Revealed: First Look at Border Wall Prototypes..!

peilthetraveler said:
Bush's wars ended on Jan 20th, 2009. They then became Obamas wars. And as far as the medicare expansion, why are you complaining about that? You like when freebies are given out to the sick and elderly, I thought? And as of 2010, you can't call it Bush's medicare expansion as the ACA came in and changed things up.
More...

The lunatic left seem to forget how Bush inherited Clintons recession that slowly started in Clintons last year in office which Bush had to deal with,including Clinton letting osama off the hook because he was too busy thinking about the political fall out.

Lunatic liberals forget when obama cut medicare (elderly) by %50 .

You can't reason with the lunatic liberals .

They answer a question with a question and constantly obfuscating, this is what they do .

Bottom line,lunatic liberals want free shit at the expense of the fruitful citizens. They are the leeches of society .

They use the real needy people who deserve the help via programs to help make life easier in order to accomplish their goals .

These are the same lunatics who made a political ad of throwing an elderly woman off a cliff in a wheelchair, when in fact it was obama who cut medicare (elderly) by %50 and the lunatic liberals never uttered a word.

The Lunatic Fascist Liberals Know No Bounds ,Don't Ever Forget That.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jem
ThunderThor said:
The lunatic left seem to forget how Bush inherited Clintons recession
More...


Comparing what Bush inherited to the 800,000 jobs a month job loss,deficits,wars ,economy on the verge of collapse etc that Obama inherited is beyond ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Fine with most dems,gives many democrats an incentive to go out and vote in 2020 so we dont have such low turn out as we did in 2016
More...

Yeh. That sounds like a winning strategy. Campaigning on a platform of letting trump deport daca kids for years because it will improve voter turnout for dems in 2020 when trump was willing to cut a deal on daca as long as it included border security. Have fun explaining that one to families with daca kids who are either gone or could be at any time.

Pure genius right there. Go for it by all means.
 
Tony Stark said:
No,he was thinking about hundreds of innocent causalities .
More...

Hahahaha

Bill Clinton’s Act of Terrorism
NATHAN J. ROBINSON
In 1998, Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of a medicine factory in Sudan. The country has yet to recover.
alshifa-1.jpg


Medicine bottles at the site of the destroyed Al-Shifa factory, Sudan. Khairudin / Flickr

Earth, Wind, & Fire,” is out now. Check out the table of contents and subscribe today!


Within and Against Capitalism[/paste:font]
Alyssa Battistoni
Victory Over the Sun
Connor Kilpatrick
“We Are The Lions, Mr. Manager”
Navendu Mishra Marcus Barnett
The Red and the Black
Seth Ackerman
Before fourteen cruise missiles turned it into a heap of twisted steel and medical detritus, the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum was the largest manufacturer of medicines in all of Sudan, producing over half of the country’s pharmaceutical products and specializing in anti-malaria drugs. But on August 20, 1998, the plant was “pulverized,” reduced to nothing but “broken concrete and iron bars,” leaving “thousands of brown bottles of veterinary and other medicines” littered across the sand. Fourteen years later, its wreckage remained, a shrine to an incident that locals still refer to as a terrorist attack.

The Al Shifa plant had been taken out on the direct orders of Bill Clinton. The strike was in retaliation for Osama bin Laden’s recent bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In addition to destroying the Al Shifa, the administration targeted a group of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.

When it was pointed out to the Clinton administration that they had just eliminated one of Sudan’s major medical suppliers, spokespeople “claimed the plant was actually a disguised chemical weapons factory.” They insisted that “soil samples taken outside the plant had shown the presence of a substance known as Empta, whose only function was to make the nerve gas VX.” The plant, they said, “was heavily guarded . . . and it showed a suspicious lack of ordinary commercial activities.”

All of this turned out to be false. As Richard Bernstein explained:

A British engineer, Thomas Carnaffin, who worked as a technical manager during the plant’s construction between 1992 and 1996, emerged to tell reporters there was nothing secret or heavily guarded about the plant at all, and that he never saw any evidence of the production of an ingredient needed for nerve gas. The group that monitors compliance with the treaty banning chemical weapons announced that Empta did have legitimate commercial purposes in the manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics. The owner of the Shifa factory gave interviews in which he emphatically denied that the plant was used for anything other than pharmaceuticals, and there was never persuasive evidence to contradict his assertion. At the same time, members of the administration retreated from claims they made earlier that Osama bin Laden had what [Defense Secretary William] Cohen called “a financial interest in contributing to this particular facility.” It turned out that no direct financial relationship between bin Laden and the plant could be established.

Striking the Al Shifa facility had been contentious within the Clinton administration. The New York Times reported that “the voices of dissent were numerous” and that “[o]fficials throughout the Government raised doubts up to the eve of the attack about whether the United States had sufficient information linking the factory to either chemical weapons or to bin Laden, according to participants in the discussions.” As the US ambassador to Sudan conceded afterward, “[t]he evidence was not conclusive and was not enough to justify an act of war.” Slatejournalist Timothy Noah goes further, writing that any suggestion the plant was making nerve gas components was “desperate conjecture” on the administration’s part.

After the attack, public calls were made for the Clinton administration to justify the bombing. Human Rights Watch wrote a letter to Clinton in which it said:

The US government has not explained why its investigation of the site was sufficiently diligent in light of the fact that US officials now admit that they did not know the plant manufactured legitimate pharmaceuticals. The evidence these officials cite for their belief that the plant had no legitimate civilian purpose — unlike the web sites of other known pharmaceutical manufacturers in Sudan, this company’s web site did not mention any products — is hardly conclusive . . . The US government should attempt to ease these concerns by providing further elaboration of the diligence of its pre-bombing investigation of the plant.

HRW criticized the Clinton administration for “resisting a proposal to send UN chemical weapons investigators to Sudan to examine the al Shifa factory” in order to examine whether the administration’s justifications were true. But the Clinton administration was extremely reluctant to allow such a move; after all, it knew what the likely outcome would be.

The administration instead worked hard to make sure the sloppy decision-making behind the bombing was not revealed. As the New York Times reported, “n the aftermath, some senior officials moved to suppress internal dissent . . . Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and a senior deputy, they said, encouraged State Department intelligence analysts to kill a report being drafted that said the bombing was not justified.”

Regardless of the cover-up, though, the damage could not be undone. The factory was completely destroyed, never to be rebuilt, an enormous supply of medicine wiped out in an instant. The factory’s owners sued in US federal court in an attempt to receive compensation for the destruction, but the court dismissed their suit, reasoning that “the enemy target of military force” has no right to compensation for “the destruction of property designated by the President as enemy war-making property.”

The human costs however, far exceeded the property damage. As James Astill reported in the Guardian, Al Shifa was:

. . . one of only three medium-sized pharmaceutical factories in Sudan, and the only one producing TB drugs — for more than 100,000 patients, at about £1 a month. Costlier imported versions are not an option for most of them — or for their husbands, wives and children, who will have been infected since. Al-Shifa was also the only factory making veterinary drugs in this vast, mostly pastoralist, country. Its specialty was drugs to kill the parasites which pass from herds to herders, one of Sudan’s principal causes of infant mortality. Since the bombing, “people have gone back to doing without,” says Eltayeb, with a shrug.

Some, like Germany’s then ambassador to Sudan, Werner Daum, estimated that the destruction of the Al Shifa plant may have led to thousands of deaths, though there does not actually appear to be reliable data on the public health consequences of the bombing. Jonathan Belke, in the Boston Globe, reported that the factory’s destruction likely exacerbated a medical catastrophe:

Without the lifesaving medicine it produced, Sudan’s death toll from the bombing has continued, quietly, to rise . . . this factory provided affordable medicine for humans and all the locally available veterinary medicine in Sudan. It produced 90 percent of Sudan’s major pharmaceutical products. Sanctions against Sudan make it impossible to import adequate amounts of medicines required to cover the serious gap left by the plant’s destruction. Thus, tens of thousands of people — many of them children — have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases . . .

But whatever the specific cost in human lives, the destruction of an enormous storehouse of life-saving medicines, in a country with which the United States was not at war, was nevertheless an extraordinary act to be taken without diligence.

Why did Clinton bomb the Al Shifa factory? He was not, presumably, consciously attempting to destroy Sudan’s supply of malaria drugs. But since Clinton had been given ample reason to doubt that the factory was making chemical weapons, and senior officials were offering grave doubts as to the wisdom of destroying the factory, why did he go through with it?

Some have posited a “wag the dog” story to explain Clinton’s conduct; the bombing coincided with Monica Lewinsky’s testimony in front of a grand jury, and the hypothesis is that Clinton urgently wanted a strike against Al Qaeda as a distraction, leading him to ignore evidence of the factory’s innocence out of a wish to hastily blow something up. That’s a deeply cynical interpretation, and unfounded. But we can believe the second half without necessarily buying the conspiratorial first half; whether or not it had anything to do with Lewinsky, Clinton wanted to strike back at Al Qaeda after the embassy bombings, and his desire for a bombing overtook his desire to make sure that bombing was against the correct target.

As the New York Times reported, “ome officials said they were told that the President and his aides approved the operation . . . to show that the United States could hit back against an adversary who had bombed American embassies simultaneously in two countries.” It’s not that Clinton knew the building was a medicine factory, then, it was that he didn’t care enough to find out.

This interpretation, which fits well with the facts, suggests once again that Clinton’s strategic calculus rarely gives any real weight to black people’s lives. For Clinton, if there was a chance that the factory was producing nerve gas, that was sufficient reason to destroy it, period.

But for a moral human being, the chances that the factory is producing nerve gas must be set against the chance that it is an aspirin factory, and the potential human toll of a mistake should be factored into the decision-making. Given how serious the doubts about the factory were, and how decisive Clinton was against the advice of his senior officials, we must conclude that Clinton was simply not very concerned with the lives that were at stake in the question of whether the intelligence was reliable.

Clinton’s behavior was consistent. When it came to foreign policy the interests of America (and more importantly, of Bill Clinton) were the only factor given any consideration. The interests of the anonymous Africans who stood to bear the consequences were given no consideration at all.
 
Tony Stark said:
No,he was thinking about hundreds of innocent causalities .
More...


speaking of casualties

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-already-killed-more-civilians-obama-us-fight-against-isis-653564

Trump Has Already Killed More Civilians Than Obama in U.S. Fight Against ISIS

By Tom O'Connor On 8/22/17 at 2:44 PM


The U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has killed more civilians during President Donald Trump's first seven months in office than in the three years it existed under his predecessor, according to the latest estimate by a U.K.-based monitor.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Yeh. That sounds like a winning strategy. Campaigning on a platform of letting trump deport daca kids for years because it will improve voter turnout for dems in 2020 when trump was willing to cut a deal on daca as long as it included border security. Have fun explaining that one to families with daca kids who are either gone or could be at any time.

Pure genius right there. Go for it by all means.
More...


No,its you better get your ass out and vote if you want daca
 
WHEN CLINTON LIED, YUGOSLAVIA DIED
When former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic died on March 11, the mass media renewed its demonization of Milosevic and its deliberate distortion of the truth about NATO's attack against Yugoslavia. Using the false pretext of "humanitarian intervention," NATO forces led by the U.S. under the command of General Wesley Clark committed the worst war crimes in the Yugoslavian conflict that climaxed with NATO's 78 day aerial bombardment of civilian targets in Serbia and Kosovo in 1999. Serbians were more often the victims of "ethnic cleansing" by U.S. allies, rather than its perpetrators.

Historian Michael Parenti's 2000 book, To Kill A Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia, debunked media disinformation about the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Parenti's articles "The Rational Destruction of Yugoslavia" and "The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic" can be read here.

More than 150 articles about the history of the conflict are indexed here.

More documentation is available here, including a complaint filed by international human rights lawyers, charging 67 NATO leaders with war crimes. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which is financed almost entirely by the United States, refused to consider these charges against NATO.

Throughout the 1990s, the United States sought to destabilize and dismember Yugoslavia in order to privatize its state-run industries and financial sector and dismantle its social service programs, thereby transferring Yugoslavia's wealth to transnational corporations. In November 1990, Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, mandating that any part of Yugoslavia failing to secede within six months would lose U.S. financial support. The U.S. then financed separatist movements in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Kosovo, consistently backing the most fascistic elements in a strategy of "divide and conquer."

Bill Clinton labeled Milosevic "a new Hitler," while supporting Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic who was a convicted World War II Nazi war criminal, and Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, who wrote a book (Wastelands of Historical Truth) praising Hitler and advocating genocide. Izetbegovic sought to create an Islamic theocracy.

The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), identified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and a major heroin trafficker by Europol, was financed and trained by Osama bin Laden's "al-Qaeda" network and the CIA.

Sensational media accusations of genocide by Serbian forces were not substantiated by the most extensive crime scene investigation in history. Alleged mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies were not found when NATO forces occupied Kosovo. Forced deportation of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo did not begin until after NATO started bombing. Serbs were denounced in the western media for massacres in Sarajevo in 1992, 1994, and 1995 that United Nations' investigators attributed to Bosnian Muslims.

From 1991 to 1995, Croatia committed the most substantial "ethnic cleansing" of the former Yugoslavia's civil war. Croatia depopulated the Krajina of half a million Serbs through forced emigration and massacres under the direction of U.S. military and CIA officers.

The primary war crime charge against Milosevic preceding NATO's carpet bombing concerned the Racak "massacre" of January, 1999. American envoy William Walker claimed that Serbian police had executed 45 Albanian peasants in the village of Racak in Kosovo. French journalists on the scene and Walker's own Kosovo Verification Mission monitors found no evidence of massacred civilians. Independent autopsies indicated that the corpses were KLA fighters killed in combat, who were later moved to a ditch to simulate a massacre. European media widely challenged Walker's story, but the U.S. media only published his version.

Walker had been the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador from 1988 to 1992 at the height of U.S. backed death squad killings there. Walker was allied with drug and arms trafficker Roberto d'Aubuisson, the most notorious death squad leader in El Salvador, who had hired the sharpshooter who killed Archbishop Romero in 1980. From 1980 to 1994, the U.S. provided more than $6 billion in military aid to El Salvador.

Three days after Walker's Racak accusations, Secretary of State Madeline Albright issued an ultimatum. Milosevic must accept NATO military occupation of all of Yugoslavia and independence for Kosovo, or Serbia would be bombed. Milosevic rejected this ultimatum, offering a counterproposal that the U.S. rejected.

From March 24 to June 10, 1999, U.S. led NATO military forces dropped 20,000 tons of bombs on Yugoslavia. NATO bombed television stations, factories, power plants, gas, oil, and water supplies, sewage treatment plants, public housing, refineries, warehouses, agricultural facilities, roads, bridges, railways, daycare centers, hospitals, more than 200 schools, and a convoy of Albanian refugees. NATO commander Wesley Clark said the aim of the air war was to "demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure" of Yugoslavia.

The U.S. dropped cluster bombs on Yugoslavia and exposed millions of people to depleted uranium. Unexploded cluster bombs scatter as land mines that blast apart children who pick them up. Depleted uranium weapons spread cancer-causing radioactive contamination that lasts for billions of years. NATO used toxic nerve gas, black napalm, sterilization chemicals, and sprays to poison Yugoslav crops. NATO forces devised the technique of bombing a civilian target, waiting fifteen minutes, and then bombing again to kill rescue workers.

NATO attacked Yugoslavia without the consent of any of its own parliaments, violating the NATO treaty, Article One of the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles.

A popular "liberal" bumper sticker slogan erroneously proclaims: "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died." Yet within a four-month period, the Clinton Administration bombed Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, and waged covert wars in Angola, Mexico, Columbia, and East Timor. These crimes against humanity were marketed with a web of lies thrust forth by Slick Willie. Nevertheless, in the lunatic asylum of American politics, Bill Clinton's worst transgression as president was his interest in White House intern Monica Lewinski's sexual services, not his wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in the service of transnational corporate interests.

The Yugoslav conflict enabled the U.S. to establish military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia, and Croatia. By 2002, the U.S. military had troops in 147 countries, keeping the world safe from democracy.

References:

1-Continuous Wars

2-The rational destruction of Yugoslavia

3-A Legal Framework for Just Military Action
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top