OK, Let's do it again. Why do you Brits have such retarded, faggotty gun laws?

['Butterflies']

I like DirtDawg very much and he's nothing like Richard.  I think by defending the Brits, he's referring to the US entering the first and second world wars on the side of the British.

Yes Dirtdawg might be a great guy. I'm hoping he'll answer my question and confirm it. Sadly, I'm beginning to wonder if he is on the wind-up or if he is for real.

[Semicolon]

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

['Butterflies']

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

[Osensitive1]

I don't really care about the laws in other countries.

[Parts]

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

We might not have won it by ourselfs but  without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape.  We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies.  As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree

['Butterflies']

I don't really care about the laws in other countries.

TBH nether do I. At the moment I'm more concerned about finding out if DirtDawg is serious or not. Obviously I'm not really taking his comments as a joke, and if I've got the wrong end of the stick I would appreciate him letting me know.

['Butterflies']

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

We might not have won it by ourselfs but  without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape.  We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies.  As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree

I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.

[Parts]

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

We might not have won it by ourselfs but  without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape.  We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies.  As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree

I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.

That does seem like it's what you meant

[Osensitive1]

I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.

Wars are about money and power, not morality. WW2 saved the world economy.

[Semicolon]

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

We might not have won it by ourselfs but  without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape.  We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies.  As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree

I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.

You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.

['Butterflies']

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

We might not have won it by ourselfs but  without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape.  We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies.  As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree

I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.

That does seem like it's what you meant

Well. It's not what I mweant. To me America was no white knight. America should have thrown its stall in with us right from the beginning. It was its moral responsbility to do so. It certainly had far more moral responsiblity to help us during WW2 than the rest of the world had to help America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is a different issue to arguing about whether the war would have been won without Americvas help. The truth is I don't know the answer to that, and therefore am in no position to argue on that matter.

['Butterflies']

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

We might not have won it by ourselfs but  without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape.  We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies.  As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree

I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.

You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.

I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.

I'm not really interested in debating this at the moment though. TBH I'm more pissed at DirtDawg and would like to know if he's for real with his comments.

[Osensitive1]

I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.

No. Your govenment has the duty to protect you and your interest first.

['Butterflies']

I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.

No. Your govenment has the duty to protect you and your interest first.

So, why were we in Iraq?

[Semicolon]

And also. America sees itself as some kind of defender of the free. Surely it had a moral obligation to stand side by side with its "free" friends and fight Naziism, rather than staying out of the majority of the fight. It was quick enough to expect its alies to join in it's pathetic war on terror in Iraq of all places. I've never understood the American view of "helping us in WW2"

There is no "American view". America is possibly the most politically diverse country in the world. When you say, "America sees itself" or "the American view", you are falling into the same pattern of stereotyping that you are criticizing DirtDawg for engaging in.

Yes. It was a poor choice of phrase. I meant those who see Ameruca as the white knight of WW2.

We might not have won it by ourselfs but  without the manufacturing power and the military of the US you would have been in very sad shape.  We supplied a lot of the arms for all the allies.  As for our current venture in Iraq I tend to agree

I'm not arguing about who won the war. I'm saying that America, in my eyes had an absolute moral responsibilty to stand side by side with us throughout WW2 against the forces of Nazism.

You're wrong. All governments have a responsibility to act in the interests of their citizens, whatever those interests may be.

I disagree with that. I think governments have a duty to stand up for what they see as the right thing to do.

I'm not really interested in debating this at the moment though. TBH I'm more pissed at DirtDawg and would like to know if he's for real with his comments.

Very well, although I still disagree with your opinion.