Sincere thanks for that, @enoch.

While I am too ignorant of the situation to be completely convinced by either side of this, I must admit that it does seem fishy for Assad to use such weapons now. AND, the CIA and other US agencies / forces have a really long track record of doing shady things to "protect US interests" with proxy wars, false flag operations, etc. etc.

The US funding Syrian "rebels" that are an offshoot of Al Qaeda doesn't shock me much considering that the roots of Al Qaeda itself pretty much come from the CIA funding the Mujahideen in Afganistan...


Anyway, I can see and understand your reasons for choosing to downvote the video. That being said, I don't personally regret upvoting this because it does seem to be a good introduction / refresher to the situation in Syria, at least with respect to the standard media take on it. For someone like me, it gets me the broad strokes in 6.5 minutes, which has some real value.

But your post here (and a PM from eric) are equally valuable to me for pointing out bits where that "broad strokes" intro is controversial or potentially misleading (if not flat out BS). So again, sincere thanks to both of you.

BTW attacking a country that doesn't have nukes, will immediately cause it to start working as fast as it can to build Nukes. Iran isn't stupid, it sees what happens to countries that have no defense (Iraq, Afganistan) and countries that do (North Korea, Pakistan). So even our own intelligence men say if Iran isn't working on a Nuclear weapon as fast as it can, they're insane.

Would they ever launch one would be a completely different question. It should be noted that we don't give a shit about that either. Obama ramped up the war in Afghanistan which is destabilizing Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and might use them or let them fall into the wrong hands.

The US and it's military planners do not care about the safety of it's citizens, America is a failed state.

In reply to this comment by shagen454:
Whaddya mean? You think a bunch of rural terrorists with weapons from WWII took out two humongous buildings that each fell the exact same way? Not likely. But, I digress I don't really want to talk about nine eleven.


ehem nine eleven

Come on man, you're better than that.



So say the Government, namely Bush did do 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq or Afganistan. Why make the terrorists be Saudis? They're one of our greatest allies in the reason. Fuck make them Iraqis, it just doesn't make any damn sense.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crane, afganistan, feed, wave, screeching noise' to 'crane, afghanistan, feed, wave, screeching noise' - edited by calvados

Who watches the watchmen? Iraq/Afganistan vets. Honestly, isn't this like the 2nd or 3rd case of a vet exposing a bad cop?

How we treat our dead is equally as important as how we treat the living.
>> ^MrMark4000:

I'm not seeing the problem here. They were shot dead. They should not have been fighting in the first place knowing they would be killed. Soldiers need to be allowed to be soldiers. Many of the U.S. Soldiers are busy getting themselves killed because corrupt Afghan officials keep Fing things up. If soldiers could be soldiers and not peace keepers there would be no war because everyone in Afganistan would be dead that fought back. Instead we try our best not to insult the population and putting ourselves into bad situations with a No Win Scenario. What is really worse: Peeing on a dead body or bombing city after city with incendiary bombs (WW2)? We should treat this war exactly as the Taliban do to beat the Taliban. We call ourselves an Advanced Society, but if we really were advanced we would not have the need to fight. Besides, an uneducated society is not working on the same level as the U.S. Morals are the last thing on the Taliban's minds.

I'm not seeing the problem here. They were shot dead. They should not have been fighting in the first place knowing they would be killed. Soldiers need to be allowed to be soldiers. Many of the U.S. Soldiers are busy getting themselves killed because corrupt Afghan officials keep Fing things up. If soldiers could be soldiers and not peace keepers there would be no war because everyone in Afganistan would be dead that fought back. Instead we try our best not to insult the population and putting ourselves into bad situations with a No Win Scenario. What is really worse: Peeing on a dead body or bombing city after city with incendiary bombs (WW2)? We should treat this war exactly as the Taliban do to beat the Taliban. We call ourselves an Advanced Society, but if we really were advanced we would not have the need to fight. Besides, an uneducated society is not working on the same level as the U.S. Morals are the last thing on the Taliban's minds.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Colbert Report, Colbert, Afganistan, Homeland Security' to 'Colbert Report, Colbert, Afganistan, Homeland Security, DisneyPlace' - edited by calvados

America would take this entire planet into the next willennium if it just decided instead of Wars on Drugs or Iraq of Afganistan...lets have a War on illiteracy. Lets have a War on Stupidity and funnel TONS of money into schools and colleges. Seriously people from all over the world would come and get an education and love America and go back to their countries working towards solutions to make their lives better.

Why can't we do that? Why can't we?

I have to completely disagree with the formation of your argument. Unfortunately, you have presented a very shallow, 1 dimensional view of violence; most would refer to it as a scarecrow. I wish to state before I go further that I wish I lived in this world you imagine. I long for a world where violence isn't an answer. Let us take on your examples one at a time, then go into the thrust of the issue.

As far as terrorism goes, it is hard to even understand what terrorism is. It isn't very rigidly defined. Is it terrorism to force people to pay taxes, or is it only when you blow them up when they aren't expecting it? Terrorism is more of a red herring word used to justify actions rather a "thing" itself. that is a dodge of the issue, but then again, so was this word all along. So lets move into some of your better examples.

Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%. As far as things go in the world, those aren't terrible odds. South Korea still exists as a democracy, violence won out in that case over rivaling violence.

The world war 2 example is a curious example to use. It actually shows a different picture then I think you would like to present. In the end, Germany ended up with a ruined country, as you say. But, that is only because it met up against resistance/violence. In the end, Germany was BOMBED into submitting, not talked into it. A greater force of violence stopped the lesser source of it. It was the rule of the jungle carried out in its most prime. Countless attempts by Brittan and France to talk Germany out of taking over its neighbors had no effect, only when the grind of blood and bullets was too much for her to bear did Germany relent. Indeed, WW2 is a horrible example for you to use...probably the worst I can think of.

Instead you should of used people like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King Jr. These people were truly non-violent and changed the world. However, they are the conspicuous examples. The reason they stand out in history is because all to often, non-retaliation results in certain defeat. Look at the plight of the native Americans. While history tells the tail of all the tribes that fought, many did not. Many made deals with the White man. The history of these arrangements is grim indeed. For the White man would constantly renig the terms and send into exile the native Americans. Even the great Jefferson, the champion of democracy, sent the native Americans further and further down the trail of tears. They did not fight. The suffered...and suffered. Perhaps, if they fought, they would off been completely eradicated, so, instead, they choose exile and decimation. Which is better, I am not one to say. But surely, their non-violence did not result in one could consider a victory.

You need to remember your fathers. And I don't mean the founders of the USA. I mean 2 billion years of evolution on this planet. Humans are not some sanctimonious super being. We are composed of the same shit, sweat, and tears as everything else. The history of all animals is almost wholly violent. The lion doesn't solve his mating deputes with a rival by any other means than brutality. Your immune system doesn't win out by being less virulent than the infection it sees to mend. Your food won't survive long enough to reap if you don't stop the insects and vermin from eating it. Washing your hands is akin to mass murder of bacteria. Anti-bacterial soap is akin to genocide. But we resolve ourselves of these sins almost constantly so that we can be naive in the construction of our morality when dealing with each other. In this world, it is life for life. Nothing alive doesn't take life as well, spare most planets. Plants are only noble creation along with some fungi. Most every animal on the planet exploits unto pain through violence some other organism. herbivorous being the most foul violator eating the only noble life on the plant. Carnivores are their penitence.

This world is a cycle of pain, and its root is violence. Violence is what drives evolution forward. One of the expatiations of the Cambrian Explosion is the arrival of carnivores. And billions of years later, you stand on the top of the tradition of exploitation. And you won't be rid of it be ignoring it inside you. You might construct a society that can slowly cope and perhaps even bread out billions of years of evolution. And in perhaps 10 thousand years, you can look back and see that you reduced human violence by 20%. And that would be a great accomplishment. Only to then be wiped out by a asteroid ending all human life to be replaced by the new slug overlords. The great comedy of life is to think you can make a difference in the 80 years we have vs the billions that the history of life has been with us. Unless you are talking about complete genetic experimentation to change the face of what it means to be human, I don't see anything working. Maybe you make a government system that handles the nature of man better, but the nature of man...the 2 billion year old murder animal, is still set before you.

Like I said, I don't like this world. I would rather live in your fantasy world. A world of reason, of peace, of progress. We don't have that world. We have a world of brutal, violence. It's only true self is that of conflict and competition that is all to often violent. It the a 2 billion year old rule that we didn't make up but have had to better realize, lest make poorly designed strategy to deal with the beast that is man.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^BoneRemake:
UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE

"violence doesnt solve anything "
and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.

By the way, you forgot to quote her whole comment, which in its entirety goes:
"My message to the young people out there is that violence does not solve anything. It can get you into more trouble than what it's going to solve. [If you are being bullied] don't suffer in silence: find a trusted a adult and let them know what's going on."
So first off, your question about wars was completely off-topic. But I'll take a shot at answering it anyway.
She didn't say people were smart. She didn't say people don't ever get violent. She instead pointed out violence doesn't solve any problems. Did we solve the terrorist threat with the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Did we stop Communism with the Vietnam and Korean wars? Part of the reason Germany went to war in World War 2 was because their economy was in the crapper after World War 1 and they owed money in reparations. Did they solve that problem by getting their country bombed to rubble?
Nations go to war for many reasons. There's the ostensible reasons like "spreading freedom" that the population is forced to buy and there are the actual reasons like securing resources or the sheer madness of the country's leadership. My question for you is, at the end of the day, can you really think of a war that "solved" a problem in a way that couldn't have been solved peacefully?

>> ^BoneRemake:

UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE

"violence doesnt solve anything "
and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.


By the way, you forgot to quote her whole comment, which in its entirety goes:

"My message to the young people out there is that violence does not solve anything. It can get you into more trouble than what it's going to solve. [If you are being bullied] don't suffer in silence: find a trusted a adult and let them know what's going on."

So first off, your question about wars was completely off-topic. But I'll take a shot at answering it anyway.

She didn't say people were smart. She didn't say people don't ever get violent. She instead pointed out violence doesn't solve any problems. Did we solve the terrorist threat with the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Did we stop Communism with the Vietnam and Korean wars? Part of the reason Germany went to war in World War 2 was because their economy was in the crapper after World War 1 and they owed money in reparations. Did they solve that problem by getting their country bombed to rubble?

Nations go to war for many reasons. There's the ostensible reasons like "spreading freedom" that the population is forced to buy and there are the actual reasons like securing resources or the sheer madness of the country's leadership. My question for you is, at the end of the day, can you really think of a war that "solved" a problem in a way that couldn't have been solved peacefully?

It's drones like this that are winning the war in Afganistan

>> ^entr0py:

Here's the cable in question: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/06/09KABUL1651.html (paragraphs 1,4,5 and 6)
Here's the change.org story that caught TYT's attention: http://humantrafficking.cha
nge.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

Also, I've got to mention my contempt for Cenk over the following statement "look, they're fighting over in Afganistan, I'm not going to nitpick weather they had hookers" (1:17). We can guess that being sold for sex by rich foreign mercenaries to corrupt local police is a hellish experience. But suddenly if they are young women rather than young boys, it's no big woop. Certainly nothing to quibble over. They're fighting in Afghanistan for profit after all, surely that should come with some fringe benefits. Isn't that right Cenk? I have a hard time believing he's naive enough to think that the women there are safe and empowered sex workers, and not victims of human trafficking or sex slavery.
At least he did help bring attention to this story, so I'll upvote for that.


I watch his show pretty regularly and have gotten fairly familiar with his mindset, I'd definitely say that he doesn't consider traffiking of females as not being a big deal compared to young males.

What he means here is that he doesn't consider it as bad if they were just 'going to the pros' with taxpayer money. They still shouldn't be doing that, given that it's public money, but he doesn't think that prostitution per-se should necessarily be illegal (Obviously, providing that it's concensual on the part of the prositute).

Here's the cable in question: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/06/09KABUL1651.html (paragraphs 1,4,5 and 6)

Here's the change.org story that caught TYT's attention: http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan


Also, I've got to mention my contempt for Cenk over the following statement "look, they're fighting over in Afganistan, I'm not going to nitpick weather they had hookers" (1:17). We can guess that being sold for sex by rich foreign mercenaries to corrupt local police is a hellish experience. But suddenly if they are young women rather than young boys, it's no big woop. Certainly nothing to quibble over. They're fighting in Afghanistan for profit after all, surely that should come with some fringe benefits. Isn't that right Cenk? I have a hard time believing he's naive enough to think that the women there are safe and empowered sex workers, and not victims of human trafficking or sex slavery.

At least he did help bring attention to this story, so I'll upvote for that.