I'm so sorry...

The U.S. dropped a couple of 1500 lb bombs on the apartment complex in Baghdad because they thought Saddam or his sons might be in there, which turned out to be bad intelligence. The Pentagon wouldn't admit it was an apartment complex and referred to the structure by some fancy military name.

The media was eager to talk about Saddam and brag about the size of the bombs. Later, when Saddam and his sons were found elsewhere, no one in the U.S. media would bring up the fact that the apartment complex was bombed for nothing.

The non-U.S. TV news networks showed the civilians that ended up in the hospitals with severe burns as a result of all the shock and awe bombs that were initially dropped and those that ended up in the morgue. Those bombs did nothing to scare away the militants and only created a lot of pain and death to civilians. The U.S. media loved to show the nice big orange fireballs, but it didn't have the guts to show the real shock and awe.

People in the U.S. just want some honesty from the government and media.

 

First off find me the racism. You stupid liberals thing everything is racist. Second we do put out more money THAN ANY OTHER NATION. Who is the first on the scene to every major natural disaster? Not any shitty europeon countries, because Europe sucks. It is so funny liberals can get slapped in the face with facts and all they can come up with is "that is so racist" or "conservative propaganda"

 

I made the post didnt realize there was a second page to the thread. I read the link about humanitarian aid. So what if our % is the lowest im comparrison to our GNP. What matters is we are putting out more money than any other country out there. In a case like this % means almost nothing. Simply put we are the richest nation, and one of the biggest. Despite the fact that we pump out more money by far than anyone it shows up as a small percentage because we are rich.

 

The only reason you seem to think % is irrelevant is because it is an inconvenient fact. If a nation is 10 times bigger but only gives 10% more aid, you don't see anything strange about that?

Where was the US in Sierra Leone? Nowhere, the UK took care of it. Where was the US in Cote D'Ivoire? Nowhere, the French took care of that. That's right, those shitty European countries that suck. Of course only libruls would know that, you are protected from inconvenient information by sticking to "fair and balanced" news sources.

 

Why does Europe suck? Because in a European election the person with the most votes gets to be the leader!

 

Not true. Unlike the US and Canada (some of the only countries still using the archaic 'First-past-the-post' system) European countries use proportional representation, where the number of seats a party gets in parliament is proprtional to the percentage of votes it gets. Therefore, if your party gets 35% of the votes and two other parties get 33% and 32% (this can be a huge problem in places like Canada with more than 2 major problems, where the Liberals got less than 40% of the last vote but still got a majority government), they have to come to some form of agreement (usually a coalition government) if they want to hold power. This also means that parties like the Greens or Reform can actually win seats and participate in parliament, translating to far more votes for them. This is a far more democratic system, yet another reason Europe comes out on top...

 

one could say that in parliamentary systems that the person who gets the most votes doesn't get to be leader because you typically cannot vote for the leader, you vote for the parliamentary representative for your riding. In the US you vote for the president directly.

i'm not sure that proportional representation is better anyway because all it guarantees is that every year you will get huge coalitions, and in fact you will often end up with different blends of the same coalition parties year after year.