Oh Joy!. Does the future look bright? r/polandball. The are going to be great! The economy' s awesome and I' m not in any major wars! The Cold War is over and I no joy
Click to expand

Oh Joy!

Oh Joy!. Does the future look bright? r/polandball. The are going to be great! The economy' s awesome and I' m not in any major wars! The Cold War is over and I

Does the future look bright?

Tags: no | joy
The are going to be great!
The economy' s awesome and I' m not in any major wars!
The Cold War is over and I have new friends in Eastern Europe!
And my political scandals are about sex rather than corruption and abuse of power!
Yup, this is going to be a great decade!
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 49621
Favorited: 89
Submitted: 09/27/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to nationalism Subscribe to polandball submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#7 - mondprinzessin (09/27/2013) [-]
suddenly wondering what state the entire planet would be in if 9/11 never happened
User avatar #68 to #7 - imnotkickthecat (09/27/2013) [-]
Well, the world would probably be a richer place overall.
User avatar #199 to #7 - mondprinzessin (09/29/2013) [-]
what the **** did i start...
#35 to #7 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
what tragedy would americans milk ? Whilst hushing down the use of nuclear weapons in an act of revenge ? ?
User avatar #76 to #35 - ilovehitler (09/27/2013) [-]
Tell me, what nuclear weapons have we used upon another nation since the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
User avatar #46 to #7 - tabarzins (09/27/2013) [-]
I don't think id be much different.
But imagine what the state would be if George Bush hadn't been elected.
User avatar #42 to #7 - drtrousersnake (09/27/2013) [-]
G.W. Bush ran on the platform of domestic policy. So no U.S. world police without 9/11 forcing us to take action as to not appear weak.
#131 to #7 - stokers (09/28/2013) [-]
Is no one going to acknowledge Meat Loaf?
Is no one going to acknowledge Meat Loaf?
#160 to #131 - mondprinzessin (09/28/2013) [-]
no one ever recognizes him
no one ever recognizes him
#8 to #7 - sparkysparkybooman (09/27/2013) [-]
Definitely different, but we would still be in a war against terrorists. If they didn't carry out 9/11 they would have carried out something else to grab our attention and pull us into war.
#34 to #8 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
*We would have made up some other ******** to invade oil countries.
#106 to #34 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
"Hurr durr the US only invades countries for oil"
#184 to #106 - anon (09/28/2013) [-]
Genocide in Africa? The U.S does nothing. Suspicion of bombs in Iraq? War
User avatar #188 to #184 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
The Middle-East tends to be far more relevant to US interests than most of Africa, and Saddam Hussein had a lot more regional power than your typical African warlord or despot.

In any case, the potential threat of WMDs was likely only a secondary motive for the war in Iraq, used mainly to get public support for a war based in neoconservative ideology.
#192 to #188 - anon (09/28/2013) [-]
*known false threat.
User avatar #193 to #192 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
It wasn't known at the time.
#195 to #193 - anon (09/28/2013) [-]
It was, you just preferred to listen to Bush's lies rather than the information sources. Those of us who didn't blindly murder people knew Bush's information was falsified before the war even began.
User avatar #197 to #195 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
Would you mind citing one of your "information sources", then?
Because as far as I know, both US and UK intelligence suspected Saddam Hussein of having chemical weapons. I've even heard Hussein tried to spread the rumor himself to deter Iran.
#169 to #106 - anon (09/28/2013) [-]
he's almost right, USA has a habit of 'going to war' with countries that refuse to sell oil in US dollars.
User avatar #140 to #106 - wellimnotsure (09/28/2013) [-]
Fine....oil....AND drugs and other natural resources
User avatar #162 to #140 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
Can you give examples of when we've invaded countries for oil or other natural resources? (Or drugs - the **** ?)

We've had wars and covert operations in the name of anti-Communism and national security. We've had wars for ideological reasons like spreading democracy and promoting self-determination. But when have we ever in the past century initiated military operations for the sake of resources?
User avatar #177 to #162 - wellimnotsure (09/28/2013) [-]
The opium wars, the black ships in japan 1853, the Spanish American war, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, and that's 200 years for you
User avatar #185 to #177 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
The Iraq War was not for oil or resources, and we didn't gain any oil or resources from it. It was intended to oust Saddam Hussein and spread democracy in accordance with the Neoconservative ideology, and also because of Hussein's alleged WMDs (though that may have simply been a way to convince Americans to support it).

The Vietnam War was part of the Containment Strategy, intended to prevent South Vietnam from falling to Communism. We were afraid of the domino effect.

The Spanish-American War had to do with protecting economic interests (Cuban sugar, namely) and public support for the cause of Cuban independence fueled by yellow journalism. We were already heavily invested in Cuba before the war.

I'm not well-acquainted with the Black Ships, but it seems like that wasn't a military operation.

And the Opium Wars were primarily between the British and the Chinese. Hardly an example of American imperialism.
User avatar #186 to #185 - wellimnotsure (09/28/2013) [-]
And you believe everything the media and government tell you
User avatar #190 to #186 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
Do you have an actual rebuttal, or facts to support your claims?
"Wake up sheeple" isn't an intelligent response. If you think mainstream sources and the education system merely push propaganda, I'd be interested to know what your sources are and why you consider them more credible.
User avatar #202 to #177 - meganinja ONLINE (11/21/2013) [-]
Iraq wasn't for rescources. Nor can I possibly see how Vietnam was. Japan was more for right to trade, and wasn't really a war in the first place, but I'll give you that Ruspanic did say military operations.
User avatar #9 to #8 - teamhurdurr (09/27/2013) [-]
****** , you don't know that for sure
#10 to #9 - sparkysparkybooman (09/27/2013) [-]
Figuring as how there were many terrorist attacks before and after 9/11, I think so. 9/11 triggered many government acts like the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security which focuses on preventing terrorist threat. Without this organization there would have been other big attacks that happened. Even if magically no "big" attack happend, there would be many many other "smaller" terrorist attacks that would grab our attention.
User avatar #14 to #10 - teamhurdurr (09/27/2013) [-]
****** , you still don't know that for sure. you can't predict that.
#19 to #14 - sparkysparkybooman (09/27/2013) [-]
I find your obsession with the word ****** entertaining (and by that I mean, sad). I also find it as a sign you're just trolling, so I'm done. Bye bye.
User avatar #20 to #19 - teamhurdurr (09/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #22 to #21 - teamhurdurr (09/27/2013) [-]
#11 to #10 - xxxgnipsxxx (09/27/2013) [-]
>Implying certain elements within the government had no fore-knowledge or involvement in 9-11.
#12 to #11 - sparkysparkybooman (09/27/2013) [-]
I don't think I did imply that. If that's what you took out of it I'm sorry.
#13 to #12 - xxxgnipsxxx (09/27/2013) [-]
Oh, ok well nevermind carry on!
User avatar #93 to #9 - akkere (09/28/2013) [-]
I'm a certified psychic and I can confirm this to be true.

Also, you will have testicular cancer in 25 years.
But that's okay, because you will have had sex with three strippers before that point.
But one of them will have transmitted you HIV.
User avatar #194 to #93 - teamhurdurr (09/28/2013) [-]
Do I poop on anybody's chest in the process?
User avatar #43 - mattginge (09/27/2013) [-]
All that changed when the Taliban nation attacked
User avatar #191 to #43 - shoryuken (09/28/2013) [-]
#49 to #43 - flyingchink (09/27/2013) [-]
more like the bush goverment
User avatar #54 to #49 - jesusthegardener (09/27/2013) [-]
lel k.
#60 to #54 - flyingchink (09/27/2013) [-]
americans now its true, they just like denial
User avatar #118 to #60 - kingrayne ONLINE (09/28/2013) [-]
Looks like someone denied their English classes.
#62 to #49 - leathermanshadow (09/27/2013) [-]
Don't be that guy
#75 to #62 - flyingchink (09/27/2013) [-]
im sorry, but im not letting my gov lie to me.
User avatar #66 to #49 - dafiltafish (09/27/2013) [-]
Come on man, you're breakin' my balls here.
User avatar #84 to #43 - haqq (09/28/2013) [-]
it's everything changed you filthy casual
User avatar #3 - downtrail (09/27/2013) [-]
This gave me a small feel.
#55 to #3 - niggernazi (09/27/2013) [-]
yep, i laughed my ass off
#189 to #55 - trainerkyleisbest (09/28/2013) [-]
#182 to #80 - batwill **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
God, this is one of my favorite image templates.
God, this is one of my favorite image templates.
#4 - include (09/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #150 to #4 - yfwilol **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
I mean not to bother, but is this from a movie?
If so, I would really like to know.
User avatar #151 to #150 - include (09/28/2013) [-]
Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay.
User avatar #152 to #151 - yfwilol **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
Oh my, that was quick.
Thank you, good sir.
User avatar #154 to #152 - digitroll (09/28/2013) [-]
watch white castle first, IMO it's better
#153 to #152 - include (09/28/2013) [-]
no problem bro, anytime.
no problem bro, anytime.
#155 to #153 - hit **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
#157 to #155 - include (09/28/2013) [-]
You remind me that there are good people in this world.
You remind me that there are good people in this world.
#158 to #157 - hit **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#164 to #158 - yfwilol **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
#165 to #164 - hit **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#166 to #165 - yfwilol **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
#168 to #166 - hit **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
#171 to #168 - yfwilol **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
May I ask what we are doing?
May I ask what we are doing?
#156 to #153 - yfwilol **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
my happy dance.
my happy dance.
#1 - gerfox (09/27/2013) [-]
Well, they ****** that up quite good didn't they
User avatar #141 to #90 - elmarcocfc (09/28/2013) [-]
The look on his face in the last panel.
User avatar #105 to #90 - thepwnisher (09/28/2013) [-]
I laughed so ******* hard XD
#110 to #105 - sequel (09/28/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#95 - unncommon (09/28/2013) [-]
These feels...
#115 to #95 - thatanonfag (09/28/2013) [-]
Don't worry brother, we shall cry together.

But who put this bowl of feels here, anyway?
User avatar #15 - thebestpieever (09/27/2013) [-]
Just uh. I ask this with all honesty and pure intentions. Why do Americans think 911 happened?
As in, what does the average American see as the reason for the Attack on the WTC?
User avatar #18 to #15 - vangoz (09/27/2013) [-]
They did it to try and **** up international commerce and generally force the US back into pre-WW2 Isolationism while at the same trying to highlight the folly of western over indulgence. At least that is what this American thinks
User avatar #32 to #18 - thebestpieever (09/27/2013) [-]
Right. But why did they wanted to do that?
#36 to #32 - vangoz (09/27/2013) [-]
From what I have retained from my western civilization courses there was no legitimate reason for Al Qaeda to attack the twin towers and all it really accomplished was restructure and death in their own countries....
From what I have retained from my western civilization courses there was no legitimate reason for Al Qaeda to attack the twin towers and all it really accomplished was restructure and death in their own countries....
#24 to #15 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
I'd be lying if I claimed to remember the specifics, but Al-Qaeda began seeing America as an enemy as the result of some military procedure in the Middle East during the Cold War. I think the US pulled out and left the Arab nations to fend for themselves against the USSR, but I'm not sure.
User avatar #71 to #24 - nospyonme (09/27/2013) [-]
The US set up, trained, and funded Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight the soviets, they eventually drove the soviets out in 1989 and we stopped funding them. In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait and Al Qaeda offered their support, but the Kuwaiti leaders snubbed thme when they turned to NATO for help. We thought everything was cool till the first world trade center bombing, then everyone forgot about that and they made a second attempt, and everyone forgot about that till their final attempt. Turns out Al Qaeda holds a grudge.
User avatar #27 to #15 - headharvest (09/27/2013) [-]
American military support of Israel
User avatar #50 to #15 - roodypoohero (09/27/2013) [-]
Don't take my word for it but all I know is the al-qaeda declared a jihad on the u.s. It wasn't just america though there have been al-qaeda attacks all over the world.Thats not to say we didn't do anything wrong but If it was just about oil or troops then they wouldn't have attacked other countries.
User avatar #56 to #15 - redrex (09/27/2013) [-]
i think some pissed off extremists were just mad at America for some reason or another, i don't really believe they did it in the name of their religion or because they hate freedom
User avatar #70 to #15 - newsuperyoshi (09/27/2013) [-]
Because the Muslim extremist group, Alkida*, wanted a Theocracy, instead of our Democracy, siteing they're own beliefs.

*I'm not sure how to spell it.
User avatar #96 to #15 - tiddycats (09/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #121 to #15 - xdeathspawnx (09/28/2013) [-]
My understanding is that Al Qaeda believed that America was anti-muslim. They also had a deep hatred for western culture as a whole, and democratic governments. They saw the US as the cultural center of western culture and decided that attacking some of its most important monuments: the Whitehouse, the Pentagon, and the world trade center.

This seems to be what the average American sees as the reasoning behind 9/11. You would be surprised just how little it is talked about here. It is seen almost as a taboo subject, and often kids are not really taught about it. They don't really teach it in school because of how recent an event it is, and because it is seen as something that you kind of try to shelter kids from, a lot like how young kids are generally not taught about school shootings.
#123 to #15 - anon (09/28/2013) [-]
I've always heard that Al Qaeda represented an extremist faction of Saudis with leaders who used the excuse of Americans profaning their country by stepping on their soil during the Desert Storm conflict to strike against one facet of the western world.
User avatar #173 to #15 - nitsuan (09/28/2013) [-]
On top of what cockassunited said, Our presence was spreading western culture in the Middle East, and our cultures don't mix. Groups in the Middle East did not like this and 9/11 happened as a way of saying "We don't like you or anything you stand for, leave" and now we are here. So basically, we are taught that our presence and spread of culture provoked the attack.
#67 to #15 - nospyonme (09/27/2013) [-]
The reason it happened does not matter, what matters is the 0.4 percent of Americans that reacted by joining the military to wage a war of vengeance.

We acted out our nation's red handed revenge of grisly magnitude. In 12 years we accounted over 100 kills for every one of the victims of 9/11. We left people dead in the streets allover the middle east. Now that our nation's wrath appears to be sated, the general population once again turns to shun and ignore us, and our own government blatantly takes steps to suppress us.

This month 2 million patriots rode to Washington DC, in a convoy 60 miles long, and not one news agency covered the event.
User avatar #86 to #67 - ICEDgrunge (09/28/2013) [-]
Did you happen to serve? I can't really tell by the wording of what you wrote, so I'd just like to know before I make a fool of myself.
User avatar #87 to #86 - nospyonme (09/28/2013) [-]
I'm in that picture
User avatar #92 to #87 - ICEDgrunge (09/28/2013) [-]
Then I would like to express my gratitude to you, mate. Regardless of the reason for going there, no matter what was committed, you still performed a great service, and I sincerely thank you for it. You're more a man than I am, I can assure you that.
I don't know how much my single thanks weighs, but I feel ashamed to not have known of that event.
I wish you great health and an excellent future, you deserve it.
User avatar #23 to #15 - killinkyle (09/27/2013) [-]
I'm sure they had their reasons.

It doesn't make it right however, and we made sure of that by killing thousands of innocent civilians in their backwash countries.

...which only escalated the problem, mind you.

GG america no RM
User avatar #25 to #23 - internetrage (09/27/2013) [-]
yeah, america really showed those saudi arabians...oh wait.
User avatar #26 to #25 - killinkyle (09/27/2013) [-]
I have no idea why I'm getting red thumbs right now. The conflict in the middle east only managed to escalate the problem, not solve it.
User avatar #29 to #26 - cockassunited (09/27/2013) [-]
Pretty sure people are thumbing you down for your insinuation that the US military is there just slaughtering civilians.
User avatar #30 to #29 - killinkyle (09/27/2013) [-]
I never said that. I just said that in between killing the actual terrorists, a lot (I mean a huge number) of civilians have gotten caught in the crossfire.
User avatar #31 to #30 - cockassunited (09/27/2013) [-]
That's why I said it was an insinuation, you might not have meant it that way but that's the way it comes across.

Secondly a large majority of the civilians killed in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were killed by insurgents, not the US.
#41 to #31 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
It is no consolation to know whose bullet you have been hit by, when caught in a crossfire...
User avatar #48 to #41 - cockassunited (09/27/2013) [-]
It might not matter who you were hit by on an individual level, but when people start blaming an entire group of people of something that is factually wrong, it does matter.
User avatar #58 to #48 - grapefruity (09/27/2013) [-]
I think anon's point was since they started fighting in that area, the civilians are at risk from being shot by EITHER side.

If there was no fighting, there would be no crossfire to be caught in, so technically the deaths are indirectly caused by the foreign invaders since they instigated the conflict in the area.

Also, I don't want to discuss politics, just clearing up anons (Unusually) insightful comment. I am not educated enough to know if fighting in these countries is morally right. Hell, I struggle with naming the exact countries involved tbh, I don't take an interest in it usually (Now you people have got me googling **** out of curiosity, ******* )
User avatar #61 to #58 - cockassunited (09/27/2013) [-]
It may have indirect influence, but my point was originally and still is the US aren't the ones killing the civilians en masse, that's the Taliban.

Secondly the vast majority of deaths aren't attributed to a shootout between forces, more often than not it's when the Taliban rolls through town and slaughters anyone who isn't assisting them.
User avatar #72 to #61 - grapefruity (09/27/2013) [-]
That may be, but 'Who did the most harm' isn't the issue. It is that the conflict is causing additional harm to civilians, regardless of who is shooting who. Civilians are injured and killed, and that is bad.

As I said, not a politics person, and I don't wish to discuss it further (As it would be a waste, as I am incredibly ignorant of the details and channeling the full extent of google knowledge on the subject) but I feel that no matter how you twist it, innocent bystanders are dying. To either insurgent hands directly, or US hands indirectly (Shaking the hornets nest, as it were. As well as in crossfires due to clashes in civilian areas).

Whether it is justified or morally acceptable, I couldn't say. But it is happening...
User avatar #73 to #72 - cockassunited (09/27/2013) [-]
I'm not saying civilians being killed isn't abominable, i'm saying that the insinuation that the US is the one killing the majority of civilians is factually incorrect.
User avatar #79 to #73 - grapefruity (09/28/2013) [-]
And luckily, no-one was saying that, because it would be incorrect.

Killinkyle stated that the US escalated the problem due to there involvement (Causing heightened insurgent activity and, thus, more needless civilian risk). Anon said that it doesn't matter WHO killed civilians, but that civilians were dying regardless of the aggressor due to US forces clashing with insurgents.

And I was only explaining what I saw in the latter's short yet insightful comment, because your response seemed to miss the point and focus on who killed more, which isn't the issue others were focusing on. Hope this helped.
User avatar #28 to #26 - internetrage (09/27/2013) [-]
my point was that the majority of the hijackers were saudi, and yet some people in the US believe that being in Iraq and Afghanistan was somehow payback...and yet the US continues with massive arms deals to the saudis. its a cleverly engineered media trap that a few of your countrymen have fallen into
#63 to #25 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
except the state of saudi arabia didnt attack us, just the majority of the terrorists involved in the ttack were from there. There would have been no legitimate reason to invade the saudis, especially since they have been relatively friendly towards us.
User avatar #74 to #63 - internetrage (09/27/2013) [-]
yeah i know, i was just highlighting the logical flaws in the other guys statement
#47 to #15 - batwill **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
I remember after it happened, I was about 7 or 8 years old when it did, the answer I always got was "they just hate our freedom" and it didn't take me long to figure out that it was a ******** answer. Looking back, I'm surprised at all the blatant lies I was told about the situation to get me growing up in support of some War on Terror.
#112 to #15 - brisineo ONLINE (09/28/2013) [-]
...The lack of informed individuals in this thread frightens me...

Most of what I know is that Al-Qaeda caused the 9/11 attacks because of their belief that the center of western civilization (i.e. the US) is evil to them through their own interpretation of their scripture. They are labeled as "extremists" as they are willing to realize that belief by extreme means, one of their most effective being fear through very heinous acts. (Hence the buzz word "terrorism" was coined)

But the attacks, some theorize, wasn't the end of it, but the beginning. Knowing the US, one would expect us to be enraged by such an attack, and go after them. Yet realize Al-Qaeda specializes in guerrilla and even more, psychological warfare, not conventional, like we expected. Some suspect that they knew we would just go after a supposed leader, flipping entire nations over to do so, scarring our political relations with several countries, overextending our economy to fund such a rampage, and dividing and weakening our leadership in our very core with increasingly diversified opinions.

We finally found the man who had planned the attacks, and killed him. Our leaders said we were done... Yet Al-Qaeda, being based in only TWO countries in 2001, now are a dangerous presence in over 30, and are still a very real threat if recent Embassy attack reports are correct. Al-Qaeda, a group based on an ideology, not a dictator or single leader, wont die after killing the head.

You can't kill a giant with a single shot, but wound him in a sensitive area and make him trip whilst chasing you in a blind rage into a thorn bramble, and suddenly you have the advantage.

And we fell for it.
User avatar #129 to #112 - bypest (09/28/2013) [-]
Which two countries were Al-Qaeda based in, in 2001?
User avatar #135 to #129 - brisineo ONLINE (09/28/2013) [-]
Formed in Pakistan and had branched to Afghanistan by that time.
User avatar #136 to #135 - bypest (09/28/2013) [-]
Alright. I was just making sure you weren't pinning Al-Qaeda to Iraq.
#128 to #112 - bypest has deleted their comment [-]
#33 to #15 - teenytinyspider (09/27/2013) [-]
Go look up Ron Paul's youtube video about "Blowback" and he brings up some really good points.

Uh-oh, I mentioned Ron Paul...FJ is mixed about him.
User avatar #17 to #15 - cockassunited (09/27/2013) [-]
Most people here seem to think it was because of the US military presence in their countries.
User avatar #37 to #17 - vangoz (09/27/2013) [-]
But there was no presence in their countries at the time I'd more expect that 9/11 happened because of the US still having troops in Bosnia **** commas because I have to pee
User avatar #64 to #37 - joikapoika (09/27/2013) [-]
the US was bombing in Africa(Somalia and Sudan), stationed troops in middle east(mainly Saudi Arabia), US supporting India in war against pakistan, the whole Israel-deal and ofc the gulf war
User avatar #51 to #37 - alhemicar (09/27/2013) [-]
Correct, but most were already gone from Bosnia. Most that were left were SFOR units placed by various European countries.
User avatar #38 to #37 - cockassunited (09/27/2013) [-]
There were troops in Saudi Arabia stationed after the Gulf War.
#40 to #38 - vangoz (09/27/2013) [-]
So why the **** did the US and UN go after Afghanistan that makes no sense especially since every body assumes that the war in Iraq was about Oil when in truth the Saudi's have far more oil then the rest of the middle east.
User avatar #113 to #40 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
The war in Afghanistan was started because Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan, being harbored by Afghanistan's government, the Taliban.

The Iraq War was not about oil, and we didn't get any oil out of it. People who say that are usually not informed enough to be cynical.
We invaded Iraq mainly for two reasons. First, the Bush Administration felt Saddam Hussein was an evil person who had to be stopped, and that installing democracy in Iraq would help spread it to other Middle-Eastern countries and thus promote peace and human rights. That's the basic idea behind neoconservatism.
Second, the US and UK intelligence believed Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (chemical and biological weapons, namely), in violation of international agreement. This turned out to be wrong, but it played a large role in convincing the American public to support the war because it was argued those weapons could be used against us, either by Hussein or by any local terrorist groups that might gain control of the WMDs.

As for Saudi Arabia - even if the US did invade countries for oil (it doesn't), we already have strong ties with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are not our enemies. The US military protects the Saudi royal family, and the Saudis sell us oil.
User avatar #116 to #113 - vangoz (09/28/2013) [-]
I know I was pointing out BS
User avatar #124 to #116 - Ruspanic (09/28/2013) [-]
joikapoika's post is pretty much exactly the reasons bin Laden himself gave for the 9/11 attacks.
User avatar #65 to #40 - joikapoika (09/27/2013) [-]
Saudi Arabia alrady sell their oil in USD, making a war against them for oil worthless
#57 - oxYKellark (09/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #133 - jimmdean (09/28/2013) [-]
Its weird. I usually don't get bummed by 9/11 stuff, but this one kinda stung.
#117 - sixty (09/28/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#78 - huttero (09/28/2013) [-]
I think the USSR appeared in 1917, not 1922, correct me if Im wrong
User avatar #98 to #78 - supertanto (09/28/2013) [-]
I believe the Russian Civil War which would officially determine the official state government ended in 1922 with the Red Army (communists) defeating the White Army (the supporters of the Czar)
User avatar #120 to #98 - bypest (09/28/2013) [-]
>White Army (the supporters of the Czar)
pls. The Tzar didn't even support the Tzar during the period of the civil-war.
User avatar #94 to #78 - akkere (09/28/2013) [-]
Officially, the USSR formed in 1922 with the unification of different nations, but you're not technically wrong either because it roots back to the Russian Revolution of 1917.

All a matter of semantics really.
User avatar #122 to #94 - bypest (09/28/2013) [-]
May I correct on a technicality: it was the enslavement of different "autonomous regions."
#198 to #122 - akkere (09/28/2013) [-]
What was that? You want a season pass to Six Flags: Gulag Adventure?

Well, why didn't you say so!
#111 to #78 - vsempizdetz (09/28/2013) [-]
1917 - October Revolution
1921 - End of Russian Civil War
1922 - Declaration of new Soviet state
#180 - batwill **User deleted account** (09/28/2013) [-]
Every time I see something like this it pisses me off that I was born into the generation that mostly grew up in the post-9/11 world. Things could have been so great, but no, we get wars to fight and are used to the fact that you can't bring anything on an airplane already. It makes me imagine the world we could of inherited, but I suppose we get the opportunity to be the ones to make it better again.
#179 - joethebeast (09/28/2013) [-]
damn terrorists...
damn terrorists...
User avatar #53 - beamersmack **User deleted account** (09/27/2013) [-]
But everything changed, when the terrorists attacked.
User avatar #69 to #53 - newsuperyoshi (09/27/2013) [-]
Only the true Bipartisan president, master of both political spectrums could save it, but when 'Mercia needed him most, he disappeared.
#82 to #69 - bithcwits (09/28/2013) [-]
Oi, you leave the Kingdom of Mercia out of this
User avatar #88 to #69 - sequel (09/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #89 to #88 - newsuperyoshi (09/28/2013) [-]
> Implying I care.
User avatar #91 to #89 - sequel (09/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #97 to #69 - supertanto (09/28/2013) [-]
no that was during katrina
User avatar #99 to #97 - newsuperyoshi (09/28/2013) [-]
Take a look at my profile.
User avatar #100 to #99 - supertanto (09/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #101 to #100 - newsuperyoshi (09/28/2013) [-]
Look at my location. Should I be offended?
User avatar #103 to #101 - supertanto (09/28/2013) [-]
by the way, you spelled your own state wrong
User avatar #102 to #101 - supertanto (09/28/2013) [-]
oh i see

User avatar #104 to #102 - newsuperyoshi (09/28/2013) [-]
I'm aware, I derped, and never got around to fixing it.
#137 to #104 - shadowbreech (09/28/2013) [-]
You dare get me excited about the Avatar opening and not finish it you mother ****** ..?
#16 - anon (09/27/2013) [-]
The clinton scandal was about perjury, nobody gives a **** that he got blown.
User avatar #126 to #16 - bypest (09/28/2013) [-]
I believe it matters when his "wife" is likely to become President in 2016. She's in her "marriage" obviously for the fame, and it will be funny to see how she responds to questions about it.

"What difference does it make?"
User avatar #5 - hazmathank (09/27/2013) [-]
Oh god i didn't ask for these feels
#176 - yoshiware (09/28/2013) [-]
Such feels.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)