Iraq wasn’t its finest moment. But the death toll was coming. Iraq was going to invade Quait. The US felt bound to protect a long time ally attacked by a stronger force. This is natural. It was made more intense by a terrorist attack from a region that most people in the US knew little about, and Iraq seemed to be that same place.
Bush jr was the US’s first stumbling steps out of its Democrat bad dream. Fumbling, awkward, but in the right direction.
Why is it that whenever america massmurders a bunch of people, even when its just 2 million short of the holocaust, there is always a convenient excuse why its okay, had it coming or “would have” and so on…?
I really cant wrap my head around this.
So what if Iraq had invaded Quait?
You can but they cant?
Its kinda astonishing to keep on seeing this really.
Its almost like a form of cognitive dissonance strictly localized to america.
No matter how many we kill, completely at random, even when we do a holocaust and turns out afterwards that it was over nothing its never really that much of a problem.
It is actually fascinating.
I wonder what drives this.
Well, millions of deaths would still happen. So the outrage here is kind of suspect.
Well go on?
How is the outrage suspect?
Iraq did not invade Quait. America invaded Iraq based on a false narrative.
See had Iraq invaded Quait, then we could condemn Iraq.
But thats not what happened did it?
Also, do you know how many ongoing conflicts are happening today?
Why is it that America only always and ever intervenes in places where they have a selfish interest?
Like how they backed Saddam for decades. He was a fan favorite buddy buddy of america until he came up with the idea that he gonna look out for his own country and undermine the petrol dollar.
Then suddenly he became a terrorist and america needed to murder 4 million people over fairytale WMDs in the region, and Quait or something.
Come on man… there is no fucking way you’d take this kind of reasoning when it comes to any other country.
Would you justify Russia doing these kind of things too?
I’ve heard of Sonic and also Carl Jr, they are supposed to be very good.
I suppose the equivalent to a fish and chips pub in the United States without the alcohol would be Long John Silver’s.
I see we’ve done an about face on the cheesburger issue.
This seems childish. If shooting someone that is drawing a gun befote he shoots me (or my friend, the Quaiti government) makes me a killer, I plead guilty.
So, why aren’t you tearing your garments about those? Why only the US?
You see what I mean? Selective. Suspect. Maybe Bush was right that you hate them for their freedom.
It was a big clusterfuck, no doubt about it, Bush was an incompetent.
But this weeping heart stuff is just, rather theatrical. Unconvincing, one might say.
Well there are several problems with this sentence and thats what the actual issue comes down to.
Again, i ask of you: Would you double down on this if, lets say north korea, china, or russia did it?
Honest question. Im putting the USA to the side. But would you support this exact outcome if Putin did it?
Didnt i literally just do that? Pointing them out? From Somalia to Myanmar there are a plethora of places in the world that have seen years long conflicts, but thats not where the USA gonna show up, he gonna show up in the place where supposedly a gun is going to be drawn, according to them, and because of that they needs to do a holocaust and medieval torture the local population
Yes. I am the one being selective for pointing out that the USA is selective in their wars.
And truly, i must be hating them for their freedom. Though not sure what you meant by freedom.
The freedom to randomly mass murder X million people on a whim and medieval torture the shit out of the civilian population?
Well yes, you are not wrong, i am kinda against that freedom. Apparently you are not and apparently to some people its just a self-evident fact that America has the “FREEDOM” to do a genocide and a holocaust where the fuck it pleases.
Mea culpa.
How utterly fucking intolerant and racist of me.
Yeah 4 million people dead and tortured is just theatrics.
I would really have liked to ask your opinions after spending a few years in Guantanamo, but hey: You are not as intolerant as i am.
Someone needs to take the higher road and protect the freedom of america to massmurder wherever, however they please, and point out that anyone who mentions this is theatrical and selective.
I got nothing.
I asked the question of you neutrally, and in return i have received what is just a few steps short of how Adolf Hitler was perfectly justified in his crimes against humanity.
Well… i guess my morals are not as fluid as some other people’s. Must be all this intolerance and racism of mine…
For you, war is evil if the US does it, and just the wheel of Tao turning or whatever otherwise.
This means that, whatever bothers you about the US, it’s not the death that comes with war.
Which means that all your foaming at the mouth about all the death is hypocritical, and weak.
Sadly, no. You are categorically projecting.
Throughout the entire conversation i was the one who criticized death, and you were the one who defended and excused it, even after i went the extra mile for you to say that lets put the USA aside and tell me if you’d excuse the exact same behavior from other countries.
Instead of answering, you are accusing and running away from the answer, neither explaining why you are this emotionally invested in defending and excusing mass-murder, nor acknowledging the fact that you are.
The thing is Socrates that i do not mind it either way.
You can tell me that your standard is to have no standards and natural selection will find it’s way with the largest power taking everything.
You can also tell me that we should be probably aiming for higher ethical and moral standards than simply “i kill whoever and how many ever i want to, wherever and for whatever reason i please, because i got a hammer and you dont”.
Pick a standard, i will respect it. The first because its simply a fact of nature nobody can do anything against either way, the second because it aims to be better and not cause needless suffering in the world.
See what i AM going to take an issue with and aint gonna respect, is when entities try to ride two horses with one ass, instead of picking a standard, doubling it and using whichever suits them the most in any given situation. Playing victim if they take a blow, appealing to everything from ethics to god’s testicles, but otherwise they go around and casually murder and torture millions without batting an eye.
If you dont even have the spine to stand by your own actions, then shut your mouth cause nobody deserves having to listen to you. And by you i dont mean you personally, but anyone or anything with this kind of attitude.
So… why are you so emotionally invested in excusing mass murder that you need to imagine everyone who has an issue with it (and i quote) “foaming at the mouth”?
Again: I gave you plenty of neutral leeway even by taking the USA out of the equation as a whole.
Dont know why you are this emotional about the question, but the only one here foaming seems to be you. No offense.
Elections are a scam, only used to keep populations docile and under the delusion that their silly little vote can make any kind of difference. It’s big business that runs everything–not politicians. Ever seen a poor politician? There’s no reason for them to have great wealth yet they invariably do.
Why do the same things happen across every democracy no matter what kind of govt. happens to win at the polls? Pfft. I’m done with voting. It’s a pointless embarrassment and cynical charade.
The only real democracy would have no leadership and consist only of referendums.
The problem is not the voting
The problem is the lack of means by which people can hold their politicians accountable for any and everything. In this case: election promises.
In the current system across the globe a dumb f can climb onto the stage and promise everyone the world. In fact, everyone is going to have their own planet.
Turns out they lied.
What happens now?
Nothing.
There is ZERO recourse for holding them accountable for having lied.
And btw, there is also zero accountability for whatever the fuck up during their tenure.
They gonna destroy the economy? Start a war? Cripple the country? Delete it’s borders? Join the sovietunion 2.0?
At worst they gonna step down and ride into the sunset with middlefingers raised on both hands.
Nah
The issue aint voting
The issue is that these fucks are not pulled up on a tree via their necks the moment it turns out that they shat into everyone’s face and gonna betray their promises.
Lack of accountability is a problem, yes, but voting itself is problematic for a few key reasons (which COULD be fixed, at least in a more perfect world), namely the relative incompetence and lazy ignorance of the voter and his/her being so easily manipulated by emotions and propaganda, but also because voting systems themselves are vulnerable to being cheated/hacked/manipulated.
I see voting not as a means to find the best leaders or policy directions for society but just as a way to guarantee that whoever the leaders are they are at minimum tied to the general will of the average citizen. That way if the society or country goes to hell in a hand basket, sort of like what we have going on right now, well at least it’s what the people really did vote for. And the built-in correction mechanism (sadly always after the fact of the damage) that when a leader or their political group seriously fucks up they can be voted out (again, usually it’s too late by then, another flaw of the system).
In our current cases at least in western countries, we are going to hell because of both reasons I mentioned above, the stupidity of the voter and the fragility of the voting systems. That is almost a contradiction and maybe even balances itself out in ways here or there, which is funny to think about. But even in that case it only pulls some of the ignorance out of the process so the powers that be can further secure their own leadership at the expense of some of that ignorance. Or maybe in some cases the voting populace really does have it right, but again… I don’t think that is the purpose of voting, at least it certainly is not the outcome of voting.
I am also not sure how much it helps to point out that both the ignorance and lazy incompetence of the masses and the fragility of the voting systems themselves are both intentionally designed facts, created situations by the powers that be to keep themselves in power.
Does this fact ‘save’ the notion of voting, in that we could imagine overcoming those flaws and build a better voting populace and society by removing the nefarious influences? Yes in theory it does save it. But I am less and less interested in theory the older I get, and more interested in how reality really is. It is this way for a reason, all theory aside, and I have a hard time seeing it getting corrected any time soon.
I do like how you @Nausamedu phrased it somewhere else, the world is governed by those who have a hammer vs those who do not, or we can try to aspire to something greater in terms of philosophy, ethics, truth, helping each other where it makes sense to do that, value-creation and knowledge, all that good stuff. We don’t necessarily need to be governed by might makes right rule of the jungle, although I see no real way to avoid it the end because it simply is the law of nature. Unless the people with hammers decide to be better than that, which I would say it is fairly clear at this point that in the world we actually do live in those with the hammers are not very interested in being better than dumb animals.