Christian declares war on Muslim country and invades with military

[kNIOKAS]

Bush starting war with country on the another side of the globe for no legitimate reason.


Religion of peace.

[masonanddixon]

Saddam was responsible for the genocide of thousands of his country's citizens, you idiot.

[YouGotServed]

1/10

[StephHamann]

Bush starting war with country on the another side of the globe for no legitimate reason.


Religion of peace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM

[masonanddixon]

Yeah thats why you invaded. To save people. Like you saved these guys

https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/images/f/f2/Cheyenne-Henry-Roman-Nose-Yellow-Bear-and-Lame-Man-1899.jpg

So you're going to cry over spilled milk? The history of the world is the history of invasion and conflict.

the world is ****ed. The only measures we can take now are to try to die off with some degree of dignity.

[MavsSuperFan]

Bush starting war with country on the another side of the globe for no legitimate reason.


Religion of peace.
The US invaded iraq for entirely secular reasons.
1. WMDs - lots of out right lies were told about iraq's WMDs. I was personally suprised though that we didnt find the VX nerve gas we sold saddam in the 80s
2. Saddam was tied to 9/11, when in fact he was not at all an Islamist.
These were the 2 lies that were used to convince the american people

I suspect the US was actually trying to guarantee Iraqi oil supplies were controlled by an american ally, and the house of saud wanted us to take out saddam.

Bush himself was in large part controlled by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

[9erempiree]

Saddam was responsible for the genocide of thousands of his country's citizens, you idiot.
:lol pwned.

[KingBeasley08]

US did not declare war on Iraq in the name of Christianity. On the other hand, ISIS justifies what it does through Islam

[9erempiree]

It's time to get rid of the Islamic State once and for all.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

OP obsessed with bashing the US, and yet is subconsciously gripped with their culture and identity. That self awareness :applause:

[oarabbus]

Christianity and Islam are the two most violent religions in history. All slander between them is the pot calling the kettle black.

[MavsSuperFan]

Christianity and Islam are the two most violent religions in history. All slander between them is the pot calling the kettle black.
The US was not founded as a christian country.

It very clearly states that.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The US was founded as a secular country

All US wars have been to promote and advance the Secular goals of the US government

[Dresta]

The US invaded iraq for entirely secular reasons.
1. WMDs - lots of out right lies were told about iraq's WMDs. I was personally suprised though that we didnt find the VX nerve gas we sold saddam in the 80s
2. Saddam was tied to 9/11, when in fact he was not at all an Islamist.
These were the 2 lies that were used to convince the american people

I suspect the US was actually trying to guarantee Iraqi oil supplies were controlled by an american ally, and the house of saud wanted us to take out saddam.

Bush himself was in large part controlled by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
I don't remember anyone sensible making such a connection and in fact Saddam had been a long time sponsor of terrorist action against Western countries, dating all the way back to Abu Nidal in the 70s. Your problem is thinking this all started with 9/11; well, that's incorrect considering terrorist groups were carrying out organised attacks on Western nations with support from Arab dictators a long time prior to this. And i assure you, the dangers were not going to evaporate by merely standing around, twiddling our thumbs and pretending it's all going to work out all right.

[NumberSix]

Iraq actually did have WMD nerve gas. They stashed it in Syria. It's the same nerve gas that ISIS used and tried to blame on Assad.

[MavsSuperFan]

I don't remember anyone sensible making such a connection and in fact Saddam had been a long time sponsor of terrorist action against Western countries, dating all the way back to Abu Nidal in the 70s. Your problem is thinking this all started with 9/11; well, that's incorrect considering terrorist groups were carrying out organised attacks on Western nations with support from Arab dictators a long time prior to this. And i assure you, the dangers were not going to evaporate by merely standing around, twiddling our thumbs and pretending it's all going to work out all right.
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A Time magazine/CNN poll released Saturday said most Americans — 71% — believe the United States has done a good job in Iraq since the end of major fighting, while 26% said it has done a poor job.

Sixty-three percent said the nation was right in going to war in Iraq and 32% said it was wrong. But the Time/CNN poll found Americans more closely split on whether the military action was worth the price in America lives, taxpayer dollars and other costs — 49% said yes, 43% no and 8% were unsure.

The poll also found Bush's approval down to 52%, from 63% in May.

The Time/CNN survey of 1,003 adults was taken Sept. 3-4 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points

The Bush admin purposefully conflated Saddam with 9/11. Of course they would never just say saddam helped with 9/11, that is stupid and you dont need to do that to give the impression that saddam helped attack us on 9/11. they kept talking about iraq and al-qaeda in the same breath. It was purposeful.

You will convince very few american's with the actual reason we invaded iraq. Much easier is to scare people with threats of WMDs and anger people with thoughts of vengeance for 9/11.


Saddam had been a long time sponsor of terrorist action against Western countries, dating all the way back to Abu Nidal in the 70s. Your problem is thinking this all started with 9/11; well, that's incorrect considering terrorist groups were carrying out organised attacks on Western nations with support from Arab dictators a long time prior to this. And i assure you, the dangers were not going to evaporate by merely standing around, twiddling our thumbs and pretending it's all going to work out all right.

You assume too much about me. I am not a FP dove. Personally my optimal solution was to invade iraq, keep the Baath party, keep saddam's army, bribe a corrupt general and install him as a pro american sunni dictator.

[MavsSuperFan]

Iraq actually did have WMD nerve gas. They stashed it in Syria. It's the same nerve gas that ISIS used and tried to blame on Assad.
Also should mention the VX nerve gas was acquired from us.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg


It's the same nerve gas that ISIS used and tried to blame on Assad.

Assad probably used it.

[DeuceWallaces]

It's time to get rid of the Islamic State once and for all.

We all feel the same way about you.

[KingBeasley08]

OP is right doe. Christianity sucks

nothing compared to Islam #religionofpeace

[Dresta]

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm


The Bush admin purposefully conflated Saddam with 9/11. Of course they would never just say saddam helped with 9/11, that is stupid and you dont need to do that to give the impression that saddam helped attack us on 9/11. they kept talking about iraq and al-qaeda in the same breath. It was purposeful.

You will convince very few american's with the actual reason we invaded iraq. Much easier is to scare people with threats of WMDs and anger people with thoughts of vengeance for 9/11.



You assume too much about me. I am not a FP dove. Personally my optimal solution was to invade iraq, keep the Baath party, keep saddam's army, bribe a corrupt general and install him as a pro american sunni dictator.
My quibble was that it's patently untrue to say that Saddam had no link with terrorism when pretty much all the the Middle-Eastern despots were accommodating of West-hating terrorist groups provided they could find some common ground (Saddam and the Iraqi intelligence services were particularly bad as well). Christ, even the Baader-Meinhof group went to Jordan to get ready for their childish shenanigans.

Right.. so they didn't come right out and declare that at the time? Then all we're talking about here is the general stupidity of the US polling population, which is something we were all already aware of. The only way to get support for war in democratic countries is through fear-mongering, as a democratic citizenry is cowardly by nature and thus will only embrace the danger of war if it's a matter of forestalling a greater danger in the future. Democratic peoples naturally seek safety, peace and security, and honestly don't consider there to be anything else worth fighting or dying for (though democratic armies send others to do the dying). It is the eternal mindset of the plebeian, and in democracies, the plebeian rules.

[kNIOKAS]

Saddam was responsible for the genocide of thousands of his country's citizens, you idiot.
Saddam was supported by US. WMDs were given to Saddam by US. US is partly responsible for the genocide of thousands of his country's citizens, you idiot.

The US invaded iraq for entirely secular reasons.

Secular reasons are fine, what I can't digest is when they kill in the name of religion.

US did not declare war on Iraq in the name of Christianity. On the other hand, ISIS justifies what it does through Islam
That's exactly my beef. How can you justify it through religion??? Wow religion fanatics.

OP obsessed with bashing the US, and yet is subconsciously gripped with their culture and identity. That self awareness :applause:
I'm not ignorant about US, sorry.

Christianity and Islam are the two most violent religions in history. All slander between them is the pot calling the kettle black.
That's true... So I don't know how can one get a pass for killing in the name of religion. That's bizzare...

[MavsSuperFan]

My quibble was that it's patently untrue to say that Saddam had no link with terrorism when pretty much all the the Middle-Eastern despots were accommodating of West-hating terrorist groups provided they could find some common ground (Saddam and the Iraqi intelligence services were particularly bad as well). Christ, even the Baader-Meinhof group went to Jordan to get ready for their childish shenanigans.

Right.. so they didn't come right out and declare that at the time? Then all we're talking about here is the general stupidity of the US polling population, which is something we were all already aware of. The only way to get support for war in democratic countries is through fear-mongering, as a democratic citizenry is cowardly by nature and thus will only embrace the danger of war if it's a matter of forestalling a greater danger in the future. Democratic peoples naturally seek safety, peace and security, and honestly don't consider there to be anything else worth fighting or dying for (though democratic armies send others to do the dying). It is the eternal mindset of the plebeian, and in democracies, the plebeian rules.
Where did i say he had no links to terrorism against western interests? He had no links with al-qaeda. one of the core principles of the baath party is secular pan arabism.

Al-qaeda would have viewed saddam as an infidel and enemy.


Right.. so they didn't come right out and declare that at the time? Then all we're talking about here is the general stupidity of the US polling population, which is something we were all already aware of.

Its clear the bush admin wanted americans to believe that saddam was responsible for 9/11. its not necessary to say it. People have lives they dont spend all their time following politics.


The only way to get support for war in democratic countries is through fear-mongering, as a democratic citizenry is cowardly by nature and thus will only embrace the danger of war if it's a matter of forestalling a greater danger in the future. Democratic peoples naturally seek safety, peace and security, and honestly don't consider there to be anything else worth fighting or dying for (though democratic armies send others to do the dying). It is the eternal mindset of the plebeian, and in democracies, the plebeian rules.

Its not cowardice its selfishness. and frankly its justified. the US is not an NGO if it isnt in the best interest of america we should not be wasting our money.

Vengeance is also a huge factor in american support of the iraq war. many Americans supported the iraq war initially primarily because they thought saddam was responsible for 9/11, an attack on american soil.

the best example is WW2. until japan attacked us on december 7 1941, there was no real indication that america was going to do much other than economic sanctions and embargoes (though to be fair the oil embargo on japan forced them to attack)

also the US didnt declare war on Germany until hitler mad the asinine decision to declare war on america in support of japan. Then the US congress countered by declaring war on germany.

Hitler was stupid and thought this would encourage the empire of japan to open an eastern front against the USSR. Japan was smart enough to never do so.

[MavsSuperFan]

Saddam was supported by US. WMDs were given to Saddam by US. US is partly responsible for the genocide of thousands of his country's citizens, you idiot.

Secular reasons are fine, what I can't digest is when they kill in the name of religion.

That's exactly my beef. How can you justify it through religion??? Wow religion fanatics.

I'm not ignorant about US, sorry.

That's true... So I don't know how can one get a pass for killing in the name of religion. That's bizzare...
The US doesnt justify its wars in the name of religion...

[kNIOKAS]

The US doesnt justify its wars in the name of religion...
Yes and then what's the essential difference between Allah and Iraq's WMDs?

[MavsSuperFan]

Yes and then what's the essential difference between Allah and Iraq's WMDs?
if you fight a war in the name of allah and or to spread the worship of islam. you are fighting a war primarily because of religion influence.

If you fight a war because you fear a country might use WMDs on you, you are not fighting for religious reasons. There is not one war in US history that Christianity has played a significant role in. Now I am not going to say the US hasnt fought wars for entirely selfish, immoral reasons, but just not for religious reasons

[kNIOKAS]

if you fight a war in the name of allah and or to spread the worship of islam. you are fighting a war primarily because of religion influence.

If you fight a war because you fear a country might use WMDs on you, you are not fighting for religious reasons. There is not one war in US history that Christianity has played a significant role in. Now I am not going to say the US hasnt fought wars for entirely selfish, immoral reasons, but just not for religious reasons
What about countries fightning US for fear that US has WMDs?

[MavsSuperFan]

What about countries fightning US for fear that US has WMDs?
Somewhat irrational as the US's conventional arms are so powerful its unrealistic that the US will have to resort to nuclear weapons and endure the political consequences of that action in 2014.

[kNIOKAS]

Somewhat irrational as the US's conventional arms are so powerful its unrealistic that the US will have to resort to nuclear weapons and endure the political consequences of that action in 2014.
This raises two questions:

If they are so powerful in conventional arms, does that make them less dangerous to the world? Like, they don't have WMDs, just regular biggest military in the world. We're safe from them.

Also, what political consequences there could really be, since they have such a powerful conventional (and unconventional) arms? Why would they care? They didn't care when they invaded Iraq, did they.

[MavsSuperFan]

This raises two questions:

If they are so powerful in conventional arms, does that make them less dangerous to the world? Like, they don't have WMDs, just regular biggest military in the world. We're safe from them.

Also, what political consequences there could really be, since they have such a powerful conventional (and unconventional) arms? Why would they care? They didn't care when they invaded Iraq, did they.

If they are so powerful in conventional arms, does that make them less dangerous to the world? Like, they don't have WMDs, just regular biggest military in the world. We're safe from them.
The US being powerful is not why the US is not dangerous in the world. The US is the most fundamentally just, altruistic and righteous superstate in history. (I am not saying compared to normal countries, but compared to countries/empires throughout history with the power to behave imperialistically)

There are very few countries in the world that any significant faction in the US even wants to fight a war against.

All countries that the US has a potential to fight a war against are deeply flawed countries. Eg. human rights abuses, dictatorial government, expansionist, etc.

There is not a single liberal democracy in the world the US has a potential for invading. By in large part the 99% of the people in the world have no rational reason to fear a US invasion.


Also, what political consequences there could really be, since they have such a powerful conventional (and unconventional) arms? Why would they care? They didn't care when they invaded Iraq, did they.
Im not entirely sure what you mean.

The US didnt invade iraq out of fear. the goal imo was to get rid of saddam and make the oil rich region more pro american. Eventually I suspect had iraq gone well the bush admin would have found a reason to invade iran.

This also would have made the House of saud (our most important concern in the middle east) extremely happy.

[NumberSix]

The US being powerful is not why the US is not dangerous in the world. The US is the most fundamentally just, altruistic and righteous superstate in history. (I am not saying compared to normal countries, but compared to countries/empires throughout history with the power to behave imperialistically)

There are very few countries in the world that any significant faction in the US even wants to fight a war against.

All countries that the US has a potential to fight a war against are deeply flawed countries. Eg. human rights abuses, dictatorial government, expansionist, etc.

There is not a single liberal democracy in the world the US has a potential for invading. By in large part the 99% of the people in the world have no rational reason to fear a US invasion.


Im not entirely sure what you mean.

The US didnt invade iraq out of fear. the goal imo was to get rid of saddam and make the oil rich region more pro american. Eventually I suspect had iraq gone well the bush admin would have found a reason to invade iran.

This also would have made the House of saud (our most important concern in the middle east) extremely happy.
People don't understand that the USA could easily conquer countless countries and build an empire, but simply chose not to. No other country in history has ever done this.

The last big empires, the ottomans and the British..... The ottomans constantly were trying to take every inch of land they possibly could literally until their last day. The British had to just voluntarily give up their territory because they were on the brink of bankruptcy.

[sick_brah07]

People don't understand that the USA could easily conquer countless countries and build an empire, but simply chose not to. No other country in history has ever done this.

The last big empires, the ottomans and the British..... The ottomans constantly were trying to take every inch of land they possibly could literally until their last day. The British had to just voluntarily give up their territory because they were on the brink of bankruptcy.


The US pissess me off at times and they even bombed the country im from. They control and manipulate the media but the bold statement above is very true.... considering the damn history of humans and other ruling empires, they really could take over a large chunk of the earth if they felt like it

[kNIOKAS]

The US being powerful is not why the US is not dangerous in the world. The US is the most fundamentally just, altruistic and righteous superstate in history. (I am not saying compared to normal countries, but compared to countries/empires throughout history with the power to behave imperialistically)
There's no such thing as just and altruistic state. Why are you trying to push this ridiculous proposal?


There are very few countries in the world that any significant faction in the US even wants to fight a war against.

All countries that the US has a potential to fight a war against are deeply flawed countries. Eg. human rights abuses, dictatorial government, expansionist, etc.
US is deeply flawed by these standards too. Also, they do not invade those countries that you're talking about because of their human rights abuses, dictatorial country or being expansionist. US has supported abundance of regimes of the same features and actively helped them to sustain themselves (against, say, democratic movements).


There is not a single liberal democracy in the world the US has a potential for invading. By in large part the 99% of the people in the world have no rational reason to fear a US invasion.

The key word is liberal. US would work against democracies that they don't like, in non-covert ways or secretely. Liberal means selling out to US corporate interests.


The US didnt invade iraq out of fear. the goal imo was to get rid of saddam and make the oil rich region more pro american. Eventually I suspect had iraq gone well the bush admin would have found a reason to invade iran.

This also would have made the House of saud (our most important concern in the middle east) extremely happy.
Um you're claiming it was not religion, it was not fear, but merely a pragmatic war invading the country in the other continent and ruining the lives of people in it for now and upcoming generations because of monetary interests? That's not as bad as killing because of religion then. Money > religion

People don't understand that the USA could easily conquer countless countries and build an empire, but simply chose not to. No other country in history has ever done this.

The last big empires, the ottomans and the British..... The ottomans constantly were trying to take every inch of land they possibly could literally until their last day. The British had to just voluntarily give up their territory because they were on the brink of bankruptcy.
US don't need to conquer countries a la ottomans did. They do it through economical means combined with military means. Does that make them not doing it?


The US pissess me off at times and they even bombed the country im from. They control and manipulate the media but the bold statement above is very true.... considering the damn history of humans and other ruling empires, they really could take over a large chunk of the earth if they felt like it

I think some other country should invade US and demolish their land to make sure that won't happen.

[Balla_Status]

OP obsessed with bashing the US, and yet is subconsciously gripped with their culture and identity. That self awareness :applause:

So ****ing true. America is pretty ****ed and so is the culture but foreigners can't help but comment on everything americans do. Watch american movies. Watch american television. Know in detail the political scheme and history of America. Stuff yourself with shitty american fast food (KFC, subway and mcdonalds).

But yeah, you're not obsessed with America and hate the country.

[kNIOKAS]

So ****ing true. America is pretty ****ed and so is the culture but foreigners can't help but comment on everything americans do. Watch american movies. Watch american television. Know in detail the political scheme and history of America. Stuff yourself with shitty american fast food (KFC, subway and mcdonalds).

But yeah, you're not obsessed with America and hate the country.
Of course not.

[Balla_Status]

People don't understand that the USA could easily conquer countless countries and build an empire, but simply chose not to. No other country in history has ever done this.

The last big empires, the ottomans and the British..... The ottomans constantly were trying to take every inch of land they possibly could literally until their last day. The British had to just voluntarily give up their territory because they were on the brink of bankruptcy.

American culture is slowly invading the entire world.

Citizens of other countries see Americans enjoying a nice lifestyle with lots of materialistic things and want the same life believing that will bring them happiness. It's rather unfortunate.

[MadeFromDust]

OP loves delusion and propaganda

[Raymone]

Does that make them not doing it?
Are you mentally impaired or just foreign?

[kNIOKAS]

Are you mentally impaired or just foreign?
Ok I'm listening. What do you mean?

[ThePhantomCreep]

OP is right doe. Christianity sucks

nothing compared to Islam #religionofpeace

Peak Christianity was every bit as shitty as peak Islam.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Iraq actually did have WMD nerve gas. They stashed it in Syria. It's the same nerve gas that ISIS used and tried to blame on Assad.

If true, nice war-planning, Bush. Further proof that his inauguration was, in fact, the biggest disaster of 2001.

[Raymone]

Ok I'm listening. What do you mean?
Ok, now that I have your ear, promptly change your avatar. You don't deserve to have an American in it.

Might I suggest this avatar instead?

http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/imagenes/abc//20102001/guerra/web_38.jpg

It would match your comments better from our perspective.

[kNIOKAS]

Ok, now that I have your ear, promptly change your avatar. You don't deserve to have an American in it.

Might I suggest this avatar instead?

http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/imagenes/abc//20102001/guerra/web_38.jpg

It would match your comments better from our perspective.
What do you mean? I get this vide that some of you perceive me as anti-american, while I'm merely not agreeing with condoning US foreign policy and propaganda to support it. You feel as if your country's foreign policy = you? Well, in that case... I don't know what to say. Enjoy killing other people for money, I guess...

Also, you're ignorant on who's in my ava. Not surprised there but why you assume it's an american??? Egocentric much?

[Raymone]

That's clearly a young Larry Bird in your avatar. Nice try, Youssef.

[kNIOKAS]

That's clearly a young Larry Bird in your avatar. Nice try, Youssef.
:rolleyes:
again where you got "mentally impaired" from? Might have been said to you when you first heard it...

[Raymone]

Look Ahmed, you obviously have some sort of complex about America and its unbounded greatness. We're not imagining it.

You're not simply disagreeing with U.S. foreign policy in every single post you make.

[step_back]

America colonizing parts of the World could be a good thing. They should start with Somalia. That country and it's people have nothing going for them and if they're not killing each other they're dying from disease and famine. America could completely turn that country around in exchange for it resources. It's not like there going to mine it themselves.

Obviously colonizing in history has had mass killings, rape and all sorts of looting but no country would get away with that in this day and age. Countries like India have said living under British rule hugely improved their education and medicine capabilities.

Just a thought.

[KingBeasley08]

So ****ing true. America is pretty ****ed and so is the culture but foreigners can't help but comment on everything americans do. Watch american movies. Watch american television. Know in detail the political scheme and history of America. Stuff yourself with shitty american fast food (KFC, subway and mcdonalds).

But yeah, you're not obsessed with America and hate the country.
This is actually very true. This doesn't define most people on ISH or even OP necessarily but I've seen it everywhere. They hate America but talk about it every day. Follow American fashion, buy from American companies, watch the newest American movies and TV shows, follow the politics, and in the case of ISH, post on an American message board about an American sport

Not sure if it's hypocrisy or the USA has just achieved a major cultural victory but I love when these same people talk shit about how much the US sucks

[kNIOKAS]

This is actually very true. This doesn't define most people on ISH or even OP necessarily but I've seen it everywhere. They hate America but talk about it every day. Follow American fashion, buy from American companies, watch the newest American movies and TV shows, follow the politics, and in the case of ISH, post on an American message board about an American sport

Not sure if it's hypocrisy or the USA has just achieved a major cultural victory but I love when these same people talk shit about how much the US sucks
Not sure if you have mental capabilities to take on anything, but it's likely so.

[kNIOKAS]

America colonizing parts of the World could be a good thing. They should start with Somalia. That country and it's people have nothing going for them and if they're not killing each other they're dying from disease and famine. America could completely turn that country around in exchange for it resources. It's not like there going to mine it themselves.

Yeah of course. What worked for native americans, should work for somalians.

[step_back]

Yeah of course. What worked for native americans, should work for somalians.

There's a difference of 200+ years dude. No one could get away with ethnically cleansing in this day and age.

America isn't perfect, but they're no way near as bad as they could be or people make out to be. Can you imagine if we lived in a world where America traded places with Russia? We'd all be working in Soviet labour camps.

P.S Technically speaking it was Europeans who wiped out most of the Natives.

[KingBeasley08]

Not sure if you have mental capabilities to take on anything, but it's likely so.
What does your response have to do anything with what I said? Where do you live by the way?

[kNIOKAS]

There's a difference of 200+ years dude. No one could get away with ethnically cleansing in this day and age.
Well they did get away with invading another country with false pretext (that don't make a sense anyway, if other countries - like any from Middle East - were to use that logic they would have to invade US just as well).


America isn't perfect, but they're no way near as bad as they could be or people make out to be. Can you imagine if we lived in a world where America traded places with Russia? We'd all be working in Soviet labour camps.
That effectively says nothing. X is not as bad as it could be - well, this stands for anything.
Could you imagine Russia traded places with Mongol empire? We'd all be dead. This tells nothing.


P.S Technically speaking it was Europeans who wiped out most of the Natives.
Technically speaking you're responsible for people being killed in Middle East daily.

[sweggeh]

America colonizing parts of the World could be a good thing. They should start with Somalia. That country and it's people have nothing going for them and if they're not killing each other they're dying from disease and famine. America could completely turn that country around in exchange for it resources. It's not like there going to mine it themselves.

Obviously colonizing in history has had mass killings, rape and all sorts of looting but no country would get away with that in this day and age. Countries like India have said living under British rule hugely improved their education and medicine capabilities.

Just a thought.

Wow..can't believe you are saying that bro. How can you agree to colonization in this day and age? Don't hit me with that "its not that bad" bs, if you aren't living in that situation how can you tell others it wont be that bad and that no one gets away with mass murdering anymore? Which is blatantly untrue by the way.

[kNIOKAS]

What does your response have to do anything with what I said? Where do you live by the way?
What does where I live have to do anything with your thinking capabilities?


This is actually very true. This doesn't define most people on ISH or even OP necessarily but I've seen it everywhere. They hate America but talk about it every day. Follow American fashion, buy from American companies, watch the newest American movies and TV shows, follow the politics, and in the case of ISH, post on an American message board about an American sport

Not sure if it's hypocrisy or the USA has just achieved a major cultural victory but I love when these same people talk shit about how much the US sucks
What you said is wrong and fallacious on many levels.

So if people hate America, should they not talk about it? Like, something irks me and that's why I don't ever mention it... ??

American consumerist culture is a function of US imperialism, policies of foreign affairs and propaganda. If anything, the dominance of corporations of US capital support the notion that US is engaging in a predatory economic (and military) policies towards the rest of the world.

It might not quite be a cultural victory, because it's not all cultural - it's economic for the most part, and it's not quite a victory, because, well, a lot of world despises US.

Which brings me to the point you seem to be oblivious too - it's not the US as the idea/country, it's its foreign policies and influence towards the rest of the world. It's not quite US as a geographical region or you as a citizen (although it is you as a citizen), it's the economical interest groups that control US and shape it's policies of foreign affairs. It's disgusting to see how some country just decides to invade another one on the whole another part of the world, sends its military, ravages the land and the people, and then talk how to solve ISIS or whatever. There's no business for americans to be on that part of the world - it's another continent ffs.

It's crazy how you are able to identify yourself with US foreign policy, acknowledge its crimes and still be fine with it. To me it would be one or another, but this is crazy.

[step_back]

Wow..can't believe you are saying that bro. How can you agree to colonization in this day and age? Don't hit me with that "its not that bad" bs, if you aren't living in that situation how can you tell others it wont be that bad and that no one gets away with mass murdering anymore? Which is blatantly untrue by the way.


Do you think America having a long term presence in Somalia would somehow be worse than the current state they're living in? Like I said it wouldn't need or have to be the colonization of history lessons. I'd like to think we've moved on from that or perhaps I'm giving the human race more credit then it deserves.

Remember America isn't some fascist regime.

[kNIOKAS]

Do you think America having a long term presence in Somalia would somehow be worse than the current state they're living in? Like I said it wouldn't need or have to be the colonization of history lessons. I'd like to think we've moved on from that or perhaps I'm giving the human race more credit then it deserves.

Remember America isn't some fascist regime.
I simply refuse to think on the grounds on what's better, freedom (which probably those people don't have now anyway, right) or material gains. It might be sensible to some degree in certain circumstances up to the point, but to build the argument in this way makes a horrible precedent.

It might be better as far as (maybe, I don't know much about the country) some stability, certainty and social security for an average somalian, yes. However, you give us resources and we bring "civizilization" and "free markets" to you is such a disgusting deal.

[step_back]

I simply refuse to think on the grounds on what's better, freedom (which probably those people don't have now anyway, right) or material gains. It might be sensible to some degree in certain circumstances up to the point, but to build the argument in this way makes a horrible precedent.

It might be better as far as (maybe, I don't know much about the country) some stability, certainty and social security for an average somalian, yes. However, you give us resources and we bring "civizilization" and "free markets" to you is such a disgusting deal.

Of course it sounds like a disgusting deal. We don't live in an ideal world.

Name one country that would be willing to do such a thing and ask for nothing in return?

[kNIOKAS]

Of course it sounds like a disgusting deal. We don't live in an ideal world.

Name one country that would be willing to do such a thing and ask for nothing in return?
Well you're thinking in terms of countries here. A country is a coercive institution, it's not meant to do good things in the first place.

People can help people, and we have that... People can help themselves, they just need to get conscious about themselves and the world.

[KingBeasley08]

What does where I live have to do anything with your thinking capabilities?


What you said is wrong and fallacious on many levels.

So if people hate America, should they not talk about it? Like, something irks me and that's why I don't ever mention it... ??

American consumerist culture is a function of US imperialism, policies of foreign affairs and propaganda. If anything, the dominance of corporations of US capital support the notion that US is engaging in a predatory economic (and military) policies towards the rest of the world.

It might not quite be a cultural victory, because it's not all cultural - it's economic for the most part, and it's not quite a victory, because, well, a lot of world despises US.

Which brings me to the point you seem to be oblivious too - it's not the US as the idea/country, it's its foreign policies and influence towards the rest of the world. It's not quite US as a geographical region or you as a citizen (although it is you as a citizen), it's the economical interest groups that control US and shape it's policies of foreign affairs. It's disgusting to see how some country just decides to invade another one on the whole another part of the world, sends its military, ravages the land and the people, and then talk how to solve ISIS or whatever. There's no business for americans to be on that part of the world - it's another continent ffs.

It's crazy how you are able to identify yourself with US foreign policy, acknowledge its crimes and still be fine with it. To me it would be one or another, but this is crazy.
Alright, I'll answer this one point at a time.

1. I just find it funny that there are those that love American culture and spend a great time of their lives discussing and enjoying it while saying that they hate America. That's hypocrisy or just cognitive dissonance

2. So the expansion of American Hollywood movies is proof that the US is an imperialist society? Nice attempt at taking blame off the people and passing it on to companies. Of course Apple wants to spread its products overseas. That means more profit. If people hate it, then buy other products. It's not like these companies are monopolies (well some are like Comcast but that's another topic and more of a domestic problem)

3. I'd say it's a cultural victory along with an economic victory. For good or bad, the United States is the most dominant country militarily, economically, and culturally. It is also easily the most benevolent superpower in world history

4. In a globalized society, we are all connected now. The age of isolationism is done and in this new world, there are interests in the Middle East that benefit us. Many like to pretend they don't exist and see the world as an ideal playground. The stability of the Middle East has an enormous impact on the United States. ISIS is a big problem for many reasons

5. I don't necessarily agree with everything the US does and have even disagreed with many of it's policies in the past. That said, I still believe that the US is the most generous superpower that has ever existed. A superpower cannot be compared to a regular country. People talk about Sweden being peaceful but they are irrelevant on a global level. In this unipolar world where the USSR has fallen, the US is the dominant enforcer. Where old European empires, USSR, Imperial Japan, Roman Empire, Ancient Chinese, Mongolians stood, we stand now. And I think its obvious that we are the best from a moral standpoint

6. To go back full circle, where do you live? If you don't live in the United States, that's fine. But if you do, you're paying taxes to the same government you hate and that you said you don't support.

[step_back]

Well you're thinking in terms of countries here. A country is a coercive institution, it's not meant to do good things in the first place.

People can help people, and we have that... People can help themselves, they just need to get conscious about themselves and the world.

Not everyone is as rational at thinking.

I'm not disagreeing with you but the only way a country will step in and do something about the situation there is if there is significant financial gains in return. Just look at the money spent on defense budgets around the world. We could wipe out world hunger easily by using half the amount of an annual budget.

[KevinNYC]

Iraq actually did have WMD nerve gas. They stashed it in Syria. It's the same nerve gas that ISIS used and tried to blame on Assad.
Is this sarcastic?

[KevinNYC]

I don't remember anyone sensible making such a connection
Does that caveat include the Bush Adminstration?

[kNIOKAS]

Not everyone is as rational at thinking.

I'm not disagreeing with you but the only way a country will step in and do something about the situation there is if there is significant financial gains in return. Just look at the money spent on defense budgets around the world. We could wipe out world hunger easily by using half the amount of an annual budget.
That may be true, but one needs to get past the approaching politics, virtues and life in terms of this realistic thinking. Otherwise, you're bound to spout about "the most benevolent superpower in the world" and "the most moral empire", which are oxymorons and just a very stupid thing one jackass seem to have pushed into some others here. I'm not replying to your post here.

To come back, significant financial gains to whom - to certain interests groups. It's not for the americans as citizens. The point is that the government is not working for the people, and commiting crimes in their name.