As usual, you have it all 100% backwards. Not surprising since you are a Russian propagandist.
Russia secretly invaded Ukraine in 2014 as pure expansionism, when they finally admitted the invasion their excuse was Russians in Crimea were being poorly treated and a fear extremists would take over Russian military bases, having absolutely nothing to do with NATO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#:~:text=Russia%20eventually%20admitted%20its%20troops,Russian%20military%
20infrastructure%20by%20extremists%22.

NATO is now “creeping into buffer countries” because Russia started and continues an expansionist policy and threatens its neighbors. Russian expansionism started first. There have been 3 rounds of NATO expansion since Russia started retaking now sovereign lost satellite territories in 2014.
There was never an agreement that NATO wouldn’t accept new members, just as there’s nothing stopping Russia from making allies.
Ukraine was going to be an EU country until Russia’s installed “president” ignored the people and chose Russia over Ukraine and was deposed and expelled so Ukrainians could democratically choose their own leadership which they did. Then Russia invaded.
There was absolutely no chance of them joining NATO until after the invasion, now it’s a near certainty.

Democracy in Europe IS our business. We will be fighting this war at some time, either now while Russia is weak and poor through a proxy or later when we are in a much weaker position fighting them with American soldiers directly…much better to choose now for less money and zero Americans, I know you would prefer to just let Putin re-annex the Balkan states and expand as far as he chooses, returning to socialist communism under his tyrannical leadership, but the free world would prefer to stay free.

And again, it is our business as I clearly explained to you repeatedly because we signed, and actually directed the trilateral disarmament agreement in 92 when we agreed to secure their borders against any incursion and they gave up nuclear weapons the collapsing soviets couldn’t afford to secure themselves. You would make any future agreements, and any current treaties moot and impossible to guarantee because our guarantee is worse than worthless. So shortsighted and not smart. It’s important to keep your word internationally, I know as a MAGgot that doesn’t make sense, just like telling the truth even if it hurts you doesn’t make sense to you…honesty and honor are foreign concepts to your ilk.
It would be nice if you could remember being so wrong so I didn’t have to correct you over and over and over on the exact same topic…but you can’t admit you are wrong so you will forget you were proven wrong, again, and spout the same ignorance, again, forever. So sad and mentally defective….it’s a main feature of MAGA, severe brain damage.

Walk away MAGA policies would hand the world to China, Russia, and N Korea without a word of complaint, then confusion over where our allies are when they come for us.
Ukraine is a war Russia started, one that’s being won by Ukraine with help, and one that has crippled Russia for decades to come WAY cheaper than any American policy could have. Give Joe credit, fine, Joe bankrupted Russia and destroyed their military…I don’t give him that credit, you do.

No, leftists said he would bring us into ruin, and that if he followed trough with his stated intentions he would bring us into war…but he never follows through and caved to China and Russia instead of standing strong for American ideals, interests, and Western democracy. He nearly did start a war by assassinating Iranian government officials and Syrians. I remember when you said ISIS was a nothing burger and not worth paying attention to, right before they took near half of Iraq and Syria, started attacking Americans, and we went to war with them in 2017…who was president then?
We were still at war in Afghanistan when he left office, he had just surrendered unconditionally to the Taliban and Al Qaeda under an agreement they broke repeatedly, but we were still there until Biden (poorly) facilitated the retreat Trump negotiated. Trump/MAGA didn’t avoid or end wars. Nice try at revisionism.

The policy bringing the US near war today is our Israel policy that is the same unthinking blind support for Israel from both parties, same from both presidential candidates. We are in direct military actions endangering American soldiers daily because of THAT conflict, not because of Ukraine. The unbridled ignorance is disappointing even from you. 🤦‍♂️

Ending wars by capitulating like Trump did with Crimea and surrendering unconditionally like Trump did in Afghanistan is not “winning”, it’s losing without even trying and hands the world to dictators.

Stop re-posting thoroughly *debunked *Russia anti-American propaganda you already know for certain is bullshit, bobski.

What happened to yesterday’s “Quit looking stupid and just wait for reality to catch up to the fake news --- IE post when news is real.”? Can’t follow your own advice for one minute, snowflake. You instantly post more Russian propaganda with zero facts involved.



https://videosift.com/video/Why-You-Always-Lying

Every detail of his fictional “story” has been proven not just false, but many completely impossible. Many of the assets he claims were used are mothballed without engines, the rest tracked in real time by publicly available data elsewhere…the theory that Ukraine hit it makes more sense, but is also likely impossible...but bobski doesn’t care, it’s a pro Russia anti American story he can repeat, so he will, truth and facts be damned. Been there, done that.
Edit: did he say 9/11 was a bombing by al qaeda, not suicide hijackings!?! 🤦‍♂️

Mark McCloskey, remember him? The terrified snowflake that pulled out guns and threatened peaceful marchers in the street walking past his house? Now running for senator, guess which party. Only one party thinks menacing peaceful protesters with death is something to applaud.
Well, he’s in trouble for claiming to be endorsed by Vanilla Ice and Yang Yang Twins (because of course he isn’t).

This you guy? This yor best? Thuggish violent liars prepared to say or do anything for power. It’s all the right has left.

How you liking Cruz showing off how anti military the right is by celebrating withholding earned medical benefits out of pure spite on the senate floor? Their “excuse” is utter nonsense lies, claiming that the bill was once discretionary spending (meaning at the whim of the current president) and has been CHANGED to mandatory spending. It’s a lie, not one word changed since they voted FOR it in June.
https://videosift.com/video/Jon-8482-s-Response-To-Ted-Cruz-8482-s-PACT-Act-Lies

How about Trump chumming up to the Saudi Royal family, now saying no one knows if they were involved in 9/11 (he had no doubts in 2016 whatsoever, but now they’ve invested hundreds of millions into Trump companies). He was outraged Obama didn’t release the classified 9/11 report, then when he had the secret report detailing their involvement Trump kept it secret (for favors and investments), Biden released it and Trump now pretends he’s never heard of it, doesn’t know if the Saudis are involved, protects them when they murder Americans, and is more than apply to help them try to destroy an American sports league miles from where the towers once stood. Must make you so proud as a patriot.

Fascism, theocracy, and anti Americanism has actually become the Republican Party platform. Only the TrueType totally insane could possibly see their actions, support them, and still think themselves as American patriots. History will judge you harshly, your families will too. Your legacy is treason.

Just to rub it in how much more competent Biden is, today ended the reign of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri with no civilian casualties, something Trump promised and completely failed to do…so badly he gave up and agreed to surrender Afghanistan unconditionally.

Just to show how anti American and pro terrorist the right is, your talking heads like Carlson are trying to spin the killing of the mastermind of 9/11 as a bad thing that somehow makes us less safe, and are trying to blame Biden for Russia attacking Crimea and Ukraine.

Trump hosts the sponsors of 9/11 while Biden eliminates the perpetrators. Thanks Biden.

Wow, thanks for the laugh. I thought I had heard every 9/11 theory out there. Apparently 6 months wasn't enough time to brief Bush on the Al Qaeda threat, because his schedule was still backed up from the inauguration. And the FBI and CIA were just too polite to intrude on his time clearing brush on the ranch with a vital national security situation. LOL!!!

Also, what were these "plans for Osama?" Haven't heard that one either.

Aww! Is Donald J. Hoover, the guy who's killed more Americans than al Qaeda and ISIS combined, going to soil his ruffled panties because the painful truth of his statements is being thrown back in his puffy, orange face?

That shit ain't nothing compared to what's coming if he decides to murder millions of Americans to save his Wall St. buddies come Easter.

Bob,

This is one place where you and I agree on something: Obama fucked up in Syria and fucked up bad. He should have never said that line about the "red line" on chemical attacks unless he was fully willing to back it with US forces and see it all the way through. All he did there was make the US look weak and embolden Assad.

Now we've got a world-class cluster-fuck over there.

Bismark supposedly foresaw WW1 with the statement about "some damned fool thing in the Balkans", well WW3 might start with "some damned fool thing in the Levant", especially given that you've got Iran, Russia, the Kurds and Turkey -- not to mention al Qaeda and ISIS -- all pursuing their interests in the region through Syria.

Right now, Israel and Russia are sabre rattling at each other over those S-300 missiles and each side is all but daring the other to try something.

The best case scenario is a total bloodbath in Idlib and the worst is a shooting war between nuclear-armed opponents. As the old saying goes, "This can only end well".

Here's a Canadian example:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/aly-hindy-salaheddin-islamic-centre

A mosque who's former founder has gone off to lead a team of Al Qaeda linked suicide bombers in Iraq. The mosque Ohmar Khadr's father brought their family to before relocating them to fight for Bin Laden in Pakistan. The mosque attended by the leaders of the largest terrorist ring Canada has broken up thus far. Other members have gone off to join terrorists in Somalia and Egypt.

The question of should we be setting up some manner of legal accountability for an organization that is clearly idealogically supporting these things isn't a clear and obvious, nope, nothing can be done. At least not any more than nope, nothing can be done is clearly the answer to the Vegas shootings.

Comments show again what a totalitarian topic this is.
If you call this science, you can call scientists scientists who lobbied for tobacco firms, claiming it didnt cause detrimental health effects, claimed the leaded fuel issue wasnt linked to leaded fuel, eugenics proponents or people who used lobotomy and electro shock therapy.

Oh wait, they were.
Keep believing hypocrites. Humans and intelligent, if they cant even learn from history? Dont make me laugh.

Attack the imminent problems, like the hypocrisy in the conflicts in Syria or Libya. Then I am starting to take you seriously. But instead you whine about 0.1 C degrees and let millions of people die to people you elected and which will ultimately backlash to you too.
Just look at this fact: USA supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda through countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, while also fighting it.
Unbelievable...

And dont tell me me "its not their job". Its everyones job to stop something like that, just like you claim on climate change. Even more so actually!

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.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

"[the] world is actually healthier, wealthier, better educated, more tolerant, less violent than it has ever been."

Not in places like Afghanistan, Libya, Jemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, downtown Chicago, Detroit or Cleveland. Not in Greece. And I'm not entirely sure it's a better place for the hundreds of millions of Chinese who left their rural areas to become work nomads. Also not sure about the all the millions of people in Africa whose livelihood gets crushed by subsidised produce/corn from the West. Not sure about all the Indian farmers who are driven into suicide by the monopoly powers of seed suppliers. Not sure about India as a whole, now suffering from the third year in a row of a belated monsoon and horrific drought.

"Democracy means you don't everything you want, when you want it, all the time" ... "and occasionally comprise, and stay principled, but recognise that it's a long march towards progress"

He talks the talk, but even for a center-right guy, he doesn't walk the walk. Principles went out the window in Gitmo. Principles went out the window when the drivers behind the illegal war of aggression in Iraq were not prosecuted in accordance with the Nuremberg Principles. Principles went out the window when carpet surveillance pissed all over the Constitution. Principles went out the window when US military forces aid Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria just because they oppose Assad. Even mentioning principles in the face of the gruesome, drone-driven terror campaigns in at least half a dozen countries makes me want to vomit.

And don't get me started on compromise. If you ban single-payer and drop the public option before negotiations begin, that's not compromise. That's theatre meant to mislead us plebs while you add an additional layer of "market" to an already dysfunctional market, which ends up profiting the insurance companies yet again.

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Well, just to be clear... ISIS and any other al-qaeda groups anywhere in that region are still real "threats", just not directly or imminently to us (probably). And furthermore I wouldn't go judging the reality of these claims based on a 15-minute compilation of quotes put together by Cenk, many of which he subtly misinterprets (in fairness I skipped a handful because of that).

Basically, we can say for sure that Iraq had no WMDs, but there has been no retrospective on this because it is still a current event. Further, I would say that in this case everybody knows we're basically just bombing ISIS regardless of what legal excuse we use. I think Bush and Cheney just wanted to give the region an enema and still lie to us about it even today. There has been plenty of analysis on that in the last dozen years, none of which I'm an expert on.

One danger I see of political cynicism is to dismiss both sides as if their arguments are equally worthless. Just like with anything, ACTUALLY EVALUATE BOTH SIDES! For example: http://videosift.com/video/Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-Climate-Change-Debate

Jews have the old testament.
Christians have the old testament and new testament.
Muslims have the old testament, new testament, and yet a newer testament.

All 3 share the old testament.
The 'violence promoting' scriptures are found in the old testament - which all 3 have in common.

Reza is right.
If people want peace, the religious of them simply ignore the violent edicts of their religions.
If they want to be violent, the religious of them legitimize it with excuses from their religions.

He's also right about the national hypocrisy. Al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 was a pet organization of members of the Saudi royal family.
But instead of going after the Saudis (who also today finance ISIS), we go after 2 countries that are unrelated to the attack.

Look at today's irony. Assad in Syria (who we wanted deposed because he was friendlier to Russia than the U.S., and allowed Russian bases on Syrian soil [in the middle east]) is now fighting ISIS, while we ally with the Saudis who are supporting ISIS.

We also didn't mind supporting the Mujahedin (Jihadi fighters) in Afghanistan when they were fighting our enemy. We had no problem throwing Afghanistan into the dark ages when it suited us.

Ultimately, extremist Islam is a foil, meant to rouse western people's emotions. As national policy, we don't _actually_ do anything to stop it, we just use it as an excuse to do whatever else is of national interest.
Who would be the boogey man if extremist Islam was gone? We need a boogey man if we want to keep excusing and paying for a large military. People simply don't have the foresight and patience to maintain a strong military without someone scaring them into support. Particularly now, when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to quickly build a large military.

However, Reza is ignoring Turkey's and the Pacific islander's Muslim problems. Indonesia and the Philippines have extremist Muslim organizations doing attacks home (Philippines also has Christian terrorists). Turkey is a large source of Muslim fighters pouring into Syria.



The various related religions also have historical developmental differences.

Jews were for a long time in such minorities that they did not have the political capability of waging any campaign of violence. They were either too small, or too busy being occupied by European powers (Rome, etc).

Christians did have a long period of majority, starting around 400ad when Rome decided that a good way to control/pacify any dissent within the empire was to make the empire 1 religion and make Rome the head of that religion. They elected Christianity as the state religion, forced everyone in the Roman empire to convert, and you had a continent's worth of Christians.
This included north Africa and Middle East - and is when Jews (by now called Palestinians) were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity (**and few hundred years later forced to convert from Christianity to Islam).

Although, Christians had the benefit of the Inquisition(s) to temper their enthusiasm for Christianity. A large part of the population was killed for consorting with the devil. Once it got so bad that everyone knew someone who had been convicted and killed - and everyone was sure that those killed were innocent, it cast a large doubt on Christianity as whole. People questioned if the devil even exists, or if it's all a sham. The distrust and resentment paved the way for the eventual birth of Deism and Empiricism. A time when the scientific method and physical observation started to take over.

Islam is still a young religion. They still have to experience their religion becoming all powerful, and the inquisitions that inevitably come from absolute power. The one good thing about Islamic extremism is that it makes the people living under those conditions more likely to suffer. Once the suffering becomes so pervasive that everyone is suffering, the people will start to dislike/distrust their religion, and the extremism will resolve itself from the inside out - like it did with Christianity.

The bigger problem would be if things are 'too tolerable', and the religion grows more extreme (no one is inclined to say 'no'). The biggest problem would be if the religious leaders 'solve' the balance issue, and manage to stabilize the oppression at a level that is as extreme as it can be while still being permanently sustainable. Then the religious leaders can live the life of power without the threat of deposition.

-scheherazade

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man