Guy explains US-Russia-Ukraine issue with a single image, cool

a reply to: DJW001

What disinformation? The study was done by David Swanson through Scientists as citizens. I would be more inclined to believe his words over some guy on ATS who tries to make out Russian satire is a battle plan

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: DJW001

What disinformation? The study was done by David Swanson through Scientists as citizens. I would be more inclined to believe his words over some guy on ATS who tries to make out Russian satire is a battle plan

But you did not quote the study, you quoted a blog that deliberately distorted the study for propaganda purposes. Does the study claim that America started "201 Out of the 248 Armed Conflicts Since the End of WWII?" If not, why does the blog claim that it did?

a reply to: DJW001

See I quoted the headline from the article, I gave quotes to the article from washingtonsblog, gave no comment of my own. You better contact the washingtonsblog and lodge a complaint. You have yet to do say anything apart from picking out wording you don't agree with. You don't like the info I get that I really do but do you have anything to say apart from wording?


PS where is "started" in the link?

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: DJW001

See I quoted the headline from the article, I gave quotes to the article from washingtonsblog, gave no comment of my own. You better contact the washingtonsblog and lodge a complaint. You have yet to do say anything apart from picking out wording you don't agree with. You don't like the info I get that I really do but do you have anything to say apart from wording?

So you agree that the United States did not start over 200 wars in the last century? What's your point, then?

ETA:

PS where is "started" in the link?

In the title (and elsewhere):

And the U.S. Launched 201 Out of the 248 Armed Conflicts Since the End of WWII

Do I really need to do this?

launch (lônch, länch)
v. launched, launch·ing, launch·es
v.tr.

1.
a. To throw or propel with force; hurl: launch a spear.
b. To set or thrust (a self-propelled craft or projectile) in motion: launch a rocket; launch a torpedo.
2. Nautical To put (a boat) into the water in readiness for use.
3. To set going; initiate: launch a career; launch a business venture. See Synonyms at begin.
4. To introduce to the public or to a market: launched the new perfume with prime-time commercials on the major networks.
5. To give (someone) a start, as in a career or vocation.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

a reply to: DJW001

Passing on information to another member who commented towards me. You agree that the us has been involved in over 200 wars since WWII?

a reply to: stumason

Volunteers my arse

Russia has tried to tell the families that although the family members being sent say something different.

Yelena Tumanova, a hospital orderly from Russia’s Mari El republic, said her son Anton Tumanov told her by phone on 10 August that his army unit was being sent to Donetsk. On 20 August, a coffin came back to Mari El with a small window through which she could see his face. His legs had been torn off by an artillery strike, his comrades told her. He was 20 years old.

www.theguardian.com...

And let's not forget the paratroopers from Russia that have forgotten how to read a compass and got lost 30 miles inside Ukraine.

What I really find funny is that Russia allows their soldiers to take their government issued military hardware on vacation with them including tanks, grad missiles and has no problem with it...Putin sure is nice to his guy's as you never know when a war will start when your on holiday.

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: DJW001

Passing on information to another member who commented towards me. You agree that the us has been involved in over 200 wars since WWII?

It has mounted over 200 military operations, if you include humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: DJW001

Passing on information to another member who commented towards me. You agree that the us has been involved in over 200 wars since WWII?

It has mounted over 200 military operations, if you include humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

Where in the article does it include humanitarian and peacekeeping? I don't see it.

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: DJW001

Passing on information to another member who commented towards me. You agree that the us has been involved in over 200 wars since WWII?

It has mounted over 200 military operations, if you include humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

Where in the article does it include humanitarian and peacekeeping? I don't see it.

When the military is engaged in humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, those operations are "military operations," aren't they? Isn't the definition of "military operation" an operation conducted by the military-- whatever it is?

I can't believe you're trying to justify yourself so strenuously. It's not worth it; everyone can see what you're trying to do.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: DJW001

Passing on information to another member who commented towards me. You agree that the us has been involved in over 200 wars since WWII?

It has mounted over 200 military operations, if you include humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

Where in the article does it include humanitarian and peacekeeping? I don't see it.

When the military is engaged in humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, those operations are "military operations," aren't they? Isn't the definition of "military operation" an operation conducted by the military-- whatever it is?

I can't believe you're trying to justify yourself so strenuously. It's not worth it; everyone can see what you're trying to do.

Everyone can see what and who is everyone? You and the poster starring you and we both know who that is. Where does it say humanitarian and peacekeeping military operations? It starts about military operations done by america and expands onto civilian casualties. I see no mention of peacekeeping or humanitarian in it. Why you getting defensive about it, it's either there or it isn't.

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: DJW001

Passing on information to another member who commented towards me. You agree that the us has been involved in over 200 wars since WWII?

It has mounted over 200 military operations, if you include humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

Where in the article does it include humanitarian and peacekeeping? I don't see it.

When the military is engaged in humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, those operations are "military operations," aren't they? Isn't the definition of "military operation" an operation conducted by the military-- whatever it is?

I can't believe you're trying to justify yourself so strenuously. It's not worth it; everyone can see what you're trying to do.

Everyone can see what and who is everyone? You and the poster starring you and we both know who that is. Where does it say humanitarian and peacekeeping military operations? It starts about military operations done by america and expands onto civilian casualties. I see no mention of peacekeeping or humanitarian in it. Why you getting defensive about it, it's either there or it isn't.

Military operations are, by definition, any operation undertaken by the military. Why do you continue to post items from Russian propaganda platforms that have been proven to lie and distort things. Your source twisted a legitimate study to make it appear that the United States has started over 200 wars and you still have not admitted that this is not true.

a reply to: DJW001

Where in the article from David Swanson does he state that it includes peacekeeping and humanitarian? Where?

From his paper

“Since the end of World War II, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world. The United States launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, and since then, others, including Afghanistan and Iraq. During the 20th century, 190 million deaths could be directly and indirectly related to war — more than in the previous 4 centuries.”

He is talking about armed convicts, once again where does it state peacekeeping and humanitarian operations are included? Also everyone can see what?

a reply to: sosobad

there is a party at my house
come and join me
what u drinkin bro?

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: sosobad

there is a party at my house
come and join me
what u drinkin bro?

18 year old Jameson whiskey

a reply to: sosobad

Hey look, someone else regurgitating Jesse Ventura's infographics.

originally posted by: QuantumEcho
a reply to: sosobad

Hey look, someone else regurgitating Jesse Ventura's infographics.

Hey look, someone who has nothing to add to the conversation.

a reply to: sosobad

nice choice
nice choice
let me see what I can do for u
so far I have goonbags only
oh and a free room in paradise
u just need to slide over here on grease rings floating on the ocean
I have some psychodelics too
and u need a costume of ur choice
preferably gstring and SPF50 on your cheeks

a reply to: sosobad

yet mankind as a whole has NEVER gone a single day without war somewhere on earth......not one. So when people point to the war that the worlds most powerful nation engages in I laugh...they must not know their own history or must be from another planet and species.

Excuse me while I laugh at the "laying it down" some people think they perform. People are too involved to remove themselves from opinion to see the bigger picture. Any peace must be honest....this crap is not. Its a lie. Russia would be as bad if not worse if the US wasnt around. Tell me different so I can know who is blind and full of it.

what everyone is too blind to see is that the illusion of peace is not on the part of those who sell it, but rather is the falsehood of those who believe it.

Some people truly believe that world peace is possible. They ignore their own human nature and common sense to criticize the west. Tell me, would the world REALLY be at peace if the west fell? Really?....sure.

While people take an aggressive stance on the fall of the worlds powerful nations....some times even cheering misfortune we may suffer....take notice of the "planned" solution....There is none. Just end the supremacy of the west and live happily never after.

There is not a single people or country who has not vied for power either regionally or globally without embracing some form of violence. Thinking otherwise is a lie and blissfully ignorant of reality. Its retarded.

a reply to: tadaman

that is true
frankly I am glad I am not in power and don't have to make these decisions
I do agree with u
who knows what is the best for all of us human kind
until then enjoy the freedom
we only live once

a reply to: tadaman

I take it we can expect an equally long post to the one after me, you know the one listing Russia's wars. Or are you going to ignore that one because it fits your outlook on things? I never once stated in that post that the US is at fault for everything in the world. Thinking I did is well

Its retarded.

Listing a fact about a country is not blaming them, it is showing what has happened, you don't like it make changes to your country.

Tell me something is the world really at peace with the west in power? Really?...Sure.