Post: America vs. UK
Options
04-23-2010, 01:58 AM
#1
DirtyDudeOnline
:y::n:
05-05-2010, 11:48 PM
#245
Aule
{([<Milk>])}
Originally posted by xinfectedsoulx
As for this, you won't. Osama is most likely hiding in Pakistan. So unless you can get jurisdiction to into it, you won't find it. However, it wouldn't surprise me if America just invaded it though.
I'm surprised we haven't invaded yet. I don't care about jurisdiction when a terrorist (ironically one WE funded and brought to power) is hiding after plotting, and proving he wants to destroy America. If I was in power to do something, I'd do it; politically correct or not.
05-06-2010, 01:01 AM
#247
H₂O
Samurai Poster
Originally posted by Pricey91
The average citizen wouldn't hand their gun in because the already know the criminals have their guns.
You obviously havent been to America.
Originally posted by another user
It's common sense. It's to later for America to change it's short comings now.
Criminals will still be getting guns imported from other countries, its a loose-loose for law abiding citizens.
Originally posted by another user
You're stuck with the consequences of your actions now.
Actions? I like having a gun: to hunt, fire at the shooting range and for self defense if needbe.
Originally posted by another user
I'm not going to argue this any more, because it's 2am and I have work in the morning. More to the point, it's all a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong answer.
That would be a debate, hopefully you will see our side rather than keep getting brainwashed by your government that owning a gun is a bad thing.
The following user thanked H₂O for this useful post:
05-06-2010, 01:15 AM
#248
Dark
Brute
Neither the UK or the US is better. Not even worth arguing about.
The Marshall Plan saved Eastern Europe after World War II. America saved Britain in World War I and II. America has done much for Britain.
Britain has too helped America equally.
The past is the past.
Argue about current events please.
*Has fallen in LOVE with H₂O*
The Marshall Plan saved Eastern Europe after World War II. America saved Britain in World War I and II. America has done much for Britain.
Britain has too helped America equally.
The past is the past.
Argue about current events please.
Originally posted by another user
That would be a debate, hopefully you will see our side rather than keep getting brainwashed by your government that owning a gun is a bad thing.
*Has fallen in LOVE with H₂O*
The following user thanked Dark for this useful post:
05-06-2010, 10:06 AM
#249
xinfectedsoulx
Daddy's home.
Originally posted by Aule
I'm surprised we haven't invaded yet. I don't care about jurisdiction when a terrorist (ironically one WE funded and brought to power) is hiding after plotting, and proving he wants to destroy America. If I was in power to do something, I'd do it; politically correct or not.
No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be allowed to. There are more people above the President. If I'm correct, hasn't America just got on good terms with Pakistan? If you invade every country that houses a terrorist, your country will BE the terrorist.
05-06-2010, 11:58 PM
#250
xVii-
Big Sister
Originally posted by xinfectedsoulx
No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be allowed to. There are more people above the President. If I'm correct, hasn't America just got on good terms with Pakistan? If you invade every country that houses a terrorist, your country will BE the terrorist.
There are more people above the President? And who would they be?
If we're talking within the country, then there is no one above the President when it comes to the deployment of troops, which he can do without any word of approval from anyone else.
05-07-2010, 10:41 AM
#251
xinfectedsoulx
Daddy's home.
Originally posted by xVii
There are more people above the President? And who would they be?
If we're talking within the country, then there is no one above the President when it comes to the deployment of troops, which he can do without any word of approval from anyone else.
If we're talking within the country, then there is no one above the President when it comes to the deployment of troops, which he can do without any word of approval from anyone else.
I'm not even American and I know that there will be people telling the President what to do. It's probably the same for every President in the world. Imagine ONE person in America having all that power. Get one wrong President in there who is power hungry. He/she would be able to do anything they wanted. Think again. None of the Presidents are going to say "Oh, and by the way, There are people above me telling me what to do, what to say and where to go. I'm not your leader" They are all secret though, so you won't know who they are.
05-07-2010, 11:42 PM
#252
xVii-
Big Sister
Originally posted by xinfectedsoulx
I'm not even American and I know that there will be people telling the President what to do. It's probably the same for every President in the world. Imagine ONE person in America having all that power. Get one wrong President in there who is power hungry. He/she would be able to do anything they wanted. Think again. None of the Presidents are going to say "Oh, and by the way, There are people above me telling me what to do, what to say and where to go. I'm not your leader" They are all secret though, so you won't know who they are.
Unless there was a large body of people above the president, having 1 or 2 people above him would be completely redundant, because what if they're "power hungry." If there were more than just a few people above him, it'd be hard to keep a secret, and what would be the point of having a president in the first place, if he'd just be a figurehead.
Of course there will be members of the White House Office (presidential staff) advising him on these matters, but there's no one giving him direct orders.
You must login or register to view this content.
The following user thanked xVii- for this useful post:
05-08-2010, 04:14 AM
#253
AgentBroI3eAsT
Got My First Star Thx
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
