Sasha Vassily wrote:

Either you found my post hilarious or you are going insane. If the former no problem, if the latter, I'd suggest you see a psychiatrist as soon as possible.


You don't know me enough or even 0.1% of me to know of my friends. A couple of years ago I was just another liberal too, before my military program and my trip to US. If I were to move to US, I could blend in and live as one of you without you figuring out it is me. Americans don't have brains for such work and they think that no one has which is why our people manage to get into top US government positions, without your kind realising until its too late. :rofl:

Our people infiltrated every single department of US Homeland Security while no American every set foot inside out headquarters and survived to send home a message. :rofl:


Looks like Americans have a really bad sense of people. Can we trust even Iraq in hands of these idiots? Now I understand why the mighty superpower Turkey refused its bases to all time ally US.


In that case American people were drunk when they went to vote for Bush or they are stupid. If they were drunk before voting in an election, they are stupid, so either way they are idiots.


Isn't killing 600000 people a reason enough. Or are the Americans such self satisfied pigs that the pain of a mother whose son was killed by one of them, not a concern of theirs. If that is the case, I don't regret something I did in the recent past.


I said American opinion polls are jokes because Americans apprently don't know well enough to take a barely accurate survey. Either that or they are hipocrites. By the way most of my information is based on research assessements, surveys and complimented by personal experiences with Americans like you.

I found your post hilarious.

You told me that Americans hadn't gotten over the cold war, although it appears that you harp on it. Besides that, I would imagine that you would think that American soldiers are fed propaganda to justify their cause and therefor love American unconditionally. If that is so, then couldn't the same be said about your military program? Is it possible that you were fed propaganda so as to "take America down a peg or two"? After all, our country did, and still does, demonize the Soviet Union. I could imagine that Russia would like to demonize America in return.

Other than that, why would Russians still be trying to blend in with Americans and get into top government positions? Is there a feud between American and Russia that I don't know about, or is Russia trying to "settle the score" or something?

Do you know what elections are like in the U.S.? Candidates try their hardest to portray themselves in a good light; as stronger leaders than the other candidate; as all-around better people than the other candidates. George Bush had an advantage. People don't usually change direction of war without good reason. George Bush changed the objective of the war in Iraq multiple times, but if the other candidate had been elected, he may have withdrawn troops from Iraq. That is definitely a bigger change than that of changing an objective.

Americans probably did kill that many people. It's called war. That's what happens during war. You took a military program - you should know that.

You actually research Americans and their thoughts and opinions? Don't you have better things to do? Besides, how would we know that your research wasn't biased?

It is your opinion that Americans are stupid, that they can't take surveys, that they have poor decision-making skills, etc. However, stupidity and what defines stupidity will always remain in that complicated gray area of life. There's no way to prove once-and-for-all that Americans are stupid. There will always be room for debate.

Are you serious? :eek:

Iraq was a secular country (look up the word if you don't know what it means) before the US invaded. The Bush administration tried to make it seem as if Iraqi government had links to Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that was responsible for sending people to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, but they failed. Then they told everyone that the US invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a "bad man." There are tons of "bad" men in the world. Why isn't the US invading South Korea or Russia?

MaYaNk RoCkS wrote:

I am not trying to bash America or anything

Oh, please. This is the THIRD thread you've made in the past two weeks about America. You're obsessed. And a little hypocritical too. Ignorance is rampant in the UK too... people just don't care about the UK so we don't have any threads about it.

~Erika~ wrote:

There are tons of "bad" men in the world. Why isn't the US invading South Korea or Russia?

Okay, I'd like you to list a few reasons why South Korea or Russia should be invaded by the US.

Also, I'd liek to point out to you that Russia has a military power that far outweighs the US' and therefore it would most likely be suicide for your country to wage war against Russia.

[/quote]
Oh, please. This is the THIRD thread you've made in the past two weeks about America. You're obsessed. And a little hypocritical too. Ignorance is rampant in the UK too... people just don't care about the UK so we don't have any threads about it.[/quote]

First off I'd like to point out that Mayank is not from the UK but from India if that is what you were infering.

Secondly I'd like to point out that people outside of your border's aren't obsessed with the US.

And thirdly, many people do in fact care about the UK, probably far more than those who care about the US because our political reputation and social reputation doesn't stink as much as yours.

Did you even read my post? I said "with that logic," implying that the reason that was used for Iraq ("bad man") could be used to invade the other two.


Doesn't he live in the UK?

Already addressed in the other thread. Whether you like to admit or not, the US is discussed and thought about all around the world.


Are you kidding? Not many people care about the UK, and they definitely don't care about the UK more than US. You seriously are in denial and I'm pretty sure you haven't been exposed to much of the world...

And political and social reputation? This is the place with rampant xenophobia and jingoism.

Yes I did read your post but it seems you are actually incapable of answering my question. I left it up to you to decipher the fact that I didn;t agree with your reasoning or logic that the US could go to war with those two countries for the same reason that war was waged against Iraq and was asking for reasons why war would be legitimate.


Here is a link to his profile
It may help you work out his location.




Not already addressed but is ongoing debate in another topic.

~Erika~ wrote:

Are you kidding? Not many people care about the UK, and they definitely don't care about the UK more than US. You seriously are in denial and I'm pretty sure you haven't been exposed to much of the world...

I have been travelling the world since I was 5 and have been exposed to every continent except South America and Antarctica. It was really quite ignorant of you to make such an assumption. Not many people may care about the UK in the US, but unfortunately that is not the only place in the world.

~Erika~ wrote:

And political and social reputation? This is the place with rampant xenophobia and jingoism.

Are you trying to say that there is rampant xenophobia and jingoism in the UK? If so you really must take your head from the sand. Britain is a country with such a diverse culture. We are pretty much at the top of the list along side France (oh and we aren't afraid to admit that we can be equal either) and other countries with the most diverce amount of nationalities living in our country. Xenophobic I think we are not.

Jingoism? Go look at your own country before trying to tell other countries that there is rampant jingoism in their country.

it was either Bush, or some guy addicted to Global Warming. most Americans ignore global warming so they voted for Bush.. seemed right at the time, till they discovered global warming has a stronger impact than the Iraqis now.

I made it pretty clear that I thought that invading Iraq was illegitimate so "with that logic" implies that invading South Korea or Russia would be also. Why is this so difficult to understand?


Thanks.



What debate? You're in denial if you actually think that the US is not the most influential country in the world. What country has more influence on others in the world?



Not many people care about the UK in general and that wasn't an assumption. You may have lived in a hotel while visiting in a country, but you probably don't what it's their newspapers or their TVs. American culture has been exported all over the world thanks the Internet, TV and movies.



I've already looked. People here rag on the US and talk about the negatives openly. And in the UK? People become defensive and their attitude "deny deny deny" when anything negative is mentioned and this is educated people. I read a message on Yahoo! Answers where a Briton asked "why should we apologize?" and a whole rant about how he was pissed just because people talked about British colonization in the past and he was tired of being guilty. On another board I go to, someone mentioned the partitioning of lands that Britain pushed and their (disastrous) effects and a Briton got so upset and made it seem like the thread was about him and it was about dissing his country.

And not xenophobic? LOL @ the "diverse culture" propaganda. This is the country where racial remarks about South Asians are commonplace. I even read an article about how an Indian movie was being filmed in city in England and the crew was harassed twice---first the actress and an actor at a crosswalk and then an actor in a park. The crew said it wasn't a big deal and that it was normal :eek: and the director said similar things happened the last time he filmed a movie in the UK. :eek: Can you actually imagine that happening in an American city, especially with a film crew with you? I can't! Sorry.

I agree with Sasha oh and I really liked this part of your post sahsa

I guess you are too abysmally stupid, conforming to the quote G.B.Shaw made (see my signature). I won't be wasting my time replying to the rest of your stupidities. Just keep more of them coming. It helps the rest of us get a good laugh, considering this comes from an American serious. I'll put some of them in my signature if they are good enough.:lol:

^Of course you agree with Sasha. He's saying everything you want to hear, or at least thought you wanted to here. And how convenient of you to ignore that he included the UK in his list of one of the countries that ARE influenced by the US, which you kept trying to deny. And I really want to see your response to what I said about xenophobia and jingoism.

And Sasha, what on earth are you going on about? American pop culture is NOT only limited to the other English-speaking countries! I'm from Peru and American music and movies do have a significant popularity in Latin America. And you can add Asia to the list also; American pop culture is popular Southeast Asian countries and the Middle East. Popularity in East Asia is growing. South Asia already has their own major entertainment so American entertainment doesn't do as well there, but even the biggest American singers and stars are known there. And American influence in general is not only limited to Anglo countries either. South America again along with Mexico and the East/South/Southeast Asian countries?

~Erika~ wrote:

^Of course you agree with Sasha. He's saying everything you want to hear, or at least thought you wanted to here. And how convenient of you to ignore that he included the UK in his list of one of the countries that ARE influenced by the US, which you kept trying to deny.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Sasha hardly goes around saying what people want to hear. I agree with him because he is saying pretty much what I have been trying to put across.

I didn't ignore him putting the UK has a country that is influenced by the US. Of course it is and at no point have I denied flat out that the US does not have any influence at all over the UK or any other countries, only that we are not obsessed by your country and that we are not America but a completely different country with different culture. I could say the same for you though, nicely ignoring the fact that Sasha said that the US influence is minute compared to the world and very small compared to the British Commonwealth... somehow considering the US isn't even part of this comonwealth and our head of state is head of this commonwealth we have quite a lot of influence around the world.

^I didn't ignore what I said. I disagreed because I'm from a region that's not listed by Sasha as being influenced by American culture when I know for a fact that American influence is significant there. The same applies to the other regions I mentioned.

And you have denied a lot. You keep trying to say that the UK's culture is "completely" different from the US (like you just said), which isn't entirely true. The culture of most Western countries is pretty similar. You even tried to say that the UK has more influence in the world than the US, which is a joke lol.

BTW, do you have anything to say about the xenophobia/jingoism stuff from my second-to-last post?

Sasha Vassily wrote:

If America tries to invade Russia it won't be illegitimate. It will be the stupidest thing they do, so stupid that they would be no American left the next day in the large glass continent to ponder over the decision.

I think it's fair to say that both Russia and America have enough nuclear warheads to turn any country and/or small continent into a glass parking lot.

Sasha Vassily wrote:

Really? Since when I have been trying to sugarcoat my words and not calling a spade a spade? I am not you, blowing my own trumpet about my own country without any relevance to reality. Wake up, little girl.

You wake up. You disagreed with me and told me I was ignorant, which is exactly what he wants to hear.

Sasha Vassily wrote:

Xenophobia is better than a total denial and ignorance about the world like yours. And what about your own jingoism, that blind self-obsessesive belief about 'American power'. 'Special case' as people call it, referring to your kind. Is there like a 'stupid gene' that those are you are born with?

Denial and ignorance? It's true that the US has more influence over the world than other countries and you haven't been able to counter that. And it's not like denial and ignorance isn't rampant in the UK. Your friend here was claiming that the UK is responsible for the spread in English in recent times, which isn't true, and also how many Britons are aware about what the world outside Europe and North America? I asked one where he thought Kuala Limpur was and he though it was a country in Africa.

Sasha Vassily wrote:

Isn't it obvious? France has a lot of influence in European culture because they are it's neighbours. Latin Americans copying American culture is as obvious as snow in Siberia at this time. Latin Americans have little to be proud of, all they can do is tail and mirror US because thats like the big-brother in their continent.

What on earth are you going on about? Traditional Latin American culture is Spanish culture mixed with indigenous culture and the culture of immigrants. It's pathetic that you pulled that our of your ass because I was able to name a non-Anglo region where American culture does have influence. And why would Latin America being neighbors with the US mean there will naturally be influence?

Sasha Vassily wrote:

I spent over three years in South East Asia and if you think most of them listen to Shakira beats, you are a total blockheaded moron. South East Asian culture is clearly their own, in fact US copies a lot from there. Just because you see all Americans converting to Buddhism or pracitising Yoga doesn't mean it is a new American invention for Asian countries.

And I never said most people are listening to American music, but are the upper/middle class people with money doing it? Definitely. I talk to a girl from Cambodia and all her friends listen to Western music and watch Western movies... probably because they have access to it. Why would most people in a poor nation like that be listening to Shakira? It'll just be the people who access to it.

Sasha Vassily wrote:

80 million Indians don't know who Michael Jackson is. Try any big American celebrity on Mayank and chances are you'd draw blank unless he knows that particular one. You'd be surprised and he is one of the most 'pop-listening' person in his area.

Most Indians are living in poverty, so that's a moot point. And I woudn't be surprised if Mayank does know who Michael Jackson is. Michael Jackson is pretty popular in India. (Oh, and I know this for a fact. My friend is from India and her mom mentioned something about Michael Jackson being popular and liking Jaws she was younger).

Millions... only 3000 people were killed and like 5000 injured.

By actually going to war more people are inclined to keep doing it.

Someone said that to me the other day "...but Iraq was involved in the twin towers" I think people just assume.

Sasha Vassily wrote:

I didn't take an American military program. Wars aren't won by killing people, organised propaganda, ethnic genocides, raping kids, murdering orphans and spraying chemicals on civil habitats. These are barbarism, not war and this makes the Americans worse than Nazis. If we had a sick and stupid brain like the Americans, the 3rd World war would have started in 1962.

What examples of ethnic genocide, raping kids, and murdering orphans can you find? Save for the Native American genocide, I can't really recall any other genocide perpetrated by Americans. As far as the latter two go, there were probably a few incidents with deranged soldiers in the Vietnam War, or in other wars, but I still don't remember anything being that widespread.

If Russians had sick and stupid brains like Americans? Is it even necessary to recall the killing, propaganda, genocides, and rape committed by Stalin and the Soviet Union? Let's see, 2 million estimated rapes in Berlin; propaganda that said that the West was failing and the economy was crumbling, various genocides against slavic groups and against Jews... need I say more?

When did Iraq bomb us? The Terrorists few planes into our world trade centers and our pentagon, but it wasn't the Iraqis.

Sasha Vassily wrote:

Do the maths. Blast radius of a nuclear warhead X number of warheads = Total Area Covered

The US warheads aren't enough to convert even the whole of Russia into a parking lot, forget an entire continent (except Australia). Too few warheads and low yields for a large country like Russia. However Russian warheads have the numbers and yield to eliminate any one continent on earth barring Asia, Africa and Antarctica.

However this is not the point. My reply was to her where she suggested the US doesn't invade Russia and Korea for legitimacy reasons. Rather than such ideologies (which Americans don't care about anyway) I think is the the policy of "Save yourself from facing extinction". Otherwise there won't be any America left to fight for in a few hours if they attempt to invade Russia.

If Erika or you knew anything about history, you would also know that in the 250000 years of human history, Russia had never been successfully invaded. Whoever attempted was destroyed. While the world went under Great Depression, Russia was unaffected, it went up to space. Russia survived almost every event and still remained a military superpower, the number one in military firepower at present. When Erika talks of invading Russia, it sounds like a little child who say Superman will save America from terrorists. Americans are simply stupid, people like you and Erika can be sent on trip to Antarctica with a camel and desert clothes.

It is estimated that the U.S. has 5163 active nuclear warheads and 9938 inactive ones. It is also estimated that Russia has 5830 active nuclear warheads and 16000 inactive ones. I'm not going to do the math, but I can imagine that if 5000 nuclear warheads detonated on any given country in the world, that there would be little life left over. Russia as a country is too big to completely destroy every square inch of land, but 5000 nuclear warheads would still do much damage. The same goes for America - nuclear warheads are powerful, and neither country has any desire to engage in a nuclear war.

I never said that America should invade Russia, or that it would even be possible to do so. I do know that Russia has never been successfully invaded. I've known that for quite a while. In fact, I was pondering that very idea yesterday night. Such people like Napoleon and Hitler have tried to take over Russia unsuccessfully. Long story short: don't invade Russia. It's too big, too cold, and defended by too many people. No country has recently tried to invade America, but I could imagine that the size of America would render it hard to control by an outside nation as well.

While the former USSR was the first country to launch an artificial satellite into space, it did not do so while America was in its Great Depression. The Great Depression in America ended with World War II, when men were in war and women had jobs in war factories. The Sputnik 1 entered orbit in 1957, which was well after the end of the Great Depression in America.

Were you talking about another Great Depression? Because if you weren't, I believe that I am the one who knows history.

Sasha Vassily wrote:

Do the maths. Blast radius of a nuclear warhead X number of warheads = Total Area Covered

The US warheads aren't enough to convert even the whole of Russia into a parking lot, forget an entire continent (except Australia). Too few warheads and low yields for a large country like Russia. However Russian warheads have the numbers and yield to eliminate any one continent on earth barring Asia, Africa and Antarctica.

Heh, does it matter? When we speak about nuclear warheads, it's perfectly plausible to assume that neither country was entirely accurate in the number of nuclear warheads aimed at whatever country. In the hypothetical event of a nuclear war, if America or Russia were to pinch off 2000, 3000, or 5000 nuclear warheads at each other, the results would still be disastrous. If one country wasn't entirely glazed over with glass, the inhabitants would die terrible deaths of radiation poisoning and by consuming poisoned foods.

But that really isn't the point. Even in the height of tension between America and the Soviet Union, no country had much of a desire to fight each other. There is no victor in a nuclear war.

P.S: Sorry for the double post

MaYaNk RoCkS wrote:

I cant imagine that how can people be so ignorant? Did the president or any government official told you this lie or do people there like to assume a lot?

I am not trying to bash America or anything but just want to know why most of them think Iraq bombed US.

This isn't truth. Iraq never bombed US.

Wow, you create a thread and you cannot ever support you're own claims. This shows what a hypocrite you are Mayank. If you have support to what you are saying, then I'll start debating with you seriously. Common sense is not so common.