Iran soon?

AFP would likely ring more bells if it were referred to as Agence France-Presse.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Casual_Otaku

Wanna know what the beautiful irony of this whole situation is? Guess which country is the only one that's ever actually used a weapon of mass destruction on civilians (hint -- it was about 60 years ago)

The Golden Horde flinging bubonic plague-infected corpses at Caffa in 1347 isn't about 60 years ago, and even then likely wasn't the first.

Speaking of the plague, the Japanese employed it against Chinese civilians, among other things.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Keep in mind that at the time, the U.S. was little more than an illegitimate country that had just revolted against Britain. They won the war only because the French arrived at the nick of time and assisted in a vital battle. The U.S. at the time was essentially friendless (except for France), powerless, and defenseless. If they had gotten themselves involved with world affairs at that point, they would have likely been on the receiving end of an invasion and swift defeat.

Styphon coming in and verbally owning me in history occurring in 3... 2... 1...

Good call!

To call the U.S. an illegitimate country that had just rebelled against Britain is inaccurate, since when Washington left the Presidency, the Revolutionary War had been over for 14 years. The nations of the world acknowledged it during that time, including Great Britain, making it legitimate.

Your statement about the U.S. being friendless (save France), powerless and defenseless is also inaccurate in its totality. During Washington and Adams' administrations, the United States and France became increasingly hostile to each other, and more pro-Britain. Towards the end of Adams' administration, in fact, there U.S. fought an undeclared naval war with France. Which the U.S. won. Within a few years, the United States was able to sustain a war in the Mediterranean against the Barbary Pirates. Granted, it wasn't a major war, like the ones being waged in Europe at the same time, but that's still far from home. Powerless countries can't do that.

Stoob's quotation of Washington is also inaccurate. Washington wasn't advocating neutrality, he was advocating not entering "permanent" or "entangling" alliances with other countries. He was all for temporary alliances that served a particular need should one arise, but a permanent alliance would tie the U.S. to other nations, which might become detremental to the U.S. later (as in the case with the alliance with France). His idea was not to promote American isolation from the world, but to let the United States "act for ourselves and not for others." (The next time the U.S. signed a treaty of alliance was 1949.)

Besides, it isn't as if neutrality and imperialism can't co-exist. For most of the Victorian Era, Great Britain remained largely neutral in European affairs, but during that same time, the British Empire expanded to cover 2/5 of the world's land area.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

What Gumby said seems to be implying that the Israelis have our ballistic missile subs on call to avenge them in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel.

Though I fail to see why Israel would need them to do their retaliating; Mossad is quite capable of smuggling Israel's own nuclear weapons around to insure a response to a nuclear attack.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

They are a staunch ally of the U.S.

Are they?

Disregarding Israel's numerous unfriendly actions towards the United States, what treaty of alliance is there between the United States and Israel?

For that matter, what has Israel ever done for us?

I was speaking idiomatically.