SIR_Sergeant

I don't know what to tell you other than that you're wrong...

"Not all Muslim's are terrorists" isn't an ideology. It's a fact.

It didn't exist until recently, Wikipedia says the late 20th century. I'd say the world wasn't doing so well before then. Because someone wants to be called by the proper terminology isn't holding anything back. I do understand it can be excessive, but more often than not, I don't think it impacts society in any significant way.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/07/politics/rand-paul-iowa-wrap/index.html Found a nice article about Rand Paul. I think he'll be an incredibly strong challenge to the GOP establishment and socially conservative candidates like Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee. To me, Rand is the Republican of the future and the type of candidate the GOP will need in the future to win. The generation that votes for the party guy or supports social conservatism is on the way out and is being replaced by a new generation. This generation is much more opposed to the military adventurism, the drug war, and other policies that have been staunchly supported by the GOP over the past several decades. Your thoughts? General 2016 primaries discussion (of any party) is also welcome, just don't start slinging mud at the other side. Keep your comments civil and intelligent.

The world wasn't peaceful before the notion of political correctness and it certainly wouldn't be if it was dropped.

Are you aware that it was the CIA who reinstated the Shah in Iran? All of my keks. This thread has devolved into nothing more than partisan hacks bashing the other side with baseless claims and empty rhetoric.

And here we see the status of this thread: The very volatile fuels are beginning to ignite...

Aaaaaaand this is where I'll be checking out.

Three comments in and someone starts the shit-fest. Well done. It has been discussed in other threads that topics of this nature may not be the best to post, as the above commenter has proven. With that being said... I would hope that at some point the religion driven traditions that exist within government to make their way out. This country was founded upon secular principles and should be operated accordingly. Does this breakfast have any significance, no? But it still makes the claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, which it is not. The majority religion may be Christianity but it is a secular nation, not a theocracy. I'm not going to reply to any shitposts going on about how this country was founded as a Christian country, the documented evidence against this is overwhelming. Nor will I be taking part in the stupid "Obummer is a Muslim" circlejerk.

I agree that posts should be of higher quality than this (take the hint for your other posts, guppy), but ultimately it's harmless.

We already do that. We have hundreds if not thousands of military advisers operating in the region. We give tons of aid to these countries. If the military powers of the Middle East (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc...) actually wanted to go into Iraq or Syria, they're more than capable of doing so and performing well.

"General and miscellaneous discussion." As... dumb (sorry OP) as this topic may be, the different subcategories of these forums exist for a reason. I don't understand why people make this point again and again.

I think the greater reluctance to become involved in African affairs is simply because the US has never really been involved in Africa, whereas numerous European countries, to various extents, have. There isn't really as a much of a historical precedence. We've got a much stronger "tradition" of Middle East involvement in comparison to African involvement.

I'd take a BMW or a Mercedes given the chance, they're really nice cars.

I believe you need to post it as an image. Click the photo symbol. I've posted a screenshot below.

I would like to see if the number of commercial airline crashes is actually increasing, or the numbers are the same and it's just a hot topic to report on.

I hear this stuff makes quite a nice hat.

I think to go into Iraq, again, would prove we've learned nothing from the past 50-60 years of military adventurism. It doesn't end well, especially when our army isn't particularly effective against insurgencies defending their homeland or whatever they've laid claim to. Military interventionism just breeds further conflict. Lets look at the 2003 Iraq War. The Iraqi army was little to no trouble for coalition forces. The problems came from the insurgency that followed the toppling of the Iraqi government (an insurgency that did not exist before our invasion). So we stay for several years, the body count grows as we attempted to establish the Iraqi government. We left, and look what happened. These kind of interventions never truly end. Unless you're dedicated to spending trillions of dollars for decades, this practice will not succeed. A distinction that needs to be made, and too often people either ignore or discredit, is that non-interventionism is not isolationism. The U.S. can participate in the world economy and world politics without going on military adventures whenever "U.S. interests" are threatened.

I said very likely. My instinct would be to call it a certainty but I have no idea what the future will bring.

Considering that the Steam Workshop exists, I'd say no... lol.

Looking for a certain genre? Something current or old?

Probably a mix. I'd guess that being a soldier might be preferable to whatever alternative jobs/lifestyles are available. Not that being a solder in the DPRK is glamorous. Perhaps given the opportunity in battle, a lot of them would either easily surrender or desert.

Where in Germany, if you don't mind me asking? Do you like being stationed there?

Got the girl from my English class's(?) number today, hopefully that goes somewhere.

So are you stationed in Germany?