281–290 of 491 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He isn't a sack of shit for having an opposing view point. He is a sack of shit for this middle ground all sides have a valid point and the truth is somewhere in the middle bullshit.
He actually doesn't take the middle ground. He's avoiding the drone vs anti-drone argument to make a perfectly valid and legitimate point about the Guardian article.
We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
You're a sack of shit: >I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Congrats on being a mediocre person who doesn't believe in anything or have any opinions. This is the most offensive thing I think, even more than me disagreeing with you. Just picking middle of the road bland boring contrariness. >We all know war is hell. Apparently "we" don't because people continue to wage war. >We know using weapons to attac…
It's phenomenally rude, emotionally charged, wildly unfocused, and somehow actively advocating being loud and uninformed. It's hard to engage with a post like this in any sort of rational way.
Posts like this crowd out people like me from participating at all on HN by creating an unhealthy environment for discourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pointing out an opposing view, or the downside of the alternative to drones (boots on the ground) does not make the author a sack of shit. War will be around until humans work harder to understand each others perspectives and evolve socially as quickly as we have with technology. You can help us all to that end by not being name calling anonymously on the internet.
He isn't a sack of shit for having an opposing view point. He is a sack of shit for this middle ground all sides have a valid point and the truth is somewhere in the middle bullshit.
Very few people want to be evil or wrong for the sake of being evil or wrong - they believe they are right and they just have a different perspective on how to be right.
Truth is just the perception of fact. Depending on one's values, the truth can be viewed differently by different people. That's why it's very difficult to find "one right answer".
We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
I would be interested in the statistics you base this on. How many strikes are fire support strikes vs. "lone" drone strikes? My impression up to your comment was that most drone strikes are not fire support strikes.
We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? Start killing Hutus? It is probable that intervention would have caused more casualties (including to US forces). Kosovo is also disputed even in terms of actual casualties, let alone projected casualties, and is probably not a good case for intervention. I fully agree there is not a good answer either way (syria included)... Just p…
How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? A group of armed Tutsi's is ultimately what ended the Rwandan genocide. So yes, that likely would have worked well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Rwandan_Patrio...
Genocide tipping in exactly the opposite direction is another (obviously unintended) possibility. Oh yeah... The rest of the wiki you link talks about that... Oops!
You can't predict a future that didn't happen. (Again unless you're The Doctor).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My original response was much more involved but I curtailed it to this. I believe I replied pretty much in the same manner as jusbin1369. My hope is that for people that look at comments only they will actually read the article instead of reading jusbin1369's comment and skipping it because they wouldn't want to be "manipulated" or consider the article another "propaganda" piece. I also get very wary of questioning t…
Your entire comment was sarcasm. Sarcasm is not a constructive or compelling way of making an argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unfortunate truth is that any leader who orders soldiers to go to war should know that innocent and guilty people are going to die, women will be raped, property destroyed and looted, and so on. In WWII there was a deliberate policy of incinerating populated cities, but even if we don't go to that extreme the outcome is going to be grim. I hope any defence secretary both knows this, and considers it, but also con…
>but also considers what happens when you don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc. Nothing happens. Nothing. The reason those people are pissed is because of the U.S. government constantly fucking with them and poking them. Over throwing governments, secret renditions, locking up loved ones in Guantanamo with no trial indefinitely. I'd be fucking pissed too.
Obviously not much happens in the short term if we don't interfere in the affairs of Pakistan and neighbours. In the long term they might rebuild their terrorist training camps, but .. meh so what. Only a few people have been killed by terrorists, it's not a big deal and not a fundamental threat to civilisation.
You couldn't say that there would be no consequences for not engaging in the 1930s. Many more countries could have been overrun by fascism for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans should be more concerned about the NSA spying on US citizens than on foreigners. Here's why: When the US government decides a US citizen's communication patterns makes him a terrorist, the US government is free to knock down their door in the middle of the night and whisk them off to Guantanamo, and NO ONE except the US government can do anything to stop them. When the US government decides a foreigner is a…
> When the US government decides a US citizen's communication patterns makes him a terrorist, the US government is free to knock down their door in the middle of the night and whisk them off to Guantanamo, and NO ONE except the US government can do anything to stop them. While I dislike how the U. S. government has decided that who they classify as terrorists superceding the rights of a US citizen, this is just wrong…
For the time being. Do you think how the surveillance apparatus currently works is how it will always work in perpetuity?