I definitely support the boots on the ground, but not the politicians of any brand or the CEOs of the military industrial complex that propagate these wars.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
War - What is it good for?
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
sapperdaddy
New Member
The death of those children are from sanctions placed on Iraq. Those sanctions were placed on Iraq as opposed to going to war. The government placing those sanctions on Iraq was not war! That was trying to handle things diplomatically. So if you don't want war that is what you are going to get. Many of those lives could have been spared by sending troops in the beginning and taking him out.
If Iraq tried to embargo us, what do you think would happen? Of course it was war! And the sanctions were placed on Iraq to CAUSE war, not to prevent it. You should read some Bastiat, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will."
And what about the first link? Kids targeted on purpose?
sapperdaddy
New Member
Those 3 children who were killed was not intentional. We target those 3 kids. The target was the Taliban fighters nearby emplacing an IED. The death of those children was an accident. Get off the antiwar website, they don't give you the full story.
You clearly didn't read the article. It wasn't about "those three kids". I suppose ABC news does better..
Code:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/abc-news-tells-viewers-scenes-destruction-gaza-are-israelsapperdaddy
New Member
The US hasn't fired any rockets in that war. But my question to you is, would we be wrong to step in and put a stop to that.
sapperdaddy
New Member
http://abcnews.go.com/International...-targets-reservists-prepare/story?id=24491631
She made a mistake in her wording. The real article is on abc website. But conspiracy theorist want to jump all over it and say she was trying to convince the American public that it was Israel, not Gaza. Come on use some common sense. With the vast amount of ways to get information these days, do you really think abc thought they could convince us those scenes were from Israel and not gaza.
She made a mistake in her wording. The real article is on abc website. But conspiracy theorist want to jump all over it and say she was trying to convince the American public that it was Israel, not Gaza. Come on use some common sense. With the vast amount of ways to get information these days, do you really think abc thought they could convince us those scenes were from Israel and not gaza.
We? I'm not sure who you mean. I doubt there IS a we that can put a stop to it. If you mean the US government, they don't have a very good record of stopping violent conflicts. They do the reverse quite well, though.
A simple mistake, huh? - So sorry. We'll just reprint it and pretend it didn't happen. Pay no attention to those conspiracy theorists. We're the good guys, no really.
sapperdaddy
New Member
I didn't say it was a simple mistake! Yes, it is tragic. But so where all the deaths on 9/11. Should we have not retaliated against the terroist? Should we sit back and watch as they force their strict laws on the people of that country. Yes, it would be great if we could fight them and not have accidents like that. But it does happen sometime. But definitely not intentional!
sapperdaddy
New Member
Sorry I thought you were still talking about the bombing. Yes it was a simple mistake in her wording. Explain to what is your problem with that article please. Is it because she mistakenly said that those scenes of destruction was in Israel and not Gaza?
That's not what ABC aired, nor what the majority of their viewers pay attention to.
sapperdaddy
New Member
I know, that's what I am saying was a simple mistake of wording. If you truly believed she meant to say it that way, then tell me, what do you think abc was trying to accomplish by not telling the truth. Especially when the viewers could have turned to any other channel and hear the truth
Did you read the article being referenced?
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20121203/NEWS/212030312/Some-Afghan-kids-aren-t-bystanders
sapperdaddy
New Member
Yes I read. What I need to know from you is exactly what is your issue with that article? The children being killed? I addressed that already and admitted it was tragic. In the article it states that it was accidental and that they were not the target. The stated that the children may have been working with the Taliban. But it is not confirmed. And I say again they were not the intended target
OK, I will spell it out for you. I posted articles showing children, more than 100,000 in the case of Iraq sanctions, being starved and killed as a direct result of US intervention. You posted an activist school bus getting attacked by a lone gunman as justification for war. Your whole initial position is laughable, so it's understandable you want to argue whether the killings were accidental or if starving people is the same as killing them with bombs.
Plenty of times other countries could have justified "stepping in and putting a stop" to crap going on in the US based on that logic. And they would have done more harm than good the same as the US does every time it tries.
sapperdaddy
New Member
I posted one example of a teenage girl who was assassinated, because she campaigned for the right to go to school. Because according to the Islamic laws that insurgents force on the defenseless citizens, woman are not allowed to go to school. Also I already said before that those sanctions placed on Iraq was not war. It was the diplomatic route as opposed to war. So I'm not arguing whether starving people is the same as killing them with bombs. I'm saying that those people should have never starved, we should have started dropping bombs on the tyrant Saddam in beginning.
I would love to hear you give an example of a time when "crap" was so bad in the US that another country needed to step. Also remember, it's not just US boots on ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a UN thing, so several different countries are involved in putting a stop to terrorist.
Since you know everything the US does wrong trying to resolve conflicts. Let me here your version of the right way to handle these conflicts. It's like I tell these guys I work with, a good leader doesn't say, we can't complete this mission because of this. A good leader says, we can't complete this mission because of this, but we can do this instead and complete the mission. A good leader always completes the mission. My point is, if you can't come up with another way to complete the mission, then just sit back and follow.
I would love to hear you give an example of a time when "crap" was so bad in the US that another country needed to step. Also remember, it's not just US boots on ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a UN thing, so several different countries are involved in putting a stop to terrorist.
Since you know everything the US does wrong trying to resolve conflicts. Let me here your version of the right way to handle these conflicts. It's like I tell these guys I work with, a good leader doesn't say, we can't complete this mission because of this. A good leader says, we can't complete this mission because of this, but we can do this instead and complete the mission. A good leader always completes the mission. My point is, if you can't come up with another way to complete the mission, then just sit back and follow.
Dropping bombs on Sadam.. before or after the CIA supported his coup and gave him the murder list?
1861
There is no mission. Stay the fuck out of other people's business.
Code:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/a-tyrant-40-years-in-the-making.html1861
There is no mission. Stay the fuck out of other people's business.
sapperdaddy
New Member
Yes, they did support his coup to rid the country of a tyrant. Did they know he would become a tyrant himself? No! Do all UGL's stay in business for the long haul and never screw people over? No! You can't predict what someone will become, it's just not that easy.
"Stay the fuck out of people's business". A lady that you have never met before is getting mugged on the street and getting beat up by a guy you have never met. What will you do? Help here(even though it's not your business)? Or look the other way?
"Stay the fuck out of people's business". A lady that you have never met before is getting mugged on the street and getting beat up by a guy you have never met. What will you do? Help here(even though it's not your business)? Or look the other way?
You can't be serious. The CIA knew exactly what Saddam was. He was their agent, their pet thug. They fed him a kill list after his cuop. They gave him chemical weapons to use against Iran - you know, the country that had just expelled the tyrant the CIA installed 10 years earlier?
In any case, the point is not whether they intentionally harmed innocent people with their actions, the point is that they harmed innocent people with their actions.
That's a useless example. It in no way represents a military invasion of another country, the destruction of innocent people and property that occurs, the chaos that results.
