Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Solidarity and Hate.
Monday, August 27, 2012 3:53 PM
BYTEMITE
Monday, August 27, 2012 4:27 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: ...and what are those rates? ...... Suicide rate less than 1%. Well, yes, if you're looking only at that limited group. Another way to look at it is that servicemembers account for a fifth of American suicides, and that a service member or vet kills themselves every 80 minutes. Which is higher than is should be, yes. There is no doubt that the military can do better for vets returning home from war. That does not mean a vast majority of those who serve do not benefit from there service. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: ...and what are those rates? ...... Suicide rate less than 1%. Well, yes, if you're looking only at that limited group. Another way to look at it is that servicemembers account for a fifth of American suicides, and that a service member or vet kills themselves every 80 minutes.
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: ...and what are those rates? ...... Suicide rate less than 1%.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:03 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And a vast number of those who serve suffer from their service, and quite a few die. The military tends to call them "collateral damage". As to accusations of me being the left-wing Rappy, I think you fit that bill better. You never seem to be able to make a valid point, you rarely cite your "sources" or provide much if anything in the way of facts to support your claims, and you totally and completely suck at communicating in English. You might want to look to that yourself.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:40 AM
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:24 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Regardless of how they feel about their service, some of the past few wars have been largely a sham. They are not fighting for the reasons they think they are - or, as has already been illustrated, they have forgotten why they are fighting. And others are fighting for a chance at college, at a future, which shouldn't have war as a prerequisite. It is a waste of life and limb. That such a majority feels warm fuzzies about being so used indicates just how much they've been deceived. Let alone that many of them seem to think these wars have made us safer, and more free.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:52 AM
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: You are Kwicko are the ones who made it about their overall experience in the military. Your interpretation of what I said does not in fact equal what I intended to say.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: The wars have destabilized the region, made life harder for the civilians we intended to help, and have not made our country freer or safer. One of the wars we were given obviously false information that convinced everyone else we should go. But in either case, the wars are a sham, therefore they are a waste.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: To me, this seems like an inherent truth, self-evident and empirical by every measure. The confirmation of the statement exists without dependence upon anyone's feelings about the wars. To call the wars a success, to say that we have improved the situation in the middle east, or for ourselves, would require a level of self-deception I don't particularly want to indulge in.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: And if someone fights two or so years for a lie, then I happen to think they have wasted those two years, and I also happen to think they must have been tricked. You may try to counter me with as many veteran success stories as you wish. It does not change the basic facts of the matter.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:13 AM
Quote: Toppling a government that allowed Al-Qaeda to have a base of operations has made this country and others safer.
Quote:I think that is far harder in Afghanistan.
Quote:It's hard to say that anyone who fought in Afghanistan was tricked. It is equally hard to say that anyone who fought in Iraq after it had become apparent that we had toppled Saddam for the wrong reasons where tricked. I think the vast majority of soldiers understood the situations just fine.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:25 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Regardless of how they feel about their service, some of the past few wars have been largely a sham. They are not fighting for the reasons they think they are - or, as has already been illustrated, they have forgotten why they are fighting. And others are fighting for a chance at college, at a future, which shouldn't have war as a prerequisite. It is a waste of life and limb. That such a majority feels warm fuzzies about being so used indicates just how much they've been deceived. Let alone that many of them seem to think these wars have made us safer, and more free. If you look at the one article I posted many do feel that the current wars have been a waste. That is the war, and not their overall experience in the military.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Pretty sure most of the Al-Qaeda leadership already moved by the time we invaded. Kicking over the Taliban made no real difference because the Taliban WEREN'T Al-Qaeda, though now we've inspired a lot of new terrorists and insurgents to join up. So no, it hasn't. What we have is security theater that makes us feel safer when we're not. Antagonism against us is kind of at an all time high, and even our allies don't like us nowadays.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: The people we trained as security forces for the new Afghanistan government are now shooting at us. That says volumes. We installed a corrupt leader who rigs the votes, so it's not democracy. Girls are going to schools now, but opponents to women in schools poison their water and a lot of the progress made there is being neglected and may be lost. Warlords control the outlying regions, a human slave trade and protection racket have dropped up, and people are still dying in droves.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: They thought they were making everything better, when really; it's just made things completely chaotic. And I suspect once we leave the warlords and theocrats will take over, so that's definitely not better. It'd be about the same really if we hadn't killed so many people, so that pushes it into "worse" territory.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:32 AM
Quote:Our allies still like us. Did you forget about our supporting role in NATO's operations in Lybia?
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:45 AM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip... Or, as the theatre critic asked, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Quote:Our allies still like us. Did you forget about our supporting role in NATO's operations in Lybia? Oh yes, where we supported a military coup of a torture-happy tyrant by a faction of genocidal nutcases. Yippee. Look, it doesn't really matter what political faction we ever support over there, the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows. Girls were going to school in Afghanistan before we invaded, but the teachers had to operate secretively. I think we should have continued to support that quietly - I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns. In any case, social change wasn't really our priority, and doesn't appear to have been even possible at this time anyway. Wherever we've gotten involved, things are pretty much the same level of screwed up as the rest of the Middle East, and not even that different from before we got involved, except we killed a lot of people going in. And that means our own people have died for nothing. Things aren't going to change in Afghanistan in TWO YEARS, when we pull out in 2014, I'm not even sure it would change in the next century with or without our help. So yeah, I'm a little pissed off about all this. Accomplished nothing, pointless, a waste, a lie.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:16 AM
Quote: The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us.
Quote:Should we not have gotten involved as people were being killed by there own government? Sending aid can only do so much.
Quote:Normally that is to counter some other evil government. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It would be nice not to do those kinds of things, but the hill of moral righteousness is often the hill you die on.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: I'm not going to make the argument that we went into Afghanistan to make things better. We went because the people who attacked us on 911 were there. Yes we killed a whole lot of people. The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us. I will not shed any tears for them. In the end those people being dead, the groups they were a part of being marginalized has made us safer. That is an accomplishment regardless of if you want to see it.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE:By your own logic it's perfectly okay for terrorists to attack us civilians in America, because we pay taxes and therefore support the people that want to kill them. And it's okay for us to attack civilians in Afghanistan, because those civilians give support or are forced to give support to the terrorists we're pursuing. You don't see kind of a bit of a PROBLEM here? Where exactly does this grudge match end?
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I'm all for freedom fighters, when they're actually, you know, not evil and for freedom. The problem is, in the middle east it's kind of impossible to tell the two apart going in. That's why I suggest humanitarian aid - it's hard to know who to support when both sides in a conflict seem like they might be bad choices. And even humanitarian aid is better than nothing for places like Sudan and Syria.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I actually hope the situation in Libya won't turn out so terrible - I suppose the one thing they have going for them is that we didn't occupy them and haven't installed a puppet dictator, which is how we usually get into this stupid cycle of violence everywhere else. But it's probably still going to be a mess.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Sometimes the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend, sometimes they're also your enemy, sometimes supporting them means undermining your own goals, which is pretty much exactly what has happened in these last few wars. So now you're arguing that we should do this, and to hell if it's moral. Countering evil governments with evil governments. What exactly do you intend to accomplish? Why are we even NATION BUILDING if this is the attitude by which we have to approach it?
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I mean, damn, this has gone from "ends justify the means" moral relativity into straight on amorality right here. No, I demand a better reason for all this beyond that "necessary evil" is our standard operating procedure because they'll kill us if we don't crush them.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: 1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us."
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: 2) That said, I can make that exact same claim against the U.S. troops, from the Afghan viewpoint. Yes, they killed a whole lot of American soldiers, but the vast majority of those killed were trying to kill Afghans, and supported those who were doing the killing. From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Whether you like that or not, you have to admit it's an accomplishment. So was 9/11, when you get right down to it. For a few thousand dollars and the "WMD" which consisted of four box-cutters, al-Qaeda brought the greatest superpower in history to its knees and crippled it economically. That's not a popular point of view, but it's every bit as valid as yours, and at least as supportable with facts and figures.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: 1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us." You're right. The reason for that is there is no good count of the number of insurgence killed. That being said there is also no evidence to say that the number of civilians is higher that the number of civilians killed. Logicly speaking unless one thinks that military is purposly tageting civilians the number of insurgence killing is going to be higher.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:43 PM
Quote:How much of that goes on? Any citations?
Quote:No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference.
Quote:Sorry, there is none. Sometimes you just have to shoot them before they shoot you.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:45 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Quote:No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference. Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.
Friday, August 31, 2012 2:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: So you think the number of insurgents killed is going to be higher than the number of civilians killed? Any kind of cites to backstop that assertion? I've heard several instances where we did indeed "target" civilians - wedding parties in at least a few of them. As one reporter put it regarding drone strikes, "If you have 20 civilians at an event, and one suspected insurgent, then 21 people are going to die in that strike." And there is no evidence to say that civilians are not being purposely targeted.
Friday, August 31, 2012 2:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/a-blood-stained-rifle-and-questions-of-the-taliban/ It's pretty common. In any case, as I said, this is all very complicated.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Not acceptable. This is a vicious cycle, self-perpetuating violence and hatred, and the logic and morality of this option is not justifiable - the situation will not improve taken to the logical conclusion. Time to try a third option.
Friday, August 31, 2012 7:59 AM
Quote:As unacceptable as you may find it when someone takes aim at you with a gun there are only really two options. Kill them, or get killed.
Friday, August 31, 2012 8:38 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote: What we have is security theater that makes us feel safer when we're not. Antagonism against us is kind of at an all time high, and even our allies don't like us nowadays. ..... They thought they were making everything better, when really, it's just made things completely chaotic. And I suspect once we leave the warlords and theocrats will take over, so that's definitely not better. It'd be about the same really if we hadn't killed so many people, so that pushes it into "worse" territory ..... the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows.
Quote:From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.
Quote: With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.
Quote: we are not purposely targeting civilians.
Quote: In the end using other countries like this can save us time, money and our own people. It helps in keeping those that want to do us harm too weak to really harm us.
Quote: Aerial attacks by pro-government accounted for the most civilian deaths by Pro-Government Forces at 187 deaths, or 44% of the total civilian deaths.
Quote: Around 11,000 civilians directly killed by US forces while upwards of 55,000 insurgences were killed.
Quote: The Taliban's 30 April 2011 statement on "Inception of the Spring Operations or Operation Badar" said the Taliban will "focus attacks" on targets of a military nature, take precautions and reiterated "strict attention must be paid to the protection and safety of civilians during the spring operations by working out a meticulous military plan." In August 2011, on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr, the Taliban issued a statement calling on their fighters to implement the Taliban's Code of Conduct and stated "protection of life and property of the people is one of the main goals of jihad."
Monday, September 3, 2012 6:07 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL