Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: US drone strikes target rescuers in Pakistan – and the west stays silent

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 23, 2012, 4:16 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Attacking rescuers – a tactic long deemed by the US a hallmark of terrorism – is now routinely used by the Obama administration

The US government has long maintained, reasonably enough, that a defining tactic of terrorism is to launch a follow-up attack aimed at those who go to the scene of the original attack to rescue the wounded and remove the dead. Morally, such methods have also been widely condemned by the west as a hallmark of savagery. Yet, as was demonstrated yet again this weekend in Pakistan, this has become one of the favorite tactics of the very same US government.

read more - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

Whether you vote for him or don't vote for him... tell this president as commander in chief "END THE WARS NOW" Not tomorrow. Not in 2014, not in 2016, "END THE WARS NOW"

After tons of civilian casualties Pakistan leaders have asked several times for the US to stop bombing them. They'd probably fight back but then they'd just get done to them what happened to Iraq. US foreign policy makes me sad to be an American. It makes me sad to see so many people make excuses for bombs that also kill civilians.

Bombs and sanctions are counterproductive when they injure and murder such large numbers of civilians.

163 Comments

163 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Civilian Deaths From US Drone Attacks Much Higher Than Reported

Wednesday, 22 August 2012 14:20 By Paul Jay, The Real News Network | Interview and Video

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11058-civilian-deaths-from-us-drone-attacks-much-higher-than-reported

Gareth Porter: New investigative work shows that civilian deaths in Pakistan, including from second wave attacks, higher than Pentagon reports.

TRANSCRIPT:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to this week's edition of The Porter Report with investigative journalist and historian Gareth Porter. Thanks for joining us, Gareth.

GARETH PORTER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Hi, Paul. Glad to be back again.

JAY: So what have you been working on this week?

PORTER: Well, this week I—over the weekend I just published a major investigative report on the real level of civilian casualties in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, as based on the actual data gathered by a Pakistani lawyer for the families of the victims of drone strikes, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London based on their interviews with eyewitnesses and others in the areas where the strikes take place. This is really the first effort to come up with a set of data that can be compared with the data that's been published by the New America Foundation on its website, something they call "Year of the Drone", which keeps track of every strike that is covered in the news media and keeps a running tally on casualties. And so what we can do now is see that the New America Foundation has been systematically underestimating or underplaying, underreporting the number of civilian casualties in the U.S. drone war in Pakistan over the past three years.

Editor's note: The story referred to in this interview was originally published at Truthout on August 17: Cover-Up of Civilian Drone Deaths Revealed by New Evidence.

JAY: And what are the numbers that now—that you think are correct? PORTER: Well, the numbers—there are a lot of numbers my piece, and in order to really boil this down to the simplest terms, what I've done is to combine all of these strikes in 24—the data on all the strikes in 24 cases, which involved 11 strikes which the Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar gathered material on and 13 strikes on which the Bureau of Investigative Journalism gathered material. And combining all that data, what we find is that the number of—the proportion, I should say, of the civilian casualties and the total casualties which was reported by the New America Foundation as being 38 percent in these 24 strikes is in fact 70 percent.

That's a huge difference, an 84 percent increase in the proportion of civilians in those casualties reported in these 24 strikes. So it's really quite a major revelation. It's a major reversal, because previously civilian casualties were being reported as a fairly—certainly much less than 50 percent, and now they're much more than 50 percent of the casualties in this set of 24 strikes.

JAY: And of course that's leading to increased outrage in Pakistan.

PORTER: Well, definitely. I mean, these strikes, everybody understands that—I mean, no one denies that the drone war in Pakistan has created enormous anti-American sentiment throughout the country. And particularly, of course, in the areas where the strikes have taken place, they generate not just anger, but I think it's generally agreed that the Taliban and al-Qaeda and other groups have been able to generate more enthusiasm for support for the jihadist sentiment that they represent. So, I mean, it's—by every measure that is available, there's no question that these strikes are doing precisely the opposite of what they're supposed to do, which is allegedly to weaken the al-Qaeda hold on the territory, like North and South Waziristan, where the strikes are taking place.

And what we can say, really, you know, it seems to me, is that this new set of data underlines more clearly than ever before that what's really going on is that U.S. policy on the drone war is not being guided by any objective assessment of U.S. interests, security interests or any other interests; it's being guided by the bureaucratic interests of the CIA, which is, of course, responsible for the drone war in Pakistan and elsewhere, and which has a vested interest in keeping this war going because their budget, their manpower, their mission has been built up for the past few years around the drone war in Pakistan in particular.

JAY: And in today's, Monday's Guardian, Glenn Greenwald writes that the U.S. is actually using what they call a sort of double tap—in other words, essentially, a second strike after the first drone strike, deliberately targeting rescuers, which one would think has to enhance or increase the possibilities of killing civilians.

PORTER: Right. And let me make it clear that the 13 strikes that I talked about having been researched by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism were all strikes which are precisely the ones that you were talking about. They're strikes that are targeted against either mourners at funerals of victims of previous drone strikes or striking at the rescuers of people who have been either killed or wounded in previous drone strikes. So, obviously, this is a very important category of drone strikes. And what we find is that the percentage of civilians (again, in the strikes that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism researched, based on local context, eyewitnesses and others) was much higher. It was roughly twice as high as it had been reported by the New America Foundation.

JAY: Right. And what else have you been following this week? I know you've been—written not very long ago about the debate in Israel over attacking Iran.

PORTER: Right. The story that I published last week for IPS was a story that looks at two particular interviews that were apparently given by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in which—in the first one, on August 10, he suggests, well, what we really want, what the Netanyahu government really wants is for the United States to say publicly that if the Iranians don't shut down their nuclear program, the United States will simply destroy their entire program next spring. But he said, well, we really can't expect the Americans to do that; that's not the way things work; they can't really commit themselves to something that would be in the next administration.

So then five days later, on August 15, another interview, which has all the earmarks of an Ehud Barak interview as well (they don't identify him in either one of these two interviews), says that what Israel is ready to do is to reconsider, quote-unquote, its unilateral military option of striking against Iran. If the Obama administration would simply do a couple of things, one, reiterate what Obama said in his AIPAC speech, that Israel has the right of self-defense and that the United States will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and then, more importantly and critically, associate the United States with the Israeli red line rather than the previous Obama red line, which is that Iran may not have the capability to have a nuclear weapon, that is, the technical capability, rather than actually make the key move, which intelligence would interpret as a sign that Iran is moving toward weaponization—those are two very different red lines. And what they want—.

JAY: Yeah, the Americans keep saying over and over again there's been no decision to go ahead with a weapons program. But Israel is saying that's not enough; we don't even want them to be in a position to make such a decision.

PORTER: Exactly. And the Israelis do not disagree with that intelligence finding. It's very clear that they agree with it. And what they're saying now is that nevertheless they want the United States to say, in effect, that the U.S. will attack Iran if the Iranians continue along the line of continuing to build up their uranium enrichment capabilities.

JAY: And I feel like we can't ever discuss this without reminding everyone that Israel has probably hundreds of nuclear weapons. And I guess one can draw one's own conclusions about the hypocrisy of all of this. But you and I have discussed—. Sorry. Go ahead, Gareth.

PORTER: It's not just hypocrisy. It's also, I think—the point I was trying to make in this article and previous articles is that the Israeli threat, such as it is, because it's not an explicit threat to attack Iran, but the suggestion that the Netanyahu government is seriously considering an attack on Iran in the future is really not serious. This has been, all along, a way of leveraging pressure on the United States and other countries to do more, and specifically in the case of the United States to try to push the U.S. in the direction of the demand which was outlined in that second—well, in both of those interviews that I mentioned.

JAY: Right. And you and I have talked about this before, but again, I think it bears saying again. And while all this debate and attention is on the issue of will Israel attack or not—and, of course, that's of great significance, but there's a real economic war against Iran already going on at a time when U.S. intelligence says there's no weapons program. And the sanctions are certainly a form of economic warfare.

PORTER: They are an economic warfare. And how effective they will be is still an open question very hotly debated both in Washington and elsewhere. Some people believe that the Iranians will certainly cave eventually. Maybe so, but one of the stories that has come out this week which I think is very important for people to understand is that the Iraqi government, the one that the United States put into power through its occupation of Iraq, is now being found to help Iran greatly to get around the U.S. sanctions. And this is only one of the ways in which Iran has been able to do so. So it's not at all a black-and-white case, to say the least.

JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Gareth.

PORTER: Thank you, Paul.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

There is an "axis of evil", but it doesn't hide out in a mountain cave.

It owns all the media outlets we watch and listen to.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4788) 2 years ago

Regarding drones in US, nothing stopping corporation/dictatorship from killing malcontents. Use of killer drone will be denied, and the news will say people blew themselves up with bomb making material or drug lab.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4788) 2 years ago

Just thinking about this drone problem.

Others have said that there will be a drone arms race. Regarding the drone that went down in Iran, the technology might be shared with China, Russia and N Korea. Drones of various capabilities and tech levels, may be for sale around the world soon. Am wondering what all could result from this.

[-] 2 points by AlwaysIntoSomething (42) 10 months ago

Hostage pleading for help, pleas falling on deaf ears as bombs continue to drop in over a half dozen nations around the middle east and africa...

http://www.voanews.com/content/american-hostage-in-pakistan-pleads-for-help/1818270.html

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4788) 2 years ago

Good post. Everyone needs to see this.

[-] 2 points by ExposeTheOligarchs (37) 2 years ago

Thanks Neveda1! Just took a look. I've come to trust your endorsements!

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4788) 2 years ago

Hi Expose, Thank you for kind words. Best Regards

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

End the drone attacks!

[-] 1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

i saw a drone a few weeks ago, not far from where i live. i know what a plane looks like. i know what a drone looks like. this was a drone. i live in the usa.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I guess they missed?

[-] 1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

no dear it was not following me.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You sure? seems like you could easily be a target.

[-] 1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

since i was going in one direction ( and , a passenger in someone elses car) and it was going in another, its highly unlikely.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh well maybe next time

[-] 0 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

hoping for my death by drone?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh no. Just playin I'm non violent

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I fully agree with that message! Now send that message to the commander in chief. He signs off on all the drone missions the CIA hands to him. End the drones, stop the war crimes!

The UN’s expert on extrajudicial killings has described the tactic used by the CIA as ‘a war crime’.

Earlier this year the CIA was deliberately targeting rescuers and funeral-goers in its Pakistan drone strikes. Those controversial tactics have reportedly been revived.

Christof Heyns is the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

Christof Heyns told a meeting in Geneva on June 21: ’Reference should be made to a study earlier this year by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism… If civilian ‘rescuers’ are indeed being intentionally targeted, there is no doubt about the law: those strikes are a war crime.’

Heyns’ forthright comments were made at an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) event, linked to a UN debate into the US covert war on terror.

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva told the Bureau ‘we fully agree with what has been said by Mr Heyns.’ Ambassador Akram called on the US ‘to respect the growing international opinion’ that the use of drones ‘not only violates our sovereignty but also violates the UN charter in our view and also international law.’

Read More - http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/21/un-expert-labels-cia-tactic-exposed-by-bureau-a-war-crime/

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree it is horrible. I have signed petitions (to Pres Obama) against it, & I've marched against it. I state my objection to the tactic here constantly! My conscience is clear. And I know that of the 2 people currently set to be the next Pres, only Pres Obama WILL end the drone strikes!

PRES OBAMA WILL END THEM!!!

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Obama will not end the drone strikes. Stop looking at the image of the man and look just at his actions. They are horrendous!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We disagree. I am not looking at his image. He never hypnotized me! I never thought he would end all war! I ain't naive. The neocons/MIC have too much power/control over the planet. His image is irrelevant!

So I must judge by the progress against the neocon/MIC agenda. By Pres Obamas actions"- Pres Obama has executed the end of Iraq war, ending Afghan war, resisting all new wars, not creating new indef det cases. ending US torture, reducing US military killings from 1 million+ to thousands, cut military budget, use of mercs. This is resistance to neocons, real progress and are better measures than his image.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No he wont

It's been a full term and we're still at war, he's started new ones, and he's surrounding Iran with warships.

Why do Obama and Romney agree about the "WMD" and a possible military option for Iran?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Meaningless politics. Please, I am not so naive that I can't recognize the need to placate the right wing war mongering public. It is an effort to blunt the attacks from the right wing fear full country.

Republican neocons created that fear. Pres Obama is resisting more than I thought he could. Thank God for his strength. If not we would still be slaughtering millions. Instead of reducing that to thousands.

We most help him by protesting against the US policy to drone bomb.

Support pres Obamas successful resistance at NOT starting any new wars!

We must elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons. And Protest, pressure, agitate for an end to drone bombings, oil wars, war on terror.

Peace & Love

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Obama has started 3 new wars since taking office and increased the war in Afghanistan which lead to the highest death toll of civilians in Afghanistan in 2010.

Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya = 3 new wars

You could also add Somalia... he's bombed them too.

And he's talking about military options while currently surrounding Iran with warships because of their "WMD's"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia have given their permission to bomb so that is not war!

Libyan people with regional groups requested our help in stopping brutal Libyan violence against Libyan people. I support helping innocent people. So that was a good use of the arsenal of freedom no? And was less US, more Euro anyway.

Pres Obama gets credit for Not invading Iran in the face of massive neocon pressure/attacks.

Peace & Love

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Pakistan asked us to stop bombing them because the US government keeps killing civilians.

Also when the CIA and the Obama admin was working with Yemen last year in regards to bombing their country, which increases Al Qaeda support, the Yemen president was having his military snipe protesters and massacring his citizens.

But feel free to make excuses for the drone wars you allegedly don't support but seem to constantly defend.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What defense? I am simply challenging your inaccurate description that it constitutes war. It doesn't

Pakistan & Yemen have given permission. Sorry. That means it is NOT war!

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

i don't condone killing by country permission

it's OK because someone asked for it ?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No it's wrong. I do not condone it neither. But I know it ain't war if they allow it! To call it war is a lie!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

How are they allowing it when they have said STOP?

Do the dead civilians allow it? Or the corrupt leaders getting funded?

Did we allow citizens united? Or did corrupt assholes pass that shit?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please refrain from the offensive obscenities.

The govts of Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia approve! I do not.

Dead civilians cannot DISallow! I do not understand that question.

Corrupt leaders are bad, maybe that is why they approve. I don't care because I don't approve.

Citizens united was found legal by republican/conservative appointed judges, I do not approve.

Do you?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You're hopeless.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'm sure the targets would outlaw bring killed

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm sure as well.

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Pakistan asked us to stop bombing them because the US government keeps killing civilians. Google it. Why are we still bombing them?

Also when the CIA and the Obama admin was working with Yemen last year in regards to bombing their country, which increases Al Qaeda support, the Yemen president was having his military snipe protesters and massacring his citizens.

Bombs are war. Killing citizens are war crimes.

They're not called "the drone wars" for no reason.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're repeating yourself. Have you run out of new points?. I will send my original response but we don't to argue the same point over and over do we?

Pakistan, & Yemen have given permission! This means it is not war! Sorry.

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

There is no other point to make. That is the ultimate point.

You keep saying Pakistan approves of the drone wars. That is not accurate.

Bombing foreign countries are acts of war.

Pakistan said STOP bombing them. And the US continues to do so.

A Yemen dictator who kills civilians is not a valid character. But if you support a murderous dictator's approval... just look at yourself. You're defending the DRONE WARS

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm against the drone bombings!

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You should look into facts

Dennis Kucinich - Pakistani objection to US drones puts ‘nations at war’ - http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/29/pakistani-objection-to-us-drones-puts-nations-at-war-says-leading-democrat/

Permission in Somalia? What are you talking about?

After seeing Iraq........ they're forced.

Why are warships surrounding Iran? Why are they shooting civilians?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree with Kucinich in his opposition to drone bombings. I know it ain't war if the country approves.

Somalia approves, but you suggest they have been coerced with threats. If so that would be wrong. I see no evidence of it.

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I agree vote out warmongers. Vote out Romney, Obama and 95% of congress.

We can't afford their wars. Our tax dollars should be going to social programs, roads, and schools.

Defense Spending is about 60% of federal discretionary spending this year.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Cut the military budget by 50% at least!

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No he won't. He's the guy who brags about them and makes predator drone jokes to the Jonas Brothers.

Romney wants to start another war and he's looking forward to the new war powers this corrupt congress and this current president have created with the NDAA of 2012

both are just pawns in the Neocon war agenda.

Both Romney and Obama agree military option for Iran is still on the table.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21545) 2 years ago

I can't believe how you've been down-voted on this thread.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

An anti-war post is bound to be attacked. Because it is an important issue and both of the main political party's are on the wrong side of the issue.

These wars must end the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians must end - peace must be exported not arms.

Military Diplomacy must be ended. You do not kill your way to peace.

Heal the ills of society - the poverty, the energy dependence, lack of education, the causes of disease, the lack of proper medicine, the hunger.

End the causes of strife. And that can not be done with a 45.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21545) 2 years ago

Geez, I guess you are right about the reason for the down-voting. Makes it more and more obvious to me that Occupy should remain non-political and how an Obama victory, while important for the meager benefits it will bring to millions, will not be a panacea in any way, shape or form.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

An Obama victory will just slow down our death if we can not get good people into office to create proper legislation in support of the people the society the environment the world.

Mittens in office would be a disaster.

But the president is basically at the end of the governmental cycle/system/process. We have to have good people at the start and all through the process.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I'm not so sure an Obama victory will slow the decline. A wolf in sheep's clothing is more dangerous than a wolf.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well he could have just rubber stamped everything that came his way - so far - but he has not.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I posed this question on a post I made earlier... Maybe you could tackle it

How can you dismiss the entire supreme court and overturn the citizens united vote and ban contribution based politics?

The majority of people are bought into propaganda. I don't see voting for real candidates on a majority bases happening in this country without dismissing the supreme court and overturning contribution based politics.

The majority of congress is corrupt to the tooth and the majority of people will vote to re-elect so many of them because of the propaganda they watch and read. Both presidential "options" as people like to call them are backed by billions from corporate and bankster contributions while real candidates with no financial backing are dismissed and go unknown.

How do you stop bad policy when the majority of elected "representatives" are passing legislation to make it happen?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Dismantle corporate personhood as a start ( IMO ) - by supporting state by state campaigns like the Move to Amend campaign.

At the same time as supporting these kind of petitioning campaigns - we need to get corpoRATist's identified and removed from government - at the State as well as federal level.

Legislation must be made and approved basically by the people. In this I mean that the people need to get involved with government and stay involved. The people need to forward issues of the people. Our representatives have to work to support "our" issues for a healthy environment and a healthy society living in that healthy environment.

One positive step to take in this direction will be to campaign for one subject at a time legislation. No riders allowed.

To start making progress the 1st two things need to be accomplished - end corporate personhood and get corpoRATist's out of office.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

But how do you get the majority of people to do those things when they are stuck believing the propaganda? Or the others that remain disenchanted and hopeless?

People need to be inspired. But how?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You ( WE ALL ) have to do it the hard way - basically by word of mouth education and campaigning. This has gotten to be an easier thing to do if people start to take advantage of the internet and social media. Support groups like the Sierra club for the environment. Find and support on-line petitions that address our issues. Get these various groups talking to each other and supporting each others positive efforts.

This forum is only one of many thousands ( hundreds of thousands, millions ? ) of communication hubs operating on the internet.

What comes here does not stay here - it travels onward - but it does so better - if actively circulated.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm glad you get it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I do ( at least I like to think so ). Woha - did my noggin just inflate a tad? Gotta be careful about that - don't wanna have to re-make my doorways into hobbit doorways. {:-])

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

it's because I do not support the status quo run by the duopoly.

People don't like the truth. Plus I'm blunt. Haha

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21545) 2 years ago

Gee, I think I'll vote you up.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's a good thing, as there is no duopoly to support anyway.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We disagree! Stupid jokes are not proof of war posture. The end of Iraq war, ending Afghan war, resisting all new wars, not creating new indef det cases. ending US torture, reducing US military killings from 1 million+ to thousands, this is resistance to neocons, real progress and are better measures.

I am against drone bombings, oil wars, war on terror. I believe Pres Obamas action ARE still influenced by the massive neo-con/MIC/1% plutocrats power! I believe under that massive power Pres Obama has made slow real progress.

If we want to break the neo-con/mic stranglehold over the world Pres is the better choice between the 2 viable Pres candidate.

[-] 2 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

Do you also volunteer for the democrat party like zendog?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

Noted.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

"the fuckers should all be lined up and shot."

You didn't lie when you said your comments were sometimes rabid. Do you prone violence as a tool for change?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nope registered independent. Support the dem agenda. Seek to get progressives elected, and change current corrupt, broken system to expand access to 3rd parties.

You volunteer for republicans?

[-] 0 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

No, I'm writing an article for a political magazine concerning this website. I'm just trying to see where the most active users are coming from. Why would you assume I'm a republican?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I didn't assume anything! I asked but did not assume. And you say your a writer? Self published or with an established publication?

[-] 0 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

You can read about me in this posting: http://occupywallst.org/forum/list-of-top-forum-contributors/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That was tedious. And totally void of illumination. Thanks for a thoroughly useless exercise. Next time please just answer the question, I don't need a reading assignment!

So now that you have shown your obvious poor journalistic skills by asking a stupid question, what is it you want from me?

SOLIDARITY!

[-] 0 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

I don't want anything.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Then why did you question me? Seems to me you wanted at least an answer!

[-] -1 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

"I disagree! I asked you a simple question and you avoided it! You pointed me to link that was almost 200 comments long that the answer buried in it."

The answer was in the posting itself. You didn't have to read the comments. I thought it would be easier to point to the posting where I asked people questions and where I explained what my project was. Sorry you got offended. It's alright. Don't worry about it.

[-] -1 points by sandysterling (10) 2 years ago

I'm here to write an article on this forum so I ask some forum users what they think of this place and what they hope to achieve or find here. What they expect for Occupy's second year. There's a lot of people here so I don't bother with those who make it difficult by insulting me for no reason. Don't worry about it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree! I asked you a simple question and you avoided it! You pointed me to link that was almost 200 comments long that the answer buried in it.

Why not be open, honest, and forthcoming. We distract and not answer?

Because you aren't what you pretend to be?

SOLIDARITY?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

How is committing war crimes progress?

How is bombing 6 countries since being in office progress?

How is surrounding Iran with warships on the wild claim of WMD's progress?

The only progress I see is a further completion of the Neocon war agenda.

But go ahead and disregard the reuse of failed Reagan era policies and General Wesley Clark who broke the story in 2007 about the Neocon war agenda and the 7 countries to take out with military and covert operations.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

War crimes have not been proved in court. That must occur because in America we believe in innocent until proven guilty.

"6 cuontries" Pres Obama has reduced US military killing from 1 Million + to thousands! That is real progress!

Resisting the neocon war mongering pressure to invade Iran IS real progress. We must support Pres Obamas successful resistance and continued efforts at diplomacy.

I can't speak to what you see. We clearly disagree. I am for peace! That is why I support Pres Obamas real success in the face of massive neocon pressure. To do otherwise would be to join with the neocons who are attacking Pres Obama for his resistance against them.

Does it matter that the neocons are attacking Pres Obama for not attacking Iran?

Peace & Love

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

So you don't think targeting rescuers is a war crime? You don't think bombing civilians is a war crime?

You don't think Bush is a war criminal either then? He's never been to court.

2010 had the largest number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan due to Obama's increase in the war after doubling the troop surge. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Care to make any excuses for that too?

Have you looked up the destroyed cities of Tripoli and Sirte from the US surface to air missiles?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Bush is no longer Pres, I am anti Bush and believe he is a war criminal but for the sake of this argument I think it best we assume innocence until proven guilty.

Afghan is a horrible war. We should never have gone in and stayed so long. I am satisfied that Pres Obama is getting us out and ending our military action.

That's it. No excuses. It's wrong. I'm against it. I protest still against it.

Libya? Done. Success. Many died. horrible. Glad we didn't invade with 1/2 a million troops and stay for 10 yeats. More of a British, French, Italy thing though no?

Peace & Love

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no maybe sometimes killing

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

end secrecy "It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Which secrets do you want to end?. I'm with you. End secrecy!

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I agree 100%!!!

This is every bit as important as the calls to get the money out!

It's the only certain path to an informed electorate.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Bush is war criminal and a murderer. Suggesting he's innocent serves the republicans and supports the neocon war agenda. The evidence and facts are public.

Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are private mercenary groups getting hundred million dollar contracts still? Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why did Obama add another half million troops when he took office and continue the war in Afghanistan to this day and years into the future?

Why are we still in Afghanistan?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

didn't add 1/2 million troops in Afghan. the surge was wrong! I am against the war in afghan.

We are still in Afghan because Pres Obama made the mistake of attempting to placate right wing.

I'm against our actions in Afghan.

Pres Obama has vut the military budget, has plans to cut more, Pres Obama has cut Merc, use has plans to cut more. Repub neocons would never do any of that.

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Sorry I made a typo and didn't read over the comment before posting.... I was reading the half million number from your previous comment. Didn't mean to say he added half million troops.

the rest is accurate though.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You mean the 5x times you asked why we are still in Afghan.

LMFAO.

Why don't you take a breath! We are both against the drone bombings!

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

soft targets are supposed to die

I have a dream not I have a drone

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

“We went to war against a nation that didn’t attack us based on choice. A million innocent Iraqis died as a result. That is a significant number, and there are consequences for that. If America is to shed the shackles of war, we need to go through a period of truth and reconciliation.

“We have to recognize that we are still choosing war. We chose war in Iraq. We chose to go to war in Afghanistan. I think it was right to strike the training camps, but we chose to stay at war for more than a decade. And we are choosing to possibly go to war with Iran.

“If you go deep - and I spent the better part of the last 10 years, every single day challenging these wars - what I have learned is that people in Washington just don’t understand that there is another way to end conflict without killing people.

“When we look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, which was a war of choice, and after you wreak havoc on these countries and then you sing Kumbaya and work at conflict resolution, there is magical thinking there. If we create these wars, we are not accepting the consequence of what we have done. To leave it to peace keepers and conflict resolution experts, we are way disconnected from our own actions. We have a country that has not been able to shed our imperial instincts. The idea that we can dominate the world through a global war on terror is insanity.

“All our peace-building efforts will fall apart as long as we believe we can control the world through the use of force. We must acknowledge that every time we drop a bomb, it expands the war and ripples into the future ultimately coming back to us.”

-Dennis Kucinich

forgot I posted that a while back

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Kucinich is great! He is an excellent guide if we are unsure of whether the parties are the same. THEY AIN'T!

He caucuses with democrats, He votes with Democrats 90% of the time and he is in the progressive caucus which includes no republicans.

Trust Kucinich! Elect more progressives, Vote out war mongering republicans

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Tell the dems to join Kucinich and the 2 other dems to sponsor the minimum wage increase. 3 democrats isn't enough.

Kucinich and 2 other democrats stand up for minimum wage increase - The “Catching Up To 1968 Act of 2012” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/minimum-wage-act-10-hour-john-conyers-dennis-kucinich_n_1577543.html

they need to follow Dennis Kucinich's lead on this. Without more sponsors this bill has no chance in passing.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I do. How many repubs? You forgot to mention that!

I protest against all pols for increased minimum wage and an end to oil wars, and the war against terror.

I also trust Kucinich. He stands with the dems and never with the republicans.!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

he stands for social justice and yes he does vote with dems majority of the time.

And he also stood with bipartisan support with dems and repubs to audit the fed and with McCain-Feingold to end soft money in politics.

You can't count on repubs to raise minimum wage. Which is why I point out that you can't seem to count on dems either. 3 dems is not enough. It's pathetic that the number is that low on such a bill that would help out over 30 million working americans. Who's financing the rest of these guys? Why aren't they joining to keep wages up with 1968 standards? Why are so many siding with repubs in keeping silent about minimum wage?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It's horrible. So no repubs voted for the minimum wage increase? I didn't quite see that answer. And would you believe that repubs have prevented every DEMOCRATIC effort to increase the minimum wage for more than 10 years. And would you believe that repubs have fought every DEMOCRATIC effort to raise the minimum wage for ever? Did you know that? Does that matter? Would you say that is a good indicator as to who we should look to if we want to pass a minimum wage?

This is a good example of how the parties are different!

Elect progressives! Vote out anti minimum wage republicans

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No one is voting for a minimum wage increase.

Only 3 democrats are trying to put it up for a vote but no one else is sponsoring the bill. It will get stuck in a committee and it won't see a vote because there are no sponsors.

You are a good example of ridiculing someone trying to bring attention to the needs of a minimum wage increase.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't mind bumping this post up. I more interested in having our 2 opinions compete in the marketplace of ideas. As long as people refrain from going to "war" with me.

Can you handle a difference of opinion without resorting to angry, nasty, offensive, tactics. Because I intend to. How we interact is a good reflection of whether we are war like.

How have you done by that measure?

Peace!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

don't delete this post

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok.

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You think bombing foreign countries isn't war.

Your opinion is invalid

Go make more excuses for Obama's drone wars and then try and tell me how he's going to end them when he's the one signing the sheets to bomb people

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against the US drone bombings.

For that to be war the other country cannot give permission!

What excuses have I offered? To suggest I'm making excuses for the policy I am against is untrue. Lying about my position is not the tactic of an anti war person.

I believe Pres Obama will end the drone wars. Because I recognize the real progress he has made in the face of massive neocon pressure.

Peace, & Love

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You can't be against the bombings and support them at the same time.

It's like voting for Romney and saying you're against fraud and income inequality.

Obama is the drone wars. Bush was the invasion.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You can't tell me what I can be.

I against the US policy (created by Bush) of drone bombing.

I do not support them! To suggest I do support them is untrue and not the tactic of a peace loving person.

Peace & Love

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Obama is the drone wars. Bush was the invasion.

Why do Romney and Obama agree about foreign policy toward Iran?

Military option against Iran still on the table over supposed WMD's

You do support the drone wars. Just like repubs supported the war in Iraq when they voted Bush.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

end secrecy

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Romney would invade, Pres Obama continues to resist the neocons war mongering pressure to invade. That is a major difference!

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Dems/progressives have always fought for min wage and will continue to. Repubs have always fought against and will always fight against a minimum wage.

This is an excellent example of how the parties are vastly different. You focus on one example, ignore the historical truths, ignore the philosophical principles to push the fallacy that the parties are the same.

They Ain't!!

[-] 1 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

You like the democrats to the point of defending their actions? Let me guess, you're not an OWS supporter, but a paid democrat here to convince people to vote Obama?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nope. registered independent, raging left/liberal. anti republican. no pay, all honest passion from the heart! Which Dem actions have I defended?

[-] 0 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

You've compared the dems to OWS on numerous occasions.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

In what context?

[-] 1 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

You said they were essentially the same. That OWS wants what the dems want, and that the dems want what OWS wants.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

nah. "essentially the same"? I didn't say that! you're not being honest!

Try again.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

You're wasting your time trying to talk him, Thrashy. He's the most anti-OWS, pro-regime plant on this forum. You'd have better luck talking to the wall. Glad to see you pop in for a visit, by the way. I, for one, have kinda missed you.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if the dems did

they could claim a platform

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if only he Dennis Kucinich were running

his congressional district got yanked from under him

I suspect a jerry mander

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And who yanked it from under him? Does that matter? Will we cover for them? Who controlled the state legislature that redistricted him out?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I don't know

the establishment of the military industrial complex?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I see. Repub controlled Ohio State legislature thats who did it. Is that ok?

What about the fact the repubs also tried to cut only dem districts voting hours? is that ok?

How about that the Ohio repub AG fired 2 Dem election officials because they challenged the repubs efforts at stealing the ohio vote.

Do any of these facts matter? Is it all ok with you? Repub are doing this. Not Kucinich and the dems. That is the difference!

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what's the democrat platform ?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Why? are you ok with these repub scams? Your silence is deafening!

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lol

I wish I was wrong

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

about what?

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Kucinich? What are you talkin about?

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Your silence on minimum wage increase is deafening.

that was the topic and you somehow managed to call everyone on this forum page a republican for some reason.

Matt is not a republican supporter and he's not doing that on this forum right now or at all.

Why do you always divert away from real issues and just call people republicans?

Yeah republicans redistricted. That happened and it sucks. No one is arguing with you on that. Why are you acting like everyone disagrees on that?

Yeah there is no repub support on this bill to increase minimum wage. No one is arguing with you on that. Why are you acting like people are?

Why isn't a minimum wage increase a platform issue for all those running for office? this is a simple question. By asking it... I am not somehow supporting republicans. If you think that... you are a moron.

But I forgot... you're the guy that thinks bombing a country isn't war.

And when the government can get you to think that bombing a country isn't war... you have gone insane.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I haven't called anyone a republican. Now you're just lying! Please stick with the truth.

The Minimum wage is an important issue! My valuable contribution is the facts that progressives/dems fight for it, Repubs ALWAYS fight against it. I can't explain why you neglected that fact! Nor am I suggesting why. I can't explain why you attack me for pointing out the obvious fact you left out.

The redistricting of the great Kucinich was also because of Repub action. You left it out, I mentioned it, you attacked me! I'm you left it out, or attacked me because you are a repub, or serve repubs because you attack me viciously when I do that. (look at your attack when I haven't attacked)

Bombing a country with that countries permission is not war! I don't support it. But it ain't war. Sorry!

"moron"? "crazy"? personal attacks/insults simply betray your weak arguments. Please refrain. Why can't you discuss these important issues with respect? Do you think berating me, or insulting & bullying me will silence me?

NEVER!!

I am fighting for the 99%!! I will not be deterred. I will not forget, I will not forgive. You will be assimilated, Resistance is futile!

[-] 2 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

I haven't called anyone a republican.

I just read a bunch of comments on this page and on other pages where you call other forum posters republicans and other insults.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Is calling someone a republican an insult. The minimum wage discussion, & the Kucinich redistricting discussion did not include me suggesting anyone was a republican!

Whats wrong with expressing the opinion that somones actions appear to be repub, or serve repubs. NOTHING!

Why are trying to silence that allowed speech??

[-] 2 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

Is calling someone a republican an insult.

It is when you call him a republican troll, a republican scum bag, a republicon, a republican rat, etc...

Why are trying to silence that allowed speech??

I'm not trying to silence you. I'm simply saying you lied when you stated above that you don't call anyone a republican. From what I've read, you go around the site insulting other posters without any proof for your claims. You call anyone who disagrees with you a republican troll. It's not very inclusive.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"You call anyone who disagrees with you a republican troll." That is a lie!

I only suggest republicanism when there is proof that they are. Whether they agree with me is not relevant.

If they cover for repubs, leave out repub guilt, attack dems unfairly, claim the parties are the same, encourage giving up our right to vote would suggest a repub leaning.

So I didn't lie. You are! And you are mischaracterizing my comments. Some of the comments you attribute to me I've never said. Those I did say were warranted.

Why do you care? Are you the speech police here? Do you have some authority here?

[-] 0 points by PaulMcTavish (-145) 2 years ago

What does attacking the dems have to do with being republican? OWS protesters attack the dems all the time, they attack all the parties that are corrupted, not just the republicans. Being OWS is being against the system as a whole, not just being against the republicans.

Why do you care? Are you the speech police here? Do you have some authority here?

Just sharing my opinion. You can leave it or take it. I just find it lame that you attack others. It's not inclusive. There are many people who dislike the dems, that does not mean they like the republicans.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

thanks for flooding my page with comments. My forum post stays at the top of the forum

More people need to read about the war crimes under this administration.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"lame"? "not inclusive"? Please. your not expressing your opinion. You are simply attacking me personally, attempting to bully me into silence! As always.

The morning is when the banned ones come to spew their hatefulness!

You cannot stop me. I will challenge all unfair attacks on dems, all fallacies that the parties are the same, all efforts to get us to give up our right to vote!

We will not be deterred! We will not forget! We will not forgive! We are legion! You are puny humans! You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

of course that matters.

Why do you think I brought up the fact that he was redistricted for opposing the status quo?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You left out the party that did it to him!!

The republicans!!

Can you say it.? Republicans did something wrong! c'mon you can do it!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

redistricting was all they could do to get Dennis out of office. They do whatever they can to get opponents of the status quo out of office.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I realize from your posts here that you are strongly anti-war, and I can respect that. I have a question for you though. If the US was to withdraw from Afghanistan and all of a sudden a massive civil war broke out or the Taliban went on mass killing sprees and oppression that resulted in more tragedy and death that is already going on there, would you support the US intervening?

There is no right or wrong answer in my eyes, I am just curious as to your opinion on it. And I am not saying that will happen, just "if." Are you for the fewest number of deaths possible? Or do you just feel the US should leave the Afghans (or any other country for that matter) live in whatever state of war or peace that plays out without intervention?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

In a short response to everything you just said I will pose a question...

Should we have stayed in Iraq?

END THE WARS NOW

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

no answer at all!

Should we use the military to protect innocent civilians from brutal dictators?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Every time we've done that the military and bombs and sanctions kill more civilians than the dictator.

Look at Iraq from 1990 to 2010... look at all the wars we've been in.

Fuck the Neocon war agenda. Fuck those trying to brainwash people into the idea that "war is peace"

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21545) 2 years ago

I like the way you put that, Trevor. You are right.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

thanks.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You don't sound like a peaceful person! Please refrain from the offensive obscenities!

So you don't want to protect innocent people? Has there never been a military operation you have supported. And none that you would?

Peace, & Love!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

So you like the Neocon agenda? Because I say fuck the Neocon agenda.

Romney says we should go into Syria.

Fulfilling the list of 7 countries laid out by the Bush administration.... But if you want to support the Bush war agenda... then preach for war with Syria and Iran.

Continue to disregard the massive levels of civilian death from "US humanitarian intervention"

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Twisting my position is not a peaceful persons tactics. I don't stoop to those attacks because I am a peaceloving person.

Pres Obama has resisted the neocons better than I expected. I'm not naive I know the neocons/MIC have massive control. Much time, and deft is required to undo their power. No one gives up power easily.

Pres Obama is the better option (of the 2 viable pres candidates) to continue the slow, real progress against the neocon/MIC agenda.

That is pagmatism.

For more progress, We must elect anti war progressive, and vote out war mongering neocons!

And of course protest, pressure, and agitate for an end to drone bombings, oil wars, and the war on terror.

Peace, Love, & Undertanding! (Whasso funny 'bout it?)

[-] 3 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

VQ, I always ask my mom what she would do if she lived in Nazi Germany and the Nazis were holding elections between the deminazis and the repubinazis. And the repubinazis platform calls for incinerating 6 millions, but the deminazis say that 3 million murders should be enough.

And my mom always says she'd vote for the deminazis.

You too, I guess?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Comparing us to Nazis is offensive and I believe against the forum rules.

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 3 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

Really,no offense intended.

But I do wonder at what point you say enough. That's what I'm getting at. How many people need to be killed by drones before you give up on supporting Obama? Or would you support the dems as long as the number to be murdered is 1 less than the republican plan?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support the successful resistance to the neo-cons war mongering pressure.

I do not support any killings.

I support dems over repubs because they are not neocons and will resist neo cons war mongering pressure.

neo CONSERVATIVE!! <---- do you know which party embraces these policies?

I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!

Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Peace & Love.

[-] 2 points by ogoj11 (263) 2 years ago

I'm not voting. There are no anti-war progressives where I live. You didn't answer my question above about how bad the dems have to be for you to abandon them.

This week saw post apartheid South Africa reach a new low. The American ruling class is watching. Do you know the lesson? You can shoot striking miners if you have a progressive government, but you can't get away with such stuff if the openly racist right is ruling. Electing Obama just gives the government legitimacy.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

vote Green or "Peace and Freedom"

or write in NO WAR

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well sounds like you got it all figured out!

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Set aside specific examples because obviously we know many US interventions were a mistake.

My question was more of a theoretical one. Do you oppose all US military interventions, even if it means more people may ultimately die via dictatorship, civil war, etc?

There is no easy answer, I am just curious as to your personal belief.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Until our government can find a way to intervene without killing massive levels of civilians.... I don't see a point in intervening in the name of saving civilians.

Obviously our government and military is not capable of doing that. Look into history of the wars and US foreign policy. Millions of foreign civilians killed from US foreign policy since the 1990's

Iraq war under Bush 1... Iraq bombings and sanctions under Clinton kill over a million... Iraq invasion under Bush 2 kills over a million... Afghanistan civilian death rate reached highest level in 2010 under Obama. Sirte and tripoli were destroyed...

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I pretty much agree with you. We should let countries solve their own problems. Millions of civilians will likely die anyways through dictatorships and civil wars but at least our soldiers won't be in harms way and the bill won't be coming out of our tax dollars.

Unfortunately, throughout civilization there has been war and death in the name of politics and power and that is unlikely to change whether or not the US is involved.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I suggest following the wisdom of Dennis Kucinich and try new theories by creating a peace committee focused on helping nations through actions of peace and not war.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

still spewing excuses for killing

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I really don't see think I am. I can't understand why you would say that.

In your mind there is no reason whatsoever for the US to ever be involved in a foreign conflict? Again, Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes. I am talking more in theoretical terms.

Honestly, that is how I feel for the most part. Unless our actual homeland is under a direct threat, I don't think we should get involved because it costs American lives, a ton of money, and it can make us look bad. But I also realize that having that be an official policy could lead to situations were even more people may possibly die, they just wouldn't be American's nor would it be at the hands of Americans. And that just doesn't sit well with me.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

building bombs 'til bunkers boil

getting paid for shell filled toil

if I am to work tomorrow

lobe the load on foreign soil


yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget

World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation

  • 1,630 World Total
  • 711 United States 41%
  • 143 China 8.2%
  • 71.9 Russia 4.1%
  • 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
  • 62.5 France 3.6%
  • 54.5 Japan 3.3&
  • 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
  • 46.8 India 2.5%
  • 46.7 Germany 2.8%
  • 37.0 Italy 2.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations


TOP 10 Arms Produces

Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009

  • Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
  • BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
  • Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
  • Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
  • General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
  • Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
  • BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
  • EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
  • Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58 +L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
  • United Technologies USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

What does this have to do with the question I asked? What is wrong with trying to have a discussion? Do you really not have an opinion on it?

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Good post, Trevor.

[Removed]