| funding universal healthcare is more fair through progressive tax so the 1% will be tax much much higher while the 99% will be tax much lower, this has been a common proposal among democrats like Bernie Sanders its weird that the americans that hate universal healthcare did not think of taxing more the rich |
Peaceful_Critic said: simonephone said: I wasn't saying it wasn't messed up. I said it was awful in my last post. " You said the war is not only for profit, what are you talking about then?"I was referencing the documentary who killed the electric car, it's entirely about this specific issue. And are you justifing an entire war where yes not only but mostly poor people are dying on both sides so we can steal oil? You said the war is not only for profit, what are you talking about then? That everyone can save a few bucks on gas? Thats still an example of it being fought for profit. Idk that just seems fucked up to me. If middle eastern people were to come invade the US and take our oil and bomb us cause it would save their people some money on gas, that would be equally justifiable then? @Maneki-Mew Lmao oh what a season it will be But yeah I agree with everything you said. It's crazy how even the people at the bottom are so desperate to find someone to look down on. I'm saying that poor people need it to go about their lives since they can't get electric cars. The price thing was to say that oil is limited and getting rarer, so it needs the price to rise and they need other sources. It wasn't about saving money on oil, it's about having any for the people who need it. Not profit, but a need. "are you justifing an entire war where yes not only but mostly poor people are dying on both sides so we can steal oil?" I'm stating it's not an evil vs good guys situation. US isn't doing this solely for profit. We definitely are not fighting in the war to ease the burden of gas prices on the poor. No one in the military thinks that's the point of the war, and certainly nobody in Washington. Quite honestly I've never heard anyone use that as an actual justifiable reason until just now. But also your point is completely ignoring the fact that the war is where the vast majority of everyone's tax money is going, we spend trillians of dollara fighting this war. If everything we spent on taxes on the war was suddenly all given back to us the increase in the cost of gas wouldnt even matter. Or better yet we could spend that money on things that would actually benefit us like Healthcare and college. Seriously if half the money that gets spent on the military was cut we would have more than enough for free health care at the very least. And that'll save the poor a lot more money than some gas money. Also my point was in the long run switching over to electric cars would be way cheaper for the poor in the long run if it was allowed. A large part of why that won't happen is because of corporate lobbying. If you want more info on that watch the documentary I mentioned. @Maneki-Mew my coworker who sells weed is fucking weird idk if audiences are even ready lol |
ChromephoneMay 10, 2019 6:22 PM
Peaceful_Critic said: simonephone said: Please actually read what I wrote, I keep stating my point in clear terms, but you keep missing it. I'm not gonna talk to you if you aren't gonna listen. We definitely are not fighting in the war to ease the burden of gas prices on the poor. No one in the military thinks that's the point of the war, and certainly nobody in Washington. Quite honestly I've never heard anyone use that as an actual justifiable reason until just now. But also your point is completely ignoring the fact that the war is where the vast majority of everyone's tax money is going, we spend trillians of dollara fighting this war. If everything we spent on taxes on the war was suddenly all given back to us the increase in the cost of gas wouldnt even matter. Or better yet we could spend that money on things that would actually benefit us like Healthcare and college. Seriously if half the money that gets spent on the military was cut we would have more than enough for free health care at the very least. And that'll save the poor a lot more money than some gas money. Also my point was in the long run switching over to electric cars would be way cheaper for the poor in the long run if it was allowed. A large part of why that won't happen is because of corporate lobbying. If you want more info on that watch the documentary I mentioned. @Maneki-Mew my coworker who sells weed is fucking weird idk if audiences are even ready lol I'm sorry I'm not trying to be difficult I agree that I don't think I understand the point you're making. I reread it again, so are you saying that we would have run out of oil if not for the war? |
| legal age to put your life on the line for the country: 18 legal age to have a couple drinks and relax: 21 ??????? |
 |
Maneki-Mew said: Peaceful_Critic said: @Maneki-Mew Basic education is a right due to needing it to get a job to feed yourself. This simply isn't true for higher education most people live alright without it(the survey proved this based on the amount who didn't use it). Higher education leads to higher paying jobs which might grant luxuries. If you wanted to go to college work for it, you are able to earn it. Wanting a job isn't the same as needing it or be qualified to have it. Having whatever job you want isn't a right, it's something you earn. I don't disagree, of course. You should earn degrees on your own, but the way to get there is much flater, if you have (ridiculous) rich parents. It's the case here, because their parents pay for private institutes and give them a job right away afterwards, and it's surely moreso the case, where higher education isn't seen as freely accessible. There are knock-out tests at public universities anyway in the begin. So you have to earn the right to study there by your knowledge and abilities and not by paying for it. Athough you have to over 300 € / semester, if you do more than 8 semesters. Which is still not over 5.000 up to 10.000 and more. Universities in the US admit students based on their past academic performance, extra-curricular activities, SAT scores as well as the applicant's race. SAT can be challenging, but is far from being a "knock-out" test, especially if you paid attention in high school and did practice tests that they offer. some universities are even doing away with the test altogether, preferring instead to trust the academic performance. https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20190506/unh-admissions-eliminates-sat-or-act-requirement compare SAT to say, ITA (instituto de techologia aeronaurica or Aeronautic Institute of Technology, where you have to take 5 different exams (exams are taken on different days consecutively). Physics, Chemistry, Math. each with 20 multiple-choice and 10 write-in responses. as well as Portuguese and English. each exam is 4 hours in length, which shows how intense the exam sessions are. 20 hours total exam time. (by comparison, SAT is 3 hours and is only 1 exam) by the way, this is Brazil. im sure other countries have exams that are just as challenging, or more. while tuition costs can be expensive, there are many scholarship programs available for students who make an effort to stay on top of their studies. |
| You can buy lossless digital music from your favorite Japanese artists on https://ototoy.jp/. The songs are all DRM-free and you can re-download your purchased albums as you wish. Show your support to your favorite artist if you can! ps. if you are looking for Japanese albums, you have to search it in Japanese (not romaji). Just copy and paste the name. For those who want to learn Japanese through anime Resources for learning the language |
DreamingBeats said: Wow, it almost sounds easy to go to school in the US going off that..Maneki-Mew said: I don't disagree, of course. You should earn degrees on your own, but the way to get there is much flater, if you have (ridiculous) rich parents. It's the case here, because their parents pay for private institutes and give them a job right away afterwards, and it's surely moreso the case, where higher education isn't seen as freely accessible. There are knock-out tests at public universities anyway in the begin. So you have to earn the right to study there by your knowledge and abilities and not by paying for it. Athough you have to over 300 € / semester, if you do more than 8 semesters. Which is still not over 5.000 up to 10.000 and more. Universities in the US admit students based on their past academic performance, extra-curricular activities, SAT scores as well as the applicant's race. SAT can be challenging, but is far from being a "knock-out" test, especially if you paid attention in high school and did practice tests that they offer. some universities are even doing away with the test altogether, preferring instead to trust the academic performance. https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20190506/unh-admissions-eliminates-sat-or-act-requirement compare SAT to say, ITA (instituto de techologia aeronaurica or Aeronautic Institute of Technology, where you have to take 5 different exams (exams are taken on different days consecutively). Physics, Chemistry, Math. each with 20 multiple-choice and 10 write-in responses. as well as Portuguese and English. each exam is 4 hours in length, which shows how intense the exam sessions are. 20 hours total exam time. (by comparison, SAT is 3 hours and is only 1 exam) by the way, this is Brazil. im sure other countries have exams that are just as challenging, or more. while tuition costs can be expensive, there are many scholarship programs available for students who make an effort to stay on top of their studies. Why would anyone not go after initial school? |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Peaceful_Critic said: simonephone said: Sorry, I overreacted. Yeah, you got it that time. I'm sorry I'm not trying to be difficult I agree that I don't think I understand the point you're making. I reread it again, so are you saying that we would have run out of oil if not for the war? Anyway, addressing your other points: "First is the $576 billion base budget for the Department of Defense. Second is $174 billion in overseas contingency operations for DoD to fight the Islamic State group. These two combined total the $740 billion touted by the president. Third is the total of other agencies that protect our nation. These expenses are $212.9 billion. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs ($93.1 billion). Funding for the VA has been increased by $10 billion over 2018 levels. That's to fund the VA MISSION Act to the VA's health care system. The other agencies are: Homeland Security ($51.7 billion), the State Department ($42.8 billion), the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy ($16.5 billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice. The last component is $26.1 billion in OCO funds for the State Department and Homeland Security. " We spend a lot on defense too actually, though 2 trillion was spent on our two recent wars(" the OCO budget has spent $2 trillion to pay for the War on Terror. "-Same article) "If everything we spent on taxes on the war was suddenly all given back to us the increase in the cost of gas wouldnt even matter. " That's not true, Mexico got richer, but that left the value of money being less(https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tequilaeffect.asp). "Or better yet we could spend that money on things that would actually benefit us like Healthcare and college." We do spend a good bit of it on healthcare("Funding for the VA has been increased by $10 billion over 2018 levels. That's to fund the VA MISSION Act to the VA's health care system. ") "If you want more info on that watch the documentary I mentioned." Alright, I'll check it out. Okay well that's why I was confused. If we needed oil, we couldn't have bought it instead of waging a war? And yep that's a lot of money, imo all the war money and a lot of the defense money should be going to Healthcare |
Peaceful_Critic said: simonephone said: SadMadoka straightened me out, we don't need it as of now. Though, yes we could trade(https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/082316/worlds-top-10-oil-exporters.asp).Okay well that's why I was confused. If we needed oil, we couldn't have bought it instead of waging a war? And yep that's a lot of money, imo all the war money and a lot of the defense money should be going to Healthcare You mentioned Iraq as an example of us waging war for oil. Well, you see that war was more so due to 9/11("vulnerability of the United States following the September 11 attacks of 2001, combined with Iraq’s alleged continued possession and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction an accusation that was later proved erroneous and its support for terrorist groups—which, according to the Bush administration, included al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks") We actually spend the most on Healthcare("The United States currently ranks highest in health care spending among the developed nations of the world. ") Also, as I said before I don't want universal healthcare. Imo 9/11 and vague values likes freedom were used by the government as an excuse to go to war because war is profitable. For oil but mainly its profitable for defense contractors and politicians. Oil is just a small part of it. The 911 bombers weren't even from Iraq, they were from a variety of countries including Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. |
xaow said: Why not if various other hard drugs are completely illegal?legal age to put your life on the line for the country: 18 legal age to have a couple drinks and relax: 21 ??????? I see no wisdom in this dual standard of that alcohol is the only harmless hard drug. One either consistently ban all hard drug or allow them all but to treat "having a couple of drinks and relax" as anything different from "snorting a bit of cocaine and relax" is simply absurd. |
 It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Peaceful_Critic said: It's actually a good thing we stopped him. His rule needed to end as basic freedoms weren't given to the people under it. I don't mean that in the vague sense either. I mean they didn't have the freedom of speech at all. My only gripe with the war is how hard it is on the Iraq civilians who had to suffer through it and had to be wary of the field mines(which they might be the case). Your statement has triggered me. You think it's a good thing that we took care of the Iraqi dictatorship, but that's just the thing. All we really took care of was the military-industrial complex and Dick Cheney's asshole. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| get really obese go to war take out thousands of dollars in student loans go into debt to get any kind of medical care |
Peaceful_Critic said: Gan_water said: I mean is it not a better that he isn't in control? Your statement has triggered me. You think it's a good thing that we took care of the Iraqi dictatorship, but that's just the thing. All we really took care of was the military-industrial complex and Dick Cheney's asshole. I don't think it is better... sounds like going to war for shady reasons is exactly the kind of thing that gets the nation into future trouble... Iraq is still in trouble too, by the way. It's pretty clear that ISIS has not but disappeared into the shadows, and meanwhile the current tribunals being carried out by the government are nothing but a widescale clampdown on anyone remotely suspected of being involved with ISIS. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Gan_water said: I think it is, I know it's still bad, but it has time to improve now. If it continued on, no doubt the Iraq people will suffer longer.I don't think it is better... sounds like going to war for shady reasons is exactly the kind of thing that gets the nation into future trouble... Iraq is still in trouble too, by the way. It's pretty clear that ISIS has not but disappeared into the shadows, and meanwhile the current tribunals being carried out by the government are nothing but a widescale clampdown on anyone remotely suspected of being involved with ISIS. "Iraq is still in trouble too, by the way. It's pretty clear that ISIS has not but disappeared into the shadows" Yeah, I was never said that wasn't the case. I said we are fighting ISIS and the things I quoted stated how Iraq is still having problems. Well it's a pretty slim gain that's all I'm trying to say. We didn't exactly work a miracle in Iraq. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: simonephone said: Iraq attacked due to it supporting and making weapons for the terrorist of 9/11. Iraq also had a pretty awful dictator. You can look up all the things Ṣaddām did, and you'll see just how bad it was("Under his rule, segments of the populace enjoyed the benefits of oil wealth, while those in opposition faced torture and execution."-same as the article as the 9/11). This page is pretty much about him: https://www.biography.com/dictator/saddam-husseinImo 9/11 and vague values likes freedom were used by the government as an excuse to go to war because war is profitable. For oil but mainly its profitable for defense contractors and politicians. Oil is just a small part of it. The 911 bombers weren't even from Iraq, they were from a variety of countries including Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. It's actually a good thing we stopped him. His rule needed to end as basic freedoms weren't given to the people under it. I don't mean that in the vague sense either. I mean they didn't have the freedom of speech at all. My only gripe with the war is how hard it is on the Iraq civilians who had to suffer through it and had to be wary of the field mines(which they might be the case). America has no business being the world police. The west already has a history of interfering with middle eastern politics such as setting up the shah in Iran, which resulted in horribly political instability for them. It is not our place and no other country wants us to do this. I also find it absurd to say that we were fighting to free the Iraqi people when we were killing Iraqi civilians and they did not want us there. We were fighting for ourselves and no one else. Also I'm sorry but I was able to guess your age range just from how you brought up weapons of mass destruction. I haven't heard anyone use that an a legitimate reason for the war since I was a kid and the Iraq war was starting. Everyone knew that was a lie the Bush administration pulled out of their ass as soon as it was said, they had no evidence. And low and behold we invaded and there wasn't any, no one was surprised and weapons of mass destruction became sort of a joke to make fun of the Bush administration. And then the war continued forever, and we started bombing Yemen and have killed American citizens and children in Yemen with drones without trials. You seem almost desperate to come up with a defense for the wars America has involved itself in. But saying that we are actually helping the middle east is an incredible stretch. Like if we gave a shit about the stability of Iraq, we wouldn't have taken oil from them, killed 182,000+ of their civilians, caused several more times than that to die of starvation, tortured them, etc. America has absolutely fucked up the majority of the middle east in terms of stability and they hate us over there. I know it's hard to break out of the military worshiping/constant progress narrative our government likes to push, but things like this really are much darker than people want to believe. The greed of American politicians and ceos is having some truly horrific consequences. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Had slight undertones of sarcasm in my post and agree more so with you, but not outright. I don't see it as "easy" to go to school (University level) in the US. Its made hard by external forces that shape the factors mentioned by you and in that user's quote-thread.It is, to an extent, but you need exceptional grades, and that takes hard work. It's not like anyone can earn it, people may have bad teachers or may be weaker at a certain subject for one reason or another, among just being too lazy to work for that 4.0 GPA. It isn't a walk in a park(aside from the SAT which Khan Academy is practically giving cheat sheets for). |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| Much more to read. There is much more commodities than x, if you think the US goes to war over oil after 1990. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Sphinxter said: xaow said: Why not if various other hard drugs are completely illegal?legal age to put your life on the line for the country: 18 legal age to have a couple drinks and relax: 21 ??????? I see no wisdom in this dual standard of that alcohol is the only harmless hard drug. One either consistently ban all hard drug or allow them all but to treat "having a couple of drinks and relax" as anything different from "snorting a bit of cocaine and relax" is simply absurd. actually i personally believe all drugs should be legal and that people are responsible for their own bodies. But i get the point ur trying to make |
|
xaow said: As do I but you specifically pointed out alcohol.Sphinxter said: Why not if various other hard drugs are completely illegal? I see no wisdom in this dual standard of that alcohol is the only harmless hard drug. One either consistently ban all hard drug or allow them all but to treat "having a couple of drinks and relax" as anything different from "snorting a bit of cocaine and relax" is simply absurd. actually i personally believe all drugs should be legal and that people are responsible for their own bodies. But i get the point ur trying to make It would in that case be a stronger argument to say "legal age to put your life on the line for the country: 18; but you can't even snort coke and relax." |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Peaceful_Critic said: simonephone said: "America has no business being the world police."America has no business being the world police. The west already has a history of interfering with middle eastern politics such as setting up the shah in Iran, which resulted in horribly political instability for them. It is not our place and no other country wants us to do this. I also find it absurd to say that we were fighting to free the Iraqi people when we were killing Iraqi civilians and they did not want us there. We were fighting for ourselves and no one else. Also I'm sorry but I was able to guess your age range just from how you brought up weapons of mass destruction. I haven't heard anyone use that an a legitimate reason for the war since I was a kid and the Iraq war was starting. Everyone knew that was a lie the Bush administration pulled out of their ass as soon as it was said, they had no evidence. And low and behold we invaded and there wasn't any, no one was surprised and weapons of mass destruction became sort of a joke to make fun of the Bush administration. And then the war continued forever, and we started bombing Yemen and have killed American citizens and children in Yemen with drones without trials. You seem almost desperate to come up with a defense for the wars America has involved itself in. But saying that we are actually helping the middle east is an incredible stretch. Like if we gave a shit about the stability of Iraq, we wouldn't have taken oil from them, killed 182,000+ of their civilians, caused several more times than that to die of starvation, tortured them, etc. America has absolutely fucked up the majority of the middle east in terms of stability and they hate us over there. I know it's hard to break out of the military worshiping/constant progress narrative our government likes to push, but things like this really are much darker than people want to believe. The greed of American politicians and ceos is having some truly horrific consequences. So would it have been better to just leave them suffering despite having the power to do something? "I also find it absurd to say that we were fighting to free the Iraqi people when we were killing Iraqi civilians and they did not want us there." They were killed, but not on purpose. The kills sound like they occurred due to crossfire, it didn't mention it was aimed at them("Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated.") The majority were killed indirectly. I also should point out this part: "Despite more than $100 billion committed to aiding and reconstructing Iraq, many parts of the country still suffer from lack of access to clean drinking water and housing." "(an accusation that was later proved erroneous) " It was based on something, not saying there were right, my quote last time said the opposite(which I quoted a part of again above). It still stands as their reason though. That said, they had reasons to believe that: "UN inspections during the mid-1990s uncovered a variety of proscribed weapons and prohibited technology throughout Iraq. "-same article That being not even a decade ago, they had weapons. They also did have evidence it was just discredited. Had no idea about Yemen: "Mr. Trump said he did not want to lose the benefit of multibillion-dollar arms sales for the American economy. " Yikes, Trump might as well just admitted that he was a psychopath. "You seem almost desperate to come up with a defense for the wars America has involved itself in. " Nah, I'm just an optimist, so when there's proof for both sides I take the one that restores my faith in humanity. You seem quite desperate for the opposite if I am being honest. We didn't invade or oil: "According to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the United States didn't need to invade Iraq to control the oil. The New York Times reports that in February 2003, Baghdad had offered to give the U.S. first priority as it related to Iraq oil rights, as part of a deal to avert an impending invasion."(https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/world/struggle-for-iraq-diplomacy-iraq-said-have-tried-reach-last-minute-deal-avert.html?src=pm&pagewanted=3) Iraq tried to persuade not to do it by offering us oil. " The greed of American politicians and ceos is having some truly horrific consequences." Side fact, 1 in 5 CEOs are psychopaths and politicians are likely to be one as well. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/research-suggests-politicians-are-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths-11364143/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2016/09/16/gene-marks-21-percent-of-ceos-are-psychopaths-only-21-percent/?utm_term=.54768fcc2d74 Well we definitely did not end their suffering theyre now suffering because of us. We can't just go into other counties, force a political system upon them and expect them to have any stability especially when they don't even want us there. Western interference is also the main reason those countries are so unstable in the first place. So let me elaborate on that. America created Al qeada, quite literally. This may come as a shock but its true. During the cold War we were literally giving them money and weapons to fight the soviets, as well as committing acts of terrorism in the east ourselves. Please read this article in full its important but ill give you some highlights. You can find a lot more articles about this but I'll just use this one for simplicitys sake. "Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan." We also created isis. "The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root" it goes on to clarify AL queda in Iraq became what is now isis. "It is this third, neo-Cold War battle [between us and Russia] that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles" So why would we be at all qualified to now "fix" their government by way of forced invasion when we are the main reason for religious extremists having so much power anyways? And just because they offered us oil not to do to war doesn't mean the war wasn't for oil. It just means that they were aware they could make even more money by controlling the oil through invasion in combination with how much defense contractors and politicians would benefit from war. Definitely read that article I just posted it goes wayyy more in depth but to quote "the wars have raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite." Just because a lot of those deaths weren't on purpose like the famine related ones doesn't mean they weren't our fault. Many deaths under Stalin were due to famine, it was still his fault. I mean isn't that almost worse? If we show up to "help them" and they end up killing 100,000 people by avoidable accidents? Also, most of those deaths of Iraqi civilians were killed on purpose by our military. Here are some articles about it, how our military tried to cover up and how many have died in our various wars against "terrorism" https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSTRE69L54J20101024 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/isis-syria-iraq-civilian-casualties.amp.html and this one's from 2017 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/us-isis-air-strikes-civilian-deaths-syria-iraq-america-no-idea-how-many-dead-the-uncounted-a8066266.html%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/world/american-and-british-bombs-killed-and-injured-nearly-1000-yemeni-civilians/2019/03/06/4c17d233-b0bc-40c6-aa23-6f6fbeb611f7_story.html%3foutputType=amp I could go on, and on, and on, because if you look into it there have been so so many articles published like this over the last 15 years. So that's basically why I hate the wars. The first article I posted said it better than I ever could so I'll end with another quote. "In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles." |
| they use the word incel which isn't a real thing also do too much sex with strangers |
lots of music -  |
simonephone said: Meh, I dislike them cause the US seems to get the spillovers from those countries. Go in, displace the population, then bring them back to the US--did it in Korea, Nam, Gulf and whatever you want to call the mid-east excursion after the millennium; always have to make and take in their refugees. Oops, my nationalism is showing.So that's basically why I hate the wars. The first article I posted said it better than I ever could so I'll end with another quote. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: simonephone said: Meh, I dislike them cause the US seems to get the spillovers from those countries. Go in, displace the population, then bring them back to the US--did it in Korea, Nam, Gulf and whatever you want to call the mid-east excursion after the millennium; always have to make and take in their refugees. Oops, my nationalism is showing.So that's basically why I hate the wars. The first article I posted said it better than I ever could so I'll end with another quote. Pretty staunchly antinationalist myself so I guess you could say that's not a problem for me |
| have sexual relations with their family weirdchamp |
| Calling themselves Americans as if they were the only people in this whole continent. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
pretty sure Alabama is weird to the rest of the U.S as well. Afloo said: Calling themselves Americans as if they were the only people in this whole continent. you have people in England who call themselves Englishmen despite not being the only country with English as its first language. Juuuusssttt sayyyyiiinnnngggg |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
Afloo said: Calling themselves Americans as if they were the only people in this whole continent. Why is this weird? Not only was the US the first established country of the "Americas", but it's also the only country with America in its name. What else is a proper demonym for someone from the US? |
Nithirel said: Guess we're supposed to say "I'm from The States" like a cultist or hotel worker..(made me think of Embassy hotels)Afloo said: Calling themselves Americans as if they were the only people in this whole continent. Why is this weird? Not only was the US the first established country of the "Americas", but it's also the only country with America in its name. What else is a proper demonym for someone from the US? |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| I hope you people never have to learn why we Americans defend the right to bear arms..... when shit hits the fan i.e you getting robbed,raped,attacked then you be like "damn wish I had a gun" to defend myself. I GUARANTEE IT! |
| Our unhealthy obsession with guns and sedentary lifestyles probably comes across as bad. Which it is. |
 |
| I complain when the water served at a restaurant isn't 32 oz. At least, but on the other hand, Europe has no Dimodome. I had 7 hand guns in the US. I have zero in Japan, and I feel safer (not because of the lack of hand guns but because of the excess of Japan) Where is the public transportation America? Get your shit together. |
merryfistmasMay 17, 2019 8:50 AM
 |
More topics from this board
» Do you think there should be an age limit on friendship?Thy-Veseveia - Feb 28 |
36 |
by Crawlie
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
677 |
by Crawlie
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Over the years, I began to be repulsed by pork, is there any explanation for this?Absurdo_N - Mar 26 |
25 |
by bevarnow
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Are you going to apologize?LenRea - Mar 25 |
26 |
by LoveYourEyes
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What are some of your favorite animals?DoisacChopper - Feb 10 |
46 |
by Dracowyn
»»
2 hours ago |