U.S. military and it's past interventions.

[Erxomai]

(06-12-2012 08:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 07:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

The numbers are still outrageous. That 'study' ascribes to the U.S. deaths that were not caused by U.S. incursions.

Yes they were. Al Qaeda is the US.

[I and I]

(06-12-2012 08:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 07:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

The numbers are still outrageous. That 'study' ascribes to the U.S. deaths that were not caused by U.S. incursions.

All are results of U.S. interventions. Which ones on the list do you not believe should count as U.S. interventions?

[TheBlackKnight]

OP is a butthurt hipster who prob says dumb shit like"imperialist bullies" like every 8 words to his boyfriend.

[Chas]

(06-12-2012 08:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 08:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  The numbers are still outrageous. That 'study' ascribes to the U.S. deaths that were not caused by U.S. incursions.

All are results of U.S. interventions. Which ones on the list do you not believe should count as U.S. interventions?

Korea, for one. That was the U.N.

[I and I]

(06-12-2012 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 08:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  All are results of U.S. interventions. Which ones on the list do you not believe should count as U.S. interventions?

Korea, for one. That was the U.N.

88 percent of the international forces on the side of South Korea were U.S. soldiers. Sounds kinda like bush's "coalition of the willing" giving the semblance of a multi nation attack on Iraq when in reality it was a U.S. led and U.S. desired war and U.S. mainly conducting the operations.

next

[Chas]

(06-12-2012 10:41 AM)I and I Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  Korea, for one. That was the U.N.

88 percent of the international forces on the side of South Korea were U.S. soldiers. Sounds kinda like bush's "coalition of the willing" giving the semblance of a multi nation attack on Iraq when in reality it was a U.S. led and U.S. desired war and U.S. mainly conducting the operations.

next

You miss the point. The U.N. was in charge, not the U.S.

[Logica Humano]

The U.N Security Council unanimously supported a United Nations Armed Policing Action for the ultimate defense of Seoul.

Tell me, I and I, where do you live in the United States?

[nach_in]

lets not support the Security Council too much, they're not the most... fair UN body there is

[I and I]

(06-12-2012 03:30 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The U.N Security Council unanimously supported a United Nations Armed Policing Action for the ultimate defense of Seoul.

Tell me, I and I, where do you live in the United States?

88 percent of the fighting force were U.S. troops, how does this not mean it was a U.S. incursion into another country?

So if you guys believe that the U.S. comprising 88 percent of the fighting force is somehow not a U.S. incursion into another country, then explain who invaded Iraq in 2003? According to Bush it wasn't the U.S. but it was a "coalition of the willing". Some people will twist things any way they can to make the U.S. not look like an imperialist douche bag.

Fucking please http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm

[TheBlackKnight]

(06-12-2012 09:43 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  OP is a butthurt hipster who prob says dumb shit like"imperialist bullies" like every 8 words to his boyfriend.

(06-12-2012 07:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 03:30 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

Some people will twist things any way they can to make the U.S. not look like an imperialist douche bag.

Fucking please http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm

I hope that was on purpose.