Consequences for US decisions on letting people into the USA

[Correll]

Good riddance.

Well, except that it will cost Americans money. It'll probably end up in the US losing tourism, and less flights coming via Europe and when Americans want to go to Europe, they'll pay more.

Making it harder for Americans to go to Europe will cause the US to lose tourism?

Yeah.

It's not that hard to see why, is it?

If the EU stops US citizens from going visa free, what do you think the US govt is going to do?

Hard to say. YOu seem to be implying that a direct tit for tat reaction is the only possible reaction.

That is unsupported.

Unsupported except that most countries on a similar economic level will have a similar visa policy for the opposing citizens.

Why would the US have visas to go to the EU, but let in EU citizens visa free to the USA? It would imply somehow that the US is inferior.

No, it implies, correctly, that the EU has a big ******* problem that we don't want to keep out of our country.

 

[Correll]

Both continents are going to lose out. We shouldn't be squabbling with Europe nor should they be starting shit with us. The best thing to do is for us to eliminate the visa requirement for those people visiting from those five EU nations and be done with it. This isn't worth the fight. I would imagine that's what will happen.

Yes, potentially that is so.

So why has it come to this point where the EU feels the need to do this? It's not hard to see why. They US has gone off the crazy end of the pool. But the US thinks it's better than everyone else. The EU lets in hicks from South Carolina, terrorism capital of the US, from Louisiana and Mississippi. They didn't even question the people of these countries.

Nope. YOu look at Rotherham, or Cologne and it's pretty obvious it is the World that has gone bat shit crazy and Trump is the US going sane.

There are problems, but that doesn't mean Trump is sane. Usually what happens is people who come to the fore are those who are "bat shit crazy" too, like Trump.

"WHat usually happens in that crazy people come to the fore?"

THat is the one of the most nonsensical statements I have ever heard.

You want to believe he's the answer to the problems you see, but I don't think that's the case.

So, you disagree with me? Thanks for clearing that up. IN case someone here was uncertain about.

As for Cologne, well I was there over the summer, and it didn't seem that crazy to me. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Are you pretending to be unaware of the mass sexual assaults that took place their or just pretending to not believe they occurred?

Either way. YOu fail, and my point stands. THe world has gone crazy. Trump is the US going Sane.

But again, problems need solving, going crazy doesn't solve those problems.

THe problem is that the First World have become convinced that it has a moral obligation to allow culturally backwards and hostile aliens to enter their territory. Hence foul disgusting examples like Rotherham and Cologne.


Trump is the US going sane. OR if he walks back his Ban talk, the US going less crazy, at least.


If you want to disagree with that, you should explain WHY you disagree, instead of just stating your disagreement.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Mass sexual assaults. No, I'm not ignoring them. I not even saying that this influx of refugees has been positive. In Cologne I didn't see a problem, in Trier I met a German woman from somewhere in the south of Germany and she did say where she lives it has become more dangerous.

However the problem is that people are comparing news reports, rather than comparing reality. In Germany this is massive. This is a big issue. In the US when rape happens, it's ignored.

Alaska is the rape capital of the US, it has a rape rate 5 times higher than that of New York State. Rape statistics are notoriously difficult to compare, but it appears as if Alaska has a much higher rape rate than Germany does even with Germany's refugee population.

Report: refugees have not increased crime rate in Germany | News | DW.COM | 13.11.2015

"The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced that crimes committed by refugees stood at the same level as those committed by native Germans."

Yes, there are issues here. And no, I wouldn't have dealt with this situation in the manner Europe has dealt with it. But the problem is that some stories are news simply because they involve immigrants, whereas when they involve locals doing the crime, it's a local story.

The "terror attacks" last summer were a perfect example. Half of the "terror attacks" were simply Muslims committing a crime that had nothing to do with terrorism. One guy killed his pregnant partner. And yet this got turned into a terror attack.[/QUOTE]



It is not credible that muslims immigrants are committing crime at the same rate as natives.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, ******* wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

Oh, you mean like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?


No truth to any part of that statement."
So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?
How is this not the truth?

In the real world Iraq was invaded (by a coalition of nations, including Islamic) as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including attacks on US forces there). The conflict continued when Iraq violated it's cease-fire agreement. The invasion was conducted with the overwhelming support of the American People and government. Your perversion of history is simply deliberate revisionary propaganda.

In the US, it can be perceived as just another form of class warfare. it is why i am advocating for war time tax rates to prove the exigency exists for the use of wartime social powers, for "free".

National socialist times require national socialist tax rates:

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

The poor get to do the "heavy lifting" and the rich, get to get richer faster; in the name of Patriotism.

In 2007, the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth (excluding human capital), and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s.

Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976–1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[30] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[31]

However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[22][30][31]

During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#Redistribution_of_wealth_and_public_policy

 

[NoNukes]

Why any American would want to go to Europe in the first place boggles my mind.

Because it is a more interesting place than the United States. the culture. To enrich your life experience. Just to name a few.

 

[danielpalos]

Who gives a ****? Get a visa. It's not a big deal.

we don't have a market friendly visa that can solve our illegal problem via Capitalism. the right wing, prefers socialism on a national basis.

 

[Anathema]

Because it is a more interesting place than the United States. the culture. To enrich your life experience. Just to name a few.

To paraphrase several of my relatives who immigrated here...... "If I wanted to be (insert ethnicity), I would have stayed in (insert foreign country). I came here because I wanted to live in AMERICA, embrace AMERICAN culture and have my children grow up to be AMERICANS."

I believe those gentlemen had a,point. I don't need my life "enriched" any more than it already is, and foreign culture generally disgusts me.

 

[Unkotare]

Why any American would want to go to Europe in the first place boggles my mind.

Because it is a more interesting place than the United States. the culture. To enrich your life experience. Just to name a few.

You forgot to include "in my opinion" in that ridiculous post.

 

[NoNukes]

Why any American would want to go to Europe in the first place boggles my mind.

Because it is a more interesting place than the United States. the culture. To enrich your life experience. Just to name a few.

You forgot to include "in my opinion" in that ridiculous post.

Most things are these boards are opinions. Even a lot of the 'facts'.

 

[Correll]

Why any American would want to go to Europe in the first place boggles my mind.

Because it is a more interesting place than the United States. the culture. To enrich your life experience. Just to name a few.

I read a liberal discuss how he had to move to India, where the culture was very, very different, to be able to look at people different then him WITHOUT HIS PRECONCEIVED BIASES preventing him from seeing them.


After years there, dealing with people who's religion was important to them, he came back and was then able to understand people in AMERICA who's religion was important to them.

Why was he unable to understand those people before?

Because his mind was closed to people who disagreed with him on political matters.

 

[Flopper]

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, ******* wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, ******* wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

Oh, you mean like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?


No truth to any part of that statement."
So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?
How is this not the truth?

In the real world Iraq was invaded (by a coalition of nations, including Islamic) as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including attacks on US forces there). The conflict continued when Iraq violated it's cease-fire agreement. The invasion was conducted with the overwhelming support of the American People and government. Your perversion of history is simply deliberate revisionary propaganda.

Yes, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

No, Iraq was not invaded in 2003 as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. That was 13 years later.

I think you seem to be getting two wars mixed up here.

There is no "perversion of history", nothing I have said is false.

You really ought to educate yourself. There were not two wars,only a single state of war that began when Iraq failed to comply with the ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait and became more active again after it's continued failure to comply with the terms of the earlier cease-fire.
So (again) how can Iraq be anything but the bad guy when it's unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country started the war? Simple question that is not going away because you ignore it.

Oh, how ******* convenient for you.

I didn't say Iraq and Saddam weren't bad guys. We're not talking about good v. bad here, we're talking different shades of black. But Iraq got kicked out and punished for what happened with Kuwait. Who the hell waits 13 years then does it? Er.. no one. And who does it but doesn't even say this is why they're doing it, instead going off about WMDs which didn't even exist. And they used people's testimony in the Senate who hadn't even been in Iraq in 10 years. Come off it, don't tell me I need to educate myself when you come up with this unsupported crap.

I didn't say Iraq and Saddam weren't bad guys. We're not talking about good v. bad here, we're talking different shades of black.
Bullshit. In thus particular case that is exactly what we a talking about.

Who the hell waits 13 years then does it?
Guess you never heard of the Hundred Years War. Actually it was more like 10 yrs. And it was 10 yrs. of hot and cold warfare with severe sanctions, no-fly zones, US Air patrols, missiles, bombs, gunfire, occasional massive bomb campaigns, and cease-fire and ultimatum violations. Iraq finally violated one too many ultimatums and the US got tired and decided to end the war by winning it (much to the relief of the US taxpayer who was paying for all that silly shit.

And who does it but doesn't even say this is why they're doing it,
Untrue=UN ultimatum, US ultimatum, Congressional approval. All well documented so no "unsupported crap" here. When have you ever bothered to support any of your bullshit? Again, educate yourself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, ******* wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

Wow. It's all America's fault?! What a fresh new insight from the Left!!!!

Hint: You can't kill us with boredom. Once we fall asleep, we stop hearing you, and are thus protected.

SO, your plan is FAIL!

So, your argument is to simply deflect? Wow.

Maybe if you actually looked at the truth, you'd see what is there. But you don't want to, do you?

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.

Yes, it's massive deflection. Your argument here is that you've heard it before, and you think it's boring, therefore it's not true. What the ****?

"Oh, the moon goes around the Earth, oh, man, I've heard this a thousand times and it's boring. Therefore it's not true"

Seriously???? How ******* childish can you get?

 

[Correll]

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

Wow. It's all America's fault?! What a fresh new insight from the Left!!!!

Hint: You can't kill us with boredom. Once we fall asleep, we stop hearing you, and are thus protected.

SO, your plan is FAIL!

So, your argument is to simply deflect? Wow.

Maybe if you actually looked at the truth, you'd see what is there. But you don't want to, do you?

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.

Yes, it's massive deflection. Your argument here is that you've heard it before, and you think it's boring, therefore it's not true. What the ****?

"Oh, the moon goes around the Earth, oh, man, I've heard this a thousand times and it's boring. Therefore it's not true"

Seriously???? How ******* childish can you get?

Fine. Pick one. YOur favorite piece of boring nonsense from above, (or I will pick) to avoid the Shotgun Logical Fallacy, make it concise, so that I don't fall asleep reading the same old boring shit, and I will be happy to demolish it in two sentences.

You anti-american blame American First leftist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

Oh, you mean like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?


No truth to any part of that statement."
So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?
How is this not the truth?

In the real world Iraq was invaded (by a coalition of nations, including Islamic) as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including attacks on US forces there). The conflict continued when Iraq violated it's cease-fire agreement. The invasion was conducted with the overwhelming support of the American People and government. Your perversion of history is simply deliberate revisionary propaganda.

Yes, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

No, Iraq was not invaded in 2003 as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. That was 13 years later.

I think you seem to be getting two wars mixed up here.

There is no "perversion of history", nothing I have said is false.

You really ought to educate yourself. There were not two wars,only a single state of war that began when Iraq failed to comply with the ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait and became more active again after it's continued failure to comply with the terms of the earlier cease-fire.
So (again) how can Iraq be anything but the bad guy when it's unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country started the war? Simple question that is not going away because you ignore it.

Oh, how ******* convenient for you.

I didn't say Iraq and Saddam weren't bad guys. We're not talking about good v. bad here, we're talking different shades of black. But Iraq got kicked out and punished for what happened with Kuwait. Who the hell waits 13 years then does it? Er.. no one. And who does it but doesn't even say this is why they're doing it, instead going off about WMDs which didn't even exist. And they used people's testimony in the Senate who hadn't even been in Iraq in 10 years. Come off it, don't tell me I need to educate myself when you come up with this unsupported crap.

I didn't say Iraq and Saddam weren't bad guys. We're not talking about good v. bad here, we're talking different shades of black.
Bullshit. In thus particular case that is exactly what we a talking about.

Who the hell waits 13 years then does it?
Guess you never heard of the Hundred Years War. Actually it was more like 10 yrs. And it was 10 yrs. of hot and cold warfare with severe sanctions, no-fly zones, US Air patrols, missiles, bombs, gunfire, occasional massive bomb campaigns, and cease-fire and ultimatum violations. Iraq finally violated one too many ultimatums and the US got tired and decided to end the war by winning it (much to the relief of the US taxpayer who was paying for all that silly shit.

And who does it but doesn't even say this is why they're doing it,
Untrue=UN ultimatum, US ultimatum, Congressional approval. All well documented so no "unsupported crap" here. When have you ever bothered to support any of your bullshit? Again, educate yourself.

You might be talking about "good v. evil" but I'm not. I can see beyond Marvell Comic films.

The point about war is that there usually comes a point when people say it's finished. Now, you go find me a source that shows that it was all one big war and I'll show you a million that show it was different.

Gulf War - Wikipedia

Gulf War 1990-1991

Iraq War - Wikipedia

Iraq War, started 2003

It's not difficult.

The problem with your logic here is that all wars are just continuations of previous wars.

Take Vietnam. Part of the Cold War, a continuation of colonial wars. So which is it? Was Vietnam a colonial war or the Cold War? It was both, at the same time it was its own war.

However 2003 have not much to do with 1990 and 1991, the only link between the two I've heard was that Bush wanted revenge for his father losing the presidency to Clinton. But the reality is that the 2003 war was mostly to get at OPEC.

In 1998 Hugo Chavez became leader of Venezuela. He was bring OPEC together to make it a stronger cartel in order to dictate oil prices. In 2002 the US helped organize and fund a coup d'etat against Chavez which initially worked, and then ultimately failed.

The fact that the US invaded Iraq (OPEC country), bombed the hell out of Libya (OPEC country) but didn't go into Syria (not OPEC country) is very telling. Look at the news reports about what John McCain, the Republicans foreign expert and big man in the party.

The whole Libya thing kicked off on the 15th February 2011.

Libya: Barack Obama criticised for timid handling of Libya crisis

10 days after the initial start and McCain said:

"Republican Senator John McCain, visiting Jordan, urged Mr Obama to take action. "There is an array of measures that the United States and our global partners, including the European Union and African Union, should immediately pursue," he said."

McCain, Lieberman: U.S. should arm Libyan rebels

Two days later and he said:

"Speaking in Cairo today, Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., and Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said that the U.S. should do more to help Libyans fighting to overthrow Qaddafi."

Libya: Barack Obama calls on Col Gaddafi to step down

By the 3rd March:

"John McCain, the former US Republican presidential candidate, said he supported David Cameron's support earlier in the week for tough action, including curbs on Libyan aircraft. "May I just say, personally I don't think it's 'loose talk' on the part of the people on the ground in Libya or the Arab League or others, including the prime minister of England, that this option should be given the strongest consideration,""

John McCain’s Libya amnesia

By the 23rd of March

"Speaking on CBS’ “The Early Show” today, McCain twice cited the fact that Moammar Gadhafi has “American blood on his hands” as a reason the U.S. should try to oust the dictator."

McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya - CNN.com

By April and McCain was gunning for more: "
McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya"


But with Syria the whole thing started a month later on the 15th March 2011

US senators press Obama to say Assad must go

On the 28th April McCain was calling for Assad to step down. He wasn't talking about US intervention. He didn't want to go in. Why do you think this was?

When have I ever bothered to support what I say? Well, all the time. You haven't supported what you said though. Ironic? Sure.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

Wow. It's all America's fault?! What a fresh new insight from the Left!!!!

Hint: You can't kill us with boredom. Once we fall asleep, we stop hearing you, and are thus protected.

SO, your plan is FAIL!

So, your argument is to simply deflect? Wow.

Maybe if you actually looked at the truth, you'd see what is there. But you don't want to, do you?

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.

Yes, it's massive deflection. Your argument here is that you've heard it before, and you think it's boring, therefore it's not true. What the ****?

"Oh, the moon goes around the Earth, oh, man, I've heard this a thousand times and it's boring. Therefore it's not true"

Seriously???? How ******* childish can you get?

Fine. Pick one. YOur favorite piece of boring nonsense from above, (or I will pick) to avoid the Shotgun Logical Fallacy, make it concise, so that I don't fall asleep reading the same old boring shit, and I will be happy to demolish it in two sentences.

You anti-american blame American First leftist.

To be honest, I'm not interested in playing you silly game. Either you debate with me, or you don't and you can **** off. It's that simple even you should be able to understand.

 

[Flopper]

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

By all accounts Saddam was no supporter of Islamic terrorism. That was bullshit from the Bush administration. In fact, he regarded radical Islam as the greatest danger to his country. The CIA report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted that they did not have any credible intelligence to support the claim.
BTW Our fearless leader concurs so it must be true.

Untrue. He was a dictator who assumed and maintained power by using terrorism against his own people who in the end tried and executed him for that very reason. He changed his nation's flag to show his support for terrorism and a (probably large) portion of his oil field profits went to assorted terrorist organizations. He used chemical weapons (WMD) against his own (civilians, including women and children) people. He sent a squad to the US to kill the President. He was a terrorist of the same caliber as Hitler and Stalin and a scumbag of Biblical proportions.

The point is Saddam did not pose any real threat to the US and he kept Iran in check. The cost of the war was nearly 4,500 US troops, a half million Iraqis, and 2 trillion dollars and what did we gain, a dead dictator, ISIS, and another country we have to defend. We not only wasted our resources in Iraq but the conflict sucked resources from Afghanistan at a time when we really needed them.

With the money we spent in Iraq we could have cut corporate taxes 50%, developed a robust national missile defense system, and boosted the nations crumbling infrastructure, but instead we got Saddam and more problems to deal with in the middle east.

 

[Correll]

Wow. It's all America's fault?! What a fresh new insight from the Left!!!!

Hint: You can't kill us with boredom. Once we fall asleep, we stop hearing you, and are thus protected.

SO, your plan is FAIL!

So, your argument is to simply deflect? Wow.

Maybe if you actually looked at the truth, you'd see what is there. But you don't want to, do you?

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.

Yes, it's massive deflection. Your argument here is that you've heard it before, and you think it's boring, therefore it's not true. What the ****?

"Oh, the moon goes around the Earth, oh, man, I've heard this a thousand times and it's boring. Therefore it's not true"

Seriously???? How ******* childish can you get?

Fine. Pick one. YOur favorite piece of boring nonsense from above, (or I will pick) to avoid the Shotgun Logical Fallacy, make it concise, so that I don't fall asleep reading the same old boring shit, and I will be happy to demolish it in two sentences.

You anti-american blame American First leftist.

To be honest, I'm not interested in playing you silly game. Either you debate with me, or you don't and you can **** off. It's that simple even you should be able to understand.

I said I would. I just requested to pick one instead of the shotgun fallacy you posted.

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, your argument is to simply deflect? Wow.

Maybe if you actually looked at the truth, you'd see what is there. But you don't want to, do you?

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.

Yes, it's massive deflection. Your argument here is that you've heard it before, and you think it's boring, therefore it's not true. What the ****?

"Oh, the moon goes around the Earth, oh, man, I've heard this a thousand times and it's boring. Therefore it's not true"

Seriously???? How ******* childish can you get?

Fine. Pick one. YOur favorite piece of boring nonsense from above, (or I will pick) to avoid the Shotgun Logical Fallacy, make it concise, so that I don't fall asleep reading the same old boring shit, and I will be happy to demolish it in two sentences.

You anti-american blame American First leftist.

To be honest, I'm not interested in playing you silly game. Either you debate with me, or you don't and you can **** off. It's that simple even you should be able to understand.

I said I would. I just requested to pick one instead of the shotgun fallacy you posted.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I also understand what 6 year old children are saying.

Do you understand me? I'm not playing you childish games. When you decide to grow the **** up, come back and debate, until then, **** off. Got it?

 

[Correll]

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.

Yes, it's massive deflection. Your argument here is that you've heard it before, and you think it's boring, therefore it's not true. What the ****?

"Oh, the moon goes around the Earth, oh, man, I've heard this a thousand times and it's boring. Therefore it's not true"

Seriously???? How ******* childish can you get?

Fine. Pick one. YOur favorite piece of boring nonsense from above, (or I will pick) to avoid the Shotgun Logical Fallacy, make it concise, so that I don't fall asleep reading the same old boring shit, and I will be happy to demolish it in two sentences.

You anti-american blame American First leftist.

To be honest, I'm not interested in playing you silly game. Either you debate with me, or you don't and you can **** off. It's that simple even you should be able to understand.

I said I would. I just requested to pick one instead of the shotgun fallacy you posted.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I also understand what 6 year old children are saying.

Do you understand me? I'm not playing you childish games. When you decide to grow the **** up, come back and debate, until then, **** off. Got it?

You are the one spewing warmed up crap in large quantities and upset that I wasn't taking you seriously.


I posted a funny meme about boredom, that was a fairly serious response considering your "argument".