Drone War Expansion Sparks Questions About Effectiveness, Oversight

Superfreak said:
Yes, I stated that the war was inevitable. I still believe it was to this day. I never said that any President would have had to do it. That is yet another of your straw men, similar to the warped memories Darla has shown as to what was actually said. What I did say is that the no fly zone/containment strategy would not have worked indefinitely. Sooner or later it was going to blow up in our faces. I also stated that Bush did not need to go in when he did. that he should have waiting until after Afghanistan was done before engaging Iraq. But I am sure you will 'forget' that portion of the discussion.

Pretending I stated that I loved airstrikes or that I supported them regardless of target etc... is pure nonsense. So as I asked Darla, either post a link to the thread where you think I stated such or do shut the fuck up.

Darla now tries to cover up her comments by saying it was in PM that I stated some of the things she accuses me of saying... which is convenient, because PMs are not to be posted for the board... hence the term PM.
Click to expand...

But only Darla can comment about what's been posted in a PM, without any kind of consequence.
 
Thing1 said:
Saying that Bush didn't have to go when he did is tepid at best. Combined with mischaracterizing that conflict as "inevitable," and that is what we call "full blown Bush apologism."

Sorry 'bout that.
Click to expand...

If that is a "..full blown Bush apologism...:, then the left's defense of what ever Obama has/is/or will do, must be a deep throat blow job.
bj.gif
 
Darla said:
Damo we knew what was happening. Albright acknowledged the deaths and said they were "worth it" and Colin Powell simply dismissed the number as something that he "was not very interested in". We knew that as direct result of our sanctions, hundreds of thousands were suffering and dying. We knew how to stop it.

As for your ridiculous claim that Saddam was "murdering millions" and we had to murder hundreds of thousands to save millions...it's utter nonsense all across the board. You're full of shit and spouting a bunch of neocon propaganda.
Click to expand...
Again you are simply resisting thought to try to emote all over this thang. I get that. Saddam murdered whole villages, with vigor and purpose. You have a choice, you either let him continue the massacre and enjoy taking responsibility for that, or you do something to stop it and take responsibility for that. Which do you choose?

You answer no questions, assume I have made some statement, and then continue to believe that judging others somehow absolves you of your own choices.

Here, I'll try again to repeat the questions:

Which do you prefer, doing nothing and taking responsibility for the continued genocide, or doing something to stop it and taking responsibility for that?

Why do you believe that when Saddam chose to spend money given to him to buy food and medicine elsewhere that it is the fault of the people that provided the money for food and medicine?

Nothing you do can absolve you of the responsibility of your choices, and simply pointing out that either choice is "bad" doesn't change that. You have come up with no solution, so we now know you would prefer the option of taking no action to stop evil, why do you think it is better? What makes your choice less morally objectionable?

I will admit this is the first I've heard of you're being an agnostic. I consider that a slur, but what are you going to do. Actually I think you are just very confused. Maybe you can find something else to call yourself? I guess it's okay because I am not really that much of an agnostic these days. I don't know how the others will feel though. I can't imagine they will feel good.
Click to expand...
This is because you don't pay attention, and still can't tell the difference between a question and a statement. You almost got it right. One of the things I said was a statement.

I am an Agnostic. <- This is a statement.

Which do you prefer? <- This is a question.

Now, can you grab some courage and tell me which moral path you choose? The do nothing and let "evil" thrive option, or the do something to stop it even if it means taking some actions that you may dislike option?

And please remember this simple truth: Being judgmental does not absolve you of the consequences of your choices unless you provide a more moral pathway. Tell me what action should the world take in the face of genocide that you would support, because sitting on your hands while judging the people with the courage to choose is, IMO, a morally vile action.
 
Damocles said:
Again you are simply resisting thought to try to emote all over this thang. I get that. Saddam murdered whole villages, with vigor and purpose. You have a choice, you either let him continue the massacre and enjoy taking responsibility for that, or you do something to stop it and take responsibility for that. Which do you choose?

You answer no questions, assume I have made some statement, and then continue to believe that judging others somehow absolves you of your own choices.

Here, I'll try again to repeat the questions:

Which do you prefer, doing nothing and taking responsibility for the continued genocide, or doing something to stop it and taking responsibility for that?

Why do you believe that when Saddam chose to spend money given to him to buy food and medicine elsewhere that it is the fault of the people that provided the money for food and medicine?

Nothing you do can absolve you of the responsibility of your choices, and simply pointing out that either choice is "bad" doesn't change that. You have come up with no solution, so we now know you would prefer the option of taking no action to stop evil, why do you think it is better? What makes your choice less morally objectionable?


This is because you don't pay attention, and still can't tell the difference between a question and a statement. You almost got it right. One of the things I said was a statement.

I am an Agnostic. <- This is a statement.

Which do you prefer? <- This is a question.

Now, can you grab some courage and tell me which moral path you choose? The do nothing and let "evil" thrive option, or the do something to stop it even if it means taking some actions that you may dislike option?

And please remember this simple truth: Being judgmental does not absolve you of the consequences of your choices unless you provide a more moral pathway. Tell me what action should the world take in the face of genocide that you would support, because sitting on your hands while judging the people with the courage to choose is, IMO, a morally vile action.
Click to expand...

Damo it really doesn't take any "courage" for me to call bullshit on your false premise and point out you are spouting neocon propaganda. Why don't you use the infants thrown out of their incubators thing?

If I refuse to intervene to stop the imaginary throwing of infants out of the incubators am I evil? Well Darla? LOL

I always knew you were a warmonger, but a different kind. You have a psychological need to put a cuddly face on your war mongering. You cast yourself as the savior. Then insist others play along in your imaginary world.

And yes I understand that calling yourself an agnostic is a declarative statement. I simply noticed this is the first I've heard of it. You always called yourself a Buddhist before.
 
Damocles said:
Again you are simply resisting thought to try to emote all over this thang. I get that. Saddam murdered whole villages, with vigor and purpose. You have a choice, you either let him continue the massacre and enjoy taking responsibility for that, or you do something to stop it and take responsibility for that. Which do you choose?

You answer no questions, assume I have made some statement, and then continue to believe that judging others somehow absolves you of your own choices.

Here, I'll try again to repeat the questions:

Which do you prefer, doing nothing and taking responsibility for the continued genocide, or doing something to stop it and taking responsibility for that?

Why do you believe that when Saddam chose to spend money given to him to buy food and medicine elsewhere that it is the fault of the people that provided the money for food and medicine?

Nothing you do can absolve you of the responsibility of your choices, and simply pointing out that either choice is "bad" doesn't change that. You have come up with no solution, so we now know you would prefer the option of taking no action to stop evil, why do you think it is better? What makes your choice less morally objectionable?


This is because you don't pay attention, and still can't tell the difference between a question and a statement. You almost got it right. One of the things I said was a statement.

I am an Agnostic. <- This is a statement.

Which do you prefer? <- This is a question.

Now, can you grab some courage and tell me which moral path you choose? The do nothing and let "evil" thrive option, or the do something to stop it even if it means taking some actions that you may dislike option?

And please remember this simple truth: Being judgmental does not absolve you of the consequences of your choices unless you provide a more moral pathway. Tell me what action should the world take in the face of genocide that you would support, because sitting on your hands while judging the people with the courage to choose is, IMO, a morally vile action.
Click to expand...

AMERICA DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ BECAUSE "Saddam was murdering whole villages."

We attacked Iraq because of supposed WMD .. that we gave him.

You're attempting to re-invent the war rationale to cover Bush and the republicans ass.

The Bush administration made a series of claims prior to the Iraq War, each intended to support the idea that Saddam Hussein was a grave and imminent threat. None of these claims were true.

Eight Pre-War Claims Refuted:
• No weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq.

• No mobile biological weapons labs were found in Iraq.

• Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa.

• The aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons development.

• Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

• Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to al-Qaeda.

• There was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

• The implication that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11 was untrue.

The Costs of War:
• After four years, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has brought with it more than 100,000 civilian and military deaths.

• Millions of Iraqis have been displaced from their homes. Nearly 2,000,000 have fled the country.

• Untold numbers of people have been mentally and physically wounded .. and untold numbers are dead..

• War expenditures have exceeded $500 billion.
http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts.php

Additionally. Bush and Cheney were led inro war by an Iranian double-agent, Ahmad Chalabi .. and the result of America's attack on Iran .. we empowered the Iranians in the region more than they could have accomplished by themselves. We virtually handed Iraq to Iran like a wonderful Christmas present.

Everything about our actions in Iraq was mindless.
 
blackascoal said:
AMERICA DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ BECAUSE "Saddam was murdering whole villages."

We attacked Iraq because of supposed WMD .. that we gave him.

You're attempting to re-invent the war rationale to cover Bush and the republicans ass.

The Bush administration made a series of claims prior to the Iraq War, each intended to support the idea that Saddam Hussein was a grave and imminent threat. None of these claims were true.

Eight Pre-War Claims Refuted:
• No weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq.

• No mobile biological weapons labs were found in Iraq.

• Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa.

• The aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons development.

• Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

• Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to al-Qaeda.

• There was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

• The implication that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11 was untrue.

The Costs of War:
• After four years, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has brought with it more than 100,000 civilian and military deaths.

• Millions of Iraqis have been displaced from their homes. Nearly 2,000,000 have fled the country.

• Untold numbers of people have been mentally and physically wounded .. and untold numbers are dead..

• War expenditures have exceeded $500 billion.
http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts.php

Additionally. Bush and Cheney were led inro war by an Iranian double-agent, Ahmad Chalabi .. and the result of America's attack on Iran .. we empowered the Iranians in the region more than they could have accomplished by themselves. We virtually handed Iraq to Iran like a wonderful Christmas present.

Everything about our actions in Iraq was mindless.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Darla said:
Damo it really doesn't take any "courage" for me to call bullshit on your false premise and point out you are spouting neocon propaganda. Why don't you use the infants thrown out of their incubators thing?
Click to expand...

However it does to recognize that not doing anything at all is a moral choice with consequences. You have no courage to face the moral consequences of your choice, instead you pretend you are absolved because you criticize the choices of others.

If I refuse to intervene to stop the imaginary throwing of infants out of the incubators am I evil? Well Darla? LOL
Click to expand...
The difference is, it wasn't imaginary.

I always knew you were a warmonger, but a different kind. You have a psychological need to put a cuddly face on your war mongering. You cast yourself as the savior. Then insist others play along in your imaginary world.
Click to expand...
You again confuse questions with statements. Since you believe that inaction has better consequences I simply want you to explain why you think such or tell me what would be the better action. That is a question, one which you either fear or are incapable of answering.

What action do you believe the world should take in the face of atrocities that would not be either allowing the atrocities to take place (bad moral choice) or acting to stop it with some consequences (possible bad moral consequence). Until you find a better solution, the UN will continue to vote for sanctions when faced with these decisions.

And yes I understand that calling yourself an agnostic is a declarative statement. I simply noticed this is the first I've heard of it. You always called yourself a Buddhist before.
Click to expand...
I am a Buddhist. One doesn't exclude the other. Buddhism has nothing to say on the topic of god at all. It is simply your lack of knowledge of the philosophy/religion rather than me being unclear.
 
Darla said:
Damo, did you support our intervention in Libya?
Click to expand...

Not particularly, mostly because I didn't believe the outcome would be better than what was there already. The outcome matters, it would only be a moral action if people will actually be better off, otherwise it simply is an increase in suffering with no positive moral value at all.
 
Damocles said:
Not particularly, mostly because I didn't believe the outcome would be better than what was there already. The outcome matters, it would only be a moral action if people will actually be better off, otherwise it simply is an increase in suffering with no positive moral value at all.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
Damocles said:
However it does to recognize that not doing anything at all is a moral choice with consequences. You have no courage to face the moral consequences of your choice, instead you pretend you are absolved because you criticize the choices of others.


The difference is, it wasn't imaginary.


You again confuse questions with statements. Since you believe that inaction has better consequences I simply want you to explain why you think such or tell me what would be the better action. That is a question, one which you either fear or are incapable of answering.

What action do you believe the world should take in the face of atrocities that would not be either allowing the atrocities to take place (bad moral choice) or acting to stop it with some consequences (possible bad moral consequence). Until you find a better solution, the UN will continue to vote for sanctions when faced with these decisions.


I am a Buddhist. One doesn't exclude the other. Buddhism has nothing to say on the topic of god at all. It is simply your lack of knowledge of the philosophy/religion rather than me being unclear.
Click to expand...

Well, let me give you one example, one very current example. I do not support the sanctions against Iran. Nor do I accept the reasons given for them. My "solution" would be diplomatic relations, but the bottom line is, we have no right telling anyone they can't have a nuclear weapon when we have them and we know Israel has them.
 
Darla said:
Well, let me give you one example, one very current example. I do not support the sanctions against Iran. Nor do I accept the reasons given for them. My "solution" would be diplomatic relations, but the bottom line is, we have no right telling anyone they can't have a nuclear weapon when we have them and we know Israel has them.
Click to expand...

sure we have the right. funny coming from you who believes she has the right to ban people from a message board.
 
blackascoal said:
AMERICA DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ BECAUSE "Saddam was murdering whole villages."

We attacked Iraq because of supposed WMD .. that we gave him.
Click to expand...
We are talking about sanctions, not our invasion, please keep up with the actual conversation.

You're attempting to re-invent the war rationale to cover Bush and the republicans ass.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, I am speaking of sanctions which were placed on Iraq, and are the subject of the thread. I was never in support of Bush's war in Iraq. You should remember that, you were here for part of it, but people like Darla should especially. This is just an attempt to distract from the reality that choosing to do nothing is still a choice, one for which we would be responsible.

The Bush administration made a series of claims prior to the Iraq War, each intended to support the idea that Saddam Hussein was a grave and imminent threat. None of these claims were true.

Eight Pre-War Claims Refuted:
• No weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq.

• No mobile biological weapons labs were found in Iraq.

• Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa.

• The aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons development.

• Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

• Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to al-Qaeda.

• There was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

• The implication that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11 was untrue.

The Costs of War:
• After four years, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has brought with it more than 100,000 civilian and military deaths.

• Millions of Iraqis have been displaced from their homes. Nearly 2,000,000 have fled the country.

• Untold numbers of people have been mentally and physically wounded .. and untold numbers are dead..

• War expenditures have exceeded $500 billion.
http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_facts.php

Additionally. Bush and Cheney were led inro war by an Iranian double-agent, Ahmad Chalabi .. and the result of America's attack on Iran .. we empowered the Iranians in the region more than they could have accomplished by themselves. We virtually handed Iraq to Iran like a wonderful Christmas present.

Everything about our actions in Iraq was mindless.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat one more time. We are speaking of sanctions and the supposed responsibility of those who gave money for food and medicine when the leader of a nation chose to steal that money. Attempting to distract from a moral discussion of ideas to simplify it into "I hate Bush" is solely pandering to the basest ideologue. Something I am trying to avoid in my participation of this discussion.

I too hated Bush, but it doesn't change that if we choose to do nothing at all, when faced with this kind of choice, then we are responsible for that choice, just as responsible as we would be if we chose, as we did, to invade.

Sometimes life isn't easy and we have to choose between the lesser "evil". Which action do you think should be taken if faced with a failed diplomatic mission, a leader who deliberately starves their people, kills villages, and attempts genocide?

If they are white and in Europe we seem to support intervention (See Yugoslavia), if they aren't quite as white it seems that "we" care a little less about the genocide thing...

BTW - As for what I think of Iraq... The sanctions were working, and we should have simply investigated further. We would have found out that there were no WMD without invasion, and the Sanctions and no-fly zones effectively ended Saddam's genocidal mania.
 
Darla said:
Well, let me give you one example, one very current example. I do not support the sanctions against Iran. Nor do I accept the reasons given for them. My "solution" would be diplomatic relations, but the bottom line is, we have no right telling anyone they can't have a nuclear weapon when we have them and we know Israel has them.
Click to expand...

Well, you and I agree on this one. The "solution" in this case would be diplomacy, and even if they failed it would be no worse than Pakistan holding nukes. Even Iran is not stupid enough to attack knowing it would mean their total destruction.

However I spoke of these circumstances: Genocide, systematic torture, rapine, theft of international funds given for food.

Diplomacy will do nothing to help those we allow to starve, be tortured, killed unjustifiably, raped... etc.

If we choose to do nothing, then we are responsible for that decision. If we choose to do something we are responsible for that decision. When faced with such a choice what action do you think we, as a nation, should take? IMO, doing nothing at all is worse than using sanctions and invasion still worse (unless directly attacked, of course). Or you can say, "You should have talked longer!" and criticize those who made choices and believe it absolves you of the moral responsibility in action (either by choosing to let it continue (diplomacy) or taking action (sanctions) to stop it, both are an action with moral consequences). Choosing to continue actions that have already failed is just another version of "do nothing".

The US has a history of both, and even the invasion... We are capable of all the choices. My questions are what you would prefer and why you think it therefore morally superior to the other choices?
 
Darla said:
Well, let me give you one example, one very current example. I do not support the sanctions against Iran. Nor do I accept the reasons given for them. My "solution" would be diplomatic relations, but the bottom line is, we have no right telling anyone they can't have a nuclear weapon when we have them and we know Israel has them.
Click to expand...

BRAVO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top