Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you think Germany or UK should have joined us in Vietnam, then so be it. It is your Moscow way of thinking, and I won't bother trying to figure it out.
Moscow actually helped to arm the North Vietnamese, so who knows what you're talking about.
All right, I see. They're our wonderful "ally" in the sense that if they're ever attacked we'll come to their aid. But they don't help us out with anything else.
And if you think that Frenchmen and Italians and Greeks or whatever will show up in force to help the United States if we're ever attacked, well, I want some of those fine drugs you been doing.
The other members of NATO have committed to coming to our defense if the domestic United States is ever attacked by Russia, North Korea, or another foreign power. But that doesn't mean they will join us in [what they perceive as] our misguided, unprovoked wars of aggression against other countries, such as a war against Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein's WMDs.
The other members of NATO have committed to coming to our defense if we are ever attacked by Russia, North Korea, or another foreign power. But that doesn't mean they will join us in [what they perceive as] misguided, unprovoked wars of aggression against other countries, such as a war against Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein's WMDs.
But so what? Why should we be involved in such a pact? Why is okay to go to war to defend Germany but not to eliminate Saddam Hussein or contain communism in Asia?
And you still haven't said whether or not you'll take up arms in these European wars, chicken hawk.
And I'm seriously curious about all of you Trump voters how you see all those as an left wing voters who don't believe fairy tales of Trump.
Must ask, do you believe to unicorns also?
Concerning NATO issue, Trump and his voters should read again agreement between NATO countries.
There is recommendation that countries should rise defense budget up to 2% before 2022.
It is not demand and sure not dept to Trump.
Personally my opinion is that old communist, Putin, have Trumps balls in hands....And Trump voters are proud of that.
What a world
By the way, Is Trump still making his brand clothes at China?
And still saying that US companies should made goods in US?
One more time, maybe it will sink in: EVERY US PRESIDENT COMPLAINS TO EUROPE THAT THEY DON'T SPEND ENOUGH ON NATO. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY'S LONG-STANDING OFFICIAL POSITION. This isn't that difficult to understand.
But so what? Why should we be involved in such a pact? Why is okay to go to war to defend Germany but not to eliminate Saddam Hussein or contain communism in Asia?
And you still haven't said whether or not you'll take up arms in these European wars, chicken hawk.
I'm too old to enlist. But I pay large sums in taxes to support a military that is capable of defending our allies and ensuring some semblance of international security/stability.
If we aren't going to honor our Nation's treaty commitments then we have no business spending such a large portion of our budget on the military, and I'll expect a sizable tax cut.
If you think Germany or UK should have joined us in Vietnam, then so be it. It is your Moscow way of thinking, and I won't bother trying to figure it out.
Obviously, as noted above, you are completely clueless as to who was involved in Vietnam. Germany & the UK should have joined France, like the USA did.
I'm too old to enlist. But I pay large sums in taxes in to support a military that is capable of defending our allies and ensuring some semblance of international security/stability.
Hahahaha, "I'm too old!" The same excuse most of the chicken-hawk Iraq War cheerleaders had.
And you still haven't told me why our going to war to defend Germany would be so much more permissible than the Iraq and Vietnam wars.
That's one messed up post. Impossible to vet with any sense of surety a Muslim wont terrorize once allowed into a western predominately Christian country. Terrorize means not only killing of innocents, it means rapings, gropings, beatings, intimidation, etc. Even if the immigrants themselves don't conduct a terrorists attack, it's possible their children or grandchildren will. This is about an ideology/religion that teaches them they can rape and kill non-Muslims. Any fair minded person should be able to see it's a bad idea to let them into your country. I doubt to the families of terrorist attack victims it seems like a small number.
Yeah, "surety" doesn't mean what you think it does, despite Trump also using it incorrectly. I think the word you're looking for is "certainty".
And your post is nonsensical. So you want to ban refugees/immigrants based on what their ancestors may or may not do? That's insane, and would be the basis to block every single group or any race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or political ideology, let alone Muslims, from coming to the US, because anyone could potentially have criminal ancestors. Come on, it's like you're not even trying to come up with a logical thought process here.
The fact is that it IS a small number relative to much more common threats that no one talks about. This is just one of those things that narrow-minded people use to justify their own bigotry.
If we aren't going to honor our Nation's treaty commitments then we have no business spending such a large portion of our budget on the military, and I'll expect a sizable tax cut.
Well at least we can agree on something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.