Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Top 10 anti-U.S. nations


Lord Umbarger

Recommended Posts

I personally support keeping our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan as we have been there from the very beginning and as such I feel it is our responsibility top see it through until the end.

I agree on the proviso that by being there we are actually assisting in the conflict being resolved and not exacerbating the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Borat

    10

  • Space Commander Travis

    6

  • Ins0mniac

    6

  • Belle.

    6

^Well its official, Labor have won government in Australia and the current administration has been disposed. The Prime Minister himself may lose his own seat as well, that seat is so close it will probably take days to come to a final outcome, however it will not affect the overall picture though. Kevin Rudd is now the PM of Australia. Australian troops will be out of Iraq within 6-12 months and the Kyoto protocol will finally be signed by Australia, leaving the US as the only major western developed nation not to sign the protocol. It will definately be interesting to see how this affects our relationship with the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Well its official, Labor have won government in Australia and the current administration has been disposed. The Prime Minister himself may lose his own seat as well, that seat is so close it will probably take days to come to a final outcome, however it will not affect the overall picture though. Kevin Rudd is now the PM of Australia. Australian troops will be out of Iraq within 6-12 months and the Kyoto protocol will finally be signed by Australia, leaving the US as the only major western developed nation not to sign the protocol. It will definately be interesting to see how this affects our relationship with the US.

Funnily enough something that has rubbed off on me through all this war mongering is that I really feel like going into the street and shooting a machine gun into the air in celebration! WOo HooO :gun:

I think the Democrats look like they will get in in America in their next election (Americans feel free to correct me) so I don't think our relationship will be as close as Bush/Howard it will just be back to normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough something that has rubbed off on me through all this war mongering is that I really feel like going into the street and shooting a machine gun into the air in celebration! WOo HooO :gun:

I think the Democrats look like they will get in in America in their next election (Americans feel free to correct me) so I don't think our relationship will be as close as Bush/Howard it will just be back to normal.

I sure hope the Dems dont get elected, I cant think of one I'd support. Our voting system seems to be flawed as of late or at least accurate counting (hanging chads) so its he who counts the votes that matters huh? I dont think the Dems will be strong enough on immigration or terrorism plus they want our guns a big no no imo thats why Gore got sunk. Personally I'm watching Duncan Hunter but may end up supporting Ron Paul. I believe the wmd's were just an excuse for Bush to go after Saddam and get an Army on the other side of Iran,we the people are not privy to the real reasons behind poltics we're just told what they want us to hear, never the truth. Where did the wmds come from anyhow?At best we vote for what they say they'll do but nothing stops them from doing what they want once in,it almost always deters from the running platform. Back to Iraq it all started with Saddam wanting Kuwaite oil and us being asked to help them out which was an effront to Bin Ladens very large ego so what we have is Religious beliefs plus bruised ego plus narcsim turning into great hatred. Religion brings certainty that breeds intolerance which results in conflict.What we have now is a complete mess of the entire world brought on by money, religion ,egos and too much power in the wrong hands. With the power removed from the people ,all we can do is sit back and watch. Now we can vote in 12 months but the World situation is not going to wait 12 months before one of the many tinderboxes across the globe explodes, imo its going to get far far worse before it gets better. Personally I would like to see opec go to the euro .I would like to see our economy collapse and maybe only then we'll see change in our policies. We'll be forced to bring our industries back and become more isolationistict in order to survive. How we went from the worlds largest exporter to the worlds largest importer in 30yrs is beyond my comprehension on why our politicians let this happen, it all goes back to "money is the root of all evil." This is of course only my take on things but even if we were to pull out of Iraq, which we wont, its just too late, the winds of global conflict are blowing and I feel that nothing can stop it now. Something somewhere is going to blow. All for money, power, ego and religion, what a large group of prideful fools we the people of the world have turned into. It just makes me sad that we cannot seem to coexist, time and again we fail to learn from history. Okay I'm jumping off my soapbox now.

Edited by nickoli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll is somewhat surprising. Argentina...who would of thought. Spain has a leftis government and sustained a nuclear misshap some decades ago when a US military aircraft suffered a midair collision, crashed and scattered nuclear weapon material over a large swath of Spain. And where is France, Canada and the Netherlands. Don't they all hate America as well.

Edited by Aztec Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOY! I guess it's a good thing that the U.S. didn't have the same policy towards Aussies in 1941, huh!

How exactly is WWII even remotely related to Iraq? Duh, it's not even. So your attempt to compare the two is deeply flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly is WWII even remotely related to Iraq? Duh, it's not even. So your attempt to compare the two is deeply flawed.

Don't you see? Saddam was just like Hitler! He was about to take over the entire world with his outdated third world military and his sanction crippled nation. He was a huge threat! He even had non existent weapons of mass destruction for godsake!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll is somewhat surprising. Argentina...who would of thought. Spain has a leftis government and sustained a nuclear misshap some decades ago when a US military aircraft suffered a midair collision, crashed and scattered nuclear weapon material over a large swath of Spain. And where is France, Canada and the Netherlands. Don't they all hate America as well.

There was also the bombings in Madrid because of their involvement in the Iraq adventure... and yes, I'd have thought France? maybe they don't hate America as much as Bush and his cohorts like to try to make out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, the old "Japan was not planning to invade Australia, maybe we should have stayed out of the war" arguement. No enemy ever intends to invade you, until they land troops. You know the Poles thought the same thing about Germany...right before armed troops jumped the border. Do yo really think that Japan woulkd have stopped building an empire right at the Australian shore line? If you can force yourself to believe this cartoon version of history, thank a soldier for the freedom to be naive. While you're at it, kiss his boots. They've covered more dirt in the real world than you have history in Soviet Union University.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Soviet Union University, yes... I remember the old Kiev/Leningrad inter-varsity matches... the boat races on the Moskva River... cosy evenings discussing Marxist philosophy in the quadrangle under the bust of Vladimir Ilyich...

... I think I've had a bit too much vodka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Woah! It seems like there are more countries that hate America than just ten. Of course, the title is "top 10 anti US nation", here's only 10 being showed, how many more are there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Woah! It seems like there are more countries that hate America than just ten. Of course, the title is "top 10 anti US nation", here's only 10 being showed, how many more are there?

The only nation where the US gets an approval rating over 50% at this time is South Korea.... down from over 90%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only nation where the US gets an approval rating over 50% at this time is South Korea.... down from over 90%

I think India was high also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you haven't noticed. It, (the Soviet Union), no longer exists.
You say that as though it were a bad thing.

He even had non existent weapons of mass destruction for godsake!!!
Event he U.N. was convinced that he did have them, for G-dsakes.

... I think I've had a bit too much vodka
So, you're saying that there is such as thing as "Too Much Vodka"??? Turn in your AK-47 and your party card, comrade! You just wait until ole Uncle Joe hears about this!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Event he U.N. was convinced that he did have them, for G-dsakes.

I don't think that was exactly true. From what I remember off the top of my head:

Before the current war and after the first gulf war, after getting rid of Saddam's wmd arsenal, there were a small number that the inspectors couldn't account for. Which isn't quite the same as being convinced that he did have them.

If the U.N were already convinced he had WMDS, why were there still U.N inspectors in Iraq that had to be called out so Bush's war could begin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that was exactly true. From what I remember off the top of my head:

Before the current war and after the first gulf war, after getting rid of Saddam's wmd arsenal, there were a small number that the inspectors couldn't account for. Which isn't quite the same as being convinced that he did have them.

If the U.N were already convinced he had WMDS, why were there still U.N inspectors in Iraq that had to be called out so Bush's war could begin?

:tu:

The problem is that every single reason the US and Britain alluded to justify the war came out as either brain m********ion or an outright lie. Now they are trying to lay the blame on the UN. Or what is more despicable, the US administration is trying to blame Congress for believing their disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that was exactly true. From what I remember off the top of my head:

Before the current war and after the first gulf war, after getting rid of Saddam's wmd arsenal, there were a small number that the inspectors couldn't account for. Which isn't quite the same as being convinced that he did have them.

If the U.N were already convinced he had WMDS, why were there still U.N inspectors in Iraq that had to be called out so Bush's war could begin?

Good point. One the other hand, the U.N. issued 17 resolutions against Iraq. More than any nation except for Israrel, if I remember right. It's also important to note that if Saddam didn't have any desire to build/buy WMD, he made every effort to look like he did.

In the long run, I think that taking him out was the right thing to do if ony because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Invading might have beena mistake but, not fighting to win in the following four years is a far bigger mistake.

...every single reason the US and Britain alluded to justify the war came out as either brain m********ion or an outright lie
Before we charge them with outright lying to the world, we really should be sure that we can proove that it wasn't a simple mistake. The U.S. wasn't the only nation that thought he had WMD. The U.S. wasn't even the only source of that information either. Edited by Lord Umbarger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also important to note that if Saddam didn't have any desire to build/buy WMD, he made every effort to look like he did.

I dunno. I guess it's possible. But I never saw it that way. I saw the U.S administration hand picking intelligence that suited their agenda and ignoring intelligence that went against their agenda. I'm not sure why Saddam would bluff on something like that. I guess he could have thought it would be a deterrent? Anyway, would be interested to see some examples that could be seen as Saddam making it look like he had WMDS. I know a lot of 'evidence' was dual use material, which could have just as easily been used for things not related to W.M.Ds.

Invading might have beena mistake but, not fighting to win in the following four years is a far bigger mistake.

I agree. Once the Iraq war had started, the best thing they could have done was send sufficient troops to finish the job quick as possible. Nobody benefits from dragging it out over the years and then eventually abandoning Iraq.

Before we charge them with outright lying to the world, we really should be sure that we can proove that it wasn't a simple mistake. The U.S. wasn't the only nation that thought he had WMD. The U.S. wasn't even the only source of that information either.

I think one of the mistakes a lot of nations made, was taking U.S intelligence at face value. Which shouldn't be done with any foreign intelligence. Even among allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. One the other hand, the U.N. issued 17 resolutions against Iraq. More than any nation except for Israrel, if I remember right. It's also important to note that if Saddam didn't have any desire to build/buy WMD, he made every effort to look like he did.

I think that's true. I think he was his own worst enemy in that he wanted the world to believe that he was tougher than he was, and didn't understand that that might backfire on him. I wonder if that says something about how effective claiming to have WMDs is as a deterrent?

But the irony seems to be that we attacked him on the basis of his posturing, rather than the onus being on us to prove that he had what we claimed he did.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Once the Iraq war had started, the best thing they could have done was send sufficient troops to finish the job quick as possible. Nobody benefits from dragging it out over the years and then eventually abandoning Iraq.

But on the other hand, devoting as many resources to Iraq as Britain and the US did meant that Afghanistan has been neglected enough as it is. I think the US (and Britain) made a rod for their own back by taking unilateral action and so alienating what potential help there may have been from other countries.

(I know that people will say 'huh, what help would anyone else have been', and militarily anywhere else joining in wouldn't have made a huge amount of difference, but there wouldn't have been the impression that this was just a private venture by Bush to suit his own ends (with Blair tagging obediently along beside him).)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like it or not us will be in iroc 4 six more years

because it is written that its how long it will

4 the kids to un learn the anti us koran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like it or not us will be in iroc 4 six more years

because it is written that its how long it will

4 the kids to un learn the anti us koran

Is that a new gadget from Apple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's true. I think he was his own worst enemy in that he wanted the world to believe that he was tougher than he was, and didn't understand that that might backfire on him. I wonder if that says something about how effective claiming to have WMDs is as a deterrent?

But the irony seems to be that we attacked him on the basis of his posturing, rather than the onus being on us to prove that he had what we claimed he did.

Well he did deny he had them right to the end. And I think the impression that he had them was almost entirely due to the U.S government selling the war. But I could be wrong. Would really like some more info on that if anyone has any.

And I think it was revealed that the "unaccounted for" wmds from the last war were most likely disposed of but not under the watch of the U.N 'cause some Saddam underling botched it up.

Edited by Ins0mniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate lesson I guess , if you are a nation the US suspects of having WMD's , is to go ahead and have them anyway . You got nothing to lose.

But we all know this US position on WMD posession is all just a game , same as the apparant altruistic reasons for US staying in Iraq. Why do we bother arguing over it , it's just a thing the US likes to do. Years ago, empires would have no qualms about declaring their true intent , their desire for resources and power . The US is different , it wants to disguise that same desire under a camoflage of humanitarism and altruism, it is funny to watch thou, the lies they perpetuate to convey that concealment when everyone knows the truth .

Except Fox News viewers of course .

Edited by Borat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.