Posts by brightjackal7

On this fairly active forum, my question has been sitting there for six hours now, waiting for some clarification on these forum terms.

There hasn't been an answer, and frankly, I don't expect one ever will come.

briskfox65 said:The headline itself is misleading. When people talk about "international consensus," they really just mean the opinions of the USA, Israel, and maybe the United Kingdom. It’s anyone's guess why the voices of nearly two billion Chinese and Indian people aren't being counted in that equation.
Remember the war in Lebanon? You had 178 countries involved, but only three—those same three—were actually asking the questions.

I can already hear you claiming Americans went into Iraq just for the oil. How predictably cliché!

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, ignoring the fact that Iraq was basically a one-party dictatorship where 60% were Shia and 205 Kurds had zero rights.
In that country, you had a tiny 20% Arab minority running everything. Honestly, it’s pretty creepy if you think about it.

👍

I made a fundamental error. By asking too many questions at once, I handed them a way out—they can simply cherry-pick the parts that suit their narrative, twist the context, and essentially answer their own version of my inquiry instead.

What I should have done was be blunt and direct: what is actually happening to the people in Mexico, and why is such rampant violence being tolerated right up to the US border?

I won't get a straight answer from any of the "intellectuals" on this board. The responses will likely just be diversions about "dealing with radicals in the Middle East" or some other equally absurd deflection. Hypocrisy, double standards, blatant subjectivity, and racism—that is the distilled essence of this subforum.

Frank Moore4 said:Honestly, this whole "oil conspiracy" angle is just classic demagoguery. It’s the go-to excuse for people whose entire job seems to be defending certain dictators while constantly bashing the USA.

Like every other pro-American person in this forum, you have a poorly constructed defense—that single bullet of "you all just did it for the oil" that you always fire off first.

Fine. America didn't intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya for oil. Let’s completely discard that "amateur" thesis.

Let’s instead take the statements of their own presidents before they sent their young men into those countries.

March 19, 2011 - Barack Obama: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

March 19, 2003 - George W. Bush: American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the w...orld from grave danger.

We see that Americans are consistent with their reasoning and, honestly, they never mention oil. How foolish and naive we must be for thinking otherwise.

But let's analyze these very similar statements. They launch into action to respond to the cries of people whose lives and freedoms are under threat.

I am choosing you, General, to answer me:

- what freedoms does the people of Iraq actually have today?
- what freedoms does the people of Afghanistan actually have today?
- what freedoms do you think the people of Libya will have by this time next year?

And as bonus questions:

- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Yemen (where the regime is responsible for about 50 deaths in the last week, including several foreigners)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Syria (where the regime is responsible for about 10 protesters killed in the last few days)?
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies and democratic aspirations in Bahrain (where the Saudi army is entering the country, and there is even footage on YouTube of a protester being shot in the middle of the street)?

And finally, a super-bonus question:
- why do Americans tolerate the repressive policies of the cartels in Mexico, right on the doorstep of their land full of freedom and democracy? Why isn't it unsettling to think that south of the border, 30,000 people (yes, thirty thousand) have been killed in the last five years?

Why was Libya the first choice for peace and democracy, and do you truly believe they will extend their democratic actions to the aforementioned countries anytime soon, especially considering reports that CIA operatives have been maneuvering in Yemen in recent days?

Once you answer that, take a look at the actual results these democratic methods have yielded globally. If you can't remember, I'll remind you again: Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two are sufficient examples. Honestly, I don't expect any coherent response.