World Republic
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  SearchSearch  Latest imagesLatest images  RegisterRegister  Log in  

 

 Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan

Go down 
3 posters
AuthorMessage
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
Black_Cross


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 35
Location : Sisyphean Hell

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeWed Oct 21, 2009 7:28 pm

Back to top Go down
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council
Tyrong Kojy


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 37
Location : Canada

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeWed Oct 21, 2009 9:14 pm

All I have to say is, "Wahh, wahh, it's a war."

If you didn't notice, they don't even agree to the number. It's a war. Civilians are gonne die. By your account, any leader ever involved in a war is unable to recieve the prise.
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
Black_Cross


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 35
Location : Sisyphean Hell

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeThu Oct 22, 2009 5:45 am

Are you getting defensive (offensive?) because i made a crack about a terrorist winning a peace prize? If so, i think you should relax.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
All I have to say is, "Wahh, wahh, it's a war."

Easy to say for someone who has never been on a battlefield, never seen or smelled death, never been forced to fight for his life.

Quote :
If you didn't notice, they don't even agree to the number.

How does that matter?

Quote :
It's a war. Civilians are gonne die.

ye... that's kind of what the problem is.

Quote :
By your account, any leader ever involved in a war is unable to recieve the prise.

Not any leader who instigates or willingly perpetuates one, no. Why should they? (keep in mind that it's called a "peace" prize)

And i'd appreciate it if you wouldn't speak for me.
Back to top Go down
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council
Tyrong Kojy


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 37
Location : Canada

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeThu Oct 22, 2009 8:17 am

Quote :
Are you getting defensive (offensive?)
I guess it did kind of sound liek that.S orry.

Quote :
Easy to say for someone who has never been on a battlefield, never seen or smelled death, never been forced to fight for his life.
And you have? And my point was not in the terms of ":it's a war, get over it", but more on the ciovilian death side. YES it's bad, but it happens, and whining about the deaths does nothing. Protesting about the deaths does nothing. Get what I;'m saying.

Quote :
Not any leader who instigates or willingly perpetuates one, no.
He's attacking Al Queada. What's t perpetuate? They started the war, and no one wants these people to operate any onger. It's only now that Obama has actually statred doing actual damage to them, something Bush was never REALLY able to do, at least to their leaders, that they want to talk. And it's not gonna happen.

Quote :
(keep in mind that it's called a "peace" prize)
I never said he deserved it in the first plaxec, remember that. I posted the first thread about the issue.
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
Black_Cross


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 35
Location : Sisyphean Hell

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2009 12:03 am

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
And you have?

No, but i'm not being insensetive about it. I'm an empathetic person, and can only imagine the horror of seeing a friend, relative or neighbor dead by a weapon of war. Experiencing it personally could only make my convictions stronger.

Quote :
And my point was not in the terms of ":it's a war, get over it", but more on the ciovilian death side. YES it's bad, but it happens, and whining about the deaths does nothing. Protesting about the deaths does nothing. Get what I;'m saying.

Yes, but i don't know that anyone's whining. This is a forum. We discuss things, that's why we're here. And having a defeatist mentality about these things only ensures the breeding of a pacifist culture, where one isn't needed.

Quote :
He's attacking Al Queada.

And using that as a pretext to put down militant revolutionists. Al Qa'ida is not a threat to US security, and they are most definitely not a threat in Afghanistan, where most people have a bad perception about what they do. He's mostly attacking the Taliban (which has strained relations with Al Qa'ida), indigenous anti-imperialists, and other civilians of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is a large disparity between what is said and what is done.

Quote :
What's t perpetuate? They started the war, and no one wants these people to operate any onger.

Then they should change their failed strategy, not increase the resources being contributed to it. That's only going to make things worse. And this is all the more scary considering Obama isn't as much of a tool as Bush, and actually boasts some intelligence, meaning he understands the consequences of what he does, and continues regardless.

Quote :
It's only now that Obama has actually statred doing actual damage to them, something Bush was never REALLY able to do, at least to their leaders, that they want to talk. And it's not gonna happen.

There are better ways than sacrificing civilians. In fact, sacrificing citizens might well be detrimental, since that's how Al Qa'ida was able to form a fairly strong base to begin with. Bin Laden can attest to that (and has).

Quote :
I never said he deserved it in the first plaxec, remember that. I posted the first thread about the issue.

I know; my response was to your comment about any leader who starts war, not just Obama.
Back to top Go down
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council
Tyrong Kojy


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 37
Location : Canada

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2009 1:58 am

Quote :
No, but i'm not being insensetive about it. I'm an empathetic person, and can only imagine the horror of seeing a friend, relative or neighbor dead by a weapon of war. Experiencing it personally could only make my convictions stronger.
That wasn't what I was doing. I was simply saying that it's expected in war. Sure I could ave said it BETTER, but stilll.

Quote :
Yes, but i don't know that anyone's whining. This is a forum. We discuss things, that's why we're here. And having a defeatist mentality about these things only ensures the breeding of a pacifist culture, where one isn't needed.
True, but what kind of "discussion" can occurr about the topic as you put it? "Wow. This sucks." That's all that can be said. No one sane would say otherwise, ohter than to claim you may be whining about it. Besides, I'd be more concerned with the things other countries are doing,f ar worse,t han simply America's. America's LACK of civilian deaths should be comendable, compared to other coutries. So you get where I'm coming from?

Quote :
Al Qa'ida is not a threat to US security, and they are most definitely not a threat in Afghanistan, where most people have a bad perception about what they do.
They started the war. What they do? They attacked America first. America can not be called bad guysfor retaliating. Very few critisize Bush for Afganistan. STARTING it, at least. How it was handled is a different story.

Quote :
He's mostly attacking the Taliban (which has strained relations with Al Qa'ida), indigenous anti-imperialists, and other civilians of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Strained relations now while stil providing support. As for civikians, as I said, yes they get caught in the crossfiore. But if theyassist them, they are valid targets of arrest, and if they shoot at the soldiers, elimination.

Quote :
Then they should change their failed strategy, not increase the resources being contributed to it. That's only going to make things worse. And this is all the more scary considering Obama isn't as much of a tool as Bush, and actually boasts some intelligence, meaning he understands the consequences of what he does, and continues regardless.
It's been one year, and the generals are the same. So critisise the generals, not Obama. Yeah, they follow his orders, but is he a wartime president? Certainly not. Cheney was. What's more, considering Obama has actually done more damage to their hirearchy in one year than Bush did in eight, the changes he HAS implimented don't seem as failed.

And yes, I know I didn't say Bush. Who do you think was actually in charge?

Quote :
There are better ways than sacrificing civilians. In fact, sacrificing citizens might well be detrimental, since that's how Al Qa'ida was able to form a fairly strong base to begin with. Bin Laden can attest to that (and has).
I agree, bt covilians are neither the target, nor intended. In fact, more often than not, covilian deaths are avoided. For example, several times under Obama's leadership fire has been held, waiting for a convoy with a target to leave a civilian populated area, when applicable. It rarely occurred under Bush.

Quote :
I know; my response was to your comment about any leader who starts war, not just Obama.
What I mean is him inhereting a war, and let's face it, one he CAN NOT leave until the one responsible is found, namely Osama, Should not preclude him from winning. OTHER reasons should. Not that. This is the 21st century. Such tactics, terrorism, should not be tolerated any longer. These organisations, while i get their MISSION, mostly, though Al Queada's is just dumb and should not be respected any more than a crasy man's ramblings, it's their TACTICS that are unaceptable. America retaliated to an attack from this organisation. And I think I just went off topic for this paragraph.
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
Black_Cross


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 35
Location : Sisyphean Hell

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2009 10:42 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
True, but what kind of "discussion" can occurr about the topic as you put it? "Wow. This sucks." That's all that can be said. No one sane would say otherwise, ohter than to claim you may be whining about it.

It's the news sub-forum; discussion isn't necessary. If people want to discuss, they can. But i didn't compel you or anyone to comment. I just found it intriguing.

And this topic seems to be veering to a debate about the legitimacy of war and anti-terrorist strategy.

Quote :
Besides, I'd be more concerned with the things other countries are doing,f ar worse,t han simply America's. America's LACK of civilian deaths should be comendable, compared to other coutries. So you get where I'm coming from?

Yes, but i disagree completely. There is no lack of civilian deaths in war. That's why war itself is the problem; the fact that war-mongering countries don't actively try to diagnose the roots of wars is also a disturbing problem.

Quote :
They started the war. What they do? They attacked America first. America can not be called bad guysfor retaliating.

If we're going to get bogged down in semantics like this, then it's fair to note that America occupied muslim holy lands, forced warlords down Afghanistan's throat, and produced a fundamentalist terrorist group (Taliban). So it could be just as easily argued that Al Qa'ida was retaliating. But this kind of discussion hardly gets to the root of the problem and serves no one.

Quote :
Very few critisize Bush for Afganistan. STARTING it, at least. How it was handled is a different story.

A terrorist attack does not justify retaliatory terrorism and occupation of a civilian population. If they were really retaliating, Bush, and Obama would target Al Qa'ida, not Afghanistan; and as we know, the 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany, Spain, and the USA. So by US military standards, they should be occupying Germany Spain and their own population. But, of course, that's ridiculous Rolling Eyes

Quote :
Strained relations now while stil providing support. As for civikians, as I said, yes they get caught in the crossfiore. But if theyassist them, they are valid targets of arrest, and if they shoot at the soldiers, elimination.

So if we force civilians to defend their land, and they decide to do so, it's okay to kill them. That seems specious at best. But it does sound conducive to US imperialist strategy.

Quote :
It's been one year, and the generals are the same. So critisise the generals, not Obama. Yeah, they follow his orders, but is he a wartime president? Certainly not.

Generals are warriors, that's all they know. They're not likely to suggest peaceful alternatives. Obama, however, is a peace candidate, which means he should seek peace.

Quote :
Cheney was. What's more, considering Obama has actually done more damage to their hirearchy in one year than Bush did in eight, the changes he HAS implimented don't seem as failed.

So we're getting closer to square one, where we started. They had a frail heirarchy until we strengthened it.

And don't believe that if we completely annihilated Al Qa'ida that we'd have won. The US wouldn't pull out, because catching Bin Laden and ruining Al Qa'ida does nothing to put down a resistance driven by US occupation. This war goes deeper than terrorism, despite terrorism being the buzz-word of the day.

Quote :
And yes, I know I didn't say Bush. Who do you think was actually in charge?

He was technically in charge, but he's too stupid pull the things the US did during his regime; he was a figure-head. Cheney, Wolfowitz, corporations and their lobbyists, etc. were in his ear. But it's this entire system that needs destroying if we want to avoid these situations in the future.

Quote :
I agree, bt covilians are neither the target, nor intended.

That's of little consequence to civilians. When they're attacked, whether purposefully or not, they react; and when you're violently attacked, the only reasonable self-defense is violent.

Quote :
In fact, more often than not, covilian deaths are avoided. For example, several times under Obama's leadership fire has been held, waiting for a convoy with a target to leave a civilian populated area, when applicable. It rarely occurred under Bush.

Wonderful. This doesn't, however, begin to solve anything.

Quote :
What I mean is him inhereting a war, and let's face it, one he CAN NOT leave until the one responsible is found, namely Osama, Should not preclude him from winning. OTHER reasons should. Not that. This is the 21st century.

He can leave if he wanted. It's pretty simple actually. It would just mean admitting abstract defeat; the white house, pentagon and american imperialism cannot afford that kind of loss of face because it would make it harder to justify military intervention in the future.

I don't see what the century has to do with this.

And if the US wins, Afghanistan becomes a satellite state. The US doesn't win by defeating terrorism (an impossible task).

Quote :
Such tactics, terrorism, should not be tolerated any longer.

Damn right. So, as Noam Chomsky would say, let's start with the institutionalized terrorists.

Quote :
These organisations, while i get their MISSION, mostly, though Al Queada's is just dumb and should not be respected any more than a crasy man's ramblings, it's their TACTICS that are unaceptable.

And the same standard should be applied to the state's terrorism, but it's not. One more hurdle.

Destroying terrorism with force (again, impossible) is an absurd strategy that leads to an endless cycle of violence, which could only possibly serve imperialist countries, not normal people like you and i. This situation, to me, is redolent of Vietnam on horse steroids; increase violence, increase resistance, but of course in this situation, there's a possibility that it turns into civilian casualties for both sides, and not just for the side being militarily dominated.
Back to top Go down
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council
Tyrong Kojy


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 37
Location : Canada

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeSat Oct 24, 2009 4:18 am

Quote :
It's the news sub-forum; discussion isn't necessary
Okay, point taken. My bad. i appologise.

Quote :
Yes, but i disagree completely. There is no lack of civilian deaths in war. That's why war itself is the problem; the fact that war-mongering countries don't actively try to diagnose the roots of wars is also a disturbing problem
I agree, however America isn;t war mongering, or at last not any longer. The last few wars have been caused mostly by far right leaders, generally for stupid reasons, but America isn;t "war mongering." 9/11 had only one responce. Otherwise, well, I agree, war sucks. But I disagre that America is war mongering.

Quote :
America occupied muslim holy lands
So fucking what? I get it, but I also don;t care. Islam is taking far too many liberties lately. Look at Europe.

Quote :
forced warlords down Afghanistan's throat
Don't know much about this, so no comment.

Quote :
and produced a fundamentalist terrorist group (Taliban).
You're right, and they're constantly made fun of because of this. It will g down as one of America's, or most any civilisation's, greatest blunders.

Quote :
So it could be just as easily argued that Al Qa'ida was retaliating.
I understand. They're on our holy land, so let's slaughter them. I GET it, but I in no way give a flying fuck. It's no reason to kill people. It is to THEM, but does that matter to US? Nope.

Quote :
A terrorist attack does not justify retaliatory terrorism and occupation of a civilian population.
Bush's tactics are not in question here, but it DOES justify RETALIATION. As for occupation, the Taliban, who were directly allied with Al Queada, led the country, so yes it did.

Quote :
If they were really retaliating, Bush, and Obama would target Al Qa'ida, not Afghanistan
Aain, Bush is not the one we're talking about. Retaliating was good, his methods sucked. But Obama IS targeting Al Quiada, or at least the still allied Taliban. Why do you think he's bombing in Pakistan, with their permission?

Quote :
and as we know, the 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany, Spain, and the USA.
"Planned in", is different than "done by."

Quote :
So if we force civilians to defend their land, and they decide to do so, it's okay to kill them. That seems specious at best. But it does sound conducive to US imperialist strategy.
I get what you're saying, but what would you have them do? Both the Taliban and Al Quada, or however the hell you spell it, took residence in civilian centers. What was the US to do? Ask nicely? The civilians weren't going to just leave, nor should they be forced to. Stay in their homes, don;t get in the way, and stay away.

Quote :
Obama, however, is a peace candidate, which means he should seek peace.
And he has, with others. Iran, for example. The uranium enrichment thing is a different issue. Relations are strained. He's doing quite a bit more than several presidents in the past. But do you really think, both politically (It IS a job, rememeber, one he wants to keep), an tactically, that making peace with Osama/Al Quida is something he can, or wants, to do? Or something the American people want?

Quote :
So we're getting closer to square one, where we started. They had a frail heirarchy until we strengthened it.
Not Obama's fault.

Quote :
And don't believe that if we completely annihilated Al Qa'ida that we'd have won. The US wouldn't pull out, because catching Bin Laden and ruining Al Qa'ida does nothing to put down a resistance driven by US occupation. This war goes deeper than terrorism, despite terrorism being the buzz-word of the day.
Ultimately not his fault, still. If he stays, the country's in civil war. If he leaves, it's a WORSE civil war. It's no win. Granted, if he did things different he may be able to get out properly. Give the man time. it's only been a year. Not even. And he has a LOT to clean up. He's liekly going to focous more on America's issues first, THEN Afganistan. Hell, it's because of these issues that he'll likely go down as as mediocre president at best.

Quote :
But it's this entire system that needs destroying if we want to avoid these situations in the future.
Not destroying, just changing.

Quote :
That's of little consequence to civilians. When they're attacked, whether purposefully or not, they react; and when you're violently attacked, the only reasonable self-defense is violent.
True. Then maybe they shouldnt be helping, llowing these poelpe into their villages and towns. I mean Osama and all the other factions I';m not going to name AGAIN. We know the names. Not typing them again.

Quote :
Wonderful. This doesn't, however, begin to solve anything.
I never said it would. It was adressing a whole nother point, one that I cant recall now.

Quote :
He can leave if he wanted. It's pretty simple actually. It would just mean admitting abstract defeat; the white house, pentagon and american imperialism cannot afford that kind of loss of face because it would make it harder to justify military intervention in the future.
One, it would throw the country into even more disarray than it already is. Two, yes, they would loose face. Three, Imperialism isn;t it. Imperialism is dead. America does not want to rule the world, despite what people think. They want to keep peace, not rule. Usually at least. People like Bush go right against everything I just said.

Quote :
I don't see what the century has to do with this.
It meant that the world is beyond such things, or at least should be at this point. Terrorism as a tactioc, rebellion, such things should no longer be tolerated as a matter of how the world is, no matter the intentions of the people commiting then. That's what I meant.

Quote :
And if the US wins, Afghanistan becomes a satellite state. The US doesn't win by defeating terrorism (an impossible task).
Is there something inherently WRONG with being a satelight state, as it were? I mean for the country involed. And don;t say imperialism, or America taking over the world, or what not, because neither are true, and even if they are, are either inherently wrong? And noone thinks terrorism will be destroyed. They only want one man.

Quote :
Damn right. So, as Noam Chomsky would say, let's start with the institutionalized terrorists.
By becoming terrorists yourself? There are better ways.

Quote :
And the same standard should be applied to the state's terrorism, but it's not.
I would like to know what terrorism exactly you're meaning.

Quote :
Destroying terrorism with force (again, impossible) is an absurd strategy
So what do you suggest? Give in to their demands? Do you know why they DON'T?
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
Black_Cross


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 35
Location : Sisyphean Hell

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeMon Oct 26, 2009 10:36 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
I agree, however America isn;t war mongering, or at last not any longer. The last few wars have been caused mostly by far right leaders, generally for stupid reasons, but America isn;t "war mongering." 9/11 had only one responce. Otherwise, well, I agree, war sucks. But I disagre that America is war mongering.

For the most part they've moved away from blatant warring, and since the 70's have used neo-liberalism to impose their global hegemony, now calling it globalization.

However, we do still occupy territories not rightfully ours (no land is, actually, except perhaps Britain), we still have colonies both internal and external, so there has never been an end to violence on other ethnic groups and cultures.

Quote :
So fucking what?

Isn't it obvious what happens when you piss off fundamentalist nuts that have only the slightest regard for their own mortal selves? Fundamentalists who would, with reckless abandon, give up their own lives to make a point or get retribution.

Quote :
I get it, but I also don;t care.

Sounds like an Imperialist country i know. Look where that's gotten us.

Quote :
Islam is taking far too many liberties lately. Look at Europe.

Could you elaborate?

Quote :
Don't know much about this, so no comment.

It's very pertanent to the current conditions we're experiencing.

Quote :
You're right, and they're constantly made fun of because of this. It will g down as one of America's, or most any civilisation's, greatest blunders.

'Blunder' hardly begins to explain it.

Quote :
I understand. They're on our holy land, so let's slaughter them. I GET it, but I in no way give a flying fuck. It's no reason to kill people. It is to THEM, but does that matter to US? Nope.

Exactly my point: "It's no reason to kill people". Retaliation is no justification. It only creates a cycle of violence that ends only with sheer devastation; devastation of Afghanistan of course, since us white people aren't threatened.

Quote :
Bush's tactics are not in question here...

Except you are defending Obama, who is in large part mimicking Bush's Afghanistan strategy (terrorism, bribery, support for warlords, etc.).

Quote :
...but it DOES justify RETALIATION.


Retaliation justifies retaliation... So what goal could possibly be accomplished with a mentality like that?

Quote :
As for occupation, the Taliban, who were directly allied with Al Queada, led the country, so yes it did.

1) The Taliban officially condemned the 9/11 attacks. You don't see the US cutting all ties with Israel, whether or not they condemn the occupation and genocide in Palestine.

2) Taliban doesn't lead the country anymore, so what's the excuse for occupation this time?

Quote :
But Obama IS targeting Al Quiada, or at least the still allied Taliban.

I haven't seen a logical justification for attacking the Taliban yet. And Obama and his administration can say they're targeting Al-Qa'ida, but what's the Al-Qa'ida death toll opposed to civilian?

Quote :
Why do you think he's bombing in Pakistan, with their permission?

Because Pakistan can't keep its own population in check, and it's threatening the state's security.

The more we attack villages where "terrorists" reside (which is like attacking cities in the US where army soldiers' houses are), the more we push civilians to support the Taliban.

Quote :
"Planned in", is different than "done by."

And Al-Qa'ida is different than Afghanistan, yet there is no distinguishment made there.

Quote :
I get what you're saying, but what would you have them do? Both the Taliban and Al Quada, or however the hell you spell it, took residence in civilian centers. What was the US to do? Ask nicely? The civilians weren't going to just leave, nor should they be forced to. Stay in their homes, don;t get in the way, and stay away.

And be bombed. That just sounds like it would enflame the conflict further.

The US should pull out. They should try some empathy rather than bombs and conflict. Trying to understand the issues that caused this conflict, and resolve it in a way that doesn't interfere with popular will can get us miles farther than violence, which has been proven to fail in these kinds of situations.

If the US wants to be safe (i doubt it isn't, even now), they could empower the average citizenry, and disempower the warlords who are constantly fueling resentment. For instance, this could begin by buying up all of the popey being grown by poor farmers and destroying it, then offering more money to grow subsistence crops for the starving population (this would cost a helluva lot less than we're spending on the war machine). If this were to happen, and the Taliban or Al-Qa'ida were to turn its focus on the people, then the people themselves would take care of the problem, and it would simply be an internal struggle, which is natural in class society.

This isn't really an option though, as this would weaken state power, and build up an economic structure that would serve the common-folk, not an economic/political elite. But then again, i don't believe the US is serious about coming to a conclusion that doesn't serve their political/economic interests.

Quote :
And he has, with others. Iran, for example.

Actually, he's making relations worse by threatening force (the opposite of peace) and making false, enflamatory accusations towards an already unstable regime leader.

Quote :
The uranium enrichment thing is a different issue.

No, it's all quite related.

Quote :
Relations are strained. He's doing quite a bit more than several presidents in the past.

rhetorically maybe, but even so, that's not tangible.

Quote :
But do you really think, both politically (It IS a job, rememeber, one he wants to keep), an tactically, that making peace with Osama/Al Quida is something he can, or wants, to do?

No, and that's why i think it's dumb that he's considered a peace candidate.

I'm not saying he should be friendly with Al-Qa'ida, that's not possible. I'm suggesting he shouldn't make it worse, which is what he's doing. Plenty of people have suggested plenty of ways to go about starting to make things better, but they're not policy makers (for understandable reasons), so they aren't heard, and the debate isn't had.

Quote :
Or something the American people want?

This is actually turning into something resembling Vietnam in this regard. People aren't morally averse to killing Afghanis, but they are averse to a war they view as unwinnable, especially in a time of economic depression where people are losing jobs and houses left and right.

Quote :
Not Obama's fault.

Nope, but as things get worse it will be.

Quote :
Ultimately not his fault, still.

But it is his responsibility.

Quote :
If he stays, the country's in civil war. If he leaves, it's a WORSE civil war.

One that could possibly be resolved if he leaves. If he stays, he turns civil war into imperialist war, which simply puts civil war issues on hold for a later date. Issues aren't being resolved, so we're just ensuring that there'll never be a good time to leave.

And hey, he could, at any time he wanted, remove foreign aid for corrupt warlords that are controlling the populations where they hold power. That's one giant leap towards democracy right there.

Quote :
It's no win.

As long as we perpetuate unpopular, authoritarian policies, then 'winning' can't even be reasonably claimed as a goal.

Quote :
Granted, if he did things different he may be able to get out properly. Give the man time. it's only been a year. Not even. And he has a LOT to clean up. He's liekly going to focous more on America's issues first, THEN Afganistan. Hell, it's because of these issues that he'll likely go down as as mediocre president at best.

Making excuses gets us nowhere. And putting Afghanistan on hold is horribly inhumane, since they are constantly suffering, and the US is not, relatively.

And it's been almost a year in which he's done nothing but talk (out his ass if you ask me). He could've easily done things to promote peace in Afghanistan as opposed to the US (because he doesn't need to wait for a congressional vote).

Quote :
Not destroying, just changing.

It's been "changed" many times, yet that's gotten us substantially nowhere. We were closer to international peace and unity during the tribal epoch (at least then people followed international law).

Quote :
True. Then maybe they shouldnt be helping, llowing these poelpe into their villages and towns.

The alternative being accept an early death, and imperialist order. That's absurd. Teaching pacifism in the face of violence is like asking german jews to walk into the ovens.

The people haven't moved, they were there, and now they remain there and support the only group they see as having any hope of defending their country. Most of the civilians who support the Taliban don't even like them. They mainly feel they have no other choice (there are other choices, as there are many more groups fighting the US than just AQ and the Taliban, but they may not know it, as these people are highly uneducated, and oppressed by the Taliban).

Quote :
I never said it would. It was adressing a whole nother point, one that I cant recall now.

My point about civilian casualties strengthening terrorist groups. Your response missed the mark though, as it doesn't matter whether or not civilians are targeted, but whether or not they are hit. It doesn't matter who Obama targets, he really can't win in armed conflict. History has shown this again and again in these types of situations.

Quote :
One, it would throw the country into even more disarray than it already is.

But civil wars can be resolved through force of arms, imperialist ones cannot. And as i've said, there are alternatives to occupation.

Quote :
Two, yes, they would loose face.

A good thing as far as peace is concerned.

Quote :
Three, Imperialism isn;t it. Imperialism is dead.

Globalism is neo-liberalism with a new face, which is imperialism with a new face.

To say that imperialism is dead is to say that advanced capitalist societies don't pursue economic goals that enrich themselves at the cost of third-world countries. It's obvious that this is not the case.

Quote :
America does not want to rule the world, despite what people think.

It's not about overt political or military domination, it's about the hegemony; controlling resources, having political strongholds, having access to cheap labor.

Quote :
They want to keep peace, not rule. Usually at least. People like Bush go right against everything I just said.

In a plutocracy, it doesn't really matter who the figure-head is.

Quote :
Is there something inherently WRONG with being a satelight state, as it were? I mean for the country involed.

It undermines self-determination.

Quote :
And don;t say imperialism, or America taking over the world, or what not, because neither are true...

Because you say so? Do you have any evidence of the imperialist order actually withering away? Just because political rhetoric has become fancier, doesn't mean material conditions have changed.

Quote :
and even if they are, are either inherently wrong?

Depends. If you believe in peoples' right to self-determination, then yes.

Quote :
And noone thinks terrorism will be destroyed. They only want one man.

Says the rhetoricians. Actions speak louder than words.

Quote :
By becoming terrorists yourself? There are better ways.

I never said that, but i find it comical that you have, considering it goes against most of what you've been arguing in this thread. What you just said has been exactly my position this entire time.

Quote :
I would like to know what terrorism exactly you're meaning.

I'm employing the same elastic definition the state does.

Quote :
So what do you suggest? Give in to their demands? Do you know why they DON'T?

I don't know what your last question means, but i've given suggestions above.

PS - I'll respond to our other discussion tomorrow, as this post got deleted half-way through, and i'm tired of sitting in front of a computer screen.
Back to top Go down
Liche
Chairman of the Supreme Council
Liche


Posts : 4613
Join date : 2008-01-30
Age : 30
Location : USA-Virginia

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeTue Oct 27, 2009 4:16 am

CIA Director wrote:
pfft...collateral damage
Back to top Go down
http://www.epol.forumotion.com
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council
Tyrong Kojy


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 37
Location : Canada

Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitimeTue Oct 27, 2009 9:09 pm

(Thows hand up in the air and stabs self over and over, then BC.) I HIT BACK! I FUCKING HIT BACK WITH MY TOUCHPAD! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111


I'll simplify ALL OF WHAT I FUCKING TYPED! I agree with most of the sentiment, but I disagree with methods. I think that's what I was saying. I'm too pissed to remember.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content





Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Empty
PostSubject: Re: Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan   Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
Civilian casualties in US drone war in Pakistan
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Mayday in Nigeria and Pakistan
» Possible regime change in Pakistan, possible coalition

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: Government owned TV Station-
Jump to: