American Politics, in the words of an elected California Dem

[waga]

There is a vast and vibrant universe all around us stretching endless distances in every direction. Every human soul is in fundamental principle a gift and a light to the world.

The universe is vast, but as far as we can see our planet is a unique gem. And what about the wilderness? It's shrinking every day, because growing population is fueling urban sprawl. I think it'd be foolish to just completely sever our connection with nature and replace it with steel and concrete and plastic.

that's why they introduced vine duh

[Granger]

Sure, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

So! Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, all of which I have already addressed lied about showing claiming them to be defensive.

Fixed that for you.

Syria: Retaliation for the use of lethal gas weapons on Syrian people by the Syrian Government.

Which seem, the longer that is looked into, more and more like they're being fully made up (similar to the incubator lie performed by the daughter of the Kuwait embassador) to gain support in the population to bomb the shit out of people. Another example on how to destabilize the region in the geopolitical interests of the US.

Iraq 1: Retaliation against Iraq for invading our Ally, Kuwait. That's defense of an ally.

With an aggressor that you, prior to him becoming the 'next hitler', armed up to fight against your enemies (Iran). Arming up dictators and then bombing them is something the US is doing for a long time, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-be ... 39068.html for an introduction to the topic.

We did acquire some oil and gas feilds, but it would have been much easier and less expensive for us to access our own untapped reserves.

Collateral damage, sure.

Iraq 2: Retaliation against Saddam Hussein for using lethal gas weapons against Kurds and for supporting terrorist organizations.

According to George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition aimed "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." [citation] (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)

Which was a complete fabrication - no biological or chemical weapons nor nukes existed, no support of Al-Quaida (the 'terrorists') by Saddam, human rights didn't matter for the US since a long time ago (look at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base prison for a blatant example) - resulting in an illegal invasion in complete disregard of international law. But is was a nice political 'we are doing something' to fuel the War on Terror that funneled even more money into the military industrial complex.

The result in the words of your current president: https://www.youtube.com/embed/HxUYfjuLk ... showinfo=0

and defending ourselves against terrorist attacks.

What terrorist attacks against the US have originated in the Iraq?

We did acquire some oil and gas feilds..

More collateral damage, wasn't it?

Afgahnistan: REtaliation against the Taliban for too many human rights violations and oppressions to list.

Reason given was september 11, human rights played no role in this.

and for supporting terrorist organizations.

Fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon (Wikipedia),

That's ... defending ourselves against terrorist attacks.

Bullshit, invading Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorist organizsations would have been that.

All of those recent "invasions" were defensive actions in one form or another. That's defense of the oppressed citizens

According to your logic we should bomb the US: 'Defending' the world against terrorists created through US drone strikes).

And we should especially bomb Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund (just some key targets, among many other) in defense of the oppressed citizens - as these oppress way more citizens (through a legalized general raid called 'financial system') worldwide than everything else (sans the U.S.of A.) combined.

But keep trying to make America look like global bullies, thugs, and rabble rousers.

There is no need to 'make' America look like that, the facts speak for themselves for anyone that cares to look at them.

[Potjeh]

It's not about directly taking the oil, it's about taking a cut out of all oil trade. Saddam switched from trading oil in $ to trading in €. Gaddafi was introducing gold dinar to replace dollar for oil trading. Now Iran has switched from dollar, and the sabres are rattling to invade them. Notice a trend there? And isn't it strange how the government keeps piling up incredible debt and yet there's no ridiculous inflation?

[CaddoPuma]

Iraq 1: Retaliation against Iraq for invading our Ally, Kuwait. That's defense of an ally.

With an aggressor that you, prior to him becoming the 'next hitler', armed up to fight against your enemies (Iran).

True. The US never should have supported Hussein. Sometimes people fool you. When you find out you supported the wrong person, you do what needs to be done to correct that mistake. The US goveernment put him n power and the US government - with the help of a coalition of allies - took him out.

Iraq 2: Retaliation against Saddam Hussein for using lethal gas weapons against Kurds and for supporting terrorist organizations.

According to George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition aimed "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." [citation] (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)

Which was a complete fabrication - no biological or chemical weapons nor nukes existed...

Exhibit 1: The sarin gas he used against the Kurds was WMD. We knew he had some because we saw him use it. Exhibit 2: Someone thought it would be intelligent and humanitarian to warn the civilians in the area to get out two weeks before the invasion came. Two weeks in which Iraq had plenty of time to truck the WMD to other places, like Syria. I've heard reports that there were actually convoys of trucks heading from Iraq to Syria passing our Ambrams tanks heading from Syria to Iraq. I wonder what was in all those trucks. I believe it was the WMD which you claim didnt exist.I can't prove it, but I can prove Iraq did have WMD. They used it on the Kurds. Exhibit 3: Yellow cake uranium, a byproduct of processing nuclear materials, was found in Iraq, though not in great quantities.

... no support of Al-Quaida (the 'terrorists') by Saddam...

Except for the multiple training camps run by Al Queida, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations.

...The result...

While tragic, has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that it was a defensive action. As evidenced in part by the quote you yourself posted!

...and to free the Iraqi people.

Afgahnistan: Retaliation against the Taliban for too many human rights violations and oppressions to list.

Reason given was september 11, human rights played no role in this.

I'll give you a quarter point for this one. 1/2 deducted because, while it is true the reason for the invasion was retaliatory self defense, the mission morphed into freeing the Afghanis form the oppression of the Taliban. The other 1/4 point deducted because retaliation against an attacker for the purposes of 1) Punishing the attacker, 2) Preventing them from attacking again, and 3) Making in clear to others who might be emboldened by their actions to act in kind what the results would be and thus prevent them from acting in kind is still a defensive action.

and for supporting terrorist organizations.

Fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon (Wikipedia)

Who trained in camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. And by the way, 9/11 wasnt the first, nor the last terrorist attack against America. Nor was it the first nor only terrorist attack on America on US soil.

That's ... defending ourselves against terrorist attacks.

****, invading Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorist organizsations would have been that.

What you are saying is like replying to a vice team who takes down a pothead that they should be fighting real crime like murders. You are correct that actions against Syria would have been a more direct response to 9/11, but that doesnt automatically negate the fact that what we did was also anti-terrorist in nature.

[CaddoPuma]

... the sabres are rattling to invade them...

The only sabres that are rattling are the ones in Tehran accopanied by chants of "Death to America". No one is calling for an invasion of Iran. We're just calling for an end to their nuclear weapons program.

[Potjeh]

Do you even watch news? They're all more than happy to give John Bolton platform for advocating war as the default option. Also, how can you expect anyone to give up their weapons to you after what you did to Gaddafi? Nice job helping the Lybian people BTW, they have open slave trade now.

[CaddoPuma]

...how can you expect anyone to give up their weapons to you after what you did to Gaddafi?

I did nothing to Gaddafi. But as to how I can expect them to give up Nukes, Ask Little Rocket Man.

[Potjeh]

You do know he isn't actually giving up nukes, right? And you may not have done it by your own hand, but you funded it.

[jordancoles]

...how can you expect anyone to give up their weapons to you after what you did to Gaddafi?

I did nothing to Gaddafi. But as to how I can expect them to give up Nukes, Ask Little Rocket Man.

Kim never put anything in writing for the US and instead said they were "working towards de-nuclearization" which is the same promise they made in the 90's. What does "working towards" it mean exactly? I could saying I'm "working towards" becoming a heavy-weight champion but it's not like I'm busting out the weights anytime soon

The US lost in that meeting. Trump agreed to halt the wargames and to reduce some of the sanctions on NK and he even saluted a NK general. America entered into that negotiation holding all of the cards and left with much less than what they had started with.




Look at Kim's face. He's thinking "are you guys seeing this shit? I hope you're filming!"

[CaddoPuma]

You do know he isn't actually giving up nukes, right? And you may not have done it by your own hand, but you funded it.

Just like "Mr. Trump isnt serious about running"; "He'll never win the nomination"; "He'll never accept the nomination"; "He'll never take the oath"; "He'll never..." When will you guys learn that everytime you say President Trump will never do something, that is exactly what he will do? President Trump will get North Korea to denuclearize, if for no other reason, just because you said he never will.