US drone war kills up to 168 children in Pakistan

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]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?airshocker

Last time I checked the helicopter pilot wasn't making racial slurs. Do you have any proof?

you don't understand, when condeming the US you don't need facts. its also cool to generalize the entire military by the actions of a few that have/are being brought to justice (slayings of civilians by a select few of our soldiers). so they call the US military terrorists... which is kinda like me calling all muslims terrorists which they would histerically argue against. sounds like a double standard if i ever saw one.

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.

sSubZerOo

When you target a militant group like the Taliban you don't call off active strikes because the Taliban attacked then withdrew to a town with a few kids. It's called war.

And after killing nearly 3,000 Taliban it's amazing only 168 children, probably their children, were killed. Again, in warfare you can't use your children as shields as an active combatant.

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

[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.

It's unavoidable though, civilians are going to die in every war. NATO is not the only one killing civilians, taliban are to, and they are killing much more.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

it's militants being killed by drones not civilians, other than the very small amount of colleteral damge.

sSubZerOo

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..

Well sorry whether America chose to go in or not it's still war and civilians are still going to die. They are being killed by both sides to you know, and the other side is doing much more of the killing than NATO is.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]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?ItalStallion777

Last time I checked the helicopter pilot wasn't making racial slurs. Do you have any proof?

you don't understand, when condeming the US you don't need facts. its also cool to generalize the entire military by the actions of a few that have/are being brought to justice (slayings of civilians by a select few of our soldiers). so they call the US military terrorists... which is kinda like me calling all muslims terrorists which they would histerically argue against. sounds like a double standard if i ever saw one.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="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.

sSubZerOo

Don't forget the millions of Iraqis that suffered during and after the war..

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

it's militants being killed by drones not civilians, other than the very small amount of colleteral damge.

RAGINGxPONY

It's unavoidable though, civilians are going to die in every war. NATO is not the only one killing civilians, taliban are to, and they are killing much more.

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Last time I checked the helicopter pilot wasn't making racial slurs. Do you have any proof?

kuraimen

you don't understand, when condeming the US you don't need facts. its also cool to generalize the entire military by the actions of a few that have/are being brought to justice (slayings of civilians by a select few of our soldiers). so they call the US military terrorists... which is kinda like me calling all muslims terrorists which they would histerically argue against. sounds like a double standard if i ever saw one.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] 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.RAGINGxPONY

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..

Well sorry whether America chose to go in or not it's still war and civilians are still going to die. They are being killed by both sides to you know, and the other side is doing much more of the killing than NATO is.

ah the typical response I was expecting.. So what your saying is the United States/NATO to defend our methods we should compare our selves to the scum earth, the Taliban.. I am sorry but the US should never be compared to these people.. and yet agian its so easy to say these type of things when its not you your self being directly effected by a invading force.. The last major war we had on US soil was the Civil War.. Pearl Harbor was a blip on the radar that shocked a entire nation into banding together.. Its considered a immense diseaster.. Butthe people of tehse regions had to deal with this for years to decades.. Its so easy to be callous when its not YOUR people dieing.. This hypocrisy infuriates me when if it involves Americans its the exact opposite.. Where if a terrorist blew up 20 civilians in the US.. Every one would be freaking out, the media would be all ove rit.. And the President would declare it as a nationa tragedy.. While in Iraq or Afghanistan this kind of stuff happens constantly.. Isn't every life suppose to be sacred? Apparently not.

Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]

you don't understand, when condeming the US you don't need facts. its also cool to generalize the entire military by the actions of a few that have/are being brought to justice (slayings of civilians by a select few of our soldiers). so they call the US military terrorists... which is kinda like me calling all muslims terrorists which they would histerically argue against. sounds like a double standard if i ever saw one.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]

you don't understand, when condeming the US you don't need facts. its also cool to generalize the entire military by the actions of a few that have/are being brought to justice (slayings of civilians by a select few of our soldiers). so they call the US military terrorists... which is kinda like me calling all muslims terrorists which they would histerically argue against. sounds like a double standard if i ever saw one.

KC_Hokie

That depends entirely how you view it.. US government is far from innocent.. Its a immense web of history that has spanned 60 years that if you crack open a book about it you will see that we can hardly tell which side caste the first stone... The US policy within the Middle East has had us install and support brutal and corrupt dictators.. Support questionable groups to kill Marxists.. Or numerous other things.. Neither side is "innocent"..

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Actually, as Bush showed, when justifying your position to start a war you don't need facts :P And calling the US military terrorists is like calling Al Qaeda terrorists (the "military" arm of the Taliban). Calling all christians terrorists would be more like calling all muslims terrorists.sSubZerOo

That depends entirely how you view it.. US government is far from innocent.. Its a immense web of history that has spanned 60 years that if you crack open a book about it you will see that we can hardly tell which side caste the first stone... The US policy within the Middle East has had us install and support brutal and corrupt dictators.. Support questionable groups to kill Marxists.. Or numerous other things.. Neither side is "innocent"..

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

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..

sSubZerOo

Well sorry whether America chose to go in or not it's still war and civilians are still going to die. They are being killed by both sides to you know, and the other side is doing much more of the killing than NATO is.

ah the typical response I was expecting.. So what your saying is the United States/NATO to defend our methods we should compare our selves to the scum earth, the Taliban.. I am sorry but the US should never be compared to these people.. and yet agian its so easy to say these type of things when its not you your self being directly effected by a invading force.. The last major war we had on US soil was the Civil War.. Pearl Harbor was a blip on the radar that shocked a entire nation into banding together.. Its considered a immense diseaster.. Butthe people of tehse regions had to deal with this for years to decades.. Its so easy to be callous when its not YOUR people dieing.. This hypocrisy infuriates me when if it involves Americans its the exact opposite.. Where if a terrorist blew up 20 civilians in the US.. Every one would be freaking out, the media would be all ove rit.. And the President would declare it as a nationa tragedy.. While in Iraq or Afghanistan this kind of stuff happens constantly.. Isn't every life suppose to be sacred? Apparently not.

Yeah but 20 Americans don't die everyday from terriost attacks, that's why when it happens everybody is shocked and outraged. America is already a secure country, terriost attacks aren't suppose to happen there. In Afghanastain terriost attacks are a regular occurence, and its not a regular occurence because of NATO, it is because of the Taliban. The people that NATO are trying to stop.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.KC_Hokie

Thats because we INSTALLED those governments.. Are you aware that for Iran during 1953, MI6 and CIA personally overthrew Mosadeq.. The democratically elected president of the nation that nationalized the Iranian Oil supply.. They installed into power the brutal and corrupt Shah who tortured and killed his people in his rein for 26 years.. Saddam was put into power through the help of the Baath party, Arab nationalist which the US supported to combat Communists.. Saddam was in fact allies with the United States for some time.. Then there is the unquestionable support of Israel in which Israel can do as it pleases with out any kind of consquences.... I am sorry but I would like to think that we hold our government to higher standards than these said governmetns.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] I've said this before. This conflict has more to do with US meddling in the Middle East, opening military bases there and goes way before the 9/11 attacks.

sSubZerOo

Thats because we INSTALLED those governments.. Are you aware that for Iran during 1953, MI6 and CIA personally overthrew Mosadeq.. The democratically elected president of the nation that nationalized the Iranian Oil supply.. They installed into power the brutal and corrupt Shah who tortured and killed his people in his rein for 26 years.. Saddam was put into power through the help of the Baath party, Arab nationalist which the US supported to combat Communists.. Saddam was in fact allies with the United States for some time.. Then there is the unquestionable support of Israel in which Israel can do as it pleases with out any kind of consquences.... I am sorry but I would like to think that we hold our government to higher standards than these said governmetns.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] I've said this before. This conflict has more to do with US meddling in the Middle East, opening military bases there and goes way before the 9/11 attacks.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

Well sorry whether America chose to go in or not it's still war and civilians are still going to die. They are being killed by both sides to you know, and the other side is doing much more of the killing than NATO is.

RAGINGxPONY

ah the typical response I was expecting.. So what your saying is the United States/NATO to defend our methods we should compare our selves to the scum earth, the Taliban.. I am sorry but the US should never be compared to these people.. and yet agian its so easy to say these type of things when its not you your self being directly effected by a invading force.. The last major war we had on US soil was the Civil War.. Pearl Harbor was a blip on the radar that shocked a entire nation into banding together.. Its considered a immense diseaster.. Butthe people of tehse regions had to deal with this for years to decades.. Its so easy to be callous when its not YOUR people dieing.. This hypocrisy infuriates me when if it involves Americans its the exact opposite.. Where if a terrorist blew up 20 civilians in the US.. Every one would be freaking out, the media would be all ove rit.. And the President would declare it as a nationa tragedy.. While in Iraq or Afghanistan this kind of stuff happens constantly.. Isn't every life suppose to be sacred? Apparently not.

Yeah but 20 Americans don't die everyday from terriost attacks, that's why when it happens everybody is shocked and outraged. America is already a secure country, terriost attacks aren't suppose to happen there. In Afghanastain terriost attacks are a regular occurence, and its not a regular occurence because of NATO, it is because of the Taliban.

That depends entirely many people suffered in Iraq direclty and indirectly due to the war, or US policy.. The fact of the matter is these are wars based upon CHOICE... How can one be so callous about such things when tehse are not matters of life and death, but more of matters of political and economic importance.. How bout we end the double standard and understand that even one civilian is one too many in a war thats based upon choice of political and economic importance.. Until that happens, the US can claim to be compasionate, or actually care about the people.. I guess I just hold unrealistic standards for the government that is suppose to represent me!

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Last time I checked the helicopter pilot wasn't making racial slurs. Do you have any proof?

kuraimen

you don't understand, when condeming the US you don't need facts. its also cool to generalize the entire military by the actions of a few that have/are being brought to justice (slayings of civilians by a select few of our soldiers). so they call the US military terrorists... which is kinda like me calling all muslims terrorists which they would histerically argue against. sounds like a double standard if i ever saw one.

if you are trying to say, and i think you are, that the taliban is a legitimate governing body then our argument will cease here as you would have clearly demonstrated you do not care for things like facts.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The governments of those nations welcomed those bases. The terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, didn't approve. Again, Al Qaeda attacked us first. KC_Hokie

Thats because we INSTALLED those governments.. Are you aware that for Iran during 1953, MI6 and CIA personally overthrew Mosadeq.. The democratically elected president of the nation that nationalized the Iranian Oil supply.. They installed into power the brutal and corrupt Shah who tortured and killed his people in his rein for 26 years.. Saddam was put into power through the help of the Baath party, Arab nationalist which the US supported to combat Communists.. Saddam was in fact allies with the United States for some time.. Then there is the unquestionable support of Israel in which Israel can do as it pleases with out any kind of consquences.... I am sorry but I would like to think that we hold our government to higher standards than these said governmetns.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] I've said this before. This conflict has more to do with US meddling in the Middle East, opening military bases there and goes way before the 9/11 attacks.

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The governments of those nations welcomed those bases. The terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, didn't approve. Again, Al Qaeda attacked us first. KC_Hokie

Thats because we INSTALLED those governments.. Are you aware that for Iran during 1953, MI6 and CIA personally overthrew Mosadeq.. The democratically elected president of the nation that nationalized the Iranian Oil supply.. They installed into power the brutal and corrupt Shah who tortured and killed his people in his rein for 26 years.. Saddam was put into power through the help of the Baath party, Arab nationalist which the US supported to combat Communists.. Saddam was in fact allies with the United States for some time.. Then there is the unquestionable support of Israel in which Israel can do as it pleases with out any kind of consquences.... I am sorry but I would like to think that we hold our government to higher standards than these said governmetns.

Where was I talk about bases? I am talking about the specific meddling in steering Middle Eastern policy not for the common good, but to the economic and political gain of the United States.. As for army bases, thats pretty easy to suggest when the said bases are places for Saudi Arabia.. A extremist Muslim theocracy that the US shields from getting destroyed.. Or governmetns that were put in place direclty or indirectly.. Don't get it? The people of these regions are not in democracies, in fact the West for the past 100 years have more or less tried to slow the gain of democracy.. Because it maeks the region much harder to control when a dictator who is pro west in power is much easier to control.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats because we INSTALLED those governments.. Are you aware that for Iran during 1953, MI6 and CIA personally overthrew Mosadeq.. The democratically elected president of the nation that nationalized the Iranian Oil supply.. They installed into power the brutal and corrupt Shah who tortured and killed his people in his rein for 26 years.. Saddam was put into power through the help of the Baath party, Arab nationalist which the US supported to combat Communists.. Saddam was in fact allies with the United States for some time.. Then there is the unquestionable support of Israel in which Israel can do as it pleases with out any kind of consquences.... I am sorry but I would like to think that we hold our government to higher standards than these said governmetns.

kuraimen

He's claiming we're unwanted including our bases. So name one.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The governments of those nations welcomed those bases. The terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, didn't approve. Again, Al Qaeda attacked us first. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused. KC_Hokie

He's claiming we're unwanted including our bases. So name one.

:| No I didn't..

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused. KC_Hokie

He's claiming we're unwanted including our bases. So name one.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats because we INSTALLED those governments.. Are you aware that for Iran during 1953, MI6 and CIA personally overthrew Mosadeq.. The democratically elected president of the nation that nationalized the Iranian Oil supply.. They installed into power the brutal and corrupt Shah who tortured and killed his people in his rein for 26 years.. Saddam was put into power through the help of the Baath party, Arab nationalist which the US supported to combat Communists.. Saddam was in fact allies with the United States for some time.. Then there is the unquestionable support of Israel in which Israel can do as it pleases with out any kind of consquences.... I am sorry but I would like to think that we hold our government to higher standards than these said governmetns.

sSubZerOo

Where was I talk about bases? I am talking about the specific meddling in steering Middle Eastern policy not for the common good, but to the economic and political gain of the United States.. As for army bases, thats pretty easy to suggest when the said bases are places for Saudi Arabia.. A extremist Muslim theocracy that the US shields from getting destroyed.. Or governmetns that were put in place direclty or indirectly.. Don't get it? The people of these regions are not in democracies, in fact the West for the past 100 years have more or less tried to slow the gain of democracy.. Because it maeks the region much harder to control when a dictator who is pro west in power is much easier to control.

I'm pointing out Al Qaeda was grasping at straws.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] What has that to do with what he said? and Cuba for one.kuraimen

He's claiming we're unwanted including our bases. So name one.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused. KC_Hokie

Where was I talk about bases? I am talking about the specific meddling in steering Middle Eastern policy not for the common good, but to the economic and political gain of the United States.. As for army bases, thats pretty easy to suggest when the said bases are places for Saudi Arabia.. A extremist Muslim theocracy that the US shields from getting destroyed.. Or governmetns that were put in place direclty or indirectly.. Don't get it? The people of these regions are not in democracies, in fact the West for the past 100 years have more or less tried to slow the gain of democracy.. Because it maeks the region much harder to control when a dictator who is pro west in power is much easier to control.

I'm pointing out Al Qaeda was grasping at straws.

then why are you quoting ME and not him?

That depends entirely many people suffered in Iraq direclty and indirectly due to the war, or US policy.. The fact of the matter is these are wars based upon CHOICE... How can one be so callous about such things when tehse are not matters of life and death, but more of matters of political and economic importance.. How bout we end the double standard and understand that even one civilian is one too many in a war thats based upon choice of political and economic importance.. Until that happens, the US can claim to be compasionate, or actually care about the people.. I guess I just hold unrealistic standards for the government that is suppose to represent me!

sSubZerOo

I think you do hold the government to unrealistic standards. Civilians are going to die in wars it's inevitable. Just because civilians are still dying doesn't mean America should pull out, especaislly when it's the other side doing 99% of the killing.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]

you don't understand, when condeming the US you don't need facts. its also cool to generalize the entire military by the actions of a few that have/are being brought to justice (slayings of civilians by a select few of our soldiers). so they call the US military terrorists... which is kinda like me calling all muslims terrorists which they would histerically argue against. sounds like a double standard if i ever saw one.

ItalStallion777

if you are trying to say, and i think you are, that the taliban is a legitimate governing body then our argument will cease here as you would have clearly demonstrated you do not care for things like facts.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] What has that to do with what he said? and Cuba for one.sSubZerOo

He's claiming we're unwanted including our bases. So name one.

:| No I didn't..

Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused.Stavrogin_

Pakistan says one thing for the papers then asks for $ billions in private. They are the ultimate double-speak government. And with their intelligence they have a government within government.

And to my knowledge the drones don't even take off from Pakistan.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

That depends entirely many people suffered in Iraq direclty and indirectly due to the war, or US policy.. The fact of the matter is these are wars based upon CHOICE... How can one be so callous about such things when tehse are not matters of life and death, but more of matters of political and economic importance.. How bout we end the double standard and understand that even one civilian is one too many in a war thats based upon choice of political and economic importance.. Until that happens, the US can claim to be compasionate, or actually care about the people.. I guess I just hold unrealistic standards for the government that is suppose to represent me!

RAGINGxPONY

I think you do hold the government to unrealistic standards. Civilians are going to die in wars it's inevitable. Just because civilians are still dying doesn't mean America should pull out, especaislly when it's the other side doing 99% of the killing.

IT IS when its war of CHOICE.. and cost the country trillions of dollars..We were not threatened with immediate destruction.. And are you sure about that? Because estimated death toll in the Iraq War civilians were in the hundreds of thousands direclty and indirectly.. Whether it was bombs, or a drop in security wher hostile forces starting taking over swathes of the region.. These wars were called in ending evil and saving people.. Or stopping our biggest threat.. Yet we in fact did more damage to ourselves in the invasion than these forces could ever direclty to to us.. And our goal is clearly not to save people.. So what exaclty is it? Because what we are seeing is the systematic creation of pro western governments for economic and political gain which reeks of imperialism.. And if we are doing that, and not about self defense.. IMO one civilian death is one too many for a war based upon no defense but economic and political greed.

They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.kuraimen

indeed, is only terrible when the terrorist do it, but hey they werent american kids so its ok.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused.KC_Hokie

Pakistan says one thing for the papers then asks for $ billions in private. They are the ultimate double-speak government. And with their intelligence they have a government within government.

And to my knowledge the drones don't even take off from Pakistan.

It's pretty goddamn simple from my point of view, most of the Middle East is ruled by corrupt politicians, even you can't deny that. The dictators are supported by the US, they get a lot of money and in turn have to bend over when the US wishes. Terminating their military bases would mean that they would receive no money after that. Given how they are corrupt, they can't do that. What i meant by "they don't want you there" was the PEOPLE, the average muslim doesn't want you there, most of the people don't want you there not the few people in power. That's why i said that this conflict goes way before the 9/11 attacks, in my opinion it started the minute the US began meddling in the Middle East.

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

That depends entirely many people suffered in Iraq direclty and indirectly due to the war, or US policy.. The fact of the matter is these are wars based upon CHOICE... How can one be so callous about such things when tehse are not matters of life and death, but more of matters of political and economic importance.. How bout we end the double standard and understand that even one civilian is one too many in a war thats based upon choice of political and economic importance.. Until that happens, the US can claim to be compasionate, or actually care about the people.. I guess I just hold unrealistic standards for the government that is suppose to represent me!

sSubZerOo

I think you do hold the government to unrealistic standards. Civilians are going to die in wars it's inevitable. Just because civilians are still dying doesn't mean America should pull out, especaislly when it's the other side doing 99% of the killing.

IT IS when its war of CHOICE.. and cost the country trillions of dollars..We were not threatened with immediate destruction.. And are you sure about that? Because estimated death toll in the Iraq War civilians were in the hundreds of thousands direclty and indirectly.. Whether it was bombs, or a drop in security wher hostile forces starting taking over swathes of the region.. These wars were called in ending evil and saving people.. Or stopping our biggest threat.. Yet we in fact did more damage to ourselves in the invasion than these forces could ever direclty to to us.. And our goal is clearly not to save people.. So what exaclty is it? Because what we are seeing is the systematic creation of pro western governments for economic and political gain which reeks of imperialism.. And if we are doing that, and not about self defense.. IMO one civilian death is one too many for a war based upon no defense but economic and political greed.

It was based on defense, the Taliban would not give up Bin Laden, essentially saying they we're on his side. Did we really want the Taliban to be running Afghanastain, essentially making it a breeding ground for terriosts so they could strike America again.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.Krelian-co

indeed, is only terrible when the terrorist do it, but hey they werent american kids so its ok.

You to are missing the point, it's not colleteral damage when the terriosts do it because there sole purpose of doing it is to kill innocent civilians. When NATO causes colleteral damage they are going after a military target, plus NATO uses way more discretion than the terriosts do when going after military targets.

You people can not compare NATO to the Taliban it's ridiculous.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Are you aware that most of the dictators installed back then are still in power today? Anyway i read that Pakistan is asking for the US to shutdown their drone bases, don't know if they refused. You claimed that the government welcomed those bases, fact remains that the governments are dictatorships who receive American support but what matter is that most of the people don't want you there. That's why i said this conflict goes way before the 9/11. Stavrogin_

Pakistan says one thing for the papers then asks for $ billions in private. They are the ultimate double-speak government. And with their intelligence they have a government within government.

And to my knowledge the drones don't even take off from Pakistan.

It's pretty goddamn simple from my point of view, most of the Middle East is ruled by corrupt politicians, even you can't deny that. The dictators are supported by the US, they get a lot of money and in turn have to bend over when the US wishes. Terminating their military bases would mean that they would receive no money after that. Given how they are corrupt, they can't do that. What i meant by "they don't want you there" was the PEOPLE, the average muslim doesn't want you there, most of the people don't want you there not the few people in power. That's why i said that this conflict goes way before the 9/11 attacks, in my opinion it started the minute the US began meddling in the Middle East.

It's not the U.S.'s fault the Middle East is filled with non-democracies and sub-par leaders. They weren't put there by us. And you have to deal with the governments that are there. You can't deal with groups that aren't in power pretending to play government.

I wouldn't be against getting rid of a lot of their aid, but many of those governments got their initial aid from the Soviets or oil money. So we didn't create them like some think.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

I think you do hold the government to unrealistic standards. Civilians are going to die in wars it's inevitable. Just because civilians are still dying doesn't mean America should pull out, especaislly when it's the other side doing 99% of the killing.

RAGINGxPONY

IT IS when its war of CHOICE.. and cost the country trillions of dollars..We were not threatened with immediate destruction.. And are you sure about that? Because estimated death toll in the Iraq War civilians were in the hundreds of thousands direclty and indirectly.. Whether it was bombs, or a drop in security wher hostile forces starting taking over swathes of the region.. These wars were called in ending evil and saving people.. Or stopping our biggest threat.. Yet we in fact did more damage to ourselves in the invasion than these forces could ever direclty to to us.. And our goal is clearly not to save people.. So what exaclty is it? Because what we are seeing is the systematic creation of pro western governments for economic and political gain which reeks of imperialism.. And if we are doing that, and not about self defense.. IMO one civilian death is one too many for a war based upon no defense but economic and political greed.

It was based on defense, the Taliban would not give up Bin Laden, essentially saying they we're on his side. Did we really want the Taliban to be running Afghanastain, essentially making it a breeding ground for terriosts so they could strike America again.

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

IT IS when its war of CHOICE.. and cost the country trillions of dollars..We were not threatened with immediate destruction.. And are you sure about that? Because estimated death toll in the Iraq War civilians were in the hundreds of thousands direclty and indirectly.. Whether it was bombs, or a drop in security wher hostile forces starting taking over swathes of the region.. These wars were called in ending evil and saving people.. Or stopping our biggest threat.. Yet we in fact did more damage to ourselves in the invasion than these forces could ever direclty to to us.. And our goal is clearly not to save people.. So what exaclty is it? Because what we are seeing is the systematic creation of pro western governments for economic and political gain which reeks of imperialism.. And if we are doing that, and not about self defense.. IMO one civilian death is one too many for a war based upon no defense but economic and political greed.

kuraimen

It was based on defense, the Taliban would not give up Bin Laden, essentially saying they we're on his side. Did we really want the Taliban to be running Afghanastain, essentially making it a breeding ground for terriosts so they could strike America again.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.RAGINGxPONY

indeed, is only terrible when the terrorist do it, but hey they werent american kids so its ok.

You to are missing the point, it's not colleteral damage when the terriosts do it because there sole purpose of doing it is to kill innocent civilians. When NATO causes colleteral damage they are going after a military target, plus NATO uses way more discretion than the terriosts do when going after military targets.

You people can not compare NATO to the Taliban it's ridiculous.

Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.kuraimen

Maybe OBL shouldn't have killed thousands of American civilians, that would have worked to.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Which dictator was put into power by the U.S.?

Pakistan says one thing for the papers then asks for $ billions in private. They are the ultimate double-speak government. And with their intelligence they have a government within government.

And to my knowledge the drones don't even take off from Pakistan.

KC_Hokie

It's pretty goddamn simple from my point of view, most of the Middle East is ruled by corrupt politicians, even you can't deny that. The dictators are supported by the US, they get a lot of money and in turn have to bend over when the US wishes. Terminating their military bases would mean that they would receive no money after that. Given how they are corrupt, they can't do that. What i meant by "they don't want you there" was the PEOPLE, the average muslim doesn't want you there, most of the people don't want you there not the few people in power. That's why i said that this conflict goes way before the 9/11 attacks, in my opinion it started the minute the US began meddling in the Middle East.

It's not the U.S.'s fault the Middle East is filled with non-democracies and sub-par leaders. They weren't put there by us. And you have to deal with the governments that are there. You can't deal with groups that aren't in power pretending to play government.

I wouldn't be against getting rid of a lot of their aid, but many of those governments got their initial aid from the Soviets or oil money. So we didn't create them like some think.