It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We Need A Vaccination for American Aggression

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
Thing is, just at what point did America actually get 'attacked' by any of the people it supposedly is currently at war with?... 9/11?, wasnt that done by Saudis? Dont see no damn american troops any where near their damn place.


Actually, we are in A-stan because the Taliban wouldn't give up Osama. I thought that was in all the papers?




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
If the US spent the money that they do on Wars domestically, and put those soldiers to work as engineers, the Infrastructure of the United States would be strong enough to put the United States unparalleled in the world!

(Not to mention the lives it would save, as KSPigpen has pointed out!)

Imperialism is so 17th century! I'm sorry the United States missed out on their turn playing that Milton Bradley game with the rest of the world, but it's time to grow up and stop killing those we don't like. The rest of the world has a new game from Milton Bradley that is so 21st century called Diplomacy. We should consider giving it a try.

And if there is any doubt that a Vaccine against American Aggression wouldn't be beneficial to the United States, one need only look to other nations prospering during these times. Do they act out in Aggression towards their fellow world citizens? Do they wage wars? Do they spend countless trillions on military? No, they spend all their money on building their infrastructure and becoming strong by making their nation strong economically, educationally, and socially, rather than flexing their might as if that somehow equates.

Remember the big bully that would pick on everyone on the Elementary School Playground? That is Aggressive America. Just because that 7 year old was 250lbs and could bench-press 300lbs didn't make him strong did it? He might beat his wife and kick his dog to make himself feel better now that he is living in a rundown Trailer Park while those he picked on went off to found Silicon Valley to become billionaires.

Might doesn't make right, and might is not strength, and aggression will only get you hated and in deep trouble.

It's long overdue that America find a Vaccine to this troubling problem so that we can get over this illness and become strong once again. Remember, Reading is Fundamental, not Killing.

S&F



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 



posted on 14-10-2009 @ 03:07 PM
check the original timestamp on my post, detective, preferably BEFORE you question my integrity. Now, do a little looking at the Stars and Stripes article and explain how I traveled through time to 23 minutes BEFORE that article was posted to quote it. Notice there is no edit stamp on the op. They changed the article. I explained that already and provided you a link to the original article that still existed at the time I provided it. The whole point is irrelevant. It doesn't change a thing, but I would ask that if you would like to question my honesty, you show some courage and do it outright.



Let me guess, in high school, you were the kid that asked, "When they named the 100 Years War, how did they know it was going to last that long?" How about this; it takes as long as it takes. I know you'll have a hissy fit over that, but hey, life sucks. Get a helmet. You ain't doing the fighting.


Personal attacks do nothing to validate your arguments. My high school career has nothing to do with it.

You may be skipping merrily around whistling about how grand it is that we are 8 or 9 years into a WAR that we was started under false pretenses and has continued running on lies for almost longer than any conflict the United States has ever been involved in. That's your right. I choose not to share that elation and that is my right.



Once again, who knows how long it will take. "OK, guys, you got nine years to find Osama. Get to work! Once your time is up, we leave, regardless." That makes a lot of sense.


It really warms my heart that you are so patriotic and determined to catch Osama. I'm happy there are folks like you, really. How about this one: "you know what guys, all together we've lost about 5 or 6 thousand American troops since we started this search for that guy that used to get his money from us, but I think that's plenty of American lives. Never mind the Iraqis, because it's war, and hell, they probably deserve it anyway."

At what point is the sacrifice of AMERICAN lives sufficient to find this make believe boogyman? As long as it takes? A hundred thousand? When is it enough? When, for a patriotic soul such as your self, have enough of OUR men and women died to achieve the vengeance we are after?


It doesn't matter? You're joking, right? First of all, you say that John Hopkins is a great place (and they are) and we have to believe them. Now, it doesn't matter if they are off on their count. Pick a side!


Again, dispute the sources all you like. I already told you, even if we didn't pay any attention to the Johns Hopkins estimates, it wouldn't change anything. All it does it make it MORE civilians dead. So what. We can always just decide to use whatever source has the LOWEST estimate, if you like, and that would be the 85,000.

believe what you like. It's not anyone's job to convince you otherwise. War sucks, no I don't wear a helmet.

It's ridiculous that people can justify the deaths of 85,000 civilians and 4500 US military personnel for revenge. We've CAUSED more deaths of our OWN people than the 'bad guys' did when they blew up some towers.

But what the hay, it's war.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I edited my first post to add it, but seeing as how it wasn't the last post on the thread at the time I'm sure it's been missed. The article the OP now links to says those 85k deaths were caused by SECTARIAN VIOLENCE. So nope, not the US' fault and not our troop's doing.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Nope there's no agenda here.


Just ignore all the suicide bombers blowing up civilians. The cause of death doesn't matter as long as we can pin it all on the Americans.

[/sarcasm]


Edit to add: Let's also ignore that that 85k are the result of sectarian violence. Which by the way for those who have no clue what sectarian violence is, has absolutely nothing to do with the US and everything to do with the Sunni/Shia battle over religion.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Jenna]


Whew, what a relief! I'm glad to hear that ALL of the deaths in Iraq are a result of sectarian violence. I really believe it too.

Please check the report by NEJM linked earlier. It is pretty clear that no, not all of the deaths are Iraqis killing Iraqis. A good number ARE, I will concede to that.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen

posted on 14-10-2009 @ 03:07 PM
check the original timestamp on my post, detective, preferably BEFORE you question my integrity. Now, do a little looking at the Stars and Stripes article and explain how I traveled through time to 23 minutes BEFORE that article was posted to quote it. Notice there is no edit stamp on the op. They changed the article. I explained that already and provided you a link to the original article that still existed at the time I provided it. The whole point is irrelevant. It doesn't change a thing, but I would ask that if you would like to question my honesty, you show some courage and do it outright.


Funny. I read this article on several news sites, and they ALL said, "Iraqi government". I wanted to know who made that claim, because I knew it would be on ATS, especially if it was the US that made that claim.

So, grab the coathanger and dig your panties out, because you got them in a bunch.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
Personal attacks do nothing to validate your arguments. My high school career has nothing to do with it.


OK, you have no sense of humor. Duly noted. What I was saying is that you don't know how long a war will last until it's over.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
You may be skipping merrily around whistling about how grand it is that we are 8 or 9 years into a WAR that we was started under false pretenses and has continued running on lies for almost longer than any conflict the United States has ever been involved in. That's your right. I choose not to share that elation and that is my right.


Not skipping; it's more like a foxtrot with a bit of tango mixed in for that Latin flavor.

You're right; it's your right. Keep on rocking with your bad self.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
It really warms my heart that you are so patriotic and determined to catch Osama. I'm happy there are folks like you, really. How about this one: "you know what guys, all together we've lost about 5 or 6 thousand American troops since we started this search for that guy that used to get his money from us, but I think that's plenty of American lives. Never mind the Iraqis, because it's war, and hell, they probably deserve it anyway."

At what point is the sacrifice of AMERICAN lives sufficient to find this make believe boogyman? As long as it takes? A hundred thousand? When is it enough? When, for a patriotic soul such as your self, have enough of OUR men and women died to achieve the vengeance we are after?


Check with your history and you'll find a lot of guys that were the enemy of a country that was once paying them. Wasn't it in the news today that Benito Mussolini was receiving money from the British Government as their agent during WW1? And the "make believe boogyman" is getting into that 9/11 "false flag" argument.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
Again, dispute the sources all you like. I already told you, even if we didn't pay any attention to the Johns Hopkins estimates, it wouldn't change anything. All it does it make it MORE civilians dead. So what. We can always just decide to use whatever source has the LOWEST estimate, if you like, and that would be the 85,000.

believe what you like. It's not anyone's job to convince you otherwise. War sucks, no I don't wear a helmet.

It's ridiculous that people can justify the deaths of 85,000 civilians and 4500 US military personnel for revenge. We've CAUSED more deaths of our OWN people than the 'bad guys' did when they blew up some towers.


And you're under the impression that the US was the ones to kill all 85000 of those civilians. Or we are the cause of their deaths. Give me a break.

Yes, we've lost more men in the field that on 9/11. First you complain about how long it's taking, now it's casualities. How come everyone thinks that a war should only take "X" amount of time, and "X" amount of lives. The US military does it's best to keep civilian and military casualties to a minimum; I can't say the same for other armies. But that's neither here nor there.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Please check the report by NEJM linked earlier. It is pretty clear that no, not all of the deaths are Iraqis killing Iraqis. A good number ARE, I will concede to that.


That's just it. People seem to think that it's all the fault of the US, that the US military is killing all of those civilians, and it's not. The ROE in A-stan has been changed where US troops in Contact are suppose to break off when they are at risk of civilians being mixed in the fight.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen

Please check the report by NEJM linked earlier. It is pretty clear that no, not all of the deaths are Iraqis killing Iraqis. A good number ARE, I will concede to that.




Now how did this admission get buried way back here instead of in the original post?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


Just can't let go of your argument can you. The 85k you've been trying to pin on the US were caused by sectarian violence. Not the US dropping bombs. Not US troops indiscriminately firing on unarmed civilians. They were caused by Iraqi's killing Iraqi's over religion.

Even the article you originally had linked to before they changed it talks about them being the result of sectarian violence, though they don't specifically use that term, and blame those 85k on terrorist attacks.


"Through the terrorist attacks like explosions, assassinations, kidnappings and forced displacements, the outlawed groups have created these terrible figures which represent a big challenge for the rule of law and for the Iraqi people," it said.

Violence has declined dramatically since the worst years, but almost every person in Iraq has been touched by the violence. Insurgents continue to target civilians, especially Shiites and their shrines.


Yet still you tried to use it to blame every death in Iraq on the US and push an obvious agenda. The US has it's faults, I'll grant you that. But the deaths of these 85k aren't one of them.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by KSPigpen

Please check the report by NEJM linked earlier. It is pretty clear that no, not all of the deaths are Iraqis killing Iraqis. A good number ARE, I will concede to that.




Now how did this admission get buried way back here instead of in the original post?


I am conceding that a good number (I have no way of knowing how many) of these reported civilian deaths are the result of sectarian violence. It doesn't change my feelings. Not that it matters.


In events with at least one Iraqi civilian victim, the methods that killed the most civilians per event were aerial bombings (17 per event), combined use of aerial and ground weapons (17 per event), and suicide bombers on foot (16 per event). Aerial bombs killed, on average, 9 more civilians per event than aerial missiles (17 vs. 8 per event). Indeed, if an aerial bomb killed civilians at all, it tended to kill many. It seems clear from these findings that to protect civilians from indiscriminate harm, as required by international humanitarian law (including the Geneva Conventions),4 military and civilian policies should prohibit aerial bombing in civilian areas unless it can be demonstrated — by monitoring of civilian casualties, for example — that civilians are being protected.


Insurgents don't use aerial bombings. Perhaps we can eliminate THOSE from the numbers said to be 'sectarian'

content.nejm.org...

It was irresponsible and inaccurate for me to claim that ALL civilian deaths are a result of the US aggression or occupation. My wording WOULD lead someone to believe that was my point, and it probably WAS at the time.


Either way you want to slice it, aggression perpetrated by the United States, or that which is a direct result of American occupation of sovereign nations, in the four years sampled, has been responsible for anywhere from 85,000 to over 600,000 people.


Although the exact numbers will NEVER be known, it's unfair to use the numbers above. I won't edit the Op, because it's as important for others to get to this concession as it is me, the long way.

Iraqis WILL kill other Iraqis, that is a given. Afghanis will kill other Afghanis. They will do this at an accelerated rate when they are occupied by the United States. In this regard, the occupation of these countries, by the United States contributes to the civilian deaths, either through US bombings, drone missile attacks, errant bullets or assassinations. If there were not civilians 'cooperating' with the occupation forces, again, the number of civilian deaths would decline.

The correlation between the occupation and the increased civilian violence and deaths has been established. As American forces LEAVE Iraq, the violence lessens. Pretty clear.

To blame ALL of the civilian deaths in Iraq on sectarian violence would be as irresponsible and inaccurate as it is to blame them all on Americans.

My point remains. America is unnecessarily violent. America is occupying more than a couple of nations right now, but two of them extensively. This presence further destabilizes the nations in question and leads to more death.

The United States should cease it's invasion of other countries under the worthless, but heart-tugging sentiment of 'bringing justice' to those that lost their lives on American soil.

When a convicted murderer is put to death in the United States, it doesn't take 4000 cops to die and an unknown number of civilians as well in order for that 'justice' to be served.

It's also interesting to note that some estimates put the death toll on Iraqi civilians as high as a million.

www.opinion.co.uk...


In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent ‘surge’ is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003.


If this is anywhere CLOSE to being true, then even a figure as low as 1 in 100 deaths being a result of the US occupation and aggression in Iraq would mean 10,000 innocent Iraqis had died at US hands. Acceptable? Just more of those people that 'need killed?'




[edit on 14-10-2009 by KSPigpen]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
My point remains. America is unnecessarily violent. America is occupying more than a couple of nations right now, but two of them extensively. This presence further destabilizes the nations in question and leads to more death.


Huh? The US is "occupying" how many countries???


Originally posted by KSPigpen
It's also interesting to note that some estimates put the death toll on Iraqi civilians as high as a million.

www.opinion.co.uk...


That article was based on the Lancet research, which was funded by George Soros, who is anti Iraq war. Just a bit biased.

www.timesonline.co.uk...


Originally posted by KSPigpen
If this is anywhere CLOSE to being true, then even a figure as low as 1 in 100 deaths being a result of the US occupation and aggression in Iraq would mean 10,000 innocent Iraqis had died at US hands. Acceptable? Just more of those people that 'need killed?'


"Died at US hands"? Dude, give me a freakin' break.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 




Huh? The US is "occupying" how many countries???


The United States military currently occupies MANY countries. My statement was 'at least a couple.' We'll use Iraq and Afghanistan for now. We'll pretend, if it makes you feel better, that there are NO american troops in Japan, Colombia, Egypt, South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Germany...we could do this all night.



That article was based on the Lancet research, which was funded by George Soros, who is anti Iraq war. Just a bit biased.


We're ALL just a little biased. I guess the fun part comes in when we try to determine who's numbers we can trust, huh? Do we trust those that would suffer a 'public relations' problem, the ones that would stand to gain from the propaganda, relief organizations? Tell me who's numbers we can trust and we can focus on them if it helps.



"Died at US hands"? Dude, give me a freakin' break.

Perhaps wording that differently would help? They accidentally got owies and went to heaven cuz the U.S. guys made a boo boo?

That makes it better huh?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
The United States military currently occupies MANY countries. My statement was 'at least a couple.' We'll use Iraq and Afghanistan for now. We'll pretend, if it makes you feel better, that there are NO american troops in Japan, Colombia, Egypt, South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Germany...we could do this all night.


Yeah, you're right. The US is occupying them. Not like we are paying any taxes, rent, etc for using the bases in those countries. Or working in conjunction with their troops.



Originally posted by KSPigpen
We're ALL just a little biased. I guess the fun part comes in when we try to determine who's numbers we can trust, huh? Do we trust those that would suffer a 'public relations' problem, the ones that would stand to gain from the propaganda, relief organizations? Tell me who's numbers we can trust and we can focus on them if it helps.


Well, sorry if your sources seem to be a bit "slanted". Not my fault.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
Perhaps wording that differently would help? They accidentally got owies and went to heaven cuz the U.S. guys made a boo boo?

That makes it better huh?


Wow, what a funny guy. Don't quit your day job, if you have one.

OK, Gus, since you have all the answers and based on your vast knowledge of military operations, how do you fight an enemy that wears the clothing of a civilian and hides in the civilian population? Because that's exactly what the insurgents are doing. Go out, kill a few people or plant an IED, then fade back into the population, because they know if the US troops engage them, and civilians are killed, the press and the ill-informed will go ape over the "aggression of US troops".

Kinda like what you're doing.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 




Yeah, you're right. The US is occupying them. Not like we are paying any taxes, rent, etc for using the bases in those countries. Or working in conjunction with their troops.


Rationalize it all you like, however you like. Deflect the topic in any way that helps you. It doesn't change the truth, or the original argument.



Well, sorry if your sources seem to be a bit "slanted". Not my fault.


ALL sources are a 'bit slanted' as you so accusingly point out in regards to mine. It only matters on what side of the fence you wish to rest that determines the 'validity' of your sources. When it comes to the facts, I'm afraid your opinion, though as 'valid' as mine, is not necessarily any closer to the truth.

Again, we can go around all night long on the validity of sources, or we can talk about United States aggression and it's occupation of other nations that leads, either directly, or indirectly to civilian casualties.



Wow, what a funny guy. Don't quit your day job, if you have one.


I appreciate your career consultation, and your subtle attempt at provocation or insult, but again, irrelevant. stay focused cap'n.



OK, Gus, since you have all the answers and based on your vast knowledge of military operations, how do you fight an enemy that wears the clothing of a civilian and hides in the civilian population? Because that's exactly what the insurgents are doing. Go out, kill a few people or plant an IED, then fade back into the population, because they know if the US troops engage them, and civilians are killed, the press and the ill-informed will go ape over the "aggression of US troops".


Short answer: You Don't. You don't GO to these countries under false pretenses, pretending to give a rats arse about the indigenous peoples and spew your frontier justice and manifest destiny across sovereign nations that in the end are responsible for their own lives. If they are FINE living under oppression, so be it. If they don't LIKE it, they will change it, themselves.

The U.S. has TRIED this already...tried to weed out the combatants from civilians before. It's obvious that the United States is not capable of that.

Use drones and intelligence. Vaporize the bastards from space, I don't care, but it's obvious what is being done now is not working and will NOT work.

If by being 'ill-informed' as you infer, I despise war and the useless loss of life, then I am proud to be 'ill-informed.'

If being 'informed' allows me to justify the needless loss of life and rallying behind a nation that creates puppet governments in other countries, assassinates civilians, tortures prisoners of war and cares less about the lives of their soldiers than a barrel of oil, I am eternally grateful that I am not 'informed.

I am well pleased that my ignorance precludes my blind acceptance of the destruction of foreign nations and the killing, whether accidental, or intentional of peoples who have done me no harm.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Rationalize it all you like, however you like. Deflect the topic in any way that helps you. It doesn't change the truth, or the original argument.


Well, then, the German Luftwaffe was occupying Arizona for a time. Seems like I couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a Luftwaffe pilot or support troop at Luke AFB.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
ALL sources are a 'bit slanted' as you so accusingly point out in regards to mine. It only matters on what side of the fence you wish to rest that determines the 'validity' of your sources. When it comes to the facts, I'm afraid your opinion, though as 'valid' as mine, is not necessarily any closer to the truth.


True, but it seems like the anti war crowd seems to pick the source with the highest number and run with it, regardless of any other facts that shoot their position down.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
Again, we can go around all night long on the validity of sources, or we can talk about United States aggression and it's occupation of other nations that leads, either directly, or indirectly to civilian casualties.


Your favorite position on this thread: It's all the fault of the US, regardless. That's pretty short sighted.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
I appreciate your career consultation, and your subtle attempt at provocation or insult, but again, irrelevant. stay focused cap'n.


My bad. I forgot you had no sense of humor.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
Short answer: You Don't. You don't GO to these countries under false pretenses, pretending to give a rats arse about the indigenous peoples and spew your frontier justice and manifest destiny across sovereign nations that in the end are responsible for their own lives. If they are FINE living under oppression, so be it. If they don't LIKE it, they will change it, themselves.


Well, too bad, so sad. The US is there. The only thing that can be done is fix what's been done wrong.

And that means hunting down and killing insurgents that are really not "lending a helping hand" so to speak, when it comes to keeping the region stable. You know, the guys that don't give a rat ass who they kill.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
The U.S. has TRIED this already...tried to weed out the combatants from civilians before. It's obvious that the United States is not capable of that.


You know of any country that is capable? The US is doing the best job of it. The main deal is keeping down troop and innocent civilian losses. Once again, the insurgents don't care who they kill.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
If by being 'ill-informed' as you infer, I despise war and the useless loss of life, then I am proud to be 'ill-informed.'


War sucks, but sometimes it's necessary. Get use to that fact. Like I said, it's not like you're fighting.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
If being 'informed' allows me to justify the needless loss of life and rallying behind a nation that creates puppet governments in other countries, assassinates civilians, tortures prisoners of war and cares less about the lives of their soldiers than a barrel of oil, I am eternally grateful that I am not 'informed.


Yep, the US is a buncha meanies!!! Name a country that hasn't done anything like that in the past? And remember, according to your own sources, most civilian deaths are from executions, and I bet that's by insurgents.

You forget how many billions of dollars have been dumped into that country in the form of aid, too.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
I am well pleased that my ignorance precludes my blind acceptance of the destruction of foreign nations and the killing, whether accidental, or intentional of peoples who have done me no harm.


Whatever. The rose colored glasses must help alot.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Rose colored glasses suit me fine. Much more tolerable than blood colored.

You have danced around the truth all night, deflecting and avoiding the reality that the United State's presence in more than one country right now is contributing to the needless deaths of civilians. It's really pretty simple.

You can hide behind your bravado as long as you like. You can make me out to be a hippy, a peace-nick, an idiot, or a fool. You can crack your insults and make your allegations about my job, my own service to my country, my lack of a sense of humor...It doesn't matter to me how you feel about me personally. I'm not here to win your love.

You can puff your chest out really far and swagger on about how war is just hell and that's just the way it is, and whatever other trite John Wayne euphemism you'd like to use, but the reality doesn't change. The U.S. is responsible for the needless deaths of many civilians.

The numbers can be disputed, the sources of those numbers can be disputed, the methods of death can be disputed, the motivation can be disputed, but the reality will not change. There are deaths, directly, or indirectly, going on right now because of America's aggressive nature.

Are you denying that?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
The U.S. is responsible for the needless deaths of many civilians.


Yet the US is the only one getting all the blame. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Why is it that every single one of the threads about the war lately is nothing but page after page and post after post of people saying how awful the US military is and that all they do is kill civilians, yet those same people look the other way when it's anyone else killing those civilians? No one gives a rats ass if civilians are killed by suicide bombers while they're just trying to shop at the market or pray in their mosque's. No one gives a rats ass that the majority of civilians that are killed every single day are killed by people who are from their country. No one gives a rats ass that they aren't targeting US troops, they are targeting Iraqi's over freaking religion.

That's all ok right? It doesn't matter that they were killing each other over who can be a prophet and who can't for over 1000 years. It doesn't matter that they'd be killing each other right now even if we'd never set foot in the country. It doesn't matter that they'll be killing each other long after we're gone. No one gives a rats ass as long as they can blame it all on our military.

Who cares that we're trying to help them rebuild everything and trying to help them train their own military and police force so they can fend for themselves. Who cares about the billions in aid that we've sent there. Who cares about anything good we've done or tried to do. None of that matters. It's much more fun to just point fingers at the military and claim they're just there killing innocent people.

This thread was started based on a false premise. That being that the US military had killed 85k civilians. Then reality sets in and lo and behold those 85k were killed by sectarian violence. But who cares. There's an agenda that needs to be pushed here and we can't let facts stand in the way of claims that the military is solely responsible.

So much for denying ignorance, lets just perpetuate it so we can push our agenda.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 



Yet the US is the only one getting all the blame. Makes a lot of sense to me.

The US is NOT getting ALL the blame. That's like saying 9MM are the ONLY guns that are used to kill people. Your argument is apparently designed to skirt the reality and incite emotional rhetoric. It doesn't change the truth. The funny thing about this is that we could have only killed a dozen innocent civilians and it wouldn't change the argument, or the statement I made.


The U.S. is responsible for the needless deaths of many civilians.

Pretty cut and dry. I have conceded that the US did not kill ALL of the civilians. Are you still pushing that point, or denying that the US has killed ANY civilians?



Why is it that every single one of the threads about the war lately is nothing but page after page and post after post of people saying how awful the US military is and that all they do is kill civilians, yet those same people look the other way when it's anyone else killing those civilians? No one gives a rats ass if civilians are killed by suicide bombers while they're just trying to shop at the market or pray in their mosque's. No one gives a rats ass that the majority of civilians that are killed every single day are killed by people who are from their country. No one gives a rats ass that they aren't targeting US troops, they are targeting Iraqi's over freaking religion.


Tug on the strings, Jenna. This thread isn't about 'how awful the US military is and that all they do is kill civilians.' It's awful easy to get in line with a popular opinion and try to incite the emotional, patriotic responses, isn't it? You're going to have to try harder than that.

The US military isn't responsible for ALL civilian deaths in Iraq, or Afghanistan. I agree with that. What I find hard to understand is someone's unwillingness to accept that civilian deaths in Afghanistan, no matter how 'minor' in someone's opinion, HAVE happened because of the American occupation and American military action.

If one person cuts off nine of your fingers and then a different person cuts off the last one, would the person that cut off one be not guilty because the other guy cut off nine? Perhaps they can 'share' the blame for your loss of fingers? Maybe the only one that is 'WRONG' in that scenario, according to your logic, is the guy that cut off nine.

Your emotional speech is worthy of being used by a president for sure. The Iraqis and the Afghanis have been killing themselves for a ling time. They will continue to do that when America has gone away. no one denies that.

For every thread where someone disagrees with war and the killing of civilians and the presence of the US in a multitude of nations, there are just as many filled with cold-blooded killers willing to accept the deaths of how ever many it takes to 'succeed' with someone ELSE'S agenda. It's funny how one can claim someone ELSE doesn't give a 'rat's ass' about civilians dying and then vehemently support whatever deaths are 'necessary' to achieve the corrupt goals of an aggressor nation.



This thread was started based on a false premise. That being that the US military had killed 85k civilians. Then reality sets in and lo and behold those 85k were killed by sectarian violence. But who cares. There's an agenda that needs to be pushed here and we can't let facts stand in the way of claims that the military is solely responsible.


Apparently you haven't read all of the posts, Jenna. The notion that the US was responsible for ALL of those 85 thousand deaths has been discounted and I have conceded to that, a couple times. It's a page back or so. Rather than hashing the same garbage you spouted about then, why don't you tell us how wonderful it is that ANY civilians have died? Why don't you tell us how great it is that the United States has contributed to EXTRA death, yeah, EXTRA. We know the idiots are going to kill each other, they always do, they always have. More of them die when we are there.

You sure use that word 'agenda' a lot. Sounds like just another tool to help you keep from having to admit that innocent people are dying and the US is responsible. Oh, no, like you pointed out, we don't kill all of them. (whew) but how many is an acceptable number for you? What it seems like to me is that you would have us believe that there have been NO civilian deaths due to the American occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely you don't believe that.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
The US is NOT getting ALL the blame.


They aren't? Sure could have fooled me. Let's take a little trip down memory lane, shall we?


Originally posted by KSPigpen
I think what we need to do is look at the REAL killer loose in the world today. The United States Government.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
Run to the generalization of how it's the bad guys and their car bombs and market bombs that are causing all the deaths.


Originally posted by KSPigpen
I am conceding that a good number (I have no way of knowing how many) of these reported civilian deaths are the result of sectarian violence. It doesn't change my feelings.


All you've done is blame the US. And it's not just you, there are many people here on this site who do nothing but blame the US and either turn their heads when it's Iraqi's killing Iraqi's or somehow try to pin it on the US anyway.


Your argument is apparently designed to skirt the reality and incite emotional rhetoric. It doesn't change the truth. The funny thing about this is that we could have only killed a dozen innocent civilians and it wouldn't change the argument, or the statement I made.


Hardly. My post was written to point out the blatant hypocrisy of so many posters here. Thanks for proving that point by the way. It could be a dozen and you'd still be harping about how the US is nothing but a bunch of killers and mostly dismissing the tens of thousands killed by Iraqi's over religion?


Are you still pushing that point, or denying that the US has killed ANY civilians?


I'm not denying anything. Accidents happen and innocent people get killed. That's what happens in a war. I wish it were completely avoidable, but sometimes it happens. It's not all gumdrops and rainbows where only the people who are actually fighting get killed.


It's awful easy to get in line with a popular opinion and try to incite the emotional, patriotic responses, isn't it?


Oh that's hilarious. All the posts in this thread and others trying to tug the heart strings and get everyone to agree that the US and the military are nothing but a bunch of murderers and you're trying to say I'm going with popular opinion? Have you actually read any threads here? My opinion is in the minority in these parts.


The US military isn't responsible for ALL civilian deaths in Iraq, or Afghanistan. I agree with that.


Yet I've yet to see you or many others post any threads about the atrocities committed by Iraqi's on Iraqi's over religion. Instead we should all ignore all of those deaths and just focus on the ones caused by the military. Why is that I wonder? Perhaps because you simply don't care about the suicide bombers, the people being kidnapped and shot in the head execution style, or any of the other ways they're killing each other?


What I find hard to understand is someone's unwillingness to accept that civilian deaths in Afghanistan, no matter how 'minor' in someone's opinion, HAVE happened because of the American occupation and American military action.


What I find hard to understand is someone's inability to realize that disputing these 85k as being caused by the US when they in fact weren't, isn't the same thing as claiming that no civilian has died because of US military actions.


Maybe the only one that is 'WRONG' in that scenario, according to your logic, is the guy that cut off nine.


Nice attempt at twisting, but that's not even remotely close to what I said. In your scenario, yes they'd both be guilty. However, the one who cut off nine has a heck of a lot more of the guilt at his feet than the one who cut off one.


They will continue to do that when America has gone away. no one denies that.


Oh yes they do.


It's funny how one can claim someone ELSE doesn't give a 'rat's ass' about civilians dying and then vehemently support whatever deaths are 'necessary' to achieve the corrupt goals of an aggressor nation.


Have you asked me if I support whatever deaths are necessary? I don't recall you doing so. Why don't you try asking instead of inferring that I do.


Rather than hashing the same garbage you spouted about then, why don't you tell us how wonderful it is that ANY civilians have died?


Oh so pointing out the fact that your OP was based on false information is garbage? Pointing out that not all the deaths in Iraq have been caused by the US is garbage?



You sure use that word 'agenda' a lot.


Wrong again. I actually use the word 'agenda' very rarely, and only in cases where it's blatantly obvious that someone is trying to push one.


What it seems like to me is that you would have us believe that there have been NO civilian deaths due to the American occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Show me where even once in any thread I have ever said that US troops haven't ever killed a single civilian. I've said I don't know how many times that they aren't solely responsible, which any rational thinking person would realize means that yeah they've caused some but they haven't caused them all.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I just read the thread posted by the ATS owners banning political references that might offend someone.

Calling the U.S. government the "killer of the world" offends me and I'm quite sure plenty of others.

I'm asking for a ban on this sort of thread and the references contained therein as well on the same grounds.

Thank you.


then this place will be as gagged as your media ..

and you yanks can delude yourselves until your little hearts are content .. if you dont like the rtest of the worlds views on your governments actions then dont read them.

you administrations have done more than offend millions of people.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by manxman2]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join