Desi Cartman Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 What I find amazing in all this discussions in the media or political circle, there is no mention of PEOPLE being killed. They only care if those killed happen to have a US passport. IMHO either everybody should be tried or have enough evidence against them or ANYBODY associated with alqaida deserves same treatment.
Brainfade Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Interesting. Which phony war based on fabricated evidence that cost the US taxpayers nearly $2 trn did Obama start? In the OP, you brought up a specific issue for which the analogy fits - to a T. Gitmo still there. Patriot Act expanded. Now this. And save the Iraq-war broken record. You and I have agreed on that issue numerous times on this board.
Clarke Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-14/opinions/37098359_1_al-qaeda-anwar-al-awlaki-drone-war Conzzzvative courage to Obama's rescue :bb:
surajmal Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Interesting. Which phony war based on fabricated evidence that cost the US taxpayers nearly $2 trn did Obama start? a) Naive much? b) How much has the oil price escalated by since 9/11?
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9564903/US-drone-attacks-are-counter-productive-and-terrorise-civilians.html Anywhere b/w 500 to a 1000 civilians, including up to 200 children, have been killed via drone strikes in Pakistan alone, from 2004 to late last year. Then there's Yemen. And so much for freedom in Bahrain. Not to mention funding all sorts of shady organizations in Libya and Syria. Yep that was one apt deserved Nobel Peace Prize. It's all a joke.
Clarke Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Then there's Yemen. And so much for freedom in Bahrain. Not to mention funding all sorts of shady organizations in Libya and Syria. What's wrong with Yemen ? AQ dared to attack US on their soil and there's no grey area on this, they'll hunt down AQ where they see it gaining strength. I wish we had this ability to take down LeT. What happened in Bahrain ? What are the 'shady' organizations ? Honest questions here. Don't come up with opinion pieces which cite state run Chinese/Russian media this time
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 What's wrong with Yemen ? AQ dared to attack US on their soil and there's no grey area on this, they'll hunt down AQ where they see it gaining strength. I wish we had this ability to take down LeT. What happened in Bahrain ? What are the 'shady' organizations ? Honest questions here. Don't come up with opinion pieces which cite state run Chinese/Russian media this time The fact is all media, be it Western or Ruskie/Chinese take sides. If you truly want answers then you have to keep an open mind. On some issues it just may be possible that Russ journos are more truthful then their western counterparts. Key word here being 'some' not 'all' So this warrants a long reply. We'll take it one country at a time. In Bahrain for a good two years now there are protests against the ruler/king. Unlike protests in let's say Libya,Yemen,Syria.......these were enormously peaceful protests. Then the gov. decided to attack. There are vids all over YT. Do some research. There is clear evidence of the gov shooting down peaceful protesters, arresting activists etc etc. And remember these folks had nothing, no guns, no knives nothing. Just a slogan, that's all they had. Nonetheless the gov. in Bahrain used absolute aggression, going so far as to get in the Saudi army to quell the protests. The question one must ask is, where is the US outrage. On the contrary they sold even more arms to the gov. They didn't care about the protesters. Cos we all know that Bahrain is a strong US ally, host a base etc etc. The reasonable thing for the US to do would be to ask their puppet to stand down right? This article is all the way back from 2011 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/us-hypocrisy-on-bahrain/245283/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/06/18/u-s-hypocrisy-on-parade-washington-arms-bahrain-denounces-russia-for-arming-syria/ Cue ur reply....
Clarke Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 The fact is all media, be it Western or Ruskie/Chinese take sides. If you truly want answers then you have to keep an open mind. On some issues it just may be possible that Russ journos are more truthful then their western counterparts. Key word here being 'some' not 'all' So this warrants a long reply. We'll take it one country at a time. In Bahrain for a good two years now there are protests against the ruler/king. Unlike protests in let's say Libya,Yemen,Syria.......these were enormously peaceful protests. Then the gov. decided to attack. There are vids all over YT. Do some research. There is clear evidence of the gov shooting down peaceful protesters, arresting activists etc etc. And remember these folks had nothing, no guns, no knives nothing. Just a slogan, that's all they had. Nonetheless the gov. in Bahrain used absolute aggression, going so far as to get in the Saudi army to quell the protests. The question one must ask is, where is the US outrage. On the contrary they sold even more arms to the gov. They didn't care about the protesters. Cos we all know that Bahrain is a strong US ally, host a base etc etc. The reasonable thing for the US to do would be to ask their puppet to stand down right? This article is all the way back from 2011 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/us-hypocrisy-on-bahrain/245283/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/06/18/u-s-hypocrisy-on-parade-washington-arms-bahrain-denounces-russia-for-arming-syria/ Cue ur reply.... The atlantic article you mention talks about a lack of response in Iran & Bahrain. I was under the impression that American non-intervention was the answer as per your/CA's opinion. Wouldn't you admire that policy in Bahrain? Are you essentially complaining that USA did not side with the Bahrain protestors politically maybe later militarily once the regime in Bahrain refuses to budge ? But you have a problem with intervention in Libya as you said earlier, which was mostly European to be precise. You can't be serious about not selling arms, they'll buy Chinese/Russian arms instead and carry on whatever atrocities they indulge in currently. That's what happens in Africa.
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 The atlantic article you mention talks about a lack of response in Iran & Bahrain. I was under the impression that American non-intervention was the answer as per your/CA's opinion. Wouldn't you admire that policy in Bahrain? Are you essentially complaining that USA did not side with the Bahrain protestors politically maybe later militarily once the regime in Bahrain refuses to budge ? But you have a problem with intervention in Libya as you said earlier, which was mostly European to be precise. You can't be serious about not selling arms, they'll buy Chinese/Russian arms instead and carry on whatever atrocities they indulge in currently. That's what happens in Africa. So is that to say you agree America has failed in Bahrain? Anyways it is about uniformity. So the message is so long as ur our ally and do our bidding we will turn a blind eye to all your atrocities. If America wants to press for freedom in other countries, then a uniform approach is par for the course. By all means take a stand of Libya, but don't forget ur allies elsewhere who's governments are eerily similar to the one you deposed in Libya. If you can side with equally brutal regimes then you have no right to preach on others. And you have to remember this is not the first time America has done this. It's evident that America is not taking a stand for humanitarian reasons but for their own selfish agendas disguised as humanitarian intervention. Secondly does America has any principle whatsoever? They fight these so called terrorists in some countries, but when they choose so, they ally with these very same rogue outfits in other countries . Who do you think they supported in Libya? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw]Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnLvzV9xAHA]Hillary Clinton: 'We Created al-Qaeda' - YouTube[/ame] Despite a history of failures in the past, have the Yanks stopped butting in the affairs of other countries? They are willing to back some very questionable outfits, be it in Libya, be it in Syria. But wait a min let France fight the very same blokes in Mali. Any how do you think the situation in Mali got so dire that the French had to intervene? The answer is Libya! When you talk about the Russians and the Chinese you forget that you accuse them of doing the very same things the Americans did. More often than not the Russians do what they do to counter the nonsense Americans are doing. If America could be a bit more honest with their international dealings, then putting the Russians in a corner would not be difficult. It if precisely because America is as roguish as them Russkies that neither side can take the higher ground.
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 PS just a thought, whenever the Yanks go about spreading democracy, bombings. insane levels of violence all inevitably follow. You'd think that it was impossible to achieve anything peacefully. I mean where-ever America is not involved all is nice and peaceful. Be in Malaysia, Singapore, Iceland (current revolutions) And wherever the Yanks are involved all hell inevitable breaks loose. Jus saying. The Bahraini revolution is still relatively peaceful, despite all that the government has done to the protesters, things are still civilized there. But the minute America has your back....then you get outcomes like Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan...just a coincidence? And let's not forget Georgia!
Ram Posted February 23, 2013 Author Posted February 23, 2013 a) Naive much? b) How much has the oil price escalated by since 9/11? a) No b) Yes. And so?
Ram Posted February 23, 2013 Author Posted February 23, 2013 In the OP, you brought up a specific issue for which the analogy fits - to a T. Gitmo still there. Patriot Act expanded. Now this. And save the Iraq-war broken record. You and I have agreed on that issue numerous times on this board. What about the things that are not there? The illegal detentions in prison camps that dont exist in any maps? The torture of terror suspects using water-boarding and other hideous tactics? The absence of the relentless 'America's at War', 'Axis of Evil'... 'Its us against them...', 'In this War, God is on our side' pointless saber-rattling that was so characteristic of the Bush administration that achieved nothing but deeper divisions between the West and the middle east? You also know that one of the main reasons why Gitmo is still open is because Congress is unwilling to authorize the funds required to close it. But here's another fun fact - In the last 5 years, not a single new detainee has been added to Gitmo, not one. People have died, people have left, people have been deported. But not a single new addition. Obama's no dove. But he's no war-mongerer like those lunatic neocons llike Wolfowitz, Rumself who have scarred the earth for good.
Clarke Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 So is that to say you agree America has failed in Bahrain? Honestly it depends on who you ask. Some will say it failed it bring about democracy, others will prefer a stooge there, and then there's people who will suggest keeping a hands off approach. But you simply cannot have it both ways; either appreciate intervention in Libya or the non-intervention in Bahrain. Anyways it is about uniformity. So the message is so long as ur our ally and do our bidding we will turn a blind eye to all your atrocities. If America wants to press for freedom in other countries, then a uniform approach is par for the course. By all means take a stand of Libya, but don't forget ur allies elsewhere who's governments are eerily similar to the one you deposed in Libya. If you can side with equally brutal regimes then you have no right to preach on others. And you have to remember this is not the first time America has done this. It's evident that America is not taking a stand for humanitarian reasons but for their own selfish agendas disguised as humanitarian intervention. Secondly does America has any principle whatsoever? They fight these so called terrorists in some countries, but when they choose so, they ally with these very same rogue outfits in other countries . Who do you think they supported in Libya? I can't disagree with the first para all things being equal. However, there are multiple instances like the Bosnia conflict where it took a principled stance and stopped the genocide. You've got to understand (and I'm not defending it), there's a mix of objectives in probably the following order: i) US interests ii) Energy prices iii) Nuclear proliferation/WMDs iv) humanitarian reasons Do you have exact evidence on AQ support in Libya ? FYI AQ as a terror organization didn't exist during the cold war. Its like saying US supported both Taliban & Northern Alliance; no, they supported the Mujahideen only but the problem was they wiped their hands off the moment USSR rolled back. Despite a history of failures in the past, have the Yanks stopped butting in the affairs of other countries? They are willing to back some very questionable outfits, be it in Libya, be it in Syria. But wait a min let France fight the very same blokes in Mali. Any how do you think the situation in Mali got so dire that the French had to intervene? The answer is Libya! Syria what ? 70k+ deaths & barely any intervention from the west. Don't tell me its America's fault. This is precisely what happens under commie influence, the sole Russian military base post cold war end becomes the deadliest place on earth. Blame the Russians this time if you are blaming Americans for Bahrain. When you talk about the Russians and the Chinese you forget that you accuse them of doing the very same things the Americans did. More often than not the Russians do what they do to counter the nonsense Americans are doing. If America could be a bit more honest with their international dealings, then putting the Russians in a corner would not be difficult. It if precisely because America is as roguish as them Russkies that neither side can take the higher ground. Err, it was a one on one conflict on equal terms until the end of the cold war. America being honest or not would not matter, the commies would still carry on creating model states like North Korea, Cambodia & Cuba.
Clarke Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 PS just a thought, whenever the Yanks go about spreading democracy, bombings. insane levels of violence all inevitably follow. You'd think that it was impossible to achieve anything peacefully. I mean where-ever America is not involved all is nice and peaceful. Be in Malaysia, Singapore, Iceland (current revolutions) Singapore & Iceland are strong US allies and more importantly developed nations, you can't seriously compare them to Arab/African tin-pot republics. BTW look at NATO members, the early ones and the newer ones. If American influence is so evil, it sure helped create amazingly developed nations and made others join the group. Rebuilding of Europe via the Marshall plan & growth of Japan & South Korea are the other dark spots on American policy. And wherever the Yanks are involved all hell inevitable breaks loose. Jus saying. The Bahraini revolution is still relatively peaceful, despite all that the government has done to the protesters, things are still civilized there. But the minute America has your back....then you get outcomes like Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan...just a coincidence? And let's not forget Georgia! I could argue America brought some sort of civilization to the hellhole in Middle East/Africa. Israel & Turkey are again strong US partners and far better than other nations in the region. Syria as I mentioned earlier is Russia's proxy and the deadliest place on earth by body count. I'd say a simple coincidence.
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 There is ample evidence of US funding all sorts of organizations:- Libya:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Syria:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking The above article point out how USA 'created' the Syria project way back in 2005. How did they create? They just selected folks they liked and then used the media to hype up their credentials. This is espionage. And it's dangerous cause it's directly linked to a brutal civil war in Syria which has led to the deaths of countless. http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12 http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-clinton-admits-us-on-same-side-as-al-qaeda-to-destabilise-assad-government/29524 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/2/obama-arming-al-qaeda/ And finally, although this is a bit speculative, http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10 Fallout of Libya http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/libyan-weapons-al-qaeda-north-africa_n_2727326.html This whole war business is a whole lot more complex than intervention v/s non-intervention. There are different ways to wreck havoc. Off-course at the end day you cannot deny it is primarily Arabs killing Arabs. But the US has no business picking sides when both are just as torrid. US has no business trying to install puppet governments either. I'm being kind when I say the US is picking sides. The reality may well be that US instigated this nonsense in the first place. This is clearly a lengthy debate and we'll never get anywhere discussing it on a forum. So at this point I'm gonna sign out . We can agree to disagree. Cheers
Swing_n_Speed Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 I could argue America brought some sort of civilization to the hellhole in Middle East/Africa. Israel & Turkey are again strong US partners and far better than other nations in the region. Syria as I mentioned earlier is Russia's proxy and the deadliest place on earth by body count. I'd say a simple coincidence. LMAOO. Gotta love that sorta reasoning. So American policy is look Israel ur our ally..do as you please, we'll arm you, give you nuclear arms(shhhh undeclared so no one knows), go ahead occupy Palestine to your hearts content....we'll look the other way Turkey is stable? Read up about their brutality to the Kurds. Once again US ally so let's not talk about it. We spoke at length on Bahrain And then Syria...itsy bitsy Syria...Russia's only ally. Let's blame the Ruskies for not doing enough to protect their ally, while US allies fund a damn insurgency. Actually I agree the whole region is a tinpot of lunatics. Still international foreign policy (primarily the west) can make an honest appeal for peace right? Do the right thing.
surajmal Posted February 23, 2013 Posted February 23, 2013 b) Yes. And so? Which currency is oil valued in?
Ram Posted February 24, 2013 Author Posted February 24, 2013 Which currency is oil valued in? Sorry, but I dont have time to play General Knowledge 101 with you. Can you please cut to the chase?
surajmal Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 Sorry, but I dont have time to play General Knowledge 101 with you. Can you please cut to the chase? And here I thought that you were being deliberately coy. Go with Guru Google. I don't have time to present an economics lecture. Start with End of Bretton Woods. Then Bretton Woods II (the monetary system of today). Search for consequences of Quantitative Easing (intended and otherwise). Also try to search for the advantages of having the world's mint in your own backyard. You will stumble across many more topics. Hopefully by the end, you will stop looking at Barry as the saviour.
Ram Posted February 25, 2013 Author Posted February 25, 2013 And here I thought that you were being deliberately coy. Go with Guru Google. I don't have time to present an economics lecture. Start with End of Bretton Woods. Then Bretton Woods II (the monetary system of today). Search for consequences of Quantitative Easing (intended and otherwise). Also try to search for the advantages of having the world's mint in your own backyard. You will stumble across many more topics. Hopefully by the end, you will stop looking at Barry as the saviour. Huh what? This thread is about legality/morality of Amreeka's drone (and in the larger sense), its foreign policy. And then you go on this weird tangent about Bretton Woods break-up and quantitative easing. Thanks for nothing. P.S; Hey, knowing your history, I am pretty sure you will insist that the Vedas can explain America's 21st century foreign policy. After all, there's an explanation for everything in the Vedas, right?
Recommended Posts