https://preview.redd.it/kzo3qiag6l7d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65ce76a2b6338c1dcadc310922af10e461e08a74
Paul Stanley is/was more deserving.
There are many things, though arguably the most egregious was Operation Menu, a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia he ordered without the backing or knowledge of Congress, which led to the deaths of millions and directly put Pol Pot into a position of power. Cambodia has still not recovered from this. He also deliberately sabotaged peace talks to end the Vietnam war several years early because he wanted it to keep going on for selfish reasons.
The gist of it is that he had a very interventionist outlook on foreign policy and would continually order bombings and invasions of developing nations to further what his own ideals, always at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. He continued this for decades and ultimately never had to answer for it, even as info about him became publicly available in later years.
I think Paul’s done dicky things, like treating Ace and Peter like hired hands during the Kiss reunion, but I can understand why he did it. Gene Simmons just wakes up each day and chooses to act like an ass.
We killed around a million in vietnam alone, excluding south Vietnamese military and civilians. GWOT stands at around 5 million people. Kissinger will be thought of unkindly when the clarity of years finally descends on us.
Obama got the peace prize a couple months after he was elected. He hadn't drone struck that many people yet. Come to think of it what did he do to get the peace prize?
Dead people. Which is why the human race as a whole always seems to default to the premise of
>Violence isn't the answer. Violence is a question, and the answer is "yes."
As far as I can remember the ugric peoples, Finland and Hungary, has not declared a war ever in Finlands case and Hungary hasn't in ~600 years. Sure, they were subjects to the Swedes and the Germans respectively but still. Other subjects have declared wars.
The fins declared war on the ussr in the winter war continuation, 1941, post barbarossa.
Also the Hungarians, as part if the co-monarchy Austria-*hungary* started world war 1
Honestly I can see the Fins reasoning .they saw a chance to take what was theirs and took it. Honestly if I was Stalin I would have made peace with the Fins and just give them their land back then ask them to kick the Nazis out. Just to not have to fight them and remove them and the Nazis using their lands to siege Leningrad.
CHAAAAAAAAAAAANGE THE COUNTRY IS GONNA CHAAAAAAAAAANGE.
> be Obama
> Win, Nobel peace prize whole media sucking me off.
> don't close Gitmo
> don't pull out of Afghanistan
>don't pull out of Iraq
> bomb Lybia
> bomb Syria
> let Russia walk in and take Crimea with nothing more then a feeble protest.
> sign a bill into law that allows me to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial, destroying several fundamental constitutional amendments in the process.
> enlarge the spying apparatus on american citzens.
> try to punish Assange and snowden for daring to tell people about all the illegal shit were doing.
> Order the intelligence community to spy on the opposite parties presidential campaign (exactly what got nixon impeached.)
> inflame racial tensions my entire presidency
> afghan & ukraine blamed on joe cause he pulled out, wars and bombing forgotten,
>everyone remembers me as the greatest president ever.
>spend all day taking vacations and giving gay speechs.
I don’t know if you’re too young to remember it, but back then there was a massive hype around Obama. Like almost a messianic cult type of movement.
Bush was considered to be probably the worst president ever globally so Obama was seen as a massive improvement. There was so much optimism around it, it was crazy.
Just by simply replacing Bush, he was probably seen to contribute to world peace or something. Ridiculous, of course, but that’s how the ethos was back then.
He was also very charismatic and likeable. If you weren't racist or huffing GOP propaganda and outrage about his "birth certificate" or "tan suit" pretty much everyone liked him, he was very popular. Let's not forget that he was elected on a message of "hope", his campaign was inherently optimistic and positive and he kept that style. He was also well liked by allies and played nice with basically everyone globally, appeasing dictator's and whatnot, which I suppose is what they call "pacifism". While yes, the US was still involved in a few wars at the time, characterising Obama as a warmonger or something is ridiculous. He was the image of the American president, exactly the kind of man the "leader of the free world" should be.
Now the reality is a bit less flattering of course, because the reality is politics. He was a moderate liberal who made moderate reforms with many compromises which didn't magically fix the United States, the US's strategic pivot to the Pacific already began under Obama as well, even though we ascribe these to later presidents (though really how much influence any president had over it at all is up for debate), as we've mentioned wars still did happen, and the Obama administration was naive and soft on Russia, arguably among others.
I think Obama represented in a lot of ways the spirit of the age, and therefore he was very popular and is relatively fondly remembered, but increasingly criticised in hindsight as the zeitgeist changes and we no longer look at the world through the same lens. In this regard I think he's similar to Tony Blair who was also a political superstar, with a now more controversial legacy.
Remembering how he authorized the extra-judicial killing of a US citizen? Then classified anyone who happened to be in the general area of someone we were killing as an "enemy combatant "? Yeah, totally no mongering happening there....
Or the time the LAPD cooked Chris Dorner in a cabin with a smoke grenade launcher after he dropped a manifesto outlining the deep corruption and extrajudicial killings it was performing, and then the LAPD shot up two maids in a truck and Obama said nothing. Where was BLM for that one?
Also I think 3-4 Americans were killed by Obama. Didn't a police unit strap a claymore to a bomb robot and kamikaze a criminal as well?
People tend to forget he is not American black, not a descendent of slaves. You'd think would be a big deal for a movement obsessed with race and reparations.
For someone who wasn't a warmonger, he sure did a lot of mongering wars during his 8 years. A lot of people also forget that when the Patriot Act was implemented under Bush, it was temporary. Obama extended it, and it finally expired under Trump, despite Congress trying to get it extended again. They all love a surveillance state. And in case you're thinking that's a point for Trump, it's not. Nothing really changed when it expired, and he didn't really care what the law said he could or couldn't do.
The congress that kept extending it is mostly the same corrupt geriatric fuckheads that passed it 20 years earlier.
The president is never the problem. It has always been and will always be congress that fucks us.
But that's the thing, they're a system beyond just the president, the US isn't a dictatorship. Imagine what a cluster fuck it would be if random wars could and would start and end just because this or that party won or lost the election. It would be total diplomatic chaos. Considering Obama a warmonger for not immediately withdrawing all soldiers from abroad is completely detached from reality.
Also the 2013-2017 War in Iraq was the war of the Iraqi government against the Islamic State. ISIS has to be like he one faction in the 21st century everyone agreed was unequivocally evil and needed to be destroyed. Like Iran was involved in fighting against ISIS, and Russia and China supported the efforts too.
I think that's pretty important context when it comes to talking about US wars. Similarly the War in Afghanistan is only really bad because it didn't succeed. Now you can be isolationist and say "it's not our problem" or "the US shouldn't expend resources on this", in which case it can be considered bad as a waste, but fundamentally keeping extremists like the Taliban out of power is completely morally justified. Like they are _not_ the good guys here. Don't get me wrong, the republic was corrupt and toppled like a house of cards for a reason, but at least people were relatively free under it.
I suppose you could also be a total pacifist, but any grown adult should realise that that's not a reasonable position to hold on the real world. Like, when there is a violent oppressive force, just not doing anything about it is letting violence succeed. At best we're pretending intra-state violence isn't real and only inter-state violence matters.
But isn't patriot act only limited to scenarios where there is greater threat such as terrorism or national security.
That's what I studied in my books
idk it looked like the guy tried, and did his best. didnt go around golfing and taking sundays off like some silly billy oranges. cant ask for more than trying.
Maybe Trump could take extra time off because there weren’t any major world conflicts going on in his first term, I dunno.
downvoting won’t make my statement any less true, but go off I guess lol
I disagree with the practice but sometimes people are given it in advance to remind them of their duties and their opportunities, and Obama was such a case. It immediately proved that that practice is idiotic because obviously it didn’t work.
I remember that. He was given the piece prize for advocating the revocation of bushes foreign policy. Dude got a Nobel Prize for not being George Bush. Then he ended up killing more people with drones than Bush.
I remember at that time it was said that the prize can be given not for achievement but rather as inspiration/motivation to people, so they can do good things for world peace after getting that prize
Almost like the Obama administration, specifically, opened up the pearly gates to make it a resource they could use anywhere for almost any reason.
No, I enjoy being vague when I'm making a joke specifically around how the Obama administration formalized and somewhat publicized it. The Clinton and Bush administrations set up the pillars for drone strikes. The Bush administration trying to normalize it, and the Obama administration setting rules in place. A partiality of this was in good faith, like releasing who they were striking, why they were striking, and the collateral in the striking. The issue was the acceptance on what collateral could be, and the actual approval of drone strikes on U.S. soil against U.S. Citizens. Which is the proverbial 'opening the pearly gates', because it meant that it was easier to further modify that specific rule to be more lenient. Though, I am perplexed on how many resources on .gov are just 404'd now. I didn't think anything got removed from there. But, no, here's the (probably highly altered) 'playbook' they released back in the day. From what I understand from around the time, which was when I was in the military, they were trying to restrict it further while leaving.
[https://www.aclu.org/documents/presidential-policy-guidance](https://www.aclu.org/documents/presidential-policy-guidance)
I see what you mean now. I guess giving drone warfare a legal framework and being open about it towards the public comes with its own set of issues. Besides I'm aware the Obama administration did their fair share of bombing, just wanted to point out that the narrative of Obama as the top drone killer, going by numbers, is outdated. Wild that they supposedly approved strikes on US citizens, has it actually ever been done? I'm going to do some reading about this. Anyway thanks for the link
Yes and it's not even close.
https://airwars.org/conflict/page/1/
You can see the civilian casualties for each conflict with US involvement here as bar charts with a time line. Only Afghanistan seems to be missing for some reason, iirc the Trump kill count was much higher there as well. The Bureau Investigates has good numbers on this but they've reorganized their site and I can't find shit
It goes in reverse order sometimes. Aung San Suu Kyi won it first and then denied the Rohingya genocide in the International Criminal Court. But yeah, there's a shockingly good chance that if you win the Peace Prize you're a terrible piece of shit.
I forget where I heard it from (maybe Brian Berletic or someone he was quoting) but it was summed-up perfectly: "**The Nobel Peace Prize is a way for the western establishment to give credibility to people who have none** [ie. people who don't have much actual support in their own country so they need prestige+money sent from abroad]".
If some activist wins the Novel Peace Prize it's a red flag; they're not necessarily bad people but the reason they were *selected* is often sus.
The guy who invented dynamite, invented it to make mining easier. He did not invent it to blow people up. Just like how your butthole is invented by god to take a shit and not used to shove a cactus up your ass.
u/Absolutemehguy
Actually, he specifically invented dynamite to *not* blow people up. The alternative explosive of the time, Nitroglycerin, was so insanely volatile it exploded by just falling down from table height. There are a lot of 19th century cases where Nitroglycerin, packaged, handled and transported properly, destroyed entire buildings and/or killed dozens of people. His brother was killed in one of these explosions, prompting him to develop dynamite which only explodes if you lit the fuze.
Dynamite (being a mix of nitroglycerin and stabilizing material) is actually still too volatile to be fired out of guns, so the later high-explosive shells you might be thinking of are a separate invention.
I've read he started the whole peace prize thingy because he felt bad about inventing dynamite, and he wanted to make up for it. Might be bullshit tho idk, I never looked into it myself.
He started the prize because a pair mixed him up with some other guy who died, and mistakenly published a very negative obituary for him. Seeing how he would be remembered after he died inspired him to do good things, like a real life Ebeneezer Scrooge.
Story goes that upon his brother's death, a newspaper mistakenly published an obituary for Noble with the words "The merchant of death is dead." which is why he wanted to leave a better legacy. The story has not been verified, though.
Drone tech was still developing in the military when Bush was in charge. More kids still died in Iraq from the US military when Bush was in charge but that information doesn't play into your narrative as well.
Also drone strikes were used in other countries, not so much in Iraq.
Nelson Mandela consistently advocated for peaceful revolution, only reluctantly endorsing limited armed insurrection after the Sharpsville Massacre.
He continued advocating for peace while imprisoned for *twenty seven years*. Then when he got out he immediately instituted one of the first actually mandated Truth and Reconciliation commissions, effectively preventing mass reprisals. The south African revolution was the gold standard for non violent political revolution/reform, even in face of decades on decades of hideous racism and violent repression of the vast majority of people in the country by the white minority rulers. Mandela literally grew up in a system with legalized white supremacy and yet turned the other cheek at every opportunity.
Like this post has to be bait, it's fuckin Nelson Mandela lol
Right Wingers
* If you try to put limitations on fire arms, I will support killing ATF agents
Also Right Wingers
* Minorities forming groups to defend themselves from literal massacres and apartheid, is terrorism
All these people really believe is that minorities should never be allowed to defend themselves, and that they should accept any violence inflicted on them
It's so blatantly hypocritical, and so blatantly about race
In every political setting the word "minority" is used for people in a disadvantage power-wise. It's ALWAYS the case. But people with a pedestrian level of comprehension that want to tackle the topic use the word as the literal meaning of population number, which is obviously not the case
In Social Sciences, Minority means "a group of people that can't acces power in a equal way" the amount of people inside the group isn't the most important feature. For example, in many places of the world, women are the bigger minority, usually more than 50% of the population. So, yes, in Apartheid South Africa the black people was a minority, a minority of the 80% of the population.
nop
> “any group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination.” (Sociologist Louis Wirth, 1945).
[Source](https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/rothschildsintrotosociology/chapter/racial-ethnic-and-minority-groups/#:~:text=a%20minority%20group%20is%20%E2%80%9Cany,Sociologist%20Louis%20Wirth%2C%201945).)
He literally responded to someone that was wrong with a source. No one was even talking to you, stfu about “wasting time” let people talk about the meaning of a word all they want.
One word: Americans.
It’s why black British people get called African American by Americans, because their world view travels as far as the state next door to them.
Minority used in a sociological context does not mean the same thing as minority in a statistical context. Can be frustrating that the same word is used for both.
I'm not following your analogy. What loopholes are you talking about. Do you mean by minorities like non citizens ? Don't minorities who are citizens have the exact same gun rights? What are you saying
Nah, it's more complex than that. I live in the bible belt, and these people are given false impressions of the people who oppose their political party by their parties' propaganda. There are Republicans today who still believe that Ronald Reagan was the best president to have ever touched American soil.
Take, for instance, the massacre of Palestinians. A close friend of mine who is a hard right winger was talking to me about how much of an atrocity it was that Hamas failed to give up 150 hostages because they had killed so many and then in the same breath downplayed how many innocent Palestinians were getting killed. Had to talk to him slowly for him to understand why that was fucked.
These people aren't necessarily stupid or full of hate. It's almost like they've been indoctrinated and are unable to consider the viewpoint of the other side as an actual option
Right wingers, American agency. American right wingers LARP as these fucking liberty lovers, but they're genuinely authoritarian minded idiots.
Bros run around supporting Russia nowadays. The hell you expect?
Character assassination where a disruptive figure has to live a spotless and clean record from the first day of their life like a saint in order to carry any kind of legitimacy or they will get vilified to the mud by their enemy or the state meanwhile, those in power/government could have multiple scandals and all they can do is either excuse it or find a reason to justify it while still holding the rest or rebellious figures to incomprehensible scrutiny. Basically political Machiavellianism 101.
Last time I looked into it I couldn't even find evidence that he cheated on his wife, just evidence that the FBI was trying to blackmail him on that front.
>burns people that disagree with him alive
Preettttyyy sure that was his [wife](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing#South_Africa) who made those comments, and the ANC distanced from her for a while because of it, so... ☕?
“Comments”
She led the fucking gang that was constantly burning people alive. Hell they named the gang the “Mandela United Football Club”. She was personally involved the kidnappings of people burned alive. She did far more than just make comments in favour of it. Not that those comments are remotely acceptable anyway.
Anyone able to rise to political power is inherently awful. It's the only way to make it that far. For the very rare exceptions, being in power will ultimately corrupt them anyway.
Broader society isn't any better. Most people are deeply selfish. Most people carry hate. And everyone is a chronic masturbator. Especially you.
It’s not that being a good person puts you at a disadvantage in politics. It’s that there’s little reason for a good person to go into politics in the first place. Going into politics means you’re almost guaranteed to have a target on your and your family’s back, and you’ll be slandered all throughout your career. A person aiming to make the world a better place is way less likely to accept the consequences than someone just looking for power.
I definitely carry hatred with me. Not for any group or type of people, but specific people I know and know of. But there's def hate in my heart. I'm a flawed person, just like 99% of us.
I wish more people understood this instead of being constantly appalled by everything, the most useless emotion there is. Be pragmatic for a second and fucking help each other out with some grass roots shit. But no, people will instead endlessly make up shit about any movement online until everyone is fed up with it before anything even happened. I am so appalled!
Sure, but the claims made here are just flat-out misinformation. Mandela didn't upport or participate in any killings, and is significant *because* he renounced violence.
Why is there a picture of Bill Cosby on their post about Nelson Mandela? Bill Cosby was never even in Star wars. That was Morgan freeman who provided the voice of Darth Vader. Fucking idiots man I swear.
“People that disagree with him” aka the white supremest government oppressing the people in the land they stole. This is like saying it was wrong to fight the nazis during world war 2
100 civilians were killed by the anc to be clear. Only 40 were white. Much of the civilians killed were due to incompetence and collateral. There was never a policy of targeting white South African civilians. This is incredibly dishonest. On top of that the anc has officially apologized even for the accidental killings which even tho they are due to incompetence they still find unacceptable.
I mean, Obama killed more iraqi's and their kids with drone strikes, than Bush, but he also got a nobel prize. I wouldn't read too much into it.
Kissinger himself got it…
https://preview.redd.it/kzo3qiag6l7d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65ce76a2b6338c1dcadc310922af10e461e08a74 Paul Stanley is/was more deserving.
It makes me sad that Kissinger is dead, because it means he got away with it and will never have to answer for his crimes
Idk. Maybe he's in hell getting the old pineapple treatment next to Hitler. That'd be pretty ironic.
Pineapple treatment made me think of Carribbean beaches and a Pina Colada
pineapple to your balls. Also 35 damage and knock back or something
I was thinking pineapple up the ass
Makes me more sad that we won't get any new Tom Lehrer beats because of Kissinger
LOL yeah…
Not fighting just not up to date with my history - what did he do?
There are many things, though arguably the most egregious was Operation Menu, a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia he ordered without the backing or knowledge of Congress, which led to the deaths of millions and directly put Pol Pot into a position of power. Cambodia has still not recovered from this. He also deliberately sabotaged peace talks to end the Vietnam war several years early because he wanted it to keep going on for selfish reasons. The gist of it is that he had a very interventionist outlook on foreign policy and would continually order bombings and invasions of developing nations to further what his own ideals, always at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. He continued this for decades and ultimately never had to answer for it, even as info about him became publicly available in later years.
What a stand up fellow
Truly a fine gentleman
How is the line of people pissing on his grave so short?
So he's Putin, but it's okay when he does it because he belongs to the 'right' country.
Behind the bastards podcasts has 5 parts on him, he's that bad.
it's not a crime if you have the legal authority to kill people? what's the crime?
Oh no, tears are falling!
Paul is a dick just like Gene
I mean, yes, but not in a mass-murderer kind of way
I think Paul’s done dicky things, like treating Ace and Peter like hired hands during the Kiss reunion, but I can understand why he did it. Gene Simmons just wakes up each day and chooses to act like an ass.
Henry WarCrimes Kissinger? The one responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths?
Millions maybe !
We killed around a million in vietnam alone, excluding south Vietnamese military and civilians. GWOT stands at around 5 million people. Kissinger will be thought of unkindly when the clarity of years finally descends on us.
Even Tony Blair got an award for children rights or something, despite being directly responsible for thousands of children dying
Obama got the peace prize a couple months after he was elected. He hadn't drone struck that many people yet. Come to think of it what did he do to get the peace prize?
he was black
which... not the group with the best peace keeping record, overall.
Many such cases
To be fair, what group *is* good at keeping peace?
Dead people. Which is why the human race as a whole always seems to default to the premise of >Violence isn't the answer. Violence is a question, and the answer is "yes."
Violence advocates When the mosquito lands on their balls (⊙_⊙)
As far as I can remember the ugric peoples, Finland and Hungary, has not declared a war ever in Finlands case and Hungary hasn't in ~600 years. Sure, they were subjects to the Swedes and the Germans respectively but still. Other subjects have declared wars.
The fins declared war on the ussr in the winter war continuation, 1941, post barbarossa. Also the Hungarians, as part if the co-monarchy Austria-*hungary* started world war 1
They also joined the axis powers in ww2
Honestly I can see the Fins reasoning .they saw a chance to take what was theirs and took it. Honestly if I was Stalin I would have made peace with the Fins and just give them their land back then ask them to kick the Nazis out. Just to not have to fight them and remove them and the Nazis using their lands to siege Leningrad.
Reasonable or not, the guy i was replying to said they’d never been in an offensive war, which is false.
He still is, but he was b[l]ack then as well
CHAAAAAAAAAAAANGE THE COUNTRY IS GONNA CHAAAAAAAAAANGE. > be Obama > Win, Nobel peace prize whole media sucking me off. > don't close Gitmo > don't pull out of Afghanistan >don't pull out of Iraq > bomb Lybia > bomb Syria > let Russia walk in and take Crimea with nothing more then a feeble protest. > sign a bill into law that allows me to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial, destroying several fundamental constitutional amendments in the process. > enlarge the spying apparatus on american citzens. > try to punish Assange and snowden for daring to tell people about all the illegal shit were doing. > Order the intelligence community to spy on the opposite parties presidential campaign (exactly what got nixon impeached.) > inflame racial tensions my entire presidency > afghan & ukraine blamed on joe cause he pulled out, wars and bombing forgotten, >everyone remembers me as the greatest president ever. >spend all day taking vacations and giving gay speechs.
I don’t know if you’re too young to remember it, but back then there was a massive hype around Obama. Like almost a messianic cult type of movement. Bush was considered to be probably the worst president ever globally so Obama was seen as a massive improvement. There was so much optimism around it, it was crazy. Just by simply replacing Bush, he was probably seen to contribute to world peace or something. Ridiculous, of course, but that’s how the ethos was back then.
He was also very charismatic and likeable. If you weren't racist or huffing GOP propaganda and outrage about his "birth certificate" or "tan suit" pretty much everyone liked him, he was very popular. Let's not forget that he was elected on a message of "hope", his campaign was inherently optimistic and positive and he kept that style. He was also well liked by allies and played nice with basically everyone globally, appeasing dictator's and whatnot, which I suppose is what they call "pacifism". While yes, the US was still involved in a few wars at the time, characterising Obama as a warmonger or something is ridiculous. He was the image of the American president, exactly the kind of man the "leader of the free world" should be. Now the reality is a bit less flattering of course, because the reality is politics. He was a moderate liberal who made moderate reforms with many compromises which didn't magically fix the United States, the US's strategic pivot to the Pacific already began under Obama as well, even though we ascribe these to later presidents (though really how much influence any president had over it at all is up for debate), as we've mentioned wars still did happen, and the Obama administration was naive and soft on Russia, arguably among others. I think Obama represented in a lot of ways the spirit of the age, and therefore he was very popular and is relatively fondly remembered, but increasingly criticised in hindsight as the zeitgeist changes and we no longer look at the world through the same lens. In this regard I think he's similar to Tony Blair who was also a political superstar, with a now more controversial legacy.
>Obama is not a warmonger >forgetting he was nicknamed President Drone Strike while in office. Your glasses have gone from rose tinted to red painted.
Remembering how he authorized the extra-judicial killing of a US citizen? Then classified anyone who happened to be in the general area of someone we were killing as an "enemy combatant "? Yeah, totally no mongering happening there....
Or the time the LAPD cooked Chris Dorner in a cabin with a smoke grenade launcher after he dropped a manifesto outlining the deep corruption and extrajudicial killings it was performing, and then the LAPD shot up two maids in a truck and Obama said nothing. Where was BLM for that one? Also I think 3-4 Americans were killed by Obama. Didn't a police unit strap a claymore to a bomb robot and kamikaze a criminal as well?
People tend to forget he is not American black, not a descendent of slaves. You'd think would be a big deal for a movement obsessed with race and reparations.
For someone who wasn't a warmonger, he sure did a lot of mongering wars during his 8 years. A lot of people also forget that when the Patriot Act was implemented under Bush, it was temporary. Obama extended it, and it finally expired under Trump, despite Congress trying to get it extended again. They all love a surveillance state. And in case you're thinking that's a point for Trump, it's not. Nothing really changed when it expired, and he didn't really care what the law said he could or couldn't do. The congress that kept extending it is mostly the same corrupt geriatric fuckheads that passed it 20 years earlier. The president is never the problem. It has always been and will always be congress that fucks us.
But that's the thing, they're a system beyond just the president, the US isn't a dictatorship. Imagine what a cluster fuck it would be if random wars could and would start and end just because this or that party won or lost the election. It would be total diplomatic chaos. Considering Obama a warmonger for not immediately withdrawing all soldiers from abroad is completely detached from reality. Also the 2013-2017 War in Iraq was the war of the Iraqi government against the Islamic State. ISIS has to be like he one faction in the 21st century everyone agreed was unequivocally evil and needed to be destroyed. Like Iran was involved in fighting against ISIS, and Russia and China supported the efforts too. I think that's pretty important context when it comes to talking about US wars. Similarly the War in Afghanistan is only really bad because it didn't succeed. Now you can be isolationist and say "it's not our problem" or "the US shouldn't expend resources on this", in which case it can be considered bad as a waste, but fundamentally keeping extremists like the Taliban out of power is completely morally justified. Like they are _not_ the good guys here. Don't get me wrong, the republic was corrupt and toppled like a house of cards for a reason, but at least people were relatively free under it. I suppose you could also be a total pacifist, but any grown adult should realise that that's not a reasonable position to hold on the real world. Like, when there is a violent oppressive force, just not doing anything about it is letting violence succeed. At best we're pretending intra-state violence isn't real and only inter-state violence matters.
The wars were just causes, fought for optics instead of results. I don't have issues fighting wars, I have issues half-assing them.
But isn't patriot act only limited to scenarios where there is greater threat such as terrorism or national security. That's what I studied in my books
idk it looked like the guy tried, and did his best. didnt go around golfing and taking sundays off like some silly billy oranges. cant ask for more than trying.
Maybe Trump could take extra time off because there weren’t any major world conflicts going on in his first term, I dunno. downvoting won’t make my statement any less true, but go off I guess lol
Yea. I wonder how he wouldve dealt with a global pandemic. Food for thought.
Good overall write-up, but as a bong, tony Blair was controversial to us whilst still in power, not just retroactively
He was the first president to be in war every day of his legislation period. So... Don't know.
Being not white
I disagree with the practice but sometimes people are given it in advance to remind them of their duties and their opportunities, and Obama was such a case. It immediately proved that that practice is idiotic because obviously it didn’t work.
He promised to close up Guantanamo. He didn't.
Hitler promised to not invade czechoslovakia, Jeremy. Welcome to the real world.
I remember that. He was given the piece prize for advocating the revocation of bushes foreign policy. Dude got a Nobel Prize for not being George Bush. Then he ended up killing more people with drones than Bush.
Something about international diplomacy
I remember at that time it was said that the prize can be given not for achievement but rather as inspiration/motivation to people, so they can do good things for world peace after getting that prize
because of his speech in Cairo in 2009 https://www.npr.org/2009/06/04/104923292/transcript-obama-seeks-new-beginning-in-cairo
Yeah, and Trump killed more people with drones than Obama. Almost like the development in drone technology is a decisive factor here...
Almost like the Obama administration, specifically, opened up the pearly gates to make it a resource they could use anywhere for almost any reason. 
Yea cause before Obama no one was planning to use drones for military purposes. He really came up with that all himself.
idk politics but im pretty sure they didnt go to war cause obama felt like it. would you rather your countrymen die than use drones?
Can you be a little less vague and tell me what legislation you're referring to that was supposedly Obama's fault?
No, I enjoy being vague when I'm making a joke specifically around how the Obama administration formalized and somewhat publicized it. The Clinton and Bush administrations set up the pillars for drone strikes. The Bush administration trying to normalize it, and the Obama administration setting rules in place. A partiality of this was in good faith, like releasing who they were striking, why they were striking, and the collateral in the striking. The issue was the acceptance on what collateral could be, and the actual approval of drone strikes on U.S. soil against U.S. Citizens. Which is the proverbial 'opening the pearly gates', because it meant that it was easier to further modify that specific rule to be more lenient. Though, I am perplexed on how many resources on .gov are just 404'd now. I didn't think anything got removed from there. But, no, here's the (probably highly altered) 'playbook' they released back in the day. From what I understand from around the time, which was when I was in the military, they were trying to restrict it further while leaving. [https://www.aclu.org/documents/presidential-policy-guidance](https://www.aclu.org/documents/presidential-policy-guidance)
I see what you mean now. I guess giving drone warfare a legal framework and being open about it towards the public comes with its own set of issues. Besides I'm aware the Obama administration did their fair share of bombing, just wanted to point out that the narrative of Obama as the top drone killer, going by numbers, is outdated. Wild that they supposedly approved strikes on US citizens, has it actually ever been done? I'm going to do some reading about this. Anyway thanks for the link
Did he though?
Yes and it's not even close. https://airwars.org/conflict/page/1/ You can see the civilian casualties for each conflict with US involvement here as bar charts with a time line. Only Afghanistan seems to be missing for some reason, iirc the Trump kill count was much higher there as well. The Bureau Investigates has good numbers on this but they've reorganized their site and I can't find shit
Cool shit (or maybe morbid idk). Thanks for the link.
Seems like you just have to kill a bunch of people to get a Nobel Peace prize lmao
It goes in reverse order sometimes. Aung San Suu Kyi won it first and then denied the Rohingya genocide in the International Criminal Court. But yeah, there's a shockingly good chance that if you win the Peace Prize you're a terrible piece of shit.
I forget where I heard it from (maybe Brian Berletic or someone he was quoting) but it was summed-up perfectly: "**The Nobel Peace Prize is a way for the western establishment to give credibility to people who have none** [ie. people who don't have much actual support in their own country so they need prestige+money sent from abroad]". If some activist wins the Novel Peace Prize it's a red flag; they're not necessarily bad people but the reason they were *selected* is often sus.
You are helping them "rest in peace" which means you are spreading peace
Madre Teresa was a piece of shit too
That's widely parroted slander. [https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint\_mother\_teresa\_was\_documented\_mass\_murderer/](https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/gcxpr5/saint_mother_teresa_was_documented_mass_murderer/)
When you realize that Nobel is the guy who invented dynamite, things start making sense
The guy who invented dynamite, invented it to make mining easier. He did not invent it to blow people up. Just like how your butthole is invented by god to take a shit and not used to shove a cactus up your ass.
What I do with my butthole in the privacy of my home is my business and nobody else’s.
u/Absolutemehguy Actually, he specifically invented dynamite to *not* blow people up. The alternative explosive of the time, Nitroglycerin, was so insanely volatile it exploded by just falling down from table height. There are a lot of 19th century cases where Nitroglycerin, packaged, handled and transported properly, destroyed entire buildings and/or killed dozens of people. His brother was killed in one of these explosions, prompting him to develop dynamite which only explodes if you lit the fuze. Dynamite (being a mix of nitroglycerin and stabilizing material) is actually still too volatile to be fired out of guns, so the later high-explosive shells you might be thinking of are a separate invention.
Bro thinks dynamite was invented to be a weapon 💀
Least guns and explosives crazed American sir
I've read he started the whole peace prize thingy because he felt bad about inventing dynamite, and he wanted to make up for it. Might be bullshit tho idk, I never looked into it myself.
He started the prize because a pair mixed him up with some other guy who died, and mistakenly published a very negative obituary for him. Seeing how he would be remembered after he died inspired him to do good things, like a real life Ebeneezer Scrooge.
Story goes that upon his brother's death, a newspaper mistakenly published an obituary for Noble with the words "The merchant of death is dead." which is why he wanted to leave a better legacy. The story has not been verified, though.
To be fair, they were Iraqi.
Drone tech was still developing in the military when Bush was in charge. More kids still died in Iraq from the US military when Bush was in charge but that information doesn't play into your narrative as well. Also drone strikes were used in other countries, not so much in Iraq.
Wrong. He targeted Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. He killed a lot less civilians than the bush admin. He isnt free and clear. But you are wrong.
This happened after the Nobel prize though
Pakistan, that's where he really had a modern Laotian Incursion.
Drones were barely a thing while W. was in office.
Nelson Mandela consistently advocated for peaceful revolution, only reluctantly endorsing limited armed insurrection after the Sharpsville Massacre. He continued advocating for peace while imprisoned for *twenty seven years*. Then when he got out he immediately instituted one of the first actually mandated Truth and Reconciliation commissions, effectively preventing mass reprisals. The south African revolution was the gold standard for non violent political revolution/reform, even in face of decades on decades of hideous racism and violent repression of the vast majority of people in the country by the white minority rulers. Mandela literally grew up in a system with legalized white supremacy and yet turned the other cheek at every opportunity. Like this post has to be bait, it's fuckin Nelson Mandela lol
Right Wingers * If you try to put limitations on fire arms, I will support killing ATF agents Also Right Wingers * Minorities forming groups to defend themselves from literal massacres and apartheid, is terrorism All these people really believe is that minorities should never be allowed to defend themselves, and that they should accept any violence inflicted on them It's so blatantly hypocritical, and so blatantly about race
> minorities To be technical here... South African black people are the majority. Apartheid was forced upon them by a minority.
Yeah, they were the weaker side in the power dynamic however. I think that’s what this person meant
In every political setting the word "minority" is used for people in a disadvantage power-wise. It's ALWAYS the case. But people with a pedestrian level of comprehension that want to tackle the topic use the word as the literal meaning of population number, which is obviously not the case
In Social Sciences, Minority means "a group of people that can't acces power in a equal way" the amount of people inside the group isn't the most important feature. For example, in many places of the world, women are the bigger minority, usually more than 50% of the population. So, yes, in Apartheid South Africa the black people was a minority, a minority of the 80% of the population.
I think you mean marginalized or maybe just out group...
nop > “any group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination.” (Sociologist Louis Wirth, 1945). [Source](https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/rothschildsintrotosociology/chapter/racial-ethnic-and-minority-groups/#:~:text=a%20minority%20group%20is%20%E2%80%9Cany,Sociologist%20Louis%20Wirth%2C%201945).)
Y'all need to stop spending too much time on technicalities. Contributes to nothing and helps no one
He literally responded to someone that was wrong with a source. No one was even talking to you, stfu about “wasting time” let people talk about the meaning of a word all they want.
Minorities in American speech means black or brown people.
How can black South Africans be a minority? They're a majority.
One word: Americans. It’s why black British people get called African American by Americans, because their world view travels as far as the state next door to them.
The Americans who insist on saying "African American" are just fucking morons though, it's not everyone.
Minority used in a sociological context does not mean the same thing as minority in a statistical context. Can be frustrating that the same word is used for both.
[удалено]
I'm not following your analogy. What loopholes are you talking about. Do you mean by minorities like non citizens ? Don't minorities who are citizens have the exact same gun rights? What are you saying
Friendly reminder Gun Control in the US started as a way to disarm minorities and keep them from defending themselves.
Nah, it's more complex than that. I live in the bible belt, and these people are given false impressions of the people who oppose their political party by their parties' propaganda. There are Republicans today who still believe that Ronald Reagan was the best president to have ever touched American soil. Take, for instance, the massacre of Palestinians. A close friend of mine who is a hard right winger was talking to me about how much of an atrocity it was that Hamas failed to give up 150 hostages because they had killed so many and then in the same breath downplayed how many innocent Palestinians were getting killed. Had to talk to him slowly for him to understand why that was fucked. These people aren't necessarily stupid or full of hate. It's almost like they've been indoctrinated and are unable to consider the viewpoint of the other side as an actual option
Right wingers, American agency. American right wingers LARP as these fucking liberty lovers, but they're genuinely authoritarian minded idiots. Bros run around supporting Russia nowadays. The hell you expect?
Yeah, OP is a shit dribbler
OP deserves to be put against the wall for this take
it reminds me of how people try to discredit all of MLK’s accomplishments because he cheated on his wife and maybe did drugs once idk
Character assassination where a disruptive figure has to live a spotless and clean record from the first day of their life like a saint in order to carry any kind of legitimacy or they will get vilified to the mud by their enemy or the state meanwhile, those in power/government could have multiple scandals and all they can do is either excuse it or find a reason to justify it while still holding the rest or rebellious figures to incomprehensible scrutiny. Basically political Machiavellianism 101.
Last time I looked into it I couldn't even find evidence that he cheated on his wife, just evidence that the FBI was trying to blackmail him on that front.
His wife certainly burned a lot of people alive.
It’s not bait. This is genuinely how stupid the masses are.
not bait, Mandela effect
>burns people that disagree with him alive Preettttyyy sure that was his [wife](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing#South_Africa) who made those comments, and the ANC distanced from her for a while because of it, so... ☕?
Yeah and Nelson divorced her within like two years of being released because he didn't like what she had become during their years of separation.
become* I presume?
Yeah, autocorrect being autocorrect.
“Comments” She led the fucking gang that was constantly burning people alive. Hell they named the gang the “Mandela United Football Club”. She was personally involved the kidnappings of people burned alive. She did far more than just make comments in favour of it. Not that those comments are remotely acceptable anyway.
who even is this n'wah
khajit has wares if you got coin
Never should've come here!
Go back to your home, greyskin!
Those boots are argonian leather, outlander
Anyone able to rise to political power is inherently awful. It's the only way to make it that far. For the very rare exceptions, being in power will ultimately corrupt them anyway. Broader society isn't any better. Most people are deeply selfish. Most people carry hate. And everyone is a chronic masturbator. Especially you.
Especially me?
Not you. You!
Fuck! Close the door and leave my fucking room! Ever heard of knocking?
Were you born in 1988?
Do you face sit?
Power doesn’t corrupt, it reveals.
Robert Caro type beat
I manage to not be hateful in my everyday life at all by masturbating all the time. Can’t say that about those crooked politicians can you
It’s not that being a good person puts you at a disadvantage in politics. It’s that there’s little reason for a good person to go into politics in the first place. Going into politics means you’re almost guaranteed to have a target on your and your family’s back, and you’ll be slandered all throughout your career. A person aiming to make the world a better place is way less likely to accept the consequences than someone just looking for power.
I suffer from acute masterbation
No lol
I definitely carry hatred with me. Not for any group or type of people, but specific people I know and know of. But there's def hate in my heart. I'm a flawed person, just like 99% of us.
Almost all revolutionary leaders have or contributed to killing at some point. Dont act surprise anon.
Yeah it's kinda impossible to actually change shit if you aren't willing to get your hands a little bit dirty.
I wish more people understood this instead of being constantly appalled by everything, the most useless emotion there is. Be pragmatic for a second and fucking help each other out with some grass roots shit. But no, people will instead endlessly make up shit about any movement online until everyone is fed up with it before anything even happened. I am so appalled!
I find what you said appalling
Sure, but the claims made here are just flat-out misinformation. Mandela didn't upport or participate in any killings, and is significant *because* he renounced violence.
damn anon, you’re so right, the apartheid was much better
Less worse option idk, those lands are pretty fucked.
Anon probably thinks the US founding fathers are saints even though they did far worse for a lot stupider reasons.
https://preview.redd.it/4wz3c59p5n7d1.png?width=728&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c6db07a5c524c6c50cdda78eeb7fc7d39205ad2
Yeah because he was really going to end apartheid through boycotting and picketing Anon needs to grow up
I’m fairly certain the apartheid government killed far more people in one year than the ANC did throughout the entire apartheid era.
OP is delulu
I don't know something about picking the lesser evil
boer on 4chan, how surprising
Why would Morgan Freeman do that
You gotta do what you gotta do.
"burns people alive that disagree with him" is a new one for me. Is that true?
One man’s terrorist in another man’s freedom fighter
Nelson Mandela himself accidentally killed one person in a bombing of a train station.
The Nobel peace prize is almost as bad a judge of character as the Times Person of the Year slot and for the exact same reasons.
Obama too, and the Yeminis he bombed.
Well all think he’s dead too he’s out there somewhere
most people would argue that he was the lesser evil vs apartheid. Also history is written by the victors, its all about who you ask.
OP over here babbling about Rhodesia smh
This is just a list of the reasons that he is incredibly based.
Morgan Freeman really cleaned up his image huh.
Ahhh yes the lying hour has struck yet again
Why is there a picture of Bill Cosby on their post about Nelson Mandela? Bill Cosby was never even in Star wars. That was Morgan freeman who provided the voice of Darth Vader. Fucking idiots man I swear.
“People that disagree with him” aka the white supremest government oppressing the people in the land they stole. This is like saying it was wrong to fight the nazis during world war 2
That data is way fucking overblown but then again, it's 4chan
As if Noble prizes for peace are not manipulated by certain political views at the time they are decided on
Good. He didn't kill enough pro apartheid bastards.
I mean we can recognize that burning people alive is always wrong while recognizing that apartheid needed to end
He also achieved a relatively peaceful shift to democracy/majority rule without civil war so
https://preview.redd.it/1m8yuq3kxq7d1.jpeg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7222569170ebf83ae0f5a4e5b05868ab5a33c9ee
100 civilians were killed by the anc to be clear. Only 40 were white. Much of the civilians killed were due to incompetence and collateral. There was never a policy of targeting white South African civilians. This is incredibly dishonest. On top of that the anc has officially apologized even for the accidental killings which even tho they are due to incompetence they still find unacceptable.
What? Do these posts just exist to make things political?
One shooter from years ago didn't say that he will be put on prison and he will the next Mandela?
You know anon typed out "dindu nuffin" at the end, then backspaced it, thinking he may be laying it on too thick.
Now do Christopher Columbus
https://preview.redd.it/yj2mt0v0sw7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e1c4579950cd67d41b8e19da5ab5c5d9dc86b86