The Panama Deception

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I never said it was ok for the US to wait 8 years. I think Clinton failed after the 93 attacks. he was too busy dealing with the blowjob stuff.

So after 9/11 it was a matter of the utmost urgency to go to war despite the Taliban's offer to hand over OBL,

yes absolutely. and you conveniently left out the stipulations the Taliban put in. time to negotiate was over, war had already begun.

Byrnzie wrote:

but after 1993 your government did nothing because it was too engrossed in the details of Bill Clinton's blow job?

Hmm, O.k.

yes absolutely. the attack in 93 wasn't taken seriously enough. huge mistake on Clinton's part. my guess is you know little to nothing about the Clinton years and the Monika Lewinsky scandal. no surprise there

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

time to negotiate was over, war had already begun.

the time to negotiate is never over.

war is a terrrible solution anyway. its not very good at fighting terrorism. it may be impossible. the cause of terrorism, one of them, is the US has troops in arab lands, and is backing some shady governments over there.


so to fight that they invade 2 more arab countries and send in more troops. putting gas on the fire....but most people tand to see it as black and white-"you attacked us now were gonna kick your ass" kind of thing. which will ead us to more terror attacks in the future, guaranteed.

the US government- knows all of this. Which tells us the goal of the United States government may not necessarily be to fight terrorism.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

time to negotiate was over, war had already begun.

the time to negotiate is never over.

we were attacked. we were at risk of more attacks. sorry, but time to negotiate ended when they attacked FIRST.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

war is a terrrible solution anyway. its not very good at fighting terrorism. it may be impossible. the cause of terrorism, one of them, is the US has troops in arab lands,

why is that a problem? we have troops in almost every country on earth...peacefully.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

and is backing some shady governments over there.

who do you consider shady besides Israel?

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

so to fight that they invade 2 more arab countries and send in more troops. putting gas on the fire....but most people tand to see it as black and white-"you attacked us now were gonna kick your ass" kind of thing. which will ead us to more terror attacks in the future, guaranteed.

again, stick to the topic. we are talking about the Taliban, not Iraq. with Iraq, I agree, bad idea. but back in October 2001, removing the Taliban and going after el queda militarily was the only option to protect American citizens.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

the US government- knows all of this. Which tells us the goal of the United States government may not necessarily be to fight terrorism.

LOL ok. like what? lemme guess, world domination mauhahahahaha

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

time to negotiate was over, war had already begun.

the time to negotiate is never over.

we were attacked. we were at risk of more attacks. sorry, but time to negotiate ended when they attacked FIRST.

9/11 wasn't an act of war. why should the people of afghanistan suffer because a few of their whacko neighbors decided to piss off the world's military superpower?


but its true. There is always time for diplomacy. even in the middle of WWII...your just war, diplomacy was still going strong. as it always should be.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

war is a terrrible solution anyway. its not very good at fighting terrorism. it may be impossible. the cause of terrorism, one of them, is the US has troops in arab lands,

why is that a problem? we have troops in almost every country on earth...peacefully.

you seriously need to read up on some history., NOTHING about US involvement is peaceful. Do you know anything about the CIA regarding South America? yeah, teaching guys how to torture, then installing htem as dictators, not peaceful. Overthrowing democratically elected govt's with violence, not peaceful. its all public record now.

In Arab countries the story isn't as clear, its too recent. but overthrowing the government in Iran, invading Iraq, propping up the very unpopular saudi royal family, arming turkey, arming israel,etc.


nothing peaceful about this empire.



And who knows what other dozen country our special forces are operating in right now. the only way we'll know is in 50 years when all the classified stuff is released, or if they fuck-up like they did in Mogadishu. hard to deny involvement when your soldiers bodies are being dragged through the streets on national television.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

and is backing some shady governments over there.

who do you consider shady besides Israel?

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan-off the top of my head. the list is actually in the dozens worldwide, with countries like Turkey and Columbia.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

so to fight that they invade 2 more arab countries and send in more troops. putting gas on the fire....but most people tand to see it as black and white-"you attacked us now were gonna kick your ass" kind of thing. which will ead us to more terror attacks in the future, guaranteed.

again, stick to the topic. we are talking about the Taliban, not Iraq. with Iraq, I agree, bad idea. but back in October 2001, removing the Taliban and going after el queda militarily was the only option to protect American citizens.

the thread is about how the US gov't lies to the public to invade third world countries.

Iraq is relevant. its not a separate issue, its THE issue.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

the US government- knows all of this. Which tells us the goal of the United States government may not necessarily be to fight terrorism.

LOL ok. like what? lemme guess, world domination mauhahahahaha

well what do you think?

you're action results in a specific reaction. But that reaction is what you're telling everybody you're trying to prevent. But that action is repeated. so either the US gov't is incompetent or liars, and have been for 60 years.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

9/11 wasn't an act of war. why should the people of afghanistan suffer because a few of their whacko neighbors decided to piss off the world's military superpower?

look dude, 9/11 was an act of war. stop trying to downplay that fact. the Taliban knew exactly what OBL and el queda were doing yet did nothing to stop them. they allowed them to thrive. The Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, hold responsibility. its a fucking shame what the innocent people have had to go through because of THEIR actions.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

but its true. There is always time for diplomacy. even in the middle of WWII...your just war, diplomacy was still going strong. as it always should be.

war had begun. it is the job of the American government to protect its citizens from more attacks. diplomacy was off the table. the people that attacked us needed to be defeated.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

you seriously need to read up on some history., NOTHING about US involvement is peaceful.

yea ok. do you have troops in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Italy, UK?? is their presence peaceful? thought so.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

Do you know anything about the CIA regarding South America? yeah, teaching guys how to torture, then installing htem as dictators, not peaceful. Overthrowing democratically elected govt's with violence, not peaceful. its all public record now.

yea yea yea, thats all you people ever fall back on is this south America nonsense. take that asshole Chavez out of the mix, South America is doing just fine. well I guess you can blame Columbia's problems partly on us due to our huge coke demand. but that has nothing to do with the US government.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

In Arab countries the story isn't as clear, its too recent. but overthrowing the government in Iran, invading Iraq, propping up the very unpopular saudi royal family, arming turkey, arming israel,etc.

yea, I'll give ya that. we have not scored well in the middle east. I hope that changes

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

nothing peaceful about this empire.

the US is not an empire. and this is a very insulting statement to all Americans who value peace and charitable giving throughout the world.

let me ask you this, who is the first on scene with help during a natural disaster anywhere in the world? we even helped Iran in 03 after a devastating earthquake.

you paint America with a very broad evil brush. fuck that

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

And who knows what other dozen country our special forces are operating in right now. the only way we'll know is in 50 years when all the classified stuff is released, or if they fuck-up like they did in Mogadishu. hard to deny involvement when your soldiers bodies are being dragged through the streets on national television.

but you make no mention of the animalistic behavior of those people. or is dragging human bodies through the streets acceptable for scum like that in your eyes? as long as its American forces being killed, you are perfectly fine with it.

speaking of, do you even know why we were there in the first place? "Operation Restore Hope" to help feed the starving people of Somalia from a brutal warlord. yea, and we're the assholes.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan-off the top of my head. the list is actually in the dozens worldwide, with countries like Turkey and Columbia.

nice. well maybe we should be enemies with everyone? damned if we do damned if we dont. like slightofjeff said, nothing America does or says will be acceptable in your eyes. your hard fucking head is long made up. the rest is pointless.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

the thread is about how the US gov't lies to the public to invade third world countries.

Iraq is relevant. its not a separate issue, its THE issue.

its a separate issue. try and keep up. the US was justified in removing the Taliban and killing el queda members. thats the only thing I'm arguing for. I'm an against the Iraq war.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

well what do you think?

you're action results in a specific reaction. But that reaction is what you're telling everybody you're trying to prevent. But that action is repeated. so either the US gov't is incompetent or liars, and have been for 60 years.

mostly incompetent. but sometimes they get it right

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

look dude, 9/11 was an act of war. stop trying to downplay that fact. the Taliban knew exactly what OBL and el queda were doing yet did nothing to stop them. they allowed them to thrive. The Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, hold responsibility. its a fucking shame what the innocent people have had to go through because of THEIR actions.

when Hitler invaded Poland , that was an act of war. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that was an act of war.

When a group of religious fanatics get together and commit a crime, its not an act of war.

and here you're assuming al-qaeda and the Taliban were working together, and it MAY be true, but even IF that is true, its no reason to invade. I'm not going to keep typing this, last time....

The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden up for trial BEFORE the invasion, offered to put him on trial, an international trial.

The invasion was not needed.

yea yea yea, thats all you people ever fall back on is this south America nonsense. take that asshole Chavez out of the mix, South America is doing just fine. well I guess you can blame Columbia's problems partly on us due to our huge coke demand. but that has nothing to do with the US government.

Chavez is is only a threat to capitalism. He has been a positve force for Venezuela. The US, on the other hand, has conquered the entire continent. You know how we get to choose between 2 militant capitalists on election day? Due to US involvement, that is the scope of their choices as well. NO fundamental change possible. venezuela was an exception, and its really a testament to a people's desire to be free.



i'm going to start a thread on US involvement in south and central america, so everyone can realize the scope of our involvement. and the violence used to accoomplish objectives.

the US is not an empire. and this is a very insulting statement to all Americans who value peace and charitable giving throughout the world.

things like the IMF and the WB are tools of this empire. if you can set a policy that over 160 countries have to follow, that's empire. what else do you call it? and when you look at the IMF record, you realize its not such a nice empire. it has Haiti exporting grain while its people are literally starving to death. Its forcing Colombian farmers to grow Coca becasue it was forced to export its coffee at reduced prices. 2 examples of thousands. Its an empire, why do you think the US is the 1 country on earth that is allowed to invade other countries? we are the world's superpower, and we are using that power.

100 years from now the American Empire will be compared to the Roman empire and others. guaranteed.

let me ask you this, who is the first on scene with help during a natural disaster anywhere in the world? we even helped Iran in 03 after a devastating earthquake.

you paint America with a very broad evil brush. fuck that

here' why i focus on the bad.

The United States is my country. ' Consent of the governed' dictates our leaders rule with our consent, as such their actions reflect on me. We the people allowed our government to invade Iraq, as an example. It was my fault, to some extent.


We allowed them to invade iraq, which isn't some "mistake'. A million Iraqi's have been killed by our gov't s hand and WE THE PEOPLE LET THEM DO IT. That's why i am focusing on the bad, so that maybe, enough people will wake the fuck up and prevent them from doing it again in the future. You're writing it off as something you don't support, but you don't seem to upset you're government is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people. that our empire rules with violence.

preventing war should be the number one priority, instead war has become an objective, a solution.


and fuck that.

but you make no mention of the animalistic behavior of those people. or is dragging human bodies through the streets acceptable for scum like that in your eyes? as long as its American forces being killed, you are perfectly fine with it.

you missed the point, as usual.

we don't know what our black ups special force guys are up too unless something like mogadishu happens.

It was shitty people had to die. it was shitty situation all around, for everyone. But US presence made it worse, whatever their stated objectives.

speaking of, do you even know why we were there in the first place? "Operation Restore Hope" to help feed the starving people of Somalia from a brutal warlord. yea, and we're the assholes.

restore hope, really? is that like "iraqi freedom"? we free the shit out of them. or free them with bombs.

i'm done buying the official pretexts, they're all bullshit. and you're a fool for believing them.

US marines and special forces gunned down close to 10,000 somalis those few days, they were opening fire on crowds of people and houses. that's not humanitarian intervention, as much as you want it to be. killing people does not equate to helping them, even if their lives are shitty.

nice. well maybe we should be enemies with everyone? damned if we do damned if we dont. like slightofjeff said, nothing America does or says will be acceptable in your eyes. your hard fucking head is long made up. the rest is pointless.

what are you talking about?

how about don't arm militant dictators. that's easy. that's not damned if you don't.

or how about don't invade third world countries every 5 years, i think that's the average these days. thats not damned if you don't.

focus on the bad to prevent it from happening in the future. since its partly my fault.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

the thread is about how the US gov't lies to the public to invade third world countries.

Iraq is relevant. its not a separate issue, its THE issue.

jlew wrote:

its a separate issue. try and keep up. the US was justified in removing the Taliban and killing el queda members. thats the only thing I'm arguing for. I'm an against the Iraq war.

your opinion isn't what the thread is about. its about US involvement based on lies. lets ask the guy who started it, maybe he can help us out here?

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

so either the US gov't is incompetent or liars, and have been for 60 years.

jlew wrote:

mostly incompetent. but sometimes they get it right

[/quote]

so our government is incompetent. why does that incompetence always lead to a similar environment, post involvement?

it almost always leads to corporate access to resources, US control over government, either through debt,, directly through force, or indirectly through shaping elections. end of the day its another client state and corporations have unlimited access to the countries resources.

Its why Chavez is a threat. He's using Venezuela's resources to benefit the people of Venezuela. Marx was right, capitalist empires will run out of resources eventually, its too much about consumption. that means every country on earth is a target for this empire.


and they sell us war any way they can. and patriots like you seem eager to buy it.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

LOL scratch that. dumbest thing I've heard yet "9/11 was a pre-emptive strike"

def not the dumbest thing ive ever heard but certainlyone of the dumbest id say.


and do we know absolutely for sure that OBL is even in afghanistan. or if he ever was.. and if so exactly for how long???? just asking.

So, Bin Laden received news at the end of the summer that the U.S planned an invasion to oust the Taliban regime. Bin Laden then strikes on U.S soil. And to suggest that there was any connection is dumb? O.k.

Probably the attacks would have come at some point regardless. Though maybe the F.B.I could have followed up on the information they already possessed of the terrorist networks at flight schools across the U.S and the attacks could have been averted. Who knows?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Artic ... 45,00.html
'...Reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north. Throughout the spring, FBI information suggests terrorist suicide pilots were continuing to train at US aviation schools. But whatever contingency plan of theirs existed, no one pushed the terrorist button. By July 8, the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, and senior staff from the British Foreign Office, were gathering at Weston Park under UN auspices for private teach-ins on the Afghan situation.

And a couple of weeks later, another group gathered in a Berlin hotel. There, former state department official Lee Coldren passed on a message he had got from Bush officials: "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." Karl Inderfurth was there too, and former ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simons...

The message that thus went back via Pakistan to the Taliban was that the hawks in Washington thought they were backing Bin Laden into a corner. Unfortunately, he decided to push his own button, instead.'

OFFS byrnzie. you know i like you and that i respect your opinion but i dont agree with you on this point. 9/11 was planned before the summer. for such a grandiose scheme it had to be. and lets not forget the twin towers were targetted unsuccessfully years before. this time the approach was different. and it worked(probbaly beyond anyones wildest nightmarish dreams). to think that OBL hears of a US plan to oust the taliban and then gatehrs his flock and says righto chaps the time has to piss on the empire cause ive heard... ... im sorry but i dont buy it.
the united states are always planning on attacking someone so to suggest that afghanistan was in their sights at this point in time is really no big wow if that is in fact the case. and we all know how fair weather the USs 'friendships' can be with certain organisations.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

when Hitler invaded Poland , that was an act of war. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that was an act of war.

When a group of religious fanatics get together and commit a crime, its not an act of war.

and here you're assuming al-qaeda and the Taliban were working together, and it MAY be true, but even IF that is true, its no reason to invade.

what the fuck is wrong with you? MAY be true? as in maybe? maybe not? this is why debating with you is like talking to a fucking wall. you simply dont understand. the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden. you are just so ignorant to this subject its scary. The Taliban and El queda are essentially the same thing. the same fighters from the 80s and 90s. the only difference is the Taliban attempted to stamp themselves with some form of legitimacy and call themselves a government. el queda did not, making it easier to recruit religious nutjobs from around the world.

The Taliban allowed El queda to train and plan attacks against the US. they could easily be considered the military arm of the Taliban. once the el queda attacked, the Taliban tried to save face by offering him up to some international court based on evidence. we supplied ample evidence which I've provided and you've ignored. giving bin laden to an international court was not an option. Mullah Omar played the tough guy and decided to take on the US.

on 9/11 OBL hit the US with the WORST attack this country has ever seen and declared war on the US. case fucking closed.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

I'm not going to keep typing this, last time....

The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden up for trial BEFORE the invasion, offered to put him on trial, an international trial.

The invasion was not needed.

keep typing it all you want. it changes nothing. you are still dead fucking wrong. putting Osama on trial in an international court was NOT an option. he attacked America, that makes him OUR problem. giving in to the Taliban would have only potentially bought Osama Bin Laden more time to plan and carry out more attacks. its the governments job to protect us and prevent that from happening. The Taliban decided not to listen to us and paid a heavy price for that. invasion was the only option in preventing ANOTHER attack on America. its sad, but it wasn't a pre-emptive invasion. it was a defensive one.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

when Hitler invaded Poland , that was an act of war. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that was an act of war.

When a group of religious fanatics get together and commit a crime, its not an act of war.

and here you're assuming al-qaeda and the Taliban were working together, and it MAY be true, but even IF that is true, its no reason to invade.

what the fuck is wrong with you?

I use logic and facts to shape my opinions, unlike you. I can see how that might be frustrating.

MAY be true? as in maybe? maybe not? this is why debating with you is like talking to a fucking wall. you simply dont understand. the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden. you are just so ignorant to this subject its scary. The Taliban and El queda are essentially the same thing. the same fighters from the 80s and 90s. the only difference is the Taliban attempted to stamp themselves with some form of legitimacy and call themselves a government. el queda did not, making it easier to recruit religious nutjobs from around the world.

AGAIN. just because you say something over and over doesn't make it a fact.

I've posted a link to an interview with a US official working in Afghanistan who CNN interviewed as well, who claims that the Taliban thought of Al-Qaeda as a liability, years before 9/11.

So we have reports they were working together, and reports the Taliban was trying to give Osama Bin Ladin up to American intelligence agencies pre-9/11.


hence the "may" or "may not" be true.


I don't accept everything on blind faith, i require evidence. you should try it.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

I'm not going to keep typing this, last time....

The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden up for trial BEFORE the invasion, offered to put him on trial, an international trial.

The invasion was not needed.

keep typing it all you want. it changes nothing. you are still dead fucking wrong. putting Osama on trial in an international court was NOT an option. he attacked America, that makes him OUR problem. giving in to the Taliban would have only potentially bought Osama Bin Laden more time to plan and carry out more attacks. its the governments job to protect us and prevent that from happening. The Taliban decided not to listen to us and paid a heavy price for that. invasion was the only option in preventing ANOTHER attack on America. its sad, but it wasn't a pre-emptive invasion. it was a defensive one.

your solution to crime is more crime?

interesting.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

I use logic and facts to shape my opinions, unlike you. I can see how that might be frustrating.

jlew24asu wrote:

to claim that the Taliban and el queda aren't one in the same is the most illogically thing I've heard in a long time. and completely lacking any fact whatsoever. so yes, debating with you is very frustrating becuase you simply have no fucking clue as to what is really going on.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

AGAIN. just because you say something over and over doesn't make it a fact.

I've posted a link to an interview with a US official working in Afghanistan who CNN interviewed as well, who claims that the Taliban thought of Al-Qaeda as a liability, years before 9/11.

So we have reports they were working together, and reports the Taliban was trying to give Osama Bin Ladin up to American intelligence agencies pre-9/11.


hence the "may" or "may not" be true.


I don't accept everything on blind faith, i require evidence. you should try it.

jlew24asu wrote:

wow you posted a link? well aren't you something. please go research the Taliban and el queda. your ignorance is embarrassing.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

your solution to crime is more crime?

interesting.

defending oneself from being attacked and killed is no crime.

Commy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:W ... fghanistan

catefrances

boys... boys.. this is how wars start.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

wow you posted a link? well aren't you something. please go research who el queda and the Taliban actually are. once you have a clear understanding of that, we can have a conversation.

when you realize your opinion isn't fact, get back to me.

and you have an opinion that 9/11 was not an act of war. so who the fuck are you?


like I said the Taliban and el queda are one in the same. I'm going to educate you on this....ready?

do you acknowledge that el queda was in afganistan in Sept of 2001?

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

my guess is you know little to nothing about the Clinton years and the Monika Lewinsky scandal. no surprise there

Sure Jlew. I know nothing, except that war with Afghanistan was delayed over an act of fellatio.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

we were attacked. we were at risk of more attacks. sorry, but time to negotiate ended when they attacked FIRST.

The old '9/11 was year zero' angle. Of course, the U.S had not interfered in the Middle East in any way whatsoever prior to 2001.

jlew24asu wrote:

back in October 2001, removing the Taliban and going after el queda militarily was the only option to protect American citizens.

Actually the way to protect U.S citizens is to stop your unconditional support of Israel. Also, prior to 2001 you were directly responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children with your sanctions, along with a daily ten year bombing campaign of Iraq which some people choose to forget. The U.S had also stood back and allowed the Muslims of Bosnia and Chechnya to be slaughtered.

Unfortunately for America some people in the world took notice of these things.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

we were attacked. we were at risk of more attacks. sorry, but time to negotiate ended when they attacked FIRST.

The old '9/11 was year zero' angle. Of course, the U.S had not interfered in the Middle East in any way whatsoever prior to 2001.

jlew24asu wrote:

back in October 2001, removing the Taliban and going after el queda militarily was the only option to protect American citizens.

Actually the way to protect U.S citizens is to stop your unconditional support of Israel. Prior to 2001 you were directly responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children with your sanctions. The U.S had also stood back and allowed the Muslims of Bosnia and Chechnya to be slaughtered.

Unfortunately for America some people in the world took notice of these things.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We're blamed for sitting back and doing nothing while allowing slaughter in Bosnia and Chechnya, the blamed for getting involved in the human rights abuses in Afghanistan. When we stay out, we're callously indifferent to genocide. When we step in, we're imperial war-mongers. What exactly can we do that would be ok with you?

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

thats all you people ever fall back on is this south America nonsense. take that asshole Chavez out of the mix, South America is doing just fine.

There's nothing wrong with Chevez, other than he doesn't toe Americas line. And as far as 'South America nonsense' do you know anything about the overthrow of President Allende of Chile? Do you know anything about the Contras of Nicaragua, or the U.S overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala in 1954? Do you know what really happened during the U.S invasion of Panama?

jlew24asu wrote:

but you make no mention of the animalistic behavior of those people. or is dragging human bodies through the streets acceptable for scum like that in your eyes? as long as its American forces being killed, you are perfectly fine with it.

speaking of, do you even know why we were there in the first place? "Operation Restore Hope" to help feed the starving people of Somalia from a brutal warlord. yea, and we're the assholes.

You forgot to mention that on the same morning that day when the bodies of U.S Apache pilots were being dragged through the streets those same pilots had been massacring civilians taking part in a peacefulo demonstration. Do you regard that as animalistic behaviour?

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We're blamed for sitting back and doing nothing while allowing slaughter in Bosnia and Chechnya, the blamed for getting involved in the human rights abuses in Afghanistan. When we stay out, we're callously indifferent to genocide. When we step in, we're imperial war-mongers. What exactly can we do that would be ok with you?

So now you invaded Afghanistan in order to prevent human rights abuses? The goalposts of this debate keep moving around so fast it's making me dizzy.

Byrnzie

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

US marines and special forces gunned down close to 10,000 somalis those few days, they were opening fire on crowds of people and houses. that's not humanitarian intervention, as much as you want it to be. killing people does not equate to helping them, even if their lives are shitty.

You beat me to it.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

my guess is you know little to nothing about the Clinton years and the Monika Lewinsky scandal. no surprise there

Sure Jlew. I know nothing, except that war with Afghanistan was delayed over an act of fellatio.

no, war wasn't delayed. Clinton and his admin didn't feel war wasn't necessary at the time of the attacks in 93, 95, and 98. which in hindsight was a mistake because el queda grew in size and power...enough to attack us again. meanwhile, the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was trying to not get impeached for lying about getting a blowjob in the oval office.

do you really not know any of this? see, to Americans this is common knowledge. now if you need bolded colorful links, I'll be happy to provide them. if not, do some fucking research before embarrass yourself. opps too late.