1/3 of people killed in Drone Attacks are Civilians

[Egon]

With the logic you're using, the US should be accused of genocide and massacres worldwide.

And the evidence is pretty clear. They tried belligerence, and it has pretty much failed, what they did not try and have not tried was diplomacy. Not to mention the example set by the Soviets and the English empire that military exuberence is not the best solution to this place.

Could diplomacy had led to worse things than now? Perhaps, but considering what failure the military right was, we're only left to assume that diplomacy wouldn't have been such a mess. And the situation can still be salvaged if diplomacy is used.

With the logic you are using, anyone could be accused of those things. And please elaborate on the failings of the military.

[Egon]

But who will protect third-world countries from the US?

Who else other than your lord and savior Obama.

[Kuya]

What do you want me to elaborate on? Or were you under the impression that you were 'winning' in Afghanistan?

[Egon]

What do you want me to elaborate on? Or were you under the impression that you were 'winning' in Afghanistan?

Everything. I'm not going to let you slide out of here calling our military a failure. You're gonna have to back that one up.

[Elvis]

Everything and anyone can be exploited. The way I see it, the counties with the most human rights are the countries that are the most successful. Now, some here may argue the definition of a successful country, but mine is that we Americans for the most part live very comfortably. Third world countries will come around, but we have to protect ourselves until they do.

Sure, there is no perfect system for anything, and I think people here on both sides of the fence want to make things better (cept for the few USA haters).

@first bold

Non-sequiter.

@second bold

Not sure what your point is.

I'm not saying we, inside America do not have human rights or do not live comfortably.

My point is that our government does not construct policy based on a moral framework. We do not mind human rights violations and have tacitly supported the violation of such rights, when it was beneficial to do so.

So your claptrap about 'woman's right's' is just PR.

[Kuya]

Everything. I'm not going to let you slide out of here calling our military a failure. You're gonna have to back that one up.

Not the military itself, you dunce. The military approach to Afghanistan was and is a failure.

edit: and spare me the jingoism; i can't stomach it

[Egon]

Not the military itself, you dunce. The military approach to Afghanistan was and is a failure.

edit: and spare me the jingoism; i can't stomach it

Ooooohh I get it. So because we are winning, its a failure!

[Demosthenes11]

Easy. We don't.

If you seriously care to the point of thinking that we should send in U.S. troops in order to be more precise, thereby sacrificing dozens if not hundreds of U.S. citizens, you're the one that's batshit crazy.

wonderful. an assumption that we have to be doing this in the first place. love it

[Egon]

@first bold

Non-sequiter.

@second bold

Not sure what your point is.

I'm not saying we, inside America do not have human rights or do not live comfortably.

My point is that our government does not construct policy based on a moral framework. We do not mind human rights violations and have tacitly supported the violation of such rights, when it was beneficial to do so.

So your claptrap about 'woman's right's' is just PR.

Well, I feel that the people I vote for, on a local level, state level, and federal level, care about it.

[Khajit]

1. Read above.
2. N/A
3. We've been in the middle east for a loooong time
4. You agreed with me.

1. /facepalm. Seriously. the USA itself doesnt care about human rights(unless it involves US citizens because the US citizens would complain). it's a well documented fact even just looking at previous actions including the creation of a multiple decade long war because of Guatemala wanting to pay a cheaper price to the united fruit company for land used to grow banannas.
3. Yeah who could forget giving that nice chap Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons specifically so that he would assault a nearby nation and result in deaths estimated over 1 million people. Donny really enjoyed his Visit he made for bush(Sr) as he was so cordial when he tortured maimed and oppressed others. What a great and marvelous ally.

Or are you referring to the psychotic rascist highly agrssive apartheid nation carpetbombing people because of thier race/religion that's basically been living on US support for decades which is pissing off the entire middle east as well as outraging almost every country outside of the US? Yeah i dont see how supporting a genocidal nation surrounded by targets... uh i mean people of the same race/religion as those currently being mistreated could possibly make any of the Muslim people have a reason to hate the US at all.
4. Your thought process is really weird and that's saying something considering i can figure out where pchan's logic came from when he's wrong or appears to be at first glance. So I apparently said it was perfectly ok to attack and assault a government for the actions of a rouge individual doing actions they did not endorse or plan in any way shape or form while they try to open diplomatic relations and prevent themselves from being annihilated for something they personally had nothing to do with outside of the guy being in the country?
I pointed out the taliban had no control of Osama and was blindsided by an angry America pointing the trigger at them out of nowhere. I didnt say that's a viable reason to blow everyone the fuck up.
Know what? since it apparently is to you , how would you feel if muslim countries of the world all grew superior weaponry and attacked america with a 6% success rate on hitting government officials. If you didnt want to get hit you should have stayed away from living in the same city as them when they were actively hiding. Oh and the reason for this would be retaliation for the torturing of thier civilians over the last few years in the various prisons. But of course that wouldnt be ok since it's not like the US would take issue with the kidnapping of US citizens and torturing them without any trial or rights given to them for nearly and eventually over a decade?

[Kuya]

Ooooohh I get it. So because we are winning, its a failure!

lol

[Rhinox]

Oh shit guys was that a RL card that has just been played?

[Rhinox]

Elvis, Whats the common answer you give to people that ask you why are you complaining about Israeli war crimes on an Internet chat board?

[Egon]

1. /facepalm. Seriously. the USA itself doesnt care about human rights(unless it involves US citizens because the US citizens would complain). it's a well documented fact even just looking at previous actions including the creation of a multiple decade long war because of Guatemala wanting to pay a cheaper price to the united fruit company for land used to grow banannas.
3. Yeah who could forget giving that nice chap Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons specifically so that he would assault a nearby nation and result in deaths estimated over 1 million people. Donny really enjoyed his Visit he made for bush(Sr) as he was so cordial when he tortured maimed and oppressed others. What a great and marvelous ally.

Or are you referring to the psychotic rascist highly agrssive apartheid nation carpetbombing people because of thier race/religion that's basically been living on US support for decades which is pissing off the entire middle east as well as outraging almost every country outside of the US? Yeah i dont see how supporting a genocidal nation surrounded by targets... uh i mean people of the same race/religion as those currently being mistreated could possibly make any of the Muslim people have a reason to hate the US at all.
4. Your thought process is really weird and that's saying something considering i can figure out where pchan's logic came from when he's wrong or appears to be at first glance. So I apparently said it was perfectly ok to attack and assault a government for the actions of a rouge individual doing actions they did not endorse or plan in any way shape or form while they try to open diplomatic relations and prevent themselves from being annihilated for something they personally had nothing to do with outside of the guy being in the country?
I pointed out the taliban had no control of Osama and was blindsided by an angry America pointing the trigger at them out of nowhere. I didnt say that's a viable reason to blow everyone the fuck up.
Know what? since it apparently is to you , how would you feel if muslim countries of the world all grew superior weaponry and attacked america with a 6% success rate on hitting government officials. If you didnt want to get hit you should have stayed away from living in the same city as them when they were actively hiding. Oh and the reason for this would be retaliation for the torturing of thier civilians over the last few years in the various prisons. But of course that wouldnt be ok since it's not like the US would take issue with the kidnapping of US citizens and torturing them without any trial or rights given to them for nearly and eventually over a decade?

There is nothing wrong with protecting ones interests. I don't know if you are a family man or not, but I am. You see, I really don't care how or why allllll this middle east crap got started in the first place, but I do know that they are a threat to my family. You are someone that is best to agree to disagree, because the things that are precious to me, is not to you, so our priorities will always be different. Let's say you are right about ALL that wall of text. It doesn't matter. My vote will always go to eliminating the threat to the USA. Because that is the threat we have TODAY.


Edit: Going to bed.

[Rhinox]

There is nothing wrong with protecting ones interests. I don't know if you are a family man or not, but I am. You see, I really don't care how or why allllll this middle east crap got started in the first place, but I do know that they are a threat to my family. You are someone that is best to agree to disagree, because the things that are precious to me, is not to you, so our priorities will always be different. Let's say you are right about ALL that wall of text. It doesn't matter. My vote will always go to eliminating the threat to the USA. Because that is the threat we have TODAY.


Edit: Going to bed.

lol @ threat to your family.

[Kuya]

You see, I really don't care how or why allllll this middle east crap got started in the first place, but I do know that they are a threat to my family.

As i've pointed out earlier, this is really the crux of the issue.

Americans do not care at all about how their tacit support plays into any of this, and they care very little for those people far far away who are killed by the things their government does. In my pessimist opinion, American foreign policy will continue as is, what little american resistence there is will not change it. The cycle will continue this way:

The US government destroys another country's regime directly or indirectly for its own interests that have little to do with defense, then, years later, this leads to some group retaliating with terrorism against the easiest targets, sometimes civilians, and americans, who don't understand what is going on, will buy the rhetoric about their enemies wanting to hurt them for wild reasons, and that they need to rely on the government to find these bad guys and kill them. No context. No investigation into why these things happen.

This will continue until the US can engage it in no longer. Perhaps someone else has a more positive outlook on this.

[Zeb]

Clearly, we need Naruto to come along and end this cycle of hate for us.

[Elvis]

1:

@first bold

Non-sequiter.

@second bold

Not sure what your point is.

I'm not saying we, inside America do not have human rights or do not live comfortably.

My point is that our government does not construct policy based on a moral framework. We do not mind human rights violations and have tacitly supported the violation of such rights, when it was beneficial to do so.

So your claptrap about 'woman's right's' is just PR.

2.

Well, I feel that the people I vote for, on a local level, state level, and federal level, care about it.

3.

There is nothing wrong with protecting ones interests. I don't know if you are a family man or not, but I am. You see, I really don't care how or why allllll this middle east crap got started in the first place, but I do know that they are a threat to my family. You are someone that is best to agree to disagree, because the things that are precious to me, is not to you, so our priorities will always be different. Let's say you are right about ALL that wall of text. It doesn't matter. My vote will always go to eliminating the threat to the USA. Because that is the threat we have TODAY.

Lemme get this straight. You (and by implication 'your' constituency) 'care' about the human rights of brown people in the ME, yet don't mind drone attacks which kill a substantial amount of civilians. You 'care' about human rights, hence you support our being there, yet you do not care about the history of the region, and thus you do not care about the context of the violence.

You begin history when we're attacked, and look at our foreign policy as a reaction to 'threats' - but you still 'care' about human rights for brown people, 'over there'.

K, gotcha.

[Elvis]

Jeane Kirkpatrick, one of the architects of our Reagan Era foreign policy, on the murder of Catholic nuns (liberation theology versus the Christian Right/corporatism) in El Salvador:

The nuns were clearly not just nuns. [...]The nuns were also political activists. We ought to be a little bit more clear-cut about this than we usually are.

A more recent example, is Rachel Corrie who was run over by a bulldozer (a bulldozer) in Occupied Palestine.

BTW - she's right. All people in solidarity w/ the oppressed are expressing a political opinion.

We supported the military juntas in El Salvador and we support Israel, hence, we wouldn't condemn the actions of the State in these respective incidents.

In the case of those nuns, you can't pigeon hole them as 'radical Leftists' as you could w/ Corrie - who was young (23 I think) and hence, could easily be dismissed.

Yet, here is an American political figure trivializing the deaths of fellow Americans. Not just regular people but the kind of people you'd give a medal of something to, right? I mean, anyone who works with the poor/homeless/etc. in a war zone is a hero - right?

But, these women, were 'anti-American' and thus, do not get the same kind of respect. It wasn't good publicity of course.

We had Elliot Abrams (pardoned crook, Iran-Contra) testify that the massacre of 900 men/women/children in an El Salvadoran village (by the national guard, just like in the case of the Catholic nuns), never happened.

So yea, we sure do care about human rights. And 'threats'.

[Elvis]

Jeane Kirkpatrick, one of the architects of our Reagan Era foreign policy, on the murder of Catholic nuns (liberation theology versus the Christian Right/corporatism) in El Salvador:

The nuns were clearly not just nuns. [...]The nuns were also political activists. We ought to be a little bit more clear-cut about this than we usually are.

A more recent example, is Rachel Corrie who was run over by a bulldozer (a bulldozer) in Occupied Palestine.

BTW - she's right. All people in solidarity w/ the oppressed are expressing a political opinion.

We supported the military juntas in El Salvador and we support Israel, hence, we wouldn't condemn the actions of the State in these respective incidents.

In the case of those nuns, you can't pigeon hole them as 'radical Leftists' as you could w/ Corrie - who was young (23 I think) and hence, could easily be dismissed.

Yet, here is an American political figure trivializing the deaths of fellow Americans. Not just regular people but the kind of people you'd give a medal of something to, right? I mean, anyone who works with the poor/homeless/etc. in a war zone is a hero - right?

But, these women, were 'anti-American' and thus, do not get the same kind of respect. It wasn't good publicity of course.

We had Elliot Abrams (pardoned crook, Iran-Contra) testify that the massacre of 900 men/women/children in an El Salvadoran village (by the national guard, just like in the case of the Catholic nuns), never happened.

So yea, we sure do care about human rights. And 'threats'.