Posted by stinenavy on 11/18/2014 3:11:00 PM (view original):
I don't get it.

Just had to save this one!

Posted by bad_luck on 11/18/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/18/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2014 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Really?

I'm simply asking 'who is responsible, if anyone, to police global terrorism?'

Do you have an answer?

No one is responsible for policing global terrorism. We step in when it is in our best interests to do so, whether those interests are financial, diplomatic, or political.

We don't do it just because terrorism is wrong.

Wrong again BL...........

When it comes right down to it, it is really EVERYONE'S responsibility to police global terror.

The fact of the matter is that we are one of the few countries willing to do it, mainly because of 9/11.

IF countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan etc, etc, (the ones closest to the terrorists or even the ones harboring the terrorists) had the balls to do something about it, we wouldn't have to.

BL is never wrong.

I'm sure he can find a link to some obscure study that "proves" he's never wrong.

It's a semantic argument, but the reality is that there is plenty of terrorist activity going on in the world not directed at the United States or our closest allies that we ignore.  BL's general sentiment is correct - if it doesn't impact us, we look the other way.

Posted by moy23 on 11/18/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2014 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Really?

I'm simply asking 'who is responsible, if anyone, to police global terrorism?'

Do you have an answer?

No you were comparing WW II with the situation in Iraq.

Posted by moy23 on 11/19/2014 10:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/18/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2014 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Really?

I'm simply asking 'who is responsible, if anyone, to police global terrorism?'

Do you have an answer?

No you were comparing WW II with the situation in Iraq.

I was simply asking 'who is responsible, if anyone, to police global terrorism?' Do you have an answer?

The answer is no one. We step in when it suits us and ignore it (looking at you, sub-Saharan Africa) when we can.

We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST NATION.
 FOUNDED BY TERRORISTS, NOW LED BY A WAR CRIMINAL

Millions have died in Congo. Thousands upon thousands of rapes. Kids made to fight when they're not being raped and tortured. Why don't you advocate going in there to police the situation?

Posted by stinenavy on 11/19/2014 11:55:00 PM (view original):
Anything less than having our troops spreading democracy all around the world, by way of bullets, is tantamount to isolationism to the moy, miket, tec, of the world. There aren't enough Americans coming home in body bags for them.

Thanks for speaking for me, dipshit.    Wanna quote me?

Posted by The Taint on 11/19/2014 11:25:00 PM (view original):
We will police it when it suits our needs. If it doesn't we'll do what we always do, give no *****.

FWIW, this is somewhat correct.

If a situation could possibly affect our way of life, we get involved.   That would generally require the ability to attack America outside the local area.   South Africans whacking one another with machetes will not qualify.    I imagine, if Saddam didn't have a huge military and the meager threat of building nukes, he'd still be killing Kurds.  If he could contain himself to Iraq.