post 9/11 wars cost taxpayers over 6 trillion, cause 480,000 dealths to violence.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Dont worry about it. Iran is next says the PNAC document from the 90's, so by golly Trump needs to go to WAR with Iran.

If Iran does happen, I think it would be as a result of the Israel-Iran relationship getting worse by the day.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

No need. Everyone has heard of ISIS, Al Queda, Al Shabbob, The Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

No need. Everyone has heard of ISIS, Al Queda, Al Shabbob, The Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.

I have indeed, We've backed some of them from time to time.

So just because they have had some traction in countries where government is questionable we should view them as a world wide threat?

Fair enough, they are bad groups... Does this mean we need to be engaged in a war for 17 years and spend 6 trillion dollars? I don't think so.

I'm not worried about those groups gaining traction in the west.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

No need. Everyone has heard of ISIS, Al Queda, Al Shabbob, The Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.

I have indeed, We've backed some of them from time to time.

So just because they have had some traction in countries where government is questionable we should view them as a world wide threat?

Fair enough, they are bad groups... Does this mean we need to be engaged in a war for 17 years and spend 6 trillion dollars? I don't think so.

I'm not worried about those groups gaining traction in the west.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

No need. Everyone has heard of ISIS, Al Queda, Al Shabbob, The Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.

I have indeed, We've backed some of them from time to time.

So just because they have had some traction in countries where government is questionable we should view them as a world wide threat?

Fair enough, they are bad groups... Does this mean we need to be engaged in a war for 17 years and spend 6 trillion dollars? I don't think so.

I'm not worried about those groups gaining traction in the west.

How many people would they have to murder, how many people would they have to subjugate, before you'd want to step in?

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

No need. Everyone has heard of ISIS, Al Queda, Al Shabbob, The Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.

I have indeed, We've backed some of them from time to time.

So just because they have had some traction in countries where government is questionable we should view them as a world wide threat?

Fair enough, they are bad groups... Does this mean we need to be engaged in a war for 17 years and spend 6 trillion dollars? I don't think so.

I'm not worried about those groups gaining traction in the west.

How many people would they have to murder, how many people would they have to subjugate, before you'd want to step in?

Tricky question. Since 240,000 civilians have died to direct violence as a result of our actions, at what point can we claim to care about the number they kill?

I was predicting this would be the outcome in 2003 when Colin Powell and Dubya were banging the war drums of WMD's in Iraq. We'd spend trillions, never accomplish anything good and kill millions all while "spreading democracy". No wonder middle eastern countries want a Muslim caliphate after what democracy has done for them.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

No need. Everyone has heard of ISIS, Al Queda, Al Shabbob, The Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.

I have indeed, We've backed some of them from time to time.

So just because they have had some traction in countries where government is questionable we should view them as a world wide threat?

Fair enough, they are bad groups... Does this mean we need to be engaged in a war for 17 years and spend 6 trillion dollars? I don't think so.

I'm not worried about those groups gaining traction in the west.

How many people would they have to murder, how many people would they have to subjugate, before you'd want to step in?

Tricky question. Since 240,000 civilians have died to direct violence as a result of our actions, at what point can we claim to care about the number they kill?

I think you're assuming they died of direct violence from American soldiers. I'm not sure that's the case. Again, how many people would someone or a group have to murder before you stepped in to help?

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Communism was inherently flawed, aside from the USSR and the cold war, it defeated itself.

But you never answered my question.

Are you concerned with extremist Islam taking over the globe as you compared it to Communism and Nazism?

I never compared it to Communism and Nazism.

I'm concerned with any ideology that seeks to create a world-wide caliphate, yes. You're not? Why?

Maybe not compared, but included it with. And no, I'm not concerned. What are they going to do, make us all convert?

They're going to do what they've done elsewhere. They're going to make you convert or kill you.

They've done that elsewhere?

You should make a thread on that, I haven't heard about it. At least in large numbers.

No need. Everyone has heard of ISIS, Al Queda, Al Shabbob, The Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.

I have indeed, We've backed some of them from time to time.

So just because they have had some traction in countries where government is questionable we should view them as a world wide threat?

Fair enough, they are bad groups... Does this mean we need to be engaged in a war for 17 years and spend 6 trillion dollars? I don't think so.

I'm not worried about those groups gaining traction in the west.

How many people would they have to murder, how many people would they have to subjugate, before you'd want to step in?

Tricky question. Since 240,000 civilians have died to direct violence as a result of our actions, at what point can we claim to care about the number they kill?

I think you're assuming they died of direct violence from American soldiers. I'm not sure that's the case. Again, how many people would someone or a group have to murder before you stepped in to help?

No I wasn't assuming that. But if we destabilize a country (Iraq), then they add civilian deaths in that country to the figure (whether ISIS, Iraqi Guard, or the US) had the "collateral damage".

To answer your question, I don't have a number though.

How many have to die in Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, parts of Africa, South America before we intervene?

Truth is, we only care if we have interests in the region.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I was predicting this would be the outcome in 2003 when Colin Powell and Dubya were banging the war drums of WMD's in Iraq. We'd spend trillions, never accomplish anything good and kill millions all while "spreading democracy". No wonder middle eastern countries want a Muslim caliphate after what democracy has done for them.

Precisely.

Anyone offering to fight back is going to get traction, much like Hitler was able to get so many followers, people just wanted someone to promise them a better life while things were grim.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well, you said the 244,000 civilian deaths were the "direct result of our actions", whereas the article says they were "directly killed by violence". That's a huge discrepancy.

As you said yourself, no, you're not concerned. Thankfully some people are and they are willing to step in to defend the powerless and to oppose tyranny, whether they attack "us" or not.

Well, you said the 244,000 civilian deaths were the "direct result of our actions", whereas the article says they were "directly killed by violence". That's a huge discrepancy.

I didn't say we killed them, I said their deaths were a direct result of our wars, which is true.

As you said yourself, no, you're not concerned. Thankfully some people are and they are willing to step in to defend the powerless and to oppose tyranny, whether they attack "us" or not.

I'm sure Iraq is super thrilled we went in and saved them blessing them with stability, prosperity, and safety.

dbl

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Well, you said the 244,000 civilian deaths were the "direct result of our actions", whereas the article says they were "directly killed by violence". That's a huge discrepancy.

I didn't say we killed them, I said their deaths were a direct result of our wars, which is true.

As you said yourself, no, you're not concerned. Thankfully some people are and they are willing to step in to defend the powerless and to oppose tyranny, whether they attack "us" or not.

I'm sure Iraq is super thrilled we went in and saved them blessing them with stability, prosperity, and safety.

Except that's not true. They were the directly killed by violence, just like the article stated. If you want to make a claim about indirect causes, sure, but direct cause? nope.

But yes, you're right, Iraq did not turn out as it was intended. Perhaps they enjoyed living under saddam's fascism more than having their homeland ruined and ravaged by war.

a reply to: Propagandalf

Except that's not true. They were the directly killed by violence, just like the article stated. If you want to make a claim about indirect causes, sure, but direct cause? nope.

The study used numbers that they could attribute to the wars themselves. Did we kill all of them, no. Did they die as a direct result of the war happening in the first place, yes.

But yes, you're right, Iraq did not turn out as it was intended. Perhaps they enjoyed living under saddam's fascism more than having their homeland ruined and ravaged by war.

Who helped put him into power? We did.

Edit: to add, do you think Afgahnistan as a whole is thankful for us "saving" them, or Pakistan for that matter. Those are the only three countries this study even goes into.

Which one of them was a success by any standard?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The study used numbers that they could attribute to the wars themselves. Did we kill all of them, no. Did they die as a direct result of the war happening in the first place, yes.

Most direct war deaths of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Syria have been caused by militants. Let's try not to disguise this fact with pacifist casuistry.