Too true

Post Reply New Topic

Wonder what the militarist faction of the "pro-Israel" movement thinks about this.

They do tend to have two different standards for different ... tones of people, eh?

Some civilian deaths are apparently much more acceptable than others.

Do as I say, not as I do...?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Great Quote, but one of the biggest events during Madison's presidency was the War of 1812, or Mr. Madison's War. My point is all presidents have paid lip service to peace.

In all fairness, Madison had fought the War of 1812 because the British had invaded the country.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That is true, though a large amount of the drone strikes in Pakistan were justified due to the War on Terrorism. I understand there is a major difference between the direct invasion of a country and coordinated terrorist attacks, but it seems to me that the slightest threat to the "homeland," (at least today) can be used as justification for a war on abstracts.

Pakistan is nowhere near Israel, what has the "pro-Israel" movement got to do with drone strikes in Pakistan?

Are you thinking of Iran?

And while I'm no fan of Obama, his quote seems correct to me.
Pakistan has never "liked" what the US had done insite its country, and has on occoasion resisted the US's war on terror.

The difficulty is, the Pakistan government is at war with those same Islamists as the US is targeting. So they grudgingly put up with a bit, but they don't like it.

I might also point out that the Islamists that the US are targeting, while technicly are Pakistani citezens; themselves attack the Pakistani government trying to destabalise it, and don't contribute to the Pakistani taxes or general well being.

Could you spell out more clearly exactly what the point of your statement is?

If those countries over there had a better handle on their terrorist situation, and I don't care how they do it, we wouldn't have to be over there doing it for them. They have brought this situation upon themselves with their imprudence.

Most "pro-Israel" militarists who Obama was trying to appease with the first statement would have no problem blowing up civilians who're declared "terrorists" without due process by drone operators thousands of miles away in a country the US is not at war with.



So, are you saying that everyone or most targeted by the US in the end is actually terrorists or just that the US has a blank cheque to target ideologues it dislikes? Because the drone strikes really do kill a massive amount of civilians (more civilians than terrorists).

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949 ... ne-warfare

Also, they apparently kill much more civilians than conventional means.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... 741&rank=1

You're not striking me as someone who is very knowledgable about what's going on over in the Middle East, because if you did, you'd be ashamed of what you posted.

The US Government has been meddling in their affairs for decades. We're talking about real shady, illegal stuff. USG has been doing everything in their power to disrupt and cause decay in the Middle East. Paying off dictators, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, bombing innocent people in busy areas, giving corrupt military leaders power and that's just the stuff I remember off the top of my head. To these countries, we're the terrorists.

You cannot honestly look at the past and say it has no effect on what's happening now.

The reality of the situation is just a mess. Yes, the US has been heavily involved in some very problematic ways with Middle Eastern politics. The region has generally suffered from having access to a very valuable resource combined with general weakness, which has ALWAYS made them subject to the whims of other nations. And because of that, and because we've never actually been able to establish some peace/security in the region the continued intervention ends up just being the way things work. There's a hope some peace can be made, but there's not a strong reason to think it's an easy path.

Knowledgeable enough to know that it takes a heavy hand.
Ashamed? Hardly. Shame and guilt are liberal sports.


Your idea and mine of US involvement in middle east affairs would never be in agreeance.


Actually I can if for no other reason than you said that I can't.

That's fine, I suggest you say "this person is a militarist". And like minds group together. So your probably right in that regard.



I'm saying that the Pakistani people in the regioin being target are, citezens of Pakistan, they may or may not be terrorists themselves, they may be classed as terrorists because they live in a town or stronghold (it's a classification thing not a reality), and that "some" of the groups activly attack the Pakistan government trying to destabalise it.

The US doesn't have a blank cheque, nor did I suggest such a thing. I'm saying the Pakistan government doesn't like what the US is doing, but without the US doing it, the Pakistani government will be fighting these rebals themselves.

I have no doubt many civilians get killed. There is also, nobody able to bring justice to this situation. So the situation continues. Until Pakistan tell the US to get out, the situation will continue.

In this case, "Might makes Right" + "Pakistan government caught between fighting the rebels themselves, or letting the US fight the rebals" = uncontrolled messy situation.

[joking] Well, to be fair, the missiles are raining down from WITHIN their borders. [/joking]