General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoctors Without Borders Pulls Out Of World Humanitarian Summit, Says It No Longer Has Hope
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2016/05/05/3775550/doctors-without-borders-whs/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Very sad...
For humanity.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)
MH1
(17,573 posts)I think the US is guilty of negligence in most or all cases. While this shows a tragic lack of care, it is not quite the same as viciously deliberately targeting hospitals and medical personnel as some do (e.g. anti-polio workers being abducted and killed in Pakistan).
I'm not giving the US a pass but I think there is a worse depravity out there.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)worth of difference.
The fact that there is "worse depravity out there" is irrelevant.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)the "lesser of two evils" moral argument
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)but those of us who don't drink that brand of Kool-Ade™, are kind of at a disadvantage.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Je Suis Charlie.
What about you?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)started by Bush. We have now been at war long than any time ever in American history, and once again, an illegal war of aggression that has ZERO moral justification. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are dead, and you think that expressing moral outrage about it is "ridiculous".
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)Al Qaeda operating out of Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban attacked the US on Sept. 11th 2001.
The US attacked back.
Aristus
(66,294 posts)n/t
Akicita
(1,196 posts)legal war.
AllyCat
(16,152 posts)Akicita
(1,196 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Who gave them weapons? Who encouraged them to commit terrorist acts against the Soviets?
Akicita
(1,196 posts)too. Both happened before we were attacked on 911. That event has a way of changing things. Just like we were not at war with Japan before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. After that day our relationship with Japan changed.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)We got more than ample warning about 9/11, but the Bush admin couldn't be bothered to investigate the attack.
Once upon a time, people on this site used to understand this. Now that the Bush' have formed a Dynasty with the Clintons, it is conveniently forgotten.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)The Mujahideen who fought the Soviets not the same thing as the Taliban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Beginnings
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The weapons, training, and money went into helping the Taliban get started. Once the Soviets retreated, we promptly forgot about Afghanistan and moved on to our next war, Iraq part I.
We back up the bad guys under failed tactic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Please stop trying to paint the U.S. as altruistic good guys. We aren't. If there isn't a buck to be made we aren't interested.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)....mostly coming from people who complain about us still being there this time.
But nonetheless the Mujahadeen and the Taliban are not the same thing.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)Last I heard, they were defending themselves against a Soviet invasion. 
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The British viewed the "Founding Fathers" by a different appellation: Traitors.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)Invasions aren't freedom fights. Try again. 
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Previous poster was arguing the Afghani's were freedom fighters, or could at least be seen that way.
Edit: reply fail, that was meant for WhatTheHell, speaking of KM's argument.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)
That's not what I got out of it, and I responded to him accordingly.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The Soviets would view them as terrorists, they would see themselves as freedom fighters. The Soviets would also view us as terrorist supporters.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)I doubt even the Soviets would say that.....All opinions are not equal...At some point, many give way to facts, and as the late, great Pat Moynihan said "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".
Come back after you've thought that through. 
Akamai
(1,779 posts)From the Washington Post article of 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm)
**********************************
Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer
By Kathy Gannon
Associated Press Writer
Sunday, Oct. 14, 2001; 1:50 p.m. EDT
JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.
President Bush quickly rejected the offer.
"The president has been very clear, there will be no negotiations," White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said. Washington has repeatedly rejected any negotiations or conditions on its demands that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.
The statement by Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir did not break new ground. But its timing and the fact it was made to foreign reporters by such a senior figure – the Taliban's third most powerful figure – could indicate the movement was desperate for a way out of the crisis after more than a week of punishing airstrikes.
Kabir said that if the United States gave evidence bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and halted the bombing, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country" – a country, he added, that would never "come under pressure from the United States."
"If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate," he said. "Then we could discuss which third country."
Before the start of the air campaign, the Taliban had demanded evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the attack and had offered to try him before an Islamic court inside Afghanistan – proposals that the United States promptly rejected...."
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)...they decided poorly.
Actor
(626 posts)privatize Social Security and be reelected.
3 weeks prior to invading Iraq the W admin was given absolute, undeniable proof there were no WMD in Iraq by way of their own intel source, "curveball", admitting he was making it all up. Plus they inspected the sites that allegedly had them, they found carpet instead.
Every drop of blood from that point forward is a war crime.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)Actor
(626 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)Hmmm... and it was an illegal invasion, I think. We could easily have accomplished what we wanted without invading but Bush wanted to be a war president.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)....be done without troops?
And again, not illegal, a attack was mounted on the US from that country and the Taliban refused to hand over the responsible party.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)no UNSC res authorizing it.
so that makes it a "far from a legal" one unless you're a resident of Bizarro World where up is down
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)....unless you live in Bizarro World.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)a lack of a UNSC res establishes, making your comment to the contrary either ignorance or dishonesty based.
but do keep dodging, no?
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)You're attacked and you may proceed to attack the attacker in response.
Any UN motions you can find accusing the US of illegal warfare in this case? .....I thought not.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)Afghan proper nor any of their bona fide forces launch an attack
And the case could also be made that other treaties we were signatories to required action other than the invasion and occupation.
https://www.google.com/#q=afghan+war+was+illegal educate yourself and quit spewing such falsehoods, no?
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)UN Charter:
Article 51 of the Charter states the following: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)nonsense.
if the bundy boys go across the border and kill 'em some mexicans, can the Mexican gov then attack and occupy us?
and then of course there are always proportionality, etc, considerations that limit your "Nothing on the Charter...." stuff as well.
In any case, your additional ignorance as to what that article allows and not doesn't change the incontrovertible fact that a lack of a UNSC res authorizing it makes it illegal under international law, and it's doubtful any readers here care about your "nuh uh" defense of it.
I
n conclusion, it can be argued that the NATO invasion of Afghanistan was not legal under international law. This is due to the fact that the UN resolutions that were drafted after the 9/11 attacks did not expressly permit an aggressive approach in tackling international terrorism. Furthermore, Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter were not adhered to, as peaceful means to resolve the issue were not sufficiently considered and dialogue between the parties involved was not used as a means to end hostilities. Also, the assertion made by the US that it was acting on the grounds of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter is deeply contentious. This is because in this case, one state was looking to invade another to eliminate a terrorist organisation that had no affiliation to any particular state. Lastly, the most crucial aspect here that proves that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal under international law was the fact that the UN Security Council had not given authorisation for the invasion of Afghanistan, which would have been necessary in order for NATO to legally pursue Al Qaeda. http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/
The bombing was not a legitimate form of self-defence under Article 51 for two reasons, according to Cohn.
First, “the attacks in New York and Washington DC were criminal attacks, not ‘armed attacks’ by another state.” Indeed, as Frank Ledwidge argues in his new book Investment In Blood: The True
Cost Of Britain’s Afghan War, “the Taliban certainly were not aware of the 9/11 plot, and equally certainly would not have approved even if they had been.”
Cohn’s second criticism is that “there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the US after September 11, or the US would not have waited three weeks before initiating its bombing campaign.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/legal-or-illegal-the-2001-us-british-attack-on-afghanistan-never-got-the-u-n-green-light/5377115
which is kinda like Zimmerman following and shooting Trayvon Martin in the back as he was walking through his front door, because he was skeered that he'd come back again some other night while he was on duty.
you don't support him too, do you?
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)THIS CONTENT WAS WRITTEN BY A STUDENT AND ASSESSED AS PART OF A UNIVERSITY DEGREE. E-IR PUBLISHES STUDENT ESSAYS & DISSERTATIONS TO ALLOW OUR READERS TO BROADEN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE WHEN ANSWERING SIMILAR QUESTIONS IN THEIR OWN STUDIES.
Let's see, right from the article:
The Taliban was an Afghan resistance movement that came into being during the Soviet invasion as a direct response to the invasion. It was funded by the US and Pakistan and was made up mainly of ethnic Pashtuns.
The Taliban wasn't in existence till 1994 so that's wrong. The Taliban having former Mujahadeen as members doesn't make them the same organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Beginnings
And Global research? hahahaha, even weaker...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk -- and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.
While some of GlobalResearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist -- if something goes wrong, the Jews/West did it! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with "Western" sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the "mainstream" media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)war claim, and were quickly reduced to attacking sources that used sources beyond reproach by one as obviously ignorant of the relevant issues surrounding that illegal invasion. That's precisely why I selected those outta the pages full of stuff making the same case -- because that's what those without recourse do, and you've already shown yourself to be the kind that would.
If for example, you've never heard of Marjorie Cohn, then you're far more ignorant than I had previously supposed.
Meanwhile, everything I've posted remains totally intact and unrebutted, and you have nothing but dishonest dodges for an encore.
Please proceed, eh...
bvar22
(39,909 posts)A handful of Saudi criminals hiding out in some regional Warlord's desert attacked the USA.
99.99999% of the Afghans we killed were completely innocent. THAT is who we attacked,
not the Saudi criminals responsible for 9-11.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)And the 99.9% of Afghans who were innocent were more then happy to see the Taliban go, unless you think that government had some redeeming features, which it did not.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I don't believe they, or their families are happy about anything we did.
The Taliban is a quasi-religious organization without borders, or an organized chain of command as know by Westerners, and does not represent or speak for the country of Afghanistan. Afghanistan had no effective central government, but was (and still is) ruled by tribal warlords. It was one of these warlords who rented space to the handful of Saudi criminals who attacked us.
Bombing, Invading and occupying an entire country of mostly completely innocent people to catch a handful of Saudi criminals which we FAILED to do was NOT a justification for WAR.
International Law Enforcement and Seal Team 6 (if necessary) was the correct action, as has been proven.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)Just walk up to the heavily armed al Qaeda training camp and say "Come out with your hands up! We have a warrant!" lol....good one...yes that would end well.
And the Taliban WERE local government such that it was. They held the capital and most of the country.
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was established in 1996 and the Afghan capital transferred to Kandahar. It held control of most of the country until being overthrown by the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in December 2001 following the September 11 attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
And yes, believe it or not, most Afghans were VERY happy to see the Taliban disposed and the country much improved.
Most Afghans are well aware that in many way their lives are much better since the Americans arrived. GDP has grown continuously since 2001 with average family income increasing noticeably each year. In early 2001 only a million children were in school, all of them boys. Now there are over eight million in school and 40 percent are girls. Back then there were only 10,000 phones in the country, all very expensive land lines in cities. Now there are over 18 million inexpensive cell phones with access even in remote rural areas. Back then less than ten percent of the population had access to any health care, now 85 percent do and life expectancy has risen from 47 years (the lowest in Eurasia) to 62 (leaving Bangladesh to occupy last place in Eurasia). This is apparently the highest life expectancy has ever been in Afghanistan and the UN noted it was the highest one decade increase ever recorded. Afghans have noticed this even if the rest of the world has not.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Taliban did not attack us.
Yes, I'm sure that many Afghans still alive and with their families intact are glad they are gone from the cities, but they certainly haven't been destroyed, and will return as soon as we leave.
Again, the Taliban did NOT attack us.
We invaded Afghanistan to capture of kill those who attacked us....and that was a handful of Saudi criminals....NOT The Taliban.
BTW: Put all the LOLs and Strawmen in your posts that you care to, but President Obama did indeed capture the "mastermind" of the attack using International Law Enforcement Intelligence, and Seal Team 6. That is what worked.
Invading and Occupying Afghanistan (a country that did NOT attack us) didn't work then, and is STILL not working 15 years later.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)al Qaeda had grown much larger then that under the protection of the Taliban.
The 055 Brigade (or 55th Arab Brigade) was an elite guerrilla organization sponsored and trained by Al Qaeda that was integrated into the Taliban army between 1995 and 2001.
Estimates on the strength of the 055 Brigade vary, however it is generally believed that at its peak it comprised somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel. The 055 Brigade suffered heavy losses during the 2001 war in Afghanistan and many were captured by the United States. Those that survived retreated with Osama bin Laden to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area where they regrouped with the intention of waging a protracted campaign. According to Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts the brigade was a unit of foreign fighters in Afghanistan under the command of Osama bin Laden. JTF-GTMO analysts said that, under bin Laden's command, the 55th Arab Brigade was integrated into the Taliban's military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/055_Brigade
"President Obama did indeed capture the "mastermind" of the attack using International Law Enforcement Intelligence, and Seal Team 6. That is what worked."
It only worked because the invasion killed most of the 055 Brigade and drove bin Laden into hiding across the border. Certainly would not have worked prior to that.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)weapons and that he had already used them on his own people. Exactly the kind of stuff Doctors Without Borders is talking about. The USA and United Nations passed resolutions demanding that Hussein give up the weapons of mass destruction under threat of war. When he refused we invaded. No chemical weapons were found. Some believe the chemical weapons Syria has include those from Iraq. Some believe that Bush lied about the chemical weapons. The Clinton Administration thought he had them too.
I think we all agree that the invasion was a huge mistake. That the USA does not rush in to prevent the atrocities Doctors Without Borders is talking about could be to keep from repeating that mistake. Sometimes we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)told by people with a political and business agenda.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)He could have avoided the war and kept his dictatorship.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)....and didn't want them to know he no longer had WMD's.
Even some of his generals thought he still did.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)brett_jv
(1,245 posts)UN Weapon Inspector Hans Blix was 'reporting live from Iraq' practically til the moment the bombs fell ... saying 'Saddam is Cooperating, and we're finding no evidence of WMD's anywhere'.
Where are you getting this 'wouldn't let inspectors in?' nonsense?
Sure it took threat of war to get him to do so, but inspectors WERE there, prior to our invasion, doing their jobs, finding nothing, and more or less happy with the level of cooperation they were getting from Saddam.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The UN didn't support the U.S. view that NBC weapons were in Iraq. We invaded illegally on the false pretext of "pre-emptive war". When the Japanese did this, there leaders were tried and executed for war crimes.
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)In fact, the inspectors said that Hussein had no chemical weapons or other WMDs. This was a problem for Bush administration, because it undercut the story supporting the war they wanted, so the U.S. ordered the weapons inspectors out. And then the Bushes immediately began "misspeaking" that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. They said it so much that many folks think the Bush administration's story bold lie is what actually happened.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)his "moral justifications" were as phony as the legal ones, both of which failed to make the war moral or legal.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Regardless of how it feels to them, there is an ethical difference unintentionally killing a person and deliberately taking their life. Both actions are wrong, and both actions deserved to be punished, but they are not morally equivalent.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)if it was your family dead, would intent really matter? Especially when you see Americans killing innocent people all the time and going "Oops, sorry we shot up that wedding. Looked like a ISIS terrorist party to us."
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And my point is intent does matter, regardless of how the families feel about it.
To family members, there may be no qualitative difference between a person who accidentally runs their child over in a crosswalk and a person who deliberately and maliciously sought to kill someone with his car, but ethics aren't decided by grief and justice isn't meted out by feelings.
For purposes of doling out punishment for a crime, intent is an important consideration, and cannot be dismissed out of hand simply because the aggrieved party is aggrieved.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)which Americans delude themselves is fair and just. Just as they delude themselves that our presence in the Middle East is fair and just.
Our constant "accidents" do nothing but act as a recruiting tool for extremist groups who do all they can to bring death and destruction to American shores in retaliation.
To me this is the same as the "one bad apple" defense of police misconduct. First of all, the misconduct is systemic and institutional. Second, no amount of wrist slapping is going to make the families of the dead feel better, nor the a large segment of the public (people of color and the poor) trust the police.
The government/police can slap themselves on the back all they want and tell themselves that proper procedure was followed, but it will never change the reality that it is all just murder with a fig leaf of legality.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But I'm not talking about the American legal system, I'm not saying American intervention in the Middle East is fair or just, and I'm not denying terrorist groups use said interventions as incentive to join their ranks, so I'm struggling to find the relevance.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)
War is not running over someone accidentally in a cross walk. War is an intentional act, planned and carried out by military people that could not give a wit about "collateral damage". We are in a war that is morally wrong and yet here you sit equating it to a tragic accident!
I fear there is no hope for America when we can justify bombing hospitals be cause ooopppsss accidents happen!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)What are you blathering about?
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)These wars have gone on long enough! We need to get out and stop killing innocent people.
I am not blathering...I am responding the post that equates bombing a hospital and killing doctors and patients to having a car accident.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Agreed.
Yes, you are blathering. I never equated "bombing a hospital and killing doctors to having a car accident". I brought up the example of a car accident to illustrate how intent is considered before the application of justice, and that is all. Nowhere did I state explicitly or imply that hitting a person in a crosswalk is exactly the same as bombing a hospital, or that the act of bombing a hospital should be excused provided it is the product of ignorance.
You might try stowing your indignation long enough to read what is actually fucking said... lest you blather.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the mad bomber bombed your house instead of your neighbor's house killing your entire family while you were at work, you could always take solace in the fact that it was a mistake and just negligence on his part and not intent.
Punish a few mistakes and I bet the mistakes will stop. In fact I would guarantee that they would stop.
840high
(17,196 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)...of past negligence.
Look at the state of the world today. How much of that did the US cause? But we also inflicted great harm through negligence over the past 50 years. Did we learn any lessons? Apparently not if we continue to trudge blindly into conflict without stopping in advance to consider exit-strategy and how to avoid past intra-conflict or post-conflict consequences. Regime-change...something US State Dept. and the alphabet soup of intelligence and defense agencies probably love a little too much...necessitates world building which we clearly have no idea how to achieve any more. We used to...the Marshall Plan was one of the great successes of the 20th century.
We're clearly not learning how to better manage the human costs of conflict or else we'd be doing better at it than we were in the Viet Nam era and not worse at it than we were doing at the end of WW II.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)the said building, would be bombed.These are precision bombings,they know
exactly where that bomb will go. The rest is collateral damage.
They don't WANT to kill innocents,but they want to get the "bad guy" more.
charliea
(260 posts)Since we used a vaccination campaign to find him: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150227-polio-pakistan-vaccination-taliban-osama-bin-laden/
Gee, if you covertly use medical workers as spies don't you think locals might think they all are?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,165 posts)In a hockey game, if a player high-sticks another there is a penalty, whether there is intent or not. And its double if blood is drawn.
Otherwise there is a grey area where players can be less careful and so it would happen more and each time a player could just shrug their shoulders and say "I never intended to.."
or worse...a player could intentionally target a hosp......er player, because someone up the chain suspects a "target" is holding up in or near it and its worth the collateral damage, er, i mean...they may think it would be worth getting back at an opponent for some previous slash/hit/punch if they could simply claim "negligence". 
But of course the US armed forces would never ever do that.......
A poster who takes the word of the military in cases of mass murder
uhnope
(6,419 posts)stinking up the site
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)attack and kill a MSF hospital?
Does the US attack with drones and kill civilians.
Personally I am tired of people making excuses for US war crimes with their "America uber alles" jingoism.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)The US accidentally bombed a hospital, which was horrible, and admitted it and tried to make amends, while it was fighting the terrorism that is plaguing the planet.
Do you know how many hospitals Russia & Assad have bombed lately--not in a war of terror, but in wars of invasion & annexation, in wars of propping up bloody dictatorship & client states? With no amends, no apology, no admission, & apparently no regret.
Does the US use the drone program as the least bloody method of fighting the WOT? Yes it does. Do you really think that's what the MSF is talking about? Or is that just what your distastefully naive/guilty approach to the realities of this world is telling you?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Especially drones. Especially that.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)& I support the girls whose schools were shut down by the Taliban
I fight the beheaders
what about you?
Akicita
(1,196 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and the bs in this post from that type is just a prelude to the justifications Hillary of Arc can expect to receive from her enamored minions
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)But that doesn't matter, only those weird brown people are dying.
The "Well, everybody else does it too" is your justification.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)wth do you want, to collapse into fetal position & let the Taliban continue killing schoolgirls for being in school? To let the beheaders take over a quarter of the planet? To give the bloodthirsty scum calling themselves ISIS to have free reign? Out with it, what do you want to do besides self-flagellate & whimper Me Culpa?
And disastrous us policy had nothing to do with the inception of either group. Which moderate rebel version of al Qaeda are you supporting in Syria? And what about the Saudi head choppers? Should we be fighting for them in Yemen?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)
Out with it indeed. 
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)all along
jhart3333
(332 posts)Congratulations on getting it completely and utterly wrong.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)beheaded. That's waaayy better than fighting them when we may kill a few innocents along the way.
We either submit or we fight. That's the choice they are giving us. If we fight some innocents will be killed. If we do nothing they will just grow and many more innocents will be killed. If we submit, and convince everyone else to submit, the killings of innocents will supposedly end except for those who dare do anything to defy their rule.
maindawg
(1,151 posts)The war on terror is a fraud. Almquede is actually CIA. Virtually all so called terror attacks are committed by some countries secret police such as the CIA the Israeli secret service the Russian version of the CIA etc. It's all a ruse to keep us off our balance. To occupy us while they Rob us and murder us ,imprison us and keep us turned against one another. Oh you have occasional crackpot Muslim shoe bombers and roque agents. But it's all a smokescreen. The friggin Taliban is Afgans version of our founders,according to Reagon. We created the friggin Taliban. It's all been a big lie.
Now you may think I'm crazy. But what if I'm not ?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)
sound even dumber than it is, which is really hard
Redwoods Red
(137 posts)Just in this century, we've invaded and occupied two countries to disastrous effect, killing hundreds of thousands of people.
We intervened in Libya to disastrous effect.
We are part and parcel of Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen.
We've been mucking about in Syria, contributing to the bleeding there.
And we're dropping drones on God knows how many countries. I've lost track.
So there is all that.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)as proven in many other's posts here and yes America DOES suck at some things but I intend to try to make her a better country instead of doing what you're doing. 
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)at least as often as you fail to rebut the case -- like here
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)sickening reply to an enormous humanitarian crisis.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)contribution of hostile and ignorant negativism.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am guessing you wouldn't be so glib in your dismissal.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)When civilization advances it is always over the complaints, and underminings, and whines of those whose nature that is. Your statement may not reflect the true Kelvin Mace, perhaps it's time for dinner or something, but for the moment it fit that crowd.
Btw, if your family had died, my guess is you'd be too devastated to rag out a shallow and facile political attack on the U.S., ignoring entirely the contributions of your own people and enemies.
cali
(114,904 posts)
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)What is even sadder is that those who scream the loudest about civil and human rights are the worst offenders.
cali
(114,904 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)
MerryBlooms
(11,759 posts)btw Good to see your posts again.
Pretty chilling
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The idea that there are non-people in the world has to stop.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for profits.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)malaise
(268,724 posts)If there is no respect for those who care, it's time for them to withdraw
bjo59
(1,166 posts)Civilians the world over are eradicated, maimed, made homeless and otherwise churned up in the meat grinder of for-profit wars and it has become taken for granted or utterly ignored by huge swaths of the populations of countries (such as the USA) whose government-corporate partnerships are spreading and financially benefitting off the carnage.
burrowowl
(17,632 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)For that title my vote would go to mercantilism and its associated colonialism. Modern capitalism at least makes the pretense of being subject to law.
To claim it is "the worst" betrays a lack of knowledge of economic history.
Capitalism is not unique in its evil. It'sis just the most efficient and effective form of economics we have discovered so far, but it rides on the coat-tails of the economic forms developed in Europe in the 16th to the 19th centuries. It's an evolutionary development. As a result, it's naive to imagine that it can be reformed in any meaningful way. It also can't be destroyed without destroying billions of people in the process. The best we can do is try to constrain its worst excesses and hope for the best.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)If you know this and make excuses for it you're part of the problem too.
Duppers
(28,117 posts)You'll get about 2,360,000 results.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)Duppers
(28,117 posts)There are that many articles online about the U.S. bombing hospitals. That's a lot of articles.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)Could all be about a single incident.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)You'll get 15,700,000 results.
Not sure what you're implying.
Duppers
(28,117 posts)Sorry, but I thought I was being obvious. Too many people are making excuses.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)holds no measurable statistical value to any topic.
GOPblows431
(51 posts)It seems like peace in this world is nothing more than a fantasy. Sad.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)sinister.
"....Medical personnel are threatened. Patients are shot in their beds. Broad attacks on communities and precise attacks on health facilities are described as mistakes, are denied outright, or are simply met with silence. In reality, they amount to massive, indiscriminate and disproportionate civilian targeting in urban settings, and, in the worst cases, they are acts of terror.”
democrank
(11,085 posts)sickening truth
zentrum
(9,865 posts)What they say is true.
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)... need a quick influx of profit? Open up a new can of wars. Need to distract from domestic issues? Open up a new can of wars. We are all expendable commodities, in war or peace, so far as the ruling class is concerned. When has it ever not been thus?
-- Mal
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that they should feel compelled to make such a move andf are justi9fied in doing so, contrary to their warmonger detractors on DU....
