prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
Lets keep things logical and factual and then the discussion can't go off track
Sounds like he's trying to push my button....
Yep, nobody should get angry about facts and logic....Lets keep things logical and factual and then the discussion can't go off track
The biggest freedom the U.S has is its right to bear arms as if we studied history all dictators stripped their societies of arms which meant that if people wanted to revolt and stand up they would have no chance.
Thats the whole point of the 2nd amendment and the reason the founding fathers point it in their because they know how corrupt governments can be and in todays world its very easy to manipulate things with control of media etc....
Its sad when a government dictates on what you should eat, wear, drive etc.... but eventually if people dont wake up it will soon become a reality.
Treading on shakey ground with these issues. Interesting to discuss, but tread carefully.
Saw on the back of a blokes jacket the other day:
Terrorism is the poor man's war.
War is the the rich man's terrorism.
No comment from me, just what I saw. - FWIW
I agree, but I also look after myself, not society. I'm not against fighting or living outside the system, and will have no hesitation to do so if my standard of living falls to an unacceptable level.
Apparently neither does the US government. They've killed more innocents than Al Qaeda could ever dream of killing. No, I'm not making an anti-US statement, just putting Al Qaeda's performance in perspective.
The moral ground is found in the intent of the action. The US does not (currently) deliberately target innocent civilians. They are playing by the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions predominantly. Al Qaeda does not, even though they haven't signed up for any such laws, but by international standards puts them in the sin bin. The US and Coalition probably have killed a lot of civilians (maybe more) as part of military operations, but it's not the intent. Do you happen to have the figures on exactly how many civilians have been killed by each team in this conflict?Yes, so to clarify, it wasn't a political statement, just a counter-point. Websman stated Al Qaeda kills many innocents, and I pointed out that the US kills more. The part about US not having a problem killing innocents was not a serious comment, just an introduction to the point. I do think the US has more of a problem with it, but collateral damage is clearly acceptable, otherwise there would not have been a war.
I admit I like to cause a stir
I'd prefer you not reply to my posts, as you clearly have a personal issue with me.
Treading on shakey ground with these issues. Interesting to discuss, but tread carefully.
..... They are playing by the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions predominantly. ....
WDW,
What Kennas was trying to say (i think) is that its important in discussions like this not to let your personal views cloud your comments. Facts are fine, racism is not.
Lol, - I ask you, what the hell have her (many) problems - including ethics investigations etc - got to do with GI Joe???The pit bull in lipstick has hung up her collar””for now.
Sarah Palin quit her job as governor of Alaska on Sunday, leaving behind a trail of ethics investigations, legal bills and unanswered questions about her future.
She went out swinging against the reporters she thinks undermined her.
"You represent what could and should be a respected and honored profession," Palin said in her farewell speech. "How about, in honor of the American soldier, ya quit making things up?"
Lady, you wouldn't know the truth if you tripped over it.As she officially handed over the gubernatorial reins to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, Palin said, "I feel it is my duty to avoid the unproductive, typical, politics-as-usual, lame duck session in one's last year in office."
"With this decision, I will be able to fight even harder for you, for what is right and for truth," she said.
You seem to have looked over the word 'predominantly'. Your one example of waterboarding does not mean the entire establishment acts against international law. I was also comparing the US to Al Quaeda. If you disagree, then you are saying that Al Quaeda act in more accordance with international law than the US. OKNo.
Sorry kennas, and with all due respect to you, I fully disagree with this.
Surely you follow international news? America has prosecuted waterboarding as a form of torture in the past against others. What did they do for the purposes of this conflict?
Congress got lawyers to "redefine" torture so as the action of the US came within the new definitions. Waterboarding for one was no longer outside the law.
No, sorry, simply cannot agree with you here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?