Jump to content

The Bush Doctrine


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK, well Shingen gets all the good articles first, so I thought I would throw a little gas on the fire. This could get interesting, Warning, this articel is long, but well worth it!!

The Bush Doctrine

OK, Aramike, Shingen, Steve and of course Epsilon 5, Menchise and the rest of you, Comments?

And did you hear that Gray Davis is going to sue the federal government if they don't bail his butt out of the fire with price caps?!! ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO!!!!!

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Translation please?

What I got:

1) America is the pre-eminent power and everyone at best distrusts us but probably hates us.

2) We still need a missile defense system because some bad guy will shoot a missile at us.

3) The Kyoto treaty was unfair so we dropped it.

4) We should maintain our pre-eminence and police the world.

Answers:

1) To the rest of the world, stuff happens. Live with it. America has not had a policy of aggression so far as I know.

2) Goes to #4. Personally I don't think we need one. But if ya get one to work sure, go ahead; scare the crap out of the rest of the world.

3) Had no idea what this was till a month ago when I saw it mentioned on a newsgroup. Still haven't researched it. Wondering why it didn't pop up in 50 ways thread. But it does sound unfair.

4) I thought the US didn't like policing the world without the support of the UN. We gripe about it enough. Spending our resources blah blah. Sounds like might makes right. No wonder the world hates us.

I'm going to get into sooooooo much trouble for this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I got out of this article was that since America is the primere world power and it's now a unilateral world, we are politely play suggestion box. We listen to everyone gripe about what we are planning on doing and do it anyway.

That and the litle blurb about militarizing space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I skimmed as as far as a couple of "Page Down" keypresses, but some brief thoughts (until other points of view emerge):

From the article:

quote:

Russia and China never fail in their summits to denounce explicitly the "unipolarity" of the current world structure and to pledge to do everything to abolish it.

This is what is going on right now in California. We are a one party state (Democrat - we have one Republican in an elected executive position (Bill Jones, Secretary of State)).

California's electrical problems were caused by politicians who are ducking and covering and begging for a Federal bailout so they don't have to be accountable for what they have wrought. This would only be possible without an effective opposition party.

On a global scale, I imagine that this is how the rest of the world feels about the USA. However, the rest of the world doesn't understand (as some of us do) that the American leadership has been corrupt for the past eight years (yes -- there has been corruption before, but never elevated to the art form that Clinton achieved).

quote:

We still need a missile defense system because some bad guy will shoot a missile at us.

Personally I don't think we need one. But if ya get one to work sure, go ahead; scare the crap out of the rest of the world.

Chris Ruddy had a good column on this, relating with Ben Affleck's words of wisdom since his role on "Pearl Harbor" has made him an expert on war.

quote:

Ben Affleck was on the E! Network Monday talking about, among other things, the dizzying success of his career.

He then went on to discuss his latest film, which he said had an important lesson. The lesson was the same as the one in "Saving Private Ryan," Affleck said: Both films showed how horrible war is.

Of course, that is not the lesson of Pearl Harbor.

Nor is it of the enormous struggle that took place at the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944, and the days thereafter.

No, the lesson of both battles was that if we don't act now to maintain a strong military, we invite war, which is horrible.

The rest of the column is here.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprise, surprise. I was disgusted by a few sections of the article.

quote:

Oddly enough, the uniqueness of this structure is only dimly understood in the United States. It is the rest of the world that sees itÔÇöundoubtedly, because it feels itÔÇöacutely.

That was the polite way of saying that my opinion is worthless unless I agree with America. It's called racism.

quote:

It is hard to understand the enthusiasm of so many for a diminished America and a world reverted to multipolarity. Multipolar international structures are inherently less stable, as the catastrophic collapse of the delicate alliance system of 1914 definitively demonstrated.

The Alliance system of 1914 was not multipolar, it was bipolar (The Allied Powers and the Central Powers). That's why there were only two sides in the First World War.

quote:

Multipolarity, yes, when there is no alternative. But not when there is. Not when we have the unique imbalance of power that we enjoy todayÔÇöand that has given the international system a stability and essential tranquility it had not known for at least a century.

Rome enjoyed that once, guess what happened. It rotted from the inside and fell into history.

quote:

The international environment is far more likely to enjoy peace under a single hegemon. Moreover, we are not just any hegemon. We run a uniquely benign imperium. This is not mere self-congratulation; it is a fact manifest in the way others welcome our power. It is the reason, for example, the Pacific Rim countries are loath to see our military presence diminished.

I prefer self-determination to the umbrella of hegemony. Hegemons have a tendency to homogenize entire cultures, with invariably negative results. They also have a tendency to bully the smaller powers that disagree with them.

quote:

Unlike other hegemons and would-be hegemons, we do not entertain a grand vision of a new world. No Thousand Year Reich. No New Soviet Man. By position and nature, we are essentially a status quo power.

In other words, America entertains a grand vision of a world that doesn't change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think it says of the United states:

- US is on a power trip

- US is becoming the "it is so because I said so"-type country. We are the masters!

- US don't believe in international threats, which they should.

- The US is unable to comply to the Kyoto threaty, so they are finding way to escape it. They think economy is more important than our survival.

- US don't like to be restrained of their ations by international treaties and actions. "We are the masters and we will do our own rules, end of the line."

- The ABM treaty expiring? Sure. Then the right to bear arms should expire, it's much older, and a lot of countries are alright without this.

quote:

(2) To maintain the peace by acting as the world's foremost anti-proliferator. Weapons of mass destruction and missiles to deliver them are the greatest threat of the 21st century.

- Because "we" are the only ones who should build these weapons.

- Satellites and shuttles cannot resist a milimeter-sized pellet, how will you be able to fight in space with experimental rainguns (they do exist, 30,000k/s)?

- US think they are nearly invincible, and think they will become soon enough.

I don't like the United states very much (doesn't apply for the people in it), they are thinking that they are the truly most powerful country, and in no way they can be stopped.

What I'm afraid is that if ever a war wages against the US, the canadians will be attacked before the US itself, because you never attack your opponent directly when you are speaking of superpowers, or even hyperpowers.

I'm gonna be hit for that one.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god!! Where do I start?

quote:

That was the polite way of saying that my opinion is worthless unless I agree with America. It's called racism.


Racism? excuse please? Racism is the last bastion of a liberal argument, you don't agree, therefore you must be racist.. Sorry BS, don't EVEN go there.

quote:

Rome enjoyed that once, guess what happened. It rotted from the inside and fell into history.

This I must agree with, it almost happened, see the last 8 years under Clinton, but we now have a grown up in the white House, not a adolescent apologist!!

quote:

I prefer self-determination to the umbrella of hegemony. Hegemons have a tendency to homogenize entire cultures, with invariably negative results. They also have a

tendency to bully the smaller powers that disagree with them.

The problem in the last 8 years is that we have let little pissant countries, Sudan, North Korea, China, etc. ad nauseum create our foreign policy for us. We are the grown-ups, we are the world economy, we ARE the most POWERFUL country in the world, and if we believe that what a little country is doing is against our own beliefs, then we have every right and duty to try and fix it!! especially if it could have dire effects on our national security later on.

quote:

In other words, America entertains a grand vision of a world that doesn't change.

No, the world can change, as long as it does not endanger the United States or it's allies. Without change the world would basically do what you said above, stagnate to point where it would fall apart.

quote:

- US is on a power trip

- US is becoming the "it is so because I said so"-type country. We are the masters!

- US don't believe in international threats, which they should.

- The US is unable to comply to the Kyoto threaty, so they are finding way to escape

it. They think economy is more important than our survival.

- US don't like to be restrained of their ations by international treaties and actions.

"We are the masters and we will do our own rules, end of the line."

OK, let's go over these one at a time,

#1 US on a power trip? excuse please? when did that start? We ARE the ONLY superpower, why shouldn't we use that power responsibly to try and create a better and safer world, it's not like we want to take over your country!! Good grief!!

#2 US doesn't believe in International threats, BS, we do too, why do you think that Bush is revamping the military and wants to create ABMS?

#3 Kyoto was a fricking joke, it was a socialist scheme to take money from first world countries and GIVE it to developing 3rd world countries, only an idiot would follow that treaty, read it!!! Then you will see what I am talking about, you are seeing the propaganda war, but you obviously have not seen the facts, and by the way, Canada has yet to implement 1 part of that treaty, so quit throwing rocks when you live in a glass house!!

#4 The ABM treaty was with a country that no longer exists, Therefore the treaty no longer exists!! Another piece of propaganda that you have fallen for..

quote:

- The ABM treaty expiring? Sure. Then the right to bear arms should expire, it's much older, and a lot of countries are alright without this.

Yeah sure you betcha!! Are we gonna get into this again? The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is not a treaty, it is a right!! We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms!! PERIOD, once your guns in Canada were gone your crime rate SKYROCKETED!!! Without guns the only one with guns are criminals!!! And let me tell you they use them!!! You have what? 30 million citizens in Canada? your crime rate per capita is higher then the US by a wide margin, and when did that happen? After they took your guns, conclusion, with guns, crime rates go down, without guns, Crime rates go up!! Logic dictates therefore that the citizens should have a right to guns in order to protect themselves from criminals. The same thing has happened in Australia, and South Africa, it ALWAYS happens!! Disarming the citizens is a STUPID policy!!! It also allows the government to infringe on the few rights you have left, why? because the citizens have no way to enforce those rights!!

And in the last part of your post, the US is not invincible yet, but with Bush in office we may become that way!! The US needs to be strong enough to destroy any threat, in the smallest amount of time possible, would you attack the US or it's allies if it meant your total and absolute loss, I don't think so.

It would be MAD all over again, except the US would not be the one destroyed!!

quote:

I don't like the United states very much (doesn't apply for the people in it), they are thinking that they are the truly most powerful country, and in no way they can be stopped.

What I'm afraid is that if ever a war wages against the US, the canadians will be

attacked before the US itself, because you never attack your opponent directly when

you are speaking of superpowers, or even hyperpowers

First, we are the MOST POWERFUL country in the world, no THINK about it!!!

And you had better hope we stay that way, because if Canada is EVER attacked by another country, the US would beat the hell out of the aggressor, and keep Canada safe!!

So you may not like the US government, but it IS your security!! Because lord knows your military isn't!!

I thought the article stated the way things are, very well, glad it got some of you thinking!!

Edit:

quote:

Bush has a Doctrine?

Yes, we finally have a grown up in the White House, who knows foreign policy, is working on a number of problems that have been and were ignored by the last president and his cronies. Bush runs the white house like a business, the president cannot know everything, that is why he has advisers, and he has chosen the best of the best!! That is why he has a doctrine, he knows what needs to be done and got the MOST talented people he could find to implement them!!! He is a delegater, which is what a CEO or anyone else in business knows is the way to get things done.

This White House will get things done, not just talk about getting things done!!

And guess, what barely 130 days into his term and we have our tax cut!!! Hoo YAAA!!! YES!!!

Yes, he has a doctrine and it's getting implemented!!!

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Commander Hamblin

Grown up? Please. Under Bush you're still stuck in the Cold War mentality.

Today's lesson: All politicians are lying scumbags. Try to keep a certain amount of skepticism when dealing with them, and above all, keep an open mind.

Though Bush is making me doubt more than usual.

Oh, and keep the Party jihad to a minimum. It irritates me. Calling the other guy the "spawn of the devil" just makes me that much more wary towards your side.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Commander Hamblin ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll hit on the hot topics here briefly:

ABM: Since WHEN should an INDEPENDENT country let FOREIGN governments influence their actions? We ARE the most powerful country in the world, plain and simple. There is no country that can stand up against the US. If we want to DEFEND our people, SCREW the opponents.

Kyoto: Apparantly some people in this thread don't realize the difference between the signing of a treaty and the ratification of a treaty (Canadians).

First of all, the US government would NEVER ratify that ridiculous Clinton-era treaty - not the senate, not at all. So, if we aren't going to RATIFY it, why would we bother PRETENDING to abide by it? Secondly, the US has higher pollution-controls than any major industrial country in the WORLD! Why does the world always need US help to do ANYTHING? IF they want to pass and ratify this treaty, LET THEM. There is NO need to drag us into it.

Funny, these same countries that want our help for EVERYTHING seem to complain about us at EVERY opportunity.

Steve: I have to say that neither Ben Affleck or Chris Ruddy are experts on war:

quote:


Excerpt from article
:

Adm. Moorer observed that if we had lost Midway nothing would have stopped the Japanese fleet from attacking the U.S. west coast. Japanese occupation of parts of California would have been likely.


First off, I don't consider Admiral Moorer an expert on very many things, much less the times. Here's something else he has said:

quote:


But I think women ought to quit while they were ahead. And now, they are working themselves into a position where they, in the long run, are not going to be able to compete. And this is particularly true in the military. I think that If we have another war, and actually put women in combat, the public's going to rise up in horror.

Anyone who'd rely on Moorer for knowledge of hypotheticals has got to be insane.

The Japanese wouldn't be so stupid to occupy an INDEFENSIBLE area of land.

OK, I digressed. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Commander Hamblin

Defend it from what? So called "Rogue Nations" (What's the definition of a Rogue Nation anyway?) wouldn't be silly enough to launch anyway, since they know they'd end up killing themselves in the process. You said yourself the US is the most powerful nation on Earth, and no one could stand up to you, so why do you need this if you're already on the top?

The only threat now is from terrorists. And terrorists don't use ICBM's, they use bombs in briefcases. Better to channel that money into anti-terrorism, than into paranoia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god, what is a rogue Nation?, come on...

China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Shall I go on, each and every one of these countries has the capability or will have in the near future, of launching a Ballistic missile at us, once built they can then look at us and go hey, do this or we will launch this puppy at LA, (no big loss as far as I am concerned), we will then be blackmailed by every little piss ant country that can build a missile and tip it with a stolen (mainly from Russia's stockpile)or homebuilt nuke.

With an actual Antiballistic missile system in place, we look them in the eye and say "go for it", we'd love to test our ABM system on your P.O.S. missile.

Well, this is a game we can play, we have the technology, we have the capability, let's do it!!

As for terrorists with a suitcase bomb, heard any terrorists bombing in the US lately? didn't think so. They're doing just fine with the money they've got, I'd much rather use that money to save cities from nuclear destruction, if we lose a building or 2 to a terrorist bomb, small price to pay!! Because no matter what you do, there is no way you are going to stop every little sicko out there with the capability of getting hold of some nitrogen fertilizer and building a bomb in his basement!!

You all think WAY too small, A terrorist bomb is nothing compared to the capability of a nuclear tipped ICBM, sure we'd waste the country that launched it, but I would much rather defend the city against it, then be helpless to do anything about it and watch the city and millions of people die.

Then after we shot down the missile, go after the country that launched it with all the normal military strength we've got. Surgical, to the point, and no need to use a nuke to get our point across!! Why kill a bunch of their civilians, even if they were willing to kill ours, I think we are a little above that, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Commander Hamblin:

Defend it from what? So called "Rogue Nations" (What's the definition of a Rogue Nation anyway?) wouldn't be silly enough to launch anyway, since they know they'd end up killing themselves in the process. You said yourself the US is the most powerful nation on Earth, and no one could stand up to you, so why do you need this if you're already on the top?

The only threat now is from terrorists. And terrorists don't use ICBM's, they use bombs in briefcases. Better to channel that money into anti-terrorism, than into paranoia.


What's it to you? Sure, there are different threats, sure some may say that ABM is unneccessary, but still, if it happens to protect just ONE person, then I'd have to say that it is worth it.

Perhaps you can lend me your crystal ball so I can see into the future as clearly as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's it to you? Sure, there are different threats, sure some may say that ABM is unneccessary, but still, if it happens to protect just ONE person, then I'd have to say that it is worth it.

I agree that saving lives is important but the way I look at it, by spending the money on other social programs such as health care instead of these ABMs, it would save a lot more lives.

We're talking about a LOT of money here, and the military wants us to beleive in their paranoia crap to justify a system which may in some computer theorized scenario save the land of freedom? from the evil chinese goverment (or some other dictatorship run by a deranged madman who keeps his finger on the launch button everytime). After all, aren't all chinese persons blood thirsty maniacs who 100% support their goverment in the pursuit of global destruction. Sure...

If I was a "rogue country", I would just sit there and laugh at those americans spending a fortune on these ABMs while I send a few professional terrorists with small nuclear bombs to do surgical strikes on US cities.

just my 0.02$ flamebait

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Tekrebel ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

PERIOD, once your guns in Canada were gone your crime rate SKYROCKETED!!! Without guns the only one with guns are criminals!!! And let me tell you they use them!!! You have what? 30 million citizens in Canada? your crime rate per capita is higher then the US by a wide margin, and when did that happen?

ROTFLMAO! And I'm hearing that from an american! POUAHAHAHAHAHA! *ahem* You can't be serious! Where have you got that info?

I consider Canada to be quite safe. I mean, you have crimes like in any country, but it's nothing serious. In the US you have to watch your back unless you're walking a a small village.

Even kids in your schools are more violent. I spoke to people from many states saying they must know how to defend themselves, because they could get beaten up for any valid or non-valid reasons. I NEVER FOUGHT OF MY LIFE, BECAUSE I NEVER HAD TO!

Oh right, maybe we have more thefts than in us, but our VIOLENT crime is much lower, I'm sure of that...

In Canada and 1999 (the latest stats I could find), we had 536 homicides, and it have been decreasing, a rate of 1.76 for 100,000 people.

In US and in 1999, you had 15,533 homicides, that makes a rate of 5,7 for 100,000 people.

Now tell there is more violent crimes in Canada that in US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you get your statistics, but you're right the violent crime rate in Canada is falling, but in the US it is falling as well. The fact is in Canada, if a perpatrator does more then one murder or violent crime it is still counted as 1 violent crime or murder, even if it's 10, because it is the same person, if a crime is unsolved, it is not counted, if a crime is within a marriage, it is not counted, sounds like pretty iffy statistics if you ask me. If you actually count those, you're violent crime rate is even and in some cases MUCH higher then ours.

I have never had a fight in my life either, and hopefully never will. I do not fear for my life walking down the street, and never have. I fear when I am in Canada though, your police have far more power then ours do, and the fact that the only armed people are criminals scares me to death. I fear for myself when I am in Vancouver BC, and I am there quite a lot, why? because I am not allowed to defend myself while I am there, I look forward to coming home and getting out of that crazy country.

You may enjoy the fact that you are not allowed to own a gun, but when you become a victim it won't be so great, that I promise you. I will not become a victim, and if another civilian has a gun as well, then I'm even safer, it's that much less likely that a criminal will try to do something.

How old are you Epsilon 5? Working on a theory, so I would really like to know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Kyoto was a fricking joke, it was a socialist scheme to take money from first world countries and GIVE it to developing 3rd world countries

That's right. Under Clinton, the Senate voted it down with no dissent. Clinton was wise enough to not force a binding resolution, only a non-binding one since he knew the Senate would never go for it. This way, he can have his cake (to appease the environmentalists by paying lip service to Kyoto) and eat it too (by knowing that Congress would never support it). The only country to ratify the treaty so far is Romania.

quote:

Yes, we finally have a grown up in the White House, who knows foreign policy, is working on a number of problems that have been and were ignored by the last president and his cronies.

Here is a recent Wall Street Journal revelation regarding the Clinton foreign policy with regards to Haiti. Surprise, surprise that his advisors are now partners in the Haitian telephone monopoly. It makes you wonder what his motives were in the first place?

quote:

And guess what, barely 130 days into his term and we have our tax cut!!!

And if you listened to the Democrats, you'd think he spent that time just poisoning the water and air, but only the water and air that Democrats drink and breathe... There is now way that Bush, in 130 days, could cause all the calamities that the Democrats accuse him of.

The Democrats will tell you that any policy Bush enacts will take 12 to 18 months before the impacts show up on the markets, but they will not say that recent market movements were the result of policy initiatives made 12 to 18 months ago, because those were under the Clinton administration and don't fit into the policy of blaming Bush.

quote:

they are thinking that they are the truly most powerful country, and in no way they can be stopped.

As soon as the rest of the world starts turning to China, Russia, India, and others for relief after every disaster instead of the USA, I will stop believing that the USA is the most powerful country in the world.

quote:

once your guns in Canada were gone your crime rate SKYROCKETED!!! Without guns the only one with guns are criminals!!! And let me tell you they use them!!! You have what? 30 million citizens in Canada? your crime rate per capita is higher then the US by a wide margin, and when did that happen? After they took your guns

The big unreported statistic is that although gun-related deaths went down after guns were banned, knife-related deaths (and other non-gun weapons) skyrocketed. People will find the tools they need, whether it is a gun or a knife. The gun isn't the problem -- the person is the problem.

quote:

Even kids in your schools are more violent.

I attribute this to the decline of our educational system. We have a self-esteem feel-good system that would rather social-promote someone who can't read than hurt their feelings by holding them back. We are eliminating scoring from junior sports events so that there are no more losers (we don't want to hurt their feelings). We are eliminating the SATs as college acceptance requirements because our students can't pass them anymore.

Instead of teaching our children how to handle loss and defeat while they are young, we are teaching them that pride in accomplishment is not as important as pride in just trying. They are taught to believe that just trying is all that matters and that alone deserves compliment. The actual result (i.e. getting it right) is secondary. Therefore, when someone challenges them (like a bully, or a romantic competitor), their only reaction is to lash out and attack because their self-esteem has been threatened.

Here is a fascinating article by Diane Alden on this topic. I wrote an layman's editorial on this topic (under a pseudonym) on Free Republic a month before Ms. Alden wrote this, making many of the same points without the expert backup that she cites. Just lucky, I guess.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I attribute this to the decline of our educational system. We have a self-esteem feel-good system that would rather social-promote someone who can't read than hurt their feelings by holding them back. We are eliminating scoring from junior sports events so that there are no more losers (we don't want to hurt their feelings). We are eliminating the SATs as college acceptance requirements because our students can't pass them anymore.

Instead of teaching our children how to handle loss and defeat while they are young, we are teaching them that pride in accomplishment is not as important as pride in just trying. They are taught to believe that just trying is all that matters and that alone deserves compliment. The actual result (i.e. getting it right) is secondary. Therefore, when someone challenges them (like a bully, or a romantic competitor), their only reaction is to lash out and attack because their self-esteem has been threatened.

Here is a fascinating article by Diane Alden on this topic. I wrote an layman's editorial on this topic (under a pseudonym) on Free Republic a month before Ms. Alden wrote this, making many of the same points without the expert backup that she cites. Just lucky, I guess.


Amen to that.

That's why I despise liberalism - they always seem to try for the QUICK fix. Things that *seem* to work today are what wins votes. Things that work that were started by conservatives 20 years ago are simply forgotten, or the credit is taken by the liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, more...

Crimes of violence, US, 1999: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus99.pdf

7,357,060 crimes, 32.8 per 1,000 people

Crimes of violence, Canada, 1999: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Justice/legal02.htm

The national population in 1999 was 30,493,900

There were 291,330 violenty crimes

A ratio of 9,6 per 1000 people!!!

(Note: I did not included nor calculated crimes like theft, I'm more concerned about crimes that hurt.)

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was really into jumping inot this one with my point of view....That all went to crap when I read

"there is an adult in the Whitehouse"

I am still floored by that comment....

xoxoxoxo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Racism? excuse please? Racism is the last bastion of a liberal argument, you don't agree, therefore you must be racist.. Sorry BS, don't EVEN go there.

The writer of the article said that I don't understand American Unipolarity just because I'm not American! That is racism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...