US hypocrisy

[GHook93]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

HMM, well here we go:
1) Silly overstatement, Atomic weapons THEN were unprecedented. Not ever deemed a war crime.
2) Fact. America used a toxic herbicide. Not ever deemed war crime.
3) No, actually that's just one reason why we went to war with Iraq.
4) Fact. We used all the weapons in our arsenal .Weapons are meant to kill people. Not a war crime.
5) Matter of opinion.

Well stated Odium is a true imbecile!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[12icer]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

So you really don't know anything about the military. Or the history of any of these actions.

 

[Doc1]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

When and where did the US use Chemical Weapons against its own people?

They do it every day. Chem Trails are quite real.

 

[Doc1]

...This is not a partisan issue.

True.

Berating your country and giving widely-disseminated propaganda-caliber aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war is not a partisan issue.

Democrats AND Republicans - those loyal to the Republic and with any balls, anyway - are jointly in favor of cheering wildly, when traitorous phukks like you get hit by a bus.

LOL you dumb fucks aren't loyal to America. You are loyal to the US Government which is controlled by Zionists loyal to Israel.

You are awake, most are not. Most never will be they will remain the way they are for many different reasons.
They are too comfortable where they are at.
The truth would be too much for them to bare.

I would however suggest a more pleasant approach.

 

[MaryL]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

HMM, well here we go:
1) Silly overstatement, Atomic weapons THEN were unprecedented. Not ever deemed a war crime.
2) Fact. America used a toxic herbicide. Not ever deemed war crime.
3) No, actually that's just one reason why we went to war with Iraq.
4) Fact. We used all the weapons in our arsenal .Weapons are meant to kill people. Not a war crime.
5) Matter of opinion.

Well stated Odium is a true imbecile!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I appreciate any response. I think some people lack historical perspective and a balanced approach to history.

 

[Tehon]

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

There were no Syrian opposition groups when Bush was in office. You're just making things up.

What are your credentials? I have a communication from the US embassy in Damascus that says otherwise.

 

[Tehon]

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

There were no Syrian opposition groups when Bush was in office. You're just making things up.

The Bush administration set the timetable for our withdrawal having first deemed the surge a success. It was also the Bush administration that acknowledged a shifting alignment in the Middle East and chose to cast our lot in with Nations that support radical Sunniism and nations that have a history of animosity toward Syria. It seems that Obama just advanced policies that were developed under Bush and were designed to destabilize Syria in order to try and contain Iranian influence across the region.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

Did you even bother to read your own link? A cable channel and a satellite channel. That is what Bush funded. Oh the horror! Sigh...

Yes, of course I read it. And I understood it well enough to know that it didn't implicate Bush in funding Barada TV..... dumbass.

What it does show is a real clear intent on the part of the United States to manufacture a resistance to Assad. Telling.

 

[JBond]

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

There were no Syrian opposition groups when Bush was in office. You're just making things up.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

Did you even bother to read your own link? A cable channel and a satellite channel. That is what Bush funded. Oh the horror! Sigh...

Yes, of course I read it. And I understood it well enough to know that it didn't implicate Bush in funding Barada TV..... dumbass.

What it does show is a real clear intent on the part of the United States to manufacture a resistance to Assad. Telling.

Lol. After posting an asinine article, I expected more.

 

[Tehon]

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

There were no Syrian opposition groups when Bush was in office. You're just making things up.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

Did you even bother to read your own link? A cable channel and a satellite channel. That is what Bush funded. Oh the horror! Sigh...

Yes, of course I read it. And I understood it well enough to know that it didn't implicate Bush in funding Barada TV..... dumbass.

What it does show is a real clear intent on the part of the United States to manufacture a resistance to Assad. Telling.

Lol. After posting an asinine article, I expected more.

You expected the linked material to do more than show the clear intent of the United States to manufacture a resistance to Assad? Why, what were you hoping for? Did the title of the article "U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show" suggest something more?

Are you stupid?

 

[Old Rocks]

Barry and the democrats raised hell over the Fake News conspiracy Theory that Russia 'hacked the election', demonizing them for doing so - something Barry himself said happens all the time - AFTER Barry had tried to alter 4 nation's governments himself:
- Egypt, an ally: Helped oust Mubarak and replace him with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood
- Libya: Helped Al Qaeda murder and replace Gaddafi
- Israel, an ally: Used tax dollars to try to oust Netanyahu
- Syria: Made it his foreign policy to inject himself into their civil war / government to oust their President

Great thread....America's cup of hypocrisy floweth over.

ALL US presidents are war criminals since pretty much Wilson onwards. EASILY since Roosevelt on. This is not a partisan issue.

It is not an issue at all. It's pure bullshit. You're not a partisan in the sense of being a Democrat or a Republican, you're just anti American.

Anti American GOVERNMENT yes. Plus being an "american" means nothing....ANYONE can be an American. Not everyone can be a White Man or a Southerner.

LOL Well, don't get too radical, or we will have to go down there and kick yo' white southern ass one mo' time. LOL

 

[Preacher]

Barry and the democrats raised hell over the Fake News conspiracy Theory that Russia 'hacked the election', demonizing them for doing so - something Barry himself said happens all the time - AFTER Barry had tried to alter 4 nation's governments himself:
- Egypt, an ally: Helped oust Mubarak and replace him with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood
- Libya: Helped Al Qaeda murder and replace Gaddafi
- Israel, an ally: Used tax dollars to try to oust Netanyahu
- Syria: Made it his foreign policy to inject himself into their civil war / government to oust their President

Great thread....America's cup of hypocrisy floweth over.

ALL US presidents are war criminals since pretty much Wilson onwards. EASILY since Roosevelt on. This is not a partisan issue.

It is not an issue at all. It's pure bullshit. You're not a partisan in the sense of being a Democrat or a Republican, you're just anti American.

Anti American GOVERNMENT yes. Plus being an "american" means nothing....ANYONE can be an American. Not everyone can be a White Man or a Southerner.

LOL Well, don't get too radical, or we will have to go down there and kick yo' white southern ass one mo' time. LOL

Sure sure...the yankees didn't whip anyone's ass as usual we had politicians trying to run a damn war and as usual that don't work too well. The Confederate army was known as the best and toughest even by yankees.

 

[Crixus]

I hate agreeing with worthless, racist pricks but I have to on this one..

So you are claiming the moral high ground of endorsing Assad's chemical attacks.

May not be exactly where dude is coming from, but I don't think there is any moral high ground, just sick of the US having to be involved in everything. This is the stuff NOT HILLARY was supposed to NOT do and he is doing it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

There were no Syrian opposition groups when Bush was in office. You're just making things up.

Just more mindless nonsense.

Really? Here is what Condoleezza Rice had to say about it.

RICE: This is a different Middle East.

This Middle East is a Middle East in which there really is a new alignment of forces.

On one side are reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically and diplomatically.

On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos, to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hatred and intolerance.

On one side of that divide are the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, the young democracies of Lebanon, of the Palestinian territory led by Mahmoud Abbas and in Iraq.

But on the other side of that divide are Iran, Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas.

And I think we have to understand that that is a fundamental divide.

Iran and Syria have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize, not to stabilize.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee on President's Iraq Strategy

Thanks for the quote, but it does not address the claims you made previously that the Bush administration established the policies Obama followed.

We are not talking about public policy here, we're talking clandestine operations. Not easy to prove. That's why I chose to frame my statement cautiously, I didn't claim anything as factual. The point is, it is not mindless nonsense. There are clues that would lead one to question the "official" government narrative. Mindless is not questioning what you are being told.



The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

Did you even bother to read your own link? A cable channel and a satellite channel. That is what Bush funded. Oh the horror! Sigh...

Yes, of course I read it. And I understood it well enough to know that it didn't implicate Bush in funding Barada TV..... dumbass.

What it does show is a real clear intent on the part of the United States to manufacture a resistance to Assad. Telling.

What your post shows is a real intent to manufacture lies about the Bush administration. You show an analysis of the region by Rice and then claim it proves policy initiatives for which there is no evidence.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I hate agreeing with worthless, racist pricks but I have to on this one..

So you are claiming the moral high ground of endorsing Assad's chemical attacks.

May not be exactly where dude is coming from, but I don't think there is any moral high ground, just sick of the US having to be involved in everything. This is the stuff NOT HILLARY was supposed to NOT do and he is doing it.

Think about it, the missile strike was so much less than what the US is capable of, that it makes no sense to think of it as a first step in a military conflict. It is clearly intended to establish an opening position in negotiations to bring this sickening conflict to an end. Similarly, sending a carrier group to Korea is not the start of a war, it is an opening position in a negotiation to avoid a war.