Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

Wtf. Where is the audio?

We should 4Chan this and get a petition going. The jig's up Statist Idiots! HAHA!

right guys? ..guys.. =\

>> ^Yogi:

Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.


So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?


It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?


Oh, right. I forget how simplistic the decision process for American foreign policy was. I was under the mistaken belief that there were a multitude of interdependent and complicating factors involved.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?

Oh, right. I forget how simplistic the decision process for American foreign policy was. I was under the mistaken belief that there were a multitude of interdependent and complicating factors involved.


There's other factors of course but the important one is does this benefit the owners of the society. I mean doesn't that make sense?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
Umm I wouldn't call that a "dumb comment" I'd call it an uncharacteristically honest comment. It's like saying we can't stop starting wars with helpless countries, because it's too profitable.

So, the Iraq and Afghanistan missions will start turning a profit sometime soon?

It already has for the people who matter. Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater (Xe). Seriously are people this ignorant about who benefits from these wars?

Oh, right. I forget how simplistic the decision process for American foreign policy was. I was under the mistaken belief that there were a multitude of interdependent and complicating factors involved.

There's other factors of course but the important one is does this benefit the owners of the society. I mean doesn't that make sense?


No, the notion of a society's owners within a democratic nation doesn't make particularly strong sense to me.

Halliburton made a fortune off American government contracts, thanks to the decisions of their former VP as the American VP. Of course that is significant.

The attacks of 9/11 happened shortly before the decision to go to war in Afghanistan. Was that not just as, dare I say more, significant?

No 9/11 was not more significant because we were going to invade Iraq anyways. Look it took me 9 years to earn this education through reading tons of authors and studying tons of declassified documents. I can't exactly distill it down on this board. I will say that you're right it shouldn't be that way in a democratic nation, I put to you that our democracy is broken...it does not work and it was never intended to.

To be fair, within the same response she also expressed some support for legalizing small amounts for possession. At least it's a step in softening existing drug laws in most states.

It would be cool if the secretary of state were for legalization, but I don't think anyone can expect we're there yet. It will take a sustained and gradual shift in public attitude. That seems to be what's happening, and maybe in a decade it won't be political suicide for an administration to support pot legalization.

Interview text:
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2011/January/20110125162820su0.454414.html&distid=ucs

>> ^Yogi:

No 9/11 was not more significant because we were going to invade Iraq anyways. Look it took me 9 years to earn this education through reading tons of authors and studying tons of declassified documents. I can't exactly distill it down on this board. I will say that you're right it shouldn't be that way in a democratic nation, I put to you that our democracy is broken...it does not work and it was never intended to.


So you refuse to admit that 9/11 had more influence than Haliburton's profits on the decision to invade Afghanistan?

As for Iraq you can take heart, change is in the winds. Gaddafi is far weaker in Libya today, and it appears that all the industrial war machine's desires to launch another American invasion there are being ignored.

If you want to claim Iraq's invasion as horrific, you also get to wear the chain of pride for the world's inaction in Libya as Gaddafi promises a repeat of Tiannanmen square on his people. 3 cheers for Libya's Gaddafi and for America shaking off the chains of the military industrial complex.