bendish Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 sure but remember nothing means anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolkeyZ865 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Let's hope this shutdown means a few days off killing little innocent brown children in the middle east Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I'm pretty sure federal bureaucrats aren't directly involved in killing anyone, so no. Also, most of those brown children are being killed by brown adults, the amount of kids being killed by the US military is pretty small really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolkeyZ865 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 http://thefreethoughtproject.com/trump-killed-more-civilians-obama/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Doesn't really contradict what I just said, even if the numbers have increased under Trump, they're still a small minority of the overall civilian casualties, and the military aren't affected by the shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolkeyZ865 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Doesn't really contradict what I just said, even if the numbers have increased under Trump, they're still a small minority of the overall civilian casualties, and the military aren't affected by the shutdown. That wasn't my point, I wasn't talking about the military itself; more so the executive branch. I'm not denying that we aren't the main perpetrator of collateral, but the west is the root cause of the instability in the region. We need to leave, and if something worse comes out of us leaving we can only blame ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 (edited) no, the west is not the root cause of anything in the region Edited January 20, 2018 by caze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolkeyZ865 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 no, the west is not the root cause of anything in the region What? Assassination and imprisonment of secular leaders? The war on terror? Maybe the region wouldn't be so radical if we didn't play the part of policeman of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 To be honest, it was still pretty fucked before the US started playing world police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Or maybe it would be worse? Sectarian and tribal conflict, genocide, Islamist theocracy, and ethnic fascism all precede the west's involvement in the middle east. That's not to say there haven't been lots of cack-handed interventions, all I was saying it wasn't the root cause, which it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolkeyZ865 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 To be honest, it was still pretty fucked before the US started playing world police. Or maybe it would be worse? Sectarian and tribal conflict, genocide, Islamist theocracy, and ethnic fascism all precede the west's involvement in the middle east. That's not to say there haven't been lots of cack-handed interventions, all I was saying it wasn't the root cause, which it wasn't. You guys are exactly right - for thousands of years the region has been unstable. When referring to "root conflict" I was talking about the intensity post 2003. But what remains the same is that this is their conflict. Not ours. We don't have and never have had any reason to be there in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 To be honest, it was still pretty fucked before the US started playing world police. Or maybe it would be worse? Sectarian and tribal conflict, genocide, Islamist theocracy, and ethnic fascism all precede the west's involvement in the middle east. That's not to say there haven't been lots of cack-handed interventions, all I was saying it wasn't the root cause, which it wasn't. You guys are exactly right - for thousands of years the region has been unstable. When referring to "root conflict" I was talking about the intensity post 2003. But what remains the same is that this is their conflict. Not ours. We don't have and never have had any reason to be there in the first place. Oh, I don't disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ignatius Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 To be honest, it was still pretty fucked before the US started playing world police. Or maybe it would be worse? Sectarian and tribal conflict, genocide, Islamist theocracy, and ethnic fascism all precede the west's involvement in the middle east. That's not to say there haven't been lots of cack-handed interventions, all I was saying it wasn't the root cause, which it wasn't. You guys are exactly right - for thousands of years the region has been unstable. When referring to "root conflict" I was talking about the intensity post 2003. But what remains the same is that this is their conflict. Not ours. We don't have and never have had any reason to be there in the first place. Oh, I don't disagree with that. didn't they arbitrarily draw up borders after WWII? or before that? i can't recall.. and by "they" i mean the UK and some other nations.. then the US and the brits sank iran's democratically elected president mossedegh to protect british petroleum because mossedegh had nationalized the oil industry which the brits had controlled for a long time. there's a great book about it called "All the Shah's Men" and a longer title to it about the CIA etc etc.. it's a fascinating read. basically spells out how we set the stage for a religious revolt to oust the shah.. ya know.. one of those unintended consequences things.. like iraq and the islamic state.. ISIS or whatever ya wanna call it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 (edited) it's always been known that isis was the new name for al qaeda in iraq, which came into existence and rose to power in the wake of the 03 liberation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq Edited January 21, 2018 by very honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambermonk Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 To be honest, it was still pretty fucked before the US started playing world police. Or maybe it would be worse? Sectarian and tribal conflict, genocide, Islamist theocracy, and ethnic fascism all precede the west's involvement in the middle east. That's not to say there haven't been lots of cack-handed interventions, all I was saying it wasn't the root cause, which it wasn't. You guys are exactly right - for thousands of years the region has been unstable. When referring to "root conflict" I was talking about the intensity post 2003. But what remains the same is that this is their conflict. Not ours. We don't have and never have had any reason to be there in the first place. Oh, I don't disagree with that. didn't they arbitrarily draw up borders after WWII? or before that? i can't recall.. and by "they" i mean the UK and some other nations.. then the US and the brits sank iran's democratically elected president mossedegh to protect british petroleum because mossedegh had nationalized the oil industry which the brits had controlled for a long time. there's a great book about it called "All the Shah's Men" and a longer title to it about the CIA etc etc.. it's a fascinating read. basically spells out how we set the stage for a religious revolt to oust the shah.. ya know.. one of those unintended consequences things.. like iraq and the islamic state.. ISIS or whatever ya wanna call it.. I think it was in 1953 the CIA got involved in that overthrow in Iran. There was an official name for the incident too, I think. And of course the signs of blowback have been evident since 1979. Anyway, in relation to the thread, it's funny how Trumpsters have this xenophobic/isolationist idea about America shutting itself off from immigrants and so-called globalists...yet any notion of the long-standing overseas military intervention (i.e. bombing civilians) that's long underscored US foreign policy is somehow all Obama's doing. Yes, this has been going on throughout the last decade, but it's never stopped since Trump took power a year ago. If anything the stats have become more obscured. In other words, the Pentagon has become even less transparent since then. At least based on all the info I've been following throughout last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendish Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 'Defense'. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress/senate-sends-700-billion-defense-bill-to-trump-funding-uncertain-idUSKBN1DG2ZA Nobody ever has a problem with military spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendish Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 The west has been fing shit up for ages...we all know that...'intervention'? invasion, manipulation of elections and economies, supporting insurgencies, destabilisation by any means etc Equivocation about how 'they' f their own shit up anyways is completely beside the point. We've been in the thick of it undoubtedly and have played a significant role in the roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubin Farr Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambermonk Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Savage granny, from the 1st Anniversary Women's March yesterday (NSFW language) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 that'll show him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ignatius Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 she's too old to matter to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambermonk Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 she's too old to matter to him. Fair point. Not blonde enough either for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) Edited January 22, 2018 by very honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Is he the only normal person in US politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts