Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 83

Thread: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Might as well be wishing for a perfect world. It is easy to complain that we are not a perfect society.
    I don't think anyone is expecting us to be perfect. Just, you know, cut back a bit on the whole blowing up brown people by remote control.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,044

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Clinton should understand that it is not her business..
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  3. #13
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,958
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    There's a big difference between civilian casualties inflicted from indiscriminate bombardment and those that occur when legitimate military objectives are targeted. Having said this, I do not believe the U.S. should intervene in Syria's civil war. I don't believe the U.S. should be choosing whether or not Syria has a minority Alawite government or a majority-led one. Finally, it wasn't too long ago that the other side in the conflict carried out an indiscriminate massive car bomb attack at a busy intersection in Damascus, claiming many civilian lives.
    I entirely agree with the bolded, but I must bring up the fact that the US and its allies have been intervening in the civil war by supporting the rebels. (See this, this, and this.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  4. #14
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Enemies of the U.S. exist, the Jihad is indeed very real, yet they have become clever enough to not align themselves with any particular nation (directly), and many seem fine with this "arrangement". Take the 9/11 attack as an example, it was carried out using personnel from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, yet the U.S. response was to invade Afghanistan (the location of one of its tiny 'training camps'), stay for over a decade, and likely remain there indefinitely, just as we have in Europe, and Asia after WWII and the Korean "war". The 9/11 attacks resulted in millions of 'moderate' Islamic supporters cheering in the streets in virtually all "Islamic" nations.

    To assert that drone strikes, or any other U.S. action caused the Jihad (or 9/11 attacks), or continue to fuel it is foolish. The "cause" of the Jihad is the competition of ANY western (non-muslim) ideals being introduced into ANY nation of Islamic majority, including our support of Israel in 'the region'. Use of intel, special ops and drones is a very effective way to fight a "war on terror" without the need for nearly as many "civilian" casualties as the Afghanistan style "mock invasions" cause, and for far less costs, politcally or militarily.

    The U.S. essentially has three choices to approach the "war on terror": 1) ignore it, as you seem to propose, and hope that it simply goes away 2) Acknowledge it as a true Jihad, a universal holy war with all of Islam, and conquer and occupy any and all nations that show support for (supply arms, money, personnel or cheer for it) any of this madness 3) use intel, special ops, drones and support trusted local opposition forces that assist us and eleiminate the leadership (as we choose to define them) anywhere in the world that we so choose, on a case by case basis.

    To assert that the U.S. has no standing to make diplomatic statements, or to express opinions as to the 'rights' of foreign gov'ts to engage in the wholesale slaughter of a villiage that includes any that express dissent for the current dictator in charge is insane.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 05-27-12 at 10:55 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    I entirely agree with the bolded, but I must bring up the fact that the US and its allies have been intervening in the civil war by supporting the rebels.
    I'm aware of that and disagree with it. No U.S. interests or the interests of key allies justify the current extent of intervention by the U.S. Most definitely, they don't warrant the kind of military intervention some prominent members of the U.S. Senate have called for on occasion.

  6. #16
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Sure, we have the right to say what we want. I didn't say we didn't. What I said is we won't be taken seriously thanks to our incredibly hypocritical polices. We attack countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and we kill brown people. We illegally intern people with no right to be charged or to an attorney. We torture people and sexually assault brown POWs. We fly drones that kill innocent civilians. Then when another country commits an atrocity on a much smaller scale than what we've done, we point the finger saying, "Look how evil they are." Sure, we have the right to say it, but don't be shocked when people in other countries roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, right, America." Our own policies undermine our influence.

    The best thing we could do to stop terrorism would be to stop being terrorists ourselves. Look at it this way. Imagine we're not the superpower we are. We're the fledgling agricultural nation that we once were. Instead, Iran is the super power with military bases all over the world and they've supported people who've killed Americans. A small group of Americans who hate Iran crash some planes into a big office building in Iran, killing thousands. It's not an action authorized by the US government. It's just some citizens who hate Iran. Then Iran bombs us, killing thousands of Americans who had nothing to do with the criminal attack. Then they fly drones throughout our country in an attempt to take out American "terrorists," but they end up hitting civilians. A bomb comes down and blows up your daughter, splattering her brains right in front of you. Then an American "terrorist" organization or "freedom fighters" as they prefer to be called claims that Iran is evil and should be destroyed. Iran claims it's just fighting back. Who are you gonna believe?

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    What I said is we won't be taken seriously thanks to our incredibly hypocritical polices.
    As noted earlier, there's a big difference between cases of indiscriminate bombardment and cases where civilian casualties occur when military objectives are targeted. Under international law, deliberate targeting of civilians and indiscriminate bombardment are illegal. Military objectives can legitimately be targeted except when expected harm to civilians is excessive relative to the military advantage that is expected.

    Clearly, U.S. enemies won't respect the nuances of international law nor will they recognize such nuances when conducting their propaganda campaign against the U.S. They'll continue to paint with as broad a brush as possible. They'll engage in moral equivocation.

    To date, the U.S. still lacks a robust public relations strategy for dealing with such matters. I also believe the U.S. diplomatic apparatus is underemphasized. Although it is unrealistic to expect that every U.S. Administration will be able to call upon Secretaries of State of a caliber of a Dean Acheson or Henry Kissinger, I believe there is more that the U.S. can and should do to strengthen its diplomacy.

    At the same time, the U.S. military, like any other military force, should do what it can to minimize civilian casualties. That's not necessarily an easy task, especially when enemy combatants mask themselves as civilians (illegal under international law) or operate in close proximity to civilians (this de facto "human shielding" is also illegal under international law).

    IMO, the historic experience should play a much larger role in planning. In other words, one should take data from past operations and compare actual civilian casualties with expected civilian casualties. That data should then be used to adjust expectations for operations going forward. For example, let's say the ratio is 2.5, meaning that for every expected civilian casualty, there were actually 2.5. Then, let's say a strike on a military target is considered and it is expected by commanders to result in 6 civilian casualties. The expected figure would be adjusted to 15. If 15 is considered excessive relative to the expected military advantage, then the attack should not be carried out.

  8. #18
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    As noted earlier, there's a big difference between cases of indiscriminate bombardment and cases where civilian casualties occur when military objectives are targeted. Under international law, deliberate targeting of civilians and indiscriminate bombardment are illegal. Military objectives can legitimately be targeted except when expected harm to civilians is excessive relative to the military advantage that is expected...
    I understand that there's a difference. However, if it's your son or daughter or husband or wife that gets killed via so-called collateral damage, I'd doubt that it would make much difference to you. We end up shooting ourselves in the foot with these military actions and it ends up just giving more propaganda fodder to the terrorists. It's hurting us way more than it's helping us.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-13-12 @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,556

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    In Syria the atrocities are done by the Government, on purpose.

    In the case of " collateral deaths " these are not done deliberately by american troops.

  10. #20
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    We bomb other countries. We have drones that kill innocent people automatically. It's in an attempt to get terrorists, but we end up killing innocents. Then when we express outrage over an atrocity committed by another country, we look like such incredible hypocrites. I don't care which party is in power. This should stop. I would be here with the same objections if Bush Jr. were still president and if it were Condoleezza Rice expressing the outrage. We're outraged? Give me a break.
    The US must stand firm. There are more considerations than what collateral casualties the US may have caused. Russia has stood firm in it's support of Assad. Indeed, "Russia insisted explicit references to Syrian armed forces being responsible for the latest bloodshed be dropped...."Russia said knife wounds on some victims reflected the techniques of his opponents."


    For the US or Clinton to remain silent is to give the appearance that this bloodshed is condoned or at least tolerated by the US and would be extremely irresponsible and smack of a breach of trust in the international community.

    Syrian Carnage Fails to Budge Russia From Mideast Ally - Bloomberg

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •