to you and other right wingers, the US saved Europe yet again.. right wing horse**** propaganda. For one, I know quite a few Danes who served in Bosnia and actually saw action when the Serbs tried to test the UN during the cease fire. The US troops was mostly sitting back and smoking weed and banging Bosnian prostitutes.
 
Jetboogieman said:
so why the **** do you keep doing it!
Click to expand...
Chavez, Castro and Putin support Obama... so why is this?
Let's hear your reality... for you have added ZERO to the debate beyond calling my views "whacked".

You have no case do you?
Or it is so ridiculous you can't put it forth.

Once again... Chavez, Castro and Putin support Obama... why is this?
 
PeteEU said:
The US has NEVER supported freedom wherever you can.
Click to expand...
No? If it wasn't for us you Europeans would probably still be at each others throats. In fact, when your socialist utopia collapses (how is Spain doing btw?) we just might see something hit the fan.


Or South Vietnam.. fighting communism, when the communist could have been far less harsh on the population
Click to expand...
ROTFLOL...

Get a history lesson.
Click to expand...
Please do.

The Shah was put in power by the US and UK because the Iranian people elected a left wing government and the US feared that the Soviets would be able to extend their sphere of influence and take Iranian oil.
Click to expand...
You seem to think Communists are quite fine people. Are you a communist sympathizer?

You support your own interests when and wherever possible.
Click to expand...
I said that... and sometimes we have to choose the better of two evils.



Yes nice propaganda picture, but the reality is you sent in thousands of troops on a training exercise and it failed on almost every front. Almost all US casualties came from friendly fire, because your navy could not talk to your airforce and army and visa versa. Sure you rescued the students, but were they really in danger? Of course not.
Click to expand...
8000 troops... and 19 dead. Nice try.
When Democrats have the military it decays, and we have to rebuild it. And Reagan did. When he took the helm the military was in shambles both equipment wise as well as the esprit de corps. Clinton managed a wrecking ball on our military, and Obama is following suit. It's in the blood of Socialists.

Did I write Iraq? Try Panama. A "friendly" dictator that was being used by the CIA during the cold war, and pushed drugs into the US with the full knowledge and acceptance of the US, suddenly became persona non grata.. so the US used military force to hide their problem. After all the GOP could not have another Iran-Contra type scandal.
Click to expand...
The press certainly would have had a field day for Dukakis... so why didn't they? Why didn't any Euro press agency? With a European bank laundering the money, and Europeans being the stalwarts of honesty and decency (ahhh... a continent rife with corruption from top to bottom)... why didn't Europeans do anything? You overseers of honesty and decency in the world.

Saddam was ALWAYS a threat, but he was not behind 9/11! You took your eye of the ball.. just admit it!
Click to expand...
I never said he was behind 911... but when you have Terrorists and a terror nation run by a madman who used WMD and hated America... the chance of those two coming together, especially in the aftermath of 911 was too great a threat to just go on with Meaningless UN Resolutions for another 12-years.

And taking out Saddam only empowered Iran! Bush Jr was a moron from start to finish as was the neo-cons of the GOP. They have never understood the middle east and still dont.
Click to expand...
Oh yes... just let Saddam do his thing.

Ahh the Balkans, more propaganda from the US. First off, you did not singlehanded "fix" that problem. You did not invade Bosnia or anything. You and the west including the Russians knew that invading the area would have been foolish and not solved the problem. Hence they required a ceasefire and getting the 3 sides to the table before doing anything and THAT is what happened.
Click to expand...
Europeans protested for the US to get involved and we did. You do recall U2 having a huge concert towards that effort?

Now we Europeans, with the French did send in humanitarian peacekeepers during the fighting, we put our troops in the line of fire, while the US stood back and did nothing .. which is typical of the US when it comes to UN peacekeeping... the do nothing loud mouth. At least the Japanese just provide funds and shut the hell up for the most part.. the US wants cake and pie or whatever the proverb is.

And then there was Kosovo.. yes the US and the allies did not want genocide there so they stepped in.. who were the first boots on the ground.. oh yea the British and French. The US provided most of the air power and logistics.
Click to expand...
If possible, the next time we will let you folks do all the work. You bad mouth us when we do and when we don't. Here we had NO INTEREST, got involved and now it wasn't enough. (Is their a bird icon here somewhere?)

But if we listen to you and other right wingers, the US saved Europe yet again.. right wing horse**** propaganda. For one, I know quite a few Danes who served in Bosnia and actually saw action when the Serbs tried to test the UN during the cease fire. The US troops was mostly sitting back and smoking weed and banging Bosnian prostitutes.
Click to expand...
You Europeans are lame. You've been wrong on just about every foreign policy issue for the past decades. And as for smoking weed and banging whores... that's latter is legal in much of Europe and since when have leftists been against smoking weed... and where is you proof of both?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom