random

KILL EVERYBODY: American soldier exposes US policy in Iraq

Recommended Posts

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth. Even the anti-war activists added fuel to the fire.

And even now there are what, about 5,000 American soldiers there?

We have developed short memories in this era of instant information. We forget that GW Bush lied to get us in to two wars that killed something like a quarter million innocents, and insist that President Trump is the worst ever. In the body count department, he's pretty much a hemp-smoking peacenik.

The genuinely terrifying thing to me about those days that the Iraq War started, is that so few of us questioned the need for that war. We saw 9/11 on a 24 hour loop, and it seemed perfectly rational to bomb a country back to the Bronze Age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well written Mike. 

There is no doubt that advertising and propaganda works but in this case it was taken to the extreme where they convinced an entire country that it was a good thing to totally destroy an entire country that was not involved in 9/11.

Now you have a President that was put there by the same media process.  If you feed people enough of he right material you can get them to agree with anything.  Only now it can be done on an individual basis.  Fucking scary.

And the masses still don't get it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what God put you here for R. You're like Moses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, random said:

Well written Mike. 

There is no doubt that advertising and propaganda works but in this case it was taken to the extreme where they convinced an entire country that it was a good thing to totally destroy an entire country that was not involved in 9/11.

Now you have a President that was put there by the same media process.  If you feed people enough of he right material you can get them to agree with anything.  Only now it can be done on an individual basis.  Fucking scary.

And the masses still don't get it.

When I think about what GW Bush did, and did with my believing approval, I'm thankful for guys like Donald Trump. At least I know enough not to trust him, and he seems to be minus the murderous evangelical gene. 

A few don't "get it" now, but finally, the masses do get it. We are finally a bit harder to bamboozle. Thanks Donald!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

A few don't "get it" now, but finally, the masses do get it. We are finally a bit harder to bamboozle. Thanks Donald!

You could be right, but how does that comment fit in with the fact that Trump was elected?  Something not right with the logic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mikewof said:

We forget that GW Bush lied to get us in to two wars

Other than Iraq, what was the 2nd war that Bush lied to get us into?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old news. 

Really well said. Really.

Read “Generation Kill”.

59AAA5EE-6CC3-45AB-8EB5-C02850440851.jpeg.ff8362d3409caaf1e34d63a0976dcc71.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Other than Iraq, what was the 2nd war that Bush lied to get us into?  

Not sure - war on Christmas????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Other than Iraq, what was the 2nd war that Bush lied to get us into?  

Why?  Wasn't that one a big enough war crime for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Other than Iraq, what was the 2nd war that Bush lied to get us into?  

Not sure - war on Christmas????

The War on Drugs most likely.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chum said:

 

Read “Generation Kill”.

Is that just another story about heavily armed invaders killing people who are just defending their country?

Imagine, just imagine if Iraqis had invaded America?   What would you have done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, random said:

Imagine, just imagine if Iraqis had invaded America?   What would you have done?

Nothing.  Because they would have given up and run at the first sign of any resistance.  

Quote

In January 2014, ISIL took control of Fallujah and Ramadi, inciting conflict with the Iraqi Army. On 4 June, the insurgents began their efforts to capture Mosul. The Iraqi army had 30,000 soldiers and another 30,000 federal police stationed in the city, facing a 1,500-member attacking force. However, after six days of fighting, the city, Mosul International Airport, and the helicopters located there all fell under ISIL's control. An estimated 500,000 civilians fled from the city, due to the conflict.

For Sale:  Iraqi Military surplus AK-47.  Brand new, never fired.  Dropped only once.  

chinese_ak47_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

For Sale:  Iraqi Military surplus AK-47.  Brand new, never fired.  Dropped only once.  

Yep that's what happened when the tough yanks invaded Iraq. No resistance at all, but Bush claimed it a dramatic victory.

But the locals won in the end.  The US got kicked out of yet another third world country, tail between their legs.  All they could do then was to bomb goat herders from the air, controlled from cowards in shipping containers in Las Vegas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Other than Iraq, what was the 2nd war that Bush lied to get us into?  

It was a more subtle lie than Iraq, but it wasn't the truth. The war was ostensibly to remove Al Qaida's ability to shelter within the Taliban. 

If it wasn't a lie, then it was a dramatic failure of U.S. intelligence to think that a regional war could contain those terrorists, it obviously couldn't, and the mastermind was known to be outside of Afghanistan long after the war in Afghanistan continued.

I can't believe that our intelligence experts are that inept. It was our generals that led us down the same path that consumed the Soviets in Afghanistan, not our intelligence. Bush's lie was subtle, probably not provable, but he probably ignored intelligence about Afghanistan to justify the Taliban fight.

As for Trump and Clinton, remember that it was Trump, not Clinton, who was willing to acknowledge GW Bush's lies about Iraq. Say what we will about President Trump, he had the cujones to at least say it. Though like Obama, Trump seems to have little problem is continuing and escalating foreign wars, his America first thing was just bullshit it turns out.

And finally, JBSF, it's been a few years, do you think you could drop the bravado? Hundreds of thousands of warm, educated, and family-loving Iraqis were blown to hell by American bombs and shells. That's the tragedy, do you need to spit onto their blood too? If anyone bombed so many of our women and children into oblivion, do you think that we would be as forgiving as they have been?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, random said:

You could be right, but how does that comment fit in with the fact that Trump was elected?  Something not right with the logic.

He was elected by a slim majority of people who trusted him slightly more than the alternative. And within months, that trust was diminished. We've learned to trust less here. I don't know how long it will last, but it's here now, and it's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mikewof said:

He was elected by a slim majority minority of people who trusted him slightly more than the alternative.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

FIFY

Yeah, but he was elected but a slim majority of the electoral voters, if not the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mikewof said:

It was a more subtle lie than Iraq, but it wasn't the truth. The war was ostensibly to remove Al Qaida's ability to shelter within the Taliban. 

If it wasn't a lie, then it was a dramatic failure of U.S. intelligence to think that a regional war could contain those terrorists, it obviously couldn't, and the mastermind was known to be outside of Afghanistan long after the war in Afghanistan continued.

I can't believe that our intelligence experts are that inept. It was our generals that led us down the same path that consumed the Soviets in Afghanistan, not our intelligence. Bush's lie was subtle, probably not provable, but he probably ignored intelligence about Afghanistan to justify the Taliban fight.

I disagree it was even a subtle lie.  Our mistake in Afghanistan was to think we could rebuild it and create a friendly Jeffersonian democracy in our image.  We should have stuck to the original intent.  Attack AQ, kill UBL, and then leave.  Once we defeated the Taliban and drove out AQ, we should ONLY have stayed in Afghanistan as a base for search & destroy (Whack-a-mole) missions.  As soon as UBL was dead, we should have left the next day.  That we tried to do all the other stuff is what got us into trouble.  Mission creep at its worst.  It was hubris on Bush's part, not deceit.  

38 minutes ago, mikewof said:

And finally, JBSF, it's been a few years, do you think you could drop the bravado? Hundreds of thousands of warm, educated, and family-loving Iraqis were blown to hell by American bombs and shells. That's the tragedy, do you need to spit onto their blood too? If anyone bombed so many of our women and children into oblivion, do you think that we would be as forgiving as they have been?

Now That ^^ is a bald-faced lie!  American bombs and shells did not come even close to killing "Hundreds of thousands" of innocent Iraqis.  The vast vast majority of those came from the sectarian iraqi on iraqi violence.  A little bit of exaggeration is one thing to make a dramatic point.  But we did not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.  We didn't even kill 10s of thousands.  If you had any idea of the level of effort and care that went into every strike we did, you would not say that.  Were we perfect?  No, absolutely not.  But it wasn't for lack of trying.  So fuck you!  You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.  As usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, but he was elected buy a slim majority enough of the electoral voters, if not the people.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Other than Iraq, what was the 2nd war that Bush lied to get us into?  

Did Bush lie or did Iraq err of the side of stupid by refusing inspections and playing a dangerous game of making everyone think you have them when maybe you really  don't. There is also the reasonable scenario where he shipped them to Syria.

Lie implies he knew there no WMDs and chose to say there were anyway. Considering the number of international intelligence groups that concurred I doubt he lied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

36 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, but he was elected but a slim majority of the electoral voters, if not the people.

9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
35 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, but he was elected buy a slim majority enough of the electoral voters, if not the people.

FIFY

I'm just wondering how "But" turned into "Buy"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 

 

I'm just wondering how "But" turned into "Buy"

 

Because I was nice enough to fix it for him.  Hence the "FIFY".  Speling erors bug me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
  6 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

I'm just wondering how "But" turned into "Buy"

4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because I was nice enough to fix it for him.  Hence the "FIFY".  Speling erors bug me.  

Buy? Don't you mean  "By" or is it supposed to be a play on words?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Buy? Don't you mean  "By" or is it supposed to be a play on words?

I'll let you figure that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Did Bush lie or did Iraq err of the side of stupid by refusing inspections and playing a dangerous game of making everyone think you have them when maybe you really  don't. There is also the reasonable scenario where he shipped them to Syria.

Lie implies he knew there no WMDs and chose to say there were anyway. Considering the number of international intelligence groups that concurred I doubt he lied. 

Iraq definitely had WMDs at some point, they used them to gas their own people (Kurds) years earlier.

The lie was that we needed to start an insanely expensive war with them to manage the problem. At least, I hope it was a lie. If it wasn't a lie, then it was the world's most powerful government operating with the overall intelligence of a Timex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

Iraq definitely had WMDs at some point, they used them to gas their own people (Kurds) years earlier.

The lie was that we needed to start an insanely expensive war with them to manage the problem. At least, I hope it was a lie. If it wasn't a lie, then it was the world's most powerful government operating with the overall intelligence of a Timex.

Now you're down to a sundial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I disagree it was even a subtle lie.  Our mistake in Afghanistan was to think we could rebuild it and create a friendly Jeffersonian democracy in our image.  We should have stuck to the original intent.  Attack AQ, kill UBL, and then leave.  Once we defeated the Taliban and drove out AQ, we should ONLY have stayed in Afghanistan as a base for search & destroy (Whack-a-mole) missions.  As soon as UBL was dead, we should have left the next day.  That we tried to do all the other stuff is what got us into trouble.  Mission creep at its worst.  It was hubris on Bush's part, not deceit.  

Now That ^^ is a bald-faced lie!  American bombs and shells did not come even close to killing "Hundreds of thousands" of innocent Iraqis.  The vast vast majority of those came from the sectarian iraqi on iraqi violence.  A little bit of exaggeration is one thing to make a dramatic point.  But we did not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.  We didn't even kill 10s of thousands.  If you had any idea of the level of effort and care that went into every strike we did, you would not say that.  Were we perfect?  No, absolutely not.  But it wasn't for lack of trying.  So fuck you!  You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.  As usual.

You may claim it's a "lie" but actual researchers claim otherwise. If an Iraqi child dies from dysentery from not having any medical care or hygiene because we bombed both her apartment building and the roads to her doctor, are our bombs (and us) blameless for that death?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html?noredirect=on

Your anger, your "fuck you" is product of your ignorance. What our country did there, and did in our names, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. You may not like that, but if you disagree with the peer-reviewed studies, then produce your own studies. As for now, you have no idea what the fuck you're writing about beyond your own bravado. As usual.

And for Afghanistan, I HOPE it was all a lie. If it wasn't a lie then our government is run by a bunch of baboons with no ability to think or even remember recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You may claim it's a "lie" but actual researchers claim otherwise. If an Iraqi child dies from dysentery from not having any medical care or hygiene because we bombed both her apartment building and the roads to her doctor, are our bombs (and us) blameless for that death?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html?noredirect=on

Your anger, your "fuck you" is product of your ignorance. What our country did there, and did in our names, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. You may not like that, but if you disagree with the peer-reviewed studies, then produce your own studies. As for now, you have no idea what the fuck you're writing about beyond your own bravado. As usual.

And for Afghanistan, I HOPE it was all a lie. If it wasn't a lie then our government is run by a bunch of baboons with no ability to think or even remember recent history.

Of course you are right. War sucks. And if you have nothing better to do you can trace every slight back the some neanderthal and nobody started anything. The colonial countries abused the world to line their coffers. Lots of hatreds and slights in history to justify anything including Jihad. 

No country is a saint but a few are true devils. One of the distinctions between me and most posters here is that I view the US as very near the top on the scale of good vs evil. Faultless we are not. But we are better than most and as a nation have tried to honor the ideals laid out by the founding fathers. Yes it took a long time and we still have a ways to go. 

There is no evidence of a tendency to hegemony by the US. Just ask Canada. The US, unique in human history, was in a singular position where it could, if so inclined, rule the world. It did not do so. I also don't think it wanted to be the world's policeman. It fell to us because of our strengths. Economic, industrial, scientific and social. I count our willingness to answer the call a virtue not a flaw. We are proof that Luce was right when she said "no good deed goes unpunished". 

The wisdom of all the wars from Korea to Syria is very ripe for argument. In hindsight, and for some, foresight they were ill advised. What we do not know is what the alternative would have given us.

I don't know if the world would be better off today if the US had just said "Not my problem" at some or all of those times. Neither do any of you.

Proud to be American. Head held high. Sincere in my sadness when we fall short of our ideal. Always striving to do better. 

I try to live by the Outward Bound Motto      "To Serve, To Strive and Not to Yield"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I solve these issues by checking with Random, conscience of every continent but his own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

You may claim it's a "lie" but actual researchers claim otherwise. If an Iraqi child dies from dysentery from not having any medical care or hygiene because we bombed both her apartment building and the roads to her doctor, are our bombs (and us) blameless for that death?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html?noredirect=on

Your anger, your "fuck you" is product of your ignorance. What our country did there, and did in our names, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. You may not like that, but if you disagree with the peer-reviewed studies, then produce your own studies. As for now, you have no idea what the fuck you're writing about beyond your own bravado. As usual.

And for Afghanistan, I HOPE it was all a lie. If it wasn't a lie then our government is run by a bunch of baboons with no ability to think or even remember recent history.

Oh I see.  So you are now moving the goal posts in your usual woofery way?   Well done.  

So by that measure, its the ultimate butterfly effect.  One US bomb, due to the butterfly effect, killed 100 million Iraqis.  Hell, lets extrapolate to conclude that that one bomb killed 100 Billion Iraqis over the next 100 years due to its far reaching effects.  Wow, well done mike.

Sorry, my "fuck you" is not a product of my ignorance.  Its a product of having "been there, done that" and having numerous T-shirts from seeing it and doing it first hand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

He was elected by a slim majority of people who trusted him slightly more than the alternative. And within months, that trust was diminished. We've learned to trust less here. I don't know how long it will last, but it's here now, and it's good.

That also doesn't lineup with the information i saw.  Still a 40% approval rating.

Incredible isn't it?  And the real figur would be higher in the privacy of the voting booth, as we found out last election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

The US, unique in human history, was in a singular position where it could, if so inclined, rule the world. It did not do so. I also don't think it wanted to be the world's policeman.

It did and it has.

I guess it really didn't want to invade these countries?

image.png.afe447489ea63006cfc2b5f339328111.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

It did and it has.

I guess it really didn't want to invade these countries?

image.png.afe447489ea63006cfc2b5f339328111.png

 

I was not aware the US invaded Russia, China, Mexico, Indonesia, DRC, Sudan, Argentina, Bolivia, KSA, UAE, Oman, Turkey, Germany, Cuba, Haiti, Philippines, Columbia, Iran, South and North Korea and Chile in recent times. 

Its interesting.... I live in the UAE and have visited Oman, China, Vietnam, KSA, Philippines, Germany, and Indonesia in recent years and I don't recall seeing US troops on the streets as occupying forces.  Maybe I just missed them.  I was even in Russia in the late 90s and don't recall seeing a single US soldier on the streets there.  Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I was not aware the US invaded Russia, China, Mexico, Indonesia, DRC, Sudan, Argentina, Bolivia, KSA, UAE, Oman, Turkey, Germany, Cuba, Haiti, Philippines, Columbia, Iran, South and North Korea and Chile in recent times. 

Its interesting.... I live in the UAE and have visited Oman, China, Vietnam, KSA, Philippines, Germany, and Indonesia in recent years and I don't recall seeing US troops on the streets as occupying forces.  Maybe I just missed them.  I was even in Russia in the late 90s and don't recall seeing a single US soldier on the streets there.  Weird.

The following is a list of countries invaded by the US forces  (naval, military and ultimately air forces) since its inception in order of major incidents. This catalogue derives heavily form the work of US academic Dr Zoltan Grossman's article “From Wounded Knee to Libya : a century of U.S. military interventions”   [1], Gideon Polya's book ‘Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (that includes a brief history of all countries since Neolithic times) [2] and William Blum's book “ Rogue State ” [3]. This list includes instances of violent deployment of US forces within America (e.g. against demonstrators, miners etc), and includes small-scale bombing and military intervention operations, military evacuations of Americans and specific instances of explicit threats of use of nuclear weapons. The list does not include the 1801-1805 US Marine Barbary War operations against Barbary pirates based in Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Libya , and also ignores massive US subversion of virtually all countries in the world.

(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966),  (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992),  (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986;  1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945),  (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011),  (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973),  (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998;  2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001),  (66) Colombia (2002-), (67)  Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

That also doesn't lineup with the information i saw.  Still a 40% approval rating.

Incredible isn't it?  And the real figur would be higher in the privacy of the voting booth, as we found out last election.

It's not an anti-Trump thing, but rather that our trust has diminished all over. Again, I don't see Trump as less trustworthy than GW Bush, Trump and Sanders were the only mainstream candidates to address Bush's WMD fairytale.

So far, President Trump IS a better President than GW Bush, in part because we don't trust him and he's under scrutiny.

I liked Obama, but he wasn't always trustworthy either. He promised to ratchet down the wars and instead we got The Surge. He promised humanity and instead we got little boys and little girls in Nevada bombing wedding parties by remote control.

The reality of our President is that he's not supposed to be the beginning and end of our national policy, but just a piece of it. We're finally rediscovering that. Had we remembered this back in GW Bush's years, then a few hundred thousand innocents would probably still be alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Oh I see.  So you are now moving the goal posts in your usual woofery way?   Well done.  

So by that measure, its the ultimate butterfly effect.  One US bomb, due to the butterfly effect, killed 100 million Iraqis.  Hell, lets extrapolate to conclude that that one bomb killed 100 Billion Iraqis over the next 100 years due to its far reaching effects.  Wow, well done mike.

Sorry, my "fuck you" is not a product of my ignorance.  Its a product of having "been there, done that" and having numerous T-shirts from seeing it and doing it first hand.  

I gave link to a newspaper article that explained a peer reviewed study and concluded we were responsible for the deaths a multiples of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We did most of that through our bombing and artillery campaigns.

You consider that "moving the goal posts" for some reason? Then so be it.

But until you can provide a credible counter to that peer reviewed study, then your opinion is just your opinion, and it holds no more credibility than your "T-shirts."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Of course you are right. War sucks. And if you have nothing better to do you can trace every slight back the some neanderthal and nobody started anything. The colonial countries abused the world to line their coffers. Lots of hatreds and slights in history to justify anything including Jihad. 

No country is a saint but a few are true devils. One of the distinctions between me and most posters here is that I view the US as very near the top on the scale of good vs evil. Faultless we are not. But we are better than most and as a nation have tried to honor the ideals laid out by the founding fathers. Yes it took a long time and we still have a ways to go. 

There is no evidence of a tendency to hegemony by the US. Just ask Canada. The US, unique in human history, was in a singular position where it could, if so inclined, rule the world. It did not do so. I also don't think it wanted to be the world's policeman. It fell to us because of our strengths. Economic, industrial, scientific and social. I count our willingness to answer the call a virtue not a flaw. We are proof that Luce was right when she said "no good deed goes unpunished". 

The wisdom of all the wars from Korea to Syria is very ripe for argument. In hindsight, and for some, foresight they were ill advised. What we do not know is what the alternative would have given us.

I don't know if the world would be better off today if the US had just said "Not my problem" at some or all of those times. Neither do any of you.

Proud to be American. Head held high. Sincere in my sadness when we fall short of our ideal. Always striving to do better.

I try to live by the Outward Bound Motto      "To Serve, To Strive and Not to Yield"

 

Yes, you're right, for the amount of power we had and have, we're a remarkably benign global leader. Compared to the colonialism of the British, Spanish other Europeans prior to WWII, the USA did generally make lives better.

 But is that good enough?

 Foolishly or not, I still have some residue of American Exceptionalism. We should be a light of democracy, and that means not bombing the lives out of hundreds of thousands of innocents. We can't expect another hundred years of American dominance without being ethically worthy of it. And holding ourselves to a 1920s ideal fails when we say "See? We're not so bad."

 If we accept a future of client-state colonialism, then we need to be better than good-enough, we need to be exceptional. And we have competition now that we didn't once have. Yes, China will murder their own protestors in Tiananmen Square, but they find a way to improve the economies of African nations without using Dulles Brothers type of strongarm techniques. Australia, Germany, Indonesia and South Korea are finding new ways to achieve economic colonialism without necessarily bombing people.

 If we use an "aw shucks" excuse then we will lose this fight. We'll find ourselves in the same kind of debt-ridden irrelevance as the Soviets. We don't need excuses, we need to be better, more ethical people. 

I've done business in the USA for a long enough time to realize that Americans and Canadians are some of the most fundamentally honest people on the planet. (I'll justify that with experience if you like.) Our politicians can be scum, but we can lead by example. We do need to mourn what we've done in Iraq, that's how we learn, and how we avoid doing it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

Yes, you're right, for the amount of power we had and have, we're a remarkably benign global leader. Compared to the colonialism of the British, Spanish other Europeans prior to WWII, the USA did generally make lives better.

Except that is not true.

The overall strategy was;

1. Make huge loans to small governments for infrastructure development.  Power stations, dams and roads, that US companies got to build of course.

2. When they could not pay it back, use the infrastructure to rape the raw materials and natural resources of the place for US companies profits.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is a partly autobiographical book written by John Perkins published in 2004. It provides Perkins' account of his career with engineering consulting firm Chas. T. Main in Boston. According to Perkins, his role at Main was to convince leaders of underdeveloped countries to accept substantial development loans for large construction and engineering projects that would primarily help the richest families and local elites, rather than the poor, while making sure that these projects were contracted to U.S. companies. Later these loans would give the U.S. political influence and access to natural resources for U.S. companies.[1] He refers to this as an "economic hit man." Although he states that throughout his career he has always worked for private companies, and suggests a system of corporatocracy and greed, rather than a single conspiracy, he claims the involvement of the National Security Agency (NSA), with whom he had interviewed for a job before joining Main.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, random said:

The following is a list of countries invaded by the US forces  (naval, military and ultimately air forces) since its inception in order of major incidents. This catalogue derives heavily form the work of US academic Dr Zoltan Grossman's article “From Wounded Knee to Libya : a century of U.S. military interventions”   [1], Gideon Polya's book ‘Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (that includes a brief history of all countries since Neolithic times) [2] and William Blum's book “ Rogue State ” [3]. This list includes instances of violent deployment of US forces within America (e.g. against demonstrators, miners etc), and includes small-scale bombing and military intervention operations, military evacuations of Americans and specific instances of explicit threats of use of nuclear weapons. The list does not include the 1801-1805 US Marine Barbary War operations against Barbary pirates based in Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Libya , and also ignores massive US subversion of virtually all countries in the world.

(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966),  (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992),  (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986;  1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945),  (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011),  (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973),  (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998;  2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001),  (66) Colombia (2002-), (67)  Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).

You're going all the way back to 1776 to prove your point?  You are grasping.

How many of those countries does the US currently occupy or have troops stationed there who are not there are at the invitation and request of the host gov't???  The only one that comes to mind is Diego FUCKING Garcia!

BTW - how do you "invade" a country with Air Forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How many of those countries does the US currently occupy or have troops stationed there who are not there are at the invitation and request of the host gov't???

Fucked if I know, but the list is from a site that list Invasions.

What happened to your last secretary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, random said:
23 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How many of those countries does the US currently occupy or have troops stationed there who are not there are at the invitation and request of the host gov't???

Fucked if I know, but the list is from a site that list Invasions.

Exactly.  You don't know and you don't care to edumacate yourself.  If its in wiki, it must be true, right?  Right @Bent Sailor?  Wiki is gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, random said:

(40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), 

1980: Iran: Operation Eagle Claw, on April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran.

1984: Persian Gulf: On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a U.S. AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.[RL30172]

1987: Persian Gulf: Operation Nimble Archer. Attacks on two Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf by United States Navy forces on October 19. The attack was a response to Iran's October 16, 1987 attack on the MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker at anchor off Kuwait, with a Silkworm missile.

1987–1988: Persian Gulf: Operation Earnest Will. After the Iran–Iraq War (the Tanker War phase) resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased U.S. joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iraqi and Iranian attacks. President Reagan reported that U.S. ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.[RL30172] It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.[8]

1987–1988: Persian Gulf: Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S.-flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran–Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will.

1988: Persian Gulf: Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011), 

(54) Virgin Islands (1989),  Virgin Islands???  WTF??

(55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003),

1990: Liberia: On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.[RL30172]

(56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991),

1990: Saudi Arabia: On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he launched Operation Desert Shield by ordering the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.[RL30172]American hostages being held in Iran.[RL30172]

(57) Kuwait (1991),

1991: Iraq: Operation Desert Storm, The Allied air to land offensive from 17 January 1991 to 11 April 1991[9]

1991: Iraq: Operation Desert Sabre, The Allied ground offensive from 24-27 Feb 1991[10]

(58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006),

(59) Bosnia (1993-),

(60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997),

1964: Congo (Zaïre): The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.[RL30172]

(61) Albania (1997),

1997: Albania: Operation Silver Wake, On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.[RL30172]

(62) Sudan (1998),

1998: Afghanistan and Sudan: Operation Infinite Reach. On August 20, President Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172]

(63) Afghanistan (1998;  2001-),

(64) Yemen (2000; 2002-),

(65) Macedonia (2001),  

1993: Macedonia: On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172]

(66) Colombia (2002-),

(67)  Pakistan (2005-),

  • 2005–2006: Pakistan: President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a massive earthquake.

(68) Syria (2008; 2011-),

(69) Uganda (2011),

  • 2011–present: Uganda: U.S. Combat troops sent in as advisers to Uganda.[22]

(70) Mali (2013),

2013: Mali: U.S. forces assisted the French in Operation Serval with air refueling and transport aircraft.

(71) Niger (2013). - US special forces advisors at the request of the Niger gov't

Lets pick some of these from modern times apart just to illustrate what an un-informed, gullible, shitstain you really are.

So your list of "US Invasions" includes Humanitarian relief missions, hostage rescue attempts, evacuation of US personnel, training missions, advisor missions at the request of the host gov't, One time tomahawk strikes in retaliation for attacks in US interests, UN peacekeeping missions, air refueling assistance, and deployment of troops at the REQUEST of the host gov't to defend against imminent invasion (Saudi Arabia).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1990–1999

You are a fucking idiot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So your list of "US Invasions" includes Humanitarian relief missions, hostage rescue attempts, evacuation of US personnel, training missions, advisor missions at the request of the host gov't, One time tomahawk strikes in retaliation for attacks in US interests, UN peacekeeping missions, air refueling assistance, and deployment of troops at the REQUEST of the host gov't to defend against imminent invasion (Saudi Arabia).  

Relief missions indeed.

  • Is that like giving Freedom to the Iraqi people?
  • Is that like 'Peace-keeping' missions that include Special Forces?
  • Is that like the Host government that is an American established puppet, requesting bombing missions on the locals?

You are a clown Jeffy, you suck satan's cock.

Al-Pacino-LaughSmoking.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I disagree it was even a subtle lie.  Our mistake in Afghanistan was to think we could rebuild it and create a friendly Jeffersonian democracy in our image.  We should have stuck to the original intent.  Attack AQ, kill UBL, and then leave.  Once we defeated the Taliban and drove out AQ, we should ONLY have stayed in Afghanistan as a base for search & destroy (Whack-a-mole) missions.  As soon as UBL was dead, we should have left the next day.  That we tried to do all the other stuff is what got us into trouble.  Mission creep at its worst.  It was hubris on Bush's part, not deceit.  

Gulp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first kill ... kill everybody!!!!

Why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikewof said:

I gave link to a newspaper article that explained a peer reviewed study and concluded we were responsible for the deaths a multiples of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We did most of that through our bombing and artillery campaigns.

You consider that "moving the goal posts" for some reason? Then so be it.

But until you can provide a credible counter to that peer reviewed study, then your opinion is just your opinion, and it holds no more credibility than your "T-shirts."

Sorry woofery, you said American bombs and shells "killed" hundreds of thousands - as in directly.  Now that you're getting called on your fallacious number - you're back tracking to now use the term "contributed" or "responsible".   By that metric, we could classify every Iraqi death that happens for the next 1000 years as being related to the US bombing and shelling of Iraq at some point in the past.  How many degrees of Kevin Bacon are you going to go to connect those deaths to the US?  To get to your "hundreds of Thousands" number, you would have to go several layers from the actual bomb strike itself.  Let's try and see how that works.

  • 1 deg of Kevin Bacon (DOKB):  US bombs suspected AQ house, kills AQ leader and his wife.  Wife is a civilian casualty.  
  • 2 DOKB:  Son of dead AQ wife above is out playing in the street and survives the strike.  Kid is distraught growing up without a mommy, never learns to look both ways when crossing a street and BOOM gets run over by a truck and killed.  
  • 3 DOKB:  Younger Daughter of dead AQ wife is also playing in the street with her brother when the strike kills mom and dad.  When her brother above in 2 DOKB above is killed by the truck, she is distraught and alone and gets sold into human slavery where she has multiple (9) abortions.  all those aborted fetuses can be traced back to that one US airstrike a decade before.
  • 4 DOKB:  Prostitute daughter above ends up having 2 children she keeps.  One of those children is recruited by ISIS to become a suicide bomber at age 7.  She walks into a crowded market and blows herself up, killing 100 innocents.
  • 5 DOKB:  The other child from prostitute daughter is a son.  He is recruited into ISIS also, but instead of being used as a suicide bomber they see aptitude for him to become a fighter and then leader.  As a teen leads a ruthless campaign to kill infidels in Syria and Northern Iraq, killing thousands.
  • 6 DOKB:  Son in 5 DOKB has taken multiple "war brides".  One of these poor Syrian girls manages to escape the ISIS city and make her way with other refugees to a camp run by USAID.  An American aid worker meets the now young woman, they fall in love, he takes her back to America where they marry and have a child - a girl.  That girl grows up, goes to a good school, graduates from Yale Law, enters politics, is the D-senator from CA and eventually becomes the 53rd POTUS.  Meanwhile, 2 years into office, Kim Jong Yum (the great grandson of KJU) secretly restarts the nuclear program that the Norks completely gave up in 2021 after trump gets reelected.  While trying to smuggle a small suitcase nuke into Seoul, which is easy now that the DMZ is gone, the nuke goes off in the Seoul subway system and fortunately is contained and only about 7000 die in a small area of the city.  In retaliation, POTUS 53 launches a submarine launched nuke strike on Pyongyang and completely destroys the city along with Kim jong Yum and his cabinet - but also killing about 200K Nork civilians in the process.  

So yes Mike, I suppose if we extrapolate the death count from just that one bomb using the butterfly effect and the DOKB rule - I can see how you could come to "hundreds of thousands" dead from "murican" bombs.  I'll give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sorry woofery, you said American bombs and shells "killed" hundreds of thousands - as in directly.  Now that you're getting called on your fallacious number - you're back tracking to now use the term "contributed" or "responsible".   By that metric, we could classify every Iraqi death that happens for the next 1000 years as being related to the US bombing and shelling of Iraq at some point in the past.  How many degrees of Kevin Bacon are you going to go to connect those deaths to the US?  To get to your "hundreds of Thousands" number, you would have to go several layers from the actual bomb strike itself.  Let's try and see how that works.

  • 1 deg of Kevin Bacon (DOKB):  US bombs suspected AQ house, kills AQ leader and his wife.  Wife is a civilian casualty.  
  • 2 DOKB:  Son of dead AQ wife above is out playing in the street and survives the strike.  Kid is distraught growing up without a mommy, never learns to look both ways when crossing a street and BOOM gets run over by a truck and killed.  
  • 3 DOKB:  Younger Daughter of dead AQ wife is also playing in the street with her brother when the strike kills mom and dad.  When her brother above in 2 DOKB above is killed by the truck, she is distraught and alone and gets sold into human slavery where she has multiple (9) abortions.  all those aborted fetuses can be traced back to that one US airstrike a decade before.
  • 4 DOKB:  Prostitute daughter above ends up having 2 children she keeps.  One of those children is recruited by ISIS to become a suicide bomber at age 7.  She walks into a crowded market and blows herself up, killing 100 innocents.
  • 5 DOKB:  The other child from prostitute daughter is a son.  He is recruited into ISIS also, but instead of being used as a suicide bomber they see aptitude for him to become a fighter and then leader.  As a teen leads a ruthless campaign to kill infidels in Syria and Northern Iraq, killing thousands.
  • 6 DOKB:  Son in 5 DOKB has taken multiple "war brides".  One of these poor Syrian girls manages to escape the ISIS city and make her way with other refugees to a camp run by USAID.  An American aid worker meets the now young woman, they fall in love, he takes her back to America where they marry and have a child - a girl.  That girl grows up, goes to a good school, graduates from Yale Law, enters politics, is the D-senator from CA and eventually becomes the 53rd POTUS.  Meanwhile, 2 years into office, Kim Jong Yum (the great grandson of KJU) secretly restarts the nuclear program that the Norks completely gave up in 2021 after trump gets reelected.  While trying to smuggle a small suitcase nuke into Seoul, which is easy now that the DMZ is gone, the nuke goes off in the Seoul subway system and fortunately is contained and only about 7000 die in a small area of the city.  In retaliation, POTUS 53 launches a submarine launched nuke strike on Pyongyang and completely destroys the city along with Kim jong Yum and his cabinet - but also killing about 200K Nork civilians in the process.  

So yes Mike, I suppose if we extrapolate the death count from just that one bomb using the butterfly effect and the DOKB rule - I can see how you could come to "hundreds of thousands" dead from "murican" bombs.  I'll give you that.

This long post is adorable, really it is JBSF. But I quoted a peer-reviewed study that connected hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths to our bombing and artillery campaign there. Those people were killed directly and indirectly by those bombs and that shelling because that was the main way we killed there.

You seem to want to include only deaths of those literally hit by bombs, and all the other hundreds of thousands of innocents who died from the results of our bombing campaign are what? Coincidental deaths? Not related to our war on them?

Regardless your nonsense, even the Lancet study didn't extrapolate into oblivion the way you do in your post above. Their estimate was above 600k, and even this much more conservative study found about 450k deaths from our attacks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24143140

I believe that it's a kind of nonsensical delusion to ignore experts who studied it, in favor of opinions from a handful of politicians. Did you actually look at any of these studies before deciding that they're all bullshit? It amuses me that you are okay with science when it serves your purpose ... airplanes, the remote control for your television set, modern medicine, a fast car ... all actual and useful manifestations of science in your life. But the moment a team of epidemiologists study a problem for years, then have their studies reviewed, it's suddenly all hocus pocus bullshit, huh?

The time you spent writing all that nonsense above could have been spent reading the scientific papers and educating yourself. I'm a major dumbass in health and medical science, but even I could understand the abstracts, it's not rocket surgery. If you disagree with the Public Library of Science study, then I'm happy to discuss that. With what specifically do you disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sorry woofery, you said American bombs and shells "killed" hundreds of thousands - as in directly.

If you watch the OP video, it puts a very different slant on everything going on there, then and now.

Event the video that Manning released to Wikileaks that started the shit-fight, murdering journalists in the street from a chopper, was originally seen as an aboration, deplorable mistakes.   But they are not, those events were just typical.

The grunts were being encouraged and even rewarded for shooting unarmed civilians.  You cannot get more evil than that.

Fuck them all the murdering cunts.  This was all way worse than anyone suspected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now