There's no big surprise.
Of course, you're absolutely right. I don't care about whether any body else lives or dies any more than you do.:roll:
So Much for Due process, Drones
- Thread starter Rosebud
- Start date
There's no big surprise.
Of course, you're absolutely right. I don't care about whether any body else lives or dies any more than you do.:roll:
The US had the right form with the declaration in Japan's case. It fools no one with the one in question.
Seriously. Do you care if eight kids you don't know are blown up in a drone strike? Why?
If the same eight kids (or eight different kids) are killed by a tsunami, or a fire, or an outbreak of disease, does it make any difference?
I'm asking an honest question. I'll freely admit that I don't see the difference. I don't actively want anybody to die, but is the life of a child lost in a tsunami somehow of less value than the life of a child lost in a drone strike? Or in the civil war in Congo?
What's your authority for "the right form?"
If you can't see the difference between a life taken by man and a life taken otherwise then I feel sorry for you.
I care enough to not want their blood on my hands. If any of my tax dollars paid those who killed them then it would be in part on my hands. If they are killed in a tsunami or other natural disaster it is still tragic, but their deaths will have had no connection to me.
If all you care about is you and yours then what difference does it make to you if terrorists do come here and start major attacks? So long as they dont kill you or someone you care about you should have no problem with them given your line of thinking. A very live and let die outlook.
And you accuse me of evading hard, serious questions?
I'm really sorry you answered that way. We've been having some productive discussions lately. I hope we can get back to that quick.
There are two types of Drone Attacks...Targeted Strikes that go after specific individuals and Signature Strikes that kill people whose conduct fits a profile.
America has tried to cope with a specific type of terrorism through invasion and occupation, and through drone strikes. Both of these tactics have failed. Al Qaeda is resurgent and Uncle Sam is in retreat. America is in retreat worldwide.
You're supposed to be a lawyer aren't you? Tell me what the legal basis is for Signature Drone Strikes in Yemen, Libya and Somalia?
You have to draw the line somewhere. What if your tax dollars pay for an embargo or sanctions that cause children to die because the water purification system they depended on breaks down with no spare parts available because of the sanctions? Is that blood on your hands? How about people who might have lived if your country had given them a million dollars in food aid, but chose not to?
Again, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't make any difference at all.
Let's be specific. I disapprove of the "war on terrorism." I think it's foolish, counterproductive, and a waste of money. But I don't think it's "illegal," and I'm damned if I can see a difference between a child killed by a missile fired from a drone and a child killed by a missile fired from a crewed aircraft, which seems to be what many people are getting all het up about.
I concur with reasonable safety measures for aircraft, and with forbidding known Islamic radicals from entering the U.S. But that's about it. I'm not terribly worried about being killed by a terrorist, because I understand statistics.
Huh?
I said:
What in the world do manners have to do with facts?
You think if you're rude, that it somehow makes your case more valid?
I said:
Whereupon you replied with:
What in the world do manners have to do with facts?
You think if you're rude, that it somehow makes your case more valid?
You call it rude, I call it blunt and calling a spade a spade. Killing another person on purpose is, by definition, murder.
No, people don't like 'tard truths put right in front of them.
Oh, BURN!!!! :lol:
Murder is a legal finding. You're thinking of homicide.
In any case, I was serious when I asked the question about what it would take in today's world to produce "Shock and Awe".
I think it's a valid question because periodically you'll hear Pentagon spokesperson's hinting at the notion that they can "Shock and Awe" nations like Iran or terrorists like Al Quieda into submission, and I don't think that's possible without something as incredible by today's technology as the atom bomb was to the standard warfare technologies of WW-II.
Shock and Awe doesn't mean hitting the enemy with an overwhelming amount of the same kinds of ordinance they use. It just means you're bigger and have more weaponry... and they already know that.
Did Hilter "Shock and Awe" Brits with V-2's, like he was telling the Germans? No... the Brits just got pissed off and said, "The bastard's shooting rockets at us".
I'm concerned because, more and more, Pentagonian apologists talk like they think they can make Americans feel okay about their forces being used to obliterate an enemy target on a mass-destruction scale because it's just a "Shock and Awe" campain.
Pentagon Spokesperson: "We're going to Dresdenize Tehran in order to Shock and Awe Iran into submission."
American People: "Oh, I guess it's okay then, because it means the rest of Iran will surrender in humbleness, such that overall it's a saving of lives."
As if.
Even if you Hiroshimized Tehran, it's not going to shock-and-awe Iranians into submission... because they alread *know* such a thing is possible!
The only way you could shock-and-awe anyone today would be something like... you're armed with a special weapon which you point and shoot at the enemy, such that when it hits, the target gets instantly transported to a position 10,000 feet above where he was standing, whereupon he falls strait down without a chute, and goes splat next to his platoon-mate.
Combined with that, in the same way forces used to have drums and bagpipes to inspire the troops and intimidate the enemy, you'd have an American-woman's choir (Muslims always get discombooberated by womens' presence on a battlefield) blasting this through loudspeakers:
The Weather Girls - It's Raining Men - YouTube
I think it's a valid question because periodically you'll hear Pentagon spokesperson's hinting at the notion that they can "Shock and Awe" nations like Iran or terrorists like Al Quieda into submission, and I don't think that's possible without something as incredible by today's technology as the atom bomb was to the standard warfare technologies of WW-II.
Shock and Awe doesn't mean hitting the enemy with an overwhelming amount of the same kinds of ordinance they use. It just means you're bigger and have more weaponry... and they already know that.
Did Hilter "Shock and Awe" Brits with V-2's, like he was telling the Germans? No... the Brits just got pissed off and said, "The bastard's shooting rockets at us".
I'm concerned because, more and more, Pentagonian apologists talk like they think they can make Americans feel okay about their forces being used to obliterate an enemy target on a mass-destruction scale because it's just a "Shock and Awe" campain.
Pentagon Spokesperson: "We're going to Dresdenize Tehran in order to Shock and Awe Iran into submission."
American People: "Oh, I guess it's okay then, because it means the rest of Iran will surrender in humbleness, such that overall it's a saving of lives."
As if.
Even if you Hiroshimized Tehran, it's not going to shock-and-awe Iranians into submission... because they alread *know* such a thing is possible!
The only way you could shock-and-awe anyone today would be something like... you're armed with a special weapon which you point and shoot at the enemy, such that when it hits, the target gets instantly transported to a position 10,000 feet above where he was standing, whereupon he falls strait down without a chute, and goes splat next to his platoon-mate.
Combined with that, in the same way forces used to have drums and bagpipes to inspire the troops and intimidate the enemy, you'd have an American-woman's choir (Muslims always get discombooberated by womens' presence on a battlefield) blasting this through loudspeakers:
The Weather Girls - It's Raining Men - YouTube
Last edited:
I'm not sure "Shock and Awe" would be a big selling feature for a war now, considering it was used in Iraq, which is recognized as one of the most poorly prosecuted wars in recent history.
Hmm... well... they should have asked me ahead of time, because I could have told them it wouldn't work.
Well, we're all experts in hindsight. :lol:
Well it seems I've bested you once again with my scintillating intellect and rapier-like wit.
Actually, it's not. In battle you're killing another person on purpose, and it's not murder.
Anyway, the point was, if you got banned, it probably wasn't for your position on war... it would have been for how you expressed that position.
You can call a turd a turd without calling it sh*t.