Senate overwhelmingly votes to override Obama veto on 9/11 bill

a reply to: Jonjonj

True, but that allows the accomplishments to fall out of the forefront of people's heads faster than the negative things because the negative things are talked about incessantly. Thus people tend to view world politics so negatively. Me. I don't think the world is NEARLY as dark as ATS pretends it is. We aren't anywhere NEAR WWIII. The world economy is doing pretty well. Sure there are some hotspots out there, but most of the countries in the world get along. Even terrorism (the current media bogeyman) is near non-existent statistically. But I'm just one guy and people like to angrily yell at me for not agreeing with them that the world is going to #, but I digress.

In any case, I feel like this bill opens up the possibility to ruin the many good things that we in the 1st world (not just the US here) take for granted.

It's no surprise Obama would veto this bill.



The downside is Saudi dumping the US debt they own.

a reply to: crazyewok

Well we will see if we get some with this.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Maybe Hillary will finally be held responsible for all the drone strikes she authorized and proudly defended in her book Hard Choices.

a reply to: FredT

If you say so. I mean maybe I'm wrong and my worries are unfounded I'm just not too keen on placing the role of pointing blame for world political missteps and misdeeds at the feet of John Q. Public. Mr. Public tends to be rather bad at discerning true blame or caring about the nuance required to deal with these things.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If western nations, particularly NATO nations were to say look, we fecked up over the last 20 or so years particularly. We were enticed by whomever it was into forcing our policies into action and we went along because of weak leadership and strong lobbying. We will now adhere to international law and act accordingly, much damage would be avoided in the future.

This idea that by maintaining the policies we have used just because we see no other option is hubris. If we aren't capable of understanding that we have been a major player in the current situation, and accepting that such policies are anathema to the greater good on a world scale, we are lost.

We create wars where no wars existed, we create political instability in the HOPE that it may further our political and geo political goals at some point down the line.

Yet it has been and is clear that none of what we have done has benefited mankind in any real way except for the fact that arms dealers have become the richest people on the planet.

It is ALL wrong, and we need to reset our priorities.



EDIT: A strong alliance does NOT need to prove its strength every time something comes on the radar. It needs to be ready when needed, and vigilant, and it needs to use its influence in ways that do not automatically involve ad hoc military intervention.

We create wars where no wars existed, we create political instability in the HOPE that it may further our political and geo political goals at some point down the line.

Yet it has been and is clear that none of what we have done has benefited mankind in any real way except for the fact that arms dealers have become the richest people on the planet.

That's a good summary. Some large corporations have also benefited from the military/intelligence machine - a low to no cost effect producer compliments of the government.

a reply to: Jonjonj

But all governments do that. The US still cannot admit that the War on Drugs was founded on lies, racism, and political posturing, but that doesn't stop it from still scheduling drugs and putting people in jail for using a substance.

It's no surprise that on the world stage governments would act the same way when it comes to world policies. After all, a government is a body made of people and people have a hard time admitting their mistakes. It is one of the hardest things a human can do and be honest about it.

Truthers were gaining ground. I wonder who gets the blame once people wise up to this patsy too...aliens.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Man he sucks at running them, he drone strikes and bombs them all the time!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: GodEmperor

Man he sucks at running them, he drone strikes and bombs them all the time!

It's funny how the Obama haters are always going on about how he is an ISIS supporter but then those same people will turn around and whine about how Obama bombs all these Middle Eastern countries with drones.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

So it was bad to bomb the people we keep talking about needing to destroy?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But all governments do that.

My point in a nutshell. This isn't about what we have done before, it is about what I believe we should do i the future.

And let us now be clear, something needs to change, so why is it not us who change? Is the western world afraid that if it changed its focus of domination and imposition, to one of logic and humanitarianism, that we would somehow be overwhelmed by enemy forces?

It is ridiculous, as most logical people would agree.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes, bombing weddings, schools, hospitals and civillians in countries we have not officialy declared war on is bad, unless you are a neocon like Bush/Clinton.

According to a recent United Nations report, U.S. and allied forces killed 24 children in Afghanistan in 2014. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan over the past decade have killed between 172 and 207 children.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

This is what you defend and approve of?

I don't think it is a great idea, the whole "can of worms" thing. But there it is.... They can sue SA.

I didnt read the link, maybe I should lol... but sue in criminal court or civil court? preponderance of evidence or in criminal vs. much less in civil.

And what lawyer will take on these cases or class action suit? Going to work pro-bono to get their name in the papers?

Can a person being sued be "served" papers through international mail? Or first spend untold hours typing up said lawsuit, file it and then fly to SA and get an audience with the royal family and personally serve them?

Then proving SA had malicious intent... sure some of the hijackers were from SA, maybe evidence of some link to the royal family...

And if it goes to court and the US family/families lose, they might be on the hook for some rather large legal bills. I'm guessing private jets from SA aren't cheap.


Hell my son in law was driving down the freeway, heading home from work... a semi crossed the median and hit him head on. He was airlifted out and ok now, the evidence was clear, the driver ticketed and my boy sued. Almost 2 years ago and the trial is set for next April... Can you imagine the time line of a lawsuit involving parties on opposite sides of the planet???

a reply to: Sremmos80

Do you have any proof ISIS targets were actually hit?

financed a Sunni army[ISIS] — the Awakening — and Galbraith says this is responsible for the success so far in Iraq. Biden would take this to the next step and encourage the Sunnis to form their own region[Islamic Caliphate]

NPR

The [Obama] strategy had given ISIS time to consolidate its control, train terrorists, and embed operatives in Western countries.

Foreign Affairs

Yousef al-Salfi, an ISIS leader in Pakistan just admitted during interrogation, ISIS is being FUNDED by the Obama administration!

Political Insider

This should have happened years ago, I believe the Saudi state was partly and knowingly responsible for the thousands of deaths that day.

a reply to: roadgravel

Yes, SA was being the "random citizens." Much like our administration is behind arming and funding similar radical terrorist organizations. Yes, it will open us to lawsuits. No longer can we mercilessly bomb civilians by day and sleep with our Nobel peace prize by night.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Why did you leave the part about the bush admin out on your first quote?
A simple mistake I am sure!
Your second one is just about disagreeing with not putting troops on the ground and I don't care what the ISIS has to say.
www.theaustralian.com.au... d11ec622fd0808da81d9da03
www.cnn.com...

a reply to: cynicalheathen

eh japan wouldnt be able to cash it as IF they did get money from us for a lawsuit from over 50 years ago they would have to hand it and billions more to the Chinese for the raping,enslaving,pillaging,biological weapons use and general terrible behavior from ww2 in south east Asia. you may have a problem with us dropping nukes on japan but the Chinese,Vietnamese, and Koreans etc cheered when those mushroom clouds went off