English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why is always America that tells the world how to behave and not, say, France or Australia or Brazil, or Sweden etc. etc.

2006-10-18 09:02:55 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

32 answers

Churchill was a fachist. He used poison to gass the kurds and deliberately tried to destror entire cities and evertone in it with fir bombs (eg Dresden).

For those people that blame islam, most know very little about it except the myths and propoganda. It would help of people found out about islam from muslims.

WW3 has already started. There are plenty of examples of meglomaniacs and powerful nations in history who wanted to rule the world. The US is having a go now but it will go the way of all previous attempts. eg. the sun was never supposed to set on the British empire - now "phoney Bliar" has to be content with being pet poodle no 2 (behind Angela Merkl).

The Real test for the US will come when it is relegated to third rate power behind China and India.

2006-10-18 10:42:58 · answer #1 · answered by Nothing to say? 3 · 0 2

First let's work together and define 'spark'. Would you define 'spark' as N. Korea threatening nuclear war? Would you define 'spark' as terrorist (al queda) attacks, terrorist harboring, terrorist funding, terrorist guidance, or perhaps you don't consider those examples to be a 'spark'. Please clarify. Then, the reason The United States of America is always in the forefront of policing world behavior is because the United States of America is the big guy on the block. And if you are small and not able to defend yourself on your own, then you would go ask the 'big guy on the block' to help. France is never firm, consistent, or in any position to achieve anything on their own. Australia is a good friend, but not quite big enough to handle the situation at hand. And quite frankly, you must be joking about Brazil or Sweden. Please elaborate to receive the answer you're looking for.

EDIT* GEE Mikey, all these great and thoughtful responses and not a 'peep' out of you!!! Things that make you go HMMMMMM!!!!

2006-10-18 09:26:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Bush will not be the one that sparks WW3, BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SPARKED!! The spark happened at the end of WW2 and the fire started burning on 9/11 when we finally realized they were at war with us. The reason America has to do it instead of France, Australia, Brazil, or Sweden is because of our capability. We are more wealthy and militarily stronger. If let France handle it then it is automatic surrender, it has happened before...remember WW2. Australia is not bad, but not strong enough. Brazil...yeah right. Sweden would just have everyone addicted to porn and drugs. Think about it before asking questions like that. They aren't hard to answer

2006-10-18 09:09:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

Bush is finished and it is nonsense to start a WW III since
it would not kill all of us but would certainly put the environment
in a state of complete calamity right away, instead of 2.025
as estimated by the scientists, which gives us enough time
to do something about it if Bush or successor signs the
Kioto agreement, which I think they will, and soon as Bush is
out. The USA, as they stand now, produce 25% of all the
world‘s pollution, but Arnie (Schwaznegger) has passed a bill
in California which is the USA‘s most populated state, and other
States are following the example to the point that now, the
Republicans are in favour of Kioto agreement and Bush can
do nothing about it since the democrats are also in favour.
Sorry for getting into another subject, but it will be the
pollution that will kill us more than the guns. I wish you well,
Iain Ritchie.

2006-10-18 09:31:37 · answer #4 · answered by Ricky 6 · 0 1

France would surrender before they could tell another country how to behave. Australia is one of the US allies and supports our efforts, like Americans not all Australians do but their government does. Sweden has missiles pointed at everyone and really doesn't want anything to do with any conflict. Brazil just doesn't have the means to do anything like that and back it up. This is why America does the dirty work.

2006-10-18 09:14:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

No Islam is the culprit. In 1899 Winston Churchill predicted that they would be trouble


Winston Churchill On Islam

A quote from an 1899 book by Winston Churchill, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

2006-10-18 09:07:18 · answer #6 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 8 1

What about World War 3-110? Well, because the France are ungrateful sissies, and the rest of the world counts on the U.S. to erradicate evil.

2006-10-18 09:11:45 · answer #7 · answered by sacolunga 5 · 1 0

When were the other 108 World Wars?

2006-10-18 09:24:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I was of the opinion that he had already done it in his crusade to create a New World Order. Did I miss the cease-fire decleration? Thought not.

2006-10-18 14:10:17 · answer #9 · answered by Paul J.C. 2 · 0 0

Because when the world gets in trouble, they call us.
History has repeated itself, if others do not play well
together then we must fight & die to defend them - read up on WWII. If Clinton & followers did not spark WWIII, then Bush & followers will not either.

2006-10-18 09:12:48 · answer #10 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers