Share? Ewww. You can have the whole thing. 

"share of that tab"

I sure could use some of that share.

Touched! And notice how no one in the EU blinked nor blanched when we stepped into The Balkans conflict; in their own backyard but why make a fuss when the global cops will pay the lions share of that tab.

Of course the US plays global cop and sometimes justifably so. We are big enough to do what most others cannot do or will not do *logistically, materially and so on*. But there are many in the US, self included, who wonder why the cop role so often? For what it's worth, we had no business playing cop in Viet Nam *one of our greatest Generals, MacArthur, warned us not to get bogged down in a land war in Asia and of course, we did not learn from the lesson the French  learned in Viet Nam*, nor did we have reason to enter Iraq *they were well contained and I do understand the potential nexus between Iraq, bioweapons and a willing proxy to use them*. For sure the US has many enemies.

Touched! And notice how no one in the EU blinked nor blanched when we stepped into The Balkans conflict; in their own backyard but why make a fuss when the global cops will pay the lions share of that tab.

Touched! And notice how no one in the EU blinked nor blanched when we stepped into The Balkans conflict; in their own backyard but why make a fuss when the global cops will pay the lions share of that tab.

Of course the US plays global cop and sometimes justifably so. We are big enough to do what most others cannot do or will not do *logistically, materially and so on*. But there are many in the US, self included, who wonder why the cop role so often? For what it's worth, we had no business playing cop in Viet Nam *one of our greatest Generals, MacArthur, warned us not to get bogged down in a land war in Asia and of course, we did not learn from the lesson the French  learned in Viet Nam*, nor did we have reason to enter Iraq *they were well contained and I do understand the potential nexus between Iraq, bioweapons and a willing proxy to use them*. For sure the US has many enemies.

The Soviets suffered incredible losses in WWII, in total numbers and per capita: one of the highest deaths per capita in the entire war. Whether the U.S. could actually have done anything to reduce those losses is subject to debate, given the timeline you list (thank you.)

But it remains that some Russians, and some British for that matter, still think the U.S. should have acted sooner and more aggressively to meet the Nazi threat. Is it a rational thought? Maybe not, but when your country sacrificed more than 25 million people defending itself, well, you might hold a grudge.

I got the gist of this historical tidbit when I visited East Berlin, a few years before reunification. Our tour guides made the Soviet position quite clear on the issue.

This sucks  

 cc_rider wrote:
Err...before June of 1941 Russia (the Soviet Union at the time) was an ally of Germany, with whom they had just finished carving up Poland. US lend-lease shipments to the USSR started that month, and a US declaration of war came five months later.

If we had entered the war six months earlier we'd have been fighting the Russians. Not sure where this historical tidbit came from, but it doesn't make much sense.

That still doesn't justify arresting loads of muslims presuming they are guilty though does it? If there is strong evidence that they are terrorists then fine, arrest them and bring them to trial as quickly as possible. Some of these people have been in there for friggin years and many of them will be innocent. You can't be a supporter of those methods surely? nHow long does this take to prove one way or another? Oh, they're Muslim so they must be guilty right?

I think it's fair to say while the U.S does try and play global cop, more none US citizens do look at how your system works than US citizens look at how other systems work, they try and work out why the US thinks it has the right to behave this way. I have the same opinion of the UK too when it joins forces with the US to occupy these countries, i don't think it's right. When you play global cop the more enemies you are going to get, that can't be good.

The Judicial System in the US crawls. Our Constitution spells out the right to a fair and speedy trial. Speedy just never seems to make it to the starting line.
In July, 2007, two full time losers entered a Connecticutt home. Before the night was over, the father had been severly beaten, the mother raped and strangled, both young daughters tied to their beds while gasoline was poured around them *they died of smoke inhalation*. Just a few weeks back, one of the losers, Steven Hayes, was finally sentenced *two weeks or so after a verdict was reached* The other loser, Joshua Komisjarvesky, will now face trial. Speedy? Hardly. But that is how our system operates. And it stinks. Of course, Mr. Hayes, who drew the death penalty, will appeal. The average elapsed time of appeal for a death sentence in the US: 12.2 years.

Poppycock, I think? I don't think most US Citizens think/believe the US has the right to play global cop. I know I've heard many fellow citizens ask why we are always going here and there. But then, you're not a US Citizen. You just rely on POPPYCOCK. Funny how others from around the world know how US Citizens think, how our systems work yadda yadda yadda. POPPYCOCK.

Oh come on man, you can't just go round arresting and imprisoning people becuase you 'think' they may be guilty, that's not how justice works and you know it. Here's an example. You are in a gas station and some middle aged white dude holds up that station and shoots the cashier dead. They round up and imprison all middle aged white folk who were there, so that includes you, until a trial can be held, could be maybe 2,3 years? You think that would be fair or not?

I disagree with you here. You are not damned if you don't, not always and when you are it's often by the U.S citizens thinking they have this right to go in and be policeman of the world. Also, the places you may go and 'help' out always seem to be places that you can gain something from, i.e oil. It's a sort of payback, we come and help you but we then own that stuff you got. You don't see much help being offered to the folks in Africa who are often slaughtered in their thousands by corrupt governments. Just look at Zimbabwe in recent years? Not much help being done there is there? I think this is where people have a problem, not just with the U.S but here in the UK too. We only seem to head off to help people in those places where we may gain something back, so it's not for some moral reasons like it tries to be reported. I just think people are waking up to the fact sometimes you have to let some people sort their own shit out and sometimes people need to intervene but when to intervene should be based on reasons beyond what's in it for them.

Innocent until proved guilty is actually a basic premise of both your justice system and ours.