02-10-2009, 07:11 AM
Dakota wrote:
Europe has been in a collective orgasm since September when it was clear he would win.
Hey voodoo, are the hillsides of England covered in spunK?
France is mostly spunk-free from what I can see.
The world will love us again: another dud
|
02-10-2009, 07:11 AM
Dakota wrote: Hey voodoo, are the hillsides of England covered in spunK? France is mostly spunk-free from what I can see.
02-10-2009, 08:59 AM
Lux Interior wrote: Hey voodoo, are the hillsides of England covered in spunK? France is mostly spunk-free from what I can see. For pure spunkeyness, it's hard to beat Brazilians or other Portuguese.
02-10-2009, 03:21 PM
davester wrote: Amen davester...this has been the crux of the problem forever!
02-10-2009, 05:27 PM
If anyone believes that the rest of the "thinking" world is going to assist with the cluster-frak that is Afghanistan, then you're smoking many pipe-loads of super-heated crack cocaine.
Just because "we" thought it was justified that we invade Afghanistan, doesn't mean anyone else did. Just because our country decides something is a priority doesn't necessarily make it a priority for "them." If another country doesn't concede to the superiority of the American world view in precisely the way we think they should then that makes it all a failure?
02-10-2009, 05:40 PM
Yes, absolutley no other countries had anything to do with sending teams and support to iraq and australia until they started getting thier hands dirty and decided thier tax money was best spent at home. On things like health care and education.
02-10-2009, 06:20 PM
billb wrote: Australia?
02-10-2009, 07:09 PM
Hey, I'd volunteer to be on a team going to Australia. What kind of team will it be...beach volleyball?
02-10-2009, 08:27 PM
vision63 wrote: Except we did have some support for going into Afghanistan. Some was from countries that would have liked there to have been a longer diplomatic action beforehand, but agreed the Taliban should have handed over al-Queda or face the consequences. But even that support was not there on the invasion of Iraq.
02-10-2009, 09:32 PM
JoeH wrote: Except we did have some support for going into Afghanistan. Some was from countries that would have liked there to have been a longer diplomatic action beforehand, but agreed the Taliban should have handed over al-Queda or face the consequences. But even that support was not there on the invasion of Iraq. OK, Afghanistan was the "right war". Bush is gone. Obama is in. Good will is flowing all over. Where are the new troops then? Obama built his whole campaign on elect-me-and-we-will-be-loved again. So no help then, no help now. What is the difference then? What is the excuse NOW?
02-10-2009, 10:27 PM
The Afgani version of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" was fake American arm-twisting. But we all knew that. Now Dakota (my friend - sincerely), repeat what you said (Obama built his whole campaign on elect-me-and-we-will-be-loved again.) Is that really accurate?
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|