Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[chang50]

your bias is showing... We don't always control who leads every country. We have to figure out who we can work with, and who we can't. If we are going to try to live in your perfect world where we don't talk to anybody who does something wrong, then we are going to be talking to ourselves on repeat.

Let's get into it. Which dictators are you talking about?

You really don't want to go there,but if you insist,google 'Dictators supported by the US',and settle back for a long read......nobody with any grasp of history doubts this.I understand the realpolitik of having to deal with regimes that are undesirable,but you can't have it all ways,proclaiming to love freedom and liberty so much yet helping the vilest of dictators who dance to your tune and protect your global economic interests.

[Juan_Bottom]

So, our tendency to intervene against dictators since the 1940s isn't because we're arrogant, it's because we're afraid for our allies, for the innocent, and for ourselves... that if we don't intervene soon enough, the "next Hitler" will succeed where the German one failed.

You can dis us, disagree with us, and dislike our methods all you wish, chang, but when you do it, please do it for the "right" reasons, not your made-up ones. It's not "arrogance" that has us intervening, it's concern and fear.

We're not telling the rest of the world they should allow all their citizens to have arms, and we don't need the rest of the world telling US that we shouldn't allow OUR citizens to have arms.

When you can show me the country that has ZERO murders and not just zero legal guns, I might start to see your viewpoint that guns are the problem.

And on to this point -
After WWII the US overthrew several democratically elected governments, and in many cases supported dictators. http://killinghope.org/bblum6/overthrow.htm
After being ousted by the Vietnamese, POL POT received American aid through the Salvation Army.

In Vietnam our soldiers protected goodyear's rubber tree farms. For every bullet hole in a rubber tree the US Army reimbursed Goodyear.

In Chile the CIA overthrew a peaceful government and allowed the murder of the entire first family, just because we could. The CIA's case report said that we had nothing to gain by murdering the Chilean government.

In the very shameful case of Guatemala - we overthrew a peaceful, liberal government to stop President Árbenz Guzmán from nationalizing the Banana fields. The United Fruit Company was afraid that President Guzman was going to nationalize unused fields and so asked Truman and Eisenhower to murder everyone. The President of El Salvador supported the CIA's coup, because he was afraid that the people of El Salvador would take to the example of agrarian reform. The result was a 30 year civil war, leaving everyone dead.

In the 70's we forced Venezuela to open up it's oil fields to ease a fuel shortage in America. Saudi Arabia retaliated against Venezuela, crushing it's economy for a decade.

America has anti-slavery/forced labor laws for imported goods, yet the American government does not enforce them so that American's can enjoy cheap Chinsese sh*t.

Our government has done a lot of good in the world, but it's also done more than enough evil. De-stabilizing whole regions and killing peaceful government's for the sake of an American corporation's "rights" rights is as bad as it gets. Every example I've given is a living memory example, but as far back as this country has existed, we've been murdering everyone. In a million ways Americans deserve praise for all the good that they've done,* BUT! we are far and away from being immune to criticism and have no more a reason to be proud than any other country. Our government has been neither for nor against dictatorships and has been working with them in the Middle East and South America for a century. I'm not going to google facts to support my post here though, as this should all be common knowledge. Much of the goodwill that our country has produced has not been from our government, but from our people.

*Beate Sirota Gordon, who recently passed away, comes to mind

[Phatscotty]

your bias is showing... We don't always control who leads every country. We have to figure out who we can work with, and who we can't. If we are going to try to live in your perfect world where we don't talk to anybody who does something wrong, then we are going to be talking to ourselves on repeat.

Let's get into it. Which dictators are you talking about?

You really don't want to go there,but if you insist,google 'Dictators supported by the US',and settle back for a long read......nobody with any grasp of history doubts this.I understand the realpolitik of having to deal with regimes that are undesirable,but you can't have it all ways,proclaiming to love freedom and liberty so much yet helping the vilest of dictators who dance to your tune and protect your global economic interests.

yeah I know I can google it Changer. I just kinda assumed there were 1 or 2 specific ones you wanted to make your case with. and oh yes I do want to go there! Not cuz I think anyone is right or wrong, but because it's an interesting topic and I want to plug some thoughts into potential examples.

[chang50]

your bias is showing... We don't always control who leads every country. We have to figure out who we can work with, and who we can't. If we are going to try to live in your perfect world where we don't talk to anybody who does something wrong, then we are going to be talking to ourselves on repeat.

Let's get into it. Which dictators are you talking about?

You really don't want to go there,but if you insist,google 'Dictators supported by the US',and settle back for a long read......nobody with any grasp of history doubts this.I understand the realpolitik of having to deal with regimes that are undesirable,but you can't have it all ways,proclaiming to love freedom and liberty so much yet helping the vilest of dictators who dance to your tune and protect your global economic interests.

yeah I know I can google it Changer. I just kinda assumed there were 1 or 2 specific ones you wanted to make your case with. and oh yes I do want to go there! Not cuz I think anyone is right or wrong, but because it's an interesting topic and I want to plug some thoughts into potential examples.

It's so widespread and pervasive,JB lists some above,surely you were aware of this already?

[Juan_Bottom]

* = successful ouster of a government


China 1949, 1950s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958-60 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *

Grenada is the one that hurts the most. A peaceful country ousts a corrupt pro-American government, and America responds by invading them and leaving them with a 3 trillion dollar debt. All the while the media plays along like Grenada is the aggressor.

It's so widespread and pervasive,JB lists some above,surely you were aware of this already?

Trust me, he is aware, so I have no idea what kind of trap he's setting.

[Phatscotty]

When Charles Vaught created the now viral “Guns Are Welcome” sign for his safety supply store in North Carolina, he thought it was a one time thing. Now, he’s stocking up as people from Texas, Nevada, Pennsylvania and even Switzerland want to get their hands on the pro-Second Amendment signs.

In a phone interview with TheBlaze, Vaught explained that every couple months or so, the sign goes viral on social media and spurs sales. This is how it has been going since April 2012 when he and his wife posted a photo of Vaught giving the sign a thumbs up on Facebook.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-beh ... n-get-one/

[Phatscotty]

your bias is showing... We don't always control who leads every country. We have to figure out who we can work with, and who we can't. If we are going to try to live in your perfect world where we don't talk to anybody who does something wrong, then we are going to be talking to ourselves on repeat.

Let's get into it. Which dictators are you talking about?

You really don't want to go there,but if you insist,google 'Dictators supported by the US',and settle back for a long read......nobody with any grasp of history doubts this.I understand the realpolitik of having to deal with regimes that are undesirable,but you can't have it all ways,proclaiming to love freedom and liberty so much yet helping the vilest of dictators who dance to your tune and protect your global economic interests.

yeah I know I can google it Changer. I just kinda assumed there were 1 or 2 specific ones you wanted to make your case with. and oh yes I do want to go there! Not cuz I think anyone is right or wrong, but because it's an interesting topic and I want to plug some thoughts into potential examples.

It's so widespread and pervasive,JB lists some above,surely you were aware of this already?

What's your deal man? Of course I'm aware. Why do you think I'm not? Why don't you want to dig into them? I've just been reading your posts, but now I see JB's. I'll check them out

[chang50]

your bias is showing... We don't always control who leads every country. We have to figure out who we can work with, and who we can't. If we are going to try to live in your perfect world where we don't talk to anybody who does something wrong, then we are going to be talking to ourselves on repeat.

Let's get into it. Which dictators are you talking about?

You really don't want to go there,but if you insist,google 'Dictators supported by the US',and settle back for a long read......nobody with any grasp of history doubts this.I understand the realpolitik of having to deal with regimes that are undesirable,but you can't have it all ways,proclaiming to love freedom and liberty so much yet helping the vilest of dictators who dance to your tune and protect your global economic interests.

yeah I know I can google it Changer. I just kinda assumed there were 1 or 2 specific ones you wanted to make your case with. and oh yes I do want to go there! Not cuz I think anyone is right or wrong, but because it's an interesting topic and I want to plug some thoughts into potential examples.[/
It's so widespread and pervasive,JB lists some above,surely you were aware of this already?

What's your deal man? Of course I'm aware. Why do you think I'm not? Why don't you want to dig into them? I've just been reading your posts, but now I see JB's. I'll check them out

And when you do you will have no logical option but to agree the US has not been a shining example of freedom and liberty in the conduct of its foreign policy.Please don't reply with the irrelevance that somwhere else is worse,we are talking specifically about the US here.

[Phatscotty]

You keep coming at me all sideways...

[chang50]

You keep coming at me all sideways...

I can understand why you are lost for a response,sticking to the Americas,lets look at a Guatemala,or Chile,or Greneda which JB rightly lists as particularly shocking.You choose and let's hear your view on US involvement there.

[patches70]

You keep coming at me all sideways...

I can understand why you are lost for a response,sticking to the Americas,lets look at a Guatemala,or Chile,or Greneda which JB rightly lists as particularly shocking.You choose and let's hear your view on US involvement there.

Wait, I'm not gonna read all of JB's BS, but it seems you all are talking about how the US government has gone through and ousted some regimes, often and throughout the world. Many under unethical and immoral conditions. Is this correct?

If so, then why, for the love of God, would you want the very same government to be able to disarm the American public as well? I mean, if the government is so corrupt and evil and horrible, why would anyone advocate making it even harder for the average American citizen to topple such a corrupt government if and/or when the time comes that it must be done?

The US government does a lot of things that is very unpopular and not supported at all by the public at large. The deal with Libya a prime example. Most Americans were not in favor of any US involvement at all in any of that but the government went ahead anyway. The average American doesn't wanna to have our troops going around toppling other governments that are no threat to ourselves.

The US government is increasingly less representative of the actual people of the US, who for the most part just wanna live in peace, work and raise their families. We aren't interested in policing the world, it's not our job to bring democracy to the world at the point of a bayonet and it's not wise to give this same government even more power.


Look at the insanity of the gun grabbers. Their ideal solution is to ban all guns period. Force everyone to turn 'em in. It's a pipe dream, I know, but look at what it is though. To sign such legislation the government and the gun grabbers would effectively be turning some 100 million law abiding citizens into criminals overnight. Do any of you realize how insane that is?

Good luck with that. You have no idea how bad that would turn out for the politicians, the gun grabbers and the nation in general. I can feel quite assured at who is going to come out on top of that in the end and it won't be the gun grabbers lemme tell ya.

[chang50]

You keep coming at me all sideways...

I can understand why you are lost for a response,sticking to the Americas,lets look at a Guatemala,or Chile,or Greneda which JB rightly lists as particularly shocking.You choose and let's hear your view on US involvement there.

Wait, I'm not gonna read all of JB's BS, but it seems you all are talking about how the US government has gone through and ousted some regimes, often and throughout the world. Many under unethical and immoral conditions. Is this correct?

If so, then why, for the love of God, would you want the very same government to be able to disarm the American public as well? I mean, if the government is so corrupt and evil and horrible, why would anyone advocate making it even harder for the average American citizen to topple such a corrupt government if and/or when the time comes that it must be done?

The US government does a lot of things that is very unpopular and not supported at all by the public at large. The deal with Libya a prime example. Most Americans were not in favor of any US involvement at all in any of that but the government went ahead anyway. The average American doesn't wanna to have our troops going around toppling other governments that are no threat to ourselves.

The US government is increasingly less representative of the actual people of the US, who for the most part just wanna live in peace, work and raise their families. We aren't interested in policing the world, it's not our job to bring democracy to the world at the point of a bayonet and it's not wise to give this same government even more power.


Look at the insanity of the gun grabbers. Their ideal solution is to ban all guns period. Force everyone to turn 'em in. It's a pipe dream, I know, but look at what it is though. To sign such legislation the government and the gun grabbers would effectively be turning some 100 million law abiding citizens into criminals overnight. Do any of you realize how insane that is?

Good luck with that. You have no idea how bad that would turn out for the politicians, the gun grabbers and the nation in general. I can feel quite assured at who is going to come out on top of that in the end and it won't be the gun grabbers lemme tell ya.

Firstly JB's list is not bullshit,secondly I never said disarm everyone,just consider tighter regulation to reduce numbers,thirdly it is impossible and has been for a long time for the average American to topple the government,I believe this is a silly fantasy.
It is equally silly to believe the US has ever been particularly interested in bringing democracy to the world,like other countries it has advanced it's own narrow selfish interests under the cloak of promoting it.Sometimes democracy may have ensued from US involvement, but more often dictatorship has.Fair enough,but why all the BS about freedom and liberty.'land of the free'?
Of course it is impracticable to ban guns overnight it isn't my ideal solution,you don't allow an absurd situation to develop over many years and sort it out immediately,but surely a start has to be made?And macho posturing threatening elected politicians is just laughable,good luck with that..

[BigBallinStalin]

A classic example is the first 9/11,1973,when the USA played a significant role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile,culminating in the murder of Salvador Allende and many others.As you say the examples go on and on...Maybe we just don't understand freedom and should be grateful one country has unique access to such knowledge..

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

Maybe it's the least worst system we have devised,what would be a better alternative?

Less democratic involvement. A more politically competitive environment which strayed from Federal/National Government and was geared more toward Provincial/State jurisdiction.

That way, if legislation makes mistakes, it only affects one province. With a larger pool of Provinces/States trying different policies, selection and variation are allowed to flourish, which in turn would allow for more possibilities to find a more perfect democracy.

In short, democratic/republic governments such as the US, Germany, Bolivia, etc. should be made less relevant at the national level. The national/federal government should only deal with national security and little more.

[BigBallinStalin]

It is equally silly to believe the US has ever been particularly interested in bringing democracy to the world,like other countries it has advanced it's own narrow selfish interests under the cloak of promoting it.Sometimes democracy may have ensued from US involvement, but more often dictatorship has.Fair enough,but why all the BS about freedom and liberty.'land of the free'?
Of course it is impracticable to ban guns overnight it isn't my ideal solution,you don't allow an absurd situation to develop over many years and sort it out immediately,but surely a start has to be made?And macho posturing threatening elected politicians is just laughable,good luck with that..

Do you think US foreign policy is more complicated than your description?

[chang50]

It is equally silly to believe the US has ever been particularly interested in bringing democracy to the world,like other countries it has advanced it's own narrow selfish interests under the cloak of promoting it.Sometimes democracy may have ensued from US involvement, but more often dictatorship has.Fair enough,but why all the BS about freedom and liberty.'land of the free'?
Of course it is impracticable to ban guns overnight it isn't my ideal solution,you don't allow an absurd situation to develop over many years and sort it out immediately,but surely a start has to be made?And macho posturing threatening elected politicians is just laughable,good luck with that..

Do you think US foreign policy is more complicated than your description?

Of course it is more nuanced than my quick description,but I think it is generally true nonetheless.

[BigBallinStalin]

It is equally silly to believe the US has ever been particularly interested in bringing democracy to the world,like other countries it has advanced it's own narrow selfish interests under the cloak of promoting it.Sometimes democracy may have ensued from US involvement, but more often dictatorship has.Fair enough,but why all the BS about freedom and liberty.'land of the free'?
Of course it is impracticable to ban guns overnight it isn't my ideal solution,you don't allow an absurd situation to develop over many years and sort it out immediately,but surely a start has to be made?And macho posturing threatening elected politicians is just laughable,good luck with that..

Do you think US foreign policy is more complicated than your description?

Of course it is more nuanced than my quick description,but I think it is generally true nonetheless.

So, what would be a more nuanced description of US foreign policy?

[chang50]

It is equally silly to believe the US has ever been particularly interested in bringing democracy to the world,like other countries it has advanced it's own narrow selfish interests under the cloak of promoting it.Sometimes democracy may have ensued from US involvement, but more often dictatorship has.Fair enough,but why all the BS about freedom and liberty.'land of the free'?
Of course it is impracticable to ban guns overnight it isn't my ideal solution,you don't allow an absurd situation to develop over many years and sort it out immediately,but surely a start has to be made?And macho posturing threatening elected politicians is just laughable,good luck with that..

Do you think US foreign policy is more complicated than your description?

Of course it is more nuanced than my quick description,but I think it is generally true nonetheless.

So, what would be a more nuanced description of US foreign policy?

Perhaps one outlining the need for specific detailed objectives in different theatres and the strategies and tactics for achieving them recognising the need to be flexible in rapidly changing circumstances.Or something like that.I think my more general description describes US and other countries foreign policy pretty well.

[thegreekdog]

* = successful ouster of a government

Italy 1944 *
Germany 1945 *
Japan 1945 *
China 1949, 1950s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958-60 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *

Grenada is the one that hurts the most. A peaceful country ousts a corrupt pro-American government, and America responds by invading them and leaving them with a 3 trillion dollar debt. All the while the media plays along like Grenada is the aggressor.

It's so widespread and pervasive,JB lists some above,surely you were aware of this already?

Trust me, he is aware, so I have no idea what kind of trap he's setting.

I added three more.

[chang50]

A classic example is the first 9/11,1973,when the USA played a significant role in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile,culminating in the murder of Salvador Allende and many others.As you say the examples go on and on...Maybe we just don't understand freedom and should be grateful one country has unique access to such knowledge..

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

Maybe it's the least worst system we have devised,what would be a better alternative?

Less democratic involvement. A more politically competitive environment which strayed from Federal/National Government and was geared more toward Provincial/State jurisdiction.

That way, if legislation makes mistakes, it only affects one province. With a larger pool of Provinces/States trying different policies, selection and variation are allowed to flourish, which in turn would allow for more possibilities to find a more perfect democracy.

In short, democratic/republic governments such as the US, Germany, Bolivia, etc. should be made less relevant at the national level. The national/federal government should only deal with national security and little more.

But they would still be democracies unless I've missed something..

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, but Allende was a dick.

Chilean voters thought highly enough of him to elect him,a minor point I know..

Many dictators come to power through voting, so why do you hold elections with such high esteem?

Maybe it's the least worst system we have devised,what would be a better alternative?

Less democratic involvement. A more politically competitive environment which strayed from Federal/National Government and was geared more toward Provincial/State jurisdiction.

That way, if legislation makes mistakes, it only affects one province. With a larger pool of Provinces/States trying different policies, selection and variation are allowed to flourish, which in turn would allow for more possibilities to find a more perfect democracy.

In short, democratic/republic governments such as the US, Germany, Bolivia, etc. should be made less relevant at the national level. The national/federal government should only deal with national security and little more.

But they would still be democracies unless I've missed something..

You asked for an alternative, so I provided one where elections don't matter as much as they do in governments such as the US'.

[Night Strike]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[Juan_Bottom]

Click image to enlarge.

If that's entirely honest, then why don't armies use guns like the one on top, ever?





I found this pretty shocking.

[Phatscotty]

You keep coming at me all sideways...

I can understand why you are lost for a response,sticking to the Americas,lets look at a Guatemala,or Chile,or Greneda which JB rightly lists as particularly shocking.You choose and let's hear your view on US involvement there.

it's not that I'm lost for a response as much as it is everything you say to me crams some kind of bullshit down my throat and just accepts that as fact, and then everything you say is based on that, when it was incorrect in the first place.

I just wanted to have a general conversation about past ousters and puppet states, but under the reality that all those governments are just like our own, and when we talk about past regimes, many tends to speak of them through the eyes of "the people" of those countries, when really their people are even more powerless. They elect leaders who are corrupt, but you expect us to play by a better set of rules. That just throws human nature and the reality of greed out the window. People from any country or any government are going to do whatever they can get away with.

Many times throughout history and still to this day, leaders of countries enslave their own people for their own personal benefit. It's unrealistic for us to refuse to do business with a country based on how they run their own countries (what they can get away with). Many times one country uses third party leverage to push another country into something that isn't the best for their people, but is win win for both governments. and sure sometimes one country just invades with armies and takes what they want. While that has been the hallmark of history, someone somewhere recently said "it's the least worst form of government we have come up with"

Also the technology gap needs to be taken into perspective. If your people have invented tanks and airplanes, and comes across a civilization that uses bows and arrows ie cannot defend themselves, there is only 1 way that usually ends up. Sure in some circumstances, when the advanced civilication does not need anything from the people of the bow, they can live in temporary peace and harmony. But it's only a matter of time when demographics change and power vacuums develop and resources get low and change and land becomes short because of population growth or their own people become consumed with greed etc....

[stahrgazer]

Click image to enlarge.

If that's entirely honest, then why don't armies use guns like the one on top, ever?

They used to. But they found that wood warps too easily in combat situations, so came up with other materials.

[chang50]

You keep coming at me all sideways...

I can understand why you are lost for a response,sticking to the Americas,lets look at a Guatemala,or Chile,or Greneda which JB rightly lists as particularly shocking.You choose and let's hear your view on US involvement there.

it's not that I'm lost for a response as much as it is everything you say to me crams some kind of bullshit down my throat and just accepts that as fact, and then everything you say is based on that, when it was incorrect in the first place.

I just wanted to have a general conversation about past ousters and puppet states, but under the reality that all those governments are just like our own, and when we talk about past regimes, many tends to speak of them through the eyes of "the people" of those countries, when really their people are even more powerless. They elect leaders who are corrupt, but you expect us to play by a better set of rules. That just throws human nature and the reality of greed out the window. People from any country or any government are going to do whatever they can get away with.

Many times throughout history and still to this day, leaders of countries enslave their own people for their own personal benefit. It's unrealistic for us to refuse to do business with a country based on how they run their own countries (what they can get away with). Many times one country uses third party leverage to push another country into something that isn't the best for their people, but is win win for both governments. and sure sometimes one country just invades with armies and takes what they want. While that has been the hallmark of history, someone somewhere recently said "it's the least worst form of government we have come up with"

Also the technology gap needs to be taken into perspective. If your people have invented tanks and airplanes, and comes across a civilization that uses bows and arrows ie cannot defend themselves, there is only 1 way that usually ends up. Sure in some circumstances, when the advanced civilication does not need anything from the people of the bow, they can live in temporary peace and harmony. But it's only a matter of time when demographics change and power vacuums develop and resources get low and change and land becomes short because of population growth or their own people become consumed with greed etc....

If you think I am incorrect make the opposite case,I don't cram anything down your throat,you are an adult and should be able to handle robust discussion..it's not as if you hold back your own opinions which I might call bullshit.
Your country has a lot of power globally which it exercises regularly just like all superpowers have historically..that is the reality.It's the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat more than anything.The BS about promoting democracy,freedom and liberty,etc.It's all so vomit inducingly phoney.