generic image
Processing...
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
  • Search in Players
  • Search in Games
  • Search in Catalog
  • Search in Groups
  • Search in Library
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
   
ROBLOX Forum » ROBLOX Global » World Wide Chat
Home Search
 

Re: War Monger in Chief

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 09:29 PM
This man is deliberately massacring civilians at an unprecedented scale. Forget the Israeli's in Gaza, where is the international outrage over this?

Just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists – while the rest are innocent civilians, a new report claimed today.

The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorised by the operations ’24 hours-a-day’.

And the authors lay much of the blame on the use of the ‘double-tap’ strike where a drone fires one missile – and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble. One aid agency said they had a six-hour delay before going to the scene.

The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that people often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack. Investigators also discovered that communities living in fear of the drones were suffering severe stress and related illnesses. Many parents had taken their children out of school because they were so afraid of a missile-strike.

Today campaigners savaged the use of drones, claiming that they were destroying a way of life.

Clive Stafford Smith, director of the charity Reprieve which helped interview people for the report, said: ‘This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies. ‘

There have been at least 345 strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas near the border with Afghanistan in the past eight years.

'These strikes are becoming much more common,' Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent.

'In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it.'

The study is the product of nine months' research and more than 130 interviews, it is one of the most exhaustive attempts by academics to understand – and evaluate – Washington's drone wars.

Sadaullah Khan, a boy who lost both legs in a drone strike, says that before his injury, 'I used to go to school…I thought I would become a doctor. After the drone strikes, I stopped going to school.'

Noor Behram, a journalist: 'Once there has been a drone strike, people have gone in for rescue missions, and five or ten minutes after the drone attack, they attack the rescuers who are there.'

Taxi driver: 'Whether we are driving a car, or we are working on a farm, or we are sitting at home playing cards – no matter what we are doing we are always thinking the drone will strike us. So we are scared to do anything, no matter what.'

Safdar Dawar, President of the Tribal Union of Journalists: 'If I am walking in the market, I have this fear that maybe the person walking next to me is going to be a target of the drone. If I’m shopping, I’m really careful and scared. If I’m standing on the road and there is a car parked next to me, I never know if that is going to be the target. Maybe they will target the car in front of me or behind me. Even in mosques, if we’re praying, we’re worried that maybe one person who is standing with us praying is wanted. So, wherever we are, we have this fear of drones.'

Resident from the Manzar Khel area: 'Now (they have) even targeted funerals…they have targeted people sitting together, so people are scared of everything'

Despite assurances the attacks are 'surgical', researchers found barely two per cent of their victims are known militants and that the idea that the strikes make the world a safer place for the U.S. is 'ambiguous at best'.

Researchers added that traumatic effects of the strikes go far beyond fatalities, psychologically battering a population which lives under the daily threat of annihilation from the air, and ruining the local economy.

They conclude by calling on Washington completely to reassess its drone-strike programme or risk alienating the very people they hope to win over.

They also observe that the strikes set worrying precedents for extra-judicial killings at a time when many nations are building up their unmanned weapon arsenals.

The Obama administration is unlikely to heed their demands given the zeal with which America has expanded its drone programme over the past two years.

Washington says the drone program is vital to combating militants that threaten the U.S. and who use Pakistan's tribal regions as a safe haven.

The number of attacks have fallen since a Nato strike in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained U.S.-Pakistan relations.

Pakistan wants the drone strikes stopped - or it wants to control the drones directly - something the U.S. refuses.

Reapers and Predators are now active over the skies of Somalia and Yemen as well as Pakistan and - less covertly - Afghanistan.

But campaigners like Mr Akbar hope the Stanford/New York University research may start to make an impact on the American public.

'It's an important piece of work,' he told The Independent. 'No one in the U.S. wants to listen to a Pakistani lawyer saying these strikes are wrong. But they might listen to American academics.'

Today, Pakistani intelligence officials revealed a pair of missiles fired from an unmanned American spy aircraft slammed into a militant hideout in northwestern Pakistan last night.

The two officials said missiles from the drone aircraft hit the village of Dawar Musaki in the North Waziristan region, which borders Afghanistan to the west.

Some of the dead were believed to be foreign fighters but the officials did not know how many or where they were from.

The Monday strike was the second in three days. On Saturday a U.S. drone fired two missiles at a vehicle in northwest Pakistan, killing four suspected militants.

That attack took place in the village of Mohammed Khel, also in North Waziristan.

North Waziristan is the last tribal region in which the Pakistan military has not launched an operation against militants, although the U.S. has been continually pushing for such a move.

The Pakistanis contend that their military is already overstretched fighting operations in other areas but many in the U.S. believe they are reluctant to carry out an operation because of their longstanding ties to some of the militants operating there such as the Haqqani network.
Report Abuse
thepit44 is not online. thepit44
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 21143
30 Sep 2012 09:34 PM
tl;dr version please

~ALADEEN MDOAR CHODAR!
Report Abuse
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 09:38 PM
tl;dr

for everyone suspected terrorist killed, 4 civilians die in a tactic in which after a drone strike occurs, the drone will then fire at people coming to the aid of the wounded. AKA baiting more people to kill. If I am not mistaken, this was considered illegal for snipers to do in Iraq, but it is perfectly justifiable to drop a bomb on civilians in a foreign country.
Report Abuse
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 09:41 PM
for every 1 suspected terrorist killed, 49 civilians die in a tactic in which after a drone strike occurs, the drone will then fire at people coming to the aid of the wounded. AKA baiting more people to kill. If I am not mistaken, this was considered illegal for snipers to do in Iraq, but it is perfectly justifiable to drop a bomb on civilians in a foreign country.

edited.
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 10:04 PM
However, you put the blame on the people who weild the weapon, the entire mind of the country was shocked after 9/11, enraged at the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, and were mostly silent about Libya and Syria.

The Drone Wars if they can be called are the defensive measures, and now the offensive measures to stopping potential islamist extremists in a very extremist and NUCLEAR country of Pakistan. Infact, Pakistan gets tons of money from the US in foreign aid, not a justification to the deaths of civilians, however the term collateral damage comes to mind.

If you are a person who is outraged at the deaths of civilians, think this:

The Under-5 Mortality rate in 1990 was 124, when no war on terror was waged
Now the number is 87. (UNICEF Data)

The Death rate, crude > per 1,000 people 6.84 per 1,000 people

Now you are aruging the case is that US is evil for this, because Iraq couldn't do this. Maybe you should notice that Iraq was an enemy of the UN and had a war over it's innocent invasion into Kuwait, so it would make sense that their punishments would be more severe and they wouldn't allow anything like that to happen.

Bombs on Civilians =/= Collateral Damage

We are in a war, get over it.
Report Abuse
thepit44 is not online. thepit44
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 21143
30 Sep 2012 10:10 PM
Now you are aruging the case is that US is evil for this, because Iraq couldn't do this. Maybe you should notice that Iraq was an enemy of the UN and had a war over it's innocent invasion into Kuwait, so it would make sense that their punishments would be more severe and they wouldn't allow anything like that to happen.
___
The UN is just another organization, there are many organizations that consider the US an enemy, so should it therefore be invaded? Also, I agree that there will be civilian casualties in war, but 1/50 people who are killed is actually a terrorist is outrageous.

~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR!
Report Abuse
Tiberius1 is not online. Tiberius1
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Total Posts: 1038
30 Sep 2012 10:15 PM
"'If I am walking in the market, I have this fear that maybe the person walking next to me is going to be a target of the drone. If I’m shopping, I’m really careful and scared. If I’m standing on the road and there is a car parked next to me, I never know if that is going to be the target. Maybe they will target the car in front of me or behind me. Even in mosques, if we’re praying, we’re worried that maybe one person who is standing with us praying is wanted. So, wherever we are, we have this fear of drones.'"
NATO isnt allowed to fire on Mosques?
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 10:20 PM
The UN is just another organization, there are many organizations that consider the US an enemy, so should it therefore be invaded?

Now you assume that all "other" organizations are authorized by the majority of nations and you downplay the importance of the UN, a main key into the peace of post-WWII relations.

You believe that a country is forced to immediatly Invade and denounce America and remove it;s rights because a tier-2 or tier 3 organization considers it an "enemy? That simply isn't true and is misguided, for 1. no organization I have been informed of has ever authorized such a measure, and secondly there is no possible way that if an enemy actually did declare war would it have been solely to a negative report and an outrageous at that.

And please define many organizations.


"Also, I agree that there will be civilian casualties in war, but 1/50 people who are killed is actually a terrorist is outrageous."

I would like to see your staticstics then.
Report Abuse
Tiberius1 is not online. Tiberius1
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Total Posts: 1038
30 Sep 2012 10:22 PM
Its funny because now all of sudden thepitt is considering Muslims actual people human beings when it makes George W Bush look bad?
Report Abuse
thepit44 is not online. thepit44
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 21143
30 Sep 2012 10:27 PM
The UN is just another organization, there are many organizations that consider the US an enemy, so should it therefore be invaded?

Now you assume that all "other" organizations are authorized by the majority of nations and you downplay the importance of the UN, a main key into the peace of post-WWII relations.
___
I never assumed anything. I said that the UN is an organization. Also, they don't do anything useful since the 50's. You call yourself conservative but want a world policeman called the UN?

You believe that a country is forced to immediatly Invade and denounce America and remove it;s rights because a tier-2 or tier 3 organization considers it an "enemy?
___
you think America has the right to invade Afghanistan and kill mainly innocent people?

That simply isn't true and is misguided, for 1. no organization I have been informed of has ever authorized such a measure, and secondly there is no possible way that if an enemy actually did declare war would it have been solely to a negative report and an outrageous at that.
___
I'm not saying to invade America, I'm saying not to invade Iraq and Afghanisan

And please define many organizations.
___
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Al-Shabab. They are organizations, maybe much smaller, but still are.


"Also, I agree that there will be civilian casualties in war, but 1/50 people who are killed is actually a terrorist is outrageous."

I would like to see your staticstics then.
___
Are you really that stupid? The original post said this as one of the first things!

~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR!
Report Abuse
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 10:32 PM
I would like to see your staticstics then.
-
http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

The Drone Wars if they can be called are the defensive measures, and now the offensive measures to stopping potential islamist extremists in a very extremist and NUCLEAR country of Pakistan. Infact, Pakistan gets tons of money from the US in foreign aid, not a justification to the deaths of civilians, however the term collateral damage comes to mind.
-
Drones are causing more people to join the ranks of the Islamists than to stop them. The freaking assault on our embassies were because, DOHOHOHO! in response to a Libyan being killed by a US drone.

If you are a person who is outraged at the deaths of civilians, think this:

The Under-5 Mortality rate in 1990 was 124, when no war on terror was waged
Now the number is 87. (UNICEF Data)

The Death rate, crude > per 1,000 people 6.84 per 1,000 people
-
Corelation =/= causation. Want a graph on how pirates have caused global warming? You totally forgot to factor the technological boom we have experience in the past 20 years, as well as a relative peacefulness that exists throughout the globe compared to the twilight of the Cold War.

Now you are aruging the case is that US is evil for this, because Iraq couldn't do this.
-
No, my point flew over your heard. I am saying that not even in Iraq were such civilian casualties created deliberately.

Bombs on Civilians =/= Collateral Damage
-
What?

We are in a war, get over it.
-
I thought the whole war against the Haqqani Network, Taliban, Wazistani insurgents, and just all around anti-US freedom fighters in Afghanistan was to prevent civilian casualties and to create a situation in Afghanistan where the people can live without the fear of being killed...LOL GUESS I WAS WRONG!
Report Abuse
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 10:35 PM
NATO isnt allowed to fire on Mosques?
-
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/23/11839215-pakistan-official-us-drone-strike-hits-mosque-10-killed?lite
Report Abuse
Tiberius1 is not online. Tiberius1
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Total Posts: 1038
30 Sep 2012 10:39 PM
Good job USA
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 10:41 PM
Posted: 09-30-2012 08:27 PM
The UN is just another organization, there are many organizations that consider the US an enemy, so should it therefore be invaded?

Now you assume that all "other" organizations are authorized by the majority of nations and you downplay the importance of the UN, a main key into the peace of post-WWII relations.
___
I never assumed anything. I said that the UN is an organization. Also, they don't do anything useful since the 50's. You call yourself conservative but want a world policeman called the UN?

Now you REALLY assume, heck you state now that they are useless, when considering the numerous cases they ahve done clearly prove otherwise. The world is not in a WWIII, I'd say that it's doing it's job just fine, however clearly you do not think this way. If you are going to lay a scapegoat, lay it on Russia and China who constatly defied having an agreement to provide some form of action either diplomatic or if be military. And no not my opinion, but a suggestion of one. And the UN was never meant to "police" the world, that's why we have POLICEMEN in countries. The UN is meant to keep balance of region-changing proportions.


You believe that a country is forced to immediatly Invade and denounce America and remove it;s rights because a tier-2 or tier 3 organization considers it an "enemy?
___
you think America has the right to invade Afghanistan and kill mainly innocent people?

AHEM? You now classify Americans as the only perportraitor of the "innocent" civilians killed, when the United Kingdom and the Norther Alliance, and then the coalition NATO-ISAF and of course the modern Afghanistan HELPED with the war.

U.N. Security Council authorization was not required since the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore was not a war of aggression.


That simply isn't true and is misguided, for 1. no organization I have been informed of has ever authorized such a measure, and secondly there is no possible way that if an enemy actually did declare war would it have been solely to a negative report and an outrageous at that.
___
I'm not saying to invade America, I'm saying not to invade Iraq and Afghanisan

Well what's your argument then? You clearly admit distaste for them, but what about them do you not like then?



And please define many organizations.
___
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Al-Shabab. They are organizations, maybe much smaller, but still are.

These are terrorist organizations. So you are saying because these people said that america is bad that there must be a posibility that some nation has to retaliate?


"Also, I agree that there will be civilian casualties in war, but 1/50 people who are killed is actually a terrorist is outrageous."

I would like to see your staticstics then.
___
Are you really that stupid? The original post said this as one of the first things!

Are you really that incompetant, nowhere did you cite ANY facts pertaining to this, although by the format of it I guess CNN?
Report Abuse
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 10:44 PM
Are you really that incompetant, nowhere did you cite ANY facts pertaining to this, although by the format of it I guess CNN?
-
No, daily mail, but I have provided sources. Now please, instead of side stepping, please respond to MY argument.
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 10:46 PM
Oh and "The official said the house was reportedly used by suspected foreign and Punjabi Taliban militants"


Sure there is always a risk to firing on a holy site, and I will agree something went wrong probably. However, these people aren't stupid, they knew the risks and now this is a consequence in the form of that collateral damage.

Like I said we are in a war, very much intertwined with extremists follow that religion, therefore it is inevitable that this wound't have happened.

And also out of the Los Angeles Times:

"Nov 6, 2010 – At least 65 people were killed Friday afternoon in a suicide bombing at a mosque in northwestern Pakistan filled with worshipers,"

Clearly there is violence on both sides so therefore don't pin this on NATO,.
Report Abuse
thepit44 is not online. thepit44
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 21143
30 Sep 2012 10:50 PM
Posted: 09-30-2012 08:27 PM
The UN is just another organization, there are many organizations that consider the US an enemy, so should it therefore be invaded?

Now you assume that all "other" organizations are authorized by the majority of nations and you downplay the importance of the UN, a main key into the peace of post-WWII relations.
___
I never assumed anything. I said that the UN is an organization. Also, they don't do anything useful since the 50's. You call yourself conservative but want a world policeman called the UN?

Now you REALLY assume, heck you state now that they are useless, when considering the numerous cases they ahve done clearly prove otherwise. The world is not in a WWIII, I'd say that it's doing it's job just fine, however clearly you do not think this way. If you are going to lay a scapegoat, lay it on Russia and China who constatly defied having an agreement to provide some form of action either diplomatic or if be military. And no not my opinion, but a suggestion of one. And the UN was never meant to "police" the world, that's why we have POLICEMEN in countries. The UN is meant to keep balance of region-changing proportions.
___
Whatdid I assume? We are not in WWIII because no nation was retarded enough to start it.


You believe that a country is forced to immediatly Invade and denounce America and remove it;s rights because a tier-2 or tier 3 organization considers it an "enemy?
___
you think America has the right to invade Afghanistan and kill mainly innocent people?

AHEM? You now classify Americans as the only perportraitor of the "innocent" civilians killed, when the United Kingdom and the Norther Alliance, and then the coalition NATO-ISAF and of course the modern Afghanistan HELPED with the war.
___
We are talking about Aerican drones, denounce NATO and the UK for invading these countries, bu the topic here is American drones.

U.N. Security Council authorization was not required since the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore was not a war of aggression.
___
What self defence? Who are we defending ourselves against? The Taliban? There is no way they could do anything to us from Afghanistan. They were not responsible for 9/11, they never attacked us. Also, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until America came to "liberate" them.

That simply isn't true and is misguided, for 1. no organization I have been informed of has ever authorized such a measure, and secondly there is no possible way that if an enemy actually did declare war would it have been solely to a negative report and an outrageous at that.
___
I'm not saying to invade America, I'm saying not to invade Iraq and Afghanisan

Well what's your argument then? You clearly admit distaste for them, but what about them do you not like then?
___
I don't like that America invades other countries and kills civilians.

And please define many organizations.
___
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Al-Shabab. They are organizations, maybe much smaller, but still are.

These are terrorist organizations. So you are saying because these people said that america is bad that there must be a posibility that some nation has to retaliate?
___
I said that there are organizations who hate America and consider it an enemy. Clearly Al-Qaeda did damage.

"Also, I agree that there will be civilian casualties in war, but 1/50 people who are killed is actually a terrorist is outrageous."

I would like to see your staticstics then.
___
Are you really that stupid? The original post said this as one of the first things!

Are you really that incompetant, nowhere did you cite ANY facts pertaining to this, although by the format of it I guess CNN?
___
You didn't either.

~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR!
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 10:51 PM
Are you really that incompetant, nowhere did you cite ANY facts pertaining to this, although by the format of it I guess CNN?
-
No, daily mail, but I have provided sources. Now please, instead of side stepping, please respond to MY argument.

What is your argument then? That America should stop because of collateral damage? That there is somehow a magic solution to bringing down the rate of the death casualty from what DailyMail says 1/50?

Look we all suffering, the whole world is against more conflict. Ultimately, those organizations you pointed out will not stop until their domination of A global islamic world and the falling of America and Western nations and any non-islamic countries.

They are no doubt an enemy, and we need to remember that in war desperate times call for desperate measures.

Our goals consist in Afghanistan of establishing a free democratic society so we can leave and now worry aobut Taliban taking over again, and stopping the big guys from doing another attack on another nation.

It will end in time, nothing ever lasts forever, and we need to be united against how we force that endgoal.
Report Abuse
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 10:54 PM
The US is fighting this war on the ground of a moral high ground. How can you fight a war to create peace in the country and to protect civilians if you are deliberately killing civilians responding to the scene of the attack, to kill just 1 terrorist.

It is the same reason strategic bombing did not work against Germany. Armament production went up, and the civilians and soldiers fought harder.
Report Abuse
thepit44 is not online. thepit44
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 21143
30 Sep 2012 10:58 PM
No, daily mail, but I have provided sources. Now please, instead of side stepping, please respond to MY argument.

What is your argument then? That America should stop because of collateral damage? That there is somehow a magic solution to bringing down the rate of the death casualty from what DailyMail says 1/50?
___
Yes, America should stop, save the lives of our troops and their civilians. The planning of this war is more retarded than the electoral college.

Look we all suffering, the whole world is against more conflict. Ultimately, those organizations you pointed out will not stop until their domination of A global islamic world and the falling of America and Western nations and any non-islamic countries.
___
Have you ever met a Muslim?

They are no doubt an enemy, and we need to remember that in war desperate times call for desperate measures.
___
How are we desperate? The Taliban have not caused us one civilian casualty! Not a single one! We do not need to kill civilians for any reason.

Our goals consist in Afghanistan of establishing a free democratic society so we can leave and now worry aobut Taliban taking over again, and stopping the big guys from doing another attack on another nation.
___
ya cus afganstan wil ttly becum democry liek iraq

It will end in time, nothing ever lasts forever, and we need to be united against how we force that endgoal.
___
We should end it now by leaving since this war is hopeless.

~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR!
Report Abuse
Twigs180 is not online. Twigs180
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 18664
30 Sep 2012 10:58 PM
You ninja'd me, and you might again.

What is your argument then? That America should stop because of collateral damage? That there is somehow a magic solution to bringing down the rate of the death casualty from what DailyMail says 1/50?
-
Not the DailyMail, but Stanford and New York University. We should end the war, period. Obama and Bush both are war mongers, who are perpetuating a war in Afghanistan to keep the US empire growing. Empires feed on war.

Look we all suffering, the whole world is against more conflict. Ultimately, those organizations you pointed out will not stop until their domination of A global islamic world and the falling of America and Western nations and any non-islamic countries.
-
Erm, most of those organizations would stop their campaigns of violence if we just left the region alone.

They are no doubt an enemy, and we need to remember that in war desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
HURHUR! GUESS THAT MEANS THAT GERMANY WAS PERFECT OKAY ROUNDING UP CIVILIANS AND SHOOT THEM BECAUSE OF PARTISANS!

Our goals consist in Afghanistan of establishing a free democratic society so we can leave and now worry aobut Taliban taking over again, and stopping the big guys from doing another attack on another nation.
-
Al-Qaeda is effectively gone from Afghanistan. They are now in the Arabian Pennensula and North Africa. They are in shambles. The Taliban only fight for their homeland, and being their only brings more to their flock. This notion that the more we kill the sooner we get to end the war is directly antithetical to counter insurgencies.
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 10:59 PM
The UN is just another organization, there are many organizations that consider the US an enemy, so should it therefore be invaded?

Now you assume that all "other" organizations are authorized by the majority of nations and you downplay the importance of the UN, a main key into the peace of post-WWII relations.
___
I never assumed anything. I said that the UN is an organization. Also, they don't do anything useful since the 50's. You call yourself conservative but want a world policeman called the UN?

Now you REALLY assume, heck you state now that they are useless, when considering the numerous cases they ahve done clearly prove otherwise. The world is not in a WWIII, I'd say that it's doing it's job just fine, however clearly you do not think this way. If you are going to lay a scapegoat, lay it on Russia and China who constatly defied having an agreement to provide some form of action either diplomatic or if be military. And no not my opinion, but a suggestion of one. And the UN was never meant to "police" the world, that's why we have POLICEMEN in countries. The UN is meant to keep balance of region-changing proportions.
___
Whatdid I assume? We are not in WWIII because no nation was retarded enough to start it.

"Also, they don't do anything useful since the 50's."



You believe that a country is forced to immediatly Invade and denounce America and remove it;s rights because a tier-2 or tier 3 organization considers it an "enemy?
___
you think America has the right to invade Afghanistan and kill mainly innocent people?

AHEM? You now classify Americans as the only perportraitor of the "innocent" civilians killed, when the United Kingdom and the Norther Alliance, and then the coalition NATO-ISAF and of course the modern Afghanistan HELPED with the war.
___
We are talking about Aerican drones, denounce NATO and the UK for invading these countries, bu the topic here is American drones.

But why if they were cleary attacked also and have a stake in this too? Why should we have to degrade them for protecting us overseas, with collateral damage always inevitable?


U.N. Security Council authorization was not required since the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore was not a war of aggression.
___
What self defence? Who are we defending ourselves against? The Taliban? There is no way they could do anything to us from Afghanistan. They were not responsible for 9/11, they never attacked us. Also, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until America came to "liberate" them.

Yes they could have, infact many terrorists were trained to fly planes in Afghanistan, but they used our own as the weapns against us. We will not differentiate su[pporting terrorist hub nations from the terrorist themselves, thus IRAQ in part and Afghanistan

I believe that we had to invade Afghanistan to help protect our country and to wipe out a political regime that was supporting and creating terrorists. Afghanistan showed no remorse for the actions of its terrorists who attacked us, and so we had to take action to prevent further attacks, to dismantle the terrorist support systems, and to prevent further aggressive attacks against our innocent citizens and our country.


That simply isn't true and is misguided, for 1. no organization I have been informed of has ever authorized such a measure, and secondly there is no possible way that if an enemy actually did declare war would it have been solely to a negative report and an outrageous at that.
___
I'm not saying to invade America, I'm saying not to invade Iraq and Afghanisan

Well what's your argument then? You clearly admit distaste for them, but what about them do you not like then?
___
I don't like that America invades other countries and kills civilians.


IT ISN'T JUST AMERICA! Dear god, Do you not understand that our nation was never attacked since Pearl Harbor and of this scale was unevitable. COLLATERAL DAMAGE is ALWAYS going to happen. Does it LOOK like we are PURPOSELY bombing civilians? We "invaded" 2 countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and our our of Iraq war-wise, and Afghanistan ends in 2013, so please before you go all I HATES AMERIKA BECAUSE THEY KILDED PEOPLE, look at what the heck the other side does to it's own people and region.


And please define many organizations.
___
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Al-Shabab. They are organizations, maybe much smaller, but still are.

These are terrorist organizations. So you are saying because these people said that america is bad that there must be a posibility that some nation has to retaliate?
___
I said that there are organizations who hate America and consider it an enemy. Clearly Al-Qaeda did damage.

Indeed, but with the support of Afghanistan and Iraq, and others who at the time supported it.

"Also, I agree that there will be civilian casualties in war, but 1/50 people who are killed is actually a terrorist is outrageous."

I would like to see your staticstics then.
___
Are you really that stupid? The original post said this as one of the first things!

Are you really that incompetant, nowhere did you cite ANY facts pertaining to this, although by the format of it I guess CNN?
___
You didn't either.

I cited by facts that referenced to the main points. IF I did not clearly label one please point me to it then.
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 11:07 PM
You ninja'd me, and you might again.

What is your argument then? That America should stop because of collateral damage? That there is somehow a magic solution to bringing down the rate of the death casualty from what DailyMail says 1/50?
-
Not the DailyMail, but Stanford and New York University. We should end the war, period. Obama and Bush both are war mongers, who are perpetuating a war in Afghanistan to keep the US empire growing. Empires feed on war.

Gosh you are lcearly sinking in respect in my book. You obviously have no idea how complicated wars are. The US Empire? You really have dropped -50 in IQ, an empire is controlled by an EMPEROR who is a DICTATOR. Tell me how exaclty a dusbowl country of Afghan will "expand the empire." Empires feed on proper economic stimulation which these wars haven't provided.



Look we all suffering, the whole world is against more conflict. Ultimately, those organizations you pointed out will not stop until their domination of A global islamic world and the falling of America and Western nations and any non-islamic countries.
-
Erm, most of those organizations would stop their campaigns of violence if we just left the region alone.

Do you really honestly think that "global islamic rule" will immediatly end after we leave? If you do congradulations, you are headingh aback to 5th grade. The whole thing started after Saddam declared that America and the west were invading "muslum soil" and was later transfered into America being the enemy when we were clearly the superior leader of the Pesrian Gulf War.


They are no doubt an enemy, and we need to remember that in war desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
HURHUR! GUESS THAT MEANS THAT GERMANY WAS PERFECT OKAY ROUNDING UP CIVILIANS AND SHOOT THEM BECAUSE OF PARTISANS!

This is what I call mass stupidity at its finest. To justify that Germany's massive assault on ethnic cleanisng in the homeland is equal to stopping terrorists whose stated goal is that similar to the Germans: global domination.


Our goals consist in Afghanistan of establishing a free democratic society so we can leave and now worry aobut Taliban taking over again, and stopping the big guys from doing another attack on another nation.
-
Al-Qaeda is effectively gone from Afghanistan. They are now in the Arabian Pennensula and North Africa. They are in shambles. The Taliban only fight for their homeland, and being their only brings more to their flock. This notion that the more we kill the sooner we get to end the war is directly antithetical to counter insurgencies.

But the Taliban are not, as you said that Talibani people fled to pakistan and that is the whole reason we bomb there, because Pakistani officials won't do a dang thing about it. The group in Yemen is still somewhat strong, if not the strongest of the subsidiaries.
Report Abuse
thepit44 is not online. thepit44
Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 21143
30 Sep 2012 11:11 PM
The UN is just another organization, there are many organizations that consider the US an enemy, so should it therefore be invaded?

Now you assume that all "other" organizations are authorized by the majority of nations and you downplay the importance of the UN, a main key into the peace of post-WWII relations.
___
I never assumed anything. I said that the UN is an organization. Also, they don't do anything useful since the 50's. You call yourself conservative but want a world policeman called the UN?

Now you REALLY assume, heck you state now that they are useless, when considering the numerous cases they ahve done clearly prove otherwise. The world is not in a WWIII, I'd say that it's doing it's job just fine, however clearly you do not think this way. If you are going to lay a scapegoat, lay it on Russia and China who constatly defied having an agreement to provide some form of action either diplomatic or if be military. And no not my opinion, but a suggestion of one. And the UN was never meant to "police" the world, that's why we have POLICEMEN in countries. The UN is meant to keep balance of region-changing proportions.
___
Whatdid I assume? We are not in WWIII because no nation was retarded enough to start it.

"Also, they don't do anything useful since the 50's."
___
This is an opinion, not an assumption.

You believe that a country is forced to immediatly Invade and denounce America and remove it;s rights because a tier-2 or tier 3 organization considers it an "enemy?
___
you think America has the right to invade Afghanistan and kill mainly innocent people?

AHEM? You now classify Americans as the only perportraitor of the "innocent" civilians killed, when the United Kingdom and the Norther Alliance, and then the coalition NATO-ISAF and of course the modern Afghanistan HELPED with the war.
___
We are talking about Aerican drones, denounce NATO and the UK for invading these countries, bu the topic here is American drones.

But why if they were cleary attacked also and have a stake in this too? Why should we have to degrade them for protecting us overseas, with collateral damage always inevitable?
___
What?


U.N. Security Council authorization was not required since the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore was not a war of aggression.
___
What self defence? Who are we defending ourselves against? The Taliban? There is no way they could do anything to us from Afghanistan. They were not responsible for 9/11, they never attacked us. Also, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until America came to "liberate" them.

Yes they could have, infact many terrorists were trained to fly planes in Afghanistan, but they used our own as the weapns against us. We will not differentiate su[pporting terrorist hub nations from the terrorist themselves, thus IRAQ in part and Afghanistan
___
But that wasn't the Taliban, that was Al-Qaeda. Obama Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. We don't need to fight in Afghanistan because they did not attack us until we attacked them, and we are yet to get an attack from the Taliban on our soil.

I believe that we had to invade Afghanistan to help protect our country and to wipe out a political regime that was supporting and creating terrorists. Afghanistan showed no remorse for the actions of its terrorists who attacked us, and so we had to take action to prevent further attacks, to dismantle the terrorist support systems, and to prevent further aggressive attacks against our innocent citizens and our country.
___
It is not protecting our country because the Taliban never attacked us, neither did Afghanistan. We never got a single attack on our civilians from the taliban, we aren't protecting them.


That simply isn't true and is misguided, for 1. no organization I have been informed of has ever authorized such a measure, and secondly there is no possible way that if an enemy actually did declare war would it have been solely to a negative report and an outrageous at that.
___
I'm not saying to invade America, I'm saying not to invade Iraq and Afghanisan

Well what's your argument then? You clearly admit distaste for them, but what about them do you not like then?
___
I don't like that America invades other countries and kills civilians.


IT ISN'T JUST AMERICA! Dear god, Do you not understand that our nation was never attacked since Pearl Harbor and of this scale was unevitable. COLLATERAL DAMAGE is ALWAYS going to happen. Does it LOOK like we are PURPOSELY bombing civilians? We "invaded" 2 countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and our our of Iraq war-wise, and Afghanistan ends in 2013, so please before you go all I HATES AMERIKA BECAUSE THEY KILDED PEOPLE, look at what the heck the other side does to it's own people and region.
___
I never said it was just America. Also, I never said I hated America. I despise the foreign policy used by Bush and Obama when it comes to these wars. Before we invaded Iraq, there were no terrorists there, just Hussein. Hussein should have been hanged and then we should have left, not stay there and make drone attacks. In Afghanistan, it doesn't matter if it was intentional to kill people or not, 1 in 50 people dieting being an actual terrorist is disgusting no matter what, if one third or even half were civilians, it wouldn't be as bad, but 98% is rediculous. Do you even value human life?


And please define many organizations.
___
Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Al-Shabab. They are organizations, maybe much smaller, but still are.

These are terrorist organizations. So you are saying because these people said that america is bad that there must be a posibility that some nation has to retaliate?
___
I said that there are organizations who hate America and consider it an enemy. Clearly Al-Qaeda did damage.

Indeed, but with the support of Afghanistan and Iraq, and others who at the time supported it.
___
Source that Afghanistan supported it and there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.

"Also, I agree that there will be civilian casualties in war, but 1/50 people who are killed is actually a terrorist is outrageous."

I would like to see your staticstics then.
___
Are you really that stupid? The original post said this as one of the first things!

Are you really that incompetant, nowhere did you cite ANY facts pertaining to this, although by the format of it I guess CNN?
___
You didn't either.

I cited by facts that referenced to the main points. IF I did not clearly label one please point me to it then.
___
When we say to cite facts, we mean post links and sources.

~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR!
Report Abuse
DonCurrency is not online. DonCurrency
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Total Posts: 3459
30 Sep 2012 11:15 PM
The US is fighting this war on the ground of a moral high ground. How can you fight a war to create peace in the country and to protect civilians if you are deliberately killing civilians responding to the scene of the attack, to kill just 1 terrorist.

It is the same reason strategic bombing did not work against Germany. Armament production went up, and the civilians and soldiers fought harder.


EXCEPT that Germany as a nation was a major enemy, even the civilians in Japan were considered at that point armed militias, similar to how the US was to Great Britain.

We are on a moral high ground, but constantly people keep thinking that if you kill 1 person for horrible atrocities you are no longer worthy and are on their level. The stupidity astounds me, as it does to many others. These terrorists will not stop and our goal is form them to eventually collapse and be removed from the entire thought of Islamic societies, aka the Arab Spring bringing freedom across the country.

Plus we invaded Germany, and civilians cheered us on, whereas over here people are so illiterate I woudn't be suprised if they don;t know what the internet is. We don't delibrately kill civilians, collateral damage is the definition of accidental death due to that.
Report Abuse
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1
 
 
ROBLOX Forum » ROBLOX Global » World Wide Chat
   
 
   
  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Blog
  • Parents
  • Help
  • Terms
  • Privacy

©2017 Roblox Corporation. Roblox, the Roblox logo, Robux, Bloxy, and Powering Imagination are among our registered and unregistered trademarks in the U.S. and other countries.



Progress
Starting Roblox...
Connecting to Players...
R R

Roblox is now loading. Get ready to play!

R R

You're moments away from getting into the game!

Click here for help

Check Remember my choice and click Launch Application in the dialog box above to join games faster in the future!

Gameplay sponsored by:
Loading 0% - Starting game...
Get more with Builders Club! Join Builders Club
Choose Your Avatar
I have an account
generic image