[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] International law made by industrialized nations mainly! the most influential of which is the US! Of course the US makes the rules in a big part. Did you see my post about the conventions being signed by almost 200 nations? Including Pakistan and Afghanistan? Ok, still the interpretation of those laws is different. That's why the definition of military target is so general. What is a military target for the US it's probably not for Afghanistan and vice versa. In the end the interpretation of those laws by countries like the US is what ends up counting.They are pretty much definitely described....only reason to say it's open to interpretation is to justify going against the rules.
Most certainly, only crazy people do things without some kind of justification. That doesn't make them any less disgusting though
kuraimen
So then you are of the opinion that terrorism is justified. Okay then....I guess that answers that. Not justified for me but certainly for those who perpetrate the acts. That's not what you said above. And you do champion terrorism in these threads. It's not the first time I've seen you justify the actions.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] We don't make the rules! We follow international law! International law made by industrialized nations mainly! the most influential of which is the US! Of course the US makes the rules in a big part.The rules made are about making war as humane as is possible under the circumstances....and you say this is a bad thing?:| The laws are not bad in themselves. The usage and utilitarian interpretation of those laws on the other hand are.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] International law made by industrialized nations mainly! the most influential of which is the US! Of course the US makes the rules in a big part. Did you see my post about the conventions being signed by almost 200 nations? Including Pakistan and Afghanistan? Ok, still the interpretation of those laws is different. That's why the definition of military target is so general. What is a military target for the US it's probably not for Afghanistan and vice versa. In the end the interpretation of those laws by countries like the US is what ends up counting. If you can interpret it to justify the WTC as a military target, then that completely loose interpretation strips the entire treaty of all of its meaning. I don't see how you can read the conventions and read it to mean that it allows you to fly civilian planes into skyscrapers in a packed city.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] International law made by industrialized nations mainly! the most influential of which is the US! Of course the US makes the rules in a big part. Did you see my post about the conventions being signed by almost 200 nations? Including Pakistan and Afghanistan? Ok, still the interpretation of those laws is different. That's why the definition of military target is so general. What is a military target for the US it's probably not for Afghanistan and vice versa. In the end the interpretation of those laws by countries like the US is what ends up counting. Not really. If the "interpretation" can be expanded to "has an economical or psychological effect" every target can be considered a military target. Which defeats the purpose of the agreement.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So then you are of the opinion that terrorism is justified. Okay then....I guess that answers that.LJS9502_basic
Not justified for me but certainly for those who perpetrate the acts. That's not what you said above. And you do champion terrorism in these threads. It's not the first time I've seen you justify the actions. Yes it is what I'm saying above and everywhere else. Read again.
[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Did you see my post about the conventions being signed by almost 200 nations? Including Pakistan and Afghanistan? Ok, still the interpretation of those laws is different. That's why the definition of military target is so general. What is a military target for the US it's probably not for Afghanistan and vice versa. In the end the interpretation of those laws by countries like the US is what ends up counting. Not really. If the "interpretation" can be expanded to "has an economical or psychological effect" every target can be considered a military target. Which defeats the purpose of the agreement. Kind of yeah but IT IS an interpretation. Similar to the interpretation many americans use to justify dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. It is the same kind.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yes it is what I'm saying above and everywhere else. Read again. Just because it's justifiable to them doesn't make it right. We do not need to sacrifice our humanity in order to conform to the whims of terrorists.
[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]So it's our fault we have the better technology? I'm not defending the US' actions but come on, that was a bad argument..
DaJuicyMan
No, it's not their fault but people should blame the Taliban for guerrilla warfare either. My point was that there is no fair and nice in war. If that's true then why even care about civilian casualties? Because they're selling the "we are the good guys" story to the people. Plus it's an joint effort, a coalition. Imagine the international turmoil that would occur if they started mindlessly shooting civilians. But they are certainly not "playing fair and nice" because they outnumber the Taliban, they have superior technology and they use it against the opponent because that is their strong side. Long range missiles, drones, precision bombings and so on. The Taliban are playing by their strong sides and that's it.
In fact, the whole discussion about fairness in war is absurd. The only fair war scenario i can imagine is this: two adversaries with an equal number of soldiers killing themeselves in hand-to-hand combat with no additional equipment whatsoever. Rather unrealistic isn't it? But given the human nature, one is bound to pull out a gun or a knife. That's how is been and that's how is going to be, there never was any fairness in what is in reality, an unfair situation.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Did you see my post about the conventions being signed by almost 200 nations? Including Pakistan and Afghanistan? Ok, still the interpretation of those laws is different. That's why the definition of military target is so general. What is a military target for the US it's probably not for Afghanistan and vice versa. In the end the interpretation of those laws by countries like the US is what ends up counting. If you can interpret it to justify the WTC as a military target, then that completely loose interpretation strips the entire treaty of all of its meaning. I don't see how you can read the conventions and read it to mean that it allows you to fly civilian planes into skyscrapers in a packed city. Hey if you can justify dropping bombs on top of populations in packed cities because some militants are hiding in some house then I see how they can justify the WTC too. Hell even if there was only one military in the whole two buildings it can use the same kind of justification.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Ok, still the interpretation of those laws is different. That's why the definition of military target is so general. What is a military target for the US it's probably not for Afghanistan and vice versa. In the end the interpretation of those laws by countries like the US is what ends up counting. If you can interpret it to justify the WTC as a military target, then that completely loose interpretation strips the entire treaty of all of its meaning. I don't see how you can read the conventions and read it to mean that it allows you to fly civilian planes into skyscrapers in a packed city. Hey if you can justify dropping bombs on top of populations in packed cities because some militants are hiding in some house then I see how they can justify the WTC too. Hell even if there was only one military in the whole two buildings it can use the same kind of justification.I don't see any analogy between the two....seems you are looking to make one though.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Hey if you can justify dropping bombs on top of populations in packed cities because some militants are hiding in some house then I see how they can justify the WTC too. Hell even if there was only one military in the whole two buildings it can use the same kind of justification. I can't justify dropping bombs "on top of populations" in packed cities. If we've killed 2300 to 2800 people, only 300 of which are confirmed civilians, then obviously we aren't doing that. And the conventions linked by airshocker state explicitly that if the civilian casualties outweigh the military gains, then the target is not to be attacked.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Ok, still the interpretation of those laws is different. That's why the definition of military target is so general. What is a military target for the US it's probably not for Afghanistan and vice versa. In the end the interpretation of those laws by countries like the US is what ends up counting. If you can interpret it to justify the WTC as a military target, then that completely loose interpretation strips the entire treaty of all of its meaning. I don't see how you can read the conventions and read it to mean that it allows you to fly civilian planes into skyscrapers in a packed city. Hey if you can justify dropping bombs on top of populations in packed cities because some militants are hiding in some house then I see how they can justify the WTC too. Hell even if there was only one military in the whole two buildings it can use the same kind of justification. Okay I'm done trying to talk some sense into this clown.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Just because it's justifiable to them doesn't make it right. We do not need to sacrifice our humanity in order to conform to the whims of terrorists. I never said it was right. Killing innocent people in 9/11 was wrong in my view as wrong as killing 168 children in Afghanistan no matter what you people call it.
nice job.... wait... we are congratulating them right? had this been ww1, ww2, Korea or Vietnam that number would be like five to ten thousand over the same time period.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Hey if you can justify dropping bombs on top of populations in packed cities because some militants are hiding in some house then I see how they can justify the WTC too. Hell even if there was only one military in the whole two buildings it can use the same kind of justification. I can't justify dropping bombs "on top of populations" in packed cities. If we've killed 2300 to 2800 people, only 300 of which are confirmed civilians, then obviously we aren't doing that. And the conventions linked by airshocker state explicitly that if the civilian casualties outweigh the military gains, then the target is not to be attacked. And who evaluates if the civilian casualties outweigh the military gains? Again the definition is too general and relative, any group could justify any target using that definition if from their perspective the military gains they are trying to achieve outweigh the civilian casualties. Taking civilian casualties to the statistical realm is convenient for many but still disgusting.
Most certainly, only crazy people do things without some kind of justification.LJS9502_basic
Seems a justification to me.... That's not a justification, that's me just stating a fact. Stating something is justified is, in fact, justifying it. As long as you are clear that I don't agree with the justifications of the 9/11 perpetrators then ok, yeah they are justified by them which doesn't make them any less wrong in my view. As well as what the US doing in Afghanistan is also justified for them but I don't agree with their justification and I think it is wrong what they are doing.
Well War is not fair. They have roadside bombs. We have Drones
POPEYE1716
Way to drop to the Taliban's level. Seriously, the USA needs to learn it's NOT ok to gun down civilians, this reminds me of that wikileaks video where the helicopter gunner was laughing and saying racial slurs while he gunned down civilians in Iraq. Who's the terrorists now?
I really think Obama should do as advertised and have the troops return home. NO point being there at this time. Only bad things can happen.
sonicare
Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.
We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.
Why am I not surprised this thread spiraled into a huge debate who is right between the US and terrorists? Seriously, some people need to use common sense. It's a tragedy when anybody dies in combat that is innocent. However, the intention does matter in the long run. To break it down for some of the posters demonizing the US look at it this way: Let's take group A and group B. Both groups have ten children in them. Both groups end up being tragically killed. But here's the difference. Group A dies because a truck driver has a blowout, loses control, and slams into a school bus. Group B dies because a criminal takes a machine gun and mows down a group of kids. Both result in deaths but the deaths of group A was an obvious accident while the deaths of group B was intentional and was murder. When it comes to deaths in the Middle East, consider the US the truck driver and consider the terrorists the criminal with the machine gun. Trying to justify 9/11 doesn't make a lot of sense. If the main goal of the terrorists was to destroy the buildings why did they do it on a Tuesday morning when the buildings were full of people? If they wanted to spare lives they would have did it on a Saturday evening when the buildings would have been almost empty. The buildings were destroyed but much fewer people died. So, it's pretty obvious they wanted to kill a lot of civilians too. I could almost excuse hitting the Pentagon since it was a military target but no justification can be made for the towers.
Way to drop to the Taliban's level. Seriously, the USA needs to learn it's NOT ok to gun down civilians, this reminds me of that wikileaks video where the helicopter gunner was laughing and saying racial slurs while he gunned down civilians in Iraq. Who's the terrorists now?Nibroc420
Last time I checked the helicopter pilot wasn't making racial slurs. Do you have any proof?
Let's take group A and group B. Both groups have ten children in them. Both groups end up being tragically killed. But here's the difference. Group A dies because a truck driver has a blowout, loses control, and slams into a school bus. Group B dies because a criminal takes a machine gun and mows down a group of kids. Both result in deaths but the deaths of group A was an obvious accident while the deaths of group B was intentional and was murder. When it comes to deaths in the Middle East, consider the US the truck driver and consider the terrorists the criminal with the machine gun. ad1x2
What if group A died because you were trying to kill group B, but you have bad aim? Also, you knew there was a good chance group A was going to die before you ever pulled the trigger.
[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Why am I not surprised this thread spiraled into a huge debate who is right between the US and terrorists? Seriously, some people need to use common sense. It's a tragedy when anybody dies in combat that is innocent. However, the intention does matter in the long run. To break it down for some of the posters demonizing the US look at it this way: Let's take group A and group B. Both groups have ten children in them. Both groups end up being tragically killed. But here's the difference. Group A dies because a truck driver has a blowout, loses control, and slams into a school bus. Group B dies because a criminal takes a machine gun and mows down a group of kids. Both result in deaths but the deaths of group A was an obvious accident while the deaths of group B was intentional and was murder. When it comes to deaths in the Middle East, consider the US the truck driver and consider the terrorists the criminal with the machine gun. Trying to justify 9/11 doesn't make a lot of sense. If the main goal of the terrorists was to destroy the buildings why did they do it on a Tuesday morning when the buildings were full of people? If they wanted to spare lives they would have did it on a Saturday evening when the buildings would have been almost empty. The buildings were destroyed but much fewer people died. So, it's pretty obvious they wanted to kill a lot of civilians too. I could almost excuse hitting the Pentagon since it was a military target but no justification can be made for the towers. So you think there's nothing wrong with US soldiers, and Drones, gunning down innocent women and children? There's videos of them doing it openly, while swearing at their victims for being sand-n*****, so seriously, it's gone too far. There's a huge difference in killing in defense of your self, family, or nation, and murdering innocent people who're trying to go about their lives when you bring a war to them.
[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Why am I not surprised this thread spiraled into a huge debate who is right between the US and terrorists? Seriously, some people need to use common sense. It's a tragedy when anybody dies in combat that is innocent. However, the intention does matter in the long run. To break it down for some of the posters demonizing the US look at it this way: Let's take group A and group B. Both groups have ten children in them. Both groups end up being tragically killed. But here's the difference. Group A dies because a truck driver has a blowout, loses control, and slams into a school bus. Group B dies because a criminal takes a machine gun and mows down a group of kids. Both result in deaths but the deaths of group A was an obvious accident while the deaths of group B was intentional and was murder. When it comes to deaths in the Middle East, consider the US the truck driver and consider the terrorists the criminal with the machine gun. Trying to justify 9/11 doesn't make a lot of sense. If the main goal of the terrorists was to destroy the buildings why did they do it on a Tuesday morning when the buildings were full of people? If they wanted to spare lives they would have did it on a Saturday evening when the buildings would have been almost empty. The buildings were destroyed but much fewer people died. So, it's pretty obvious they wanted to kill a lot of civilians too. I could almost excuse hitting the Pentagon since it was a military target but no justification can be made for the towers.Nibroc420
So you think there's nothing wrong with US soldiers, and Drones, gunning down innocent women and children? There's videos of them doing it openly, while swearing at their victims for being sand-n*****, so seriously, it's gone too far. There's a huge difference in killing in defense of your self, family, or nation, and murdering innocent people who're trying to go about their lives when you bring a war to them.
Please show me these videos of American soldiers gunning down innocent women and children, cause i'm sure they don't exsist.
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]Why am I not surprised this thread spiraled into a huge debate who is right between the US and terrorists? Seriously, some people need to use common sense. It's a tragedy when anybody dies in combat that is innocent. However, the intention does matter in the long run. To break it down for some of the posters demonizing the US look at it this way: Let's take group A and group B. Both groups have ten children in them. Both groups end up being tragically killed. But here's the difference. Group A dies because a truck driver has a blowout, loses control, and slams into a school bus. Group B dies because a criminal takes a machine gun and mows down a group of kids. Both result in deaths but the deaths of group A was an obvious accident while the deaths of group B was intentional and was murder. When it comes to deaths in the Middle East, consider the US the truck driver and consider the terrorists the criminal with the machine gun. Trying to justify 9/11 doesn't make a lot of sense. If the main goal of the terrorists was to destroy the buildings why did they do it on a Tuesday morning when the buildings were full of people? If they wanted to spare lives they would have did it on a Saturday evening when the buildings would have been almost empty. The buildings were destroyed but much fewer people died. So, it's pretty obvious they wanted to kill a lot of civilians too. I could almost excuse hitting the Pentagon since it was a military target but no justification can be made for the towers.RAGINGxPONY
So you think there's nothing wrong with US soldiers, and Drones, gunning down innocent women and children? There's videos of them doing it openly, while swearing at their victims for being sand-n*****, so seriously, it's gone too far. There's a huge difference in killing in defense of your self, family, or nation, and murdering innocent people who're trying to go about their lives when you bring a war to them.
Please show me these videos of American soldiers gunning down innocent women and children, cause i'm sure they don't exsist.
How about that wiki leaks video, where the helicopter gunner mows down 8-9 innocent men, and then proceeds to fire upon a van full of children? When the ground troops arrive, there's an injured child, but they're told to ignore her and let her die? There's tons of videos like that, and now they're telling us "hey, so we killed another 168 innocent children, but it's ok right?" Yeah, i'm not ok with the murder of innocent children.
I really think Obama should do as advertised and have the troops return home. NO point being there at this time. Only bad things can happen.
RAGINGxPONY
Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.
We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.
It is certainly now disgraceful for the people in Afghanistan that they continue to get killed by drones. The russians couldn't handle Afghanistan and the US won't be able to handle it, hell the US is almost bankrupt thanks in not a small part to these wars. When you look it that way it is almost as if Al Qaeda achieved their purpose: to weaken the US economically and morally thanks to getting then into a war they can't win. Better leave now.
How about that wiki leaks video, where the helicopter gunner mows down 8-9 innocent men, and then proceeds to fire upon a van full of children? When the ground troops arrive, there's an injured child, but they're told to ignore her and let her die? There's tons of videos like that, and now they're telling us "hey, so we killed another 168 innocent children, but it's ok right?" Yeah, i'm not ok with the murder of innocent children.Nibroc420
There is a couple of videos like that not tons like you make it seem. Of course there are going to be some NATO troops who just can't handle the presssure of war and turn rogue. After all these guys are seeing their friends killed, and seeing lots of nasty things. It's bound to happen in every war. That being said 99% of NATO troops do follow the rules of engagement and do their job very well.
I really think Obama should do as advertised and have the troops return home. NO point being there at this time. Only bad things can happen.
RAGINGxPONY
Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.
We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.
Afghanistan is not Iraq though. Unlike in Iraq, there is no infrastructure in Afghanistan. The political scene in the country is almost nonexistent. There isn't even a real sense of nationhood. Moreover, the US can only do so much. Ultimately, success depends on the Afghan government. It has to be seen as a credible institution that can protect and provide for the Afghan people. Last month Hamid Karzai's brother was assassinated. The Afghan government is having enough trouble protecting the president's own brother, let alone the average person. That is very troubling. Not only that, but Karzai is a very corrupt individual, and he hasn't done anything really to rehabilitate his image and reform the government. In many ways he can't reform his government, because the glue that holds it together is corruption. Success is contingent on Karzai - if he is not going to or can't do the things necessary for success then there is no point wasting American lives in an unwinnable war. That would be disgraceful.
I really think Obama should do as advertised and have the troops return home. NO point being there at this time. Only bad things can happen.
kuraimen
Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.
We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.
It is certainly now disgraceful for the people in Afghanistan that they continue to get killed by drones. The russians couldn't handle Afghanistan and the US won't be able to handle it, hell the US is almost bankrupt thanks in not a small part to these wars. When you look it that way it is almost as if Al Qaeda achieved their purpose: to weaken the US economically and morally thanks to getting then into a war they can't win. Better leave now.
it's militants being killed by drones not civilians, other than the very small amount of colleteral damge.
I really think Obama should do as advertised and have the troops return home. NO point being there at this time. Only bad things can happen.
RAGINGxPONY
Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.
We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.
So you prefer 15 thousand troops dying, a few more trillions spent and then retreat?
The statement that always makes me facepalm is "well thats war sadely".. Yes thats war when its unavoidable.. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan war are wars of choice.. In these types of wars, there is no excuse or condoning these kinds of losses.. Especially when the US pays so close attention to tragic losses no matter how small from hostile forces.. If the US really cared about "saving" people or really most countries for that matter.. There are multiple different avenues that could be went down that could save far more.. The fact of the matter are these places hold political and economic importance.. And really only is a extension of the imperialism the West has been flexing on regions like the Middle East for a century now.. The sad thing is.. Neither party has hardly a different policy or outlook overall.. The only politicians I hear that speak out against this kind of crap are shunned such as men like Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter.. Newsflash, we can't call ourselves the good guys, the voice of reasoning, the compassioante side, when we have this kind of callous hypocrisy at the forefront. You can be one or the other, you can't have both worlds.
I really think Obama should do as advertised and have the troops return home. NO point being there at this time. Only bad things can happen.
Stavrogin_
Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.
We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.
So you prefer 15 thousand troops dying, a few more trillions spent and then retreat?
Don't forget the millions of Iraqis that suffered during and after the war..
Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.
We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.
RAGINGxPONY
It is certainly now disgraceful for the people in Afghanistan that they continue to get killed by drones. The russians couldn't handle Afghanistan and the US won't be able to handle it, hell the US is almost bankrupt thanks in not a small part to these wars. When you look it that way it is almost as if Al Qaeda achieved their purpose: to weaken the US economically and morally thanks to getting then into a war they can't win. Better leave now.
it's militants being killed by drones not civilians, other than the very small amount of colleteral damge.
I think the civilians killed in this war are many more than the US is willing to accept and calling it collateral damage doesn't make it any less wrong. Specially when you are supposedly trying to win a population to your side.
The statement that always makes me facepalm is "well thats war sadely".. Yes thats war when its unavoidable.. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan war are wars of choice.. In these types of wars, there is no excuse or condoning these kinds of losses.. Especially when the US pays so close attention to tragic losses no matter how small from hostile forces.. If the US really cared about "saving" people or really most countries for that matter.. There are multiple different avenues that could be went down that could save far more.. The fact of the matter are these places hold political and economic importance.. And really only is a extension of the imperialism the West has been flexing on regions like the Middle East for a century now.. The sad thing is.. Neither party has hardly a different policy or outlook overall.. The only politicians I hear that speak out against this kind of crap are shunned such as men like Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter.. Newsflash, we can't call ourselves the good guys, the voice of reasoning, the compassioante side, when we have this kind of callous hypocrisy at the forefront. You can be one or the other, you can't have both worlds.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] It is certainly now disgraceful for the people in Afghanistan that they continue to get killed by drones. The russians couldn't handle Afghanistan and the US won't be able to handle it, hell the US is almost bankrupt thanks in not a small part to these wars. When you look it that way it is almost as if Al Qaeda achieved their purpose: to weaken the US economically and morally thanks to getting then into a war they can't win. Better leave now.kuraimen
it's militants being killed by drones not civilians, other than the very small amount of colleteral damge.
I think the civilians killed in this war are many more than the US is willing to accept and calling it collateral damage doesn't make it any less wrong. Specially when you are supposedly trying to win a population to your side.
In wars of choice, that being Iraq and Afghanistan.. Collateral damage of any kind can not be shirked off.. The US was not forced into this kind of situation, they went in by choice.. As such the US government has to own up to the responsibility of every civilian that gets killed directly or indireclty by this matter.. Especially when one of the government's main claims was to "save" the people..
Log in to comment