x
Click to expand
Latest users (1): byposted, anonymous(17).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #83119 - schnizel ONLINE (04/18/2015) [-]
Why are you against my policies pebar?
User avatar #83120 to #83119 - pebar (04/18/2015) [-]
because you have no respect for individuals
you focus only on "muh peoplez"
User avatar #83121 to #83120 - schnizel ONLINE (04/18/2015) [-]
I do, I value both the individual and the group.
User avatar #83122 to #83121 - pebar (04/18/2015) [-]
groups don't have feelings
groups don't have values
groups don't exist

people exist
User avatar #83130 to #83122 - drastronomy (04/18/2015) [-]
Should feelings be prioritized above efficiency, order and structure in society?

IMO this question serves as the backbone for most political standpoints

Group mentality is to a certain extent inherent in everyone. Very few people are complete individuals, and most people tend to prioritize social recognition over objective goodness.

Groups, then, are important, as it creates a community. It creates a structural establishment that opens up for further development of ideas as well as creating a feeling of pride for ones people, which also is an inherent human trait
User avatar #83131 to #83130 - pebar (04/18/2015) [-]
efficiency tends to be severely compromised when you don't respect individuals
User avatar #83132 to #83131 - drastronomy (04/18/2015) [-]
I agree. Individuals should of course be respected and not be treated as but a member of a group. However, is it not easier to generalize some groups of people instead of studying every single person?

One needs to get the proper balance between group recognition and individual recognition in order to maximize satisfaction
User avatar #83136 to #83132 - cabbagemayhem (04/19/2015) [-]
No.

"Should feelings be prioritized above efficiency, order and structure in society?"
Yes, happiness is the only purpose for society. Order and structure are only a means to that end.

"Very few people are complete individuals"
Huh? Everyone is a complete individual, with feelings, and should be respected, no matter who thinks they can't be trusted to take care of themselves.

"Individuals should of course be respected and not be treated as but a member of a group."
They should be treated as individuals, not as members of a group. Members of a group are expendable. Individuals are not.

"One needs to get the proper balance between group recognition and individual recognition in order to maximize satisfaction"
Not by force from government.

Society exists because people, instead of living in the woods, like to get with other people and build society by their own choice. Everything we have, and everything we do, is because people chose it by their own nature and free will. No one had to force us. Looking at society as some system that needs to be optimized by forcing people where you want them is the root of the evil.

What we're really talking about is government, not society. People form groups naturally and voluntarily everyday, and function with unbeatable efficiency. Government isn't needed for that. When government makes a move, it's naturally forceful behind the the barrel of a gun (and tazers). When government moves its big hand, it always accidentally crushes something.

Governments' purpose is only to ensure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to those who created it. The necessary functions of government for an optimal society are few, not many. Our forefathers knew that. They made it hard to pass laws on purpose!
User avatar #83163 to #83136 - drastronomy (04/19/2015) [-]
If happiness is the primary goal, could not utopia be just people lying around taking drugs?

They are induviduals, but they tend to follow the pack-instinct regardless. People follow their leaders, if they are incapable of creating their own opinion

We agree on the next point, dont see the problem.

We are discussing society, in which the primary forces are culture and government - one is easier to change than the other.

You claim that a system that "forces" people is inherently evil. Are all laws evil, then? Is anarchy the only true good?

Sure, it is meant to be difficult to pass law to avoid stupid decisions. However, if that law maximizes efficiency, order and structure (even at the cost of some peoples liberty) is that law not good, as the order created eventually restores the opposition's happiness?
People form groups, like you say. The members of this group follow their leader. Are the members then not part of a group, more than they are individuals, if they primarily follow the group and not themselves?
User avatar #83209 to #83163 - cabbagemayhem (04/20/2015) [-]
"could not utopia be just people lying around taking drugs?"
No, because drugs don't make people happy. Even more simplistically, if everyone could lay around and be lazy and still be happy, good. The very thing that drives us to invent, is the idea that someday we might not have to work so hard.

"We are discussing society, in which the primary forces are culture and government - one is easier to change than the other."
Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's right.

"You claim that a system that "forces" people is inherently evil. Are all laws evil, then? Is anarchy the only true good?"
No, because foundational laws are created out of a simple and ancient moral code. The only laws that make sense are laws that protect Joe and his property from physical force by Jan. Laws that use physical force to influence what would otherwise be a voluntary situation, is morally wrong by the same law.

"...if that law maximizes efficiency, order and structure (even at the cost of some peoples liberty) is that law not good, as the order created eventually restores the opposition's happiness?"
You mean, by choosing for someone else against their will because you know better than they do about what will make them happy? No. You cannot achieve good ends through bad means. If you cannot convince a person what is best for him, then you have no business forcing it upon him by decree with the barrel of a gun behind the curtain.

"Are the members then not part of a group, more than they are individuals, if they primarily follow the group and not themselves?"
No, not under the law. All men are created equal. Men are judged by God each by their own actions, not by their father's or their country's. Remember, more men have been slain en masse by their own government for the "good of the community" than any other reason.
User avatar #83254 to #83209 - drastronomy (04/20/2015) [-]
If drugs do not make people happy, why do people take drugs?
The easiest solution is often the best one, ragardless of whether the populace accepts it or not.

The foundations of an ancient moral code you talk is resistant to change. For example, what about smoking? Is that not inherently bad in as society? Should we not impose laws to limit, if not ban it?

If laws that do not regard property or personal safety are the only legitemate ones, what about things that harm society in other ways?
Are laws not imposed for just that reason, to prevent harm from coming to society, and encourage people to live with their morals followed?

Some people know not what is best for themselves - people consume alchohol, commit crimes, do stupid shit in general. Should not those who are enlightened by larger amounts of education and experience be viewed as leaders, who in turn establish laws and rules to live by? Is that not how all societies should and have worked?

Even when all men are created equal, people are predispositioned to join groups - culture, communities, etc. - they are all groups, are they not? Nations are just groups of people, living under a common government. And as such, these groupings of which you are so strictly against must have some merit, must they not?
#83461 to #83254 - cabbagemayhem (04/22/2015) [-]
So basically, you know what's better for everyone better they do themselves, and it's up to you to make them live the right way, even if they don't want to, because it's for their own good. That's the cancerous "public good" thought pattern that has plagued civilization since antiquity, and at the core of everything that's wrong with the world.
User avatar #83462 to #83461 - drastronomy (04/22/2015) [-]
No. I know only the things that HARM everyone - drugs, alchohol, violent actions, murder, endangering the public, sexual harassment, etc.

And, turning your argument in the opposite direction... are ALL laws, then, immoral, as they perpetuate the notion that the government knows whats good for the public?

Places with order, structure and stability, which are the prime goals of any good society, have always been successful, at least until this efficiency was broken by corrupt, decrepit rulers, weakened by prolonged exposure to power
User avatar #83566 to #83462 - cabbagemayhem (04/23/2015) [-]
No, drugs don't harm everyone, and alcohol is not 100% bad. You're not smarter than all pot heads to be telling them what to do. Who do you think you are? You think you know what's best for everyone, but you don't. You don't even know the difference between laws that protect you from others and laws that protect you from yourself, because you mix murder with alcohol use.

At the end of the day, it's not you who gets to decide what's right, so you will only end up doing what someone else thinks is right, regardless of whether you know better. There are only a few laws necessary to maintain order and ensure social contracts. But, politicians run with that and make laws like they're a cool new toy. Most laws have more destructive power than potential to do good.
User avatar #83583 to #83566 - drastronomy (04/24/2015) [-]
>Drugs dont harm everyone

really nigga
Besides OD's, it drives people to poverty due to addiction, and then to crime. Even if they are little angels and dont do crime, they are still high whenever possible.
Alchohol does, as i said, cause increased crime rates and antisocial behaviour
most such laws protect society from the these people as opposed to people from themselves

It is not me who gets to decide whats right. Yet, neither are you. Regardless, laws are meant to encourage positive behaviour, and should, optimally, discourage degeneracy - this includes avid sexualism, drug use, alchohol use, etc. A true society NEEDS laws, because people DO NOT know their own best, hence why anyone starts doing drugs in the first place. Laws should prevent this from happening, and if the laws are destructive they are destructive to the right people. People who cannot contribute to society despite no physical or mental disabilities.
User avatar #83666 to #83583 - cabbagemayhem (04/24/2015) [-]
I'm not reading past your first sentence. You have a lot to learn, kid. Not just the definition of "drug", but how little we know about their effects, both good and bad. When you learn that the world isn't as simple as it looks to a teenager, and when you learn how little you understand, let alone your leaders who also think that they know what's best, then you might understand what our forefathers knew and what thousands of years of history has taught us.
User avatar #83123 to #83122 - schnizel ONLINE (04/18/2015) [-]
>groups don't have feelings
nobody said anything about feelings
>groups don't have values
Yes, yes they do.
>groups don't exist
Yes, they do, they are called your pebars mom and pebars dad and together you make the pebar family.
User avatar #83124 to #83123 - pebar (04/18/2015) [-]
my family is made up of individuals and we all have our own values
we do not have a give mind

Even if groups are run democratically, if decisions are not unanimous, someone will be upset.
User avatar #83126 to #83124 - schnizel ONLINE (04/18/2015) [-]
>dad can I go out tonight
>no
>FILTHY AUTHORITARIAN TOTALITARIAN ANTI-FREE MARKET OPRESSOR PIG!
>k bye
>we do not have a give mind
> give mind
No you don't have a hive mind but there is a thing called group mentality, and being in a group is as old as the human species.
>Even if groups are run democratically, if decisions are not unanimous, someone will be upset.
They mad cuz they jelly.
User avatar #83127 to #83126 - pebar (04/18/2015) [-]
>dad can I go out tonight?
>why the hell do you need my permission? you're old enough to take care of yourself

group mentality does not refer to a collection of individuals thinking and making decisions as a single unit
#83128 to #83127 - schnizel ONLINE (04/18/2015) [-]
>gets raped by a nigger while buying ice cream


>group mentality does not refer to a collection of individuals thinking and making decisions as a single unit
That's why those individuals function under a common cause, and a common belief and a common codex.


User avatar #83125 to #83124 - pebar (04/18/2015) [-]
hive*
#83115 - anon (04/18/2015) [-]
Someone else here enjoys those threads on 8chan ?

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #83117 to #83102 - lulzforalpsplane (04/18/2015) [-]
Again I think this type of shit should be allowed but its currently illegal as far as I know so its just hypocritical. Especially since we all know the other side wouldn't be able to get away.
#83107 to #83102 - anon (04/18/2015) [-]
I thought this thread was generally in favor of business owners being allowed to ban patrons for arbitrary reasons.
User avatar #83118 to #83107 - lulzforalpsplane (04/18/2015) [-]
Its a two way street that is currently being blocked on one side.
User avatar #83110 to #83107 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/18/2015) [-]
Generally yes. But Male only barber shops have been threatened to be forced to serve female patrons. Allowing something like this would be hypocritical.
#83108 to #83107 - anon (04/18/2015) [-]
I believe private business owners should be allowed to reject service to whoever they please.

This is obviously extremely hypocritical though. A pizza shop owner hypothetically says he wouldn't want to serve a gay wedding due to his faith and the leftists relentlessly act like animals. A bike shop says they've banned men and it's all totally swell. I recall seeing an article a while ago about a barbershop owner who banned women from his shop and he had to deal with bomb threats and vandalism.

Libcucks love their double-think.
#83109 to #83108 - anon (04/18/2015) [-]
If this goes down like Memories Pizza.

"Oh noes guise. We're getting threatening phone calls and mean online comments. Instead of contacting the police and actually letting someone comb over these, we're just gonna shut the doors of our business right now."

But wait, brave crowdfunding activists to the rescue!

JK guys, we're still open. Thanks for the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
User avatar #83104 to #83102 - youregaylol (04/18/2015) [-]
why would a male ever ride a bike anyway
#83105 to #83104 - anon (04/18/2015) [-]
He might need a ride to go fuck your bitch
User avatar #83106 to #83105 - youregaylol (04/18/2015) [-]
well at least i know she wont be pregnant considering the seats crush your testicles
User avatar #83111 to #83106 - pebar (04/18/2015) [-]
you're doing it wrong....
User avatar #83133 to #83111 - youregaylol (04/18/2015) [-]
aren't seats supposed to be sat on
User avatar #83088 - feelythefeel (04/17/2015) [-]
Snickers Speedwalker Ad Liberalism took this ad off the air.

Fucking kikes, this would have been better than the feature presentation.
User avatar #83134 to #83088 - akkere (04/18/2015) [-]
B-But this is one of Mr. T's best commercials ;~;
#83114 to #83088 - holyfool (04/18/2015) [-]
This kind of anti masculine bullshit should stay on Tumblr, why the fuck are people like this just why? Why is it bad to be a manly man and not some lanky cuck fuck this retarded bullshit it's just a fucking commercial.
User avatar #83112 to #83088 - radiserne (04/18/2015) [-]
But Mr. T is right. Get sum nuts.
User avatar #83103 to #83088 - lulzforalpsplane (04/18/2015) [-]
...are you fucking kidding me...
#83093 to #83088 - anon (04/17/2015) [-]
The purpose of advertising is to attract consumers.

After finding out that some consumers found the advertisement distasteful, Mars pulled it.

I don't really see the big deal.
User avatar #83096 to #83093 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/17/2015) [-]
The big deal to me is that enough people thought it was distasteful to where they pulled the ad to save face.

It shows that we're becoming too sensitive to dumb stuff like this.

Since when has it become "distasteful" to make fun of a guy who looks ridiculous while power walking.
User avatar #83090 to #83088 - kanadetenshi (04/17/2015) [-]
They need to get some nuts.
#83089 to #83088 - anon (04/17/2015) [-]
New Bell's South Africa TV Ad -- The Reader
User avatar #83094 to #83089 - mixednuts (04/17/2015) [-]
Nando's: Last dictator standing Are South African ads usually this great?
#83081 - pebar (04/17/2015) [-]
after nelson mandella's leftist policies destroyed south africa's economy and shot unemployment rates into the 20s, the people are protesting and blaming the unemployment on immigrants

nazifags, what do you think about restricting immigration from people of your own race?
#83083 to #83081 - schnizel ONLINE (04/17/2015) [-]
Europe for Europeans, each European land for a European people and the problem is solved.
User avatar #83087 to #83083 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/17/2015) [-]
SKYRIM IS FOR THE NORDS
User avatar #83095 to #83087 - lulzforalpsplane (04/17/2015) [-]
You're god damn fucking right it is, fucking niggers trying to take my homeland.
#83097 to #83095 - anon (04/18/2015) [-]
>Implying Jews wouldn't be the Dunmer
Come on, they're greedy, ancient, fiercely tribal, and kept slaves for longer than anyone else
User avatar #83101 to #83097 - lulzforalpsplane (04/18/2015) [-]
Well I wasn't referring to a group of people in real life, I was talking about my feelings about a fuckin game, idiot.
User avatar #83084 to #83083 - youregaylol (04/17/2015) [-]
what about european colonies, how do we divide that up
User avatar #83085 to #83084 - schnizel ONLINE (04/17/2015) [-]
By the peoples that settled there.
User avatar #83079 - pebar (04/17/2015) [-]
TL;DR - Universities Don't Understand Safe Spaces
User avatar #83086 to #83079 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/17/2015) [-]
Is killing off these people an option?
#83077 - lulzforalpsplane (04/17/2015) [-]
These polandball comics always manage to make me feel bad for countries. I think it's the faces.
#83074 - anon (04/17/2015) [-]
Apparently in Mali you can choose your tax bracket, should you sign up to pay taxes at all. You can also pay your taxes in rams.

Is that like Libertarian-ish?
#83053 - lulzforalpsplane (04/16/2015) [-]
I know a lot of people here like me have just always been told to believe the Iraq War was a terrible thing and only muh neocons would ever think it was good but I would like to see an actual argument going on. We all know it really didn't benefit the U.S economy, but what I'm looking to see more is if there was justification and a good reason to help Iraq? this isnt about whether america should help other countries but more of if it was justified at the time . Was it purely for oil? If so where is the proof?

There was a little argument between marinepenguin and kanadetenshi but the later didn't bring any arguments aside from "omg stop its so obvious".
User avatar #83091 to #83053 - kanadetenshi (04/17/2015) [-]
Pretty much everyone agrees it's not justified since it was based around lies. The discussion is whether it was bad, i think it was based on the fact that it not only collapsed the US economic but it made Iraq in a worse state and with more terrorists than it was prior.
User avatar #83092 to #83091 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/17/2015) [-]
Regardless of whether it was justified or not. It only put Iraq in a worse state because we didn't do the job properly.

If we hadn't pulled out from 2007-2011 and Obama listened to our military advisors, Iraq would not only be intact, but organisations like ISIS wouldn't have been able to spread the way they did.

I'm not saying Iraq would be a first world country or anything, but it would be going in an opposite direction as it is now.
User avatar #83075 to #83053 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/17/2015) [-]
Most people have problems with the fact that we claimed they had WMDs, and that's why we invaded. But they forget that we had been trying to get UN inspectors into their nation so that they could prove to us "hey we have no illegal WMDs in our country", but they refused for well over a decade. Then when they invade Kuwait, the UN sees an opportunity to get rid of a brutal dictator and then possible negate the chance of WMDs within Iraq.

After the coalition was formed and waiting in Saudi Arabia for 14 MONTHS, transport vehicles went between Iraq and Syria the entire time. Any serious WMDs Saddam had, disappeared.

Then take into account we found biological weaponry loaded into artillery shells ready to fire, each shell capable of killing a third of a million people, worse if used on a major population center.

I've never said the Bush Administration was totally honest, they pushed some theories as facts to try and ultimately remove Saddam, but saying we had no business in Iraq and we invaded without pretense and just oil rights is utter insanity and ignorance of history.
User avatar #83070 to #83053 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
The only definite thing is it's the fault of the British.
User avatar #83082 to #83072 - redandgreen (04/17/2015) [-]
Britain created the country of Iraq.
User avatar #83060 to #83053 - akkere (04/16/2015) [-]
It'd probably be difficult to prove, but I always figured the main reason George W. Bush pushed to hard to direct some of the flame towards Iraq was because he felt he needed to "finish the job" his father, H.W. had done with Kuwait and such, so it was more him doing personal involvement through the military, as his father was heavily involved in the issue between Saddam's regime and Kuwait. Not to mention the fact that a dozen of men who were working for Saddam attempted to assassinate H.W. early on as well, so that probably lit a flame somewhere down the line.
But that's simply conjecture based on an observation of events surrounding the issue, not exactly the proof you'd be looking for.
User avatar #83058 to #83053 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
The Project for the New American Century had been pressuring for an invasion of Iraq since 1998 (or before).

Some of the prominent people in the group were also members of the Bush administration and had links to companies who stood to profit from the military campaign and/or contracts in the aftermath.

You're right in saying neither the Iraqis or American people did well economically out of war. Who did?

www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905

User avatar #83055 to #83053 - pebar (04/16/2015) [-]
the only thing that bugs me is when people confuse the iraq war with the war n terror
they are two separate things
User avatar #83057 to #83055 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
For my benefit could you explain why they are separate please?
User avatar #83063 to #83057 - akkere (04/16/2015) [-]
"War on Terror" defines the initiative against the terrorists behind the Twin Tower attacks of 9/11, i.e. The Taliban, Al Qeada, and Osama Bin Laden.
The Iraq War was a war that was focused on Saddam Hussein's regime under an entirely different pretense; Hussein had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and there was actually no (major) presence of Al Qeada in the country (hardened dictators tend to be pretty good at maintaining their territory, especially when they have no qualms with who they kill in the process).
User avatar #83065 to #83063 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
I agree with you that there wasn't a link but the Bush administration said that there was.
User avatar #83054 to #83053 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
It wasn't justified, since it was based on a lie. However, that does not mean it was bad.
#83047 - pebar (04/16/2015) [-]
So what are you all doing  for holocaust remembrance day to respect the 6 million jews who died at the hands of the nazis?
So what are you all doing for holocaust remembrance day to respect the 6 million jews who died at the hands of the nazis?
User avatar #83076 to #83047 - feelythefeel (04/17/2015) [-]
Trying to beat their high score.
User avatar #83071 to #83047 - alicorn (04/16/2015) [-]
hitler did nothing wrong
#83061 to #83047 - akkere (04/16/2015) [-]
I'm just trimming up some dank Star Wars reaction webms at light speeds.
I call this one, "Anakin Takes out ISIS".
Figured people here might get a kick out of this one
User avatar #83050 to #83047 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
Watching Superbad.
User avatar #83073 to #83050 - lulzforalpsplane (04/17/2015) [-]
gud movie, I really recommend
The Wolf on Wall street
21 n 22 Jump Street
for more Jonah Hill
User avatar #83080 to #83073 - radiserne (04/17/2015) [-]
Already watched them, big big fan.
#83048 to #83047 - schnizel ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
Baking.
User avatar #83046 to #83042 - niggernazi (04/16/2015) [-]
Islam is litterally the cancer of our christian motherland aka erupor. Muzzies have no fucking place here at all. They are the litteral scum that consumes Europe piece by piece. Hitler will raise from the dead.

14/88 WHITE PRIDE WORLD WIDE

SKREWDRIVER-WHEN THE BOATS COME IN  +lyrics
#83044 to #83042 - niggernazi (04/16/2015) [-]
FUCKING MUZZIES GET THE FUCK OUT MY LAND REEEEEEEEEEE

Russian Navy vs Somalia pirates
User avatar #83045 to #83044 - niggernazi (04/16/2015) [-]
Landser - Sturmführer

Oooops, wrong video lol
User avatar #83043 to #83042 - schnizel ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
Oh the iron E
#83040 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
Her palms are sweaty, polls are weak, e-mails are heavy
There's scandals on her campaign already: mom's Benghazi
She's nervous, but on the surface she looks calm and ready
To increase Benghazi security, but she keeps on forgetting
#82994 - lulzforalpsplane (04/16/2015) [-]
Why did the U.S government not get oil from Iraq for liberating them? Because at that time that is technically what you guys did with Saddam, regardless of what happened later a lot of people were happy with his downfall and an attempt at a democratic government. So it only seems fair that Iraq pay its debt through oil for America sacrificing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
User avatar #83039 to #82994 - akkere (04/16/2015) [-]
Why would the U.S. government expect the Iraqi to pay anything at all? The people never asked for the war; they received untold amounts of collateral damage in the process of establishing a "democratic government", including providing an opening for Al Qeada to spread into the region.

Besides, does anyone have the right to just go ahead and fix someone else's problem and then charge them, even if they never asked specifically to have the problem fixed? Especially if they paid in their own way in terms of collateral damage? That's not much different than how the different mafia groups started out by going around businesses and establishing territory through extorting them to pay for them to be protected by the respective dominant mob.
User avatar #82998 to #82994 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
No thinking person would even remotely agree that the Iraq war was a good thing.
User avatar #83051 to #82998 - lulzforalpsplane (04/16/2015) [-]
I think you purposefully ignored what I said but ok.
User avatar #83014 to #82998 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
It was a good and necessary thing. Obama is mostly responsible for the mess in Iraq right now.
User avatar #82999 to #82998 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
The Iraqi people were much better off without him. Many showed gratitude after he was overthrown. Building a democracy afterwards was as much the Iraqis' responsibility as it was the Americans'. And building a democracy after many years has never been an easy task. The hate towards the Iraq War is nothing but leftist propaganda, and saying it was bad is just plain retarded. People have forgotten what Saddam actually did. He was the Idi Amin of the middle east.
User avatar #83003 to #82999 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
Not to forget that it is the US who has created more terrorists in the middle east than anyone else through constant oppression, pressure and funding.
User avatar #83002 to #82999 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
America's war mongering has not only caused more civilian deaths than Saddam Hussein but even after he was captured the US would still continue war mongering.

The fact is that the sole reason the Iraq war even started war because of a blatant lie by Dubya that has resulted in the death, oppression and terrorist creation of neoconservatives.
User avatar #83015 to #83002 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
Bush didn't lie. We found stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, some in artillery shells ready to fire.

Plus in the 14 month period that Saddam knew we were coming and forming the coalition, he had a constant stream of trucks moving between his weapons facilities and Syria. So it's incredibly likely that any serious stuff he had left the country.
User avatar #83016 to #83015 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
He was talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction, a blatant lie. Just stop, even conservatives acknowledge what Bush did was wrong....just stop.
User avatar #83019 to #83016 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
So chemical weapons with the ability to kill 300,000 people with one bomb isn't considered a WMD?

www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
User avatar #83020 to #83019 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
>Opinion

Now you're just embarassing yourself
User avatar #83023 to #83020 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
Are you even aware that Iraq was not even a US decision? It was a UN coalition, that we were asked to participate in.
User avatar #83025 to #83023 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
The primary motivation to go to war with Iraq was the lie and frauds of Bush the war criminal and other countries just agreed with it. Bush himself was the one who suggested and initiated it to the UN.
User avatar #83028 to #83025 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
Lol
User avatar #83006 to #83002 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
"Muh evil US"
inb4 they only went there for the oil. Fact is that Saddam was an evil son of a bitch that systematically killed hundreds of thousands og innocent iraqies, and infact killed more innocents than the US did. Blaming US for all the problems in the middle east is down right retarded.
User avatar #83008 to #83006 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
Innocent civilians murdered under US invasion estimate from 100,000 to a million. This doesn't include the hundred thousands that died due to UN sanctions.

www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
www.justforeignpolicy.org/deathcount/explanation

Saddam's death count (Who would've never come into power without US funding) also rank in the millions. But his invasions and time as president has been far longer than the US invasions.
User avatar #83017 to #83008 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
If you knew anything about the USs Rules of Engagement and our Code of Conduct, you'd know that we essentially fight with our hands and legs tied to prevent civilian casualties. But when you fight an enemy that hides behind civilians and uses children as shields, it's difficult sometimes.
User avatar #83018 to #83017 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
Despite the fact that most civilian casualties were not kidnapped or just as shield at all and that the vast majority of Iraqis absolutely hate America for what they did to them. How much more do you have to lie to justify genocide?
User avatar #83021 to #83018 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
Lie? I have most of my info from

1. Being in the US Air Force

2. Knowing over a dozen guys who personally served over 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
User avatar #83022 to #83021 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
"Guys just believe my anecdotes kay thx"

There are hundeds of veterans who have contradictory anecdotes, including many Iraq veterans who are now anti-war because of the terrible persecution they caused on innocent people.
User avatar #83024 to #83022 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
Or they're anti-war because they saw children die when they were told to try and throw a grenade at a US convoy.
User avatar #83026 to #83024 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
Now you're just trying to reach into batshit stupid hypotheticals to justify child murder. I suggest you seek mental help and stop talking to me.
User avatar #83027 to #83026 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
You are just as insane if you truly believe we went into Iraq for oil and killing civilians.
User avatar #83010 to #83008 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
There's a difference between collateral damage and deliberate killings of civilians.
User avatar #83011 to #83010 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
Ah yes they just "accidentally" caused the systematic murder of a million innocent people, even years after Hussein. Even if it was it only serves at the fact that the US recklessly doing into someone elses war just makes things worse. Like putting salt on an open wound.
User avatar #83034 to #83011 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
"the systematic murder of a million innocent people"
Holy shit, can you be more batshit cray
User avatar #83001 to #82999 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
That may be true but why should the Iraqi people be expected to pay for an illegal American invasion to remove a dictator which the Americans had previously funded?!
User avatar #83004 to #83001 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
Where did I say that.
User avatar #83005 to #83004 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
I was commenting on the suggestion from lulz that Iraq should pay for their own invasion. I think the hate toward the Iraq war has a lot to do with it being illegal and the lies about it.
User avatar #83007 to #83005 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
What's done is done. No, they didn't have WMDs, but Saddam was a walking WMD in himself, and he was rightfully removed. Anyone who does not support the overthrownment of Saddam, supports the attempted genocide of thousands of Kurds and the gassing og women and children.
User avatar #83031 to #83007 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
Do you think the Americans were right to support him and given him WMD in the first place? Wasn't it American gas he used on the Kurds?

Why wasn't he overthrown in the first war?

Why didn't the US get a definite UN resolution?

There were other options than turning the whole country into a slaughterhouse.

User avatar #83033 to #83031 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
"Americans are bad for the Iraq war"
"Why didn't Americans overthrow Saddam in the Gulf War"
No matter what Americans seem to do they come up on top as the bad guys. What has Russia done? What has China done? What has India done? At least US seem to give a shit about oppressive dictators. And if the Iraqi people had cooperated better, it wouldn't have been turned into a slaughterhouse. It wasn't like US soldiers went from door to door and randomly sprayed people.
US wasn't right to support him in the first place, but they wouldn't be right either to walk away from a problem they caused themselves, which seem to be what everyone else is suggesting. All this pacifist bullshit is making me puke. Freedom is not free.
User avatar #83056 to #83033 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
There was a UN resolution for the first Iraq war and it wasn't just the Americans involved there were lots of countries. There were much less in the second and no legality.

If they were going to do this they needed to send enough soldiers which even they admit they didn't.

They sent in private firms under government contracts and granted them preferential terms. They sent in private security firms under contracts and got them immunity from prosecution. They engaged in torture and collective punishment etc. etc.

The US don't care about oppressive dictators unless they're inconvenient. Take a look at South America and you'll see that the US supported dictators there. They also supported Saddam, the Shah in Iran and the Nationalists in China.

If you're suggesting 'well they're no worse than China or Russia', so what? What's your point?

User avatar #83059 to #83056 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
My point is that China, Russia, and any other country who doesn't share Western values are practically shit. Iraq had the oportunity to build something great after Saddam was overthrown, but the fuckers didn't seize it. That's not America's problem, nor is it their fault. Only reason to why people bash on America, is because they're free to do so, unlike in so many other countries. A freedom that US provides by being what it is; a power that other tyrants don't want to fuck with. Blaming US for the civilian casualities is like blaming Israel for the Gaza casualities. The cunts hid between civilians, they blew themselves up when they had the opportunity, but who gets told they're th bad guys by the end of the day? The guys who wants to help them, who wants to provide them freedom, after decades of living under tyrants.
Fuck. That. Shit.
User avatar #83062 to #83059 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
Iraq was a country of varying and antagonistic groups made up by the British. The only history of political culture they had was the Baath party which the US dismantled by firing members from their positions after the war.

The US and others didn't provide enough soldiers to maintain security in the absence of the Baath officials and created a power vacuum.

What stepped into the vacuum was the inevitable and foreseeable chaos of removing a strong political culture which had kept a lid on problems and replacing it with nothing.

There just wasn't any transition or even a plan for transition.

As for the US bringing 'freedom' that's extremely dubious - billions of dollars disappeared somewhere, contracts were put upon the Iraqis which favoured corporations with close ties to the Bush administration, the US wrote themselves out of complying with Iraqi laws and the democracy was in the same sense of the Palestinian one - meaning if the US don't like the result it doesn't count.
User avatar #83064 to #83062 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
"a strong political culture which had kept a lid on problems"
By murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people, destroying any opposition, and attempting genocide on the Kurds. I don't have words for what you just said. I guess removing Hitler was bad aswell.
User avatar #83066 to #83064 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
Thanks for straw-manning me. But that's not what I said at all.

I'm not arguing that anything Saddam did was right.

The Americans got rid of the army and police because they were former Baathists. There was no Civil authority left and the US and others did not have the numbers to make up for that and keep security.

There was no Civil Society because they'd just had years of dictatorship, war, sanctions and more war. So without an army or police as a civil authority the country collapsed into chaos.
User avatar #83067 to #83066 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
When a society is complete and utter shit, you have to break it down in order to rebuild it. There could have been better solutions but fact remains that the Iraqis showed zero enthusiasm for a new and better future, and now that ISIS is fucking their shit up again, everyone is of course blaming the US again. Cause if you lack geo-political and historical knowledge, what better to do than blame the easiest country in the world to blame. If US wasn't around we'd all be royally fucked. I'm sure that if the US choose to stay out of conflicts from noe on, everyone would be bashing them for being self-centered and not giving a shit about the third world. If I was an American, I'd stick it to everyone else and let them handle their own business, see where that would take them. Fun fact: We can thank the US that all of Europe and possibly the world isn't fascist or communist.
User avatar #83069 to #83067 - redandgreen (04/16/2015) [-]
The US won't stay out of conflicts because it doesn't suit their political elites economic interests to do so.

Fun fact: The US doesn't have any commitment to democracy.

The US doesn't support democracy, it supports expediency, otherwise explain the list below of just some of the countries where the US have supported fascist dictators some past some current:

El Salvador
Nicaragua
Guatemala
Honduras
Panama
Chile
Iraq
Iran
Vietnam
China and later Taiwan
Pakistan
Indonesia
Bolivia
Philippines
Congo

etc. etc.

That isn't even all of them. Seriously.

User avatar #83009 to #83007 - kanadetenshi (04/16/2015) [-]
Anyone who supports the neocon war mongering based on fraud and lies supports the bombing and starving of hundred thousands of innocent Iraqis to stop someone that they personally funded.
User avatar #83000 to #82999 - radiserne (04/16/2015) [-]
Many years of tyranny*
User avatar #82997 to #82994 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/16/2015) [-]
"We're going to come to your country, depose and dissolve the current government, kill over a half million citizens through warfare, force democracy on you, and then to repay us you'll give us one of your only worthwhile resources for free"

Yeah I'm sure that would have went over well.

I completely support what we did in Iraq, but just look at it from their perspective, we haven't really made anything better, they owe us nothing
User avatar #82995 to #82994 - pebar (04/16/2015) [-]
Debt?
Was there some contract?
#82986 - anon (04/16/2015) [-]
#82978 - pebar (04/15/2015) [-]
GoRemy
Remy: Best Song Ever! (Tax Code Edition) GoRemy
User avatar #82979 to #82978 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
Isn't that channel like also very socially liberal? Like catering to the Ferguson thing and trying to be very PC?
User avatar #82980 to #82979 - pebar (04/15/2015) [-]
20 Years of Political Correctness: Q/A with Jonathan Rauch It's a libertarian magazine; they tend to be on the socially liberal side (with a handful of exceptions)
User avatar #82982 to #82980 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
Are they pro black man in the Ferguson thing? Because that basically tells me all I need to know.
User avatar #82985 to #82982 - pebar (04/15/2015) [-]
they're anti government systems that allow police to do the things they do
like the drug war
or militarized police

they're not anti black.
if that means they're pro black, fine
User avatar #82988 to #82985 - lulzforalpsplane (04/16/2015) [-]
so did they side with michael brown or not? all i need to hear
User avatar #82989 to #82988 - pebar (04/16/2015) [-]
from my research, most of their articles focus more on police in general like militarization and whether or not cops should wear body cameras

it doesn't look like they took a side
it does seem to be sympathetic to michael brown, though
User avatar #82990 to #82989 - lulzforalpsplane (04/16/2015) [-]
On the police issue, I don't really take one side over another. I go by a issue basis. Cops should definitely wear cameras but I also think they should keep the current rights they have.

Flashbanging a home and hitting a baby with it probably isn't the best idea though
#82975 - anon (04/15/2015) [-]
Did you guys hear that Hillary Clinton ate at a Chipoltle in Ohio?
User avatar #82977 to #82975 - pebar (04/15/2015) [-]
yes
#82969 - anon (04/15/2015) [-]
White Liberal Protester to Black Cop "You Don’t Understand Racism!"

White liberals need to be sent to concentration camps.
User avatar #83098 to #82969 - klowserpok ONLINE (04/18/2015) [-]
Classical liberalism wasn't so bad. From what I understand of it, anyways.
The fact that nearly every corner of the new left is marxist/maoist in nature has made it awful though.
I'd also say modern conservatives often have some of the new lefts beliefs, to the point where it doesn't even make sense to call them social conservatives.
User avatar #82981 to #82969 - titsmccracken (04/15/2015) [-]
Thanks, I guess I'll get ready for the gas chamber even though I don't take part in the SJW bullshit.
User avatar #82972 to #82969 - redandgreen (04/15/2015) [-]
No they don't. There's just a problem in some of these colleges where people are ignoring facts in favour of ideology.
User avatar #82991 to #82972 - undeadwill (04/16/2015) [-]
"Some"
User avatar #82983 to #82972 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
You probably shouldn't be admitting to being a liberal, that opens you up to a lot of generalization and stupidity.
#82973 to #82972 - anon (04/15/2015) [-]
>White female telling a black male who grew up in the south while Jim Crow laws still existed that he doesn't understand racism

This type of behavior is becoming mainstream. I see it all the time, not just from self-loathing hipster college kids. It's concentration camp worthy
User avatar #82974 to #82973 - redandgreen (04/15/2015) [-]
I agree it's absolutely stupid and massively ironic that she's telling him how he should feel about racism. I'm not sure it's that widespread though.

I don't think anything is concentration camp worthy.
User avatar #82948 - studbeefpile ONLINE (04/15/2015) [-]
Apparently Hilary's campaign logo is straight up 9/11.

Great!
User avatar #82956 to #82948 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
over-exaggeration
User avatar #82958 to #82956 - studbeefpile ONLINE (04/15/2015) [-]
that sounds like something a SHILL would say!
User avatar #82960 to #82958 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
LOL calling me of all people a shill
GTFO Newfag
User avatar #82961 to #82960 - studbeefpile ONLINE (04/15/2015) [-]
I know who you are, dingbat. It was a fucking joke.
User avatar #82962 to #82961 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
ur jokes r bad fagget
User avatar #82964 to #82962 - studbeefpile ONLINE (04/15/2015) [-]
I'm sorry my sense of humor doesn't cater specifically to you.
User avatar #82966 to #82964 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
i accept ur apology
User avatar #82949 to #82948 - schnizel ONLINE (04/15/2015) [-]
link
User avatar #82952 to #82951 - schnizel ONLINE (04/15/2015) [-]
top kek
#82946 - niggernazi (04/15/2015) [-]
Hello leftie cultural marxist fags, tell me again why we should infest our aryan motherland aka europe with inbred mongrels from the middle east/apefrica
#82967 to #82946 - anon (04/15/2015) [-]
Not a lefty, but the original argument for immigration was that it would increase the work force to help provide the money needed for pensions.

One problem was that the unskilled immigrants would take the jobs that teenagers would usually do, forcing some them out of the work force. Teens with less experience in the workforce aren't hired as rapidly as those with it

Second problem: many immigrants are recipients of welfare. The government provides their welfare from - guess what!- tax money. Obviously, this makes it counter intuitive to want more immigrants when the prime reason for allowing their immigration here was to increase taxes so the government could provide pensions/social services.

Third problem: Assimilation. When of a significantly different ethnic, cultural, or religious background compared to the native population, immigrants can't assimilate properly within a short time. Cultural and ethnic homogeneity make for a more peaceful society. If the immigrant population growth is larger than the fertility rates of the natives, the natives will end up losing their nation.
User avatar #82996 to #82967 - pebar (04/16/2015) [-]
>>#82984,
1. not really; more workers > more economy > more jobs, as long as you're not flooding the labor force

2. agreed

3. I agree that cultural differences may be objectionable, but I disagree that it's a huge problem. People with similar cultures tend to voluntarily self-segregate because they have more in common with each than everyone else.
Crime rates are a different story.
The infertility bit is a non issue because that would take a bajillion years to make a difference.
#83099 to #82996 - anon (04/18/2015) [-]
1. I agree, I was just saying that saturation of unskilled labor prevents some youths from getting jobs. Well, automation plays a part too, but that's another issue entirely.

2." Oh no, we're running out of money for social services! Lets import poor people who'll need welfare and likely education and housing provided for them out of our money! So we can collect more taxes! "

3. Actually, if a native population has a lower fertility rate than one which is immigrating, it could only take 1 or 2 hundred years. North America is a good example, though not exactly the same as whats happening in Europe, since the Africans and Muslims aren't actually slaughtering the Europeans en mass (yet).
User avatar #82984 to #82967 - lulzforalpsplane (04/15/2015) [-]
I wanna hear pebar 's thoughts on this
 Friends (0)