|
Post by Jancey on Oct 23, 2014 12:47:36 GMT -5
Who's keeping us in check MO? I bet a lot of countries would consider us terrorists, but if any other country brought a military base here, well, it wouldn't end well. Because for one, we can protect ourselves. We don't need other countries here to help us remain safe the same way that we provide this for a lot of other countries. The biggest reason though is because there's no real reason for another country to have a base here. What tactical, military advantage does a foreign country having a base here provide? North America is pretty geographically isolated from the rest of the world, and combat doesn't happen in the western hemisphere.. Like ever. When was the last time there was warfare anywhere near North America? Why would anybody consider the USA terrorists? What have we done to have that label? I also want to say this - I've seen you make similar posts like this a lot, and I don't understand why. I'm not saying this to be rude, but it's almost like you would rather the USA not be a world power. Why? You think we have military bases in other countries to protect them? (I believe we recently have pulled a lot out and cut down big on the military...but I haven't actually looked into this...just what I heard/read a bit on a couple months ago.) I'm pretty sure that's not the reason.. You're right. There's no reason for another country to have a base here. What have we done to have that label? Well, how about the drone strikes that have killed thousands of people? Just in Pakistan, we've killed approximately 2500 people, that we know of. www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-only-4-per-cent-of-those-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-care-named-members-of-alqaeda-its-hard-to-trust-american-foreign-policy-9810998.html“The only people we fire a drone at are confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level,” he said. “We don't just fire a drone at somebody and think they're a terrorist.” Of those 2500 people, 84 are confirmed Al-Qaeda. What, we're just supposed to take the government's word that they're all "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level"? I don't know about you, but when a meager 4% of the people (that we know of) killed in drone strikes in Pakistan are confirmed Al-Qaeda, I'm not just going to take some guy's word for it that they are all "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level". The U.S. can go drone striking whoever and get away with it as long as we label them terrorists. How do we know every one of those people killed are terrorists? 4% confirmed Al-Qaeda - it seems like we're really putting a ton of faith in our government that we've only been murdering terrorists. But the fact is our government has the power to kill whoever they want with no rebuttal as long as they're labeled terrorists, and no one cares. And this is just Pakistan. There's been plenty more drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia. Here are estimated numbers: Pakistan 2004–2014 CIA Drone Strikes Total strikes: 400 Obama strikes: 349 Total killed: 2,379-3,851 Civilians killed: 416-957 Children killed: 168-202 Injured: 1,123-1,693 www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/I don't know how to validate these numbers, but... 200 children killed? 500-1000 civilians? Another 1500 injured? www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data-the-pakistan-governments-secret-document/I wouldn't call citizens, women, and children "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level". Here's more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416?page=2"One of the missed strikes, according to a human rights group, killed 35 people, including nine civilians, with reports that flying shrapnel killed an eight-year-old boy while he was sleeping. Another blown strike, in June 2009, took out 45 civilians, according to credible press reports." "At issue was a particularly deadly drone strike in March 2011 that the Americans claimed killed 21 militants, and the Pakistanis claimed killed 42 civilians." And I'm just talking about civilians here...a ton more killed that could just be part of their military that we're killing off. Like others in the southern part of the country, he lived in terror of the constant buzz of drones overhead. "Every night, they don't sleep," says his grandfather. "They make unbelievable noise, and people are suffering." I don't expect you to read all of any of these links - I didn't. But if you really want to know more about this, just google it. And then Obama's kill list, which is related to the drone strikes. americanfreepress.net/?p=9135I wouldn't say I'd rather the US not be a world power...but I don't like what we do with the power.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 23, 2014 14:47:09 GMT -5
Because for one, we can protect ourselves. We don't need other countries here to help us remain safe the same way that we provide this for a lot of other countries. The biggest reason though is because there's no real reason for another country to have a base here. What tactical, military advantage does a foreign country having a base here provide? North America is pretty geographically isolated from the rest of the world, and combat doesn't happen in the western hemisphere.. Like ever. When was the last time there was warfare anywhere near North America? Why would anybody consider the USA terrorists? What have we done to have that label? I also want to say this - I've seen you make similar posts like this a lot, and I don't understand why. I'm not saying this to be rude, but it's almost like you would rather the USA not be a world power. Why? You think we have military bases in other countries to protect them? (I believe we recently have pulled a lot out and cut down big on the military...but I haven't actually looked into this...just what I heard/read a bit on a couple months ago.) I'm pretty sure that's not the reason.. You're right. There's no reason for another country to have a base here. What have we done to have that label? Well, how about the drone strikes that have killed thousands of people? Just in Pakistan, we've killed approximately 2500 people, that we know of. www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-only-4-per-cent-of-those-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-care-named-members-of-alqaeda-its-hard-to-trust-american-foreign-policy-9810998.html“The only people we fire a drone at are confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level,” he said. “We don't just fire a drone at somebody and think they're a terrorist.” Of those 2500 people, 84 are confirmed Al-Qaeda. What, we're just supposed to take the government's word that they're all "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level"? I don't know about you, but when a meager 4% of the people (that we know of) killed in drone strikes in Pakistan are confirmed Al-Qaeda, I'm not just going to take some guy's word for it that they are all "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level". The U.S. can go drone striking whoever and get away with it as long as we label them terrorists. How do we know every one of those people killed are terrorists? 4% confirmed Al-Qaeda - it seems like we're really putting a ton of faith in our government that we've only been murdering terrorists. But the fact is our government has the power to kill whoever they want with no rebuttal as long as they're labeled terrorists, and no one cares. And this is just Pakistan. There's been plenty more drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia. Here are estimated numbers: Pakistan 2004–2014 CIA Drone Strikes Total strikes: 400 Obama strikes: 349 Total killed: 2,379-3,851 Civilians killed: 416-957 Children killed: 168-202 Injured: 1,123-1,693 www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/I don't know how to validate these numbers, but... 200 children killed? 500-1000 civilians? Another 1500 injured? www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data-the-pakistan-governments-secret-document/I wouldn't call citizens, women, and children "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level". Here's more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416?page=2"One of the missed strikes, according to a human rights group, killed 35 people, including nine civilians, with reports that flying shrapnel killed an eight-year-old boy while he was sleeping. Another blown strike, in June 2009, took out 45 civilians, according to credible press reports." "At issue was a particularly deadly drone strike in March 2011 that the Americans claimed killed 21 militants, and the Pakistanis claimed killed 42 civilians." And I'm just talking about civilians here...a ton more killed that could just be part of their military that we're killing off. Like others in the southern part of the country, he lived in terror of the constant buzz of drones overhead. "Every night, they don't sleep," says his grandfather. "They make unbelievable noise, and people are suffering." I don't expect you to read all of any of these links - I didn't. But if you really want to know more about this, just google it. And then Obama's kill list, which is related to the drone strikes. americanfreepress.net/?p=9135I wouldn't say I'd rather the US not be a world power...but I don't like what we do with the power. Good post Jancey. It's always nice to see people using sources to back up claims made. I agree that the drone strikes in the USA are way out of hand. I think it might not be 100% fair to use numbers of Obama's drone strikes vs other presidents, considering that drone technology has improved a lot since Obama has come into power, but I do agree that Obama's administration is grossly misusing the power they have with these drones, and the numbers of civilians being killed and injured from the attacks is sickening. I find it very strange that there are all these scandals against Obama, like Benghazi for instance, that have no merit as an actual scandal... There are people who think Obama should be impeached for many things that are completely absurd... Boehner wanted to sue Obama for using his executive power in a way that they deemed unconstitutional, yet the right isn't attacking him regarding an issue like this that is actually a serious issue. It makes me think that it's not just an Obama issue and that a republican in power would be no better, given the same technology.
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Oct 24, 2014 9:52:44 GMT -5
You think we have military bases in other countries to protect them? (I believe we recently have pulled a lot out and cut down big on the military...but I haven't actually looked into this...just what I heard/read a bit on a couple months ago.) I'm pretty sure that's not the reason.. You're right. There's no reason for another country to have a base here. What have we done to have that label? Well, how about the drone strikes that have killed thousands of people? Just in Pakistan, we've killed approximately 2500 people, that we know of. www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-only-4-per-cent-of-those-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-care-named-members-of-alqaeda-its-hard-to-trust-american-foreign-policy-9810998.html“The only people we fire a drone at are confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level,” he said. “We don't just fire a drone at somebody and think they're a terrorist.” Of those 2500 people, 84 are confirmed Al-Qaeda. What, we're just supposed to take the government's word that they're all "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level"? I don't know about you, but when a meager 4% of the people (that we know of) killed in drone strikes in Pakistan are confirmed Al-Qaeda, I'm not just going to take some guy's word for it that they are all "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level". The U.S. can go drone striking whoever and get away with it as long as we label them terrorists. How do we know every one of those people killed are terrorists? 4% confirmed Al-Qaeda - it seems like we're really putting a ton of faith in our government that we've only been murdering terrorists. But the fact is our government has the power to kill whoever they want with no rebuttal as long as they're labeled terrorists, and no one cares. And this is just Pakistan. There's been plenty more drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia. Here are estimated numbers: Pakistan 2004–2014 CIA Drone Strikes Total strikes: 400 Obama strikes: 349 Total killed: 2,379-3,851 Civilians killed: 416-957 Children killed: 168-202 Injured: 1,123-1,693 www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/I don't know how to validate these numbers, but... 200 children killed? 500-1000 civilians? Another 1500 injured? www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/get-the-data-the-pakistan-governments-secret-document/I wouldn't call citizens, women, and children "confirmed terrorist targets at the highest level". Here's more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416?page=2"One of the missed strikes, according to a human rights group, killed 35 people, including nine civilians, with reports that flying shrapnel killed an eight-year-old boy while he was sleeping. Another blown strike, in June 2009, took out 45 civilians, according to credible press reports." "At issue was a particularly deadly drone strike in March 2011 that the Americans claimed killed 21 militants, and the Pakistanis claimed killed 42 civilians." And I'm just talking about civilians here...a ton more killed that could just be part of their military that we're killing off. Like others in the southern part of the country, he lived in terror of the constant buzz of drones overhead. "Every night, they don't sleep," says his grandfather. "They make unbelievable noise, and people are suffering." I don't expect you to read all of any of these links - I didn't. But if you really want to know more about this, just google it. And then Obama's kill list, which is related to the drone strikes. americanfreepress.net/?p=9135I wouldn't say I'd rather the US not be a world power...but I don't like what we do with the power. Good post Jancey. It's always nice to see people using sources to back up claims made. I agree that the drone strikes in the USA are way out of hand. I think it might not be 100% fair to use numbers of Obama's drone strikes vs other presidents, considering that drone technology has improved a lot since Obama has come into power, but I do agree that Obama's administration is grossly misusing the power they have with these drones, and the numbers of civilians being killed and injured from the attacks is sickening. I find it very strange that there are all these scandals against Obama, like Benghazi for instance, that have no merit as an actual scandal... There are people who think Obama should be impeached for many things that are completely absurd... Boehner wanted to sue Obama for using his executive power in a way that they deemed unconstitutional, yet the right isn't attacking him regarding an issue like this that is actually a serious issue. It makes me think that it's not just an Obama issue and that a republican in power would be no better, given the same technology. It would probably be similarly indiscriminate, if not more so. The rhetoric coming from the Republican presidential debates was way more anti-Syria than what Obama has said. Mitt Romney especially was trying to move away from the center in those debates to spar with guys like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, and since he was the nominee, an Obama loss would certainly not have stopped drone strikes. I also like the point you made that drone tech wasn't what it is today for other presidents. How many drone kills did the Jefferson administration have, for example? But like you said, nothing excuses the fact that we are still bombing Afghanistan, and that the power of drones and the visage of the war on terror has led us into a perpetual war with any country that a terrorist may exist in. My biggest critique of the president is his overuse, not abuse mind you - he is the commander in chief, he has the authority, but the overuse of the military overseas at his whim.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Oct 24, 2014 22:18:19 GMT -5
I just had a huge post typed out, and I submitted it only to receive an error.... FUCK ME. I'll come back to this tomorrow and give you a response Jancey. Right now I don't feel like typing that all up again.
|
|
|
Post by 101mitch on Oct 24, 2014 23:02:49 GMT -5
Okay you can't watch it, but its just a movie and not very accurate. Come on the USA has the forty second life expectancy? Really? Name one country that people live longer. My aunt is 90, my mom is 80. How long do you want to live? No one lives longer than we do. No one. That clip is bull shit. It is true
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Oct 24, 2014 23:21:50 GMT -5
I just had a huge post typed out, and I submitted it only to receive an error.... FUCK ME. I'll come back to this tomorrow and give you a response Jancey. Right now I don't feel like typing that all up again. First of all, no thanks. Second, you should have just clicked back and I think it would've saved it I dunno. I was looking forward to your reply..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 23:22:47 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 23:39:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 23:45:04 GMT -5
Lying 65km to the west of Hong Kong, Macau is a city of duality. Its fortresses, churches and the culinary traditions of its former Portuguese colonial masters speak ...
Macau is A CITY. Heck my city is bigger that Macau. BS lists.
Sent from Philip Rivers helmet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 0:00:46 GMT -5
Dumb conversation anyway. If I contacted Ebola there is no place in the world I'd rather be than in the United States. Anyone disagree with that?
Sent from my NYC replay room where we are blind. watch Eric Weddles int. Watch it in slow motion. The ref threw he flag after he caught it and ran ten yards. Another BS call. Changed the game again.
|
|