Have you heard the news, everyone?
The Russians have WON Syria!
No more FSA!
No more ISIS!
No More various other jihadist groups!
No more instability!
Bashar Al Assad can simply take a soothing walk down any street in Syria.
That was quick!
So when are you guys planning your next visit to the previously war torn and unstable Syria?
I'M going to Raqqa!
And I'm gonna make sure I wear a shirt with a big picture of Valdimir Putins face on it so people know I'm a friend.
I already have Putin's face tattooed on my belly so I'm going shirtless
Syrians are going back any minute, lads.
>>56409846
I was gonna post that one, too.
But with Bushes face.
>>56410005
Why wouldn't they?
Oh, I'm sure the welcome they're going to get from Assad is going to be warm.
>>56409665
And how did he win it?
I'm sorry for the ignorance but did the siryans have a vote or Putin took it using guns?
>>56410032
Too bad I have dank photoshop skills.
>>56410147
No, he just ordered a pullout of Russian military personnel and declared victory.
Some airstrikes will continue.
>>56410300
That's pretty similar to how I play board games and have sex. Never thought I would be comparing the two.
>>56410651
>>56410136
Looks like the country has lots of vacancies for construction workers to be quite honest.
>>56409665
they say they pull the army out because they won, but actually they can't afford to continue the war
>>56409665
>I'M going to Raqqa!
Reported to the FBI
>>56409665
You obviously cannot grasp his masterplan.
>>56410860
>they say they pull the army out because they won, but actually they can't afford to continue the war
This. They can continue the war but they will gain nothing.
I'm really speechless about the Syrian people, you bomb them for 5 years everyday. You declare a cease-fire, and they are back for protest.
If 5 years of bombing didn't made them accept Bashar nothing will do.
>>56409665
>proofster.png
>>56410902
shut up u freaking mongol go back to mongolia akbar akbar
>>56410902
No!
Don't do that!
They will disappear me to the American Gulag!
Guantanamo bay!
>>56410937
He just wanted a Dictator friendly to Russia to stay in power and that military base, right?
>>56410860
It is expensive.
>>56411024
>didn't made them
Morrocan go learn some English.
>>56409665
The burden of proof lies on you, not me, my hohol friend
But seriously one link of Putin saying this?
>>56409846
Any links or sources of Putin saying "Mission accomplished"?
I can't find anything about Putin or anybody saying they won. Strikes will go on according to BBC. I heard they gonna start some peace talks, is it true? I'm not tracking international news, especially some Arab stuff but ending this war can have a positive impect on European situation, so it's almost important.
>>56410860
Do you have a source for this claim my Chechian friend?
>>56411173
Don't insults someone that can be your step father someday.
>>56411230
This.
OP is shitposting faggot.
Unless a source of these claims can be made, I'm abandoning this thread. All Putin has said is that ground forces are being withdrawn. The airforce is staying.
>>56409665
Nice shitpost
Pic related
>>56411246
>>56411246
I didn't insult you , the fact that you feel insulted means that you feel guilty for not being able to pay for proper English Language courses .
>>56409665
Source?
>>56411198
Rather than "mission accomplished" it's "objectives achieved."
https://www.rt.com/news/335624-russia-planes-withdraw-syria/
Btw, learn how to use the fuckin internet.
>>56411230
I think it's an out of control rumour at this point.
>>56409665
Proofsrequired.jpeg
>Russia air strikes 'to continue' despite Syria withdrawal
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/03/15/22/26/russia-begins-syria-withdrawal-as-peace-talks-enter-second-day
>Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said that in the last 24 hours Russians continued engaging in some airstrikes in Syria.
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160315/1036345768/us-russia-syria-airstrikes.html
Only ground troops are returning.
>>56411299
I am ordering you to abandon the thread.
You're a moron with nothing to add.
>>56411360
>On Monday evening, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Moscow’s decision to withdraw the main part of Russian forces from its Syrian airbase in Latakia. This brings to an end the anti-terror operation launched on September 30, 2015. Putin explained that the operation’s objectives have been generally achieved.
No it does not say either of those things.
Poor bait. Learn how to shitpost better.
>>56411299
>Being upset about shitposting on /int/.
>Being upset about misleadng threads.
I guess you hate fun.
>>56409665
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/putin-s-retreat-brings-hope-not-fear-in-smoky-damascus-cafe
>"If the mission of the Russians had failed, they wouldn’t have announced their intention to leave so openly," said Abdel-Rahman, 20, above the rattle of backgammon dice and the gurgle of water in shisha pipes. "They would’ve slunk out without telling anyone."
>Vladimir Putin had been hailed by many Syrians in Damascus and other parts of the country controlled by President Bashar al-Assad as their savior from the onslaught of extremist Islamic State militants. The Russian leader’s surprise partial retreat comes more than five months after his military intervened ostensibly to combat terrorists, though in reality it turned the tide of the war by helping Assad’s army make advances against his opponents.
>>56411519
>>56411450
Well, they actually said this operation would for several months. It got a bit longer (probably cause of that shot plane and bad things with turey), but kept that word.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-strike-idUSKCN0RW0I020151002
>>56411472
I dislike threads that are able to actually convince people of falsehoods. Just like that Pole who posts the photoshopped CNN article about Trump.
Here's the truth straight from Syrian mouths>>56411541
>>56411320
>I didn't insult you , the fact that you feel insulted means that you feel guilty for not being able to pay for proper English Language courses .
I learned English because I needed to understand English resources, and I do. Not to measure my dick.
Also you EU know 2 languages at best and you keep bragging about it.
>>56409665
Another bright page in my country's history. I'm proud.
>eurob is bigger threat to Mother Pyccna
>no rapefugee wants to go to russia, but Europe
>arabs will destroy europe if this shit continues a few years more
>leave syria so it can be happen
At least, russia is smart unlike west.
>>56411615
>He thinks 4chan is an effective tool for changing public opinion
lol, kill yourself.
Fool,
>>56411557
That's a twitter post which is obviously shortened. Twitter posts are shit sources.
The longer article here>>56411450
is the more valid source. They say generally accomplished the objectives.
You're also disagreeing with Syrians here>>56411541
But please continue to allow me to destroy your shitposts. I at least try to keep /int/ a semi-truthful place.
>>56411682
She*
I have nothing better to do.
>>56411711
>The mouthpiece of the Kremlin is a shit source.
>>56411615
I take every bait 4chan gives me because I respect people's effort. If you want news, you can google anything for 1.5 seconds.
>>56411929
They're just being dramatic because they read something they didn't like and got all pissed off some details were left out therefore the source is wrong, etc.
That's why they asked me for the source instead of looking it up themselves.
Because at least If I post a source, they can attack the source and in doing so, discredit me and discrediting the whole basis of the thread.
>>56409846
God that was so retarded
>>56410826
is to be quite honest new t b h?
>>56411773
>a screecap of a twitter feed post is legitimate
Dude there have been nothing but photoshopped pictures the last few weeks on here.
I'm saying the RT article you showed me was better. And it still in no way says "Mission Accomplished".
>>56411615
>Here's the truth straight from Syrian mouths
>bloomberg
>truth
kill yourself, shill
>>56414589
>bloomberg interview of Syrians in Damascus
This is about as good of a source as it gets. RT is dogshit tier and you used it.
So what did they "accomplished" or "achieved" that now ground forces are being withdrawn?
>>56415004
>thinking he's talking to just one person itt
lurk moar faggot. maybe then you'll know how 4chan works
So when putin withdraws after stabilizing a regime he wins but when the U.S does it they don't win?
>>56415117
Latakia and Tartus are fully under government control.
There is no fear the Russian bases can be attacked anymore.
Both bases were hosting heavily armed troops with T-90s and BTRs ready to defend it in case terrorists attempted to attack it to destroy aircraft or wound the maintenance crew.
>>56415224
>U.S.
>stabilizing a regime
they do the exact opposite, and then install their own regime that nobody in that country likes or recognizes
>>56415310
thanks for the info man
>>56415372
Yeah we made sure the regime in Iraq was stabile then left. It's not our fault they went and shit all over the sunnis and radicalized them
>>56415495
No, we completely destroyed the stable regime that was there before we invaded, then we installed a corrupt and unpopular, but loyal regime, which incited sectarian conflict. It's divide and conquer, a unified Iraq is harder to control.
>>56415745
They were popular with the Shia you know the people that make up the majority of the country. When we left Iraq it was stable
>>56411299
>Unless a source of these claims can be made, I'm abandoning this thread.
they're still doing airstrikes you stupid fucking shites
>>56415829
>When we left Iraq it was stable
Are you this fucking retarded? We destroyed the country's infrastructure, deconstructed their army, killed over a million of its people, and installed a crony puppet regime, playing on sectarian divides. ISIS would not have happened had we not invaded Iraq. Oh, and btw we never left it, there are still US bases dotting the country. Try harder, shill.
>>56416135
No we rebuilt the army, rebuilt the infrastructure, and they killed each other in sectarian violence.
>bases equaling occupying
I guess we occupy Britain and Belgium because they have American bases
>>56416327
>>56416327
>>56416327
>>56416327
Shilling this fucking hard. Iraq is a total shit hole now because of us, and it's completely the fault of our foreign policy.
>I guess we occupy Britain and Belgium because they have American bases
so you're open to the idea of a Russian military base in our country? I mean... its not like having bases on our soil would mean they're occupying us. This is your retarded logic.
>>56416630
Holy fuck you are a brainwashed moron
>>56416696
you're the brainwashed moron. You completely ignored the facts I brought up and just kept jumping from one mainstream talking point to another.
>>56416863
Mate the only person ignoring reality here is you.
>>56416630
freedom isn't free
>>56417010
>gets called out on his bullshit
>loses argument
>gets butthurt
semper fi
>>56417191
What bullshit everything I said was correct and you are just getting butthurt at it because it doesn't fit your narrative and you are so fucking stupid you think having a base in a country is occupying it
>>56417316
Are you open to the idea of Russia having a military base in Washington D.C?
>>56417505
Again with this shitty arguement
>>56417630
This is a yes or no question. Don't try to weasel out of it, answer it. Then answer this question:
How many people have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and what was the reason for said invasion/occupation?
>>56417699
It's a bullshit gotcha question with no relevance to your point.
>>56417770
I'll answer it for you:
HELL FUCKING NO.
Because having a military base in a country IS occupying it, and we ARE occupying Iraq. Now answer the second question:
How many people have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and what was the reason for said invasion/occupation?
>>56417894
I'll have to ask people in Belgium, Italy and the U.K how the American occupation is going. And for the record there are foreign troops on bases here in the U.S for joint training.
So I guess I should ask someone how the British occupation is going
>>56417988
>And for the record there are foreign troops on bases here in the U.S for joint training.
Are there foreign military bases in the United States?
>>56418233
Still going on about how bases are occupation
>>56418376
>still refusing to answer a simple yes or no question.
I hope you realize how ignorant and brainwashed you look trying to defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
How many people have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and what was the reason for said invasion/occupation?
Go ahead... answer
>>56418233
>Are there foreign military bases in the United States?
There aren't foreign military bases in the UK. The USAF who are here use RAF bases.
>media still trying to take up the civilians casualties (source is UK-based watch)
>>56418683
>Since 1942 the United States has maintained air bases in the United Kingdom.[citation needed] Major Commands of the USAF having bases in the United Kingdom were the United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), Strategic Air Command (SAC), and Air Mobility Command (AMC).
>British "education"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_in_the_United_Kingdom
Are there any RAF bases in the United States?
>>56410136
Wont the destruction lead to more aggregate demand in the economy? Couldn't that literally be a good thing?
>>56418802
I was using your autism against you. They're de facto USAF bases but they're actually RAF bases which are leased to the USAF. Look at the names
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_in_the_United_Kingdom#USAF_bases_in_the_United_Kingdom
>>56418929
Are there any de facto RAF bases in the United States? Answer the question.
>>56418929
or de facto any foreign military base in the US?
>>56410826
>>56418907
muh broken window fallacy
>>56418974
Nope and I never said there were. But if you're the guy who's arguing that having a military base means you're occupying and somehow controlling the country, you're a retard.
>>56419042
>literally denying keynesianism in 2016
lmfao @ u
>>56415117
Do we need to spoonfeed you or do you know how to google?
>>56418571
>still using gotcha questions
>Still ignoring the facts
>still wanting to put all the blame on America and not the fact that Iraqis are shitty, backwards people still killing each other over religion
>>56415136
You think a Bloomberg interview of multiple Syrian citizens is a bad source.
Go fuck off.
>>56419125
>keynesianism
>>56415224
Let's see
>Iraq
Has a literal terror state in it
>Libya
Has a literal terror state in it
>Afghanistan
A major Afghan city just fell to the Taliban not that long ago
Which place is more stable than before we arrived?
>>56419367
A terror state that invaded it. If you remember al baghdadi and is crew were forced to take shelter in Syria.
>>56419367
European led
>>56419367
The city was retaken before Afghanistan was a literal terrorist state
>be syrian rebel
>has a BRT
>sleeps in rubble
>>56419048
Would you be open to the idea of Russia establishing a military base in the UK?
>>56419470
*And before we liberated
>>56415495
Lol wtf
>>56415372
Assad is supported by all Shia governments and rexognized by most Sunni governments.
The Sunnis hated him before, and now they hate him a bit more. That's better for Russia than Nusra and ISIS duking it out over who's going to run the new Syrian terror state.
>>56419598
Yeah Iraq was corrupt but stable before we left.
>>56416327
Jesus christ I can't tell if your neocon or retarded
>>56419650
So point out where I'm wrong
>>56419227
Would there be sectarian violence and ISIS in Iraq if Saddam was still in power?
>>56419504
Well no, because they're been fairly hostile towards us - they're not exactly an ally.
I'm sceptical of your logic because what you're saying is that the UK is far more powerful than I would have guessed. You see the UK has several military bases in foreign countries all over the world. Would you describe Germany as being under British control? Canada? Brunei? Kenya? Bahrain? Qatar?
I don't think so. Your are overblowing the importance of having a military base on foreign soil.
>>56419697
Yes because Saddam regularly killed his citizens.
Isis became a thing because of Al-Queda. You forget that ISIS started in Syria
>>56419650
he's retarded, lad
read the entire argument I had with him
>>56409665
Putin does not want another Afghanistan proxy war. He severely weakened ISIS/Rebel groups and will continue to provide air support/anti missile shield and control the fat eastern med while letting Assad's forces push the offensive.
This is how REAL leaders conduct war. Not the clusterfuck that is Iraq or Vietnam.
>>56419470
Oh and the Iraq War had no part in the creation of ISIS? Maybe you should read up on its history.
Afghanistan was a terror state and still is. Our funding of the Mujahideen had nothing to do with its prior state hug?
Libya in no way was "European led." America was the first one to strike and we did the majority of the airstrikes. Not only that, we provided almost all the logistics for the operation.
This is like claiming Afghanistan was a NATO operation and therefore not American led.
We voted to remove Gaddadi on the UN security council.
If anything, it was a completely equal operation with equal participants.
>>56419646
>Iraq was stable
So stable that it completely fell apart against 2000+ ISIS militants in less than three years later.
>>56419798
>The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. Joining other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, it proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006. In August 2011, following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, ISI, under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, delegated a mission into Syria, which under the name Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām (or al-Nusra Front) established a large presence in Sunni-majority Al-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo provinces. The merger of ISI with al-Nusra Front to form the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL), as announced in April 2013 by al-Baghdadi, was however rejected by al-Nusra leader al-Julani, and by al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri who subsequently cut all ties with ISIL, in February 2014.[3][53][54][55]
I'm done talking to you. You're so ill informed it's pointless to try fixing your idiocy.
>Russia enters Syria- everyone complains
>Russia leaves Syria- everyone complains
Westerners act like women on emmenia.
>>56420063
It's impossible to do anything in the middle east without pissing everyone off for different reasons
>>56419869
Isis would've formed regardless as it is an offshoot of Al-Queda. An organization founded by men who never received money from the U.S.
The Taliban took control of Afghanistan years after the U.S stopped supporting muslim anti communist fighters. The taliban was made by the Pakistani government
Libya was European led. If you remember the news they were talking about how France ran out of missiles and were asking for our help.
>>56419912
Not our fault their government shit all over 40% of their people.
>>56419999
So again it immediately joined up with Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with the Iraq invasion. In fact what you point out is that it formed when Saddam was in power
>>56419762
Why is there no British military base in the United States? We are allies, after all. I mean, having a military base on foreign soil is not all that important, as you put it.
unlike you, I think having a military base on foreign soil is a VERY big deal. It's a projection of force, and ensures that the country being occupied will act according to your interests. There's a reason why the UK never goes against US interests. Oh, and you are not our allies when we can have bases in your country, but you can't have bases in ours; you are our vassals. This is the special relationship that Britain has with the United States.
>>56419822
Agreed, but it's even simpler than that.
The objectives of securing the Assad government's future was completed in Aleppo and Latakia.
Now Putin wants to force Assad to the negotiation table to make peace with the moderates. That way Assad can then focus moreso on ISIS and Al-Nusra.
Continued attacks on the moderates will very likely lead to America under our next president to remove Assad.
>>56420226
>There's a reason why the UK never goes against US interests
hahahaha
>>56420149
>Isis would've formed regardless as it is an offshoot of Al-Queda.
Doubt it tbqh
>>56420226
Yeah you are retarded
>>56420063
More like some people with an agenda to push cannot accept that Russia won the Syrian civil war in five months.
>>56419762
I would say that the number of bases definitely relates to the amount of control we still have over the nation. It's a proxy at least. If your nation cannot defend itaelf and therefore relies on foreigners, it is lacking in full sovereignty.
For example, the US military controlled Japan with hundreds of bases and 100,000 soldiers 1945-1952. But the Japanese government technically had legal sovereignty.
Yet anyone with a brain knew that we could overthrow their govenment in a second, and that government always had our forces in mind.
That's why Japan accepted its constitution and Article 5.
Germany is not nearly as indepedent as the UK or France because of the number of forces we have in it.
>>56420502
Explain to me how Italy is our puppet
>>56420226
You're really stupid
Why would we want a British military base in the US? We have a base in Canada to allow the Army enough space to do large-scale exercises - there's simply not enough room in England. We have a base in Central America (Belize) because that's an ally we want to support, we get a jungle warfare training base out of it, and it's easy access to the Caribbean where we have territories and policing responsibilities. What would be the point of a base in the US?
> I think having a military base on foreign soil is a VERY big deal. It's a projection of force, and ensures that the country being occupied will act according to your interests.
This is classic. I suppose you're too arrogant to notice all those times that the UK has acted against US interests. Or maybe too stupid to notice. Having a military base on foreign soil is a useful thing if it fills a purpose. The USAF has bases here in order to project force into eastern Europe. That's the utility - that's why your government pays my government to rent those bases.
If the point of your UK bases was to exercise control over British foreign policy, that has been a really embarrassing failure for your country.
>>56420625
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
>>56420907
Wow retarded and edgy
>>56409846
>>56420502
Nope, I don't buy this
>Germany is not nearly as indepedent as the UK or France because of the number of forces we have in it.
So you have to explain why the Germans didn't support various big US foreign policy decisions such as the Iraq War of 2003. There were almost 55,000 US troops in Germany in 2011, so there would have been even more a decade prior
That's a substantial garrison and yet Germany has not been very supportive on a number of issues, and they've been far more friendly with the Russians than many other European countries. Your theory doesn't hold water.
Regarding Japan,
>That's why Japan accepted its constitution and Article 5.
Article 5? I hope you're not talking about the famous NATO Article 5 because Japan isn't in the North Atlantic.
>>56420907
repeat after me: WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. WE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY
>>56421390
I think he means article 5 of Japan's constitution which says that they could only have a self defense force. And I think they are getting rid of that
>>56421473
>>56421390
Then why didn't Germany of Japan protect Iraq from us? Why didn't they defend them from the United States, which was clearly the aggressor and acted against international law. You don't think for a moment in that thick head of yours that those military bases had anything to do with that? If Europe and Japan are such good buddies with the Anglosphere, and are absolutely independent, sovereign nations, then why have military bases on their land?
inb4 percieved outside threat
>>56421713
It's Article 9 of Japan's constitution.
From what I understand they're not getting rid of it, they're "reinterpreting" it so they can send their military abroad to assist allies. So they still aren't allowing themselves to unilaterally attack another country, but their military can go fight abroad now, on the offensive
>>56421840
>"reinterpreting"
>assist allies
>unilaterally attack
>fight abroad
>on the offensive
>>56421817
Explain why the territorial integrity of Iraq would be so important to Germany or Japan that they'd go to war to defend it? I don't understand why Iraq should be that important to them.... my point was that the Germans didn't support US foreign policy, which if we follow your logic about military bases they should have done.
>>56422015
How is the American occupation going btw
>>56422211
It's terrifying
France, send help pls
>>56422015
Are you this fucking retarded? Where do you think the refugee crisis originated from? They are the direct result of US foreign interventions in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. And if Germany wasn't so utterly under the control of the United States, who never withdrew from Germany after WWII, then maybe they would have done more than just refuse to participate in those illegal invasions.
>>56422350
I'm going to tell my brother still on the Kent front to step up his game
>>56422400
The refugee crisis happened because Europe won't control it's boarders and won't check to see if they are from Syria or not
>>56422450
>let's completely ignore the question of why there are millions of refugees in the first place
>>56422450
Wow you really are retarded
>>56422400
Firstly, the EU can and should control its borders better. Then it should have followed the UK's example and picked its refugees from source, accepting as much as it can handle and vetting them. Not some ridiculous open door policy.
Secondly what the fuck are you smoking? You seem to be implying that if it weren't for those military bases, the Germans would have gone to war against the US military to protect Saddam's Iraq. Literally what the fuck? The Germans couldn't even independently project power to Iraq let alone fight the US
>>56422606
You mean the economic migrants that have left stable countries to go to Europe. Australia has been dealing with this problem for years
>>56422692
Firstly, the United States should never have invaded Iraq and strong-armed other nations into joining or not interfering with its foreign policy of toppling sovereign governments.
There is no second, because there would have been stability in the middle east and no refugee crisis if the first condition was followed.
>>56422731
funny how these "economic migrants" risk their children's lives to get to Europe and mostly come from the countries that the west has invaded in the recent past.
>>56422840
>the United States should never have invaded Iraq and strong-armed other nations into joining or not interfering with its foreign policy of toppling sovereign governments.
We know.
I note you've given up your insane argument about military bases in Germany preventing them from defending Saddam from the US armed force. Top zozzle t.b.h
>>56422692
>being so brainwashed that you can't even identify the cause of the refugee crisis
>>56422995
>we know
Apparently you don't. Otherwise you would have gone against the US policy. I wonder why you didn't... maybe those US bases in your country played a role in your decision making...
>>56422995
Then why are there still foreign military bases in Germany?
>hurr durr evil Russkies
>>56423085
Do you think you're talking to Tony Blair?
>>56420625
>Having a military base on foreign soil is a useful thing if it fills a purpose
It's cheaper than an aircraft carrier, and no homosexual shennanigans.
>>56416630
I'm pretty sure nobody would sperg out if UK or Belgium had military bases in USA.
>>56423181
>Hey don't blame me, blame the gubbmint!
A democratic government is supposed to act in the will of its people. That's obviously not the case with the UK, because you've been acting in the interest of the United States. And the fact that you see foreign military bases on your soil as posing no threat to your country's sovereignty and Independence shows exactly what an idiot I'm dealing with.
>>56423399
Then why don't you try and see what our response is, frog.
>>56423399
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>56423413
>you've been acting in the interest of the United States
really?
>>56423601
>>56420907
foreign policy = financial policy??
>>56423601
perfidious!
>>56423601
>in a rare public breach in the special relationship
KEKS
>>56423601
perfidious/10
>>56423679
china isn't foreign policy m8?
>>56424036
>Chinese-led investment bank AIIB
it's a financial policy lad. Now you're just grasping at straws
>>56423727
>>56423874
Shouldn't have fucked them over in the Suez senpai
>>56423774
>special relationship
We're a vassal if we do want America wants, and we're perfidious if we don't
You can't win
>>56424179
Obama has been the most anti-Anglo and anti-Frank president you've had for a while
>>56424179
>accusing us of free riding on defence
>we're one of the few countries that doesn't
Seems unfair
>>56424179
>daily mail
>>56424267
>>56424302
with the austerity your government is pursuing you probably wont be afford to even operate your new aircraft carriers haha!
>>56424470
They are increasing defence spending
>>56424470
