Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Nov 13, 2018.
Sometimes entire countries get couped or invaded based on this
I don't generally complain about that. What I do complain about is when little countries treat the US like the big brother they can call when they are being picked on, then complain when the resulting ass kicking seems "mean."
Please give specific examples of this.
What small countries called on the US to go into Afghanistan and Iraq? None, that’s who. US then use NATO to facilitate a veneer of international legitimacy by putting up for example Norwegian and Polish flags ahead of the US on document and at flagpole rows at bases etc. This so you can fight your war on terror - which is nothing of the sort. It’s a blood money industry. The US MIC needs pray to live. Lockheed needs to sell its planes, drones and bombs. Haliburton needs the reconstruction contracts, oil or no oil, craters and destroyed roads and infrastructure will do. It’s a humongous enterprise of killing in the name of. It’s a self-playing piano. It’s a shark that needs to move to not suffocate on its own weight. The only small countries goading you to war and conflict are Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia – but you try to make it out like it’s Norway or something. Pathetic.
This is convenient revisionist history bullfeathers. 9/11 happened, people internationally were supportive. You are welcome to criticize the american war machine all you like, but completely inventing stories is not helpful. Iraq was more in line with your point but then we didn't really get international support for that adventure.
You would know everything there is to know about convenient revisionist history bullfeathers, I sure.
Gah… some people act as if they've never played Civ
Why does "can't be ignored" imply attempting to destroy foreign governments? You don't think that a country as powerful as the United States can exert pressure without resorting to direct or indirect military force? You don't imagine that this is something that the United States already does?
You're trying to naturalise a series of very specific and deliberate decisions made by American policymakers, and it makes you sound like a crazy person.
I'm sure I'm guilty too, but so are you in this case.
Is he really though? Only Britain seemed supportive of US aggression after 9/11. Dont you remember "Freedom Fries" and Hans Blix calling it illegal? I do remember Tony Blair and Bush exchanging wistful glances.
You are talking about Iraq he is talking about both Afghanistan and Iraq so yes its revisionist history.
I don't want to re litigate the whole thing here but there is more to it than US bad little guys good.
You do know that resolution was only for 6mos. We're still there.
I'm not seeing that in the text of this document, although even I'd agree at this point we have long since lost our purpose in this war. Although discussion on that front is worthy of its own thread.
It was in your wiki link. The ISAF pulled out 5 years ago. Countries like Canada, Netherlands etc have been out longer. The resolution you linked was specifically to go after perpetrators of 9/11 and set up security in Kabul. We got Bin Laden in Pakistan. The Taliban has sued for peace multiple times, we just haven't given it to them. That mandate from the international community is over. It's been over for almost a decade. It's not revisionist to point that out.
It is revisionist to call it American adventurism from the start though and many here do that often.
Speaking of which... anybody remember this US Navy ad campaign?
I remember Be All You Can Be and Army of One. My father briefly worked on the Army first person shooter game that was kind of popular for a minute. It was 100% a recruitment tool. I can't remember what it was called though. Our computer and internet connection were not good enough to run it.
Edit: It was called America's Army
Edit 2: Wow it's still going as a series...
I have a provoking opinion for you, Dems and Reps are both worthless
May the most useless person win.
Hey theres a pretty good insurgency in the Dems that's not so useless. The most important votes people can cast these days is in the dem primaries. Otherwise it's often a choice between corrupt candidate number 1 and corrupt candidate number 2. Lately though you do get someone uncorrupted running in a primary.
Separate names with a comma.