|
Typo posted:drone strikes are good  most uncool
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:
sorry dude drone strikes actually result in way less people being killed than if america bombs people using cruise missiles or F-16s or send in ground troops
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:sorry dude drone strikes actually result in way less people being killed than if america bombs people using cruise missiles or F-16s or send in ground troops Over 80% of the people Obama drone striked were innocent civilians. Typo posted:america had very little involvement in syria Except for all the money, guns, and bombs. Yeah. Then there was the whole "red line ya'll! don't cross that line, or else!" lol Obama was the best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Over 80% of the people Obama drone striked were innocent civilians. quote:Except for all the money, guns, and bombs. Yeah. which were way overshadowed by the amount of guns money bombs sent by saudi arabia/qatar/iran/russia the US were so careful in vetting potential proxies they trained like literally 5 people in the end
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Crazy idea.. America doesn't have to kill innocent people??
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Typo posted:total drone strike casualty is something like ~2000 over the course of 8+ years, it's a actually a really low number than if America used other means to strike at Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or w/e The bombings were really good though. Typo posted:
Obama had no problems with the saudis. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Crazy idea.. America doesn't have to kill innocent people?? Typo is talking numbers. He seems to be defending Obama's drone program because it killed "less than 2,000 people". 2,001 people and he'd be mad though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
I'm talking numbers too. A program that has killed ~2000 innocent people in the last 8 years is not a good program.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Crazy idea.. America doesn't have to kill innocent people?? sure, but states have the right to defend themselves against foreign actors, state and non-state, seeking to bomb it, innocent people have died in every single war since the beginning of time America has the perfect right to prioritize 1 US life over 10 non-US life, Russia/China/Pakistan/w/e has the same right w.r.t their own citizens
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Typo posted:sure, but states have the right to defend themselves against foreign actors, state and non-state, seeking to bomb it, innocent people have died in every single war since the beginning of time states don't have rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:states don't have rights. the foundation of the international order since 1648 disagrees with you
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Typo posted:the foundation of the international order since 1648 disagrees with you The foundation of "the international order" is naked power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The foundation of "the international order" is naked power. right, unlike society composed of individuals within nations, the international order is anarchic, thus states have the right to defend themselves however they see fit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
This guy earnestly believes in international law. E: States don't have rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This guy earnestly believes in international law. quite the opposite actually, international anarchy explicitly defines an order in which laws are meaningless
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
And yet here you are talking about how america has the "right" to kill 100 Afghans for everyone who died in 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Typo posted:right, unlike society composed of individuals within nations, the international order is anarchic, thus states have the right to defend themselves however they see fit. Do you then believe that individuals or other non-state actors have the right to defend themselves against states however they see fit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Can someone make a bad_dems.txt thread already
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:And yet here you are talking about how america has the "right" to kill 100 Afghans for everyone who died in 9/11. you are confused about right vs law civil society is governed by law, imposed by the leviathan called the state, there is no right for me to extract revenge on a man who wronged me through violence because we gave up that freedom to the state so that we might have society. And the state have the power to grant me justice in a court of law. there is no such society in international relations, the absence of law and an analogous entity capable of enforcing peaceful relations among nations means that every nation has the right to defend themselves, indeed, those incapable of defending themselves would not survive for long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Do you then believe that individuals or other non-state actors have the right to defend themselves against states however they see fit? depending on circumstances if some taliban guys wants to bomb the drone trailers in Minnesota or w/e that would be legit by my books
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
A better analogy would be al-Qaeda blowing up 20 troops and 30 innocents at an airport or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Typo posted:the absence of law and an analogous entity capable of enforcing peaceful relations among nations means that every nation has the right to defend themselves, indeed, those incapable of defending themselves would not survive for long. Actually, states don't have the right to kill large numbers of innocent people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Typo posted:depending on circumstances Do you believe the Fort Hood shootings were acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Do you believe the Fort Hood shootings were acceptable? that's actually a really interesting question If the instigator were the Pakistani state in response to the US bombing of Pakistan I would definitely say yes, it's just that non-state actors have a much lower threshold for what is considered acceptable because they have the option of petitioning their sovereign (in this case, the pakistani government) while states don't have the power to call upon a higher entity to defend them
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Taliban fighters in Boise. Slaughtering a military family on Thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Do you believe the Fort Hood shootings were acceptable? That was just some workplace violence. Obama, the really good pres, said that too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Taliban fighters in Boise. Slaughtering a military family on Thanksgiving. I think the response to that would be pretty epic. Especially if they livestreamed it. Like those alah akbar dudes in france who filmed themselves castrating hostages and forcing them to eat their own genitals before executing them. Speaking of that, france's government actually supressed that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Obama watched Gaddafi, a dude who's performed less anti-American terrorism than G.W. Bush, get sodomized to death so that's a point against him imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
actually, i think you'll find that 200 american lives were not saved by the death of 2,000 middle eastern civilians on behalf of the United States and that there isn't any kind of justification for drone-bombing them so carelessly
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Typo posted:that's actually a really interesting question You do realize non-state actors explicitly don't have a "sovereign"? That's why they're called "non-state actors" and not something like "rogue elements of the Pakistani government". Also, it's adorable that you think Pakistan (and presumably other non-western nations) functions the way western nation-states
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Obama unilaterally bombing the poo poo out of 5 more countries than bush did makes him less of a pussy op.  Dat peace prize though. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:You do realize non-state actors explicitly don't have a "sovereign"? That's why they're called "non-state actors" and not something like "rogue elements of the Pakistani government". the taliban is literally a creation of Pakistani government as a proxy in Afghanistan to first fight Communist afghan government and then to fight Indian influence in the region like they didn't exist before the Soviets left Afghanistan
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Typo posted:the taliban is literally a creation of Pakistani government as a proxy in Afghanistan to first fight Communist afghan government and then to fight Indian influence in the region And since then, the Pakistani government has been fighting against the Taliban, with members of the military arming and training independent groups (usually tribal clans) to fight against them. The exception to that are the members of the military who are arming and training clans that are a part of or allied to the Taliban, which is why your assumption that the Pakistani government is a hegemonic force is adorable. MizPiz has issued a correction as of 23:39 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Typo posted:sure, but states have the right to defend themselves against foreign actors, state and non-state, seeking to bomb it, innocent people have died in every single war since the beginning of time isn't that literally what 9/11 was those bankers and literally everyone in the pentagon deserve death, even if we sacrifice a few planes full of innocents
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Obama only did one 9/11 guys calm down
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Because of my actions, some people I don't like who in a vague way are a threat to me died, and yeah like 2000 other unrelated people in a place I don't care for, so imo net good in the long run of history, certainly not perpetuating anything, if anything closing some chapters - al quaeda - obama supporters -literally every international actor Modest Mao has issued a correction as of 02:35 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Speaking of it's incredible to watch libs normalizing GWB because while he was an "awful president" [list of domestic issues affecting them personally] at least he's not a monster you know?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
THC posted:Speaking of it's incredible to watch libs normalizing GWB because while he was an "awful president" [list of domestic issues affecting them personally] at least he's not a monster you know? http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/george-w-bushs-painted-atonements It is truly an amazing tale of transformation. I can't decide which atrocities him painting (only american soldier) victims of his administrations bullshit atones for. It's got to at least make up for mass torture, the destabilization of the middle east, all the poo poo domestically, and basically paving the way and speeding along the climate allowing for demagogues like Trump. Obama's look forward, not backward was indeed his signature moment, signalling all the lasting difference he'd make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Typo posted:America has the perfect right to prioritize 1 US life over 10 non-US life, Russia/China/Pakistan/w/e has the same right w.r.t their own citizens
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
rights, laws and morals don't exist outside the brain of the humans that think about them, brains that were created through random chance evolution and are a jumble of parallel thinking structures so like "Was it right for America to kill that 8 year old girl? Did America have the right to kill her?" are less sensible as questions than "what is the chemical structure of the color red in George W. Bush's brain anatomy" despite appearing the opposite of such even the idea that some Amish dude in rural Pennsylvania is part of a "thing" called America which is the same "thing" that killed a person is basically untenable in material reality, except that some chemical reaction in our retard brains links those concepts waht I'm saying is, political power comes from the barrel of a gun Modest Mao has issued a correction as of 03:47 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:44
|
|