Do you think that Foreign people should stop being jealous of the USA, and just be grateful for everything we've did for them?
♩♪♥Victoria♥♪♫
2012/06/16 23:22:33
Top Opinion
-
+11Erm... You helped save us in two world wars... That's all we have to be grateful for. What we shouldn't be grateful for is your incessant meddling with the rest of the world, the exportation of your culture which has started an obesity epidemic, your aggravating of the Middle East, your domination over everything, you running most of the UN so it always goes along with your harebrained schemes to 'improve the world' that always end with a war, a dictator and another country that hates you, the fact that you have set up dictators in half the countries in the world, in fact you set up a dictator twice in Cuba and you nearly caused a nuclear war because of it, and your undercover medical programmes that are ten times worse than anything the Germans or Japanese did, indeed, Hitler got his inspiration from American experiments. So we're very grateful for you for everything you've done, it's just countered by your attitude and the way you lord it over everyone else. Kind of like the British Empire did... In fact, what you are saying is the same as us saying Africa, India and the Indigenous peoples of Australia and New Zealand should be grateful for what we've done for them...
I'm a little rusty on my history from the period of Persian ascendancy, but if I am not mistaken the extension of their empire into that region marked the beginning of the end for their dominance. The people who think of themselves as Pashtuns have seen them all come and go. From the Mongols to the descendants of the Khans the Mohguls, the persians and later the British and the Soviets... They have seen them all come, fought them relentlessly and watched them all leave. And after America has left this land, the Pashtun people will still be there..... awaiting the next imperial power to overreach itself.
The radical elements of Islam are responsible for the "collateral damage". Collateral damage and Friendly Fire are just a form of political whitewash. War kills soldiers, children, flowers and other living things. Civilization has come to the general agreement that civilians are not combatants, and deliberate attack on them is a war crime. No matter how surgical military actions become, they will never be antiseptic.
Perhaps, it is more appropriate to direct ire at the criminal, rather than the victim.
That Don is a crock of pure horse pucky. Do I need to reminf you of the 'civilized' incineration of entire cities of civilians by both the Anglo-American forces in the 40's? Genral Curtis LeMay, mastermind of the great 'Japanese Burn-off' openly admitted to his status as a war criminal, only victory spared him and many, many others from facing justice for their crimes. For God's sake, we cooked more people alive than Hitler did. Don't tell me we are civilized and they are savages, its a lie.
Interesting how there were no "collateral damage" civilians dying until Western mercenaries were in foreign lands.
What it boils down to is rather simple. We are in their lands and we are killing their people. That makes them the victim and us the criminal. Just as the Saudi hijackers were criminals and the people in the WTC victims. I'm not a nationalist, I'm not religious, I'm just someone who abhors war and killing. I don't care what excuses are used to justify it, it is immoral and it is criminal.
And there is as mindset among combatants that their lives are so valuable that ANYTHING is justified if they even so much as think they are threatened. Those are the pertinent rules of engagement.
Perhaps if you take the governments stance that anyone killed is an insurgent or terrorist you could say my stats are faulty. But that is to be dishonest, my stats are factual.,
One action is a stratified sample.
As stated before, war is not antiseptic. The language of politics and diplomacy try to make it so, but can't happen.
No, war is not antiseptic. But the key point in regards to these current conflicts is that they are predicated on lies, they are illegal under any interpretation of the standards we hold other to and they are immoral beyond belief. The soldiers have no legitimacy in even being there, let alone killing innocents to spare their mercenary lives.
The relationship of the soldier to the CIC establishes his legitimacy. Congress affirmed the President and CIC's legitimacy. The British Commonwealth has as one of the world's most sophisticated intelligience communities. Likewise, your chain of command operated legitimately. Why do you want to shoot the messenger the messenger?
There were men, as they did the last time America launched an immoral war, who refused to serve. Conscientious Objectors, Draft Dodgers... call them what you will, they stood on moral principles and said no to unethical orders. Every soldier has the right, no the duty, to refuse such orders. That is one of the things that supposedly separates us from the Nazis.
The ethics and morality of these conflicts is a subjective thing. Everyone must decide for themselves where they stand on this and I do not expect that everyone must adopt my morals. But by my ethics it is a criminal campaign, so by that measure I have little regard for the "messengers" of a corrupt government... mine or yours.
Nothing against USA, but with this kind of question maybe I should start a bit pissed off!
We also have Ceuta and Melilla so...
at least that is what i was told by.... a person