Thread: Sheeples

The modern Anglo-American Empire has a deep and nasty history.
Dark and sinister skeletons, the both...

The respective populations of these countries are usually quite oblivious and indifferent towards the wealth of activities that have been going on for decades on.

All done in their name.
Sociopatic guilt?
Probably not.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Sociopatic guilt? Probably not.

I doubt it. Are they capable of guilt?

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

The modern Anglo-American Empire has a deep and nasty history.
Dark and sinister skeletons, the both...

Fuck me RS. You are like a broken record.

Mao, hitler, stalin, tojo, pol pot, kim il sung, hussein, tito, suharto.

Spot the british and americans.

Even if you held bush et al, nixon et al responsible directly for deaths in their particular wars they would still not be in the top three.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

The modern Anglo-American Empire has a deep and nasty history.
Dark and sinister skeletons, the both...

The respective populations of these countries are usually quite oblivious and indifferent towards the wealth of activities that have been going on for decades on.

All done in their name.
Sociopatic guilt?
Probably not.

You really are such a pretentious twat, but at least try and get the fukkin English correct when you try it on.

As far as Syria goes I am under the opinion that that they need to sort there own shit out and feel that the Poms are correct in there decision.

Once again the Yanks are playing Policemen of the world. They really don't need to do that unless they are threatened directly.

The Brits and American Govts are always telling us they wish to help the oppressed, then again how many tens of millions have they killed between them?

Originally Posted by November Rain

I propose that Texpat is right. The British are shit, but at least they voted against going into Syria. The US shit are still all for it.

No, the polling data in the US does not say this. Not at all.

Where did you get your data?

(You didn't.)

Well, the beauty of America is that the Republicans are against a military strike against Syria just because Obama is for it. There is no other consideration but what does Obama suggest? Let's sabotage for the sake of it.

At least the UK government has been subject to parliamentary process and the will of the people. Do the US population even expect that of their government anymore?

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by November Rain

I propose that Texpat is right. The British are shit, but at least they voted against going into Syria. The US shit are still all for it.

No, the polling data in the US does not say this. Not at all.

Where did you get your data?

(You didn't.)

There didn't appear to be a great deal of evidence outside the White House during the past 2 days to suggest that the american people weren't up for another crack at the ME. Alas, it also appears that history wasn't one of their strongest subject's at school.

Originally Posted by Yasojack

The Brits and American Govts are always telling us they wish to help the oppressed, then again how many tens of millions have they killed between them?

Yes but the numbers are slanted on way. Even at the height of the British Empire the technology for large scale slaughter did not exist.

ye if we just look at Bangladesh and india more were killed there, than both WW1 WW2

Originally Posted by November Rain

I propose that Texpat is right. The British are shit, but at least they voted against going into Syria. The US shit are still all for it. And how long will it be until it's discovered that the US and UK were behind the "napalming" of the school and the chemical weapons strikes? What we two will do to meet the common (or US )goals...
The worst thing is, we both have non thinking sheeples as our voting public. So, let's just continue killing. Why not?

You got my vote, Bashar al-Assad is a piece of shite, but it's doubtful he was foolish enough to give the Americans an excuse by using gas at such a convenient time.

The US has already done all the damage they can do in Afghanistan and need a new place to "save."

save or destroy?

In a new survey from NBC, 50 percent of 700 respondents said the U.S. should not take "military action" in Syria, while 42 percent said the U.S. should.

But opinions changed when participants were asked about airstrikes launched from U.S. ships, without involving ground troops or U.S. planes flying over Syria.

Asked their opinion about a mission "limited to airstrikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks," 50 percent said they would support such an action, while 40 percent said they would not.

Polls: Americans Don't Want to Attack Syria, but Could Support Limited Action That Did Not Risk American Lives

Not exactly overwhelming but not exactly non-existent either.

This whole OP is off-base and wrong.

As for "sheeple," OP please take heed.

This is another "non-story"

Originally Posted by Yasojack

ye if we just look at Bangladesh and india more were killed there, than both WW1 WW2

I'm quite interested, care to expand on that.

Look up the East India company. it was the lord and master of the colonies. india pakistan bangladesh etc

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by Yasojack

ye if we just look at Bangladesh and india more were killed there, than both WW1 WW2

I'm quite interested, care to expand on that.

Someone please move this shit to the DH where it belongs.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

most of whom comprise the low-information voter category.

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Even at the height of the British Empire the technology for large scale slaughter did not exist.

^
You musta posted that graphic 'but a dozen time there, snubbles.

One trick pony you are...