Targeting ISIS, and Killing Civilians

Recommended Posts

dead.cell    2,260

Arguably the US government is already in complete disarray. - No, it's not. Not even close. 

 

But the point remains, I don't think you'd be supporting drone strikes on your own country whereby people you know are being killed in collateral damage to take out another nation's terrorists. It's all very well saying you'd support it now but I think your response would be different were your family killed as a result. - You're asking this in a poor manner. It's not "OH YEAH I SUPPORT OUR PEOPLE BEING KILLED", it's "Yes, I support terrorists being killed". Again, the country would have to be in a real sense of disarray for this to even happen comparatively. The US isn't even close to the conditions of the countries you mentioned, and to make that comparison would simply be ignorant.

 

Iraq didn't have a failed government before it was invaded. It had a brutal leader, sure, but it certainly wasn't a failed state. Libya as well. Most Americans don't believe their government works for them and so it's perfectly reasonable that another stable nation would consider the US a failed nation. The point is it's all relative. You can believe your country is stable but another country can deem otherwise and if international law is to be disregarded then you have no recourse. - People don't think the government works for them? lol, many people in many established countries feel that way. Doesn't mean they're correct, nor does it mean they're in disarray. :ermm:  You can have opinions and all that, but it doesn't mean the US is Iraq. Thinking so is arrogant, assuming our problems are even close to what goes on abroad.

 

All I've stated is that your analogy doesn't make sense, and now you're stuck on this anti-America rant without anything constructive. Your best suggestion is to pull out and save "trillions of dollars", at the expense of people in those areas and our own personal investments. That's a lose-lose scenario, which doesn't sound particularly thought out.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure I've heard liberals make this same argument about pulling out of the Middle East, which is why both parties would agree there needs to be a real plan of action. As nice as good ol' Ron Paul made isolationism sound, it isn't exactly the most ethical approach for those people. Surely, you would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou    9,427
36 minutes ago, dead.cell said:

Arguably the US government is already in complete disarray. - No, it's not. Not even close. 

 

That's your opinion.

36 minutes ago, dead.cell said:

 

But the point remains, I don't think you'd be supporting drone strikes on your own country whereby people you know are being killed in collateral damage to take out another nation's terrorists. It's all very well saying you'd support it now but I think your response would be different were your family killed as a result. - You're asking this in a poor manner. It's not "OH YEAH I SUPPORT OUR PEOPLE BEING KILLED", it's "Yes, I support terrorists being killed". Again, the country would have to be in a real sense of disarray for this to even happen comparatively. The US isn't even close to the conditions of the countries you mentioned, and to make that comparison would simply be ignorant.

Who gets to determine who is a terrorist or not? There's certainly no trials being conducted for these people. The US is killing people by association and based upon often flimsy intelligence.

36 minutes ago, dead.cell said:

Iraq didn't have a failed government before it was invaded. It had a brutal leader, sure, but it certainly wasn't a failed state. Libya as well. Most Americans don't believe their government works for them and so it's perfectly reasonable that another stable nation would consider the US a failed nation. The point is it's all relative. You can believe your country is stable but another country can deem otherwise and if international law is to be disregarded then you have no recourse. - People don't think the government works for them? lol, many people in many established countries feel that way. Doesn't mean they're correct, nor does it mean they're in disarray. :ermm:  You can have opinions and all that, but it doesn't mean the US is Iraq. Thinking so is arrogant, assuming our problems are even close to what goes on abroad.

The US government has been overrun by corrupt capitalists, who are now seeking to massively increase taxes on the working classes to fund mega tax cuts for the ultra rich. It's obscene.

36 minutes ago, dead.cell said:

All I've stated is that your analogy doesn't make sense, and now you're stuck on this anti-America rant without anything constructive. Your best suggestion is to pull out and save "trillions of dollars", at the expense of people in those areas and our own personal investments. That's a lose-lose scenario, which doesn't sound particularly thought out.

How is ending the trillion dollar cycle of perpetual war a 'lose-lose'? If the US wants to stop countries like Afghanistan producing opium all it would need to do would be to spend a fraction of the money it spends on the military subsidising legal crops. I mean, why would a poor Afghan farmer want to take the risk of producing opium when they could sell a completely legal crop at a higher price? And instead of creating more terrorists by murdering innocent civilians the US could invest in schools, education and healthcare in these poor countries.

 

The US could achieve better results through peaceful, legal means than it can through a foreign policy that has failed miserably for decades. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't made the US safer. They haven't eliminated the illegal drug business. They haven't fostered goodwill towards the US. All they've done is create generations of sworn enemies to America. In what way is what I'm suggesting in any way less thought out than the United States' failed foreign policy for the past seventy years?

36 minutes ago, dead.cell said:

Also, I'm pretty sure I've heard liberals make this same argument about pulling out of the Middle East, which is why both parties would agree there needs to be a real plan of action. As nice as good ol' Ron Paul made isolationism sound, it isn't exactly the most ethical approach for those people. Surely, you would agree.

The United States' foreign policy has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians. Do you think people over there are praising the US for helping them? Because that's downright delusional. Democracy cannot be imposed upon unwilling populations. The way to achieve democracy is through cultural superiority. It used to be that nations looked up to the US and aspired to the values it portrayed - now the US has little international credibility and is widely despised.

 

The US spends over half a TRILLION dollars on the military each year. That's considering there are no active wars and no immediate threats. The military action it has engaged in has only increased the risk of terrorism and danger to American lives. I'm not even advocating withdrawing entirely from the international community - I'm just pointing out that peaceful means can achieve better results at a fraction of the price. How many millions more people have to die before the US foreign policy starts to finally work?

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dead.cell    2,260
1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

That's your opinion.

Nope. You're equating problems of the 1% in our country to a country in a civil war, where one might die from an attack or, in this case, an accidental drone strike. It's not even close and I'm pretty sure we don't need a debate to decide that. Are they both problems? YES, but why you feel the need to consider them apples to apples is beyond me.

 

The rest of your post gets mangled in misrepresentation. No, I personally don't want to be involved with the Middle East. No, I don't believe anyone overseas is praising us. Of course, me saying this doesn't really matter because it's all about how you're trying to frame your argument, trying to have me backpedal on accusations that don't make sense. You're distorting the conversation rather than giving up any foothold you have that your bad analogy was bad.

 

You can try again if you want, or clarify your hypothetical which I don't believe you did.

 

(Either way, it's Friday and I'm out! :happy: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ctebah    2,960
1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

That's your opinion.

Who gets to determine who is a terrorist or not? There's certainly no trials being conducted for these people. The US is killing people by association and based upon often flimsy intelligence.

The US government has been overrun by corrupt capitalists, who are now seeking to massively increase taxes on the working classes to fund mega tax cuts for the ultra rich. It's obscene.

How is ending the trillion dollar cycle of perpetual war a 'lose-lose'? If the US wants to stop countries like Afghanistan producing opium all it would need to do would be to spend a fraction of the money it spends on the military subsidising legal crops. I mean, why would a poor Afghan farmer want to take the risk of producing opium when they could sell a completely legal crop at a higher price? And instead of creating more terrorists by murdering innocent civilians the US could invest in schools, education and healthcare in these poor countries.

 

The US could achieve better results through peaceful, legal means than it can through a foreign policy that has failed miserably for decades. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't made the US safer. They haven't eliminated the illegal drug business. They haven't fostered goodwill towards the US. All they've done is create generations of sworn enemies to America. In what way is what I'm suggesting in any way less thought out than the United States' failed foreign policy for the past seventy years?

The United States' foreign policy has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians. Do you think people over there are praising the US for helping them? Because that's downright delusional. Democracy cannot be imposed upon unwilling populations. The way to achieve democracy is through cultural superiority. It used to be that nations looked up to the US and aspired to the values it portrayed - now the US has little international credibility and is widely despised.

 

The US spends over half a TRILLION dollars on the military each year. That's considering there are no active wars and no immediate threats. The military action it has engaged in has only increased the risk of terrorism and danger to American lives. I'm not even advocating withdrawing entirely from the international community - I'm just pointing out that peaceful means can achieve better results at a fraction of the price. How many millions more people have to die before the US foreign policy starts to finally work?

Well said, and I’m sorry to say but you’ll see nothing but crickets to your questions.  Many Americans still live with this fake sense of exceptionalism, and that is what stops them from accepting the reality of the harm their county does around the world.

 

There is always an excuse to these actions, no matter how idiotic it is. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,300

re: failed states

 

Iraq, Syria, Libya were ones of the most prosperous secular Arabic states before the attempted regime change operations took place there. 

 

Saddam Hussein of Iraq wanted to trade oil for euros ...boom, gone. 

Muamar Qaddafi of Libya wanted to trade oil for gold...boom, gone.

Bashar al-Assad of Syria just wanted to be left alone...oh, and he hosted a Russian Mediterranean Naval Base, how dare he!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmorris1    76
On 12/4/2017 at 8:55 AM, Mirumir said:

re: failed states

 

Iraq, Syria, Libya were ones of the most prosperous secular Arabic states before the attempted regime change operations took place there. 

 

Saddam Hussein of Iraq wanted to trade oil for euros ...boom, gone. 

Muamar Qaddafi of Libya wanted to trade oil for gold...boom, gone.

Bashar al-Assad of Syria just wanted to be left alone...oh, and he hosted a Russian Mediterranean Naval Base, how dare he!

All great upstanding people...

 

Kind of left out the PanAm flight bombing, but owe well, I'm sure he was sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.