Originally Posted by Sasha Vassily

What about the majority of Americans who support what these soldiers and their supreme commander is doing in the middle east? Ever heard of the concept, "crime by association"?


Which is, at best, a lie and at worse an arrogant attempt at creating self importance. No one really cares what you do in the world as long as you keep your long ugly noses out of other people's business. The Soviet Union was a superpower, so is Russia today and so will China be in the near future. No one really looks at Russia and says, "What the hell are you going to do about that?" just because Russia is a superpower.


I do recall the genocide of Rwanda and I also recall that no one really criticised the US except France and Belgium who needed to cover their backsides by shifting the blame on US.


Can you give any proof that any person in political/military authority made such a public statement? You are simply bringing up empty claims that have no factual evidence whatsoever.


If someone tries to argue about something that know little to nothing about, it is not a sign of anything but plain stupidtity.


Smart people know that they should get into an argument against an opponent who is far better equipped than they are. For example, a smart person wouldn't get into an argument about geopolitics or military psychological profiling with no training, experience or authority in the area. Replacing them with Anglo-American media catchwords like "we are superpower, everyone needs our help" is not going to help in here.


I drew up the psychological profile with my team, after comprehensive scientific analyses of the mentality of American military personnell. Which is based on personal experiences, experiences of others and decades of American military history. Unless neurosciences advance to an extent that beliefs can be decoded to material or electronic existence, there is little that one can do to 'prove' what the typical American combatant believes. In case you are not aware, psychological profiles are never taken as 'factual proof', any more than police 'confessions' are taken a courtroom evidences. Both are at best, guides for further understanding of the subject or the crime; there are always room for modification or exceptions.