Discussion in 'Current Events' started by martybegan, Mar 7, 2018.
This is great news! Now I can get a Silverback gorilla for my collection. I'm going to see if I can bag a giraffe this time.
There is definitely rampant corruption throughout Africa. The real problem are the third world savages running the place. Not much we can do about that though, other than game their own corrupt system. If we don’t, those Africans would just hunt all the animals down to extinction.
Then if this is what you believe, then you can prove it.
This map seems to suggest that lions aren't doing very well (from the lion wikipedia page)
"A study of lions in the northwest Tete Province of Mozambique suggests 185 lions (range 136 - 227) exist in the region, down from a previous estimate of 295 lions made in 2009."
Well, in 4 years (this from 2013) the number of lions in this area is down by 1/3rd
"February 2014: Surveys of lions in protected areas in Zimbabwe yield disturbing results: what is driving the population collapse? "
Zimbabwe there's a "population collapse"
"January 2014: The Lion in West Africa Is Critically Endangered"
West Africa lions are "critically endangered".
"In 2015 the IUCN stated that “The Lion population is inferred to have undergone a reduction of approximately 42% over the past 21 years (approximately three Lion generations, 1993-2014)” and estimated that fewer than 20,000 lions remain."
In general they've lost 42% of their populations in 21 years.
Lion Populations are Growing in South Africa for the Worst Reason Possible
Here's one about South Africa.
Wild Lions Are Disappearing While Captive Populations Grow"
South Africa is seeing an increase in lions, but not in the wild.
"The lions kept in these facilities have been inbred over generations, meaning that if their genes were mixed into wild prides, it could have a devastating impact on the survival of the species."
So there's even a problem with keeping the lions in captivity, they're inbred.
What have you got?
Well, the fact you call them "third world savages" shows how little you actually understand about Africa.
Why are they savages? The US is responsible for the War in Iraq and the consequential fuck up post war period that saw up to 1 million people killed, and also led to ISIS in the region.
The US is also responsible for deaths all over the place. And somehow these Africans are the savages.
The Africans are corrupt and they don't bother to hide their corruption, while the US has legitimized its corruption.
It's still corruption. So who are the savages?
I mean in South Africa they have a healthcare system for everyone. In the US they don't. Yes, South Africa's healthcare system sucks, but it's better than nothing. The top 20% in South Africa get great private healthcare, like in the US.
What's the difference?
sadam Hussein is responsible for the war in Iraq. The US didn't kill 1 million people. And Barrack Hussein Obama created ISIS with his "red line in the sand" threat he wouldnt back up.
The country is being run by adults now. If you don't like it or the US, get the fuck out of my country.
Too many human mouths on this planet to feed.
Nice excuses.... but I don't buy it.
Saddam did a lot of bad things, and the US invaded.
But there are plenty of countries out there with leaders who do bad things.
Pol Pot. Instead of invading Cambodia, the US supported Pol Pot as leader of Cambodia in the UN.
Stalin. The US were allied with Stalin's Russia.
Pinochet in Chile, the CIA helped Pinochet with his efforts at doing bad things
Released by the CIA in 2000
CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet?s Repression
35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists
35 countries where the US supported some not very nice people.
So, your argument is, of course, complete bullshit. Saddam did what Saddam did, and he wasn't a very nice guy, oh yeah, Reagan supported him though.
But when Iraq threatened OIL, that's when Saddam got on the US's bad books. Threaten oil, and you're gone. Just ask Gaddafi, or Hugo Chavez, well, okay, the US supported coup actually failed there.
But to say that it's all Saddam's fault that the US invaded is nonsense. The US didn't have to invade. The US WANTED to invade.
Well, let's go back to the 1990s when Hugo Chavez got elected as leader of Venezuela. The US wasn't happy about him getting the other OPEC countries together to help make the cartel a little stronger.
So the US targeted OPEC. Well, it targeted 4 of the countries of OPEC. Saudi Arabia was, and still is, untouchable because they're "allies", hilarious, right?
So, the four countries who hated the US in 2000 were Iraq, Iraq, Libya and Venezuela.
2002, coup against Hugo Chavez, it failed.
2003 invasion of Iraq
2011 bombing of Libya
Sanctions have been imposed against the two countries that have survived, Iran and Venezuela.
Iran has been in the US's sights for a long time. The media pumps out stories about how bad Iran is, might be true, but where are the same stories coming out of Saudi Arabia? Nowhere.
Saudi Arabia where the punishment for adultery can be the death penalty. Where women were legally allowed to drive, but couldn't. A country that supports anti-US terrorism. Doesn't make the news. I wonder why.
So, Iraq had it coming to them because they were A) an oil rich country and B) they weren't friends with the US. This is, apparently, enough reason to get invaded.
Then the post war fuck up by Bremer, oh, blame it on the Iraqis, because it wasn't the Iraqis who disbanded the Iraqi Army and Police and sent lots of men who needed to feed their families into unemployment, and they could only gain employment by going around killing Americans. Oh, wow.
Because shooting animals is fun... if you're a psycho.
Separate names with a comma.