|
How does the U.S keep getting away with this sh*t? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| thesauce23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
 |
B/c of that(the pic above), we now own 2 more countries and about atleast 100,000 people have been killed.. yea u see what i mean? thats our(US Gov't) mindset. You take 3000 of ours, we'll take 100,000 of yours.. think Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima/Nagasaki |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
It is naive to think that hunting down terrorists is an "American only" priority... Hunting down, arresting or killing terrorists is a GLOBAL priority.
Madrid
London
It is naive to think that hunting down terrorists is an "American only" priority... Hunting down, arresting or killing terrorists is a GLOBAL priority. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by jon jon
RJ as if. lol |
You're right. We should simply concede to terrorist demands because (a) their desire to wipe out democracy is completely reasonable; and (b) history has proven that once terrorists have what they want, they will always cool off and leave the rest of the world alone.
(If you haven't figured out by now that I'm being sarcastic - I am.)
Appeasement of terrorists leads to what we have been seeing in France and the UK: an escalation of terrorist activity. Ignoring terrorists is equally ineffective. There is only one other alternative.
It is truly a tragedy that innocent people die in the midst of the fight between terrorists and counter-terrorists. In a perfect world, nobody would die and the terrorists would be caught, handcuffed, and brought in to stand trial. This isn't always possible. At least the counter-terrorists kill innocent people by accident; the terrorists do it deliberately. |
|
|
| dnmr |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
|
there were doing this long before 9/11
- Carney |
|
|
| 4-play |
| While I don't get involved in such debates (it surely opens a can of worms), I just am starting to believe that this can be a never ending battle. 'You kill mine, I kill yours' - thats what seems to be the consensus these days. Its pretty sad what this world is coming to. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by dnmr
there were doing this long before 9/11 |
If by "they" you are referring to terrorists, then you are right:
Timeline of Terrorist attacks in America or on Americans abroad, from 1920 to today. In the past 10 years:
| quote: | 1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt and Days Inn, in Amman Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. |
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by thesauce23
B/c of that(the pic above), we now own 2 more countries and about atleast 100,000 people have been killed.. yea u see what i mean? thats our(US Gov't) mindset. You take 3000 of ours, we'll take 100,000 of yours.. think Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima/Nagasaki |
You mean two countries now have had free elections, women are free from oppression and the world is safer.
This figure of 100,000 has been debunked for quite some time (3 years to be exact), you might want to read about it:
| quote: |
"The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:
We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.
Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."
|
>>There's more here at the source<<
I'm not disputing your post or what happened, I'm simply saying war is tragic and lives are lost but if you're going to be pissed off, at least be informed and pissed off ;) |
|
|
| DigitalMP |
Thank you Diginut, as always.
I'll post a lot more tomorrow, when I'm sober. The best I can do now is spell check.
Priorities:
1. Kill bin Laden (he's in Paki, keep pressing
2. Kill al-Zarqawi (ke's in Iraq - let him fall into the wrong place at the wrong time)
3. Watch that Afghani-Paki border...everyone's there
4. Press, press, press - no one is on your side but you. You're doing the right thing. If you stop the fight against terrorism, no one will continue, an Al Qaeda/Taliban will spread rampanlty once again. Please don't give up. You're the world's only hope. Just tell Bush to get a ing clue before he ignorantly invades another country with timing that does not become the interest those who matter the most. |
|
|
| d!abolic |
1. That's a stupid question because the US is a military superpower. That's like asking how a UFC fighter could get away with taking candy from todlers.
2. There are a lot of conflictng reports about what actually went on. Naturally, the media will go with whatever will attract the most attention. Some reports have very clearly identified the people killed, and they were nearly all militants. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigitalMP
Priorities: |
5: Make the most awesome sandwich mankind has ever seen
6: ...
7: Profit! |
|
|
| las3rjock |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
You mean two countries now have had free elections, women are free from oppression and the world is safer. |
Out of these three claims, only the first is plausible. There's no way to prove the other two, and there are many who would disagree with the first claim.
| quote: | | This figure of 100,000 has been debunked for quite some time (3 years to be exact) |
The linked article from Slate attempts to discredit the 100,000 figure on the grounds that the 95% confidence interval is extremely wide (8,000 to 194,000). The article makes the logical leap that because the 95% confidence interval is so wide, the 100,000 figure should be considered meaningless. I would argue that 95% confidence interval is too strict a requirement. The Lancet probably demands at least 95% confidence interval in any epidemiological or statistical studies that it publishes. For most epidemiological studies or clinical trials, one can narrow the confidence interval by increasing the number of trials. Among other things, it would be immoral to keep waging wars just so you can improve your estimate of the death toll. If we relax the confidence interval to about 70%, that gives an estimate of about 53,000 to 146,000 lives lost, with the maximum-likelihood estimate still at 98,000.
The Slate article also tries to compare the death toll estimate to voting estimates. I would argue that such a comparison is flawed. Voting estimates can ultimately be compared to some benchmark, namely one can count all of the ballets and come up with the actual number of votes cast for a candidate or proposition to which we can compare our estimates. There is no way to find a similar benchmark for evaluating death toll estimates--we cannot (and probably do not) want to wage multiple wars just so we can distinguish deaths due to bullets or bombs from deaths due to natural causes.
The death toll is just one of a few things to consider when deciding if the Iraq war is justified. Ignoring whether the intelligence claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction is valid, there is also the matter that hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on military action that violates the sovereignty of a foreign nation-state. There is also the unprecedented action of openly deposing a foreign government. (The CIA probably has some experience in this, but they don't publicly replace foreign governments) Feel free to draw your own conclusions--personally I think the lives, the money, and the political capital could have been better spent. |
|
|
|
|
