# U.S officals misled the public



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
I... I don't have any words to describe how I feel.


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
> I... I don't have any words to describe how I feel.


I'm just shocked, absolutely shocked. No wait, I'm not at all shocked. Call me cynical, but our leadership has been a shitfest for decades.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
> I... I don't have any words to describe how I feel.



I'll have to read about this later, but you do realize how long we've been meddling in middle eastern affairs, do you not? I think most of this mess (our involvement) started in the early 1900's when Woodrow Wilson drew an artificial border around three enemy fractions, the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis creating today's Iraq. I think it was after WII2 that we started to need their oil. Our army has been over there in some sort of official capacity for 40 years. Kid you not most of this is about Israel and Oil. The Middle East has also been in turmoil for over the past 3,000 years due to something about the Jews taking the Promised Land away from the people that are now Muslims at that time. I highly doubt the conflicts over there will ever end. People dream about a Global Word Government and peace on Earth, but fail to realize there's such a thing as middle eastern countries and Muslims that would never accept such a thing. Honestly, we'd have to wipe them off the face of the planet to get them to agree. Basically what I'm stating is this is nothing new. It's just a continuation of the way the world works. Not saying it's okay, but that region of the Earth is filled with a bunch of religious fanatical warring factions that we depend on for oil. You can see why drilling our own until we can shift over to renewables is something that should be allowed to happen.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

Who could have possibly predicted Afghanistan would become an afterthought as soon as we invaded Iraq?  /s

The sad truth is that America was so blinded by bloodlust after 9/11, we would've gone to war with any country GWB pointed his finger at.  And of course he didn't point the finger at Saudi Arabia, the country actually responsible for training and harboring almost all of the hijackers, because they're our "ally."  It's absolutely sickening, particularly when you come to the realization that Americans learned nothing from these decades of war crimes and profiteering.  It won't surprise me in the least when we do it all over again with Iran.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

Much of American foreign policy centers around corporate imperialism, something that hasn't changed since the banana wars. Taxpayers pay for our military to pursue corporate interests, over the years the industries change but the rest remains the same. Some argue this is the cost of being a 'superpower' and point to corporate imperialism as the reason for our strong economy over the decades but I have strong reservations. Especially in modern times, taking our tax dollars to help subsidize certain industries doesn't always reflect in our nation's best interest, the especially the interest of the american consumer.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2019)

Not surprised. Not shocked at all. Disgusting and they are really RETARDS! WARS WILL ONLY GETTING WORSE AND WORSE. MOST HUMAN ARE OBVIOUSLY THE SCUM ON THE EARTH. They don't know what they are doing but killing. NO LOVE AND NO PEACE. ONLY HATRED! *SHOUT*


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

if you take out afghanistan then this sounds almost like vietnam again

“We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn’t know what we were doing,”

"The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting."

http://wapo.st/2pSqA52?document=lute_doug_ll_01_d5_02202015&page=3&anno=4&filter=filter-spin


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> MOST HUMAN ARE OBVIOUSLY THE SCUM ON THE EARTH.


I can't tell if you are just responding in satire with your recent posts in almost all caps or not. Most people are just people. You can sit down and talk with them, find common understanding, and use that towards a common goal. To say otherwise is just incorrect.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I can't tell if you are just responding in satire with your recent posts in almost all caps or not. Most people are just people. You can sit down and talk with them, find common understanding, and use that towards a common goal. To say otherwise is just incorrect.



As I said. when I use the caps letters then I am shouting.

Most people are just people ? Really ? Sorry but I absolutely disagreed with you. Sit down, find common understanding, and use that towards a common goal ? Are you kidding me ? It is not getting anywhere.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> As I said. when I use the caps letters then I am shouting.
> 
> Most people are just people ? Really ? Sorry but I absolutely disagreed with you. Sit down, find common understanding, and use that towards a common goal ? Are you kidding me ? It is not getting anywhere.


Ok, I'll take us as a prime example. A primary source if you will. 

We both obviously feel conflicted about what is happening and the violence that is occurring? Yes or No?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Ok, I'll take us as a prime example. A primary source if you will.
> 
> We both obviously feel conflicted about what is happening and the violence that is occurring? Yes or No?


neither of you have a military


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

Eix said:


> neither of you have a military



Ok, if I was to put it in context with more in lines with ontopic discussion. Despite that I don't subscribe to washington post and cannot view the article in question, I will persist because specifics of the article don't have to be used to make a sound argument. A generalization of most people being scum is just incorrect. I'm not oblivious or naive of our foreign policy, as we have some goals within it that I absolutely disavow. I'll refer to my first post on this thread for evidence of that.

I move forward to show how we don't hear about how many wars different countries actually stop through trade agreements, presence of military pressure or aid.

Does it mean it doesn't occur. That there aren't successes were lives were spared and war was avoided?

If you want to specify even further into a specific region of the world fine, but when doing so, be mindful of the original statement that I brought forth an argument against.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Ok, if I was to put it in context with more in lines with ontopic discussion. Despite that I don't subscribe to washington post and cannot view the article in question, I will persist because specifics of the article don't have to be used to make a sound argument. A generalization of most people being scum is just incorrect. I'm not oblivious or naive of our foreign policy, as we have some goals within it that I absolutely disavow. I'll refer to my first post on this thread for evidence of that.
> 
> I move forward to show how we don't hear about how many wars different countries actually stop through trade agreements, presence of military pressure or aid.
> 
> ...


there are successful talks but...
the united states is kinda not the kind of country to sit down and seriously talk once the fighting starts unless something really big happens


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

Eix said:


> there are successful talks but...
> the united states is kinda not the kind of country to sit down and seriously talk once the fighting starts unless something really big happens


I agree. I think it has alot to do with who we helm the ship. We have put so many people at the wheel (congressmen and presidents) over the years who all have made mistakes, alot of them. Getting other Americans to vote and support people who can make better decisions is a strong option. This is kinda where I was going to go to with my 1-1 w/ @azoreseuropa but I may have missed the mark as I wanted to lead into it without trying to just sound preachy.

If people (Americans) sit down, discuss and are informed, I believe they will make the right choice in supporting and electing representatives that will mirror the values and policies we want as a whole. It's... difficult and trying at times, but that is where I believe as a mindset of finding common understanding and a common goal plays.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If people (Americans) sit down, discuss and are informed, I believe they will make the right choice in supporting and electing representatives that will mirror the values and policies we want as a whole. It's... difficult and trying at times, but that is where I believe as a mindset of finding common understanding and a common goal plays.



Hahaha.. you really wish it is that simple. Absolutely no. It won't happen before and it won't happen in the future. Never. You keep your eyes on the SIGN of this world. It is only getting much much worse than you ever imagine in the future. Much worse!


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Hahaha.. you really wish it is that simple. Absolutely no. It won't happen before and it won't happen in the future. Never. You keep your eyes on the SIGN of this world. It is only getting much much worse than you ever imagine in the future. Much worse!


I think it is possible with the majority. I'm sure you will find partisan zealots on both sides of the spectrum who have long tuned out to reason and logic. Most people can still be open to discussion, the issue first is obtaining common ground, to do that you must be able to at least be open to their concerns and find the root of that concern, you may actually be surprised to find that you and another who think differently share the same concern once it is distilled to the root. If you think 'most people' are scum then you may need to spend time to find more people because it sounds like you are working with a pretty small sample size. If that is a geographical limitation then the internet is here.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think it is possible with the majority. I'm sure you will find partisan zealots on both sides of the spectrum who have long tuned out to reason and logic. Most people can still be open to discussion, the issue first is obtaining common ground, to do that you must be able to at least be open to their concerns and find the root of that concern, you may actually be surprised to find that you and another who think differently share the same concern once it is distilled to the root. If you think 'most people' are scum then you may need to spend time to find more people because it sounds like you are working with a pretty small sample size. If that is a geographical limitation then the internet is here.



I am sorry but I am not talking about working with a pretty small sample size. What you see will not work and it will never work at all. Why ? You need to woke up:

The war was happened because they didn't accept difference. what Nazi try to do was cleanse other race.
and what Master and Enclave try to do is not changed since WW2. not only WW2 has same meaning there's tons of wars that happened because they don't accept differences. It never changes, all the effects of it are the same.

You gotta pay attention, @RationalityIsLost101

Humans, in all their intellectual might, have cranked up the volume to the max, so war gets a bit more extreme - like genocide, holocaust, chemical, biological and nuclear warfare, entire destruction of planet and large portion of its biosphere...that kinda stuff.

But in core, it's all the same. Domination. Wealth. Power.

From all that comes war. War never changes.

Yes, war never changes. Period and simple!


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I am sorry but I am not talking about working with a pretty small sample size. What you see will not work and it will never work at all. Why ? You need to woke up:
> 
> The war was happened because they didn't accept difference. what Nazi try to do was cleanse other race.
> and what Master and Enclave try to do is not changed since WW2. not only WW2 has same meaning there's tons of wars that happened because they don't accept differences. It never changes, all the effects of it are the same.
> ...


People will war. But the potential for peace is there for those who fight for it. 'Most people' aren't scum - 'Most people' desire peace. That is a common ground that can be leveraged to prevent war. If bad actors are allowed into power, and good people do nothing, then atrocities will be committed for those individuals to dominate in attempts to gain more wealth and power.


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Most people' desire peace


I don't know, nearly half the nation voted for a white supremacist and talk about 'owning' the snowflakes, with strong support for guns, loose gun control, and poor education.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I don't know, nearly half the nation voted for a white supremacist and talk about 'owning' the snowflakes, with strong support for guns, loose gun control, and poor education.


Well, almost half of the voting electorate, I'm perplexed about that as well, but I think it has more to do with the root cause of frustration. Most people who desired Trump over another republican candidate (that wasn't a white supremacist) felt they were ignored, 'that the government stopped working for them'. There's concern that jobs were being sent overseas. This is really offtopic but its interesting as there is common ground that people feel corporations get much better tax rates, hold the power over our own public representatives, etc. 

I'm going to depart from this thread though as I'm boderline derailing it, I can't actually view the attached article and left my thoughts on it already.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

So blame Bush? ROFL ... 3,000 years of history over there and it's the Republican's fault? Want to play partisan shit? Trump got hate for bringing troops home from that shit hole of a region. We simply depend on their natural resources and are embedded with Israel. It's also not our fault that the Muslim faith dictates they kill anyone that disagrees with them. "Kill all the infidels and non believers!" I mean, they're so tolerant to the LGBTQ people. You know, how if they find out your LGBTQ they throw you off a 13 story building. Regardless, we shouldn't be over there telling them how to run their countries and what do to. We should be drilling for oil in our own Country. If some asshole came to my land and tried to exploit my nation I'd probably ram jumbo jets into their tallest buildings in one of their most valuable cities too. By now in this point in history you should come to expect drama over there.


----------



## leon315 (Dec 10, 2019)

ANYONE TELL USA that war is already over??


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

leon315 said:


> ANYONE TELL USA that war is already over??




It's not. We've been unofficially at war most of the entire time our official wars have ended. Seeings as some assholes in Washington get to define what war is exactly. Remind me again what we're doing all over the world?


----------



## leon315 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> It's not. We've been unofficially at war most of the entire time our official wars have ended. Seeings as some assholes in Washington get to define what war is exactly. Remind me again what we're doing all over the world?


the wars are indeed over but USA won't stop looking for Oil everywhere and so busy to bring ''DEMOCRACY'' to the rest of world


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

leon315 said:


> the wars are indeed over but USA won't stop looking for Oil everywhere and so busy to bring ''DEMOCRACY'' to the rest of world



The "official wars" are over. There's a system in place in the USA to declare war with another country. The politicians simply figured out a way to bypass that and the general public could care less. We have our smart phones, cars, video games and big screen TV's. Who cares about what happens to a bunch of primitive people, their country and their heritage? All hail the worldwide empire! In the name of worldwide socialism under the guise of globalism with the promise of world peace!


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Who cares about what happens to a bunch of primitive people, their country and their heritage?




Yep you have problems.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> All hail the worldwide empire! In the name of worldwide socialism under the guise of globalism with the promise of world peace!


Again. you have some severe issues. United States is a capitalist democratic republic.
The united states allowing corporations to take advantage of other countries is a failing of regulation. That has multiple solutions. None of which is _socialism_.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

technically if we want to go into more detail, The united states economy could be more described as a mixed economy  due to occasional state intervention due to regulations with parts of the free market.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Yep you have problems.



That's not how I feel. That's the way we treat their region of the world. Most of what I said was sarcasm based on how the general public supports or simply ignores what's going on over there. You clearly need to take some reading comprehension classes or just need more experience conversing with people. Especially people with opposing viewpoints. Although, if you think we (the national overall) care what happens to a bunch of primitive people from the middle east, their country and their heritage maybe you should check yourself into a clinic and ask them for some reality serum. I care. I think it's fucked up we can't drill for our own oil and have to go fuck with other people. I think it's fucked up that the general public only cares about what's happening in Hollywood or what some moron is only allowed to say on Twitter and could care less where the resources used to create the phones they use, the cars they drive, the computers they type on, the HDTV's they watch, the Nike shoes they're wearing actually come from.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

@cots is shoehorning his conspiracy theories about socialism being pushed by republican leadership now too I guess. Given how the foreign policy of the US has largely remained the same under democrats and republicans for 30+ years. I'd say definitely since 9/11. This isn't just a president thing but a congress thing.

The much more logical thing is occam's razor which states this is due to corporate imperialism which is a much more accurate term for what people are using the term globalism.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> @cots is shoehorning his conspiracy theories about socialism being pushed by republican leadership now too I guess. Given how the foreign policy of the US has largely remained the same under democrats and republicans for 30+ years. I'd say definitely since 9/11. This isn't just a president thing but a congress thing.
> 
> The much more logical thing is occam's razor which states this is due to corporate imperialism which is a much more accurate term for what people are using the term globalism.



No. The goal of the socialism pushing elitists is part of The Globalist Agenda. You know, a one world Government. The thing is without killing off or taking over the countries that don't want to go along with it it's not going to ever happen. Is everything now that goes against the socialist agenda a conspiracy theory? You gotta love how "the other sides" opinions are simply labeled "far right talking points" or "Fox news propaganda" and should be immediately discarded and ignored. Well, I don't belong to a party that tells me what I can or cannot think. So I have the advantage. Without all of the facts from all sides you don't have the knowledge/complete picture and knowing is half of the battle.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

@cots you made me laugh so hard that I'm going to give you a like. I mean seriously I can't even continue this was a tremendous comedic performance.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> @cots you made me laugh so hard that I'm going to give you a like. I mean seriously I can't even continue this was a tremendous comedic performance.



You like the throwback to G.I. Joe? Those real life lessons after the cartoon were pretty valuable.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

@cots

I think i'm just going to leave and laugh my ass off. I'm on the same page with rational here. What a comedian


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> @cots
> View attachment 189533
> I think i'm just going to leave and laugh my ass off. I'm on the same page with rational here. What a comedian



While you're at it read the page.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> While you're at it read the page.


AND IT'S WRITTEN BY G EDWARD GRIFFIN!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin




I don't think I can even take this seriously. this is comical

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I think someones been drinking the kool aid.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> While you're at it read the page.




 
THE KOOL AID IS REAL BOIS.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> AND IT'S WRITTEN BY G EDWARD GRIFFIN!
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin



Great. Now that I have your attention (and laughs) maybe we can get serious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...-un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism
https://www.aim.org/special-report/...da-drugs-money-the-media-and-political-power/ - Take notice of Soros is a "global capitalist" then ask yourself "What media outlets does he own?".
https://www.facebook.com/UN-EU-IMF-...e-world-Socialist-Government-108407740505911/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism - Search for the word "global"
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3045-the-dark-agenda-behind-globalism-and-open-borders

Of course, none of the 2020 Candidates would go along with this;

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/warren-democratic-socialist-agenda/


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Great. Now that I have your attention (and laughs) maybe we can get serious.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
> ...


NOPE
Because you used that seriously. So now I'm going down the rabbithole, let's see what shit you've got yourself into mr cots
For anyone who wants to know, the link to edward on the site that cots linked http://www.globalistagenda.org/who.htm
This pretends to have a dead link or domain on attempt to click his name.
Wayback machine however helps reveal the "secret society" here and gives us a redirection address... I'm going to have to make my own thread on this because goddamn you've got yourself into some shit cots.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Anyways let's get back on track shall we? I prefer to have a good discussion on actual things.
It's kind of sad to find this out (referring to the article I linked) I mean I partially knew it. I just, didn't want to believe the scope of how bad it was.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> NOPE
> Because you used that seriously. So now I'm going down the rabbithole, let's see what shit you've got yourself into mr cots
> For anyone who wants to know, the link to edward on the site that cots linked http://www.globalistagenda.org/who.htm
> This pretends to have a dead link or domain on attempt to click his name.
> Wayback machine however helps reveal the "secret society" here and gives us a redirection address... I'm going to have to make my own thread on this because goddamn you've got yourself into some shit cots.



If your presumption of why I used that link justifies you not taking a serious look into the issue then I guess your claims that there is no globalist agenda won't be substantiated by anything other then "I refused to look at the evidence so I know I'm right". Sorta like the justification for not considering the other sides stance is "it's all conspiracy theories" or "fox news propaganda". Sure, keep letting your brainwashed peers and leaders tell you that and never ever question them. That's against their rules.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> People will war. But the potential for peace is there for those who fight for it. 'Most people' aren't scum - 'Most people' desire peace. That is a common ground that can be leveraged to prevent war. If bad actors are allowed into power, and good people do nothing, then atrocities will be committed for those individuals to dominate in attempts to gain more wealth and power.



Most people desire peace ? Correction: Some people desire peace, not most people!

I see where you are going.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Anyways let's get back on track shall we? I prefer to have a good discussion on actual things.
> It's kind of sad to find this out (referring to the article I linked) I mean I partially knew it. I just, didn't want to believe the scope of how bad it was.



Okay, forgetting there is a globalist agenda you haven't really addressed any of my other replies. I can overlook the fact you're in denial. That's fine. The Middle East is the main subject matter, regardless that we want to take the region over.

The region (the middle east) has been in turmoil for 3,000 years and we're over there on the sole basis of protecting Israel and plundering the region of the world for oil. The tree huggers in the USA prevent us from using our own natural resources and most of the general public could care less where they come from - as long as they don't have be involved in any way. They just want their cheap shit. The USA Liberals are also protecting and erasing anything bad that's said about their Muslim population or the fact that their Bible dictates they murder us for not believing what they do. So it's okay to decimate against Christians for simply stating that homosexuality is a sin, yet it's perfectly fine to protect Muslims and ban people from social media for stating that they'll throw you off a 13 story building if they find out you're gay.

So we have the general public from every side of the political spectrum that wants their cheap shit, don't care that we exploit that region of the world to get the cheap shit, then the tree huggers refuse to allow us to use our own resources so we could avoid things like pissing off the local population of the places we're plundering that in return is answered by their radical citizens who are hell bent on killing us and then the main stream media wants to hide the fact they're hell bent on killing us. We should not be over there plundering their natural resources. We should be using our own and shouldn't be meddling in their affairs.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> If your presumption of why I used that link justifies you not taking a serious look into the issue then I guess your claims that there is no globalist agenda won't be substantiated by anything other then "I refused to look at the evidence so I know I'm right". Sorta like the justification for not considering the other sides stance is "it's all conspiracy theories" or "fox news propaganda". Sure, keep letting your brainwashed peers and leaders tell you that and never ever question them. That's against their rules.


Cots people don't just casually come across sites like that unless someone is knee deep in kool aid. The reason I'm disregarding is because it's a conspiracy by a known person for conspiracies. Therefore I don't have to argue against it, because it's false. You don't listen to someone who is known for lying or making shit up do you?


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Cots people don't just casually come across sites like that unless someone is knee deep in kool aid. The reason I'm disregarding is because it's a conspiracy by a known person for conspiracies. Therefore I don't have to argue against it, because it's false. You don't listen to someone who is known for lying or making shit up do you?



I said we can overlook the issue. How about you address what I brought up? You do realize that conflict over there is nothing new?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

@cots, if you seriously took a look at corporate imperialism, see how that relates in our foreign policy and trade, and then described how that is not the case but it in fact is secret one world agenda. I promise I'll read your links. 

But I'm going to go on a hunch and say you allowed people to manipulate your frustration of corporations hijacking our politics to push for policies that didn't have the american public's interest at heart and direct it into something that allows a smaller group to be the real 'bad guys'.

Capitalism isn't bad. Just maybe not let corporations buy our politicians? Get super pacs and corporate money out of politics and keep it small-dollar donation? Keep our politicians financially accountable to us as well as politically accountable?

This messaging of common ideas is something that people on both sides want. Just saying.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> @cots, if you seriously took a look at corporate imperialism, see how that relates in our foreign policy and trade, and then described how that is not the case but it in fact is secret one world agenda. I promise I'll read your links.
> 
> But I'm going to go on a hunch and say you allowed people to manipulate your frustration of corporations hijacking our politics to push for policies that didn't have the american public's interest at heart and direct it into something that allows a smaller group to be the real 'bad guys'.
> 
> ...



When it comes to plundering the Middle East for resources our entire country is guilty as charged. BTW - Globalism and the entire desire for a one world Government isn't a secret. I've been learning about it since we started learning basic World History in the 3rd grade. Something about the basic ideals on why the U.N. was established and the theory behind why a one world government would benefit the planet. It just happens that the vision back then was a global capitalistic society and now it's a global socialistic society. Whatever, MoneyKid wants to focus on the Middle East. I think he wants to know more about why we're over there fighting an off the books war that'll we'll never win.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> When it comes to plundering the Middle East for resources our entire country is guilty as charged. BTW - Globalism and the entire desire for a one world Government isn't a secret. I've been learning about it since we started learning basic World History in the 3rd grade. Something about the basic ideals on why the U.N. was established and the theory behind why a one world government would benefit the planet. It just happens that the vision back then was a global capitalistic society and now it's a global socialistic society.


Nothing has changed, just that you've been mislead to think globalism runs in a different name under different pretenses. This also isn't an adequate response for what I requested. I'm not going to do circular arguments. This isn't something that is going to take 5min. Go take the time and learn about corporate imperialism and then come back and tell me how I'm mistaken, that it isn't the driving factor behind our foreign policy or trade in the past 20-40yrs, ill be lenient argue whichever time frame you want within that range. Go open another thread that isn't hijacking this one. I'm a person of my word, if you do that and I'll do the same for your one world thing. Quid pro quo!


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> I said we can overlook the issue. How about you address what I brought up? You do realize that conflict over there is nothing new?



Maybe you should let it go. Those people are not getting anywhere. It will be endless pages and more arguments. Thats not worth.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Maybe you should let it go. Those people are not getting anywhere. It will be endless pages and more arguments. Thats not worth.



He mentally can't, its part of his agenda and core belief now. Don't hold it against



azoreseuropa said:


> Most people desire peace ? Correction: Some people desire peace, not most people!
> 
> I see where you are going.



We can agree to disagree. I still think its an issue of people coming to power (and exploiting others to stay in power) that desire war more than an entire populous (minus a few people who desire peace) who desires war.

I agree though that people who exploit others from a standpoint of fear, using religon or race to gain or stay in power, those people are bad actors (aka scum).


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Maybe you should let it go. Those people are not getting anywhere. It will be endless pages and more arguments. Thats not worth.



I agree they deflected and pounced on the known globalist agenda. I think it might be hard to address the fact that us being over in the Middle East is supported by the majority of our entire country. Can't claim "Orange man bad" on this one. I'll wait until they start discussing why were at war over there this time I suppose (hint - it's for oil we can't drill for in our own country).


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> I agree they deflected and pounced on the known globalist agenda. I think it might be hard to address the fact that us being over in the Middle East is supported by the majority of our entire country. Can't claim "Orange man bad" on this one. I'll wait until they start discussing why were at war over there this time I suppose (hint - it's for oil we can't drill for in our own country).


That's interesting. You are so convinced in a conspiracy pushed by a known conspirator that you wouldn't even look at alternative evidence.

We all knew that involvement in the middle-east by the US largely involved the oil industries. *Seems like corporations pushing foreign policy via our nation to control the market of oil supply/demand.* Ignore corporate imperialism if you desire to continue to be distracted by known conspiracies of one world government.

I see you are the one that deflected and then projected false narratives onto those who don't subscribe to conspiracies to explain our politics. Your logical fallacies aren't difficult to follow.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> I agree they deflected and pounced on the known globalist agenda. I think it might be hard to address the fact that us being over in the Middle East is supported by the majority of our entire country. Can't claim "Orange man bad" on this one. I'll wait until they start discussing why were at war over there this time I suppose (hint - it's for oil we can't drill for in our own country).



I understand your point. Right now, I back off and let it go. As I said before.. It is not getting anywhere. It will be circle and circle with no ends. That's how people are argument about corruption, power, war and hatred. Not worth.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> That's interesting. You are so convinced in a conspiracy pushed by a known conspirator that you wouldn't even look at alternative evidence.
> 
> We all knew that involvement in the middle-east by the US largely involved the oil industries. *Seems like corporations pushing foreign policy via our nation to control the market of oil supply/demand.* Ignore corporate imperialism if you desire to continue to be distracted by known conspiracies of one world government.
> 
> I see you are the one that deflected and then projected false narratives onto those who don't subscribe to conspiracies to explain our politics. Your logical fallacies aren't difficult to follow.



So the oil. You agree we're involved in the middle east solely for their oil? Why exactly have we been in an 18 year conflict with Afghanistan? What was the reason this time? Should we be over there to begin with? What do you think about drilling for oil in our own country? What do you think about how we deal with the radical Muslims that don't like the fact we've been invading their countries?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> We all knew that involvement in the middle-east by the US largely involved the oil industries. *Seems like corporations pushing foreign policy via our nation to control the market of oil supply/demand.* Ignore corporate imperialism if you desire to continue to be distracted by known conspiracies of one world government.


The thing is, it's not necessarily an either/or proposition.  People who are heavily invested in the 'one world government' conspiracy theory fail to grasp the bigger picture: it's only achievable if all developed nations succumb to authoritarian or fascist rule.  Which means that by focusing solely on the government as the source of all our problems without paying attention to how much of government is owned by corporations, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The more "businessmen" we elect to government, the more government is concerned with becoming a money-making venture, and the less it's concerned with preserving our rights as humans and Americans.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I understand your point. Right now, I back off and let it go. As I said before.. It is not getting anywhere. It will be circle and circle with no ends. That's how people are argument about corruption, power, war and hatred. Not worth.



I hit a nerve.  Seeings as you're willing to address the other issues.

Let me ask you about the same thing I just asked. The oil. Do you agree we're involved in the middle east solely for their oil? Why exactly have we been in an 18 year conflict with Afghanistan? What was the reason this time? Should we be over there to begin with? What do you think about drilling for oil in our own country? What do you think about how we deal with the Muslims that don't like the fact we've been invading their countries?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> So the oil. You agree we're involved in the middle east solely for their oil? Why exactly have we been in an 18 year conflict with Afghanistan? What was the reason this time? Should we be over there to begin with? What do you think about drilling oil in our own country? What do you think about how we deal with the radical Muslims?



None of these questions concern with what I originally presented, if you want to discuss those we can if you start another thread. I'm done hijacking someone else's thread as well. This is you attempting to change the conversation as you don't have footing on the one you were on, largely because conspiracy theories don't have footing to stand on...



cots said:


> I hit a nerve.


No, he understands the futility of circular arguments. Which is where I'll take my queue to depart as well. I've requested something from you in post #44, if you want to further conversation then you'll comply, otherwise I'll abstain in replying. This is yet another time where I specifically ask something to discuss a topic further and you stonewall.


----------



## cots (Dec 11, 2019)

@notimp - This thread covers the issue you just brought up in the impeachment thread. And no, the public doesn't care. People don't care about the war. They have their wide screen tv's, carbon producing cars, smart phones, nike shoes, fast food, happy pills and illegal drugs. Most people could care less where any of that comes from or the prices the rest of the world has to pay for it. What some moron is only allowed to post on Twitter is more important to people than some war they aren't subjected to because their main stream media pushes a pro-Muslim agenda (to purposely keep the subject buried, which is funny because Liberals supposedly support LGBTQ and women's rights and apparently have no idea what Muslims to do women and anyone they find out is LGBTQ plus they have some weird family values). Although, it's not just the Liberals that support the war (they claim not to, but then they support the Muslims (try bringing up negative stuff about the Qur'an on social media) and won't allow us to drill for our own oil in the USA knowing damn well that will keep us in the Middle East). The Conservatives see it as a meal ticket and really don't care where the oil comes from - they just want to drill for it in the USA to make more of a profit. Environmentalists claim to care about the environment, but it seems to only include where they are living. Everyone is so full of shit when it comes to this issue as most of the entire USA could care less (regardless of what they tell you). You'll see as this "story" will be gone within less than two weeks (if not a single week). Impeaching Trump and buying Baby Yoda merchandise are much more pressing issues (and both share about the same actual value - as in no value what-so-ever).


----------



## notimp (Dec 11, 2019)

Yeah, public morality on those issues seems to shift if it gets too 'hurtful' or actually problematic for the (state or) public 'sense of self'.

So whenever there is a sizeable conflict on 'wait, what we did was bad and amoral?' - public opinion basically sides with 'kill the messenger'.

Also - when an action would be largely detrimental to your own economic foundation - the same logic applies.


Regardless. It is better to act on a common principal of "we are bound by (the principal of) being the moral good guys" because it makes 'informed moral dissent' (think preacher speeches in churches), on a lower level possible. And society as a whole more 'healthy' if that is set in place. There are red lines though - where the public would rather look away for the rest of their lives, than to confront actual information out there.

"So transparency will set us free" is flawed as a concept. (Still not bad, just flawed..  )

Thats my opinion on this.


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 11, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Cots people don't just casually come across sites like that unless someone is knee deep in kool aid. The reason I'm disregarding is because it's a conspiracy by a known person for conspiracies. Therefore I don't have to argue against it, because it's false. You don't listen to someone who is known for lying or making shit up do you?


Hey a broken clock is right twice a day  [/Devil's Advocate]


----------

