Just fire 2 blasts outside your window



  • So awhile Joe Biden gave a now-famous speech on gun control where he suggested everyone get a double-barreled shotgun (because they are "better" for home defense).  If someone was coming up to the door, just go to the balcony and fire 2 shots into the air.  They'll leave.  Nevermind the fact that your gun would then be empty, there are 2 instances of people following the Vice President's advice, and then promptly getting charged for it.  (Shooting a gun into the air is a misdimeanor, who knew?)

    Truly worse than failure.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    So awhile Joe Biden gave a now-famous speech on gun control where he suggested everyone get a double-barreled shotgun (because they are "better" for home defense).  If someone was coming up to the door, just go to the balcony and fire 2 shots into the air.  They'll leave.  Nevermind the fact that your gun would then be empty, there are 2 instances of people following the Vice President's advice, and then promptly getting charged for it.  (Shooting a gun into the air is a misdimeanor, who knew?)

    Truly worse than failure.

    Cite 1 - Feb '13.



    Cite 2 - this month.



    NRA telling Biden he's a fucking idiot.



  • Q:  "Dude, there's nothing here, why are you casting Magic Missile?"
    Biden:  "I'm attacking the darkness!"


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Sutherlands said:

    So awhile Joe Biden gave a now-famous speech on gun control where he suggested everyone get a double-barreled shotgun (because they are "better" for home defense).  If someone was coming up to the door, just go to the balcony and fire 2 shots into the air.  They'll leave.  Nevermind the fact that your gun would then be empty, there are 2 instances of people following the Vice President's advice, and then promptly getting charged for it.  (Shooting a gun into the air is a misdimeanor, who knew?)

    Truly worse than failure.

    This is why a semiauto shottie is better: 5-7-shell capacity.

    People make what I think are jokes about Biden being Obama's life insurance, but I don't see that at all. President Slow Joe would be off in a corner eating paste and nothing would get done. How could that be worse than the clusterfuck Obama's led us through?



  •  Well obviously he meant to say keep two shotguns, load one with fake bullets that just go boom but don't actually shoot anything, and the other one with real bullets. Fire the first one when you see a person you don't like and shoot them with the other one when they refuse to leave.



  • @Mo6eB said:

     Well obviously he meant to say keep two shotguns, load one with fake bullets that just go boom but don't actually shoot anything, and the other one with real bullets. Fire the first one when you see a person you don't like and shoot them with the other one when they refuse to leave.

    Linky



  • @Sutherlands said:

    Joe Biden...Truly worse than failure.

    No. We found out in another thread recently that he's competence personified!

    When he gave the speech, I remember thinking (in addition to the obvious WTF of shooting off warning shots in my house) about the old Doom double barrel shotgun, and how his wife must be able to reload like that.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    Truly worse than failure.
    Note to all the Americans on this list: everybody outside the USA hates the Republicans. And if you vote for them, we hate you too.

    Just so that you know.

     



  • @Severity One said:

    Note to all the Americans on this list: everybody outside the USA hates the Republicans. And if you vote for them, we hate you too.
    Just so that you know.

    Yeah, the GOP is in a unique position internationally as a political party; they manage to be hated by approximately 20 times more people than the population of the country they're based in.

    No other party in any other country can manage that level of self-induced animosity... most only manage between 50 and 90% of their own population.



  • @Severity One said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    Truly worse than failure.

    Note to all the Americans on this list: everybody outside the USA hates the Republicans. And if you vote for them, we hate you too.

    Just so that you know.

    We know. That's how we can tell we're doing something right.



  • @boomzilla said:

    We know. That's how we can tell we're doing something right.

    Because systematically antagonising virtually every other country in the world, not to mention the worlds fastest growing religion, for decade upon decade, while your economy begins to stagnate, is a recipe for success, right?



    Your bed of roses is almost ready guys, prepare to inhale the odour.



  • @eViLegion said:

    @boomzilla said:
    We know. That's how we can tell we're doing something right.

    Because systematically antagonising virtually every other country in the world, not to mention the worlds fastest growing religion, for decade upon decade, while your economy begins to stagnate, is a recipe for success, right?

    Huh? No, because you guys are such obvious idiots.

    I'm not sure what you're thinking about as far as antagonizing other countries. Generally, Republicans antagonize countries we don't like and treat our allies well. It's Democrats who treat allies like shit. Well, the current one, anyways. If we can get rid of enough Democrats and their stinking mess, our economy would do a lot better. I guess you just wish we were more like you so we would suck as much as you do.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @eViLegion said:
    @boomzilla said:
    We know. That's how we can tell we're doing something right.

    Because systematically antagonising virtually every other country in the world, not to mention the worlds fastest growing religion, for decade upon decade, while your economy begins to stagnate, is a recipe for success, right?

    Huh? No, because you guys are such obvious idiots.

    I'm not sure what you're thinking about as far as antagonizing other countries. Generally, Republicans antagonize countries we don't like and treat our allies well. It's Democrats who treat allies like shit. Well, the current one, anyways. If we can get rid of enough Democrats and their stinking mess, our economy would do a lot better. I guess you just wish we were more like you so we would suck as much as you do.

    No, mostly the entire world would like you to return to your policy of isolationism, and not actively trying to ruin everywhere else.



    You see, we're mature enough to understand that its not a question of "you suck, OMGWTF!" or "we're the best... USA USA USA!", as most of us have grown out of that mentality at around the age of 10 years old. Frankly, that your entire nation hasn't should be a source of abject embarrassment for the intelligent ones among you (of which I assume you're a member).



    Why antagonise other countries at all? Why not just leave them the fuck alone, so that they leave you the fuck alone, and everyone can get on with their days.



    Oh yeah... because your standard of life wouldn't be sustainable without effectively raping the natural resources of people that aren't capable of resisting your political, military and economic bullying. So, yeah, well done guys, you are without a doubt the best country in the world at that. Not only do you win the material victory, you also somehow win a weird moral victory by convincing yourselves that your existence isn't supported by your government behaving in an inherently evil fashion. Nice work.



    Also: "We're doing something right, because you're all obvious idiots". Did it not occur to you that this makes absolutely no sense, not even slightly?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Generally, Republicans antagonize countries we don't like and treat our allies well.
    I present to you: the Hague Invasion Act.

    Hint: the Netherlands are a founding member of NATO. They also host a lot of international judicial and police services.

    This amendment was introduced by two Republicans, and signed into federal law by a Republican.

    We all know the US penchant for invading considerably smaller countries, but a NATO ally?

     



  • @eViLegion said:

    No, mostly the entire world would like you to return to your policy of isolationism, and not actively trying to ruin everywhere else.

    LOL

    @eViLegion said:

    Why antagonise other countries at all? Why not just leave them the fuck alone, so that they leave you the fuck alone, and everyone can get on with their days.

    Yes! Peace for our time!

    @eViLegion said:

    Oh yeah... because your standard of life wouldn't be sustainable without effectively raping the natural resources of people that aren't capable of resisting your political, military and economic bullying.

    Yeah, fuck the Texans and North Dakotans! WTF are you talking about?

    @eViLegion said:

    Also: "We're doing something right, because you're all obvious idiots". Did it not occur to you that this makes absolutely no sense, not even slightly?

    Yes, it was obvious to me that you wouldn't understand. I'll use smaller words next time.



  • @Severity One said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Generally, Republicans antagonize countries we don't like and treat our allies well.

    I present to you: the Hague Invasion Act.

    Hint: the Netherlands are a founding member of NATO. They also host a lot of international judicial and police services.

    This amendment was introduced by two Republicans, and signed into federal law by a Republican.

    We all know the US penchant for invading considerably smaller countries, but a NATO ally?

    I don't get it. You're saying that you're antagonized by us not agreeing to your illegal detainment our military or other officials? And that we'll do something about it if you do? Why is that a surprise? You need to rethink who started antagonizing whom.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @eViLegion said:
    No, mostly the entire world would like you to return to your policy of isolationism, and not actively trying to ruin everywhere else.

    LOL

    @eViLegion said:

    Why antagonise other countries at all? Why not just leave them the fuck alone, so that they leave you the fuck alone, and everyone can get on with their days.

    Yes! Peace for our time!

    @eViLegion said:

    Oh yeah... because your standard of life wouldn't be sustainable without effectively raping the natural resources of people that aren't capable of resisting your political, military and economic bullying.

    Yeah, fuck the Texans and North Dakotans! WTF are you talking about?

    @eViLegion said:

    Also: "We're doing something right, because you're all obvious idiots". Did it not occur to you that this makes absolutely no sense, not even slightly?

    Yes, it was obvious to me that you wouldn't understand. I'll use smaller words next time.

    No, not peace in our time, but the rest of the world would hate you less.



    I seriously don't mind either way, I have no hatred, I'm just trying to explain to you why so much of the worlds population hate you because you seem baffled by it, and its pretty obvious to an outsider who isn't blighted by your biased nationalism.



    They don't hate you because they're inherently evil, or because you're inherently evil.



    They hate you because your government and large corporations behave badly the world over, and your media doesn't bother reporting it to you, so your population remains unaware... then, the rest of the world (who are generally not so well educated either, and unable to distinguish between an individual American citizen, and the huge organisations doing the evil) start hating on American individuals, assuming that the bomb that dropped from a drone and destroyed their child was mandated by every single citizen of your country. They are unaware of exactly how unaware you guys are about your government.



    Oh well... best of luck, your country is on the slow downward slide, and without a sea change in attitude you're going to go from a position of "hated, but fully ably to defend against that hatred", to "hated, and being beasted by both terrorism and war". Its not something I want to see, as frankly you're the best allies we have over here, but right now your country is like the self destructive, narcissistic little brother who refuses to listen to any advice from family members that do actually care.



    Why not use smaller words now, or are you struggling to make a cogent series of sentences that successfully explain it? I'm willing to be convinced, assuming you're capable.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Severity One said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Generally, Republicans antagonize countries we don't like and treat our allies well.

    I present to you: the Hague Invasion Act.

    Hint: the Netherlands are a founding member of NATO. They also host a lot of international judicial and police services.

    This amendment was introduced by two Republicans, and signed into federal law by a Republican.

    We all know the US penchant for invading considerably smaller countries, but a NATO ally?

    I don't get it. You're saying that you're antagonized by us not agreeing to your illegal detainment our military or other officials? And that we'll do something about it if you do? Why is that a surprise? You need to rethink who started antagonizing whom.

    Lol... virtually every other country in the world considers the international courts to be both legal, and have a higher precedence than their own courts.



    No other countries have created a similar act about Guantanamo bay, which is clearly not legal in any way, shape or form. The legal basis for the majority of the detentions there is categorizing people as "enemy combatants" so they don't have to be tried in civilian courts at all, despite many of these people being picked up within their own homes in western countries, and many of them never having even entered a war zone or touched a weapon. Even your own laws consider that illegal.



    Just more of the same... one rule for your government, because of course its the only non-evil government in the world, and one rule for everyone else. TRWTF is that you guys argue that that is fair, without a shred of irony. At least have the decency to concede that its massively unfair, but you're just gonna do it anyway... that would show some honesty.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I don't get it. You're saying that you're antagonized by us not agreeing to your illegal detainment our military or other officials? And that we'll do something about it if you do? Why is that a surprise? You need to rethink who started antagonizing whom.
     

    Well, it just means the US doesn't recognize the International Court.



  • @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't get it. You're saying that you're antagonized by us not agreeing to your illegal detainment our military or other officials? And that we'll do something about it if you do? Why is that a surprise? You need to rethink who started antagonizing whom.
     

    Well, it just means the US doesn't recognize the International Court.

    Actually, Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but didn't submit it to the Senate for ratification.  Then Bush pulled out.  The Obama administration is cautiously beginning to work with the court.

    The whole point of the International Court is to to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.  Our (the United States) stance against the court creates the appearance that we are above international law. Take a look at the Nuremberg principles, which serve as the basis for the Court.  They seem quite reasonable.

    It seems odd that we would remove ourselves and yet we participated at Nuremberg under generally the same principals, providing two judges and one prosecutor.   I guess it's all ok as long as we're not held to the same principles. I wonder if the argument that the Iraq war may have been illegal used in Hinzman v. Canada could have had anything to do with Bush's decision?

    There are a number of reasonably valid arguments (lack of Jury Trial, for example) that participation in the International Court by the United States would be unconstitutional.  Other nations have had to amend their constitutions in order to ratify the Rome Statute without such conflict.   However, in my opinion, there has to be some way to bring the persons responsible for such heinous acts to justice before the World at large when individual nations balk at their responsibility to punish such offenders, but if any one nation holds itself above international law how can that nation expect Justice when it is attacked?



  • @eViLegion said:

    Lol... virtually every other country in the world considers the international courts to be both legal, and have a higher precedence than their own courts.

    It's not our fault they don't value their sovereignty.

    @eViLegion said:

    No other countries have created a similar act about Guantanamo bay, which is clearly not legal in any way, shape or form.

    Wow. What a stupid statement. What's illegal about it in any way, shape or form?

    @eViLegion said:

    The legal basis for the majority of the detentions there is categorizing people as "enemy combatants" so they don't have to be tried in civilian courts at all, despite many of these people being picked up within their own homes in western countries, and many of them never having even entered a war zone or touched a weapon. Even your own laws consider that illegal.

    You can prove anything if you make shit up.

    @eViLegion said:

    Just more of the same... one rule for your government, because of course its the only non-evil government in the world, and one rule for everyone else. TRWTF is that you guys argue that that is fair, without a shred of irony. At least have the decency to concede that its massively unfair, but you're just gonna do it anyway... that would show some honesty.

    If we were at war with someone else, and they captured some of our soldiers, we would want to get them back. I would expect for our enemies to want their people back, too. I'm not sure what your problem is with this concept. I guess you think it's unfair to shoot the enemy on the battlefield, too?



  • @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I don't get it. You're saying that you're antagonized by us not agreeing to your illegal detainment our military or other officials? And that we'll do something about it if you do? Why is that a surprise? You need to rethink who started antagonizing whom.

    Well, it just means the US doesn't recognize the International Court.

    Exactly. Also an official recognition that subjecting US citizens to it could be construed effectively as an act of war.



  • @Medezark said:

    It seems odd that we would remove ourselves and yet we participated at Nuremberg under generally the same principals, providing two judges and one prosecutor.   I guess it's all ok as long as we're not held to the same principles.

    It's important to note that one of the principles that allowed Nuremburg was unconditional surrender after total war.

    @Medezark said:

    There are a number of reasonably valid arguments (lack of Jury Trial, for example) that participation in the International Court by the United States would be unconstitutional.  Other nations have had to amend their constitutions in order to ratify the Rome Statute without such conflict.

    Yes, exactly. And like I said, it's not our fault that other countries don't value their sovereignty.

    @Medezark said:

    However, in my opinion, there has to be some way to bring the persons responsible for such heinous acts to justice before the World at large when individual nations balk at their responsibility to punish such offenders, but if any one nation holds itself above international law how can that nation expect Justice when it is attacked?

    Truly awful things like genocide are probably best handled by going to war against the perpetrators. It's important to note that there are always people agitating for arresting this or that US Secretary of Defense for imagined war crimes, so it should be no surprise that these institutions are not viewed a good bargain for the US. I would also note that we don't hold ourselves above international law, per se (no matter what frothing anti-Americans like to say), but when one seems to be so obviously stacked against us, why give in to our antagonizers?



  • @eViLegion said:

    @Severity One said:
    Note to all the Americans on this list: everybody outside the USA hates the Republicans. And if you vote for them, we hate you too.
    Just so that you know.

    Yeah, the GOP is in a unique position internationally as a political party; they manage to be hated by approximately 20 times more people than the population of the country they're based in.

    No other party in any other country can manage that level of self-induced animosity... most only manage between 50 and 90% of their own population.

     

    Wow, so the GOP is hated by 6.2 billion people or so?  That's 88% of the world population... Here I thought the average person in other countries wouldn't know what the GOP was, especially in places like China.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Truly awful things like genocide are probably best handled by going to war against the perpetrators. It's important to note that there are always people agitating for arresting this or that US Secretary of Defense for imagined war crimes, so it should be no surprise that these institutions are not viewed a good bargain for the US. I would also note that we don't hold ourselves above international law, per se (no matter what frothing anti-Americans like to say), but when one seems to be so obviously stacked against us, why give in to our antagonizers?

    But who decides when genocide has been committed, rather than a "legal" war?  Individual nations?  Does Great Britain have the right to unilateraly decide that another nation has committed crimes against humanity and declare war?  Could Mexico declare Haggis a crime against Humanity and invade Scotland?  And if the United States refuses to participate in an international court, how do we justify taking action against another nation on the grounds of "crimes against humanity"?  Are you saying that the United States is the de-facto international court and thus the Hague is unnecessary?



  • @boomzilla said:

    (1)It's not our fault they don't value their sovereignty.



    (2)Wow. What a stupid statement. What's illegal about it in any way, shape or form?
    You can prove anything if you make shit up.



    (3)If we were at war with someone else, and they captured some of our soldiers, we would want to get them back. I would expect for our enemies to want their people back, too. I'm not sure what your problem is with this concept. I guess you think it's unfair to shoot the enemy on the battlefield, too?

    (1) I'm not saying it is. But think of it this way. A school playground, with a number of kids playing a game having decided upon the rules together in advance. America is the big fat kid who wants to play with everyone, but insists everyone plays by his rules, and has a massive tantrum when he doesn't get his own way every time. Which of all these children is going to be left out when it comes to birthday party invitations?



    So yeah, you can do your own thing if you like... you have that right. You just don't have the right to be popular. And, if you don't want to look like a colossal idiot, you probably ought to understand that dicking people over all the time makes you unpopular.



    (2) Well, international law, for one thing. It contravenes the Geneva convention in a number of ways. Secondly your own laws. People are detained without trial, without counsel, and with only the most general of charges laid against them (e.g. no names, places, dates, times etc.) and no way of reviewing the evidence to be able to contest it. Detainees are not allowed to even know the identities of the witnesses against them, let alone cross examine them. This is commonly known and understood.



    Now, there may be some "legal" loopholes that allow this, based on some spurious technicality, so maybe if you look at it in a certain light your government doesn't actually have to break any laws to do this. But in that case, it makes it worse that they didn't have to.



    (3) Yeah, we would want them back, but we wouldn't have the arrogance to say "they cant have committed war crimes, because they're <insert nationality here>". We would instead negotiate with the country that had them and find out what evidence they have of war crimes. The courts in the hague aren't like the sharia law courts of Somalia. These are the nations of your allies, who aren't in the habit of kidnapping members of US service personnel and subjecting them to trumped up charges. Can you not see how it simultaneously makes you look rather paranoid and arrogant, especially when you guys lock up more foreigners than any other nation (and in the case of Guantanamo Bay, with considerably less evidence).



  • @powerlord said:

    @eViLegion said:

    @Severity One said:
    Note to all the Americans on this list: everybody outside the USA hates the Republicans. And if you vote for them, we hate you too.
    Just so that you know.

    Yeah, the GOP is in a unique position internationally as a political party; they manage to be hated by approximately 20 times more people than the population of the country they're based in.

    No other party in any other country can manage that level of self-induced animosity... most only manage between 50 and 90% of their own population.

     

    Wow, so the GOP is hated by 6.2 billion people or so?  That's 88% of the world population... Here I thought the average person in other countries wouldn't know what the GOP was, especially in places like China.

    OK, so the statistic was picked out of my arse, for comedic exaggeration, but the principle stands. People outside of the US follow US politics, and most of them shit themselves when the republicans get into power, because its going to be a shit time for the rest of the world when that happens.



    You don't think like that because you're American, and most of YOU don't have a clue what happens in other countries. Everywhere else actually takes an interest in what happens elsewhere, which is part of the reason for such global animosity to Americans, and explains why you guys are just so baffled by it. Your media has no interest in telling you just how much you've pissed everyone else off, because you'll just switch to the channel that tells you you're all great.



    It turns out the people who hate you actually have reasons for it, but you wouldn't know because they're all communist towel-heads who are born hating freedom, or something.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    @eViLegion said:
    Lol... virtually every other country in the world considers the international courts to be both legal, and have a higher precedence than their own courts.

    It's not our fault they don't value their sovereignty.

    QFT.

    @boomzilla said:

    @eViLegion said:
    No other countries have created a similar act about Guantanamo bay, which is clearly not legal in any way, shape or form.

    Wow. What a stupid statement. What's illegal about it in any way, shape or form?

    Because Bushitler McHalliburton!



  • @Medezark said:

    But who decides when genocide has been committed, rather than a "legal" war?  Individual nations?  Does Great Britain have the right to unilateraly decide that another nation has committed crimes against humanity and declare war?  Could Mexico declare Haggis a crime against Humanity and invade Scotland?

    If you think you have a good cause for war then you go to war. Anyone could go to war anytime and anywhere. I suspect you mean, "legally" go to war.

    In particular, the UN charter allows for self defense (US invasion of Afghanistan). Otherwise, to be legal, countries would need some other legal justification, like enforcing UN Security resolutions (US invasion of Iraq). Of course, laws aren't worth much if they can't be enforced.

    @Medezark said:
    And if the United States refuses to participate in an international court, how do we justify taking action against another nation on the grounds of "crimes against humanity"?

    Because that shit sucks. Duh. How do we justify taking action against another nation on the ground of "crimes against humanity" if we participate in the ICC? "Let the court handle this. That's what it's for!" Your argument is basically similar to: "We must do something! This is something, so we must do it!"

    @Medezark said:

    Are you saying that the United States is the de-facto international court and thus the Hague is unnecessary?

    I'm saying that it's ripe for abuse and that it's not necessary to keep the US from genocide. The ICC doesn't appear to be very successful at doing much of anything. And given the preponderance of African defendants, I suppose that if the US signed on, we'd get criticized for more hating on the black man. But seriously, what stopped Milosevic? Fear of the ICC or bombs?



  • @boomzilla said:

    ...self defense (US invasion of Afghanistan)....

    Now I know you're just trolling nationalistically. You genuinely believe that invading Afghanistan was self defense, and made you safer? Because that's just hilarious.



  • @eViLegion said:

    But think of it this way. A school playground, with a number of kids playing a game having decided upon the rules together in advance. America is the big fat kid who wants to play with everyone, but insists everyone plays by his rules, and has a massive tantrum when he doesn't get his own way every time. Which of all these children is going to be left out when it comes to birthday party invitations?

    Yes, that's not a terrible way of thinking about it. Except the reality is that America is the rich kid with the awesome toys, and the other kids want to be able to take his toys away if he brings them to his house, so he makes sure the other kids' parents prevent this. Also, he has the best parties and everyone likes to get invited, so they don't push the toy confiscation too much.

    @eViLegion said:

    So yeah, you can do your own thing if you like... you have that right. You just don't have the right to be popular. And, if you don't want to look like a colossal idiot, you probably ought to understand that dicking people over all the time makes you unpopular.

    Sure. But you make up stuff to complain about, you don't have the right to be mocked.

    @eViLegion said:

    @boomzilla said:
    (2)Wow. What a stupid statement. What's illegal about it in any way, shape or form?
    You can prove anything if you make shit up.

    (2) Well, international law, for one thing. It contravenes the Geneva convention in a number of ways. Secondly your own laws. People are detained without trial, without counsel, and with only the most general of charges laid against them (e.g. no names, places, dates, times etc.) and no way of reviewing the evidence to be able to contest it. Detainees are not allowed to even know the identities of the witnesses against them, let alone cross examine them. This is commonly known and understood.

    It contravenes the Geneva convention not at all. These guys aren't covered by it, even though we live up to most of it. You don't know our law as well as you think you do. These guys are enemy combatants. Part of a war. Very different from a bank robber for many very real and important reasons. Like I said, you don't know as much as you think you do.

    @eViLegion said:

    Yeah, we would want them back, but we wouldn't have the arrogance to say "they cant have committed war crimes, because they're ". We would instead negotiate with the country that had them and find out what evidence they have of war crimes. The courts in the hague aren't like the sharia law courts of Somalia. These are the nations of your allies, who aren't in the habit of kidnapping members of US service personnel and subjecting them to trumped up charges. Can you not see how it simultaneously makes you look rather paranoid and arrogant, especially when you guys lock up more foreigners than any other nation (and in the case of Guantanamo Bay, with considerably less evidence).

    Bullshit. People are always threatening to arrest, e.g., Secretaries of Defense or Vice Presidents for "war crimes." And often these people aren't garden variety ignoramuses like you. They're ignoramuses who are actual ministers of actual governments. We have a system of justice that takes care of our military personnel, too. There's no need to outsource this inferior justice systems. We're less impressed with not appearing paranoid than preventing travesties of justice against our citizens.

    Maybe if y'all hadn't outsourced your national defense after WWII, we wouldn't have needed to take the role we did in world affairs and would have respected your voice more on these topics.



  • @eViLegion said:

    You don't think like that because you're American, and most of YOU don't have a clue what happens in other countries.

    I suppose that's true to the extent that we don't live in tiny countries. But frankly, most Americans probably don't pay much attention to what happens anywhere, just like most people all over the world. They're busy with their day to day lives. Ideally, we'd all be like that, and not have to worry about all the bullshit in the world. But it's always funny to hear foreigners lecture Americans about awareness of the world and get so many things so wrong.

    @eViLegion said:

    Your media has no interest in telling you just how much you've pissed everyone else off, because you'll just switch to the channel that tells you you're all great.

    Dude! Our media loves telling us how awful we are and how great everyone else is. I think you need to go sit in the sun for a bit to warm up your cold blooded lizard metabolism, because your brain isn't working.

    @eViLegion said:

    It turns out the people who hate you actually have reasons for it, but you wouldn't know because they're all communist towel-heads who are born hating freedom, or something.

    I KNEW it!



  • @eViLegion said:

    Because systematically antagonising virtually every other country in the world, not to mention the worlds fastest growing religion, for decade upon decade, while your economy begins to stagnate, is a recipe for success, right?



    Your bed of roses is almost ready guys, prepare to inhale the odour.

    People who type stuff like this really don't understand the American mindset, do they?

    "Hey Americans, you gotta implement strict gun control, all these French and Swiss people are making fun of you."


    "French and Swiss? Lower the age of gun license approval to 10, that'll REALLY get them going."

    If you want to get the US to change a policy, you'd be better off telling us that prissy Euro-nations agree with it. We'd have an emergency session to fix that shit.



  • @eViLegion said:

    @boomzilla said:
    ...self defense (US invasion of Afghanistan)....

    Now I know you're just trolling nationalistically. You genuinely believe that invading Afghanistan was self defense, and made you safer? Because that's just hilarious.

    So we shouldn't attempt to get the people who attacked us? Man, you guys are really eager for civilizational suicide. Now I'm feeling like you're just trolling me like a durowin vaccine rant. No one is really as stupid as the things you post.



  • I think you might have slightly conflated Osama bin Laden's little troupe with the ENTIRE NATION OF AFGHANISTAN?



  • @eViLegion said:

    (2) Well, international law, for one thing. It contravenes the Geneva convention in a number of ways.

    The Geneva Convention applies to uniformed soldiers.

    Name ONE WAY we're contravening it.

    I 100% agree that it's a shitty situation. But if you're going to say the US is doing something wrong, you have to show some evidence.

    Oh and we pay a lease for Guantanamo. It's a 99-year-lease, older than the current Cuban government. But we pay it anyway. So not only is the facility not illegal (whatever that means), but we're paying a government we have sanctions against to maintain it. Because we signed the deal, and we're a class act.

    Compare that to the $1.1 billion or so on the books that the UK owes us for WWI, a government that they (ostensibly) do not hate, and yet they stopped paying their loan payments and since we're a class act, we didn't do anything about it, even when our economy was tanking in the 1930's. (BTW, the loan was never defaulted, the payments just stopped and we stopped asking for them. If any of you UK people want to be a dear, write your government about finally paying us what they owe.)



  • @scudsucker said:

    I think you might have slightly conflated Osama bin Laden's little troupe with the ENTIRE NATION OF AFGHANISTAN?

    No, we talked to the government there at the time and asked for them to hand over the perpetrators. They said they wouldn't, so we told them we'd drop by to pick them up.



  • You American guys seem to be happy with your crazy foreign policy. I don't get it. Why do you like being hated by most of the planet? Why do you praise pointless wars that killed thousands of you, crippled tens of thousands, and tanked your economy? Even without giving a shit about us foreign folk (which is a bit nasty but understandable), your foreign policy directly damages your own people, economy and society. All while you guys wave the flag and chant USA! USA! USA! Now there's talk of invading Syria, you guys want that too? Why not invest that war money at home and fix your infrastructure?



  • @KillaCoda said:

    You American guys seem to be happy with your crazy foreign policy. I don't get it. Why do you like being hated by most of the planet? Why do you praise pointless wars that killed thousands of you, crippled tens of thousands, and tanked your economy? Even without giving a shit about us foreign folk (which is a bit nasty but understandable), your foreign policy directly damages your own people, economy and society. All while you guys wave the flag and chant USA! USA! USA! Now there's talk of invading Syria, you guys want that too? Why not invest that war money at home and fix your infrastructure?
    What gives you the slightest impression that we're ok with it?



  • @KillaCoda said:

    You American guys seem to be happy with your crazy foreign policy.

    This is a dramatic oversimplification. There are groups that dislike any particular policy. And plenty of disagreement on why any particular policy is good or bad. Most sensible people recognize the need to be engaged with the world, though, even if we can rarely agree how and why.

    @KillaCoda said:

    Why do you like being hated by most of the planet?

    We don't and we aren't.

    @KillaCoda said:

    Why do you praise pointless wars that killed thousands of you, crippled tens of thousands, and tanked your economy?

    I think that entering WWI was probably the right thing to do to prevent additional slaughtering of Europeans by Europeans. At some point, you just have to say enough is enough.

    @KillaCoda said:

    Even without giving a shit about us foreign folk (which is a bit nasty but understandable), your foreign policy directly damages your own people, economy and society.

    You guys have an awesome ability to cram so much wrong into so few words. I wish we didn't have to spend so much money on defense, but it's better than the alternative.

    @KillaCoda said:

    Now there's talk of invading Syria, you guys want that too?

    Mostly, no. We're tired of paying blood and treasure trying to help ungrateful people. The biggest problem in Syria is to decide which side to support. They're both awful, so it's probably best to just let them fight it out for as long as possible. Most Americans didn't even want to help out in Lybia, for that matter.

    @KillaCoda said:

    Why not invest that war money at home and fix your infrastructure?

    This is another curious bit of ignorance that is all over. We spend lots of money on "infrastructure" all the time. But anyways, the answer is usually because no one else is willing and able to step up and do anything about horrible things. Oh, they'll create impotent courts that don't do anything useful. And they'll complain when we do something that has actual effect and try to make themselves seem superior by holding up retarded and ineffectual institutions like the ICC. The wages of relative peace and prosperity, I suppose.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Europeans by Europeans
     

    I am not French, or British, or German. Try to keep in mind Europe is made up of separate nation states, no matter how much EU there is.



  • @boomzilla said:

    This is a dramatic oversimplification. There are groups that dislike any particular policy. And plenty of disagreement on why any particular policy is good or bad. Most sensible people recognize the need to be engaged with the world, though, even if we can rarely agree how and why.

    I mean specifically in this thread. Obviously there are many Americans who don't agree.

    @boomzilla said:

    We don't and we aren't.

    Ok well not majority but it's easily a billion+. Americans like you seem to revel in it? I don't understand why.

    @boomzilla said:

    I think that entering WWI was probably the right thing to do to prevent additional slaughtering of Europeans by Europeans. At some point, you just have to say enough is enough.

    WW1 wasn't pointless though. A Europe ruled by Germany would be a huge threat to America. Ditto for WW2. Stopping giant aggressive empires forming is a point, destroying third world countries who weren't invading anyone doesn't seem like much of one.

    @boomzilla said:

    You guys have an awesome ability to cram so much wrong into so few words. I wish we didn't have to spend so much money on defense, but it's better than the alternative.

    What's wrong about it? You have huge problems at home and refuse to do anything about them, yet are happy to spend billions (trillions?) on wars and "nation building"? Wtf? Spending money on defense is fine and prudent. Please tell me you don't refer to invasions half way round the world as "defense"...

    @boomzilla said:

    Mostly, no. We're tired of paying blood and treasure trying to help ungrateful people. The biggest problem in Syria is to decide which side to support. They're both awful, so it's probably best to just let them fight it out for as long as possible. Most Americans didn't even want to help out in Lybia, for that matter.

    Exactly. Why not do that more often? Hint: it's REALLY hard to help people with bullets and bombs. Mostly people just need to sort their own civil wars out.

    @boomzilla said:

    This is another curious bit of ignorance that is all over. We spend lots of money on "infrastructure" all the time. But anyways, the answer is usually because no one else is willing and able to step up and do anything about horrible things. Oh, they'll create impotent courts that don't do anything useful. And they'll complain when we do something that has actual effect and try to make themselves seem superior by holding up retarded and ineffectual institutions like the ICC. The wages of relative peace and prosperity, I suppose.

    No one else does anything because what's to be done? Afghanistan under Taliban was awful. How did the demolition of that country help it in any way? Iraq under Saddam was awful. How is sectarian civil war better? You can't force a society to develop at gunpoint. Toppling dictators is fine and dandy but what comes after? The "actual effect" is massive civilian casualties and ruined nations. Yeah I'll take the ICC for all it's flaws over that, any time.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @KillaCoda said:
    You American guys seem to be happy with your crazy foreign policy. I don't get it. Why do you like being hated by most of the planet? Why do you praise pointless wars that killed thousands of you, crippled tens of thousands, and tanked your economy? Even without giving a shit about us foreign folk (which is a bit nasty but understandable), your foreign policy directly damages your own people, economy and society. All while you guys wave the flag and chant USA! USA! USA! Now there's talk of invading Syria, you guys want that too? Why not invest that war money at home and fix your infrastructure?
    What gives you the slightest impression that we're ok with it?

    The general tone of some posts. Could be wrong. It's happened before :P



  • @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Europeans by Europeans

    I am not French, or British, or German. Try to keep in mind Europe is made up of separate nation states, no matter how much EU there is.

    I think both your and my comments are pretty fair. After all, there were a lot more countries in Europe that were belligerents than were neutral.



  • @KillaCoda said:

    Ok well not majority but it's easily a billion+. Americans like you seem to revel in it? I don't understand why.

    I guess because we don't put up our sense of right and wrong to vote by the wide world of clueless people. Didn't your parents teach you to do what's right and resist peer pressure?

    @KillaCoda said:

    WW1 wasn't pointless though.

    None of our wars have been pointless. But that one (maybe except the Civil War) ruined our economy the most.

    @KillaCoda said:

    You have huge problems at home and refuse to do anything about them, yet are happy to spend billions (trillions?) on wars and "nation building"?

    I'm not sure what your definition of "refuse to do anything" means, but I suppose it must be the sort of people who read language like, "Congress shall pass no law," and think that there is a hidden section that says, "...except..."

    @KillaCoda said:

    Please tell me you don't refer to invasions half way round the world as "defense"...

    That's what the part of the government is called. I think they shouldn't have changed it from Department of War. It's true, we have defended peoples other than ourselves. Are you the sort who thinks that national security begins just inside your border?

    @KillaCoda said:

    No one else does anything because what's to be done? Afghanistan under Taliban was awful. How did the demolition of that country help it in any way? Iraq under Saddam was awful. How is sectarian civil war better? You can't force a society to develop at gunpoint. Toppling dictators is fine and dandy but what comes after? The "actual effect" is massive civilian casualties and ruined nations. Yeah I'll take the ICC for all it's flaws over that, any time.

    Yes, trying to help out the poor brown people was probably a mistake. I think most Americans have come around to the view that we shouldn't go by the "Pottery Barn Rule," and should have just left once our military objectives were complete. The difference between the ICC approach and ours is that more of the casualties happen somewhere else. Assuming you live in western Europe, don't pretend that you haven't benefited from this, either. Much better to burn off the excess jihadi portion of the middle eastern population in Iraq than Europe or America.



  • @eViLegion said:

    @powerlord said:

    @eViLegion said:

    @Severity One said:
    Note to all the Americans on this list: everybody outside the USA hates the Republicans. And if you vote for them, we hate you too.
    Just so that you know.

    Yeah, the GOP is in a unique position internationally as a political party; they manage to be hated by approximately 20 times more people than the population of the country they're based in.

    No other party in any other country can manage that level of self-induced animosity... most only manage between 50 and 90% of their own population.

     

    Wow, so the GOP is hated by 6.2 billion people or so?  That's 88% of the world population... Here I thought the average person in other countries wouldn't know what the GOP was, especially in places like China.

    OK, so the statistic was picked out of my arse, for comedic exaggeration, but the principle stands. People outside of the US follow US politics, and most of them shit themselves when the republicans get into power, because its going to be a shit time for the rest of the world when that happens.



    You don't think like that because you're American, and most of YOU don't have a clue what happens in other countries. Everywhere else actually takes an interest in what happens elsewhere, which is part of the reason for such global animosity to Americans, and explains why you guys are just so baffled by it. Your media has no interest in telling you just how much you've pissed everyone else off, because you'll just switch to the channel that tells you you're all great.



    It turns out the people who hate you actually have reasons for it, but you wouldn't know because they're all communist towel-heads who are born hating freedom, or something.

    I don't think that and nothing in my post implied it.

    While someone else brought up that Europe has a large number of nations in it, I feel compelled to point out that the US is the third largest country by area (9.82 mllion square km, slightly smaller than all of Europe's 10.18 million square km) and the third largest country by population (313 million, just under half the population of all of Europe which is 739 million).  Don't just assume that everyone in our country thinks the same, because there are a lot of us spread over a large area.

     



  •  @KillaCoda said:

    Americans like you seem to revel in it? I don't understand why.

    It's about not caring, and bemusedly watching how many people try so hard to make find reasons to dislike the USA.@KillaCoda said:

    destroying third world countries who weren't invading anyone doesn't seem like much of one.
    Yeah, I don't think boomy's Colloquial Cliffnotes did it justice.

    @KillaCoda said:

    You have huge problems at home and refuse to do anything about them, yet are happy to spend billions (trillions?) on wars and "nation building"

    Because in the real world, you can't fix thing #1, check it off the list and do thing #2, and so on. You have to tackle all things sort of at once. A similar argument is sometimes brought against space exploration, and it's just as silly and easily removed.

    @KillaCoda said:

    Hint: it's REALLY hard to help people with bullets and bombs.

    I agree in principle, but then you've got these strong counterexamples in the shape of WWI and II. Basically, if it's clear that it's not your fight, don't fucking add weapons to that fucking fire.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    I think they shouldn't have changed it from Department of War.
     

    War is an ever so slightly loaded idea. Defense currently refers to the apparatus of organized combat between nations, so it's more than just a euphemism for war.

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, trying to help out the poor brown people was probably a mistake. I think most Americans have come around to the view that we shouldn't go by the "Pottery Barn Rule," and should have just left once our military objectives were complete. The difference between the ICC approach and ours is that more of the casualties happen somewhere else. Assuming you live in western Europe, don't pretend that you haven't benefited from this, either. Much better to burn off the excess jihadi portion of the middle eastern population in Iraq than Europe or America.

    Apart from "leaving once our military objectives were complete", I have no idea what this means.



  • @powerlord said:

    someone else
     

    I am a person, damnit!

    @powerlord said:

    Don't just assume that everyone in our country thinks the same, because there are a lot of us spread over a large area.
     

    Sometimes I think it's odd that these kind of supernations exist.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    What gives you the slightest impression that we're ok with it?

    Boomzilla. I know I'm kinda extrapolating out 300 million data points from a single one, but the strength of his support seems to be more than enough to go round.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.