Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What's your point?China Fraud Accusations Wesley Clark s Ex-Firm Faces Questions - ABC News Wesley Clark?
Why would you think current events in the Middle East represent a failure of US foreign policy?hen the failing foreign policy reaches the breaking point and the fight moves to the states, imo the liberals will change their tunes
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.
"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran." [1
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Clark's 2003 revelation has nothing to do with any recent missteps in China.
Can you respond to Reprieve's content?Reprieve?.....facepalm
Probably not.
"Reprieve is an international human rights NGO with offices in London and New York.
"We promote the rule of law around the world, and secure each person’s right to a fair trial.
"And in doing so, we save lives.
"Reprieve prioritises the cases of prisoners accused of the most extreme crimes, such as acts of murder or terrorism, as it is in such cases that human rights are most likely to be jettisoned or eroded.
"Reprieve focuses on cases involving the world’s most powerful governments, especially those that should be upholding the highest standards when it comes to fair trials."
Reprieve
I'm sorry. What do you call the people who have nothing to do with terrorism that are blown up by US predator drones?This idea of intent seems to be a convenient excuse. Kill an innocent civilian and just assume they had the intent to attack the United States. Real convenient, if entirely ridiculous.I guess you have no room in your thought process for intent.So I'm making a straw-man about my own argument? That makes sense. We're discussing the innocent civilians killed in the course of the U.S. government's drone operations. To compare those innocent civilians to the "nest of thugs" in your analogy obviously makes no sense, and is a complete straw-man of what I'm saying. Nowhere did I indicate that I take issue with killing bad people, merely that killing innocent people in the process is not worth it.It appears that the strawman is yours.Lovely straw man, but no. Following my doctrine, if you want to call it that, a man who shoots a man who enters his home to kill his children, and then goes to that man's home and kills his children and then goes next door and kills his neighbors as well is no better than the man who broke into his home.
The analogy would be that the man breaks into a house and gets himself killed, and then the defender gets his friends and family and invades the nest of the thugs who the dead man hung out with, and stops them from harming anyone else.
But you go with that if it helps you sleep.
The world is an mean and nasty place, and if you wish to survive in it, you need to be willing to do what it takes to keep you and yours safe. Your piss-poor equivalencies are nothing but a means to justify an unmanly squeamishness to stand up and defend what is right.
In America, we call them metrosexuals.
Its worth it to many more of us because in the end, it keeps ours safe.
Have a nice night as I have to run.
The idea of 'innocent civilian' seems to be a convenient foil.
Actually, no. As many predicted beforehand, it was going into those places beforehand that created the power vacuum, because it was never anything more than a utopian pipedream that the U.S. government would be able to create a stable and flourishing democracy within the Middle East. Leaving Iraq, Libya, etc..., simply allowed the inevitable, as a result of military intervention, to happen. Not that Obama ever even actually left Iraq, but that's another tangent. The interventionists destabilized the region and then apparently expected the U.S. to pour resources and American lives down the drain forever in an effort to create a faux stability.And now how many are dying in those destabilized regions as local warlords vie for power? Getting rid of bad people and making it so that worse people can come along and take power doesn't make you a good person. It makes you naive.It's a utopian pipedream to think that the U.S. can go in and make things better. All that happens is the U.S. makes more enemies than they kill and destabilizes the region making it worse for the people they were allegedly trying to help. All the while conveniently making a certain group of people obscenely rich off the taxpayers and guaranteeing the war hawks in office big donations come election time.time to get the hell out of the mid east and leave those people to their own design.
Yeah!!! Fuck 'em! Let 'em all die!!
Kill all those women!
Butcher all those kids!!
But, at least, your hands will be clean, right?
Show me where it doesn't work -
Uhhh .... the whole goal is to destabilize the region, in order to create an environment in which the people to decide their own future. After all, Iraq was pretty stable under Saddam, Libya was stable under Gaddafi, Syria was really stable under Assad. Is that what you want? 2 million people a year dying under tyrants?
But, hey! What the hell - your hands are clean, right? All those kids dying? Who cares? You didn't pull the trigger. Of course, your inaction, the most obscene of war crimes, was directly responsible, but heck, your hands are clean, right?
As for proof, look at the world. Libya is in the midst of a tribal civil war, ISIS is taking over Iraq, Assad, who the U.S. is still trying to overthrow, and Iran are the U.S. government's biggest allies in the fight against ISIS. Does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside to know that Gaddhafi is gone and the people of Libya are now worse off? How about in Iraq? Saddam was bad, but now they have ISIS. But your hands are clean because you had only the noblest of intentions, right?
Surprisingly, you make a very good point ... for me.
Premature removal of US troops created the power vacuum that has created the internecine warfare between the warlords, and allowed the evolution of ISIS. It is the failures of the current administration that has created this ... it is the attempt by this administration to mollify high-minded, but morally blind, leftists, such as yourself, that has caused the deaths.
Guess your hands aren't so clean after all, huh?
North Korea gives us a good indication of what happens when poor third-world dictators get nuclear weapons. A whole lot of nothing.I do apologize for that..i am multitasking today. I think i was posting from a position of not back reading enough. I am not in favor of the political wars either. But if you don't think the threats of genocide of all infidels by the terrorist in those countries and many others are not reason enough to go on defensive offense, what do you think we should do.. wait till they have the nukes.Well you quoted me and said "you." Kind of hard not to assume you're talking directly to me. As for defending their country, nobody in the Middle East is defending anything. The U.S. was never threatened by Assad, Hussein, or Gaddhafi.They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..Empathy is the word you're looking for. I have empathy for all innocent civilians killed by sociopathic nut jobs: American, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc... etc... Regardless, my life is not threatened by innocent goat herders in Yemen, at least until the government that purports to represent me blows up their families in my name.
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.
I think the U.S. interventions always make things worse, but as far as the topic at hand is concerned I don't see how killing innocent civilians with drone strikes defends human rights or stops genocides. Look at Iraq, Libya, and Syria today. You'd be much better off under Hussein, Gaddhafi, or Assad before ISIS and the U.S. tried to overthrow him than you would be today in those countries. You can talk about all the noble causes you want, but military intervention and regime change is a proven failure to achieve those goals.Do you think defending human rights and interceding in genocides are worthy causes?Well you quoted me and said "you." Kind of hard not to assume you're talking directly to me. As for defending their country, nobody in the Middle East is defending anything. The U.S. was never threatened by Assad, Hussein, or Gaddhafi.They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..Empathy is the word you're looking for. I have empathy for all innocent civilians killed by sociopathic nut jobs: American, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc... etc... Regardless, my life is not threatened by innocent goat herders in Yemen, at least until the government that purports to represent me blows up their families in my name.
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.
What does launching an illegal war of aggression have to do with defending human rights?Do you think defending human rights and interceding in genocides are worthy causes?
"For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II.Irrelevant, is the first word that comes to mind.
Because Wesley Clark is an opportunist, therefore every word that comes from his mouth is a lie? His allegation concerning US plans to initiate regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, among other countries, has proven accurate over the past 11 years. Do you believe that's a coincidence?My point is he is an opportunist. He was shunned by Republicans when he wanted to run for president, and suddenly he couldn't turn fast enough.
"To most Americans of the classes which consider themselves significant the war [World War I] brought a sense of the sanctity of the State which, if they had had time to think about it, would have seemed a sudden and surprising alteration in their habits of thought.A great man wrote these words about one hundred years ago:
'War is the health of the state.'
That's a silly question. I'm not Iraqui."Beyond expected rates, most mortality increases in Iraq can be attributed to direct violence, but about a third are attributable to indirect causes (such as from failures of health, sanitation, transportation, communication, and other systems). Approximately a half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war."Not that I'm aware up. Hell I don't think the level of violence in Chicago's changed much in the last 11years either.
So would you rather have lived in Iraq or Chicago for the last 11 years?
PLOS Medicine Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003 2011 War and Occupation Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University Collaborative Iraq Mortality Study
Because Wesley Clark is an opportunist, therefore every word that comes from his mouth is a lie? His allegation concerning US plans to initiate regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, among other countries, has proven accurate over the past 11 years. Do you believe that's a coincidence?My point is he is an opportunist. He was shunned by Republicans when he wanted to run for president, and suddenly he couldn't turn fast enough.
Don't make me laugh:Don't want to look like a desperate Presidential fool, don't point fingers at enhanced interrogation, and put our military at risk, while thinking you can kill with impunity...........
As i said i feel the same way about political wars and the drones. Unless we declare war for the reasons stated in the Constitution we have no ethical standing either. That said sometimes ethics in regard to human rights and genocides perpetrated by the mentally mutated on their own people requires action. IMO, undercover and special ops were much more effective. But since this cancer and cannibalism has been allowed to spread it may be to late to contain without mass casualties. War does need to declared by a President and Congress with some cohones.I think the U.S. interventions always make things worse, but as far as the topic at hand is concerned I don't see how killing innocent civilians with drone strikes defends human rights or stops genocides. Look at Iraq, Libya, and Syria today. You'd be much better off under Hussein, Gaddhafi, or Assad before ISIS and the U.S. tried to overthrow him than you would be today in those countries. You can talk about all the noble causes you want, but military intervention and regime change is a proven failure to achieve those goals.Do you think defending human rights and interceding in genocides are worthy causes?Well you quoted me and said "you." Kind of hard not to assume you're talking directly to me. As for defending their country, nobody in the Middle East is defending anything. The U.S. was never threatened by Assad, Hussein, or Gaddhafi.They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.
N Korea is isolationist not jihadists..world domination is their stated purpose.North Korea gives us a good indication of what happens when poor third-world dictators get nuclear weapons. A whole lot of nothing.I do apologize for that..i am multitasking today. I think i was posting from a position of not back reading enough. I am not in favor of the political wars either. But if you don't think the threats of genocide of all infidels by the terrorist in those countries and many others are not reason enough to go on defensive offense, what do you think we should do.. wait till they have the nukes.Well you quoted me and said "you." Kind of hard not to assume you're talking directly to me. As for defending their country, nobody in the Middle East is defending anything. The U.S. was never threatened by Assad, Hussein, or Gaddhafi.They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.
Too late?
Don't you feel stupid when jumping to conclusions?Must have been that arctic Cuban weather. I mean, it's COLD down there at the Equator.
If you wonder why you have the credibility that you do - it's shit like this.....
US Drones Kill 28 "Unknowns" for Every Intended Target
Too late?
Must have been that arctic Cuban weather. I mean, it's COLD down there at the Equator.
If you wonder why you have the credibility that you do - it's shit like this.....
