(December 19, 2013 at 10:57 am)Psykhronic Wrote: Pretty much every US president ever has technically committed war crimes. I'm not going to give Obama special treatment.

/thread.

I mean, GTFO. He's our Obama. If we had a real complaint, we should be doing something about it. I think we (Americans) should do something about it, but most Americans kinda suck...

But they're our Americans...

The answer to the question is yes.

We're kinda all guilty of war crimes, by allowing war to happen.

I am rarely failed to be less than impressed with Americans who are obsessed with Bush and Obama and lose all semblance of reality when discussing these two rather unimpressive, but hardly The Antichrist, presidents. I rate them both 3/10 for their lacklustre, divisive and non-achieving policies.

Let's firstly deal with war crimes. War crimes are about deliberate atrocities against civilians or prisoners of war or 'waging aggressive wars ' (something only ever used in the aftermath of WW2).

I have no doubt it has NEVER been the policy of either GWB or BHO, or the USA government to deliberately target civilians or commit any atrocity against prisoners of war. The invasion of Afghanistan was entirely legal, sanctioned by the UN and in a direct response to an an unprovoked attack backed by the government of Afghanistan. Iraq is a little more complicated. At the end of the first Gulf War Saddam was party to several agreements made in order to stop that conflict; Saddam repeatedly broke those agreements and carried out atrocity after atrocity. In my belief that alone is sufficient condition to restart the war and topple Saddam however the main justification was on 'weapons of mass destruction'.

It looks as if there never was any weapons of mass destruction however it is also clear that Saddam attempted to make the world think that he had such weapons. Frankly it is no difference to a man with a known penchant for violence waving a fake pistol around in front of the police.

Specific claims are made around the use of Drones and Guantanamo bay. I see nothing illegitimate about the use of drones and it has long been accepted that collateral damage when the intent was on military targets is acceptable otherwise people would just site military installations besides schools and hospitals.

The people incarcerated in Guantanamo bay are NOT prisoners of war since they were not soldiers under the definitions of the Geneva Convention. As combatants in a third party nation NOT being part of any official armed forces or wearing any form of identification it is completely legal to shoot them as spies., certainly their presence in Afghanistan was illegal.

I also see no evidence that this is about oil. Firstly its an unbelievably expensive way of getting hold of oil and the USA was as cynical as people seem to think it could have made a deal with Saddam to legitimise him back into the world, ignore his atrocities against Kurds and Shias and supply weapons in return for guaranteed oil and a promise not to try and invade Kuwait/Saudi Arabia.

Frankly this was about the USA (and the UK) wanting to be the world's policeman instead of just looking after its own interests.

(December 20, 2013 at 8:43 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Do/did all those families want us to do this in response to 9/11? Even so, if you care about the innocent, you will try to avoid doing shit that, ya know, kills the innocent. Such as... invading, bombing, and droning other countries.

Then how would you suggest we stop the terrorist from killing the innocent. Remember terrorist is the key here.

GC

---

(December 20, 2013 at 8:55 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(December 20, 2013 at 8:40 pm)Godschild Wrote:

---

@ FaithnoMore, what about the innocent that died on 9/11, do we not owe them to try and eliminate these people who couldn't care less about innocence. War will always claim the innocent, such as the families of the soldiers that die to defend your home and freedom, the drones help to eliminate the death of some soldiers and keep the innocent family members here from becoming victims of terrorist. War is never ever nice and never will be sanitary, so you might as well accept this fact, innocent people get hurt in wars.

GC

---

The people who flew the planes into the buildings were eliminated... by their own hands... when they flew the planes into the buildings.

Sarcasm aside, I agree with FNM. What we're doing right now makes us no better (and maybe actually worse) from those who masterminded 9/11.

I'll ask you the same question any suggestions on how to tame the terrorist.

GC

---

(December 20, 2013 at 9:01 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, I don't think that there war for the US is a moral question. There are no other reasons for the US to pursue active war outside of its borders. They have no kinsman to liberate, nor and solid enemies that they can tackle, only a few fringe groups of insurgents for which they invade countries.
But there are reasons that are associated with the acquisition of raw materials and such, which are, in my opinion, valid reasons for a nation to actively seek war.
So in such cases, one must surrender moral superiority to the enemy, since moral superiority does not win wars.

If you're trying to say we are after the oil, did you know the U.S. will be the number one oil producer in a year or so.

GC

---

(December 20, 2013 at 9:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(December 20, 2013 at 8:40 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ FaithnoMore, what about the innocent that died on 9/11, do we not owe them to try and eliminate these people who couldn't care less about innocence. War will always claim the innocent, such as the families of the soldiers that die to defend your home and freedom, the drones help to eliminate the death of some soldiers and keep the innocent family members here from becoming victims of terrorist. War is never ever nice and never will be sanitary, so you might as well accept this fact, innocent people get hurt in wars.

I do accept that innocent people get hurt in wars. What I reject is engaging in a campaign that drastically raises the risk of killing innocents, all in the name of bloodlust. Sure, drones eliminate the death of some soldiers, but you know what eliminate the death of all the soldiers? Dropping a nuclear bomb on the area. But we don't do that because of the injury it would cause to people that have absolutely no part in the conflict. Now, clearly the drones cause a lot less damage than a nuke, but my point was to illustrate that saving a life isn't justification to be wreckless in our efforts to defeat the enemy.

If we truly want to be the "good guys" and do what is right and just, we would not engage in any campaign that results in the absolute bare minimum amount of risk to innocent lives.

I'll ask you also, how then do we deal with the killing mind of terrorist. Again the key here is terrorist.

GC

(December 19, 2013 at 10:50 am)Manowar Wrote: This guy has killed innocent men, women and children with his drones. I think a few days ago a wedding party in Yemen was bombed by accident.
He should be held accountable.

manowar

Yes, he and Bush should be trailed in the international court for the crime of torture (guantanamo bay), and whatever else may be appropriate.

(December 21, 2013 at 3:05 am)Godschild Wrote: Then how would you suggest we stop the terrorist from killing the innocent. Remember terrorist is the key here.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/public...ror_08.pdf

There aren't really all that many terrorist attacks and most of them take place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, please not that in the last few years the number has been starting to drop off...around the time we started packing up to go home, go figure.

Terrorism isn't that big of a threat anymore, or really ever. I'd be far more worried about America: World Police.

GC, If we stop fucking with the rest of the world, there may be less hostility towards the USA. I mean, do you really think bombing people is going to create LESS terrorists?

(December 21, 2013 at 3:05 am)Godschild Wrote: I'll ask you also, how then do we deal with the killing mind of terrorist. Again the key here is terrorist.

You know what one of the components of the killing mind of a terrorist is? Thinking innocent lives are acceptable to take in furtherance of a greater goal. Sound familliar?

We shouldn't deal with terrorists by becoming ones ourselves.

Some of you say we need to kill the terrorists, but the problem is getting to all of them. When you kill innocents some of those that survive or friends od those that are killed become terrorists so we create the supply of terrorists and it never ends. We really need to focus on why so many hate us, perhaps if we stopped sticking our noses in everyone's business things might go better, IMO
I also think that Bush (W) and others should be held accountable otherwise they keep on doing this crap, enough!
manowar

Yes, it would help if we'd stop messing with the terrorists.

Iraq and Afghanistan were a huge disaster, and now a days Obama is bombing the shit out of civilians with his drones...not to mention he tried to throw us into war in Syria not that long ago.

(December 20, 2013 at 9:35 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(December 20, 2013 at 12:03 pm)A Theist Wrote: Too bad I really don't give a shit what your pompous ass thinks.

That's okay. My pompous ass doesn't care what your dumb ass thinks either.

Good. Because I don't care what your ignorant ass thinks.

---

(December 20, 2013 at 9:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:We act with the best information we have.

Which sadly has proven to be woefully inadequate....unless someone is a fascist moron like you who is just happy to be killing somebody, somewhere.

On the other hand, a lot of our information gathering has panned out well. A lot of terrorists have been killed as a result, including Osama Bin Laden....and I don't see a commie shit for brains such as yourself coming up with a better solution to kill terrorists.