#1 2012-06-01 14:03:58

Saw this the other day and it really pissed me off. First, someone believed it enough to spend the time to make it, and second someone saw it and said "YES, MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY" and reposted the thing.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ocnlWbDN1qknzn8o1_500.jpg

Discuss.

Offline

 

#2 2012-06-01 17:44:09

None of them are White people, so I can't be bothered to fact check or give a shit.  Wake me up if and when America starts killing Aryans.

Offline

 

#3 2012-06-01 17:56:14

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.

Offline

 

#4 2012-06-01 18:14:24

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

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.

I knew quite a few Amerikans who traveled with the Maple Leaf on their packs. 

Yes, you are enablers now just like the Brits and Aussies.  Anglo Saxons to the end, no?

Offline

 

#5 2012-06-01 19:09:41

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.

Offline

 

#6 2012-06-01 19:26:10

ah297900 wrote:

... 8 million in 50 years is pretty goddamn low for a world superpower.

Damn straight. Now pass that free trade act or we will come over there and liberate you a few more times!

Offline

 

#7 2012-06-01 19:27:16

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

Offline

 

#8 2012-06-01 21:36:11

ah297900 wrote:

Discuss.

I'm not sure those numbers are correct.

Offline

 

#9 2012-06-01 22:12:53

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

Offline

 

#10 2012-06-01 22:24:53

opsec wrote:

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

Something like that.

Offline

 

#11 2012-06-02 02:59:29

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)

Offline

 

#12 2012-06-02 14:14:58

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

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.)

Actually Mr. Anti-Concise, America's problem is exactly the opposite.  We have made the mistake of trying to minimize civilian casualties instead of embracing utter violence and conquest to limit opposition.  Scorched earth eliminates the need to apologize, conquer the society as a whole and win the war in short order.  Burn their world down.

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

Offline

 

#13 2012-06-02 17:10:07

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

Offline

 

#14 2012-06-02 20:06:19

George Orr wrote:

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

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.

Offline

 

#15 2012-06-04 13:58:33

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.

Offline

 

#16 2012-06-04 14:13:35

You both miss the point. Almost all of the "murders" are in places where we had no direct military involvement. Saying we murdered a million Angolans makes CIA machinations the same as lining up 1,000,000 people and personally shooting them in the back of the head. In terms of those covert interventions, this doesn't distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate. For instance, there's a damn fine argument to be made that we should do everything in our power to prevent another Soviet satellite in this hemisphere aiming nuclear missiles at us, especially with Khrushchev saying flat out that he's going to bury us. This list also doesn't distinguish between shit we started and shit other people started--Saddam invades Kuwait and rapes the shit out of that country, we kick him out, and somehow the fallout for that is on us?

By the criteria used by this asshole, Abraham Lincoln is PERSONALLY responsible for all 700,000 Americans killed in the Civil War. Hell, why not blame the UN?

Offline

 

#17 2012-06-04 14:45:25

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.

Offline

 

#18 2012-06-04 15:13:56

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.

Offline

 

#19 2012-06-04 16:15:08

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)

Offline

 

#20 2012-06-04 19:51:29

Even if the numbers were off by half...... I think the message is pretty clear. If we were an Eastern Country with those stats (or less) Our country would be war ravaged and Western Justice would have been delivered to us. Pretty hard to deny that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2hKzZss5Y

Offline

 

#21 2012-06-04 20:18:51

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)

Offline

 

#22 2012-06-04 21:00:50

Bigcat wrote:

Even if the numbers were off by half...... I think the message is pretty clear. If we were an Eastern Country with those stats (or less) Our country would be war ravaged and Western Justice would have been delivered to us. Pretty hard to deny that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2hKzZss5Y

First off, we don't have those stats--that's the fucking point.

What about an Eastern country like Russia with those stats (or more)? Oh, nobody would say anything because that's just what they do.

Offline

 

#23 2012-06-04 21:06:16

Well, I meant Far East but whatever.

Offline

 

#24 2012-06-05 06:21:10

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.

For someone who is supposed to be all right wing and business savy you sure are clueless. Sucks to be you I guess. When we got into these eternal wars even a peon like me knew how to profit from the run up. Didn't you buy some Raytheon on news of government contracts? Then sell before the delivery date when the over complicated systems would be inevitably shown to have, um, issues in efficacy. Heck a company I worked for went from being a broke struggling  little stabilized platform pointing patent holder selling TV antennas to the supplier of FOGyros for the drone program and automated weapons platforms. I can not even enter their building anymore without a government paid for security escort to keep me from seeing things I am not allowed to see. It has been a banner decade for defense contractors. Or business consultants who tell companies how to get a place at the trough.

If you wanted some of the profit for yourself, billions were just dangling there to be had. What, you have some sense of entitlement, you wanted it handed to you on a silver platter? Sheesh, take some responsibility for your own failings. This is the american way, no one has an obligation to give you our hard earned tax dollars if you are not smart enough to know how to get a slice of the pie for yourself. Some will sink and some will swim, you have no one to blame but yourself in the greatest of  american business markets, the military industrial complex.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2012-06-05 06:25:23)

Offline

 

#25 2012-06-05 14:32:49

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.

Offline

 

#26 2012-06-05 17:40:26

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.

Offline

 

#27 2012-06-05 17:56:49

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.

Offline

 

#28 2012-06-06 11:51:57

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Phreddy's planning to feather his nest with goat turds and yak butter

That's about the sum total of reparations we have received for the lives and money we have sunk into these shitholes.

Offline

 

#29 2012-06-06 12:14:47

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)

Offline

 

#30 2012-06-06 14:02:16

phreddy wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Phreddy's planning to feather his nest with goat turds and yak butter

That's about the sum total of reparations we have received for the lives and money we have sunk into these shitholes.

You're right, Phreddy, war is an expensive pursuit when it's prosecuted for the wrong reasons: revenge, ideology, mass distraction. Don't worry, help is on its way. In the not-so-distant future the Chinese will call in their debts and begin to exercise their controlling interest in America. Then all those wasteful little American wars (not to mention wasteful little American lifestyles) will be a thing of the past. If they let you live (unlikely - they need chink-lebensraum almost as badly as you need a new brain) the wars of your new reality will help consolidate the emerging hegemony. You will no doubt enjoy cheering for the Glorious People's American Army as you serve the food and polish the toilets of your new Chinese masters.

Offline

 

#31 2012-06-06 14:11:16

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

Offline

 

#32 2012-06-06 15:45:49

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.

Offline

 

#33 2012-06-06 17:42:27

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?

http://www.jigglegifs.com/data/media/4/Ass_Massages_Finger.gif

Offline

 

#34 2012-06-06 19:24:38

GooberMcNutly wrote:

http://www.jigglegifs.com/data/media/4/Ass_Massages_Finger.gif

Hey - this isn't an NSFW thread! I'm telling Ops on you. Personally, I think you should be banned. Also, you remind me of Horse.

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com