All these write up just to discredit and rob Obama the honour for doing what other world leaders couldnt do? You are wrong!!

All these write up just to discredit and rob Obama the honour for doing what other world leaders couldnt do? You are wrong!!

tomato86 stated >>>
i still find it very odd that all those navy seals have been killed. something isnt right there. i smell a government coverup

Barack Obama is only the latest in a jostling crowd of presidential candidates, presidential wannabes, major politicians, and minor figures of every sort, not to speak of a raging horde of neocons and pundits galore, who have felt compelled in recent years to tell us and the world just how exceptional the last superpower really is. They tend to emphasize our ability to use this country's overwhelming power, especially the military variety, for the global good” to save children and other deserving innocents. This particularly American aptitude for doing good forcibly, by killing others, is considered an incontestable fact of earthly life needing no proof. It is well known, especially among our leading politicians, that Washington has the ability to wield its military strength in ways that are unimaginably superior to any other power on the planet.

The well-deserved bragging rights to American exceptionalism are no small matter in this country. It should hardly be surprising, then, how visceral is the distaste when any foreigner - say, Russian President Vladimir Putin - decides to appropriate the term and use it to criticize us. How visceral? Well, the sort of visceral that, as Democratic Senator Bob Menendez put it recently, leaves us barely repressing the urge to "vomit."

On that basis, it's indisputable that the bragging rights to American exceptionalism are Washington's. For those who need proof, what follows are just eight ways (among so many more) that you can proudly make the case for our exceptional status, should you happen to stumble across, say, President Putin, still blathering on about how unexceptional we are.

1. What other country could have invaded Iraq, hardly knowing the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and still managed to successfully set off a brutal sectarian civil war and ethnic cleansing campaigns between the two sects that would subsequently go regional, whose casualty counts have tipped into the hundreds of thousands, and which is now bouncing back on Iraq? What other great power would have launched its invasion with plans to garrison that country for decades and with the larger goal of subduing neighboring Iran ("Everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran"), only to slink away eight years later leaving behind a Shiite government in Baghdad that was a firm ally of Iran? And in what other country, could leaders, viewing these events, and knowing our part in them, have been so imbued with goodness as to draw further "red lines" and contemplate sending in the missiles and bombers again, this time on Syria and possibly Iran? Who in the world would dare claim that this isn't an unmatchable record?

2. What other country could magnanimously spend $4-6 trillion on two "good wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq against lightly armed minority insurgencies without winning or accomplishing a thing? And that's not even counting the funds sunk into the Global War on Terror and sideshows in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, or the staggering sums that, since 9/11, have been poured directly into the national security state. How many countries, possessing "the finest fighting force in the history of the world," could have engaged in endless armed conflicts and interventions from the 1960s on and, except in unresisting Panama and tiny Grenada, never managed to definitively win anything?

3. And talking about exceptional records, what other military could have brought an estimated 3.1 million pieces of equipment - ranging from tanks and Humvees to porta-potties, coffee makers, and computers - with it into Iraq, and then transported most of them out again (while destroying the rest or turning them over to the Iraqis)? Similarly, in an Afghanistan where the US military is now drawing down its forces and has already destroyed "more than 170 million pounds worth of vehicles and other military equipment," what other force would have decided ahead of time to shred, dismantle, or simply discard $7 billion worth of equipment (about 20% of what it had brought into the country)? The general in charge proudly calls this "the largest retrograde mission in history." To put that in context: What other military would be capable of carrying a total consumer society right down to PXs, massage parlors, boardwalks, Internet cafes, and food courts to war? Let's give credit where it's due: we're not just talking retrograde here, we're talking exceptionally retrograde!

4. What other military could, in a bare few years in Iraq, have built a staggering 505 bases, ranging from combat outposts to ones the size of small American towns with their own electricity generators, water purifiers, fire departments, fast-food restaurants, and even miniature golf courses at a cost of unknown billions of dollars and then, only a few years later, abandoned all of them, dismantling some, turning others over to the Iraqi military or into ghost towns, and leaving yet others to be looted and stripped? And what other military, in the same time period thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, could have built more than 450 bases, sometimes even hauling in the building materials, and now be dismantling them in the same fashion? If those aren't exceptional feats, what are?

5. In a world where it's hard to get anyone to agree on anything, the covert campaign of drone strikes that George W. Bush launched and Barack Obama escalated in Pakistan's tribal areas stands out. Those hundreds of strikes not only caused significant numbers of civilian casualties (including children), while helping to destabilize a sometime ally, but almost miraculously created public opinion unanimity. Opinion polls there indicate that a Ripley's-Believe-It-or-Not-style 97% of Pakistanis consider such strikes "a bad thing." Is there another country on the planet capable of mobilizing such loathing? Stand proud, America!

6. And what other power could have secretly and illegally kidnapped at least 136 suspected terrorists - some, in fact, innocent of any such acts or associations - off the streets of global cities as well as from the backlands of the planet? What other nation could have mustered a coalition-of-the-willing of 54 countries to lend a hand in its "rendition" operations? We're talking about more than a quarter of the nations on Planet Earth! And that isn't all. Oh, no, that isn't all. Can you imagine another country capable of setting up a genuinely global network of "black sites" and borrowed prisons (with local torturers on hand), places to stash and abuse those kidnappees (and other prisoners) in locations ranging from Poland to Thailand, Romania to Afghanistan, Egypt and Uzbekistan to US Navy ships on the high seas, not to speak of that jewel in the crown of offshore prisons, Guantanamo? Such illegality on such a global scale simply can't be matched! And don't even get me started on torture. (It's fine for us to take pride in our exceptionalist tradition, but you don't want to pour it on, do you?)

7. Or how about the way the State Department, to the tune of $750 million, constructed in Baghdad the largest, most expensive embassy compound on the planet - a 104-acre, Vatican-sized citadel with 27 blast-resistant buildings, an indoor pool, basketball courts, and a fire station, which was to operate as a command-and-control center for our ongoing garrisoning of the country and the region? Now, the garrisons are gone, and the embassy, its staff cut, is a global white elephant. But what an exceptional elephant! Think of it as a modern American pyramid, a tomb in which lie buried the dreams of establishing a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East. Honestly, what other country could hope to match that sort of memorial thousands of miles from home?

8. Or what about this? Between 2002 and 2011, the US poured at least $51 billion into building up a vast Afghan military. Another $11 billion was dedicated to the task in 2012, with almost $6 billion more planned for 2013. Washington has also sent in a legion of trainers tasked with turning that force into an American-style fighting outfit. At the time Washington began building it up, the Afghan army was reportedly a heavily illiterate, drug-taking, corrupt, and ineffective force that lost one-third to one-half of its personnel to casualties, non-reenlistment, and desertion in any year. In 2012, the latest date for which we have figures, the Afghan security forces were still a heavily illiterate, drug-taking, corrupt, and inefficient outfit that was losing about one-third of its personnel annually (a figure that may even be on the rise). The US and its NATO allies are committed to spending $4.1 billion annually on the same project after the withdrawal of their combat forces in 2014. Tell me that isn't exceptional!

No one, of course, loves a braggart; so, easy as it might be to multiply these eight examples by others, the winner of the American exceptionalism sweepstakes is already obvious. In other words, this is a moment for exceptional modesty, which means that only one caveat needs to be added to the above record.

I'm talking about actual property rights to "American exceptionalism." It's a phrase often credited to a friendly nineteenth century foreigner, the French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville. As it happens, however, the man who seems to have first used the full phrase was Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. In 1929, when the US was showing few signs of a proletarian uprising or fulfilling Karl Marx's predictions and American Communists were claiming that the country had unique characteristics that left it unready for revolution, Stalin began denouncing "the heresy of American exceptionalism." Outside the US Communist Party, the phrase only gained popular traction here in the Reagan years. Now, it has become as American as sea salt potato chips. If, for instance, the phrase had never before been used in a presidential debate, in 2012 the candidates couldn't stop wielding it.
http://indiandefence.com/threads/eight-exceptional-ly-dumb-american-military-missteps-so-far-this-century.33259/

I don't believe Obama.

I do believe the Navy Seals.

united states also supported al queida, and gave them weapons... we created al queida.

not my timeline, came from wikipedia

Well I wouldn't exactly call the Paks full blown allies. The former head of the ISI was caught red-handed in downtown Kabul on the phone raising funds for the Taliban. Kinda counter-productive don't ya think?

Much of the ISI is sympathetic to the Taliban cause, especially at higher levels. The Pak military currently is the only thing between Al-Qaeda/ISIS/Taliban and the Pak nuclear toy box.

Personally I think it's only a matter of time until there's a mushroom cloud somewhere that it shouldn't be, courtesy of one of Allah's 'misguided' devotees. Depending on what gets turned into a large piece of glass will dictate if there is just shock and horror at the attack, or if it sets the wheels in motion for a nuclear exchange.

India and Pakistan are quickly coming to a confrontation on of all things, water. As worldwide water shortages start to manifest themselves in a more overt fashion, we will begin to see the wars of the resources. Water in the region will be that resource.

I disagree with this.
Firstly pak is not one of the biggest supporter of terrorism & terrorism which i'm referring to is bombings, killing innocent people & all injustice against humanity.
The supporters are infact india & even the U.S & other states & it all gets pinned on pak as a terrorist country by the media & so on.
There's a lot of s h i t been going on & one needs indepth intel to really know the truth...watching the media ect will not do much coz its all B.S. The truth is never documented coz the U.S govt. itself is a total mess in terms of being straight.
Secondly do you think if the U.S wanted war with pak they care about nuclear weapons? LMAO thats funny stuff.
Saddam was claimed to have weapons of mass destruction but did it stop the U.S from invading it?
The truth is the corrupt pak govt. are with the U.S...they're basically puppets & they being fed millions of dollars by the U.S & are infact in good terms, but they show it as otherwise to the world.There is a LOT that goes on behind closed doors my friend.

Tomato86 all your points are legit & i agree with each one of them...its good to see someone that knows the facts

.

There's a reliable source.

thanks romeo, its pretty common knowledge amongst people who are able to think for themselves and arent brainwashed by government run media... we created al queda, as well as we created ISIS. gotta give the military industrial complex something to do. all these government created terror groups and false flag events were to convince people if they give up their freedoms, they will be safer. which is never the case. i see right through the governments lie's as its not hard because they use the same tricks over and over and over again.

You should really try lithium, it does wonders for people with paranoid personality disorder.

You should really try lithium, it does wonders for people with paranoid personality disorder.

November 13, 2014
Public Trust in Government: 1958-2014

Public trust in the government remains near historic lows, although somewhat higher than during the October 2013 government shutdown. In a survey conducted in February 2014, 24% said they trust the government in Washington always or most of the time.

Explore public attitudes towards the federal government over time and compare the data with other key national indicators, such as consumer sentiment, the unemployment rate and changes within the elected leadership.



Washington (CNN) - Four decades after President Richard Nixon resigned, a slight majority of Americans still consider Watergate a very serious matter, a new national survey shows. But how serious depends on when you were born.

The CNN/ORC International poll's release comes one day before the 40th anniversary of Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. With the Watergate scandal escalating, the second-term Republican president had lost much of his political backing, and he faced almost certain impeachment and the prospects of being removed from office by a Democratic-dominated House and Senate.

There's a big generational divide over the significance of the scandal, with a majority of those older than 40 describing Watergate as a very serious problem and those under 40 saying it was just politics.

The poll also indicates that the public's trust in government is at an all-time low.

Just 13% of Americans say the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time, with just over three-quarters saying only some of the time and one in 10 saying they never trust the government, according to the poll.

“Experts” Push For Lithium To Be Added To Our Drinking Water"



Tap WaterApparently there are not enough chemicals already added to our drinking water, as there is now a call by “experts” to further poison our water supplies by adding Lithium. Their main reason is to decrease suicide and violent crime rates.

So it this how we wish to function as a society? Instead of dealing with our issues at hand, let’s drug ourselves so that we don’t have to deal with personal subjects that may be perceived as hard, negative or scary. This is not a time for putting our heads in the sand and pretending or even hoping that an issue will just resolve itself. Where is the personal growth in that? Don’t you feel elated when you resolve a personal issue that no longer hangs over your head or weights on your mind? It is more important than ever to clear ourselves of past issues that we have held onto and allow more room for the new energies coming to earth to take its place within our being.

What is Lithium usually prescribed for?

Bi polar disorder
Agitation not associated with bipolar disorder
Depression and to boost the effect of antidepressants
As a mood stabiliser
Sever Migraine Headaches
What are some side effects of Lithium?

extreme thirst, urinating more or less than usual;
weakness, fever, feeling restless or confused, eye pain and vision problems;
restless muscle movements in your eyes, tongue, jaw, or neck;
pain, cold feeling, or discolorations in your fingers or toes;
feeling light-headed, fainting, slow heart rate;
hallucinations, seizure (blackout or convulsions);
fever with muscle stiffness, sweating, fast or uneven heartbeats; or
early signs of lithium toxicity, such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, drowsiness, muscle weakness, tremor, lack of coordination, blurred vision, or ringing in your ears.

Less serious side effects may include:

mild tremor of the hands;
weakness, lack of coordination;
mild nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, stomach pain or upset;
thinning or drying of the hair; or
itching skin.

Side Effects Source

Adding Lithium appears to be yet another way that our population can be “dumbed down”. Why would governments want to turn our drinking water into a chemical cocktail? Perhaps this way society we will be more malleable and less people will be concerned about what is really going on in this world.

so i guess the reason the government wants to put lithium in the water is because we're all crazy? i think your in the minority on this one.

If they outlawed coffee and energy drinks productivity would drop by 75%..

If they outlawed coffee and energy drinks productivity would drop by 75%..