awepittance Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 all you have to understand is that when America mass murders women and children it's only for the following reasons 1) the evil terrorists hide cowardly under women and children and use them as shields 2) the evil terrorists don't have an army and are too cowardly to wear battle clothing that makes them identifiable, so essentially anyone could be a terrorist even a seemingly innocent women or child 3) we must murder people in foreign countries that have absolutely no means or capability of attacking us in the united states for our own security . America is proud to be the #1 mass murderer of foreigners and #1 incarcerator of their own population as well as holding an infant morality rate higher than several 3rd world countries. When you can somehow spin actually torturing people as being accomplished for the protection of the populace you know you are in one of the most awesome places on earth! fucking proud to be waving the red white and blue! america...fuck yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 do you see a way out Awe? edit: i mean about the general state and direction of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 good question. also, don't overestimate the involvement of the us in libya. i see it more as a europe vs libya kind of thing, with the us giving a helping hand. (although it's more like big brother (US) helping little brother (EU) out) or better: it's the nato, not specifically the us. as opposed to the us explicitly attacking afghanistan with or without nato's approval. this time it was nato's decision. although it's obvious the us plays a relatively large part in the decision-making process of the nato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosmachine Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 [youtubehd]YhoGNlWsObg[/youtubehd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 do you see a way out Awe? edit: i mean about the general state and direction of the country. we will either end up in authoritarianism, theocracy, fascism, or communism. I cannot imagine a single alternative to those mentioned. And even if a beneficial system does arise out of this, it will extract a gigantic cost at the expense of the lower and working classes, our infrastructure, natural resources, and production capacity. The financial system we have in place now is bound for a massive failure sooner or later, either we adapt to the challenge, or we await increased and more brutal forms of oppression, domestically and foreign. this is a systemic catastrophe. we haven't been ruined by one or two presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The difference of course being that Libyan people reached out and asked for help, whereas in Iraq the US just dropped 150,000 troops on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The South Vietnamese asked for help too. Contra forces as well, and many others? Is this enough of a justification? The problem with this position, is that it makes the intervention out to be a morally sincere one, and thus further justifying our constant interventionism. People drudge up the same arguments with Iraq, Afghanistan (women's rights, democratic system), Latin America in the Reagan era, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eh Speedy Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The South Vietnamese asked for help too. Contra forces as well, and many others? Is this enough of a justification? The problem with this position, is that it makes the intervention out to be a morally sincere one, and thus further justifying our constant interventionism. People drudge up the same arguments with Iraq, Afghanistan (women's rights, democratic system), Latin America in the Reagan era, and so on. I'm just comparing it to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which were actual invasions. Nobody there was asking for US intervention. The US had military advisers in Vietnam long before the civil war broke out, and they were paying the French way for the majority of the French-Indochina war. Also, Diem was a hand-picked US puppet in the South. The head of the Libyan council, Mahmoud Jibril, - sure he was educated in the States, but he also worked in the Gaddafi government. If the US lands troops in Libya, then yes, I will oppose that measure. Releasing assets to the rebels to secure their government? http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dabc248e-cda6-11e0-bb4f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VySqFdRx I'm ok with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.