8 ms·

Or the continued drone war that is inflicting a continuous terror on many civilians. Now considerd standard operating procedure and no longer mentioned in the m

Or the continued drone war that is inflicting a continuous terror on many civilians. Now considerd standard operating procedure and no longer mentioned in the media. Imagine living your life not knowing if the coffee place you are visiting is in a drones cross hairs. Then image what kind of hate you would feel towards the country inflicting this terror on you. This is not how you solve extremism and bring peace. This is how you make it worse.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
Yup. The USA has actively created plenty of shitholes - in places where the faces are not pure European white - and that gets zero public reaction. The current POTUS uses the word shithole to describe a group of countries and he's X, Y and Z. Yeah, Trump is a moron. But the hypocrisy of the press and the public is a moral violation.
- CocaKoala 9y ago
  You're aware that a lot of people are upset about the sentiment expressed and not the word used to express it, correct?
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    You're aware that the alleged sentiment of a word pales in comparison to actual actions that need no bias interpretation in order to be upsetting to anyone with a moral compass, correct? Put another way: Stick and stones and MIC drones are breaking non-white bones and you're worried about the alleged sentimate of a word? Turn off the MSM and get a new less rose coloured filter.
    - totalZero 9y ago
      What does your argument even mean? I'm reading it as "since there are drone strikes, it is not worth criticizing an American president for referring to poorer nations as 'shitholes'." Why can't you say "we want fewer drone strikes, and also more dignified and respectable leaders"? How are the two issues of drones and Trump's foul comment linked in any way?
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Perhaps you need to get back to my original comment and then drill down. The "sentiment" is obvious. I see no reason to repeat what was already stating the obvious. In short: Actions speak louder than words. And if "shithole" is going to raise a ruckus, then where is the ruckus for the shitholes our actions are creating? Why is there silence for death and outrage for a word? How is that not hypocritical? The fact that you're wanting to push back only reaffirms my point. That is: We. Are. Lost. And at the mercy of a compass-less MSM. I hope that helps. Issue closed.
  - tux1968 9y ago
    Isn't the sentiment expressed by that word essentially "country with a lot of problems"? Is it much worse than saying "ours is the best country in the world"? Both are pretty insulting.
    - CocaKoala 9y ago
      The sentiment expressed by the word is essentially "country with a lot of problems", yes. But the sentiment expressed by the statement as a whole is "We don't want people from those countries, we don't want to help them, we don't want them to access the American Dream. Despite our part in screwing up the world, we're not interesting in putting forth effort to help the people who have gotten screwed". And the "we" in that statement is Trump, who speaks for the nation as its president.
      - tux1968 9y ago
        There is a plausible alternative motivation of wanting to protect the American Dream (for those already here in the country) rather than an evil desire to deny it to others. Of course reasonable people can disagree on the degree of the threat posed by immigration. But you have to admit that if every person on earth moved to America overnight, life as we know it would be changed for the worse forever. Therefore it is reasonable to question where on the scale from 0% to 100% of the world population should be welcomed with open arms at the border. And it's not a huge leap to go from that question to the idea that not every single applicant for admittance poses the same threat (if any) as another -- so some discrimination between them is not only logical, but just. If you accept the above conclusion, then it's quite possible for that word he used to be a reasonable idea expressed in an uncharitable manner.
        CocaKoala 9y ago
        I don't quite understand your argument here. You posit that a reasonable position on immigration for America is that we should not have one hundred percent open borders, welcome all comers. And furthermore, since a reasonable position is that we should not welcome all comers, whoever they may be, we obviously need some way to establish who in particular is welcome, and who in particular is not. I agree with you as far as that goes. But then you go further to say that it's possible that Trump was trying to express the position you just described, albeit in an uncharitable and rude way, and that's where you lose me. It's possible that you could theorize a hypothetical person who expresses that sentiment in that manner, but is that hypothetical person Donald Trump, with all the context of his previous comments and decisions? Because we're not talking about a hypothetical here, we're talking about actual sentiments expressed by an actual person, with a history racial insensitivity (to put it lightly) and heavy-handed bans that have no legal basis (again, to put it lightly). It's not meaningful to come up with hypotheticals unless you attribute that hypothetical to Trump, and attributing this one to him means that it needs to be squared with his previous actions and positions. In my opinion, it seems fantastically unlikely that he was trying to express your position; if you believe differently, I'd be interested in your reasoning.
- totalZero 9y ago
  The USA has contributed to the development of plenty of flourishing economies. Panama is a rich nation thanks in large part to international cargo shipment. American tourists spend heavily in several other Latin American and Caribbean economies. South Korea is one of the most highly developed nations in the world, despite having been relatively poor prior to the Korean War. Canada and Mexico have benefited for years from NAFTA. World War 2 would have been very different for the Allies if it weren't for American weaponry and involvement. NATO may not have withstood the Cold War were it not for American might. Maybe you can give some examples to support the narrative of Americans creating poor conditions in non-European countries. It's certainly not Afghanistan, which had been a warzone for a long time before 9/11, which provoked American involvement. And though it's possible, it's hard to argue that Iraqi instability was the sole result of American invasion, as Saddam had massacred several hundred thousand of his own citizens and was trying to change the ethnic makeup of northern Iraq to dampen Kurdish separatism. So I'm not sure to which countries you are referring.
  - newfoundglory 9y ago
    America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t start after 9/11.
    - nbsd4lyfe 9y ago
      the first gulf war was in 1990 and the US was a party to it
      - newfoundglory 9y ago
        In 1955 the US was part of the creation of the Baghdad Pact. In the 1970s the US supported a Kurdish uprising against the Iraqi government.
  - lovethebombs 9y ago
    America's track record in South-America is pretty poor. For a long time it was a proxy battle ground for the Cold War. And Trump just cut most of the relief funding, so a lot of social welfare programs are being cut short. Making countries rich is part of geopolitical strategy (for instance, West-Germany vs. East-Germany). For every country that the US "made rich" is a country where life expectancy went way down due to US involvement.
- patall 9y ago
  While I agree that Trump is not the stable genius he thinks he is, the drone war existed before. We are speaking of a nobel peace prize winner who seemingly did not have either the ability to recognize the hell he helped create or the b----s to stand against his military advisors to stop it. You can blame Trump for a lot but even when there were smarter people in power, it wasn't much better. I want to believe that Chealsey Manning can change something but do not really believe in it.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Correct. Trump says "shithole" and the MSM lathers the public into a frenzy. Yet, the previous administration(s) actively created shitholes - which btw taxes dollar also go to fixing - and the response to that has been crickets from the MSM and the proles. Trump can be a fool. But there is quite a bit of truth to his perception of the MSM, and how that impacts public opinion. Fake News isn't just about facts. Fake News is also about what the MSM highlights v what it does not. Not everything that gets report is news. Unless of course it fits a narrative, drives advertising dollar and/or masks the need to report on something more important.
    - patall 9y ago
      I do not think that the media is really the problem, its just somehow the topic does not get all the traction it needs to succeed politically. 'Collateral murder' was all over the media but still nothing happened. The NSA affair was all over the media and nothing happened. Maybe at this point politics does not really care anymore as long as its not to their own political benefit.
wz1000 9y ago
> inflicting a continuous terror on many civilians There are no civilians - obviously all males that look above 15 are terrorists.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Yup. The USA has actively created plenty of shitholes - in places where the faces are not pure European white - and that gets zero public reaction. The current POTUS uses the word shithole to describe a group of countries and he's X, Y and Z. Yeah, Trump is a moron. But the hypocrisy of the press and the public is a moral violation.

CocaKoala 9y ago
You're aware that a lot of people are upset about the sentiment expressed and not the word used to express it, correct?
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  You're aware that the alleged sentiment of a word pales in comparison to actual actions that need no bias interpretation in order to be upsetting to anyone with a moral compass, correct? Put another way: Stick and stones and MIC drones are breaking non-white bones and you're worried about the alleged sentimate of a word? Turn off the MSM and get a new less rose coloured filter.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    What does your argument even mean? I'm reading it as "since there are drone strikes, it is not worth criticizing an American president for referring to poorer nations as 'shitholes'." Why can't you say "we want fewer drone strikes, and also more dignified and respectable leaders"? How are the two issues of drones and Trump's foul comment linked in any way?
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      Perhaps you need to get back to my original comment and then drill down. The "sentiment" is obvious. I see no reason to repeat what was already stating the obvious. In short: Actions speak louder than words. And if "shithole" is going to raise a ruckus, then where is the ruckus for the shitholes our actions are creating? Why is there silence for death and outrage for a word? How is that not hypocritical? The fact that you're wanting to push back only reaffirms my point. That is: We. Are. Lost. And at the mercy of a compass-less MSM. I hope that helps. Issue closed.
- tux1968 9y ago
  Isn't the sentiment expressed by that word essentially "country with a lot of problems"? Is it much worse than saying "ours is the best country in the world"? Both are pretty insulting.
  - CocaKoala 9y ago
    The sentiment expressed by the word is essentially "country with a lot of problems", yes. But the sentiment expressed by the statement as a whole is "We don't want people from those countries, we don't want to help them, we don't want them to access the American Dream. Despite our part in screwing up the world, we're not interesting in putting forth effort to help the people who have gotten screwed". And the "we" in that statement is Trump, who speaks for the nation as its president.
    - tux1968 9y ago
      There is a plausible alternative motivation of wanting to protect the American Dream (for those already here in the country) rather than an evil desire to deny it to others. Of course reasonable people can disagree on the degree of the threat posed by immigration. But you have to admit that if every person on earth moved to America overnight, life as we know it would be changed for the worse forever. Therefore it is reasonable to question where on the scale from 0% to 100% of the world population should be welcomed with open arms at the border. And it's not a huge leap to go from that question to the idea that not every single applicant for admittance poses the same threat (if any) as another -- so some discrimination between them is not only logical, but just. If you accept the above conclusion, then it's quite possible for that word he used to be a reasonable idea expressed in an uncharitable manner.
      - CocaKoala 9y ago
        I don't quite understand your argument here. You posit that a reasonable position on immigration for America is that we should not have one hundred percent open borders, welcome all comers. And furthermore, since a reasonable position is that we should not welcome all comers, whoever they may be, we obviously need some way to establish who in particular is welcome, and who in particular is not. I agree with you as far as that goes. But then you go further to say that it's possible that Trump was trying to express the position you just described, albeit in an uncharitable and rude way, and that's where you lose me. It's possible that you could theorize a hypothetical person who expresses that sentiment in that manner, but is that hypothetical person Donald Trump, with all the context of his previous comments and decisions? Because we're not talking about a hypothetical here, we're talking about actual sentiments expressed by an actual person, with a history racial insensitivity (to put it lightly) and heavy-handed bans that have no legal basis (again, to put it lightly). It's not meaningful to come up with hypotheticals unless you attribute that hypothetical to Trump, and attributing this one to him means that it needs to be squared with his previous actions and positions. In my opinion, it seems fantastically unlikely that he was trying to express your position; if you believe differently, I'd be interested in your reasoning.
totalZero 9y ago
The USA has contributed to the development of plenty of flourishing economies. Panama is a rich nation thanks in large part to international cargo shipment. American tourists spend heavily in several other Latin American and Caribbean economies. South Korea is one of the most highly developed nations in the world, despite having been relatively poor prior to the Korean War. Canada and Mexico have benefited for years from NAFTA. World War 2 would have been very different for the Allies if it weren't for American weaponry and involvement. NATO may not have withstood the Cold War were it not for American might. Maybe you can give some examples to support the narrative of Americans creating poor conditions in non-European countries. It's certainly not Afghanistan, which had been a warzone for a long time before 9/11, which provoked American involvement. And though it's possible, it's hard to argue that Iraqi instability was the sole result of American invasion, as Saddam had massacred several hundred thousand of his own citizens and was trying to change the ethnic makeup of northern Iraq to dampen Kurdish separatism. So I'm not sure to which countries you are referring.
- newfoundglory 9y ago
  America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t start after 9/11.
  - nbsd4lyfe 9y ago
    the first gulf war was in 1990 and the US was a party to it
    - newfoundglory 9y ago
      In 1955 the US was part of the creation of the Baghdad Pact. In the 1970s the US supported a Kurdish uprising against the Iraqi government.
- lovethebombs 9y ago
  America's track record in South-America is pretty poor. For a long time it was a proxy battle ground for the Cold War. And Trump just cut most of the relief funding, so a lot of social welfare programs are being cut short. Making countries rich is part of geopolitical strategy (for instance, West-Germany vs. East-Germany). For every country that the US "made rich" is a country where life expectancy went way down due to US involvement.
patall 9y ago
While I agree that Trump is not the stable genius he thinks he is, the drone war existed before. We are speaking of a nobel peace prize winner who seemingly did not have either the ability to recognize the hell he helped create or the b----s to stand against his military advisors to stop it. You can blame Trump for a lot but even when there were smarter people in power, it wasn't much better. I want to believe that Chealsey Manning can change something but do not really believe in it.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Correct. Trump says "shithole" and the MSM lathers the public into a frenzy. Yet, the previous administration(s) actively created shitholes - which btw taxes dollar also go to fixing - and the response to that has been crickets from the MSM and the proles. Trump can be a fool. But there is quite a bit of truth to his perception of the MSM, and how that impacts public opinion. Fake News isn't just about facts. Fake News is also about what the MSM highlights v what it does not. Not everything that gets report is news. Unless of course it fits a narrative, drives advertising dollar and/or masks the need to report on something more important.
  - patall 9y ago
    I do not think that the media is really the problem, its just somehow the topic does not get all the traction it needs to succeed politically. 'Collateral murder' was all over the media but still nothing happened. The NSA affair was all over the media and nothing happened. Maybe at this point politics does not really care anymore as long as its not to their own political benefit.

wz1000 9y ago

> inflicting a continuous terror on many civilians There are no civilians - obviously all males that look above 15 are terrorists.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]