5. Probably Iceland. Nobody in Europe or America bothers you there.

Isn't Iceland's military defence fully given by NATO? And it is bit of the European Economic Area and the EFTA. But I agree it's a very good country to live, though.

Edited 12/2/2015 01:49:55

(Q)Why on earth does US have a policy of being able to fight two wars at one time?

(A) Because Murica.

(Q)Why.... is the US "defence" budget so untouchable? (Really, there is no country threatening US right now.)

(A) Because we're making more and more enemies every day, better safe than sorry.

(Q)Why... declared war on terrorism? Like how can you even win? (I mean you have lost when you declare war)

(A) That wasn't me, it was Bush, than Obama, and now whoever wins this election.

(Q)What is Edward Snowden to you?

(A) A terrible man who got what he deserved! *Whispers* Is the NSA still watching?

(Q)Were in the world would you live? (Merica' is not an option. But if it was, why or why not is it your prefered place?)

(A) If I was forced to leave my precious Dixie, I'd have to choose the land down under, Australia.

(Q)Does the americans know that usa, in japanese , means rabbit ?

(A) It does?

Why on earth does US have a policy of being able to fight two wars at one time?

WWII and post-WWII happenings, as well as the dreadful war on terrorism, has had a sort of effect on America. See, nobody likes us to begin with. Then, there are a few countries who have the balls to actually say that they don't like us, meaning mainly, mostly, pretty much Russia and China, what with Russia flying bombers around Guam and China sending a fleet to Alaska. Then, we have the Middle East...

Why.... is the US "defence" budget so untouchable? (Really, there is no country threatening US right now.)

WWII and post-WWII happenings, as well as the dreadful war on terrorism, has had a sort of effect on America. See, nobody likes us to begin with. Then, there are a few countries who have the balls to actually say that they don't like us, meaning mainly, mostly, pretty much Russia and China, what with Russia flying bombers around Guam and China sending a fleet to Alaska. Then, we have the Middle East...

Why... declared war on terrorism? Like how can you even win? (I mean you have lost when you declare war)

9/11 is when it was truly declared, and it's easy to understand why. Regardless if the US can or cannot defeat an ideology, it doesn't change the fact that the entire population watched a bunch of radicals get the best of their country, twice, on live television. It had to do something. The Afghan War was the something the US leaders came up with, which I can agree with. The Iraq War was completely retarded, but I guess we were still blinded by the blow to our country's pride to see it (when people say Bush is one of the worst presidents because he sent us into Iraq, some don't realize that Congress voted for it, so I mean, the population technically also wanted to go into Iraq.) Now we have ISIS, and we are not the only ones fighting the people that doesn't deserve to be called human. In fact, Jordan, freaking Jordan, may have done more than the US, because now our country is filled with a bunch of p*ssies that have a stroke anytime someone even suggests "boots on the ground." Some of us don't even like the idea of airstrikes on ISIS bases. So to answer your question after that little rant, there is no way anybody can kill an ideology.

What is Edward Snowden to you?

...Who do you work for, exactly? I just need to know so I know what answer to give you.

Were in the world would you live? (Merica' is not an option. But if it was, why or why not is it your prefered place?)

I haven't the slightest clue. Probably Norway?
Germany sounds okay, but Imma wait ten years to see if the country is still doing well.
Japan is really nice, but it's hella expensive when it comes to living and that 2011 tsunami moved the affected island a few inches to the left...
Australia looks nice, but it wants to eat me.
The UK isn't a bad option, but I'd like to see the sun where I live sometimes.

Honestly, when it comes to nature, Western Pennsylvania is one of the safest places to live in, I have to say. The weather itself isn't the best, but we aren't on fire, breaking off from the mainland, being plagued by 3/4 tornadoes to touch down on the earth, or sinking, so I would stay in the US, but move to Norway if need be.

Thanks to all americans for answering my questions. Here is my treat to you:

Read my questions from the bottom up, thinking about what you would change in the states, so that it closer resembles that "better" place to live, of your choice.

oh, and I work as a spy Martian.


Bonus question. Who do you support after the jet was shot down, Turkey or Russia?

WWII and post-WWII happenings, as well as the dreadful war on terrorism, has had a sort of effect on America.

Maybe, but the rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with this.

See, nobody likes us to begin with.

When, in the 1990s? Some folk didn't like America, but governments did: NATO (and future members + many others) are the most important ones. America had a big ally base by the 1990s. Nobody hated America, really, except Iran and Libya, and some unimportant violent extremists.

Then, there are a few countries who have the balls to actually say that they don't like us, meaning mainly, mostly, pretty much Russia and China, what with Russia flying bombers around Guam and China sending a fleet to Alaska.

America's swimming by military ships in the South China Sea all the time, as well as "exercising" from Lithuania to Finland.

Then, we have the Middle East...

What about the Middle East?
Allied with: Yemen, Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Arabia, Turkey
Neutrality with: Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Syria
Foe with: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran

And all the foe is America picking fights to some extent.

9/11 is when it was truly declared, and it's easy to understand why. Regardless if the US can or cannot defeat an ideology, it doesn't change the fact that the entire population watched a bunch of radicals get the best of their country, twice, on live television. It had to do something.

No, it didn't have to do something, it didn't have to push any agendas. You're even admitting an ideology can't really be wrecked, so that's like getting a shot by a bullet, then shooting yourself in the wounded place to try to get the first bullet out. And you likely shot yourself in the first place. And even if it did, I've written about this before: far more folk die from firearm-related death and environmentally hazardous deaths each year in America alone than died in the September 11 attacks.

The Afghan War was the something the US leaders came up with, which I can agree with.

Why didn't America invade the Salafist Arabia instead, where almost all the hijackers even came from?

The Iraq War was completely retarded, but I guess we were still blinded by the blow to our country's pride to see it (when people say Bush is one of the worst presidents because he sent us into Iraq, some don't realize that Congress voted for it, so I mean, the population technically also wanted to go into Iraq.)

"The population wanted to technically go to Iraq since the parliament voted for it", what makes you say that since the parliament voted for it, the folk voted for it? Understand, this is like a lighter Eritrean Countrywide Gathering, where noone ever votes "no" to the president's suggestion. Vote rigging, lobbying, bribes, and other corruption happens, and they happen more the more powerful the country is.

Now we have ISIS, and we are not the only ones fighting the people that doesn't deserve to be called human. In fact, Jordan, freaking Jordan, may have done more than the US, because now our country is filled with a bunch of p*ssies that have a stroke anytime someone even suggests "boots on the ground."

Don't you think America's wrecked enough? You talk about Mashriq with a daemonic glee, but you forget: it was mostly America that catalysed it (directly and indirectly) and much of the other violent groups in the site.

Some of us don't even like the idea of airstrikes on ISIS bases. So to answer your question after that little rant, there is no way anybody can kill an ideology.

So why are you trying and giving more grounds for violent anti-American extremism through more warfare?

Germany sounds okay, but Imma wait ten years to see if the country is still doing well.

It probably will. Other than the Euro introduction (which Germany passed fine), nothing rocky has gone through the EU, which purpose is to stablise.

Japan is really nice, but it's hella expensive when it comes to living and that 2011 tsunami moved the affected island a few inches to the left...

Okinawa and inland Hokkaido I think are somewhat cheap. Too much weird Japan-american culture, though.

Australia looks nice, but it wants to eat me.

The real problem is the sult.

Honestly, when it comes to nature, Western Pennsylvania is one of the safest places to live in, I have to say. The weather itself isn't the best, but we aren't on fire, breaking off from the mainland, being plagued by 3/4 tornadoes to touch down on the earth, or sinking, so I would stay in the US, but move to Norway if need be.

You described Western Pennsylvania as just a place that's not hazardous, like most places on Earth. It's not particularly safe. If you want weather good, go to Chile. If you don't like the weather, move 10 metres away, welcome to the new weather.

No, it didn't have to do something

You're right. After 9/11 we should of done absolutely nothing. Go after the terrorist? It's difficult, so why even bother trying? Step up security? Nah, don't need that either. In fact, we should just sit here and never attempt anything proactive. I'm sure the terrorists will leave us alone in their own good time if we ask nicely....

far more folk die from firearm-related death and environmentally hazardous deaths each year in America alone than died in the September 11 attacks.

So? Is this supposed to negate the tragedy somehow? More people die each year in France of disease than in the Paris attacks, but nobody would seriously suggest that was anything less than a travesty.

Don't you think America's wrecked enough?

So why are you trying and giving more grounds for violent anti-American extremism through more warfare?

*Sigh* I know how much you don't like interventionism, but surely even you can see that ISIS is something that MUST be dealt with through military force. Or do you really think it's a good idea to sit idly by and just hope that the Iraqi and Syrian governments hold out on their own?

Although the spiteful part of me does somewhat wish the U.S would stay out of this and force Russia,France, and the others to do all the work combating ISIS just so people can't blame America anymore if something goes wrong. Although then I'm sure people would constantly diss the U.S as cowardly and not doing enough.

I don't envy those who decide U.S foreign policy.

Take a proactive role combating global threats? You're playing world police and being a terrible warmonger.

Scale back and stay out of affairs which don't directly concern you? You're dirty cowards who should be doing more to fix the mess that is 100% your fault!

There is no real answer, rest of the world will take a dump on you no matter what you choose.

You're right. After 9/11 we should of done absolutely nothing. Go after the terrorist? It's difficult, so why even bother trying? Step up security? Nah, don't need that either. In fact, we should just sit here and never attempt anything proactive. I'm sure the terrorists will leave us alone in their own good time if we ask nicely....

The War on Terrorism for America has not been only difficult: it's done the opposite of what it was nominally to do (but meeting its actual goals fine). Terrorism has grown, chaos in non-allied OPEC has grown, drug making in Afghanistan has grown, and getting to run about making Pakistan future problems as well has also grown. What has lowered? Safety and security in these sites? I mean it, if America cut diplomatic ties with Arabia, and in general, just stopped "caring" about the Islamic world, there'd be no grounds for violent extremists to attack America much longer.

At best, the September 11 attacks was allowed by a great f-up (unlikely) in the American defence systems, at worst, it was a false flag attack (likely). Whichever it was, America used it to push its agenda. All theode foes in the Middle East were wrecked, permanently.

So? Is this supposed to negate the tragedy somehow? More people die each year in France of disease than in the Paris attacks, but nobody would seriously suggest that was anything less than a travesty.

It is supposed to "negate this tragedy somehow" - mourn the silently killed, not the far smaller group killed. I rarely anywhere see folk paying their respects to all killed with a gun. While the September 11 attacks were bad, if wanting to try to solve unsolvable problems, then at least solve the bigger one (firearm death rate in America). You'd undeniably be saving more lives nulling firearm deaths than terrorism, same goes for illness as well.

*Sigh* I know how much you don't like interventionism, but surely even you can see that ISIS is something that MUST be dealt with through military force. Or do you really think it's a good idea to sit idly by and just hope that the Iraqi and Syrian governments hold out on their own?

In an ideal world, I'd cast a vote of some kind of light international watching in the site, probably mostly stopping spillover. Anti-ideology interventionism like you suggest, well, has it even been not counterproductive? Anyhow, this is not an ideal world: pragmatism is the dominant policy. If America picks up the war pace it has there, it won't be looking to "find order again", but it will be looking about how it can further mess up Iraq and now wreck Syria, maybe get some Kurd ultranationalism before the wars end, who knows. I say it's absolutely critical that America get the hell out of there before it messes the situation up again. Iraq was to right a certain problem, but you agree it didn't right this problem, so you want to right the failure of Iraq by doing nearly the same thing elsewhere?

Although the spiteful part of me does somewhat wish the U.S would stay out of this and force Russia,France, and the others to do all the work combating ISIS just so people can't blame America anymore if something goes wrong. Although then I'm sure people would constantly diss the U.S as cowardly and not doing enough.

Spiteful? That's what you call it? I call it the not warmongering. Britain, France, and Canada are all doing the same evils here, it doesn't make what America's doing right. And I don't know who says America is cowardly, except for-war propaganda. I mean, it's currently in Afghanistan, Mashriq, Mexico, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Going out of Mashriq leaves 6 other sites to "intervene", 6 others that also should be stopped. And that's just in the now, there's also loads and loads of done conflicts from 1990 to 2015 that America also "participated" in. I don't know who calls America cowardly. Maybe the same folk who call it "world police".

I don't envy those who decide U.S foreign policy.

I do, I love mindlessly leading to get filthy rich.

Take a proactive role combating global threats? You're playing world police and being a terrible warmonger.

Scale back and stay out of affairs which don't directly concern you? You're dirty cowards who should be doing more to fix the mess that is 100% your fault!

But the folk don't matter so long as you keep them under control. Just make sure they don't (or do) find out about the other 6 interventions ongoing.

There is no real answer, rest of the world will take a dump on you no matter what you choose.

In theory, that's why there are referenda. It's the folk's choice and/or mistake, not the politician's.

Who do you support after the jet was shot down, Turkey or Russia?

Right now? Turkey.

Maybe, but the rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with this.

Xapy, I admitted that my paragraph turned into a rant. That being said, why have you felt the need to respond to any of it, considering it had "nothing to do with this?"

why would you not elect Bernie Sanders

(Q)Who do you support after the jet was shot down, Turkey or Russia?

(A)I hate both Countries, so neither.

(Q)why would you not elect Bernie Sanders

(A)Because people are afraid of Socialism.

(and my question is beignoring ignored.....)

I thought your question wasn't actually legit, sorry. To answer your question, most of us do not know that.

Xapy, I admitted that my paragraph turned into a rant. That being said, why have you felt the need to respond to any of it, considering it had "nothing to do with this?"

Well, it's just irrelevant. Why did you write the first sentence? The rest all have a same theme that I wanted to answer to.

We won't elect Bernie Sanders because we're idiots

Just wondering here, how corrupt do you think your country's government is?

In the U.S. its very screwed up, especially because we have an unfair voting system with 4 parties that hate each other.

This pretty sums up my opinion on it:

A very explanatory video on our crappy voting system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k