I'm not going to fact-check this either. It may or not be an exaggeration but the spirit of it is absolutely correct. There's a reason Canadians used to travel with conspicuous Maple Leafs on our back-packs and luggage. Now we're so much like you it hardly matters anymore.

But everybody's OK with the basic premise? By this logic, Jeffrey Dahmer's parents are two of the worst serial killers in American history. It also presupposes that covert American involvement is the sole cause for death; that life in each of those countries would be absolutely fucking beautiful were it not for us.

Furthermore, even if you grant them their bullshit point, which I do not, 8 million in 50 years is pretty goddamn low for a world superpower.

Fuck it, each and every of those societies have done far worse to their own - we were just joining the fun.

How many millions would have been killed had we been isolationist since 1952?  Without knowing, the figures posted are meaningless.

opsec wrote:

How many millions would have been killed had we been isolationist since 1952?  Without knowing, the figures posted are meaningless.

Yes, the figures are meaningless. What isn't meaningless is the general perception that Americans have little problem, indeed, sometimes seem to take pleasure, in killing civilians in wars that are prosecuted for reasons that do not pass muster in the court of international opinion, or for reasons that are inherently profit-motivated, or for the reason of galvanizing the American peasantry behind a war of domination. People will forgive a certain number of civilian deaths in times of dire need, but not to help rich North Americans lead better lives, not to stamp the world with the magical emblem of democracy, and not to fan the savage barbarity of an artfully distracted population. (Besides, you guys got all the good toys. That's not fair.)

Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2012-06-02 03:00:13)

I don't like admitting it but Em is right.

Tall Paul wrote:

No he's not, that's the same logic that makes every police visit a full scale SWAT assault. Limiting civilian casualties is always a worthwhile goal. People around the world (demonstrably) don't object all that much to war and violence when it's necessary, but do have problems with lazy indiscriminate killing. What they hate most is lazy indiscriminate killing just just so some fat asshole can squeeze another couple of hundred million lousy bucks out of an already fraudulent military contract.

You misunderstand TP, the intent is not to kill civilians but to make war so unpleasant that our populace will no longer allow "limited engagements" that drag on for a decade slowly killing tens of thousands.  The idea is to force the civilian to flee, scorch the earth behind you and eliminate endless occupations filled with "surgical strikes" and deprivation of basic human rights.

I suggest that we have made war so "gentle" that the politicians and military contractors have actually been enabled in their quest for the profits of endless war.

WTF?  I am agreeing with ah297900 and Emmeran as well.  Blaming the U.S. for every outbreak of mayhem in the world over the past 50 years is a bunch of crap.  Being Italian, I get pissed off every Colombus day when bleeding hearts want to disavow the historical event and blame Christopher for the death of every native American in the New World.

As for war, Americans are a bunch of pussyfooters.  You don't need to carpet bomb civilian targets, but you can't be so concerned about collateral damage that you sacrifice the lives of your own troops and lose control of the mission.  Unfortunately, this has been standard operating procedure for us since Vietnam.

ah297900 wrote:

Thanks for spelling my name right. It's Czech, I think.

Here's something else you'll agree with; it's something liberals always say that pisses me off:

"Why won't we intervene in Syria? We did in Libya! Why won't we intervene in Rwanda? We did in Kosovo!"

The implication there is that if America can't get involved in EVERY SINGLE CONFLICT in the world, we shouldn't save anybody at all. Of course, if we did get involved in every single conflict, those are the same people who would call us an evil empire.

I just wish the liberals were correct when they accuse the U.S. of intervening for financial gain.  At least then we would have something for our efforts, even if the "liberated" population turns against us.  I'm still waiting for the Iraqi oil profits.

As for your name, I just assumed it was an email suggestion by Yahoo.

Last edited by phreddy (2012-06-04 16:16:45)

phreddy wrote:

I just wish the liberals were correct when they accuse the U.S. of intervening for financial gain.  At least then we would have something for our efforts, even if the "liberated" population turns against us.  I'm still waiting for the Iraqi oil profits.

Don't be so negative, nary a war has ever been fought that didn't have profits in mind.  How many perfectly good $65k HMMWV's had to be replaced with $150k Hardened-Armor HMMWV's during Iraq and Afghanistan?  Never mind the new crazy cost of the MRAP's that are replacing those at the cost of $625k each.

That's some serious profits boy-o

Last edited by Emmeran (2012-06-04 20:20:56)

Well, I meant Far East but whatever.

Emmeran wrote:

In short: Kill them all and let god sort them out.

Hah - it's pretty hard to stuff a troll's ears with wool, Em, especially with an ancient throstle like that. Unfortunately there are people stoopid enough to think that a scorched earth policy is a good idea. It's not. Your land can be scorched too, as 9-11 should have taught you.

It's interesting to note that the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that has not ratified Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, which attempts to limit civilian casualties by prohibiting the destruction of civilian food and water supplies. The other non-ratifying countries include Iran, Iraq and Pakistan - some of your favourite bed partners in the game of never-ending war. Why do you hate these poor sand-niggers, when in reality they are very much like you - warlike, ignorant, puritanical and inflexible.

The American hegemony is already crumbling - how can a country be called the heart of an empire when so much of it is owned overseas? How can a country consider itself strong and inviolate when it's still in the throes of its own civil wars, and when the highly diffused enemy has already landed significant destruction on its sovereign soil? You are vulnerable on many fronts, because as a nation you lack cohesiveness and self-control. Like a twink with his ass in the air for a jail-house gangbang, your response to the hostility you've generated is to clench your anus harder - as you will find out, that's only going to make it hurt worse in the end.

The best course of action for the U.S. would be to withdraw its support of terror (ditch Israel, for example - another non-participant in Article 54), dismantle its own terrorist mechanisms, attempt to make some sort of rational peace with the world, and apologize for its past fits of ill-bred aggression, especially towards civilians. 9-11 was a great opportunity to begin that process of reconciliation...but of course it was used as yet another casus belli. There will be other 9-11s - the more hawkish the U.S., the more willing to die men and women and children from other countries become. It's going to be a long century.

phreddy wrote:

Rotten Johnny wrote:

When we got into these eternal wars even a peon like me knew how to profit from the run up.

If you paid more attention to the meaning of my post and less to the clever response you attempt to concoct while reading, you would notice that I suggested the spoils should come out of the ass of the country we "liberate", not the pocket of the U.S. taxpayer.

Phreddy's planning to feather his nest with goat turds and yak butter - I think I'll follow Johnny into the stock market.

Blah, Blah, Blah.  99% of those fuckers would have died of other causes by now.  We're all terminal.

I agree the U.S. has been very unwilling to let loose the dogs of war these days.  Military casualties will not be suffered!  If Bush had the balls to go into Tora Bora and suffer casualties or just hit it with carpet bombs we'd have killed UBL a long time ago.

Now Obama only wants to assassinate all enemies with drones.  No captures, no interrogation, no trials.  It's a confused strategy.

Last edited by Stinkhammer (2012-06-06 12:22:22)

When are you two going to get to the point of arguing over Illuminatus! vs Atlas Shrugged? What's next?

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

When are you two going to get to the point of arguing over Illuminatus! vs Atlas Shrugged? What's next?

Yeah...okay GooNutz...obviously you've engineered a big stretch-and-twist here just to post a lame link to cracked.com. Thanks, that was great. Hope you didn't hurt yourself.

I did sprain my clicking finger a little bit. Will you massage it for me?