Bush getting one on Syria before he goes?

sorry sir, wont complain again sir, i'll just bend over and let you fuck my ass again while you remind me of the fact you own my ass for your joining BOTH world wars when you could be arsed getting off your lazy asses to do so, my ass is still sore from the marshall plan

Tex wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Yanks. I REALLY fucking hate them sometimes.

Except when we're shipping hundreds of millions of tons of material your way to stop the evil Hun, right?

Errrrmmmmm, we paid for that you plank....lend LEASE!

Dragged YOUR arses out of a depression in the process.

BTW, if saving someone's arse makes them your bitch.....how come you lot are so unkind to the country which entirely financed your little terrorist rebellion (or, as you call it, the war of independence)....FRANCE!

Doctor? wrote: Hang on.......

Funding/arming/helping the muujihadwhatstherefaces makes you a criminal, and the sentence is to have your kids bombed? Right?

Step up Ronnie Raygun and Shrub Senior.

LOL

Yanks. I REALLY fucking hate them sometimes.

Cambo, yer taking my words out of context. The original post was talking about crossing a border and attacking Syria... to which I don't care if we do.

Another post later posed about the death of civilians (especially children)... to which I stated it could be similar to Haditha, planned videotaping to use our media to win a battle.

I never stated "bomb the crap outta civilians for areas aiding mujahdeen".....

thou art getting all worked up over nuffink

go on george, kick ass!

Ally wrote: Why all the "yers" all of a sudden?

What ever happened to "you're" or "your".

Fahcking hell.

For my part, I'm just trying to make my written comments as incomprehemsible as my speech.

Doctor? wrote:

Tex wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Yanks. I REALLY fucking hate them sometimes.

Except when we're shipping hundreds of millions of tons of material your way to stop the evil Hun, right?

Errrrmmmmm, we paid for that you plank....lend LEASE!

Yeah, in 2006! And at 2% interest, it was a pretty f'ing good deal for you.

Tex wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Tex wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Yanks. I REALLY fucking hate them sometimes.

Except when we're shipping hundreds of millions of tons of material your way to stop the evil Hun, right?

Errrrmmmmm, we paid for that you plank....lend LEASE!

Yeah, in 2006! And at 2% interest, it was a pretty f'ing good deal for you.

No, that was a loan made in 1948, and 2% a YEAR, so you got double your money back.

Doctor? wrote:

Tex wrote: Yeah, in 2006! And at 2% interest, it was a pretty f'ing good deal for you.

No, that was a loan made in 1948, and 2% a YEAR, so you got double your money back.

I always thought Great-Britain was the American tête de pont in Europe because of this debt. If it is paid, does it mean that the UK will commit a bit more in the EU?

3615 Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Tex wrote: Yeah, in 2006! And at 2% interest, it was a pretty f'ing good deal for you.

No, that was a loan made in 1948, and 2% a YEAR, so you got double your money back.

I always thought Great-Britain was the American tête de pont in Europe because of this debt. If it is paid, does it mean that the UK will commit a bit more in the EU?

That's 'cause GB is our beeatch! Out on the corner of europe skanking for cash... where's my money beeatch!

EdelBrock wrote:

3615 Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Tex wrote: Yeah, in 2006! And at 2% interest, it was a pretty f'ing good deal for you.

No, that was a loan made in 1948, and 2% a YEAR, so you got double your money back.

I always thought Great-Britain was the American tête de pont in Europe because of this debt. If it is paid, does it mean that the UK will commit a bit more in the EU?

That's 'cause GB is our beeatch! Out on the corner of europe skanking for cash... where's my money beeatch!

Great Big Fuck Off US Aircraft Carrier Sitting Off The French Coast.

Britain sucks up to the US cos it saves learning to speak foreign.

All jokes aside, it does seem a bit whiny when other countries complain about US military. Think of it this way, all the other 1st world countries aren't spending buttloads of cash to build up a military because they don't have arms races with each other anymore. If they do need protection, they know the US has thier back... so they've been letting the US spend money on military while they can spend money on other infastructure issues.

Back to the subject, History shows that the one who has the mightiest army is also the first willing to go to war...

If you ask the rest of the world, I do not think it will confirm that bombing in Syria was a good idea.

3615 Jiphy wrote: Back to the subject, History shows that the one who has the mightiest army is also the first willing to go to war...

If you ask the rest of the world, I do not think it will confirm that bombing in Syria was a good idea.

That idea is misleading though Jiphy. The US is the first Police state... very little intentions on staying in an area, and usually involves itself in what it believes is for the "greater good" of the world. Granted not all involvements have been that way, but in a generalized sense this is the case. At least it is very different from past empires that were only involved in war for personal gain and interests.

Do we overstep our bounds, maybe... but at the same time, most 1st world countries enjoy an ability to not concern themselves with outside threats, as the US has effectively taken the responsibility of "policing" the world.

Yes most counties wouldn't support a bombing in Syria, they also are doing jack-all in the enforcement of modern day standards.

EdelBrock wrote:

That idea is misleading though Jiphy. The US is the first Police state... very little intentions on staying in an area, and usually involves itself in what it believes is for the "greater good" of the world. Granted not all involvements have been that way, but in a generalized sense this is the case. At least it is very different from past empires that were only involved in war for personal gain and interests.

Oh do fuck off. This is only correct when you take into account that the arseholes on the other side of the pond think that whatever is good for the US is good for the world.

EdelBrock wrote:

Do we overstep our bounds, maybe... but at the same time, most 1st world countries enjoy an ability to not concern themselves with outside threats, as the US has effectively taken the responsibility of "policing" the world.

You do fuck all when you have little to gain. Can't remember you sorting out Rwanda or Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka was a mess and you did nowt, East Timor - where? Conversely you piled in when there was no danger but did it to serve your own self - interest. Panama? Grenada ?

EdelBrock wrote:

Yes most counties wouldn't support a bombing in Syria, they also are doing jack-all in the enforcement of modern day standards.

If these standards are yours you can shove 'em. France was right, we were wrong, but you are guilty of repeatedly breaking international law and decency. As the srongest nation in the world you don't give a flying one because you don't have to. Thats what makes somany think your a set of self serving arseholes.

EdelBrock wrote: If they do need protection, they know the US has thier back... so they've been letting the US spend money on military while they can spend money on other infastructure issues.

Yeah thats why the yanks ALWAYS send the S.A.S in first innit!

Or is it cos the navy seals are just FUCKING WANK!