This poll concerns world events. Have we, the U.S., gone too far for interfering with other nations governments? My own opinion is yes. Other peoples have the right to choose their government, to have civil wars, if that is what they choose. We had a law once on the books, that said we would never depose another countries leadership. Isn't that what we are now doing?
Have we gone too far?
04/01/2011
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
I totally 100% agree with your stance!
04/01/2011
I firmly believe in letting cultures destroy themselves on their own.
No one rushes to our aid when the shit hits the fan.
At least I'm not contributing to the funds that pay for these wars. No income = no taxes.
No one rushes to our aid when the shit hits the fan.
At least I'm not contributing to the funds that pay for these wars. No income = no taxes.
04/01/2011
I think we need to keep our noses out of other people's governments
04/01/2011
I believe that fighting wars on morals is an inherently bad idea for a foreign policy.
04/01/2011
I believe some things are in fact necessary but too many are not. Like Libya I'm sorry why are we there again? Someone explain why the President was allowed to brake USA law by not getting approval from Congress on that one. He has the right to declare war on his own when it is on US soil not a civil conflict in another country. He should be concerned about the USA's ability to feed it's own people and take care of the needs of it's own before worrying about the rest of the world's problems. It's one thing if something major happens like Japan and other natural disasters but not conflict between a country and it's self.
The USA definitely oversteps it's boundaries and it is at our expense.
I think it's crazy that so much money is spent outside of our country when we are desperately in need of jobs and money to fund programs that keep our teachers working, our kids healthy and our country running smoothly.
The USA definitely oversteps it's boundaries and it is at our expense.
I think it's crazy that so much money is spent outside of our country when we are desperately in need of jobs and money to fund programs that keep our teachers working, our kids healthy and our country running smoothly.
04/01/2011
I for one think that this government does nothing based on morals. Somewhere down the line, Some rich bastard is getting richer off of every decision, war, etc., meanwhile the poor get poorer. And more young men and women die to make the rich even richer.
04/01/2011
I think we need to slow down and stop worrying about everybody else because it is just costing us more money with little reward.
04/01/2011
I feel like we get involved in a lot of things that are not our business, however I also feel that there are situations where our help is actually wanted and needed.
04/01/2011
I love how we keep fighting new fights yet threaten to cut off payment to the soldiers who are being told to go fight it.
04/02/2011
My mother always said, "clean the shit in your own backyard before attempting to clean the shit outta someone elses". Basically; butt out out of other people's business.
I see it all the time here as a foreigner living in China. The effects of the US wanting China to change at a pace that has resulted in the country being split into quite a few distinct classes. It is not good when parts of the country are living internationally and most of the country is living trying to catch up and failing at it.
Makes for quite a stir from day to day.
I see it all the time here as a foreigner living in China. The effects of the US wanting China to change at a pace that has resulted in the country being split into quite a few distinct classes. It is not good when parts of the country are living internationally and most of the country is living trying to catch up and failing at it.
Makes for quite a stir from day to day.
04/02/2011
I agree too.
By butting in, it drags other countries into it - like AU!
We have far too many of our people over there. I think we should pull out completely - we didn't start it but of course our government has to follow and help out whenever the US gets involved in something.
I think AU just hopes the favor will be returned if we ever needed it....LMAO!
By butting in, it drags other countries into it - like AU!
We have far too many of our people over there. I think we should pull out completely - we didn't start it but of course our government has to follow and help out whenever the US gets involved in something.
I think AU just hopes the favor will be returned if we ever needed it....LMAO!
04/02/2011
France entered the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) in 1778, and assisted in the victory of the Americans seeking independence from Britain.
04/02/2011
Quote:
I don't agree with interfering in the Libya conflict BUT Obama didn't break any laws. As, technically, what is going on there is a "Police Action" and NOT a declared war. A president should have, legally, Congressional approval to declare war. What George W. Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a WAR CRIME, as they ARE wars, they were declared and he got no OK from Congress.
Originally posted by
SexyTabby
I believe some things are in fact necessary but too many are not. Like Libya I'm sorry why are we there again? Someone explain why the President was allowed to brake USA law by not getting approval from Congress on that one. He has the right
...
more
I believe some things are in fact necessary but too many are not. Like Libya I'm sorry why are we there again? Someone explain why the President was allowed to brake USA law by not getting approval from Congress on that one. He has the right to declare war on his own when it is on US soil not a civil conflict in another country. He should be concerned about the USA's ability to feed it's own people and take care of the needs of it's own before worrying about the rest of the world's problems. It's one thing if something major happens like Japan and other natural disasters but not conflict between a country and it's self.
The USA definitely oversteps it's boundaries and it is at our expense.
I think it's crazy that so much money is spent outside of our country when we are desperately in need of jobs and money to fund programs that keep our teachers working, our kids healthy and our country running smoothly. less
The USA definitely oversteps it's boundaries and it is at our expense.
I think it's crazy that so much money is spent outside of our country when we are desperately in need of jobs and money to fund programs that keep our teachers working, our kids healthy and our country running smoothly. less
Although, I don't agree with it, and I think Obama is capitulating with the Conservatives WAY too much lately, the shit in Libya is NOT a "Declared War" therefor, not against the law.
Bush is a fucking war criminal and should be prosecuted and if found guilty, maybe executed. If for nothing else, starting these fucking wars, for his OWN oil related financial gain, and RUINING our economy by trying to destroy the middle class. He and his father and his NAZI grandfather are all criminals. Reagan isn't any better. He started the decline in our economy, by deregulating so many industries and allowing the Rich to get out of hand by handing them the country on a silver platter. The economic destruction. would have happened sooner if Bill Clinton hadn't stepped in. We need Bill back in office, IMO.
04/02/2011
Quote:
Wahoooo - I totally agree with all the Bush stuff you said.
Originally posted by
P'Gell
I don't agree with interfering in the Libya conflict BUT Obama didn't break any laws. As, technically, what is going on there is a "Police Action" and NOT a declared war. A president should have, legally, Congressional approval to
...
more
I don't agree with interfering in the Libya conflict BUT Obama didn't break any laws. As, technically, what is going on there is a "Police Action" and NOT a declared war. A president should have, legally, Congressional approval to declare war. What George W. Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a WAR CRIME, as they ARE wars, they were declared and he got no OK from Congress.
Although, I don't agree with it, and I think Obama is capitulating with the Conservatives WAY too much lately, the shit in Libya is NOT a "Declared War" therefor, not against the law.
Bush is a fucking war criminal and should be prosecuted and if found guilty, maybe executed. If for nothing else, starting these fucking wars, for his OWN oil related financial gain, and RUINING our economy by trying to destroy the middle class. He and his father and his NAZI grandfather are all criminals. Reagan isn't any better. He started the decline in our economy, by deregulating so many industries and allowing the Rich to get out of hand by handing them the country on a silver platter. The economic destruction. would have happened sooner if Bill Clinton hadn't stepped in. We need Bill back in office, IMO. less
Although, I don't agree with it, and I think Obama is capitulating with the Conservatives WAY too much lately, the shit in Libya is NOT a "Declared War" therefor, not against the law.
Bush is a fucking war criminal and should be prosecuted and if found guilty, maybe executed. If for nothing else, starting these fucking wars, for his OWN oil related financial gain, and RUINING our economy by trying to destroy the middle class. He and his father and his NAZI grandfather are all criminals. Reagan isn't any better. He started the decline in our economy, by deregulating so many industries and allowing the Rich to get out of hand by handing them the country on a silver platter. The economic destruction. would have happened sooner if Bill Clinton hadn't stepped in. We need Bill back in office, IMO. less
I don't think there was too many over here who liked him at all. Then again, there wasn't all that many who liked Clinton either.
Obama is good! I think he has opened the US to noticing the rest of the world a lot more.
04/02/2011
I think that if a country is in need of help then by all means, help. But I do think we interfere too much. Let them live how ever they want to live. Some of the ways they live, I personally, don't agree with but it's their choice!
My husband is in the Army, so I fully support the soldiers but not everything that they are doing. I've heard some stories from my husband and his friends while they were overseas and they disturb me like nothing else.
My husband is in the Army, so I fully support the soldiers but not everything that they are doing. I've heard some stories from my husband and his friends while they were overseas and they disturb me like nothing else.
04/02/2011
I love how the 'peace nicks' get into the White House and can't resist invading other countries. There's such a huge gap between perception and reality.
Could you imagine the outrage if GW had attacked Lybia. Where's all the indignation from the peace nicks who elected Obama?
Could you imagine the outrage if GW had attacked Lybia. Where's all the indignation from the peace nicks who elected Obama?
04/02/2011
I'm a "peace nick," and I'm not crazy about the fighting in Libya, but I understand why we went in. When a country takes a stand supporting human rights, you're kind of obligated to do SOMETHING when rebels fight a tyrant. Like RonLee already pointed out, we had foreign help winning our revolution.
As far as comparing Obama to Bush, Bush wasn't helping any rebels, nor was he supporting any human rights issue, he just went into Iraq to overthrow a false threat. Two different ball games.
As far as comparing Obama to Bush, Bush wasn't helping any rebels, nor was he supporting any human rights issue, he just went into Iraq to overthrow a false threat. Two different ball games.
04/02/2011
Quote:
I hate politics, so I am admittedly not an expert. But it always confounds me when people say that Bush did not get approval from Congress for military action in Iraq. Both the Senate and the House approved the Iraq Resolution to authorize military action, and the resolution was supported by the U.N. link link I found this thread to be interesting in this discussion: link
Originally posted by
P'Gell
I don't agree with interfering in the Libya conflict BUT Obama didn't break any laws. As, technically, what is going on there is a "Police Action" and NOT a declared war. A president should have, legally, Congressional approval to
...
more
I don't agree with interfering in the Libya conflict BUT Obama didn't break any laws. As, technically, what is going on there is a "Police Action" and NOT a declared war. A president should have, legally, Congressional approval to declare war. What George W. Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a WAR CRIME, as they ARE wars, they were declared and he got no OK from Congress.
Although, I don't agree with it, and I think Obama is capitulating with the Conservatives WAY too much lately, the shit in Libya is NOT a "Declared War" therefor, not against the law.
Bush is a fucking war criminal and should be prosecuted and if found guilty, maybe executed. If for nothing else, starting these fucking wars, for his OWN oil related financial gain, and RUINING our economy by trying to destroy the middle class. He and his father and his NAZI grandfather are all criminals. Reagan isn't any better. He started the decline in our economy, by deregulating so many industries and allowing the Rich to get out of hand by handing them the country on a silver platter. The economic destruction. would have happened sooner if Bill Clinton hadn't stepped in. We need Bill back in office, IMO. less
Although, I don't agree with it, and I think Obama is capitulating with the Conservatives WAY too much lately, the shit in Libya is NOT a "Declared War" therefor, not against the law.
Bush is a fucking war criminal and should be prosecuted and if found guilty, maybe executed. If for nothing else, starting these fucking wars, for his OWN oil related financial gain, and RUINING our economy by trying to destroy the middle class. He and his father and his NAZI grandfather are all criminals. Reagan isn't any better. He started the decline in our economy, by deregulating so many industries and allowing the Rich to get out of hand by handing them the country on a silver platter. The economic destruction. would have happened sooner if Bill Clinton hadn't stepped in. We need Bill back in office, IMO. less
It seems as though there is a much looser congressional justification for the war in Afghanistan, which is still continuing and will be until around 2014. link
At any rate, I'm not a fan of war at all and could only support it if we were defending ourselves from a direct (and identifiable) threat. It's hard to be at war against terrorism, an entity does not "fight fair" by hiding amidst innocent civilians. Besides, bin Laden is most likely not even in Afghanistan anymore but in Pakistan (according to "expert" opinion).
04/02/2011
This thread reminds me of an amusing email I got recently ....
ALERTS TO TERROR THREATS IN 2011 EUROPE
By John Cleese
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.
Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the
final escalation level.
ALERTS TO TERROR THREATS IN 2011 EUROPE
By John Cleese
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.
Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the
final escalation level.
04/02/2011
Quote:
OMG, this was hysterically funny and adorable, Shellz! Thanks for the laugh.
Originally posted by
Shellz31
This thread reminds me of an amusing email I got recently ....
ALERTS TO TERROR THREATS IN 2011 EUROPE
By John Cleese
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have ... more
ALERTS TO TERROR THREATS IN 2011 EUROPE
By John Cleese
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have ... more
This thread reminds me of an amusing email I got recently ....
ALERTS TO TERROR THREATS IN 2011 EUROPE
By John Cleese
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.
Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the
final escalation level. less
ALERTS TO TERROR THREATS IN 2011 EUROPE
By John Cleese
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.
Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the
final escalation level. less
04/02/2011
I wish they had of done all major countries. Would have been interesting as to what they came up with for others.
I can't resist these types of funnies...
I can't resist these types of funnies...
04/02/2011
there's some kind of good intentions deep down somewhere...
04/02/2011
Quote:
Yeah, I was disappointed that they didn't do the U.S. and some others as well. It is refreshing to back off a bit and just laugh at ourselves at times to gain a better perspective.
Originally posted by
Shellz31
I wish they had of done all major countries. Would have been interesting as to what they came up with for others.
I can't resist these types of funnies...
I can't resist these types of funnies...
04/02/2011
Quote:
But, Congress was lied to. The entire bullshit about Iraq being involved in 9/11 and that they had "weapons of mass destruction" was enough to negate any "permission" he dragged out of them.
Originally posted by
Selective Sensualist
I hate politics, so I am admittedly not an expert. But it always confounds me when people say that Bush did not get approval from Congress for military action in Iraq. Both the Senate and the House approved the Iraq Resolution to authorize military
...
more
I hate politics, so I am admittedly not an expert. But it always confounds me when people say that Bush did not get approval from Congress for military action in Iraq. Both the Senate and the House approved the Iraq Resolution to authorize military action, and the resolution was supported by the U.N. link link I found this thread to be interesting in this discussion: link
It seems as though there is a much looser congressional justification for the war in Afghanistan, which is still continuing and will be until around 2014. link
At any rate, I'm not a fan of war at all and could only support it if we were defending ourselves from a direct (and identifiable) threat. It's hard to be at war against terrorism, an entity does not "fight fair" by hiding amidst innocent civilians. Besides, bin Laden is most likely not even in Afghanistan anymore but in Pakistan (according to "expert" opinion). less
It seems as though there is a much looser congressional justification for the war in Afghanistan, which is still continuing and will be until around 2014. link
At any rate, I'm not a fan of war at all and could only support it if we were defending ourselves from a direct (and identifiable) threat. It's hard to be at war against terrorism, an entity does not "fight fair" by hiding amidst innocent civilians. Besides, bin Laden is most likely not even in Afghanistan anymore but in Pakistan (according to "expert" opinion). less
They were idiots to believe him, yes. But, being lied to is a reason to make one's permission not valid.
He's still a fucking war criminal. Every life lost in these two wars are blood on HIS hands.
04/02/2011
Quote:
The road to hell is paved in "good intentions."
Originally posted by
kutekatie
there's some kind of good intentions deep down somewhere...
04/02/2011
Quote:
So true!
Originally posted by
Selective Sensualist
Yeah, I was disappointed that they didn't do the U.S. and some others as well. It is refreshing to back off a bit and just laugh at ourselves at times to gain a better perspective.
Thought it might also break any tension that may build in here too. These types of discussions have potential to heat up.
Personally, I don't understand the huge obsession a lot of Aussies have for their BBQ's. I could take it or leave it!
But it was certainly hilarious.
04/02/2011
Quote:
I agree, but isn't it just semantics. Police action involves our military and the killing of other people on their soil. I'm sure by name, WWII could have been called a police action. I don't remember any government asking for us to police their nation. How is it our right to impress our morals and beliefs on others, just because we can?
Originally posted by
P'Gell
I don't agree with interfering in the Libya conflict BUT Obama didn't break any laws. As, technically, what is going on there is a "Police Action" and NOT a declared war. A president should have, legally, Congressional approval to
...
more
I don't agree with interfering in the Libya conflict BUT Obama didn't break any laws. As, technically, what is going on there is a "Police Action" and NOT a declared war. A president should have, legally, Congressional approval to declare war. What George W. Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a WAR CRIME, as they ARE wars, they were declared and he got no OK from Congress.
Although, I don't agree with it, and I think Obama is capitulating with the Conservatives WAY too much lately, the shit in Libya is NOT a "Declared War" therefor, not against the law.
Bush is a fucking war criminal and should be prosecuted and if found guilty, maybe executed. If for nothing else, starting these fucking wars, for his OWN oil related financial gain, and RUINING our economy by trying to destroy the middle class. He and his father and his NAZI grandfather are all criminals. Reagan isn't any better. He started the decline in our economy, by deregulating so many industries and allowing the Rich to get out of hand by handing them the country on a silver platter. The economic destruction. would have happened sooner if Bill Clinton hadn't stepped in. We need Bill back in office, IMO. less
Although, I don't agree with it, and I think Obama is capitulating with the Conservatives WAY too much lately, the shit in Libya is NOT a "Declared War" therefor, not against the law.
Bush is a fucking war criminal and should be prosecuted and if found guilty, maybe executed. If for nothing else, starting these fucking wars, for his OWN oil related financial gain, and RUINING our economy by trying to destroy the middle class. He and his father and his NAZI grandfather are all criminals. Reagan isn't any better. He started the decline in our economy, by deregulating so many industries and allowing the Rich to get out of hand by handing them the country on a silver platter. The economic destruction. would have happened sooner if Bill Clinton hadn't stepped in. We need Bill back in office, IMO. less
04/03/2011
Quote:
Our government need to concentrate on fixing the problems here...there are plenty to keep them busy >
Originally posted by
markeagleone
This poll concerns world events. Have we, the U.S., gone too far for interfering with other nations governments? My own opinion is yes. Other peoples have the right to choose their government, to have civil wars, if that is what they choose. We had a
...
more
This poll concerns world events. Have we, the U.S., gone too far for interfering with other nations governments? My own opinion is yes. Other peoples have the right to choose their government, to have civil wars, if that is what they choose. We had a law once on the books, that said we would never depose another countries leadership. Isn't that what we are now doing?
less
04/03/2011
Quote:
I like what your mom said
Originally posted by
Woman China
My mother always said, "clean the shit in your own backyard before attempting to clean the shit outta someone elses". Basically; butt out out of other people's business.
I see it all the time here as a foreigner living ... more
I see it all the time here as a foreigner living ... more
My mother always said, "clean the shit in your own backyard before attempting to clean the shit outta someone elses". Basically; butt out out of other people's business.
I see it all the time here as a foreigner living in China. The effects of the US wanting China to change at a pace that has resulted in the country being split into quite a few distinct classes. It is not good when parts of the country are living internationally and most of the country is living trying to catch up and failing at it.
Makes for quite a stir from day to day. less
I see it all the time here as a foreigner living in China. The effects of the US wanting China to change at a pace that has resulted in the country being split into quite a few distinct classes. It is not good when parts of the country are living internationally and most of the country is living trying to catch up and failing at it.
Makes for quite a stir from day to day. less
04/03/2011
Total posts: 50
Unique posters: 39
-
1
- 2