MH17

namelessfly wrote:Amen!!!

I owe you an apology nameless, you were quite correct in calling me on my statement that there were 23 Americans on board MH 71.
It has turned out that there was only one, and that one with a dual citizenship. Of the remaining 297 victims over 2/3 were; to use your tasteless vernacular, Eurotrash… Eurofucktards, while the remainder were from outside Europe.
Of the 289 victims 80 were children, three infants in arms, you heartless sod!
You do know what an infant is? It’s the most helpless human being you can imagine, still barely able to see, and distinguish sounds, utterly 100% reliant on adults.
They were the victims of the missile carrying out your twisted version of the ”long term strategic interests of the US.” 
And your justification for:
I am quite content to see Russian separatists shoot own entire squadrons of airliners full of Europeans if it will advance the long term strategic interests of the US.
 
…that on 9/11 somewhere in the 500million + population of Europe, a moron stood up an expressed delight. Well the same thing happened here, with the result, that the moron got his teeth kicked in.

So yes there are fruitcakes in any country. Even in the US, where a ”good ol’ boy” on learning of Breivik’s slaughter of more then 70 young people attending a youth camp, said ”..good work at getting rid of those commie punks.” The youth camp being sponsored by the Norwegian Social Democrats.
Like I said fruitcakes in every country! We have a Breivik you have McVeigh.

I’m not really sure what is worse?
That you are someone who gets some warped sense of enjoyment out of posting outrageous statements, and then sitting back gratifying in the response.
Or that you really are someone gets off on hearing of the slaughter of innocents.
Either way I’d advise you to seek help.

I stand by my statement within context of what advancing US interests are.

Given a choice between allowing the Europeans drag the US into a conflict with Russia that could too easily go nuclear to advance EU economic and political hegemony verses remaining uninvolved even if the Europeans suffer horrific casualties, I choose isolationism.

This conflict would never have begun if Europe had not attempted to entice Ukraine into EU membership and possible NATO membership. The compromises reached when the Soviet Union imploded included not threatening Russia's legitimate interests. There was nothing horrific occurring in Ukraine that justified this idiotic brinksmanship. It was all about enhancing the economic and political power of the EU.

If you Europeans do not want your passenger planes shot down then don't provoke a war with a world power that is quite capable of giving you the severe ass kicking that you deserve and don't expect the US to save your miserable ass. If you are going to stupid ly provoke a civil war, then accept responsibility to keep your airliners out of the war zone.

From the outside, the USA's long term stategic interests seem to be not supporting democracy, but supporting instability world wide to allow America to sell more arms....

namelessfly wrote:I stand by my statement within context of what advancing US interests are.

Given a choice between allowing the Europeans drag the US into a conflict with Russia that could too easily go nuclear to advance EU economic and political hegemony verses remaining uninvolved even if the Europeans suffer horrific casualties, I choose isolationism.

This conflict would never have begun if Europe had not attempted to entice Ukraine into EU membership and possible NATO membership. The compromises reached when the Soviet Union imploded included not threatening Russia's legitimate interests. There was nothing horrific occurring in Ukraine that justified this idiotic brinksmanship. It was all about enhancing the economic and political power of the EU.

If you Europeans do not want your passenger planes shot down then don't provoke a war with a world power that is quite capable of giving you the severe ass kicking that you deserve and don't expect the US to save your miserable ass. If you are going to stupid ly provoke a civil war, then accept responsibility to keep your airliners out of the war zone.

Spacekiwi wrote:From the outside, the USA's long term stategic interests seem to be not supporting democracy, but supporting instability world wide to allow America to sell more arms....

namelessfly wrote:I stand by my statement within context of what advancing US interests are.

Given a choice between allowing the Europeans drag the US into a conflict with Russia that could too easily go nuclear to advance EU economic and political hegemony verses remaining uninvolved even if the Europeans suffer horrific casualties, I choose isolationism.

This conflict would never have begun if Europe had not attempted to entice Ukraine into EU membership and possible NATO membership. The compromises reached when the Soviet Union imploded included not threatening Russia's legitimate interests. There was nothing horrific occurring in Ukraine that justified this idiotic brinksmanship. It was all about enhancing the economic and political power of the EU.

If you Europeans do not want your passenger planes shot down then don't provoke a war with a world power that is quite capable of giving you the severe ass kicking that you deserve and don't expect the US to save your miserable ass. If you are going to stupid ly provoke a civil war, then accept responsibility to keep your airliners out of the war zone.

Or inside deals on oil, or rebuilding infrastructure; Haliburton, Bush and co. The crusade to push fundamentalist cult versions of religions also upsets many world wide.
The far greater number of Americans I have met, socialised with, worked with are great people and I have no antipathy to them. However US big business and the industrial/military complex is somewhat loathed world wide.

I´m sad to see so many jingoists here.

Especially so much absence of thinking.

The US is definitely the country that prefers to not spread democracynand promote instability son that we can make moneynselling weapons.


http://electronicresistance.net/wp-cont ... l-ship.jpg

Meanwhile; Europeans are too busy rioting to protest Israel's Gaza incursion to notice this:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/hamas-used-c ... aborators/

Still not as bad as what the US has done in some circumstances.

namelessfly wrote:The US is definitely the country that prefers to not spread democracynand promote instability son that we can make moneynselling weapons.


http://electronicresistance.net/wp-cont ... l-ship.jpg

Sorry to differ but I spent the last 11 years of my work dealing with US arms manufacturers. As a friend said at the time, the same guns for hire seem to work for tobacco companies, US military/industrial firms and major oil companies. Many was the corporate battle I had with VPs from (inset well known names here), and they were very nearly all immoral and unethical excuses for human beings.

Look, it is right and proper that you should be proud of your country and its people, and the USA is a great democratic country. However you are not well served by many of your industrialists or political leaders.

namelessfly wrote:The US is definitely the country that prefers to not spread democracynand promote instability son that we can make moneynselling weapons.


http://electronicresistance.net/wp-cont ... l-ship.jpg

Daryl wrote:Sorry to differ but I spent the last 11 years of my work dealing with US arms manufacturers. As a friend said at the time, the same guns for hire seem to work for tobacco companies, US military/industrial firms and major oil companies. Many was the corporate battle I had with VPs from (inset well known names here), and they were very nearly all immoral and unethical excuses for human beings.

Look, it is right and proper that you should be proud of your country and its people, and the USA is a great democratic country. However you are not well served by many of your industrialists or political leaders.

There is no doubt that the dealings of large American multi-nationals like Haliburton have at times shown a decided lack of ethics or morals, sometimes even bordering on the illegal.
But are they really alone in that? Or is their sheer size that makes them an easier and more obvious target?
Truth be told there probably isn’t a country with any appreciable foreign export trade that hasn’t had a case of a company paying kick-backs, or direct bribes to land a contract. But they are usually small potatoes, and are as a rule only reported in the local press. But when Haliburton or one of the others majors get caught with dirty fingers, not just the American, but the international media goes into a feeding frenzy.
It’s a matter of size, not only of the backhander but also who is paying it.
For a long time the American economy has been the big frog in the big pond, but other big frogs are now moving in. China to name an example, and their actions, business practices and reputation in Africa among others isn’t exactly sterling.