How Does the American Presence in the Middle East Benefit Americans?

[whitehall]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Apparently the powers that be in the liberal establishment thought that America's presence in Bosnia was legitimate as long as a sleazy degenerate democrat was in the white house.

 

[georgephillip]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Apparently the powers that be in the liberal establishment thought that America's presence in Bosnia was legitimate as long as a sleazy degenerate democrat was in the white house.

Elected Republicans AND Democrats depend on the same 1% of US voters to attain office.
That 1% depend heavily on wars other people fight and pay for to amass their fortunes.
Maybe we should stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican and tax war into extinction?
And prosecute the sleazy degenerate Democrats and Republicans who committed war crimes.

 

[Connery]

You see this is the bullshit I want to avoid, "ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them."

About Us - ProPublica

Can you name any sources you regard as credible when it comes to the number of Muslims killed by US drones?

Any numbers here you would care to contest?

"Consider: while four American citizens are known to have been killed by drones in the past decade, the strikes have killed an estimated total of 2,600 to 4,700 people over the same period."

The Drone War Doctrine We Still Know Nothing About - ProPublica

Telegraph has some serious numbers. Obama's like killing 50 to 60 to one terrorist. I think the last drone strike they took out a whole wedding party. Over 30 dead and a whole batch hurt.

Hey its a Democrat killing people. Not a worry right?

You have me mistaken for a party hack ....please cut the crap. I asked for primary documents which would prove the statement made by another poster. If you are going to address my statements please read the content of my posts.

 

[Connery]

Can you name any sources you regard as credible when it comes to the number of Muslims killed by US drones?

Any numbers here you would care to contest?

"Consider: while four American citizens are known to have been killed by drones in the past decade, the strikes have killed an estimated total of 2,600 to 4,700 people over the same period."

The Drone War Doctrine We Still Know Nothing About - ProPublica

Primary sources

"A journal article reporting NEW research or findings."

Primary vs Secondary Sources

The primary sources they relied upon. The source you rely upon by their own statement has been created to achieve toward a certain goal, I will not accept what they assert on it's face I need their reference material.

The following assertion is what I am looking to be proved. The US is likened to terrorists and engage in their methods, therefore prove it.

That response is part of the problem. U.S. kills innocent civilians and the response is, "War is hell." Muslims kill innocent Americans and the response is, "KILL THE TERRORISTS!!!!!"

This double standard is sickening.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you name any sources you regard as credible when it comes to the number of Muslims killed by US drones?

Any numbers here you would care to contest?

"Consider: while four American citizens are known to have been killed by drones in the past decade, the strikes have killed an estimated total of 2,600 to 4,700 people over the same period."

The Drone War Doctrine We Still Know Nothing About - ProPublica

Telegraph has some serious numbers. Obama's like killing 50 to 60 to one terrorist. I think the last drone strike they took out a whole wedding party. Over 30 dead and a whole batch hurt.

Hey its a Democrat killing people. Not a worry right?

You have me mistaken for a party hack ....please cut the crap. I asked for primary documents which would prove the statement made by another poster. If you are going to address my statements please read the content of my posts.

So far the content of your posts shows somebody who will simply ignore anything that doesn't conform to your worldview, whether or not that's partisan in nature remains to be seen. You asked for evidence, were given a plethora of evidence from reputable sources, dismissed it all, asked for "primary" sources, then refused to define what you would actually consider acceptable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Primary sources

"A journal article reporting NEW research or findings."

Primary vs Secondary Sources

The primary sources they relied upon. The source you rely upon by their own statement has been created to achieve toward a certain goal, I will not accept what they assert on it's face I need their reference material.

The following assertion is what I am looking to be proved. The US is likened to terrorists and engage in their methods, therefore prove it.

That response is part of the problem. U.S. kills innocent civilians and the response is, "War is hell." Muslims kill innocent Americans and the response is, "KILL THE TERRORISTS!!!!!"

This double standard is sickening.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which you dismissed for no reason, has links to its dataset and methodology. My guess is you didn't even read either article posted from that source, and rather went looking for any reason you could possibly find to dismiss it.

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Covert War on Terror ? the Datasets: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

This is not to mention the articles from the New York Times, CNN, and ABC which you simply ignored outright.

 

[Mac1958]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Wow, what a great thread.

It's not our land. It's not our sand. We don't have the right to occupy and blow the living shit out of other sovereign countries to advance our agenda, which can (and does) change at any given time. We don't have the right to kill innocent civilians just because we're going after "the bad guys".

To those who defend this madness: What would you do if another country decided that it had the "right" to do the above, here in America? You'd hate them, wouldn't you? You'd defend your country, your land, your property, your family, wouldn't you? Your hatred for these invaders would grow by the minute, would it not? Would you like to deny any of this?

We pretend we own the fucking planet -- evidently because we're "exceptional" -- and then we're shocked when we learn that people hate us more and more because of it. They're told when they're young that we're "evil", and then we prove it to them when our tanks roll down their streets, when their friends and families are killed by our bombs. Holy crap. That's willful blindness.

Nothing "exceptional" about that.

.

 

[idb]

1. Building American bases on muslim holy Land increases terrorism

2. Reagan selling weapons to Iraq increases terrorism

3. Reagan pouring weapons and money into Hussein's Iraq increases terrorism

4. The USA removing the wildly popular Mossadeq and installing the brutal Shah increases terrorism

5. Clinton bombing Iraq for 10 years increases terrorism

6. Bush bombing Iraq and turning the country into mess increases terrorism

7. Funding the corrupt Saudi Royals for over 30 years increases terrorism

8. Terrorism creates instability and a national security threat

9. A national security threat creates a context for military and political intervention, so that the US can protect its considerable energy assets in the region.

Carter wanted to slowly transition away from maximum-petroleum-use in order to get out of the middle east. Reagan, who was heavily funded by big oil, wanted to sustain maximum energy use.

Reagan won and America vastly increased its presence in the Middle East.

We have built the most oil dependent economy in World History. When oil is cheap, the economy thrives. When oil is expensive, the economy dies. Meaning: we need to be in the middle east. Carter asked us to create "Moon Shot" around using less oil. He said that if we didn't diminish our dependency on petroleum, our economy would some day be destroyed by the $4 gallon. Reagan said he was crazy, and he lead America into a multi-decade orgy of oil profligacy. It was a great ride until the oil started to run out. Once China/India modernized and began rapidly diminishing global supplies, the game ended.

We swallowed poison in 1980 . . . and now we are slowly dying.

Too bad Londoners decided to snub the colonists from having political representation. YOU blew it.

I think the Poms dodged a bullet there.

 

[Connery]

"A journal article reporting NEW research or findings."

Primary vs Secondary Sources

The primary sources they relied upon. The source you rely upon by their own statement has been created to achieve toward a certain goal, I will not accept what they assert on it's face I need their reference material.

The following assertion is what I am looking to be proved. The US is likened to terrorists and engage in their methods, therefore prove it.

That response is part of the problem. U.S. kills innocent civilians and the response is, "War is hell." Muslims kill innocent Americans and the response is, "KILL THE TERRORISTS!!!!!"

This double standard is sickening.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which you dismissed for no reason, has links to its dataset and methodology. My guess is you didn't even read either article posted from that source, and rather went looking for any reason you could possibly find to dismiss it.

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Covert War on Terror ? the Datasets: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

This is not to mention the articles from the New York Times, CNN, and ABC which you simply ignored outright.

yep faulty, at best.

"The most comprehensive public information on casualties generally lies in the thousands of press reports filed by reputable national and international media outlets. The bulk of our sources are in English but in addition, when they are drawn to our attention by local contacts, we also sometimes incorporate reporting in Urdu (for Pakistan) or Arabic (for Yemen) as well as other languages when relevant.

In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count. In early 2013 senior administration figures – including the president and CIA director-designate John Brennan – indicated the government may be preparing to release civilian casualty figures for the conflict, but at of the time of writing no such information was available."

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

 

[Skull Pilot]

Right now our presence in the Middle East is feeding our addiction for war, invasion and killing.

So I guess that's a positive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The primary sources they relied upon. The source you rely upon by their own statement has been created to achieve toward a certain goal, I will not accept what they assert on it's face I need their reference material.

The following assertion is what I am looking to be proved. The US is likened to terrorists and engage in their methods, therefore prove it.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which you dismissed for no reason, has links to its dataset and methodology. My guess is you didn't even read either article posted from that source, and rather went looking for any reason you could possibly find to dismiss it.

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Covert War on Terror ? the Datasets: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

This is not to mention the articles from the New York Times, CNN, and ABC which you simply ignored outright.

yep faulty, at best.

"The most comprehensive public information on casualties generally lies in the thousands of press reports filed by reputable national and international media outlets. The bulk of our sources are in English but in addition, when they are drawn to our attention by local contacts, we also sometimes incorporate reporting in Urdu (for Pakistan) or Arabic (for Yemen) as well as other languages when relevant.

In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count. In early 2013 senior administration figures – including the president and CIA director-designate John Brennan – indicated the government may be preparing to release civilian casualty figures for the conflict, but at of the time of writing no such information was available."

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Hilarious.

 

[Connery]

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which you dismissed for no reason, has links to its dataset and methodology. My guess is you didn't even read either article posted from that source, and rather went looking for any reason you could possibly find to dismiss it.

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Covert War on Terror ? the Datasets: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

This is not to mention the articles from the New York Times, CNN, and ABC which you simply ignored outright.

yep faulty, at best.

"The most comprehensive public information on casualties generally lies in the thousands of press reports filed by reputable national and international media outlets. The bulk of our sources are in English but in addition, when they are drawn to our attention by local contacts, we also sometimes incorporate reporting in Urdu (for Pakistan) or Arabic (for Yemen) as well as other languages when relevant.

In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count. In early 2013 senior administration figures – including the president and CIA director-designate John Brennan – indicated the government may be preparing to release civilian casualty figures for the conflict, but at of the time of writing no such information was available."

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Hilarious.

I agree you are putting one fantastic show with your "proofs".

Indeed from your source:

• In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count.
  
• In Yemen, the government sometimes publishes information about ‘air strikes’ with no indication as to who carried them out. The government has also occasionally claimed responsibility for attacks that it is unlikely its rickety air force could have carried out, such as night-time strikes, or those on moving vehicles.
  
• In Somalia, very little is published at all.

Tell you what, why don't you come up with fallacious garbage with the two faced and often wrong Tinydancer.

 

[georgephillip]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Wow, what a great thread.

It's not our land. It's not our sand. We don't have the right to occupy and blow the living shit out of other sovereign countries to advance our agenda, which can (and does) change at any given time. We don't have the right to kill innocent civilians just because we're going after "the bad guys".

To those who defend this madness: What would you do if another country decided that it had the "right" to do the above, here in America? You'd hate them, wouldn't you? You'd defend your country, your land, your property, your family, wouldn't you? Your hatred for these invaders would grow by the minute, would it not? Would you like to deny any of this?

We pretend we own the fucking planet -- evidently because we're "exceptional" -- and then we're shocked when we learn that people hate us more and more because of it. They're told when they're young that we're "evil", and then we prove it to them when our tanks roll down their streets, when their friends and families are killed by our bombs. Holy crap. That's willful blindness.

Nothing "exceptional" about that.

.

Nothing exceptional about American Exceptionalism?
This country has been addicted to war since the end of WWII.
Department of Peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe we should try something different before it's too late?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

For Jesus' protection

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Be more specific. Which Continent(s) or Country(s) are you referring to? There are 3 continents and 25 countries that make up the "Middle East".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

yep faulty, at best.

"The most comprehensive public information on casualties generally lies in the thousands of press reports filed by reputable national and international media outlets. The bulk of our sources are in English but in addition, when they are drawn to our attention by local contacts, we also sometimes incorporate reporting in Urdu (for Pakistan) or Arabic (for Yemen) as well as other languages when relevant.

In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count. In early 2013 senior administration figures – including the president and CIA director-designate John Brennan – indicated the government may be preparing to release civilian casualty figures for the conflict, but at of the time of writing no such information was available."

Covert US strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia ? our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Hilarious.

I agree you are putting one fantastic show with your "proofs".

Indeed from your source:

• In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count.
  
• In Yemen, the government sometimes publishes information about ‘air strikes’ with no indication as to who carried them out. The government has also occasionally claimed responsibility for attacks that it is unlikely its rickety air force could have carried out, such as night-time strikes, or those on moving vehicles.
  
• In Somalia, very little is published at all.

Tell you what, why don't you come up with fallacious garbage with the two faced and often wrong Tinydancer.

Your wittiness clearly knows no bounds, much like your powers of denial.

 

[Flopper]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Wow, what a great thread.

It's not our land. It's not our sand. We don't have the right to occupy and blow the living shit out of other sovereign countries to advance our agenda, which can (and does) change at any given time. We don't have the right to kill innocent civilians just because we're going after "the bad guys".

To those who defend this madness: What would you do if another country decided that it had the "right" to do the above, here in America? You'd hate them, wouldn't you? You'd defend your country, your land, your property, your family, wouldn't you? Your hatred for these invaders would grow by the minute, would it not? Would you like to deny any of this?

We pretend we own the fucking planet -- evidently because we're "exceptional" -- and then we're shocked when we learn that people hate us more and more because of it. They're told when they're young that we're "evil", and then we prove it to them when our tanks roll down their streets, when their friends and families are killed by our bombs. Holy crap. That's willful blindness.

Nothing "exceptional" about that.

.

You're absolutely correct. However, this problem began over a half century ago with our commitment to Israel and the lure of $2 a barrel oil. Stepping back from our commitments to Israel would be a huge political problem for both the Democrats and the Republicans probably even a greater problem than our dependence on Arab oil. Islamic terrorism is now feeding on our presence in these countries and provides another reason for even more interference in the region.

The oil problem can solve itself. America has the capacity to become energy independent through increased production and alternative energy sources. OPEC does not have near the control over oil prices as they once did. We can solve the oil problem if we are forced to do so.


Israel is a much greater problem. Our current course is to establishing governments friendly to the US in the region which would give us an opportunity to step back from our commitments to Israel. I don't think this is going to work because those governments are not going to have the support of the people.

I see the only solution is to back off from our commitments to Israel. If we don't, we're going find ourselves in an even deeper hole.

 

[Connery]

Hilarious.

I agree you are putting one fantastic show with your "proofs".

Indeed from your source:

• In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count.
  
• In Yemen, the government sometimes publishes information about ‘air strikes’ with no indication as to who carried them out. The government has also occasionally claimed responsibility for attacks that it is unlikely its rickety air force could have carried out, such as night-time strikes, or those on moving vehicles.
  
• In Somalia, very little is published at all.

Tell you what, why don't you come up with fallacious garbage with the two faced and often wrong Tinydancer.

Your wittiness clearly knows no bounds, much like your powers of denial.

You have yet to prove your point.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I agree you are putting one fantastic show with your "proofs".

Indeed from your source:

• In the case of Pakistan, the CIA does not officially acknowledge or comment on its drone campaign, and the Islamabad government does not publish a casualty count.
  
• In Yemen, the government sometimes publishes information about ‘air strikes’ with no indication as to who carried them out. The government has also occasionally claimed responsibility for attacks that it is unlikely its rickety air force could have carried out, such as night-time strikes, or those on moving vehicles.
  
• In Somalia, very little is published at all.

Tell you what, why don't you come up with fallacious garbage with the two faced and often wrong Tinydancer.

Your wittiness clearly knows no bounds, much like your powers of denial.

You have yet to prove your point.

Actually I have. That your standard of proof is so high that it's nonexistent has nothing to do with me. Any reasonable person can see that I've provided ample proof to support my position, regardless of whether you agree with that position or not.

 

[Connery]

Your wittiness clearly knows no bounds, much like your powers of denial.

You have yet to prove your point.

Actually I have. That your standard of proof is so high that it's nonexistent has nothing to do with me. Any reasonable person can see that I've provided ample proof to support my position, regardless of whether you agree with that position or not.

My "standard of proof" is equal to the gravity of your accusation. There is nothing unreasonable about my request. You have simply failed to meet your burden.