In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
More than 20 school districts in the United States have been equipped with military-grade equipment through the federal program that provides such gear to local and state authorities free of charge, according to civil rights groups.
The NAACP and Texas Appleseed, a legal advocacy group, sent a letter on behalf of a coalition of civil rights groups to the federal agency that administers the program on Monday. The letter requested reforms be made to the 1033 program, which has come under significant scrutiny after the heavily armed police response to protests in Ferguson, Mo., last month.
The letter cited "published reports" that have showed military equipment being transferred from the Pentagon to the school districts. It said the total number of transfers from the Defense Department to U.S. schools "is difficult to determine."
KPBS in Sand Diego reported that the city's school district had received a mine-resistant vehicle. KTLA in Los Angeles reported that the district there had also received its own mine-resistant vehicle as well as grenade launchers. KHOU in Houston reported that local school districts had received military firearms.
A school district in Edinburg, Texas, has employed a full SWAT unit, according to the letter, which is equipped through the 1033 program. The groups pointed to a news image that showed officers in military fatigues standing in front of school buses.
Two Vietnam War soldiers — one still living, one killed in action — received the Medal of Honor in a White House ceremony on Monday, nearly 50 years after they threw themselves into harm's way to protect their brothers in combat. President Barack Obama praised the soldiers as patriots whose sacrifices had never been fully realized by a nation divided over the legacy of the Vietnam War.
Army Command Sgt. Maj. Bennie G. Adkins survived his injuries. Army Spc. Donald P. Sloat did not. It took an act of Congress to allow each to receive the medal so many decades after the fact.
"Over the decades, our Vietnam veterans didn't always receive the thanks and respect they deserved. That's a fact," Obama said. "But as we have been reminded again today, our Vietnam vets were patriots and are patriots."
On September 13 2014 04:03 IgnE wrote: Do you think the world is better off than it would have been if we had never invaded Iraq, even after the Kuwait invasion?
I have to think about that one. It's a closer a call than I'd like to admit.
Upon reflection, my answer is as follows:
I'm not sure that you're asking the right question. It may be that the world would be a better place right now had the US not invaded Iraq in the 90s, but that would be a very temporary thing. From my perspective the problems that we're seeing in the Muslim/Arab world have been a long time coming and were ultimately inevitable. They may have arrived a decade or two earlier as a result of US meddling in the Middle East, but there was no stopping it from happening. Dictatorships are unstable entities, and the popular and underlying social problems were going to surface eventually as the dictatorships fell. On the flip side, I do see some utility in the US imposing international order and stability upon the world by attacking Iraq in the Gulf War. Failure to act would send a bad message around the world.
What do you think caused the problems that "have been a long time coming and were ultimately inevitable?" And how would you define those problems? Dictatorships may be unstable entities but the Unites States was the one propping up a lot of them, including Saddam.
In December 1992 Osama Bin Laden bombed a hotel in Aden and it was shortly after this bombing, and the first Iraq war, when American troops flooded into Saudi Arabia, that Bin Laden started developing his terrorist aims against the United States, issuing a fatwa to his newly burgeoning terrorist group, al-Qaeda, justifying the deaths of innocents, and later issuing a fatwa imposing a duty on Muslims to liberate Muslim mosques and lands by killing any North Americans who were desecrating them with their presence. 9/11 arguably never would have happened but for HW's war.
I think it's shortsighted to look only back to the 1990s. This is a region that has been governed by autocrats and imperialist powers continuously for centuries. Sure, they kept a lid on underlying tribal, religious, and ethnic tensions that have existed for generations (if not centuries), but these problems were always going to explode sooner or later. You need look no further than Lebanon to see the truth in this eventuality.
And I don't really agree with the premise that Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists groups would have left the US alone but for the Gulf War. Their religious zealotry and intolerance cannot be underestimated. Western/Muslim relations have been explosive for centuries, and I'm not sure why things would be any different in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Nothing has really changed.
I agree with you that it goes back further. Look at the 70s when we were propping up US-backed dictatorships in Iraq and orchestrating coups in Iran. But to deny that Western meddling and oppression, including its selection of leaders, either through brute military force or through the fickle flow of international capital into countries with approved administrations and its sanctions on unapproved administrations, is a major source of the continued turmoil is to misunderstand the root causes, and rewrite history to rationalize action in this region, at this time as humanitarian. One of your lines from the earlier post, "that it would have sent a bad message" to not oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 reveals this. There are countless examples of humanitarian crises that the west ignores, and numerous examples where the Americans have instantiated and perpetuated such crises themselves (Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, etc.). The US constantly intervenes in the Middle East because the people there are sitting on one of the greatest natural resources the world has (had), and the US wants to control the access to it, either directly, or through puppet regimes. You seem to act as if this is just the way these Muslim peoples are, that they are explosive and dangerous, and that even if these tensions are local, they will, through some mysterious mechanism, eventually find their way to the US no matter what the west does. The answer is not to keep meddling in an attempt to force them to quietly accept American hegemony and western-imposed leadership.
As Marx said:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
Two Vietnam War soldiers — one still living, one killed in action — received the Medal of Honor in a White House ceremony on Monday, nearly 50 years after they threw themselves into harm's way to protect their brothers in combat. President Barack Obama praised the soldiers as patriots whose sacrifices had never been fully realized by a nation divided over the legacy of the Vietnam War.
Army Command Sgt. Maj. Bennie G. Adkins survived his injuries. Army Spc. Donald P. Sloat did not. It took an act of Congress to allow each to receive the medal so many decades after the fact.
"Over the decades, our Vietnam veterans didn't always receive the thanks and respect they deserved. That's a fact," Obama said. "But as we have been reminded again today, our Vietnam vets were patriots and are patriots."
Two Vietnam War soldiers — one still living, one killed in action — received the Medal of Honor in a White House ceremony on Monday, nearly 50 years after they threw themselves into harm's way to protect their brothers in combat. President Barack Obama praised the soldiers as patriots whose sacrifices had never been fully realized by a nation divided over the legacy of the Vietnam War.
Army Command Sgt. Maj. Bennie G. Adkins survived his injuries. Army Spc. Donald P. Sloat did not. It took an act of Congress to allow each to receive the medal so many decades after the fact.
"Over the decades, our Vietnam veterans didn't always receive the thanks and respect they deserved. That's a fact," Obama said. "But as we have been reminded again today, our Vietnam vets were patriots and are patriots."
You can't really avoid politics on that subject (especially when it's giving a medal for a soldier), and it's interesting this extreme leftist/communist president would do such a thing as celebrate soldiers who went to Vietnam.
On September 13 2014 04:03 IgnE wrote: Do you think the world is better off than it would have been if we had never invaded Iraq, even after the Kuwait invasion?
I have to think about that one. It's a closer a call than I'd like to admit.
Upon reflection, my answer is as follows:
I'm not sure that you're asking the right question. It may be that the world would be a better place right now had the US not invaded Iraq in the 90s, but that would be a very temporary thing. From my perspective the problems that we're seeing in the Muslim/Arab world have been a long time coming and were ultimately inevitable. They may have arrived a decade or two earlier as a result of US meddling in the Middle East, but there was no stopping it from happening. Dictatorships are unstable entities, and the popular and underlying social problems were going to surface eventually as the dictatorships fell. On the flip side, I do see some utility in the US imposing international order and stability upon the world by attacking Iraq in the Gulf War. Failure to act would send a bad message around the world.
What do you think caused the problems that "have been a long time coming and were ultimately inevitable?" And how would you define those problems? Dictatorships may be unstable entities but the Unites States was the one propping up a lot of them, including Saddam.
In December 1992 Osama Bin Laden bombed a hotel in Aden and it was shortly after this bombing, and the first Iraq war, when American troops flooded into Saudi Arabia, that Bin Laden started developing his terrorist aims against the United States, issuing a fatwa to his newly burgeoning terrorist group, al-Qaeda, justifying the deaths of innocents, and later issuing a fatwa imposing a duty on Muslims to liberate Muslim mosques and lands by killing any North Americans who were desecrating them with their presence. 9/11 arguably never would have happened but for HW's war.
I think it's shortsighted to look only back to the 1990s. This is a region that has been governed by autocrats and imperialist powers continuously for centuries. Sure, they kept a lid on underlying tribal, religious, and ethnic tensions that have existed for generations (if not centuries), but these problems were always going to explode sooner or later. You need look no further than Lebanon to see the truth in this eventuality.
And I don't really agree with the premise that Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists groups would have left the US alone but for the Gulf War. Their religious zealotry and intolerance cannot be underestimated. Western/Muslim relations have been explosive for centuries, and I'm not sure why things would be any different in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Nothing has really changed.
I agree with you that it goes back further. Look at the 70s when we were propping up US-backed dictatorships in Iraq and orchestrating coups in Iran. But to deny that Western meddling and oppression, including its selection of leaders, either through brute military force or through the fickle flow of international capital into countries with approved administrations and its sanctions on unapproved administrations, is a major source of the continued turmoil is to misunderstand the root causes, and rewrite history to rationalize action in this region, at this time as humanitarian.
I just don't understand why you'd only go back to the 70s unless you want to very specifically talk about US involvement in the Middle East when discussing whether such actions "made the world a better place" as your originally posited. My point is that you can't look at the current problems in the Middle East and ascribe them all to American meddling. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't some Arabs that resent American influence in the Middle East, but the larger civil wars that have been erupting largely have nothing to do with the US.
One of your lines from the earlier post, "that it would have sent a bad message" to not oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 reveals this. There are countless examples of humanitarian crises that the west ignores, and numerous examples where the Americans have instantiated and perpetuated such crises themselves (Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, etc.).
There's a difference between "tolerating" a country invading and taking over another and "tolerating" a humanitarian crisis. Allowing the former undermines world order, which is why it should not be allowed if at all possible -- particularly in important, strategic regions of the world.
The US constantly intervenes in the Middle East because the people there are sitting on one of the greatest natural resources the world has (had), and the US wants to control the access to it, either directly, or through puppet regimes.
Yep, and I'm perfectly okay with this. I openly encourage people to acknowledge that the Iraq wars were ultimately about oil.
You seem to act as if this is just the way these Muslim peoples are, that they are explosive and dangerous, and that even if these tensions are local, they will, through some mysterious mechanism, eventually find their way to the US no matter what the west does.
Let me preface what's coming by first acknowledging the obvious: not all Muslims are violent, oppressive, and intolerant assholes.
HOWEVER, compared to other populations, a disproportionately large number of Muslims presently are. And I'm not talking about Muslims in the historical sense. I'm talking about the present. The root problem is that Islam is often at odds with Western, liberal values. As just one example, our legal traditions do not mesh well with traditional Islamic legal traditions (see Sharia). And so what we see time and again, are these more radical Muslims in various parts of the world actively seeking to impose their world view upon everyone else -- whether it be in Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq -- because they want to live according to their holy scriptures. Until these more radical elements of Islam are stamped out, Islam will continue to be a problematic religion that warrants the attention of intelligence agencies and defense/war departments around the world. No other religion garners this kind of attention.
The answer is not to keep meddling in an attempt to force them to quietly accept American hegemony and western-imposed leadership.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
Frankly, I do not know how external forces can "fix" the Middle East and Islam without simply killing lots of people. I tend to think that change has to come from within, though I don't see a good path to it. The information age sure as shit hasn't led to the widespread moderation of Muslims in the Middle East like many thought it would.
On September 15 2014 22:01 oneofthem wrote: to properly judge his strats on terrorism you'd have to know detailed info about the threats and how they develop. otherwise what do you have to go on besides vague ideas of sun tzu or some such
And the Obama administration isn't talking about the threats because...
Which contrasts with Desert Storm, where the article IgnE just posted had this:
"The stakes in 1990 and '91 were really rather enormous," says Richard Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina. "Had Saddam Hussein gotten control of the Saudi oil fields, he would have had the world economy by the throat. That was immediately recognized by capitals around the world."
plenty of talk about threats. but currently it is still local in the middle east.
I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear.
On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote: I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear.
No, to be fair, we killed thousands of civilians and took away the liberty (which conservatives pretend to be all about) of millions more because we could. And we did it all in the name of the petrodollar. See: Israel, Syria, Iran, Iraq. Especially Israel. Think they're pretty mad about our satellite state ethnically cleansing their relatives and putting them in camps. Yeah they really haven't gotten over it. Kind of like how we haven't gotten over the Holocaust, black people haven't gotten over slavery, and US hasn't gotten over its anti-russia sentiments.
We'll probably be on the receiving end of some terrorist attacks for our recent incursions into the middle east as well. That's the damnedest thing about those muslims. They just can't get over it when you kill a few (hundred) thousand of them.
On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote: I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear.
I do like your casual downplay of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, extraction of billions of dollars of petrowealth, and general political domination as "meddling."
Iraq death toll: 130,000-145,000 civilians.
The really murderous ideology here is the American ideology. We can and will take control of your wealth, your oil, your people, and if you don't like it, we will occupy your countries, assassinate your leaders, and bomb you into oblivion.
On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote: I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear.
I do like your casual downplay of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, extraction of billions of dollars of petrowealth, and general political domination as "meddling."
Iraq death toll: 130,000-145,000 civilians.
The really murderous ideology here is the American ideology. We can and will take control of your wealth, your oil, your people, and if you don't like it, we will occupy your countries, assassinate your leaders, and bomb you into oblivion.
I don't think we took any oil. Let's not act like Saddam was Mr. Rogers either.
Whether or not one believes that oil was "taken" from the Middle East is going to depend on how one feels about international resource extraction in the vein of US contractors sweeping up suddenly vacant public utility and resource management outfits. I think it's clear which way you'd lean, Jonny
Later this month, hundreds of delegates will gather inside the U.N. to talk about climate change. President Barack Obama plans to attend the climate summit and reportedly wants work on a deal with other world leaders to “name and shame” countries that aren’t actively pursuing serious climate action.
But outside the U.N., thousands of activists will be protesting with one message: Whatever Obama accomplishes at the U.N., it won’t be enough to save his climate legacy.
The Obama administration has been tough on coal, directing the Environmental Protection Agency to severely limit the amount of CO2 that power plants are allowed to emit. But at the same time, the administration has embraced natural gas. Environmentalists say that embrace has created a chasm between Obama’s rhetoric and his climate-fighting actions.
That’s because a growing body of scientific evidence that shows gas development produces significant amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide.
At the People’s Climate March on Sept. 21, activists say they’ll be pressuring the president to address his support of oil and gas. If he doesn’t, they say, he risks squandering his entire environmental record.
“He’s hoping that by killing coal and replacing it with natural gas, he’s coming out a winner, but the science is increasingly saying that’s not going to be the case,” said Anthony Ingraffea, an engineering professor at Cornell and a prominent hydraulic fracturing critic. “At best, his strategy means we’ll break even, but over decades. The Climate March is saying we don’t have decades.”
For many environmentalists, there seem to be two Obamas:
There’s the one who has pushed hard to bring a dialogue about climate change to the forefront of U.S. politics in a way no president before him has.
"The question is not whether we need to act [on climate change],” Obama said in a speech in June. “The question is whether we have the will to act before it's too late.”
The other Obama has come out hard for natural gas development.
On September 16 2014 06:23 xDaunt wrote: There's a difference between "tolerating" a country invading and taking over another and "tolerating" a humanitarian crisis. Allowing the former undermines world order, which is why it should not be allowed if at all possible -- particularly in important, strategic regions of the world.
In a way, Iraq in 1990 was just doing what the United States would have no qualms about doing if it were similarly situated. We are talking about a country that invaded Grenada with overwhelming military force because the revolutionary government of the tiny island nation was building an airport. Iraq even offered to pull out before the United States invaded, but the United States rejected the offer, because Iraq wanted Israel to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction along with Iraq dismantling its own as a condition of the offer. The hypocrisy of the American position is that it thinks it is allowed to act with military force to impose its will on other peoples in the interest of "strategic concerns" but that other countries are never allowed to do so, and are rarely allowed to control their own countries if that control interferes with American interests. American foreign policy is built around trampling the Golden Rule at every opportunity despite it claiming to act as a peaceful guardian of freedom, democracy, and human decency.
On September 16 2014 07:57 Danglars wrote: I do like IgnE's lovable apologism: We made the Middle East hate us, and are thus partly to blame for 9/11. You know, meddling makes people angry, one thing leads to another, and now Muslim terrorists are killing thousands of civilians. It reminds me of how much was promised that if ever George Bush was replaced, especially by an enlightened foreign leader like Obama, how much the world would like us, and he'd erase all that animosity now that a warmongering cowboy wasn't in the white house. It's a pleasant fantasy for the American left that this can all be tied back to American involvement, but really its a murderous ideology, it's always been opposed to everything American was, and it has no qualms about killing civilians to demonstrate its power and propagate fear.
I do like your casual downplay of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, extraction of billions of dollars of petrowealth, and general political domination as "meddling."
Iraq death toll: 130,000-145,000 civilians.
The really murderous ideology here is the American ideology. We can and will take control of your wealth, your oil, your people, and if you don't like it, we will occupy your countries, assassinate your leaders, and bomb you into oblivion.
I don't think we took any oil. Let's not act like Saddam was Mr. Rogers either.
Let's not act like we weren't supporting Saddam in the 80s. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are free to massacre your own people as long as you keep the oil flowing at low prices, but talk about nationalizing the oilfields, or pressuring Kuwait to stop flooding the market with oil, and suddenly you are one of the most dangerous threats in the world, requiring the US to bomb your country, killing tens of thousands of more innocent civilians than you ever did, to get rid of you.
this al qaeda thing is not some grand historical inevitability/struggle between oppressed and the oppressors. that kind of perspective simply is too coarse grained to capture the peculiar ideological and organizational development of these jihadists. yes, they arose from conflict against foreign invaders, but this invasion's impact is more perception and interpretation than actual harm. keep in mind the al qaeda group is led by pretty well to do boys. these are not suffers, they are imaginers and dreamers with a vision to shape the world. it's not that the west did great harm to the lives of your average middle easterner,(the oil money is nice). it is an offensive presence incompatible with an awakened consciousness about the world. once these people start looking at things in terms of some sort of world historic struggle, they cease to operate at the level of harms and benefits. it's why all of their terms are so abstract/ideologically composed.
the salafist mindset of returning to the fundamentals/authentic is pretty ccommon for society/religions under stress. you can even point to american political/religious fundamentalism as a similar reaction under modern compression. it's just that in one situation you have a militarized version, while in the other the desire for action and revival of the ideal life is expressed politically.
at the end of the day this too will pass with more education and stuff. ideological pathology is not merely a socioeconomic problem, though that certainly doesn't help matters.
On September 16 2014 06:23 xDaunt wrote: There's a difference between "tolerating" a country invading and taking over another and "tolerating" a humanitarian crisis. Allowing the former undermines world order, which is why it should not be allowed if at all possible -- particularly in important, strategic regions of the world.
In a way, Iraq in 1990 was just doing what the United States would have no qualms about doing if it were similarly situated. We are talking about a country that invaded Grenada with overwhelming military force because the revolutionary government of the tiny island nation was building an airport. Iraq even offered to pull out before the United States invaded, but the United States rejected the offer, because Iraq wanted Israel to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction along with Iraq dismantling its own as a condition of the offer. The hypocrisy of the American position is that it thinks it is allowed to act with military force to impose its will on other peoples in the interest of "strategic concerns" but that other countries are never allowed to do so, and are rarely allowed to control their own countries if that control interferes with American interests. American foreign policy is built around trampling the Golden Rule at every opportunity despite it claiming to act as a peaceful guardian of freedom, democracy, and human decency.
Here's the thing. I don't give two shits about whether the Americans have a hypocritical foreign policy. I expect the US to unapologetically pursue its interests. Fuck the world. The rest of the countries are a bunch of ingrates anyway because they too are unapologetically pursing their interests.
How about if they a murderous, destructive foreign policy? You seem to have ignored the millions of people around the world that the United States is directly responsible for killing, from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq. You expect the US to kill hundreds of thousands of people to pursue its interests?
On September 16 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote: How about if they a murderous, destructive foreign policy? You seem to have ignored the millions of people around the world that the United States is directly responsible for killing, from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq. You expect the US to kill hundreds of thousands of people to pursue its interests?
EPT
