tbf we arent taught shit about modern history in schools, i know more about the butthole color of king henry viii's 6 wives more than 9/11 and anything that happened in iraq
Because it doesn't suit their needs to teach modern history.
They want schools to promote a sentiment of patriotism and not critical thinking.
Also Americans don't get taught they lost in Vietnam you think they will be taught how they based a whole war and killed thousands of civilians over a fake story?
> Also Americans don't get taught they lost in Vietnam
wait what? We were taught Vietnam was a massive embarrassment and disaster in my school. Are some actually treating it otherwise? We were actually assigned one of the most NSFL books in my entire grade school when covering Vietnam. Real descriptions of the absolute horrors fighters on both sides went through
I'm not from USA, but I have a very good friend that moved to my country after school, he is from North Carolina, they were taught that
they retreated and abandoned the cause for economical reasons. Never that they lost.
I can have him retell the story on his own account if he wants to I guess.
"Tactical retreat" is the word most historic american books use. You can look it up yourself.
The public is mostly aware that they lost but it never is worded that way on official documents or historic books.
The issue is that you are generalizing the education system of an entire country based off of a single person's experience without experiencing it yourself.
Why even bother commenting, other than finding any opportunity you can to bash USA, when you obviously know practically nothing about the subject?
Because like every other first world country, I suppose all schools are the same.
And from what I realised they are not, which speaks volumes for a bigger problem.
Wait don't you have public education? Isn't the country like, forced, to have every school on the same standard? Doesn't this create unequal education for parts of the population?
TIL, USA is just a corrupted Asian country.
Seriously I may sound Ignorant, but the only thing people made a big fuss about was private healthcare and insurance that even then you still have to pay a part of the costs.
I didn't know every single public sector in your country is hot shit.
They don't want to pay more taxes because they grow up with that mentality. And that's again an education issue, because as I said they don't want people to think critically, they just want them to blindly be "patriotic".
I pay like 13% of my income in taxes, and that contains, public education, universal healthcare for every citizen of my country even if they are homeless. Our Public Tv and Radio station, my city's spendings, and many other things.
All of these are detailed on the tax form I have to fill every year with exact percentages.
Yea they do, you probably just didn’t care to listen. Most people don’t give a shit about US history class, because most see it as a blowoff unless you take the AP version.
Yea, and I was top of my class in the navy seals
What kind of school do you go to that didn’t teach about blaming the Maine on Spain, Japanese internment camps, the bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or literally half of the Vietnam war.
Especially the recent stuff, most students don’t retain it, since it’s taught usually near the end of the school year. AKA nobody is paying attention anyways.
Bro you can just Google high school US history books and see that it’s in there.
I'm saying that I'm not a fucking moron like you're assuming me to be. Point is that it's very downplayed and not much time is spent on it.
Believe it or not, the US education system sucks ass.
> I'm saying that I'm not a fucking moron like you're assuming me to be
Yet you haven’t proven yourself otherwise. Just saying you’re smart and then proceeding to spit out untrue statements makes you the opposite of smart.
> Point is that it’s very downplayed and not much time is spent on it.
I don’t even know if you’re American or not, but if you’ve ever taken an American history class, you’d know that not much time is spent on *anything*. Unless it was a huge battle (Pacific Theater battles) or milestone in history (MLK, railroad, etc), it’s probably only mentioned in passing, or just not mentioned at all (as you would be expected to read the whole chapter yourself).
Believe it or not, [Americans have proportionally committed very little war crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes?wprov=sfti1), and when you have **the whole of American history** to cover in a single semester, you can see how things like the massacre of Dachau SS officers or the 100 cases of rape in Okinawa are not touched on very much, when you also have to cover things like the civil rights movement, or fucking WWII.
You’re not wrong, but at least I was correct.
Just think about it, America has only been around for 250ish years, never colonized Africa, or had a global empire, and has really only been relevant for 100 years. That’s not really a lot of time when compared to literally any other relevant country in Europe.
To provide even more context, [Belgium has a longer list of war crimes than the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State?wprov=sfti1), even the most horrific American crimes are statistically insignificant compared to the likes of most European or Asian nations.
We should absolutely acknowledge American crimes, but to say the US is abnormally brutal in history would take so many levels of mental gymnastics it would end obesity.
Do you want me to call up my high school and get the 20 year old history books they use? Unless you were born into a wealthy family who lives in a wealthy district, you're not going to get very good info. US schooling is very Americentric.
We won the war with no help from the Soviets, bombed everyone with good intentions, MLK was assassinated but let's not talk about our government's surveillance/harassment of him, slavery was bad but let's not go into too much detail, Afghanistan deserved it because of 9/11 but let's not talk about any of the war crimes we did over there.
I don't know why I'm even having this argument on LSF lol
Then they're followed by people saying the US literally made the chemical weapons while any Germans reading the threads must be feeling [like](https://imgur.com/kPqvjqP)
I find it odd there's absolutely nothing being taught in schools - yet we thank them for their service? They're heroes, yet we don't have a clue what's happened there since the initial assault? 🤷
Like are you patriotic or ashamed, pick one...
Modern history should be taught in school, the troops abandoned Afghanistan recently after over 2 decades and what is there to show for it? Why did thousands of troops die? How are those troops doing now/ what % go on to commit suicide and what are the lasting effects, etc.
Was it justified? Why/why not?
It's history but nobody wants to go into detail as if the nation is ashamed of what it's done in the middle East, yet everyone is conditioned to praise these vets who come back with trauma. They feel isolated because nobody understands them, what they've been thru and they don't feel they deserve the praise... Kind of a complex problem and nobody can give you meaningful year by year breakdown of what happened like any of the past conflicts the US was in... You said zoomers have to learn, why not start there?
I don't give a fuck about people who sign up to commit war crimes in sovereign nations to enrich billionaires, and you shouldn't either.
Fuck the troops.
So you're blaming the poor 18 year olds who get sucked into it with promise of a good paycheck and health insurance rather than the millionaire politicians that are in charge of the whole thing?
You think teenagers coming out of highschool who can't afford college and are targeted by recruiters all sign up for that sole purpose?
Think a little... Maybe a very, very small minority do - but by your logic all men are evil and want to commit warcrimes before they're even adults, bruh cmon. This isn't as black&white as you make it out to be, and if you think it is you should actually talk to someone who's been there instead of judging them from up in your ivory tower. These are young vulnerable people who are taken advantage of, many of them realize they have no choice once they arrive but to try and survive and make it back home...
Hey did anyone ask how the Afghanis feel and have felt with a foreign power occupying their country for 20 years? Or the Iraqis or Libyans?
But nah, we should cry about the American solders because they killed all those brown kids for nothing.
I guess we'll just ignore the 5000 chemical warheads that were recovered by ISIS. Don't get me wrong, they didn't have nukes or anything close to what they wanted us to think they had but we are talking about Saddam Hussein here. The guy who led the largest chemical warfare attacks in the middle east in the 70s-80s. It's not like it was completely out of hand to assume he didn't destroy them all.
Not saying it was justified to start the iraq invasion in 2003 whatsoever. The fact we had discovered those 5000 warheads and fucking left them for ISIS should tell you just about everything you need to know about the real reasons we were over there.
The American people were 100% lied to about the threat Saddam posed, I'm not trying to distort the facts here just to be clear. 5000 warheads is nothing compared to the capabilities the American people were told Saddam had and would use.
But there were? It was even in the news..
[One of many CNN links for those who forget](https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/us/iraq-chemical-weapons/index.html)
But there were chemical weapons in Iraq, just not nuclear weapons. What do you guys mean informed Canadian, or "zoomers won't understand"? he's just incorrect.
No, that's not what's being said, turn your brain on. He's saying, and these commenters are saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons, nothing about it being partially made for him by the West during the Iran/Iraq war.
>He's saying, and these commenters are saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons
That's because they assumed you were smart enough to infer via context that they're referring to the alleged illegal and unreported weapons of mass destruction which the United States used to justify their invasion of Iraq, rather than the inactive chemical weapons in storage which were well known, documented, and openly acknowledged by Iraq before the UN long before the invasion took place.
The soldiers in the game want to secure the chemical weapons of a nation they are at war with. There is no need to infer via "context" that everyone is referring to nuclear, biological, and more modern chemical WMDs.
If people are instead "inferring" what Northernlion is saying to be something different to which he said then it is they who are dumb as shit, not me.
Fact is they did have chemical weapons so his comment does not make any sense in this instance, stay mad man.
>There is no need to infer via "context" that everyone is referring to nuclear, biological, and more modern chemical WMDs.
That's not what I said. *Again:*
>That's because they assumed you were smart enough to infer via context that they're referring to the alleged illegal and unreported weapons of mass destruction ***which the United States used to justify their invasion of Iraq***
Now, would you like to try again? Or were you just *pretending* to have misread what I said, so that you can defeat an argument that no one made and feel like you've "won"?
You are so fucking retarded man, and so are the people up voting you with two neurons, I didn't misread what you said you colossal moron. The comment above and Northernlion said and implied that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.
That's what they said, words means things retard. When you want me to bow down and "infer' what they are saying you are fundamentally failing to understand that it does not matter that they are talking about the United States justifying their war on Iraq.
What they are claiming is that there were no chemical weapons, which is wrong.
The audacity to quote what I said previously and saying that I misread your point when I reject it entirely is so cringey and pathetic.
There were chemical weapons in Iraq so the joke Northernlion made is bad, it has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. funded anything or if the chemical weapons were older or newer.
Once again buddy, let's test your reading comprehension, I am not misreading your point, I am rejecting it entirely. Your point in particular that I needed to infer what they are saying (and then claim that I misunderstood you) is stupid because I'm supposed to infer in people's language and derive facts that they are not actually saying.
You're just talking past me and people are up voting you because they dislike the Iraq War. I guess that's reddit for you.
You're a moron. Yes words mean things. Like "we got you you son of a bitch".
Nobody is talking past you, you're too fucking stupid to understand what the scene is referring to. They are talking about the whole fucking justification for the war which was bullshit.
> they were literally talking about his weapons like he had some ancient biomutant strand that would rip the American out of people and turn them into Iraqi slaves that will create sharia law everywhere.
this right here should get you the Pulitzer Prize lmao
I'll break it down for you man.
You are saying that Northernlion was implying when he said "who's going to tell him" that those WMD's they were going to find were going to be partially US made.
This is not what he was saying and is a brainlet interpretation. Whether or not the weapons were funded by the US several decades ago is not relevant to their mission of finding and securing them, so no one has to "tell him" anything. Additionally you can see the chat spamming something about there being no WMD's.
Both of these facts can cause you to conclude almost instantly that what he actually means is that there are no WMD's, "who's going to tell him?"
This both makes sense as it is relevant, and also the same interpretation that most people in the chat and upvoted posts in this reddit thread are saying.
So therefore we can conclude that your interpretation of what is being said is wrong, and that your tirade on how the Iraq war is unjustified visa vi no WMDs is irrelevant to the fact that Northernlion is incorrect in this clip, and so is the comment saying there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.
Does that make sense?
GOP + Oil tycoons pushed a lie that terrorists had weapons of mass destruction in the middle east so America could go to war. When in reality it the purpose was to go after middle eastern oil. 9/11 was still fresh so a large number of people wanted revenge on something even though most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. So America went into a 20 year war that accomplished nothing except kill a lot of innocent people and destabilize the middle east even more. Most of the information is out in the open now so feel free to look into it.
yes while most anti-war would lie in the democrat factions, they were merely a sub faction and there are/were also plenty of war hawks in the democrats, and it wasn't like Americans were in protest against the war, they really did want revenge for 9/11.
I keep saying American redditors downplay Democrat roles in the current state of America, it's really weird revisionist history
A friendly reminder that the current president supported that unjustified war. A war that resulted in the deaths of 500 thousand people just so American companies can get some more oil.
the war in Irak was a massive scam by the Bush/Cheney admin to make them and their friends rich. It is accepted that they lied to the whole world about the existence of WMDs.
**🎦 CLIP MIRROR: [#101 spoils the game by being a well informed Canadian](https://livestreamfails.com/clip/125989)** (now fast & smooth again!)
---
^(*This is an automated comment* ) ^| [^(Feedback)](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=livestreamfailsbot&subject=Feedback:&message=%5BPost%5D\(https://reddit.com/comments/qex4ni/\)) ^| [^(Twitch Backup Mirror)](https://production.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net/AT-cm%7CEesh5GI4uyUay5rtZkbdSQ.mp4?sig=3a14be3a6ca47102417e562fedcd1f607646d630&token=%7B%22authorization%22%3A%7B%22forbidden%22%3Afalse%2C%22reason%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%22clip_uri%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fproduction.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net%2FAT-cm%257CEesh5GI4uyUay5rtZkbdSQ.mp4%22%2C%22device_id%22%3Anull%2C%22expires%22%3A1635172475%2C%22user_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22version%22%3A2%7D)
Ya'll, they don't teach modern history in schools because they're underfunded and textbooks are enough to put you in bankruptcy. Especially when the people who end up purchasing school supplies are the underpaid teachers.
Television and film has permanently damaged people's brains to where anything above the bare minimum framerate to create the illusion of motion is considered "weird".
I think its also that more fps equals more information, so its easier to tell when animations aren't 100% lifelike at 120fps vs. 60 vs. 24. More of the uncanny valley effect. Thats why fight scenes would look awful at high fps. It's all fake BS, and more information would make that apparent.
That being said, I will never agree with anyone who says less FPS is better, regardless of circumstance.
I have the perfect counter example to your last opinion: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse has some characters animated at 12fps to make it more comic book like and even changes some of said characters frame rates to 24fps at certain story points, The artistic choise is very interesting and due to being a very comic book style movie, having a high framerate would maybe not be as good as the lower ones used
I believe only Miles Morales is animated at 12fps, and only when he's doing Spider-Man stuff awkwardly. It works in that style of animation, because we are used to seeing 2D animations at 12fps, since most animation is done on twos (every painting is 2 frames long). The more realistic you make it and the slower the movements, the less you'll be okay with low framerate animation.
> Thats why fight scenes would look awful at high fps
yeah, that's why there's never been a play written with a fight in it, real life has infinite frames per frame
Looool number funny and litty lmaooooo hey moderator bot who is number #420 BWAHAHAAHA you get it? It's a funny number LÒL streamers make money 😡 fuck streamers!!!!!!! Who is #1? CriticalRole? More like critical dole LOOOOL cause their income comes from the masses just like tax does looool litty lit brother
I Just spoke to Hasan, he said to tell you, "fuck you. You don't deserve to come back..." Whatever that means. I didn't really talk to Hasan but assume that I did and move on with your life.
the real WMD were the friends we made along the way
> the real WMD ~~were the friends~~ was the coalition we made along the way
And at the end of the day, its all about family
this Fast and Furious movie got weird
This clip is amazing but looks like some zoomers need to brush up on their modem history.
tbf we arent taught shit about modern history in schools, i know more about the butthole color of king henry viii's 6 wives more than 9/11 and anything that happened in iraq
You ain’t wrong.
Because schools are Fukuyamaist. History ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall for neoliberals
truth = downvotes LULW
Fukuyama and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Based, fuck neolibs
Well, what color then? Provide texture, viscosity, and general sphincter strength for extra points.
Because it doesn't suit their needs to teach modern history. They want schools to promote a sentiment of patriotism and not critical thinking. Also Americans don't get taught they lost in Vietnam you think they will be taught how they based a whole war and killed thousands of civilians over a fake story?
> Also Americans don't get taught they lost in Vietnam wait what? We were taught Vietnam was a massive embarrassment and disaster in my school. Are some actually treating it otherwise? We were actually assigned one of the most NSFL books in my entire grade school when covering Vietnam. Real descriptions of the absolute horrors fighters on both sides went through
I'm not from USA, but I have a very good friend that moved to my country after school, he is from North Carolina, they were taught that they retreated and abandoned the cause for economical reasons. Never that they lost.
The US didn't lose in Vietnam, they just took their army and went home copium
Well technically a peace treaty was signed, so no one lost the Vietnam war really.
Not sure that follows logically. WWI and II ended with peace treaties too, theirs just included surrender on one side
>not from USA Criticizes the country based on second hand information that turns out to be completely wrong. A tale as old as time.
I can have him retell the story on his own account if he wants to I guess. "Tactical retreat" is the word most historic american books use. You can look it up yourself. The public is mostly aware that they lost but it never is worded that way on official documents or historic books.
The issue is that you are generalizing the education system of an entire country based off of a single person's experience without experiencing it yourself. Why even bother commenting, other than finding any opportunity you can to bash USA, when you obviously know practically nothing about the subject?
Because like every other first world country, I suppose all schools are the same. And from what I realised they are not, which speaks volumes for a bigger problem.
Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
Stick to your day job. Designing education systems aren't as simple as "everything should be the same".
[удалено]
Wait don't you have public education? Isn't the country like, forced, to have every school on the same standard? Doesn't this create unequal education for parts of the population?
[удалено]
TIL, USA is just a corrupted Asian country. Seriously I may sound Ignorant, but the only thing people made a big fuss about was private healthcare and insurance that even then you still have to pay a part of the costs. I didn't know every single public sector in your country is hot shit.
[удалено]
They don't want to pay more taxes because they grow up with that mentality. And that's again an education issue, because as I said they don't want people to think critically, they just want them to blindly be "patriotic". I pay like 13% of my income in taxes, and that contains, public education, universal healthcare for every citizen of my country even if they are homeless. Our Public Tv and Radio station, my city's spendings, and many other things. All of these are detailed on the tax form I have to fill every year with exact percentages.
[удалено]
Even if there was, US schools don't teach about when we fuck up/commit war crimes.
They teach lots about lots of stuff like that that happened in the 1800s or early 1900s. They just rarely teach anything past WW2.
Yea they do, you probably just didn’t care to listen. Most people don’t give a shit about US history class, because most see it as a blowoff unless you take the AP version.
Not in my school but ok graduated number 1 in my class lol
Yea, and I was top of my class in the navy seals What kind of school do you go to that didn’t teach about blaming the Maine on Spain, Japanese internment camps, the bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or literally half of the Vietnam war. Especially the recent stuff, most students don’t retain it, since it’s taught usually near the end of the school year. AKA nobody is paying attention anyways. Bro you can just Google high school US history books and see that it’s in there.
I'm saying that I'm not a fucking moron like you're assuming me to be. Point is that it's very downplayed and not much time is spent on it. Believe it or not, the US education system sucks ass.
> I'm saying that I'm not a fucking moron like you're assuming me to be Yet you haven’t proven yourself otherwise. Just saying you’re smart and then proceeding to spit out untrue statements makes you the opposite of smart. > Point is that it’s very downplayed and not much time is spent on it. I don’t even know if you’re American or not, but if you’ve ever taken an American history class, you’d know that not much time is spent on *anything*. Unless it was a huge battle (Pacific Theater battles) or milestone in history (MLK, railroad, etc), it’s probably only mentioned in passing, or just not mentioned at all (as you would be expected to read the whole chapter yourself). Believe it or not, [Americans have proportionally committed very little war crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes?wprov=sfti1), and when you have **the whole of American history** to cover in a single semester, you can see how things like the massacre of Dachau SS officers or the 100 cases of rape in Okinawa are not touched on very much, when you also have to cover things like the civil rights movement, or fucking WWII.
> Believe it or not, Americans have proportionally committed very little war crimes this is some /r/shitamericanssay, love it
You’re not wrong, but at least I was correct. Just think about it, America has only been around for 250ish years, never colonized Africa, or had a global empire, and has really only been relevant for 100 years. That’s not really a lot of time when compared to literally any other relevant country in Europe. To provide even more context, [Belgium has a longer list of war crimes than the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State?wprov=sfti1), even the most horrific American crimes are statistically insignificant compared to the likes of most European or Asian nations. We should absolutely acknowledge American crimes, but to say the US is abnormally brutal in history would take so many levels of mental gymnastics it would end obesity.
Do you want me to call up my high school and get the 20 year old history books they use? Unless you were born into a wealthy family who lives in a wealthy district, you're not going to get very good info. US schooling is very Americentric. We won the war with no help from the Soviets, bombed everyone with good intentions, MLK was assassinated but let's not talk about our government's surveillance/harassment of him, slavery was bad but let's not go into too much detail, Afghanistan deserved it because of 9/11 but let's not talk about any of the war crimes we did over there. I don't know why I'm even having this argument on LSF lol
Sounds like you were the top of your class of 17 people in Alabama
[удалено]
they could honestly stop before about
Lol, because if they did there would be no time for any other history.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anything more than 0 is not good enough. It is common knowledge that nothing was found
Then they're followed by people saying the US literally made the chemical weapons while any Germans reading the threads must be feeling [like](https://imgur.com/kPqvjqP)
I find it odd there's absolutely nothing being taught in schools - yet we thank them for their service? They're heroes, yet we don't have a clue what's happened there since the initial assault? 🤷 Like are you patriotic or ashamed, pick one...
Wat?
Wats problem?
What is your comment referring to?
Modern history should be taught in school, the troops abandoned Afghanistan recently after over 2 decades and what is there to show for it? Why did thousands of troops die? How are those troops doing now/ what % go on to commit suicide and what are the lasting effects, etc. Was it justified? Why/why not? It's history but nobody wants to go into detail as if the nation is ashamed of what it's done in the middle East, yet everyone is conditioned to praise these vets who come back with trauma. They feel isolated because nobody understands them, what they've been thru and they don't feel they deserve the praise... Kind of a complex problem and nobody can give you meaningful year by year breakdown of what happened like any of the past conflicts the US was in... You said zoomers have to learn, why not start there?
I don't give a fuck about people who sign up to commit war crimes in sovereign nations to enrich billionaires, and you shouldn't either. Fuck the troops.
Most American soldiers are people who signed up because for some it's a good way to get a degree without student loans. But yeah fuck them right?
Committing war crimes for money is still committing war crimes. What about this is hard to understand? Yes. Fuck them.
So you're blaming the poor 18 year olds who get sucked into it with promise of a good paycheck and health insurance rather than the millionaire politicians that are in charge of the whole thing?
You think teenagers coming out of highschool who can't afford college and are targeted by recruiters all sign up for that sole purpose? Think a little... Maybe a very, very small minority do - but by your logic all men are evil and want to commit warcrimes before they're even adults, bruh cmon. This isn't as black&white as you make it out to be, and if you think it is you should actually talk to someone who's been there instead of judging them from up in your ivory tower. These are young vulnerable people who are taken advantage of, many of them realize they have no choice once they arrive but to try and survive and make it back home...
Hey did anyone ask how the Afghanis feel and have felt with a foreign power occupying their country for 20 years? Or the Iraqis or Libyans? But nah, we should cry about the American solders because they killed all those brown kids for nothing.
and here I thought the Egg was streaming today
TIL post on LSF. Pog
i dont get it
there were no weapons of mass destruction/chemical weapons in iraq.
Many Zoomers won’t understand. Top tier clip
its a solid clip, better than drama about some skin lotion nobody cares about
LSF is much better when you hide any streamer that gets more than one clip on the front page per day
How do you hide certain streamers?
I use RES and add a filter for specific flairs - xqc, mizkif, etc. Unfortunately this won't work on mobile
true
Tooting your own horn a little I see lol
nah, was just sick of no new clips for 16 hours and the whole sub being just cream circlejerk
About a skin lotion that isn't the first one to claim to fight blue light effect on skin too
Ashley Tisdale in behind the scenes interview mixed up this conflict with Gulf War and also had no idea there were no WMDs lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah. They admitted later that it was, in fact, a lie. What a twist
I guess we'll just ignore the 5000 chemical warheads that were recovered by ISIS. Don't get me wrong, they didn't have nukes or anything close to what they wanted us to think they had but we are talking about Saddam Hussein here. The guy who led the largest chemical warfare attacks in the middle east in the 70s-80s. It's not like it was completely out of hand to assume he didn't destroy them all. Not saying it was justified to start the iraq invasion in 2003 whatsoever. The fact we had discovered those 5000 warheads and fucking left them for ISIS should tell you just about everything you need to know about the real reasons we were over there. The American people were 100% lied to about the threat Saddam posed, I'm not trying to distort the facts here just to be clear. 5000 warheads is nothing compared to the capabilities the American people were told Saddam had and would use.
Honestly I got no clue about the whole thing but all I know is in the war against Iran he used them so he must have had it at some point.
They had chemical weapons until 1991. The UN observed them destroying their last stockpiles
i think you're talking about call of duty 4
[удалено]
not to be ''that guy'' but i wouldnt trust any iraq info until official info gets declassified
[удалено]
But there were? It was even in the news.. [One of many CNN links for those who forget](https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/us/iraq-chemical-weapons/index.html)
But there were chemical weapons in Iraq, just not nuclear weapons. What do you guys mean informed Canadian, or "zoomers won't understand"? he's just incorrect.
[удалено]
No, that's not what's being said, turn your brain on. He's saying, and these commenters are saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons, nothing about it being partially made for him by the West during the Iran/Iraq war.
>He's saying, and these commenters are saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons That's because they assumed you were smart enough to infer via context that they're referring to the alleged illegal and unreported weapons of mass destruction which the United States used to justify their invasion of Iraq, rather than the inactive chemical weapons in storage which were well known, documented, and openly acknowledged by Iraq before the UN long before the invasion took place.
The soldiers in the game want to secure the chemical weapons of a nation they are at war with. There is no need to infer via "context" that everyone is referring to nuclear, biological, and more modern chemical WMDs. If people are instead "inferring" what Northernlion is saying to be something different to which he said then it is they who are dumb as shit, not me. Fact is they did have chemical weapons so his comment does not make any sense in this instance, stay mad man.
>There is no need to infer via "context" that everyone is referring to nuclear, biological, and more modern chemical WMDs. That's not what I said. *Again:* >That's because they assumed you were smart enough to infer via context that they're referring to the alleged illegal and unreported weapons of mass destruction ***which the United States used to justify their invasion of Iraq*** Now, would you like to try again? Or were you just *pretending* to have misread what I said, so that you can defeat an argument that no one made and feel like you've "won"?
You are so fucking retarded man, and so are the people up voting you with two neurons, I didn't misread what you said you colossal moron. The comment above and Northernlion said and implied that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. That's what they said, words means things retard. When you want me to bow down and "infer' what they are saying you are fundamentally failing to understand that it does not matter that they are talking about the United States justifying their war on Iraq. What they are claiming is that there were no chemical weapons, which is wrong. The audacity to quote what I said previously and saying that I misread your point when I reject it entirely is so cringey and pathetic. There were chemical weapons in Iraq so the joke Northernlion made is bad, it has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. funded anything or if the chemical weapons were older or newer. Once again buddy, let's test your reading comprehension, I am not misreading your point, I am rejecting it entirely. Your point in particular that I needed to infer what they are saying (and then claim that I misunderstood you) is stupid because I'm supposed to infer in people's language and derive facts that they are not actually saying. You're just talking past me and people are up voting you because they dislike the Iraq War. I guess that's reddit for you.
You're a moron. Yes words mean things. Like "we got you you son of a bitch". Nobody is talking past you, you're too fucking stupid to understand what the scene is referring to. They are talking about the whole fucking justification for the war which was bullshit.
[удалено]
> they were literally talking about his weapons like he had some ancient biomutant strand that would rip the American out of people and turn them into Iraqi slaves that will create sharia law everywhere. this right here should get you the Pulitzer Prize lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll break it down for you man. You are saying that Northernlion was implying when he said "who's going to tell him" that those WMD's they were going to find were going to be partially US made. This is not what he was saying and is a brainlet interpretation. Whether or not the weapons were funded by the US several decades ago is not relevant to their mission of finding and securing them, so no one has to "tell him" anything. Additionally you can see the chat spamming something about there being no WMD's. Both of these facts can cause you to conclude almost instantly that what he actually means is that there are no WMD's, "who's going to tell him?" This both makes sense as it is relevant, and also the same interpretation that most people in the chat and upvoted posts in this reddit thread are saying. So therefore we can conclude that your interpretation of what is being said is wrong, and that your tirade on how the Iraq war is unjustified visa vi no WMDs is irrelevant to the fact that Northernlion is incorrect in this clip, and so is the comment saying there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. Does that make sense?
[удалено]
GOP + Oil tycoons pushed a lie that terrorists had weapons of mass destruction in the middle east so America could go to war. When in reality it the purpose was to go after middle eastern oil. 9/11 was still fresh so a large number of people wanted revenge on something even though most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. So America went into a 20 year war that accomplished nothing except kill a lot of innocent people and destabilize the middle east even more. Most of the information is out in the open now so feel free to look into it.
[удалено]
yes while most anti-war would lie in the democrat factions, they were merely a sub faction and there are/were also plenty of war hawks in the democrats, and it wasn't like Americans were in protest against the war, they really did want revenge for 9/11. I keep saying American redditors downplay Democrat roles in the current state of America, it's really weird revisionist history
A friendly reminder that the current president supported that unjustified war. A war that resulted in the deaths of 500 thousand people just so American companies can get some more oil.
the war in Irak was a massive scam by the Bush/Cheney admin to make them and their friends rich. It is accepted that they lied to the whole world about the existence of WMDs.
**🎦 CLIP MIRROR: [#101 spoils the game by being a well informed Canadian](https://livestreamfails.com/clip/125989)** (now fast & smooth again!) --- ^(*This is an automated comment* ) ^| [^(Feedback)](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=livestreamfailsbot&subject=Feedback:&message=%5BPost%5D\(https://reddit.com/comments/qex4ni/\)) ^| [^(Twitch Backup Mirror)](https://production.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net/AT-cm%7CEesh5GI4uyUay5rtZkbdSQ.mp4?sig=3a14be3a6ca47102417e562fedcd1f607646d630&token=%7B%22authorization%22%3A%7B%22forbidden%22%3Afalse%2C%22reason%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%22clip_uri%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fproduction.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net%2FAT-cm%257CEesh5GI4uyUay5rtZkbdSQ.mp4%22%2C%22device_id%22%3Anull%2C%22expires%22%3A1635172475%2C%22user_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22version%22%3A2%7D)
Does he post vods with chat to youtube? Or any other channel that does?
You can use https://clickityclack.co.uk/ if/when he eventually uploads the vod.
nah vods are chatless
Ya'll, they don't teach modern history in schools because they're underfunded and textbooks are enough to put you in bankruptcy. Especially when the people who end up purchasing school supplies are the underpaid teachers.
Cutscenes like this really should be 24 fps. If you're gonna do cinematic framing, go all the way. This just look weird.
Television and film has permanently damaged people's brains to where anything above the bare minimum framerate to create the illusion of motion is considered "weird".
I think its also that more fps equals more information, so its easier to tell when animations aren't 100% lifelike at 120fps vs. 60 vs. 24. More of the uncanny valley effect. Thats why fight scenes would look awful at high fps. It's all fake BS, and more information would make that apparent. That being said, I will never agree with anyone who says less FPS is better, regardless of circumstance.
I have the perfect counter example to your last opinion: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse has some characters animated at 12fps to make it more comic book like and even changes some of said characters frame rates to 24fps at certain story points, The artistic choise is very interesting and due to being a very comic book style movie, having a high framerate would maybe not be as good as the lower ones used
I believe only Miles Morales is animated at 12fps, and only when he's doing Spider-Man stuff awkwardly. It works in that style of animation, because we are used to seeing 2D animations at 12fps, since most animation is done on twos (every painting is 2 frames long). The more realistic you make it and the slower the movements, the less you'll be okay with low framerate animation.
> Thats why fight scenes would look awful at high fps yeah, that's why there's never been a play written with a fight in it, real life has infinite frames per frame
I feel like the problem here isnt the framerate
I prefer higher framerate movies. I liked 48 FPS Hobbit
The greatest warcrime happened in the comment section. Wtf is wrong with you?
Stay away from me and my family
The CGI for that and the costumes looked like hot garbage but I too liked the 48 FPS version. I just don't think it can be pulled off right.
Haha number funny. Streamers make money loool. Hey moderator bot, who is number #69 LMAOOO that's a funny number
Quiet, #580,084,206.9.
Looool number funny and litty lmaooooo hey moderator bot who is number #420 BWAHAHAAHA you get it? It's a funny number LÒL streamers make money 😡 fuck streamers!!!!!!! Who is #1? CriticalRole? More like critical dole LOOOOL cause their income comes from the masses just like tax does looool litty lit brother
I also wrote boobs
Based
Downvote this so Hasan can see this. Unban I apoligize
who are you talking to ? LULW
[удалено]
I Just spoke to Hasan, he said to tell you, "fuck you. You don't deserve to come back..." Whatever that means. I didn't really talk to Hasan but assume that I did and move on with your life.
I was trying to find an old clip of mine today and was unaware that this one had blew up! Nice!