americunt soldiers = racist genocidal maniacs

from article at
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece

...
Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died in combat.
...
"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."
...
Sgt Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003. "The mentality of my squad leader was like, 'Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado'," she said. "He just seemed to view every Iraqi as a potential terrorist."
...
"[The photo] was very graphic... They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got a spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and smiling."
...
"A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."
...

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece

From now until the end of my life, if I EVER meet any americunt that participated in this war, I WILL cave their fucking skull in.  I don't give a fuck about the consequences.  These fucking americunt asshole soldiers are worse than Nazi death-camp guards, and probably even stupider.  At this point, I think it's obvious who the REAL TERRORISTS on this earth are.

Retarded americunt soldiers AND supporters are an enemy of human decency and ought to all be disposed of in the harshest manner possible.  If one lives next door to you, run them over in the street with your car if you have to.  Poison their food, burn their house down, or even just take a bat to their skull.  Feel free to target their entire family while you're at it.  If you don't, one day they'll be pointing their gun at YOU.

Dear Mr. Bush,

Please pull our troops out of iraq.  They're not doing any good.

Your pal,
Anon

Spoiler: Muslims are worth less than nothing.

Pull out, nuke, and then collect the treasure.

>>4

3 titted, 2 vagoo bitches?

FUCK YEAH!

Im confused..Muslims aint white...so why is killing them wrong exactly?

yeah you bash that americunt's head in...

oh wait he is a soldier who has killed before and will take you out no problem

Idiots the soldiers were following orders not killing random civs. And how do you know they weren't fighting you moron.

Survival of the fittest, if you get beat down, nobody gives a fuck.

So if it's wrong to kill them randomly, they just have to kill them systematically, right?

>>10 Dessimate them
>>1 A few bad eggs cannot account for a whole race, this is what you apply to the arabs/persians yet not Americans, you are equally racist and ignorant, your thought seems to be a byproduct of the medias attention on the war.
>>2 Yes the war was a bad idea but too pull out now may just tip the iceberg.
I hate the logic that 'you are American, you voted for George bush, the war in Iraq is your fault', it plagues England to no end, especially as we are just as involved. The soldiers that are doing this are simply doing this because they are in a war, I don't view them as 'evil oppressors' but merely as trying to cope with thier surroundings, yes they are ignorant but so is everyone. So I do not blame the soldiers for this activity (as it is a minority) or even the leaders because they try thier best to stop this activity (mainly to improve americas image though).

I don't understand why genocide has such a negative connotation

>>12

Because there're save spots to where the victims can flee and if some do survive then they'll bitch about it for at least 60 years.

I gots some news for y'all:

AN ARMY HURTS PEOPLE AND BREAKS THINGS.

No army fielded has had noble goals.  In war, there are no good guys and bad.  There are just opposing forces.

This means that American troops are committing atrocities since they are just soldiers.  The "war" has gone on too long and the opportunities to hurt more people and break more things is only going to grow.  Of course, this fits neatly inside the Neo-Con agenda and as long as they are in charge of government (with the spineless complicity of otherwise dissenting Congressional Democrats and Republicans) then nothing will change.

>>14
ahahaa i can't stop laughing...

>>14

You have to be fucking kidding me. Don't you find your morals to be highly dubious? Considering that, in the past, we have taken unilateral stances against that type of behavior? And don't you think that our inability to address evil in our country is what MAKES us spineless? There ARE good guys and bad guys. And right now it's looking like America is habouring some of the most horrible (but wealthy) people on the face of the fucking planet.

#16, get over yourself.  What morals were really involved in rolling out a practical and time-honored explanation of what an army is?  Armies kill people and destroy property.  Even when you lavish training and slogans on an army, it always ends up doing just those 2 things.  That's not casting judgment; I'm only telling you what logically happens.

THAT is why a standing military is such a danger to a civilization.  Yet Americans greatly love their military.  The end product of warfare atrocities is only to be expected.

Don't pretend that you don't understand all that.

(And the "opposing forces" model of militancy stands by itself as self-evident.  If you take the good/bad viewpoint, you're still only authorizing the formation of a "righteous force" that simply commits atrocities since by the virtue of righteousness it is unable to see itself as doing anything wrong.)

>>17

Why are you repeating yourself? I understand exactly what you are saying, you're just wrong.

Your simple-minded acceptance of warfare atrocities as being "logical" is the precisely the problem. By expecting our soldiers to commit to unnecessary atrocious behavior, you are turning them into a "righteous force" because you falsely believe that behavior is somehow necessary or status quo.

You're doing the same thing I'm doing only you're changing "good/bad" to "logical/illogical". I'm sorry, but the fundamental reason why people take stances against things like atrocities and fascism and genocide is BECAUSE they are viewed as "Bad", BECAUSE these things seem inherently wrong or unethical.  

If your attitude is: "Well, of course thousand of civilians died. That's what our Army does." then that, I'm sorry to inform you, is STILL a judgment. Is it any wonder that we have the kind of army we do? Is it any wonder that we are perceived as being unable to hold ourselves and those who have authority and power over ourselves accountable for the evil they commit? Would you prefer things to keep going as they have been, all because you don't wanna take a moral stance?

from the start, they call the general population "sand niggers", nice PR

#18, I repeated myself since you're still not listening and are still giving my words an attitude that doesn't exist.  I only related what an army does; I did NOT support the idea of it.  I'm against a standing military, and only believe in self-defense (which is essentially impossible to do beyond the borders of your own nation).  Naturally, the leaders and voters in the USA are busily wiping their asses with my sentiments.

You're just lost in the leftie Liberal anti-war overdrive, so it's difficult to hear statements like mine.  I'm fine with that, at any rate, since our culture is drenched in warfare and that will come to an end one way or another (and I prefer the peaceful way of simply giving up attacking the rest of the world).  It's important to hear anti-war sentiments like yours, even if you tend to attack rational analysis of the present situation.

And finally, I view this good/bad thing as a falsehood for exactly the reasons I stated before.  Thinking those two things (one, that you're "good"; and two, that that guy over there is "bad") ONLY leads to military adventurism.  I believe in national sovereignty and self-defense.  That means that no matter how "bad" some other nation is, we have no moral justification within those parameters that allows us to mount a military expedition to INVADE THEIR NATION, DEPOSE THEIR RULERS, and otherwise hurt their people and break their things.  That's why military actions aren't good or bad; they only become violent actions committed by opposing forces.  Atrocities arise naturally on that basis.

>>20
Nowadays, due to missiles etc attack may be the only defense as people can launch an attack without setting soldiers into your borders, or, terrorist attacks. Oh yeah, in any case I don't support the war either, but because we don't live in a perfect world, a military is neccasary, history is filled with invasion.

Because of this, sometimes the only way to ensure peace is by war (if you prepare for peace, prepare for war), a not so nice paradox. Also, just because someone voted for George Bush doesn't mean they voted for war, they may have voted for him because of his POLICIES maybe (but obviously not on war). If there is a war, yes there will be deaths but just because it is a war does not mean many deaths can be avoided, this is already taken into account, prisoners, not harming innocent civilians etc, so I find it a gross misconception for someone to accept the killing of civilians in war.

>>20

"Left Liberal Anti-War Overdrive"

What the fuck are you talking about? That statement alone invalidates any so-called "rational analysis" you think you've provided. You're going into generalities about "the cold brutal truth" about war and I'm specifically referring to holding our military accountable for it's atrocious actions. All this other semantical garbage you're regurgitating is so nebulous that you can't even see through your own fucking bullshit.

If an atrocity is bad and the military or opposing force or whatever is the guilty party in committing or enabling those that commit that atrocity, then they are BAD. Taking a weak stance like "military action aren't good or bad" sounds suspiciously like apathy and nihilism. We already understand the nature of war and conflict. We saw Apocalypse Now. We're talking about holding our own soldiers accountable for the unwarranted evil they commit. Either you understand that or you don't.

#22, you know, the strange thing here which is still unseeable from your overdrive standpoint, is that I agree with you.  We should hold our military accountable, and in fact I don't want a standing military in the first place.  I can only state again that like Ron Paul, I'm extremely outvoted on that issue.

THAT is what the fuck I'm talking about.  And I continue to assert that partisan viewpoints on their own participation in war is still not a matter of "good/bad".  The participants in such wars are in fact the LAST people we should be asking about justifications for the war ... since both sides ("opposing forces", remember?) think they're the good guys, that their god is on their side, etc.  Warfare as commonly conducted is never pursued as a moral act, except for the defenders ... and even then, they rapidly devolve into an opposing force which will justify any act as long as it's done in the pursuit of winning.

Considering atrocities, well, by your own measure and by my judgment about soldiers, all participants in a war are "bad".  But addressing the issue only makes you into a soldier too, making YOU also a "bad" person.  There's simply no escaping the harsh reality of war ... except by avoiding war, which is certainly not what's on the agendas of the US Congress and radical Islamics.

>>22
all of this while we forget that those we are fighting against no matter what they do at the end of the day will be treated like heroes. And so far i havent seen a group of middle easterns (like the antiwar protestors) invested in trying to get their own people to surrender.

Enough already, >>23. You're clearing distorting the argument so that we can discuss your political viewpoints. Read >>1 and tell me why the fuck anything in the second paragraph of your trite retort needed to be stated in the first place? I'm a "Liberal in Overdrive"? No, no, no: You're a retard in denial. AND you're projecting.

Regardless of the reasons or the general nature of war and although we'd like to avoid it at all cost; I think it's safe to say with a degree of certainty that IF we do enter war, we don't want our military shooting kids or acting in the name of genocide.

As for the rest: If you were truly serious about ending war, you'd initiate an insurrection of the American people vs the American government. The sum of your posts still comes off a little too "Well, that's war fer ya." for anyone to believe that your own convictions are strong enough to warrant action.

FUCK YOU AMERICAN SCUM. HOW DARE YOU RISE AGAINST YOUR BRITISH MASTERS. FUCKING REBEL SCUM FUCKS SCUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

#25, no, I'm not the stopping type, so you can get that little depraved expectation right the fuck out of your head.  You fight speech with more speech (as you're clearly doing; good show).  Once you raise an issue, you really can't say "er, ah, that's off issue" when the argument goes against you.  As I also said before, we are largely agreeing; it was YOU (or some other anonfag) who took umbrage against what you imagined my attitude to be.

I've already agreed that I don't want the military thinking they can torture in my name.  I don't even WANT a standing military in the first place since it's a danger to everyone -- to people and property, foreign and domestic.  After all that brouhaha in the 1770s about King George quartering troops in American homes, modern Americans have no problems being TAXED to provide the same type of troops with housing.  It's lunacy.

I've also already said that the current pack of leaders and followers don't give a rat's ass what I think about that.  Dead and tortured towelheads are what they want.  Stealing my tax money to pay their corporate buddies is also what they want.

Well, I did something about that tax money.  My insurrection as such is in its 10th year and I'm doing what I can against the sick and evil American Empire.  When the beast no longer cares to listen to the master's commands, I say:

STARVE THE BEAST.

Of course, I'm only one of a rather paltry few who are taking this tack.  But that's collective action for ya.

P.S.  About the 'overdrive' bit, you really need to learn to read, and having once read, you need to calm down and consider what was said.  Your reactions are only proving my assertions.  I DID say:

"leftie Liberal anti-war overdrive"

This means that I can have my own viewpoint on how to be anti-war and it doesn't need to match yours by chapter and verse, and neither in tone.  But you took the tone incorrectly, several times, and having taken such umbrage you literally went apeshit.  Hence:  OVERDRIVE.  You just proved it.  (And I'm sure in reply you're going to continue to prove it, alas.)

This very thread itself is turning into a war, I don't want to sound like the pathetic hippy 'pacifist' here but you're intelligence in debate shows by how well you compose yourself in something heated, even though you agree, your differences make you conflict, this is the very nature that causes war. War can be seen extremly different, but the only way to see it truthfully is by being indifferent. it is very well to starve the beast but what matters most is what it is replaced with, you can't have a revolution without new ideals and a way of stabilizing them. Ad hominem blah blah yakkety yak.

>>28
Great now take out ur love from 4chan

>>27

You still don't get it. You keep talking about yourself and you and what your general views are when all that was asked of you was a make a moral a judgment on the current actions of our military. It's...quaint...that you don't want a standing military but - I'm sorry - that's not what OP's post is about. I, personally, don't mind a standing military if we can regulate them to be an honorable force among malevolent forces.

>>1
Assuming that yes, that all happened, you still have a fairly low sampling rate to judge all American soldiers. Also, I advise you to stop breathing, I think you have an alarming disorder that causes oxygen in your blood to cause damage to your brain's higher functions.

As for everyone else, I just want to point out a few topics for possible discussion:
1.) The American people do not have a say in who is president by voting, the Electoral college does that, mostly by inferring which candidate would make their constituents happy. Furthermore, we do not really have a say in who is even a candidate, so blaming the American people really is a fool's errand
2.) America is hardly sending people that are qualified to Iraq. Of the people I know that are there, all of them joined the army to get college money, and none of them were forced before going to learn any Iraqi or Farsi.
3.) The American government and large corporations are too busy having a money orgy to care what you think, and your neighbors are probably too comfortable living the status quo to do anything about it.
4.) The only way to 'win' this undeclared war is to make sure that Iraq's government doesn't fall apart after the troops leave, that this government can see to the security of its people and itself, and is not helmed by one person who could become another dictator like Saddam if left unchecked. This 'one person' caveat includes the president of the United States.
5.) This is hardly a holy war on the part of the jihadists. It is generally a bunch of guys who hate America and/or Isreal enough to pervert the local religion to obtain influence to do something about it. If it was about beliefs, these terrorist leaders would be jumping at our soldiers with explosives to crack their way into heaven.

The Kurds are having a whale of a time. It's like they have their own defacto country.

ahhh, armchair quarterbacking.

>>31
The "insurgents" in Iraq are a mixture of:  former Baathists, jihadists, people who think the US are enemy invaders, and most of all CRIMINALS (black marketers, etc). 
The majority of the problems in fixing Iraq come from the criminals.

>>30

Excuse me, third party here. What exactly do you consider an "honorable force among malevolent forces"? One that kills for a different reason? One that kills in a different way? One that kills less? More? Only when threatened? Maybe some of those would make a difference, but no matter how you look at it, it's still killing.

I think what >>27 is saying is that warfare IN GENERAL is bad, not any particular side of the battle. You can't blame or excuse either army.

The moment a war begins, atrocities will be committed. I dare you to provide a single example where that was not the case. There is no such thing as an honorable war or even a purely honorable army. But every single government and every single nation thinks that they're on the "good" side of the fighting. No matter which one you support or which one you degrade, the war still continues. The only way to end the associated suffering is to end the conflict, not to infuse all the fighters with some kind of infallible honor.

A good reason and a good character does not prevent a good person from doing a terrible deed. That is the simple truth of war.

PS. I'm proudly leftie, liberal, and anti-war. I don't like the way #27 phrased his insult, but somehow I think I can get over it.

Please come to terms with the fact that an argument can still be intelligent even if you don't like the person who made it.

PPS. >>28 Better a war of words than a war with guns and missiles, though.

I'm not the one that said this, but I'll explain on his behalf.

>Excuse me, third party here. What exactly do you consider an "honorable force among malevolent forces"? One that kills for a different reason? One that kills in a different way? One that kills less? More? Only when threatened? Maybe some of those would make a difference, but no matter how you look at it, it's still killing.

Sometimes killing may be the only alternative available, if someone kills for personal gain then it is deemed malevant, if someone kills out of protection then it is deemed honourable. Yes it is still killing but because it was out of protection he doesn't have the blame for it and he cannot be punished. Was it wrong for the gauls/celts to kill Romans? I wouldn't call such thing an atrocity either as both sides accepted it. As for who was on the 'good' side of the fighting, that depends on thier own ideals.

Honour? well, I believe in honour but I think it's more of a thing of respect and ka, so I may fight out of honour yes. I'm sorry to say this, but when I read that you said you were liberal and 'anti-war' I thought of you not knowing what the fuck war is about, especially as you call yourself 'anti-war'.

Yes, I am anti-war on an objective scale, but thier may be truthful occasions where I am 'pro-war' Because there are situations where thiis is viable. As for ending the conflict, well, that's not going to happen because each side has thier own ideals and priorities, we're not living in a liberal paradise.

>>30, here.

My reply is more or less what >>35 said.

War is pretty awful. Fun though.

The final insult here should be in the recollection that in choosing the Commander in Chief of all the organized armed forces of the USA in 2004, we were faced with and end result of 99% of the vote going towards 2 candidates who had no intention of stopping the war and withdrawing the troops.  Of course, my vote was in the remaining 1%.  I'm sure I don't need to explain that my direct and LEGAL efforts to stop the war were thoroughly converted into toilet tissue by which many partisan asses were wiped.

I'm not going to read all the screaming in the thread. I'll be stating the obvious though, directed at >>1, which no doubt has already been mentioned:

What the fuck did you expect they'd do?

The soldiers are living in a life-and-death situation. They don't know when they're going to get it, but they know they are out there. They know that most of the community is against them. There could be a sniper bullet or an IED with your or a buddy's name on it.

When you have to put up with it constantly, it gets a little thin. Eventually you just wish the order would come down from upon high to raze the whole city, morals be damned, because at last you won't have to fear anymore; they'll all be dead, good or bad.

I hate war. I hate bloodshed. I want everyone to be happy. I want this world to be a better place. I'm a fucking hippie as far as the conservatives are concerned. But if you put me in that kind of situation, I have no illusions how long it would take before I degraded to that.

And if you think you're different, you're a righteous fool.

>>39
Bad people make people unhappy and you need wars to stop them. I doubt the nazis would go "oh how noble and compassionate Mahatma Gandhi is, how could we have been so brutal, BAAAWWWWW". The only reason India didn't need a war to liberate itself was because the British public were good people and believed India's independance was a good thing not a challenge to their dominance.

>>40

BULL. SHIT.

>>40

BULL. SHIT.

Spread the gospel, #39!  Yes indeed, what did the American people expect their military to do in Iraq -- hand out flowers and candy bars?  Like I said before, armies hurt people and break things.  An army is not an instrument of foreign relations.

Considering that American military involvement in Vietnam was roughly a 9-year clusterfuck (of the Vietnamese people, largely), then we have to roll the idea around in our heads that the "Second Imperial Rape of Iraq" is probably going to go on until at least 2012 if Iran is also roped into the picture.  After all, the "Vietnam War" also involved Cambodia and Laos for the full 9-year fucking.  It also required 2 Presidents and strong Congressional support.  Recall firmly that Kerry in 2004 was all for the rape of Iraq and he wanted to even increase troop levels (as BusHitler finally did, anyway).  No doubt from the current rhetoric, the Dem candidate in 2008 will continue ass-raping Iraq, and the Repub candidate will have an actual BONER for fucking Iran.  Yes, right up there on the stages and podiums, the Republican candidate will sport a stiffy when he mentions invading Iran.

I've reread >>40 three times, and I don't see how it relates to >>39...

>>40, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that wars are necessary? What does that have to do with how soldiers behave under pressure (>>39)?

Someone help me here.

>>44
Soldiers need to be put in these situations.

>>43
>>45

Wrong across the board. You dumbfucks and samefags still don't get it. This isn't about the side effect savagery of an armed force or the unfortunate collateral bloodsheed of some civilians.

This is about the taking of innocent lives- children, mind you -  and doing so in the name of genocide and racism. Any form of downplaying this as anything BUT that will be justly seen as support for genocide.

Who should I trust? The soldiers who put everything they have on the line for no other reason than to serve their country or a bunch of whiny cocksuckers posting on 4chan under the name Anonymous??

Is this the part where you tell me your "for the soldiers but against the war"?

piss off.

>>47
Officers do it because of the pay check.
Privates do it because they were told too.
Ok maybe I am being a bit overly cynical but I don't think thier intentions aren't as clear as that, especially with the government. I think you should go over to /k/.

You're being overly cynical and stupidly naive. Maybe you should go over to /an/

Soldiers suck.

>>49
I was kind of joking....
But anyway, you go to a website, insult its members saying that anyone who posts there are whiny cocksuckers (kind of self-defeating eh?) and you tell US to piss off then you act like a total idiot, So I think you're a Troll and you're the one who should "gtfo", we can either go back to a decent debate or carry on with petty name calling till one of us go's to /an/ or /k/.

>>50
The system sucks. A system that supports HAVING to join the armed forces to feed your family and pay the bills. It's like joining the postal service and skipping the paperwork...

>>51

Yes, I can see where you might consider attacking honest
men and women in an anonymous forum as a "decent debate". /b/terbation and suicide bombings are also "decent debates". I especially enjoyed the ops vow to "cave in their fucking skulls" to cure them of their violent tendencies.

>>50 and >>52 just illustrate the point . /newpol/ is like jerking off and leaving the evidence behind for public viewing.

im gone.

BAWWWWWW!  WAR INVOLVES KILLING IN COLD BLOOD!


BAWWWWWW!  SOMETIMES NON-COMBATANTS GET KILLED


BAWWWWWW!  LETS JUST CONVERT TO ISLAM TO HAVE PEACE!

#46:  I've told you before, anonyfuck, that I'm just telling you the consequences of what invoking an army does.  At least 50 million American voters in 2004 thought that that was perfectly fine.  Now tell me again how that my simple recounting is in any way similar to the support that those Imperialist fuckos have done.

Armies hurt people and break things.  Those who want them must face that fact.  This doesn't mean I want them, either, you fucknoses!  REPORTING NEWS ISN'T THE SAME AS MAKING THE NEWS!  (At least, not for the general public.  Real reporters these days slant the news any way they can in order to fall into line with whatever their personal philosophy is.)

>>55
US isn't imperialist. They turn the countries they conquer into modern sophisticated civilised peaceful demoracies. Compare South Korea with South Vietnam. Compare East Germany with West Germany. It's you Stalinists and Maoists who are the imperialists!!

>US isn't imperialist. They turn the countries they conquer into modern sophisticated civilised peaceful demoracies

Wrong. Everything the US touches becomes a socialist shithole that hates freedom of speech. Just take a closer look at France, Japan, Germany and South Korea.

>>57
Granted they still have problems, but they aren't as screwed as nations conquerred by Maoists.

Face it, the US Armed Forces are currently the worlds most expensive train wreck. And yet you keep pouring more gasoline on the fire.

Fire as a metaphor.

>>59
They are the most technologically advanced on the planet and nations in the next technology sphere are their bound allies.

>>60
WTF does that have to do with them being imperialist? If anything, you're proving the point, because the empire in charge tends to be in that position due to technological advancements. Nowadays, however, the Christfags are running the country, and they can't stand science because it doesn't mention God. Thus, learn fuckin' Chinese buddy, they're the inheritors of the world if shit keeps going this way.

They are the most technologically advanced on the plane
You don't "get" it.

Technology is useful, but it's an exponential cost for diminishing returns. The problem is that the US military has decided to treat soldiers as dumb feet that move gun platforms, which means that the soldiers aren't particularly well-trained, and are increasingly being loaded down with useless techno-gizmo pizzazz.

This is why the US often gets thumped in war games against other Western countries. The opponents have somewhat shittier technology (yet substantially cheaper) but better trained soldiers. In reality if the US ever had to face a Western power (it'll never happen) it would have to win the Soviet way: numbers.

And then, of course, asymmetric warfare completely changes everything. All that technology is useless pork-barrel bullshit unless you decide to simply raze entire towns.

tl;dr: technology is useful, but not as much as the US likes to believe it is.

>>60
Uh yeah, hence my expensive comment. That doesn't change the fact that their ranks are riddled with thugs, criminals and other uneducated lowlives.

>>60
USA is way behind in technologically. Even South Korea is ahead.

>>63
Yes.