preemptive war means we have to wage war with everyone, eventually.
"That guy walking next to me looks big and strong. There is the possibility that, by the way he looks, and looks at me, that he could attack me. So I have to attack him first." Why don't everyone go out and do this, then? See someone on the street that looks threatening and punch them in the face.
We just want their resources anyway, everything else you hear to the contrary is a lie.
Jan is a moron, look preemption of evil and aggressive attacks on our enemies must be done. He doens't want to defend liberty but would rather have us be defeated and murdered.
SSgtParmer, I now have confirmed you are not very bright, you couldn't even find your own name at the beginning of my post, which was sitting on the top of the entire stack of posts. So you cry and rant and blame me. Wow, what self control. Search this: "usa today sarin gas" then let's see if you can piece together this webpage link w w w. synthstuff. com SLASH mt SLASH archives SLASH sarin DOT jpg so now go ahead and scream "yeah but..." until you turn blue.
SSgtParmer; Re: Saddam was tolerable: You may be forgetting the old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Although Saddam was not a friend of the US, he was throwing some serious weaponry at Iran, so he became tolerable to the US as long as he was doing the dirty work in Iran.
So tell me SSgtParmer, what weakness of yours compels you stoop low enough to call me an asshole?
Saddam was tolerable as long as he was fighting our enemy in Iran in the 80's, but Saddam lost his sanity rating with the world the moment he used WMDs. No one was willing to trust him after that, especially after confirmation that he gassed his own people. Kurdish villages in Halabja were hit with mustard and nerve gas on on March 16 1988, killing an estimated 5 000 residents.
Oh I see your point, so the Kurds didn't like Saddam's heavy handedness, so Saddam was therefore justified in using WMDs on them. Thanks for clearing that up.
One of the problems in war games is making a Type I (believing they don't have WMDs but they really do) or a Type II error (believing they do have WMDs but they really don't) . So we use deterrence with everybody by telling them "IF you use WMDs we will crush you".
However, once we KNOW they have them, whether they've used them or not, then we move the stakes up to pre-emption and attack them before they can attack us or our allies.
Saddam proved he had WMDs by using them. Game Over.
Sorry Jan, I love your videos, but on this one you are flat out wrong. The congresscritter wasn't sharp either, which made this video painful - watching two uninformed people talking about a topic on which neither was informed.
Sadam used WMDs (mustard gas) on Iran during that war. He also had a record of using a mixture of several WMDs on the Kurds, his own people. Look up "Halabja poison gas attack". He couldn't be trusted. Saddam HAD to be taken out.
Fallparty, its funny since you're the one who is wrong.
Kurds aren't U.S. citizens. Iranians aren't U.S. citizens.
The standard is if you attack U.S. citizens, we will obliterate you. The Russians killed their citizens en masse with whatever they wanted, and we told them if they tried that on us, we would obliterate them. They didn't attack us.
@janhelfeld of course, and the reason he was even in power for 20 years is because the U.S. government and Bush senior proped him up in the first place. Financed by what else other than our tax dollars
The problem with the threat of obliteration is that some types only care about their own preservation so as long as they are not being killed but their citizens are then they might sacrifice a few million to get a shot at us. And if you don't believe me just look at suicide bombers. Theire masters send them out without a care for their own life and I fear some dictators might think the same way about its own citizens.
why so cut short? jan, anybody can parse someone's words out to create controversy. i'm not saying this is the case here but more context to the conversation would add credibility to your reports. i love your reports - btw.
preemptive war means we have to wage war with everyone, eventually.
"That guy walking next to me looks big and strong. There is the possibility that, by the way he looks, and looks at me, that he could attack me. So I have to attack him first." Why don't everyone go out and do this, then? See someone on the street that looks threatening and punch them in the face.
We just want their resources anyway, everything else you hear to the contrary is a lie.
n66178 1 year ago
I know real SGGT' fraud who were with a MEU and 2nd GSP who sat on top of a bunker that held a shit ton of Chemical Weapons. Go back to hell idiot.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Jan is a moron, look preemption of evil and aggressive attacks on our enemies must be done. He doens't want to defend liberty but would rather have us be defeated and murdered.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Jan Helfeld is amazing. Thanks for speaking truth to power!
heymisterderp 2 years ago
Fallparty 2 years ago
SSgtParmer; Re: Saddam was tolerable: You may be forgetting the old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Although Saddam was not a friend of the US, he was throwing some serious weaponry at Iran, so he became tolerable to the US as long as he was doing the dirty work in Iran.
So tell me SSgtParmer, what weakness of yours compels you stoop low enough to call me an asshole?
I had higher respect and expectations for you.
Fallparty 2 years ago
WE supplied him with the weaponry. OUR central bank extended the credit to him to allow him to purchase all kinds of toys with which to kill.
n66178 1 year ago
Yes you did a great job justifying Saddam's use of WMDs on the Kurds.
The Kurds didn't want to be under the heavy hand of Saddam any more, so he was compelled to gas them. Saddam had no other choice, did he?
Fallparty 2 years ago
Saddam was tolerable as long as he was fighting our enemy in Iran in the 80's, but Saddam lost his sanity rating with the world the moment he used WMDs. No one was willing to trust him after that, especially after confirmation that he gassed his own people. Kurdish villages in Halabja were hit with mustard and nerve gas on on March 16 1988, killing an estimated 5 000 residents.
Fallparty 2 years ago
Oh I see your point, so the Kurds didn't like Saddam's heavy handedness, so Saddam was therefore justified in using WMDs on them. Thanks for clearing that up.
Fallparty 2 years ago
1) Substantiate your claim that Saddam's WMD came from the US. The fact that he used them on his own people is indisputable.
2) Prove that the Kurds he slaughtered with his WMDs were rebels.
Fallparty 2 years ago
Once Saddam USED his WMDs he became the target. By using them, he not only proved that he had them, but demonstrated that he would use them.
Pre-emption then became justified.
Jan, I hope I've made this significant difference in foreign policy clear.
Fallparty 2 years ago
One of the problems in war games is making a Type I (believing they don't have WMDs but they really do) or a Type II error (believing they do have WMDs but they really don't) . So we use deterrence with everybody by telling them "IF you use WMDs we will crush you".
However, once we KNOW they have them, whether they've used them or not, then we move the stakes up to pre-emption and attack them before they can attack us or our allies.
Saddam proved he had WMDs by using them. Game Over.
Fallparty 2 years ago
What some of you don't understand is that Saddam had USED, IMPLEMENTED, his WMDs in both a foreign and domestic instance, and without provocation,
Therefore he can't be trusted,
Therefore pre-emption was justified to protect other people, other countries, and ourselves. Saddam had to go.
Jan, with the "other dictators" they haven't used WMDs, because deterence was and has been enough.
Pre-emption was needed and justified on Saddam. He kept ratcheting up the stakes.
Fallparty 2 years ago
It would and I am for it. Abolish the state and corporate charters.
overmind25 2 years ago
Sorry Jan, I love your videos, but on this one you are flat out wrong. The congresscritter wasn't sharp either, which made this video painful - watching two uninformed people talking about a topic on which neither was informed.
Sadam used WMDs (mustard gas) on Iran during that war. He also had a record of using a mixture of several WMDs on the Kurds, his own people. Look up "Halabja poison gas attack". He couldn't be trusted. Saddam HAD to be taken out.
Fallparty 2 years ago
Well by that standard the US and other nations should have been taken out since we helped him in that affair.
overmind25 2 years ago
Fallparty, its funny since you're the one who is wrong.
Kurds aren't U.S. citizens. Iranians aren't U.S. citizens.
The standard is if you attack U.S. citizens, we will obliterate you. The Russians killed their citizens en masse with whatever they wanted, and we told them if they tried that on us, we would obliterate them. They didn't attack us.
mintyman89 2 years ago
we know Sadam was not one of them because he did not attack for 20 years.
janhelfeld 3 years ago
@janhelfeld of course, and the reason he was even in power for 20 years is because the U.S. government and Bush senior proped him up in the first place. Financed by what else other than our tax dollars
jc0753 1 year ago
The problem with the threat of obliteration is that some types only care about their own preservation so as long as they are not being killed but their citizens are then they might sacrifice a few million to get a shot at us. And if you don't believe me just look at suicide bombers. Theire masters send them out without a care for their own life and I fear some dictators might think the same way about its own citizens.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
why so cut short? jan, anybody can parse someone's words out to create controversy. i'm not saying this is the case here but more context to the conversation would add credibility to your reports. i love your reports - btw.
scdecade 3 years ago
you can get more context by purchasing his dvd of interviews
shroomingnewman 3 years ago 4
Keep up the good work Jan! We need more people like you.
smudboy 3 years ago 6
well said jan
jaar2001 3 years ago 3