@mmetevelis In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization,[48] and in 1999 the Republican Policy Committee of the U.S. Senate expressed its troubles with the "effective alliance" of the Clinton administration with the KLA due to "numerous reports from reputable unofficial sources ".[49]
In 2000, a BBC article stated that Nato at War shows how the United States, which had described the KLA as "terrorist", now sought to form a relationship with it.[50]
@mmetevelis Rugova's policy of passive resistance succeeded in keeping Kosovo quiet during the war with Slovenia, and the wars in Croatia and Bosnia during the early 1990s. However, as evidenced by the emergence of the KLA, this came at the cost of increasing frustration among Kosovo's Albanian population. In the mid-1990s, Rugova pleaded for a United Nations peacekeeping force for Kosovo. In 1997, Milošević was promoted to the presidency of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Most Europeans are too idealistic for their own good. A chaotic and unchecked world needs stability. The world has always had superpowers and in the forseable future I don't think this will change. Say what you will about the USA, but I rather live in a world led by the Unites States than by China. Every country looks out for their own interest, but atleast the US strives for a better world. You cant say this about China who treats its own citizens like crap.
this country still exist?? God what are you waiting for???? what more do they need to do?? kill more children in Libya???what God? whhaaaaat!!!!!!!????
Iraq clearly benefited USA when Saddam was out of the way, but give an example of a European country taking over a country for it's resources in the last 200 years
fine. imperial germany then. or great britian, france, portugal, spain, the netherlands, russia, austria, and turkey(depending on your perception of europe. personally, i dont count them). its kinda funny, cuz thats pretty much all of the major nations of europe in the past 200 years. and why would i exclude nazi germany? they did just that. should i exclude soviet russia too?
None of those countries took over a whole nation for it's resources, parts of a nation maybe. But not a whole one, and most of the countries in Europe who did start wars had bad relations already because of how close they were. Iraq is in a completely different continent than the US,
wait, so africa, asia, and the americas werent separate continents? are you seriously telling me spain, britian, france, and the others didnt conquer and rule those nations totally for their gold, diamonds, or other natural resources?
history from the 1500's through early 1900's would like to disagree.
and what does the distance between the US an iraq have to do with anything?
We are living in a completely different time anyways, where European countries have stopped attacking countries to hog resources. Whilst the Americans still go on
1. in the past 50 years, the US has not fought any war with the goal to conquer land
2. in the past 50 years, none of the US' conflicts have been fought with the goal of gaining natural resources
3. in the past 50 years, we've had european allies in most of the conflicts we've entered
and you severely underestimate how long its been since europe conquered others. remember the world wars? or how about soviet aggression abroad? the falkan islands?
The English controlled the Falkland islands since 1833, the Argentinians started the war. and the Iraq war could exactly have started to gain resources.
All these previous European conflicts, have happened a cause to dictatorships are not likely to happen again, because of things like the EU and the UN created after WW2. But the US are still acting as aggressors starting wars for resources or ideologist views even when these organizations exist, perhaps this won't happen with your new leader.
the UN was around during the cold war, yet did they stop the soviet invasion of afganistan? has the UN won ANY conflict? not to my awareness. the UN doesnt stop wars. theyre peace keepers, not peace makers
and how does the existance of the EU prevent war in other parts of the world? the UN doesnt help, so if someone has to bring order, its the US. we are the ultimatum that enforces international law: if you break it, we will come. we maintain the global security that has allowed europe to unite
The EU prevents war in Europe, and seeing as most of the major powers in the World are in Europe that is a good thing for other countries too. So when you attacked North Vietnam, it was because of them attacking South Vietnam right?
really? how does a united (if you use the term "united" loosely) europe help the rest of the world?
and ya, we did go into vietnam for just that reason. and actually, we werent fighting north vietnam. we were fighting the Vietcong, a terrorist organization that wanted to overthrow the south vietnameese government and replace it with a communist one. if we werent going to let europe be dominated by the soviets, why would we let communism spread in the south east?
@bomberman271: The Vietcong was mostly propaganda, it really was teh N. Vietnamese we were usually fighting. In fact, the ability of Soviet's puppet regime in the North was so limited, we ofter were actually fighting actual Soviet troops.
right, cuz all america does is rob the world and kill people. if u dont like us, your allowed to leave. we honestly dont care as a nation. unlike some european/eastern powers, we dont invade nations to steal their natural resources.
really? when was the last time the united states invaded a nation, conquered it, and brought it under imperial control solely for the sake of resources?
exactly. we didnt conquer it. we dont WANT to conquer it. as for their resources, theyre in control of them. what they choose to do with them is their decision. and wanna know the fun part? euorpean nations went with us. the US never has to do anything alone
I know that some European countrys went with you, but you're the nation who led the invasion, and the US acually supported Sadamm Hussein at first, but after they attacked the small oil-country of Kuwait, you decided to attack them.
well, ya. he broke our agreements, and did an about-face politically. we wont support a nation we disagree with. they were also disobeying internatonal law through genocide and breaking Oil-for-Food. those are the consequences for breaking international law
I don't know when this genocide occurred, as I haven't found any sources giving the date, although there was a genocide in Iraq, let's leave it like that. In September 1980, the war between Iraq and Iran broke out, and a number of states, including USA, the USSR, some arab states and European counties supported Iraq with equipment. Later, Sadamm wanded the oil price to drop so he could pay for the losses. Kuwait refused, thus the invasion, thus the international invasion of Iraq.
umm, no. first off, your talking about the Gulf War, which is why oil for food was put in place. secondly, they invaded because iraq believed it had a right to kuwaits oil fields along the border, which it didnt. that prompted the invasion in 1991, the UNs response, and the iraqi oil embargo put in place. it was then altered to allow iraq to sell oil for food, which it then cheated and sold to buy weapons and such. also, genocide took place in 88 and after the gulf war, against kurds and shiites
@mmetevelis In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization,[48] and in 1999 the Republican Policy Committee of the U.S. Senate expressed its troubles with the "effective alliance" of the Clinton administration with the KLA due to "numerous reports from reputable unofficial sources ".[49]
In 2000, a BBC article stated that Nato at War shows how the United States, which had described the KLA as "terrorist", now sought to form a relationship with it.[50]
A10fighter95 4 months ago
@mmetevelis Rugova's policy of passive resistance succeeded in keeping Kosovo quiet during the war with Slovenia, and the wars in Croatia and Bosnia during the early 1990s. However, as evidenced by the emergence of the KLA, this came at the cost of increasing frustration among Kosovo's Albanian population. In the mid-1990s, Rugova pleaded for a United Nations peacekeeping force for Kosovo. In 1997, Milošević was promoted to the presidency of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
A10fighter95 4 months ago
god bless america lets finish off the terrorists
greyson24 6 months ago
Most Europeans are too idealistic for their own good. A chaotic and unchecked world needs stability. The world has always had superpowers and in the forseable future I don't think this will change. Say what you will about the USA, but I rather live in a world led by the Unites States than by China. Every country looks out for their own interest, but atleast the US strives for a better world. You cant say this about China who treats its own citizens like crap.
arecibo1121 7 months ago
american idiots !!!
jonaw2008 8 months ago
this country still exist?? God what are you waiting for???? what more do they need to do?? kill more children in Libya???what God? whhaaaaat!!!!!!!????
SerbianPolice 9 months ago
God bless the country of Burger King, Fat kids, Brainwashing and Occupation
rocools 11 months ago
@rocools God bless the country of super-sweetened soft drinks, weak beer and people who STILL can't figure out the Metric system!
MrUnidyne 11 months ago
Here's a simple but effective analogy:
The UN is a battle tank. America is the gunner and the UN is the driver. Both bicker for the right to be the commander.
AlabamaSoldier 1 year ago
hetalia fan was here!
octavaluna 1 year ago
Can someone help me im looking for the National Anthem sign off that would show the Marine Corp Memorial at the end a.k.a. Iwo Jima
hotgrl2432 1 year ago
-> watch?v=HYnbc4NFCCI =))))
JonnyBgr 1 year ago
Thank you United States for Democracy and our Freedom. Thank you very much from Germany.
elcrax 1 year ago 6
us-holes :DDDD
happyboozer 2 years ago
@happyboozer Good thing the Germans have a spotless record. :^)
hungarygator 1 year ago
Which incident?
TeriyakiSouped 2 years ago
Iraq clearly benefited USA when Saddam was out of the way, but give an example of a European country taking over a country for it's resources in the last 200 years
Excluding Nazi Germany
TeriyakiSouped 3 years ago
fine. imperial germany then. or great britian, france, portugal, spain, the netherlands, russia, austria, and turkey(depending on your perception of europe. personally, i dont count them). its kinda funny, cuz thats pretty much all of the major nations of europe in the past 200 years. and why would i exclude nazi germany? they did just that. should i exclude soviet russia too?
bomberman271 3 years ago
None of those countries took over a whole nation for it's resources, parts of a nation maybe. But not a whole one, and most of the countries in Europe who did start wars had bad relations already because of how close they were. Iraq is in a completely different continent than the US,
TeriyakiSouped 3 years ago
wait, so africa, asia, and the americas werent separate continents? are you seriously telling me spain, britian, france, and the others didnt conquer and rule those nations totally for their gold, diamonds, or other natural resources?
history from the 1500's through early 1900's would like to disagree.
and what does the distance between the US an iraq have to do with anything?
bomberman271 3 years ago
We are living in a completely different time anyways, where European countries have stopped attacking countries to hog resources. Whilst the Americans still go on
TeriyakiSouped 3 years ago
tough faulty logic. heres how it falls apart:
1. in the past 50 years, the US has not fought any war with the goal to conquer land
2. in the past 50 years, none of the US' conflicts have been fought with the goal of gaining natural resources
3. in the past 50 years, we've had european allies in most of the conflicts we've entered
and you severely underestimate how long its been since europe conquered others. remember the world wars? or how about soviet aggression abroad? the falkan islands?
bomberman271 3 years ago
The English controlled the Falkland islands since 1833, the Argentinians started the war. and the Iraq war could exactly have started to gain resources.
All these previous European conflicts, have happened a cause to dictatorships are not likely to happen again, because of things like the EU and the UN created after WW2. But the US are still acting as aggressors starting wars for resources or ideologist views even when these organizations exist, perhaps this won't happen with your new leader.
TeriyakiSouped 3 years ago
the UN was around during the cold war, yet did they stop the soviet invasion of afganistan? has the UN won ANY conflict? not to my awareness. the UN doesnt stop wars. theyre peace keepers, not peace makers
and how does the existance of the EU prevent war in other parts of the world? the UN doesnt help, so if someone has to bring order, its the US. we are the ultimatum that enforces international law: if you break it, we will come. we maintain the global security that has allowed europe to unite
bomberman271 3 years ago
The EU prevents war in Europe, and seeing as most of the major powers in the World are in Europe that is a good thing for other countries too. So when you attacked North Vietnam, it was because of them attacking South Vietnam right?
TeriyakiSouped 3 years ago
really? how does a united (if you use the term "united" loosely) europe help the rest of the world?
and ya, we did go into vietnam for just that reason. and actually, we werent fighting north vietnam. we were fighting the Vietcong, a terrorist organization that wanted to overthrow the south vietnameese government and replace it with a communist one. if we werent going to let europe be dominated by the soviets, why would we let communism spread in the south east?
bomberman271 3 years ago
@bomberman271: The Vietcong was mostly propaganda, it really was teh N. Vietnamese we were usually fighting. In fact, the ability of Soviet's puppet regime in the North was so limited, we ofter were actually fighting actual Soviet troops.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
I'm American yes we ahve done some bad but were still a great nation
crazy1394 3 years ago
United States, For a better future, Of love, and Peace. No Terrorism!
Damien321123 3 years ago
Rofl
dinmammatre 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
kill all americans
dobrivoje50 3 years ago
lulz
bomberman271 3 years ago
I'd say down with unwarranted European self importance.
Quinntarious 3 years ago 10
And I'd say down with unwarranted American self importance.
VTAbenakiMD 3 years ago
May God bless America
fester1375 3 years ago
Yeah say that... bombing the world and robbing it blind.
I'd say down with imperialism!
DeHeld8 3 years ago
double lulz
bomberman271 3 years ago
And double killing if you're American.
VTAbenakiMD 3 years ago
right, cuz all america does is rob the world and kill people. if u dont like us, your allowed to leave. we honestly dont care as a nation. unlike some european/eastern powers, we dont invade nations to steal their natural resources.
bomberman271 3 years ago
"unlike some european/eastern powers, we dont invade nations to steal their natural resources. "
It's funny because that's exactly what you do
TeriyakiSouped 3 years ago 4
really? when was the last time the united states invaded a nation, conquered it, and brought it under imperial control solely for the sake of resources?
bomberman271 3 years ago
The 20th of march 2003, the invasion of Iraq, although that wasn't imperial. Unlike you lot, we haven't done it since the 19th century.
dinmammatre 3 years ago
exactly. we didnt conquer it. we dont WANT to conquer it. as for their resources, theyre in control of them. what they choose to do with them is their decision. and wanna know the fun part? euorpean nations went with us. the US never has to do anything alone
bomberman271 3 years ago
I know that some European countrys went with you, but you're the nation who led the invasion, and the US acually supported Sadamm Hussein at first, but after they attacked the small oil-country of Kuwait, you decided to attack them.
dinmammatre 3 years ago
well, ya. he broke our agreements, and did an about-face politically. we wont support a nation we disagree with. they were also disobeying internatonal law through genocide and breaking Oil-for-Food. those are the consequences for breaking international law
bomberman271 3 years ago
I don't know when this genocide occurred, as I haven't found any sources giving the date, although there was a genocide in Iraq, let's leave it like that. In September 1980, the war between Iraq and Iran broke out, and a number of states, including USA, the USSR, some arab states and European counties supported Iraq with equipment. Later, Sadamm wanded the oil price to drop so he could pay for the losses. Kuwait refused, thus the invasion, thus the international invasion of Iraq.
dinmammatre 3 years ago
umm, no. first off, your talking about the Gulf War, which is why oil for food was put in place. secondly, they invaded because iraq believed it had a right to kuwaits oil fields along the border, which it didnt. that prompted the invasion in 1991, the UNs response, and the iraqi oil embargo put in place. it was then altered to allow iraq to sell oil for food, which it then cheated and sold to buy weapons and such. also, genocide took place in 88 and after the gulf war, against kurds and shiites
bomberman271 3 years ago
@TeriyakiSouped Name one and provide evidence of expropriation of natural resources. I await your presentation of the evidence.
hungarygator 1 year ago