331–340 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What war are you talking about? What is the objective? What would have to happen for this 'war' to end?
When you have an army shooting at people in a foreign country, there is a war; call it whatever you want.
The anti-American rants on here are disgusting. Nobody's calling this a mistake except the media. 5 Al Qaeda dead, 5-10 people sitting next to an Al Qaeda member also dead. Intelligence even pointed out which 4 cars out of the 11 car convoy contained the Al Qaeda members. If you think there is no war going on over there, the 52 civilians slaughtered by Al Qaeda on Dec. 5 in a Sana'a hospital would disagree with you.…
The anti-American rants on here are disgusting. Nobody's calling this a mistake except the media. 5 Al Qaeda dead, 5-10 people sitting next to an Al Qaeda member also dead. Intelligence even pointed out which 4 cars out of the 11 car convoy contained the Al Qaeda members. If you think there is no war going on over there, the 52 civilians slaughtered by Al Qaeda on Dec. 5 in a Sana'a hospital would disagree with you.…
We should be striving for much better standards if the west is to have any moral authority. Not as bad as Russia, China or Al Qaeda is not good enough.
Then there are practical issues that indiscriminate attacks are liable to create as many enemies as they kill as sons, brothers and fathers are bereaved and decide to join the fight.
[Edit: I'm British not American and I'm not saying Britain is any better but I really hate the "we aren't as bad as something really bad" as a defence for either country's actions. We should do better].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now would you say there would be more or less violence if the US stopped killing people on foreign soil?
Loaded question for sure :) You're asking me if the US's geopolitical and military operations currently are increasing or decreasing total violence in the world. A tremendously complex question to answer accurately. My answer (opinion) is this: On the whole I think the US has contributed to a decline in total violence in the world. Not to say there haven't been bad decisions along the way. Advances in military tactic…
They should stop doing the stuff that increases violence. Like this incident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For how many years were people dismissed as nutjobs and "conspiracy theorists" when they talked about NSA spying? Now we know it was all true. Just because it is true, doesn't mean those people aren't nutjobs or conspiracy theorists.
I'm curious what your definition of "nutjob" is, given that you would apparently apply it even to people who are correct about all of their theories.
I don't really have one but if you must, it's probably someone with a dissociative disorder. I'm just noting that you don't have to be sane to be right.
>given that you would apparently apply it even to people who are correct about all of their theories.
When exactly did I say that?
Ok, although I fundamentally tend to disagree with much of American military policy - if there were people on that bus who had ties to Al Qaeda and american intelligence knew this...and those people were to cause further destruction if they weren't killed...then I just don't know. I kind of imagine this like all of those movies about drug cartels where these incredibly rich families are leading semi-normal lives and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loaded question for sure :) You're asking me if the US's geopolitical and military operations currently are increasing or decreasing total violence in the world. A tremendously complex question to answer accurately. My answer (opinion) is this: On the whole I think the US has contributed to a decline in total violence in the world. Not to say there haven't been bad decisions along the way. Advances in military tactic…
They should keep doing the stuff that reduces violence. That's all good. They should stop doing the stuff that increases violence. Like this incident.
Just like a startup tries new tactics so does the US military and foreign policy organizations. And just like startups, some of those ideas fail miserably and look like ideas that should have never been tried in the first place :)
Ok, although I fundamentally tend to disagree with much of American military policy - if there were people on that bus who had ties to Al Qaeda and american intelligence knew this...and those people were to cause further destruction if they weren't killed...then I just don't know. I kind of imagine this like all of those movies about drug cartels where these incredibly rich families are leading semi-normal lives and…
They could have waited until after the wedding, when the Al Qaeda suspects were apart from the non-suspects, avoiding the risk of collateral damage. Just a thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a really good point, and I think that it come in the name "drone." These aircraft are NOT "drones." They do not perform menial labor and they are not "thoughtless." They do not perform automated attacks. These are units of force projection that the U.S. military uses as part of a psychological warfare campaign against citizens that it deems to be a threat (or, in other words, pretty much the entire planet).
I'm glad we can argue semantics while the world burns.
The 'world burning' today is ten times less of actual burning than in, say, US actions in Vietnam or Korea, and hundred times less than ww1/ww2 - I'm glad that the scale of suffering is shrinking so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what? Yes. I do. Arrest them, try them, when they reach US soil and pose a risk to the security of the US. Until then, they aren't your problem.
The funny thing is that this has been done before, but as there is not enough evidence to try them, they are locked up in Guantanamo indefinitely. I guess drone strikes are just a cheaper solution for that problem, with less outrage than prison camps.