Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Collateral damage (as in non-combatant casualties) is not a calculated risk, it's murder.
nice quote, however if you really believe that then line up every American, British, German, Russian, or (fill in the blank country) general and convict them of war crimes. right? Eisenhower and Montgomery- great WW II generals OR murderers?
who are the ones that should be really affraid?
hogwash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks
nice quote, however if you really believe that then line up every American, British, German, Russian, or (fill in the blank country) general and convict them of war crimes. right? Eisenhower and Montgomery- great WW II generals OR murderers?
who are the ones that should be really affraid?
hogwash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks
the American foreign policy is one the most crual ones on Earth
Post Iran War 2003, since 2009 what do you find so cruel about US foreign policy?
It's just that the USA should not be the policeman of the world.
I agree totally. I was against the Iraq War of 2003. I was against invading Libya, while for limited bombings in conjunction with other countries. I am against getting involved in Egypt. Finally, you have NOT heard me say the US should bomb Syria.
Post Iran War 2003, since 2009 what do you find so cruel about US foreign policy?
It's just that the USA should not be the policeman of the world.
I agree totally. I was against the Iraq War of 2003. I was against invading Libya, while for limited bombings in conjunction with other countries. I am against getting involved in Egypt. Finally, you have NOT heard me say the US should bomb Syria.
Post Iran War 2003, since 2009 what do you find so cruel about US foreign policy?
What, did you invade Iran too in 2003? I guess you mean Iraq :p
What is so cruel? The game of drones Obama is playing for instance. The terror the Pakistani people have to live with. The Guantanamo policy (if you can call that a policy).
What, did you invade Iran too in 2003? I guess you mean Iraq :p
What is so cruel? The game of drones Obama is playing for instance. The terror the Pakistani people have to live with. The Guantanamo policy (if you can call that a policy).
convict them of war crimes. right?
Unrealistic, but yes, that would be a good thing. Let them explain their policy and justify their actions, why that many innocent people have to die just to get 1 or a few persons. And what prove do they have to kill these people without trail.
Eisenhower and Montgomery- great WW II generals OR murderers?
Different times. You can't compare WW2 with today's technology in wars. Everyone would be against bombing if carpet bombing was used as in WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks
What is your point? Most dead are not US citizens, except for the World Trade Center? And ofcourse I'm not counting dead soldiers as one of their work hazards is getting killed in war.
And al-Qaeda is just one of many terrorist groups, there are many other groups, also way before al-Qaeda even existed. But to put the death toll in countries in the right perspective: wiki - List of terrorist incidents by death toll
(edited)
Unrealistic, but yes, that would be a good thing. Let them explain their policy and justify their actions, why that many innocent people have to die just to get 1 or a few persons. And what prove do they have to kill these people without trail.
Eisenhower and Montgomery- great WW II generals OR murderers?
Different times. You can't compare WW2 with today's technology in wars. Everyone would be against bombing if carpet bombing was used as in WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks
What is your point? Most dead are not US citizens, except for the World Trade Center? And ofcourse I'm not counting dead soldiers as one of their work hazards is getting killed in war.
And al-Qaeda is just one of many terrorist groups, there are many other groups, also way before al-Qaeda even existed. But to put the death toll in countries in the right perspective: wiki - List of terrorist incidents by death toll
(edited)
Collateral damage (as in non-combatant casualties) is not a calculated risk, it's murder.
nice try Charles, but as you said, is not a calculated risk, its murder....so who gets to decide this fine line? as a utopian theory, then yes I would agree with you. but as practical application, no way.
nice try Charles, but as you said, is not a calculated risk, its murder....so who gets to decide this fine line? as a utopian theory, then yes I would agree with you. but as practical application, no way.
so who gets to decide this fine line?
That's indeed a good question. At the moment apparently only presidents with wrong morals, or would Obama take the same risks of dozens of innocent death on US ground by using drones to take out some dangerous Americans and not send policemen who risk their lives?
So who should decide this? The UN ofcourse. And the UN does have clear international laws, including international humanitarian laws. The many innocent death because of drone attacks are against these international laws, the UN is also very clear about that. Not to mention the content of the drone bombs, as it looks like even chemicals are used in these bombs ....
That's indeed a good question. At the moment apparently only presidents with wrong morals, or would Obama take the same risks of dozens of innocent death on US ground by using drones to take out some dangerous Americans and not send policemen who risk their lives?
So who should decide this? The UN ofcourse. And the UN does have clear international laws, including international humanitarian laws. The many innocent death because of drone attacks are against these international laws, the UN is also very clear about that. Not to mention the content of the drone bombs, as it looks like even chemicals are used in these bombs ....
I do not believe this account. What about the missiles that were launched?
Ask you government, I am sure that they know much more or worse...that they are involved.
All world was witness about false "evidence" as iraq mass destruction weapons which just doesn't exist so we all know what is US able to do if they want start a war. As old US proverbs say... if you dont have evidence, make some evidence :-D
(i hope you will understand my english)
Ask you government, I am sure that they know much more or worse...that they are involved.
All world was witness about false "evidence" as iraq mass destruction weapons which just doesn't exist so we all know what is US able to do if they want start a war. As old US proverbs say... if you dont have evidence, make some evidence :-D
(i hope you will understand my english)
but US can start a war...it would be very interesting looking if Syria is able defend itself by attacking chem. weapons if they will be attack by US-Israel-France coalition. I can not say that Syria will be bad guy then, every country is trying to make mass destruction weapon as last chance of selfdefence. If slovakia has such a weapons and US want kill all of us, I would vote yes too, for such a last attack... nobody want to be destroyed it is normal. If Russia attack US (impossible in this century), US would use nuclear or much worse weapons too if they will be losing.
I just can not estimate how many hundreds of thousands can dye... of course that Syria counter-attack can hit just Israel, it is closest enemy so US doesnt care.
I very surprised why Israel want attack Syria. They know what Syria will do.... this is the only one thing I can not understand.
I just can not estimate how many hundreds of thousands can dye... of course that Syria counter-attack can hit just Israel, it is closest enemy so US doesnt care.
I very surprised why Israel want attack Syria. They know what Syria will do.... this is the only one thing I can not understand.
Syria another country with OIL thats why US are so intrested to make a part in this conflict :/
interesting topic, to argue with an american
how i see this:
-attack on Afganisthan---> pretty logic. It was the talibans the ones who bombed the Twin Towers, so i plenty understand this attack
-attack on Irak--> lack of logic. Irak was a laicist dictature. Now islamism is stronger in Irak than before the attack, so its just a lack of logic. Or maybe it is logic because there were another reasons?
-Attack on Syria--> Come on, i dont belive that USA goverment is so good that wants to help the syrian civile population. I know some of the rebels are islamists, so maybe is even worse them catching the power
The "we want to help civilians" is an excuse so the public opinion is happy with the attack, but every single person with a few of brain will find is not enough reason for an attack. Why? because there are literally dozens of countrys with dictatures and with civilian population in pain, and they are not under attack. So the chemichal weapons ar an excuse but not the real reason
I am not an american hater neither, in fact i prefer USA ruling the world more than the islamists or the Russian dictature ruling the world...but it dosent mean i have to belive every lie i have been told
PS: When i was in USA, long time ago, i found the american population more nicer than the british one ( far nicer, the british has the same sympathy than a stone, related with the americans). The more interesting conversations i have had related with USA external policys, were with an ex marine, a really smart guy. Probably having seen many countries helped him on their non conventional opinions
how i see this:
-attack on Afganisthan---> pretty logic. It was the talibans the ones who bombed the Twin Towers, so i plenty understand this attack
-attack on Irak--> lack of logic. Irak was a laicist dictature. Now islamism is stronger in Irak than before the attack, so its just a lack of logic. Or maybe it is logic because there were another reasons?
-Attack on Syria--> Come on, i dont belive that USA goverment is so good that wants to help the syrian civile population. I know some of the rebels are islamists, so maybe is even worse them catching the power
The "we want to help civilians" is an excuse so the public opinion is happy with the attack, but every single person with a few of brain will find is not enough reason for an attack. Why? because there are literally dozens of countrys with dictatures and with civilian population in pain, and they are not under attack. So the chemichal weapons ar an excuse but not the real reason
I am not an american hater neither, in fact i prefer USA ruling the world more than the islamists or the Russian dictature ruling the world...but it dosent mean i have to belive every lie i have been told
PS: When i was in USA, long time ago, i found the american population more nicer than the british one ( far nicer, the british has the same sympathy than a stone, related with the americans). The more interesting conversations i have had related with USA external policys, were with an ex marine, a really smart guy. Probably having seen many countries helped him on their non conventional opinions
-attack on Afganisthan---> pretty logic. It was the talibans the ones who bombed the Twin Towers, so i plenty understand this attack
Never run politics on emotions. Now both the Russians and the Americans have failed once in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a total failure, a second Vietnam.
Never run politics on emotions. Now both the Russians and the Americans have failed once in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a total failure, a second Vietnam.
Putis said nice sentecne in TV last week. Something like this...
When Russia attack on Afghanistan in 1980, the world blocked Russia in olympic games.
When US attacked same enemy in Afghanistan in 2001 nobody want blocked them from olympic game.
That is western type of democracy and equal rights.
-------------
and he has big true.... this our "western civilized world" knows nothing about equal rights, it is always about power and terror
(edited)
When Russia attack on Afghanistan in 1980, the world blocked Russia in olympic games.
When US attacked same enemy in Afghanistan in 2001 nobody want blocked them from olympic game.
That is western type of democracy and equal rights.
-------------
and he has big true.... this our "western civilized world" knows nothing about equal rights, it is always about power and terror
(edited)
maybe there is time for big chemical or another attack in europe and USA so we can open our eyes...
Now both the Russians and the Americans have failed once in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a total failure, a second Vietnam.
I wasnt meaning about the exit or failure on the attack. But on the logic inside this attack.
i mean, if you are attacked by Jhon, i would understand that you react attacking Jhon ( it dosent mind if you win or lose, i would understand your reaction). But if your reaction, after being attacked by Jhon, is to attack paul, it would be a lack of logic
So after the attack to the Twin Tower, made by Jhon ( the talibans), i understand USA attacking Jhon ( Afghanistan), but i dont understand USA attacking paul ( Irak). Well, i understand there must be other hidden reasons, but the official reasons are lack of logic
I wasnt meaning about the exit or failure on the attack. But on the logic inside this attack.
i mean, if you are attacked by Jhon, i would understand that you react attacking Jhon ( it dosent mind if you win or lose, i would understand your reaction). But if your reaction, after being attacked by Jhon, is to attack paul, it would be a lack of logic
So after the attack to the Twin Tower, made by Jhon ( the talibans), i understand USA attacking Jhon ( Afghanistan), but i dont understand USA attacking paul ( Irak). Well, i understand there must be other hidden reasons, but the official reasons are lack of logic