The Marines don't go around killing civilians, they kill those who are a threat to the free world. In Iraq, they took down a dictator, who was butchering people as if they were cattle, 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, and unless the Marines were doing what they do, there would be much more of those attacks.
You need to watch footage of the September attacks. Those videos speak volumes about "provoked". The sad thing is that too could be propaganda but what else do you have to go off of? In this case watch the footage, and see how much "provoking" that attack was. I think you may find something entirely "thought provoking."
Are you saying that the sole purpose of invading Iraq was to "defend the free world"(whatever that means) and rescue Iraqis from Saddam, not for the oil!!
and even if that was true, who assigned them to do that? they caused more harm than good!
Let's say you're fighting with your brother in your home, then some guy who is not related to you enters your home by force, kill your brother, and steal all the money you had in the house, then you go grab a knife and try to attach this intruder (who is carrying a gun), suddenly the intruder calls you a terrorist and that you're endangering the world's freedom, and now the whole world labels you as a terrorist because it happens that this guy is the toughest guy in the area and nobody wanna fuck with him.
Please imagine this situation and tell me what would you do?
First of all, yes I do believe that oil had nothing to do with it, second, those are completely different, situations. Saddam didn't slaughtered only Iraqis, also many died in Kuwait, its not like two brothers fighting, its like someone who kidnaps you, kills your family, and tortures you, and then someone else come and kill them, setting you free. The Americans didn't take money from Iraq.
Money was just an example like the rest of the scenario, but they took oil which worth more than money.
I can't fully argue my case because i find it hard to explain all my points considering my language barrier (English is not my first language obviously)
but I think TerryVie said some of the stuff that I wanted to express.
yeah, i should have read this first... "i do believe that oil had nothing to do with it"...basically says it all.
Hey, nightmare, North Korea is acting very treatening towards South Korea again with it's new dictator...maybe you should step in?
Oh wait, no natural resources.
Hey, China is supressing a billion of people in a non-democratic government full with censorship and abuse of individuals.
Oh wait, they are a great trade partner.
Hey, Israel is bullying the palestinians again, threatening countries all around, has weapons of mass destruction etc...
Oh wait, they are allies and a great reason to go to war.
Hey, Indochina has serious terrorist problems, islamic extremists and stuff...
Oh wait, no natural reso....do i see a pattern here?
I think your scenario was very fitting.
Even if you change it around:
If two neighbours are fighting, and one kidnaps the other...the police may come in and take the kidnapper into custody, freeing the victim. Reasonable.
In real world scenario, they took the kidnapper into custody, moved into his house, evicted his family, took everything of value and say it was all to save the neighbour.
Actually, simpily because the media doesn't publicize some stuff, doesn't mean America isn't trying to protect the countries being bullied by the others.
"The Waffen-SS didn't go around killing civilians, they killed those who were a threat to the reich. In the Soviet Union, they attempted to take down a dictator, who was butchering people as if they were cattle, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprovoked attacks, and unless Hitler had done what he did, the whole of Europe would speak Russian today."
Doesn't make those things much better :P
The sheer self-delusion necessary to believe one's nation is the "police officer" of the world with the right to decide who lives, who dies, who rules, and who owns what. Decadence at it's best. The US did LOTS of thing in the past 30 years to utterly destroy their foreign reputation. I am not saying ALL those things weren't necessary or all of it was wrong...but it should at least be observed with a critical view, not mindless agree-ance.
Stuff like killing civilians tends to leave a lasting impression, not only on the familys and relatives of those killed, and that impression does not become better if the ones doing the deed are official armed forces of a nation instead of radical terrorists.
Such poor knowledge of history combined with being so opinionated is never a good thing.
The Waffen-SS killed millions of people, simply because they believed those people didn't deserve to live, not because they were a threat. Stalin butchered many people as well, but that was a much more complex story then what you think, you need to do a lot of reading before I can go into that subject with you (and I don't mean just the headlines in Wikipedia, and some comments made by teenagers). The Japanese refused to surrender under any circumstances Until those two bombs were dropped (also read about their war crimes).
Since you mentioned the Nazis, they got so much power only because the western nations wanted to avoid war. Saddam was a dictator drunk with power, who only looked out for his own welfare, no matter at what cost.
yes, you have poor knowledge of history, but let me help out:
The Waffen-SS killed plenty of people, because they had a pre-made opinion of them, didn't question it, and acted on that because of how they were told to view them.
The US Marines killed plenty of people, because they had a pre-made opinion of them, didn't question it, and acted on that because of how they were ordered to act.
Stalin butchered a huge percentage of his people to strenghten his own position and prepare for war...the no-step-back policy and penal battailons + human wave doctrine were all necessary steps to withstand the wehrmacht, however, needlessly many young people were butchered to win the race to berlin against the western allies.
The japanese OFFERED to surrender before the nuclear bombs, with the sole condition that their tenno, who they saw as direct descendent of the gods, was not to be harmed/put into jail. It was a very acceptable offer and no invasion of mainland japan would have been necessary. The dropping of the bombs was not to break morale(incidently, ONE bomb would have been enough for that) but basically weapon tests on live targets under combat conditions. And they were targetted on civilians.
As for Saddam, the US helped the Bahd come into power in the first place, and supported him with weaponry against the Iran. He looked out for his own welfare, but also for his people...the US embargo for selling oil after the first iraq war was kept standing even after he requested to trade directly for needed medication and food...which would have been for his people, not him. That was denied in an attempt to break public opinion against him.
I am rather opinionated and don't claim anything else, the only thing i request is that facts are CRITICALLY considered, not just believed what people are told. The winner writes history, always been that way. And if you think the US is such a "good" nation only caring about world freedom and liberty of the people, then you need to read up on propaganda. It's a nation drunk with power, only looking out for it's own welfare, no matter at what cost.
Is it normal to think that the Marines are terrorists?
← View full post
The Marines don't go around killing civilians, they kill those who are a threat to the free world. In Iraq, they took down a dictator, who was butchering people as if they were cattle, 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, and unless the Marines were doing what they do, there would be much more of those attacks.
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
PalestinianGuy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
-
shade_ilmaendu
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
-
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
You need to watch footage of the September attacks. Those videos speak volumes about "provoked". The sad thing is that too could be propaganda but what else do you have to go off of? In this case watch the footage, and see how much "provoking" that attack was. I think you may find something entirely "thought provoking."
Are you saying that the sole purpose of invading Iraq was to "defend the free world"(whatever that means) and rescue Iraqis from Saddam, not for the oil!!
and even if that was true, who assigned them to do that? they caused more harm than good!
Let's say you're fighting with your brother in your home, then some guy who is not related to you enters your home by force, kill your brother, and steal all the money you had in the house, then you go grab a knife and try to attach this intruder (who is carrying a gun), suddenly the intruder calls you a terrorist and that you're endangering the world's freedom, and now the whole world labels you as a terrorist because it happens that this guy is the toughest guy in the area and nobody wanna fuck with him.
Please imagine this situation and tell me what would you do?
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
First of all, yes I do believe that oil had nothing to do with it, second, those are completely different, situations. Saddam didn't slaughtered only Iraqis, also many died in Kuwait, its not like two brothers fighting, its like someone who kidnaps you, kills your family, and tortures you, and then someone else come and kill them, setting you free. The Americans didn't take money from Iraq.
--
PalestinianGuy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Money was just an example like the rest of the scenario, but they took oil which worth more than money.
I can't fully argue my case because i find it hard to explain all my points considering my language barrier (English is not my first language obviously)
but I think TerryVie said some of the stuff that I wanted to express.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
yeah, i should have read this first... "i do believe that oil had nothing to do with it"...basically says it all.
Hey, nightmare, North Korea is acting very treatening towards South Korea again with it's new dictator...maybe you should step in?
Oh wait, no natural resources.
Hey, China is supressing a billion of people in a non-democratic government full with censorship and abuse of individuals.
Oh wait, they are a great trade partner.
Hey, Israel is bullying the palestinians again, threatening countries all around, has weapons of mass destruction etc...
Oh wait, they are allies and a great reason to go to war.
Hey, Indochina has serious terrorist problems, islamic extremists and stuff...
Oh wait, no natural reso....do i see a pattern here?
I think your scenario was very fitting.
Even if you change it around:
If two neighbours are fighting, and one kidnaps the other...the police may come in and take the kidnapper into custody, freeing the victim. Reasonable.
In real world scenario, they took the kidnapper into custody, moved into his house, evicted his family, took everything of value and say it was all to save the neighbour.
--
prettylittlebitch
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
PalestinianGuy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Actually, simpily because the media doesn't publicize some stuff, doesn't mean America isn't trying to protect the countries being bullied by the others.
I think I just found my soul mate :D
I relly hate to burst your bubble hun, but.... :/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1066&bih=511&tbm=isch&tbnid=netbNVuOFYyJ3M:&imgrefurl=http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D000671&docid=RfeTV92hUK9arM&imgurl=http://usiraq.procon.org/files/1-us-iraq-images/iraqi-civilian-casualties-january-2006-to-february-2008.jpg&w=507&h=382&ei=eNWVT_ntJY616AGS5_GVBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=230&vpy=187&dur=2265&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=142&ty=101&sig=117330299957203212651&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=170&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:72
"The Waffen-SS didn't go around killing civilians, they killed those who were a threat to the reich. In the Soviet Union, they attempted to take down a dictator, who was butchering people as if they were cattle, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprovoked attacks, and unless Hitler had done what he did, the whole of Europe would speak Russian today."
Doesn't make those things much better :P
The sheer self-delusion necessary to believe one's nation is the "police officer" of the world with the right to decide who lives, who dies, who rules, and who owns what. Decadence at it's best. The US did LOTS of thing in the past 30 years to utterly destroy their foreign reputation. I am not saying ALL those things weren't necessary or all of it was wrong...but it should at least be observed with a critical view, not mindless agree-ance.
Stuff like killing civilians tends to leave a lasting impression, not only on the familys and relatives of those killed, and that impression does not become better if the ones doing the deed are official armed forces of a nation instead of radical terrorists.
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Such poor knowledge of history combined with being so opinionated is never a good thing.
The Waffen-SS killed millions of people, simply because they believed those people didn't deserve to live, not because they were a threat. Stalin butchered many people as well, but that was a much more complex story then what you think, you need to do a lot of reading before I can go into that subject with you (and I don't mean just the headlines in Wikipedia, and some comments made by teenagers). The Japanese refused to surrender under any circumstances Until those two bombs were dropped (also read about their war crimes).
Since you mentioned the Nazis, they got so much power only because the western nations wanted to avoid war. Saddam was a dictator drunk with power, who only looked out for his own welfare, no matter at what cost.
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
yes, you have poor knowledge of history, but let me help out:
The Waffen-SS killed plenty of people, because they had a pre-made opinion of them, didn't question it, and acted on that because of how they were told to view them.
The US Marines killed plenty of people, because they had a pre-made opinion of them, didn't question it, and acted on that because of how they were ordered to act.
Stalin butchered a huge percentage of his people to strenghten his own position and prepare for war...the no-step-back policy and penal battailons + human wave doctrine were all necessary steps to withstand the wehrmacht, however, needlessly many young people were butchered to win the race to berlin against the western allies.
The japanese OFFERED to surrender before the nuclear bombs, with the sole condition that their tenno, who they saw as direct descendent of the gods, was not to be harmed/put into jail. It was a very acceptable offer and no invasion of mainland japan would have been necessary. The dropping of the bombs was not to break morale(incidently, ONE bomb would have been enough for that) but basically weapon tests on live targets under combat conditions. And they were targetted on civilians.
As for Saddam, the US helped the Bahd come into power in the first place, and supported him with weaponry against the Iran. He looked out for his own welfare, but also for his people...the US embargo for selling oil after the first iraq war was kept standing even after he requested to trade directly for needed medication and food...which would have been for his people, not him. That was denied in an attempt to break public opinion against him.
I am rather opinionated and don't claim anything else, the only thing i request is that facts are CRITICALLY considered, not just believed what people are told. The winner writes history, always been that way. And if you think the US is such a "good" nation only caring about world freedom and liberty of the people, then you need to read up on propaganda. It's a nation drunk with power, only looking out for it's own welfare, no matter at what cost.
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I like you..erm...your words lol. Tell it savagely!