Obama administration new measures

Politics International Politics
,
81

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]What’s your point Marb? By “change” Obama never meant “let’s totally retreat from the middle east” for example. [/quote]I know… I know… It just gets to me that a man we should look up to allows such atrocities. From the moment a president allows bombs to be dropped on a foreign land knowing very well that innocents, women and children will suffer tremendously, I just can’t get myself to respect that man.

Surely there has to be better solutions than to bomb innocents?

All these new measures mean squat if at the end of the day Obama’s administration will not put an end to the suffering the US military inflicts onto innocents in countries such as Iraq and Pakistan. I guess that would be my point. It’s a matter of putting some priorities straight.

marboulette

82

Marb:

Define innocent… and why women and children are “innocent” as opposed to men who, what? are all fighting for the cause of Allah as well? Clarify please…

Seems to me that in war, everyone is fair game.

But not to get sidetracked. I am just curious as to how and why Obama seems to be so unable to predict what he needs to do to get policy moved ahead. The man was in the Senate for four years. Surely, he learned something during that time that would have given him an idea that, hey, this is what it is going to take to get things moving ahead. He seems like a bit of a babe in the woods, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see what happens over the next year. Either way though, the economy is going to suck big time for the far forseeable future.

83

[quote=“dantesolieri”]Marb:

Define innocent… and why women and children are “innocent” as opposed to men who, what? are all fighting for the cause of Allah as well? Clarify please…[/quote]I am surprised that anyone would need to have the word “innocent” defined, be it as a noun or as an adjective. But here you go:

–adjective

[color=#008040] 1.free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.[/color] In a context of war… Actually, Iraq and Pakistan never declared war on the US, they are being invaded. I think it’s fair to say that most of the population in Iraq and in Pakistan have not wronged the people in the US. Most of them are people trying to get on with their day to day lives which has nothing to do with politics, terrorists or war.
[color=#008040] 2.free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.[/color]In a context of war against terrorism, if you bomb women and children as well as men who are not terrorists, I’d say you just killed innocents. That’s no better than what the terrorists are doing, IMO.
[color=#008040] 3.not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.[/color]
You don’t actually think that men, women and children in the middle east have any ill intentions directed at the US? Of course this is subject to change once you drop bombs on their heads. The US president may just end up having a shoe thrown at his face if he dares to set foot on a land where his army has inflicted tremendous suffering upon innocents.
[color=#008040]4.not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.[/color]People in Iraq and Pakistan have not caused physical or moral injury to anyone in the US. Yet, we are dropping bombs on their heads. You call that fair game?
[color=#008040]5. devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit.
6. having or showing the simplicity or naiveté of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous.
7. uninformed or unaware; ignorant.
[/color]The people in Iraq are generally uninformed and unaware of the fundamentals behind the US’s military strikes which results in the loss of innocents. What they do know is that the US are invading them when they did nothing to deserve it. Sure, Saddam was a sick man and he hurt a lot of people in Iraq, but now they are bombing Pakistan. And besides, how much sense does it make to kill more innocents because Saddam is killing innocents in the first place? Besides, the fucking guy is dead now. Get the fuck out of there and let them be. How hard is that?

–noun
[color=#008040] 8. an innocent person.
9. a young child.[/color]

Number 8 above, in a context of war, easily apply to the vast majority of the population in Iraq and Pakistan. They have not done anything wrong to the people in the US, so why kill them?

[quote]Seems to me that in war, everyone is fair game.[/quote]Well, except that both Iraq and Pakistan never declared war on the US, they are being invaded. That’s an important distinction, don’t you think? And besides, according to your ideology, this would mean that the people who died during the 9-11 attack were fair game, too? The 9-11 attack is classified as an act of war, isn’t it? So why is it that when innocents die on US soil it’s wrong, but when innocents die in a country that the US invade, it’s fair game? It’s not fair game either way. A fucking abomination is what it is.

[quote]I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]Well, not me. Count me out. Like I said, from the moment his administration authorized the killings of more innocents, I don’t even look at the US as a diplomatic country. I look at them as a bunch of imperialist thugs and war criminals who are doing nothing more than inflicting suffering onto innocents in order to protect the interests of large corporations.

We’re in deep shit, AFAIAC. Obama and his talent as a speaker will surely be able to convince a gullible America that the bombings in Pakistan, for example, are but noble actions on the part of the US military. America will be brainwashed to believe that it’s for its own good, and good for the whole world, too. :s :thumbsdown:

marboulette

84

One was a deliberate attack on a civilian building, designed to maximize civilian casualties for a political end.

The other is an attack on the combatants who do such things, in which civilians were killed. The civilian deaths could not be avoided beyond simply leaving the said combatants alone, or the US would surely have done so.

You don’t see a difference?

[quote]I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why do you think the US is doing this? To protect the interests of multinationals in Pakistan? If such militants gain power in Pakistan, that will be a drop in the bucket of worries. Do you think the Pakistan government doesn’t have a hand in what’s going on? They can’t admit it, but I find it unlikely. It could easily be a mistake, but the US knows what the stakes are and is surely not stirring up the hornet’s nest by acting here without some damn good reasons and after a cautious analysis of the benefits and risks.

85

One was a deliberate attack on a civilian building, designed to maximize civilian casualties for a political end.

The other is an attack on the combatants who do such things, in which civilians were killed. The civilian deaths could not be avoided beyond simply leaving the said combatants alone, or the US would surely have done so.
[/quote]

You’re suggesting that the US is attacking the Pakistani insurgents because they carried out the 9-11 attacks, yet less than two dozen men actually committed that crime. I think a more legitimate argument would be that they are attacking them because they are attacking US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Marboulette’s point seems to be that if the US forces weren’t in Afghanistan, they wouldn’t need to travel through Pakistan, and thus there would be no. However, the reason the US is in Afghanistan has always been that the government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) were both supporters of and financially supported by the political group (al Qaeda) that orchestrated a devastating attack on civilians in the US, and furthermore has pledged to cause more such trouble with economic ruin of the US as an expressed goal.

Leaving them alone was the US military strategy under Bush–to leave them alone in Pakistan and Afghanistan to focus on the war in Iraq. I don’t believe that the US military is intentionally directing these attacks towards civilians. The US military should work much harder to avoid civilian deaths, as well as to work more in cooperation with Pakistan. Making the Afghanistan region one where there is no call to become terrorists will not be an easy task, and the more civilians caught in the struggle, the more difficult it will be.

86

[quote=“twocs”]
You’re suggesting that the US is attacking the Pakistani insurgents because they carried out the 9-11 attacks, yet less than two dozen men actually committed that crime. I think a more legitimate argument would be that they are attacking them because they are attacking US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[/quote]

Me? I wasn’t suggesting that. I agree with you, and would add the aim of preventing a radicalized government taking power in Pakistan. I would also note though that such groups can strike in unexpected places, and in myriad ways.

No doubt. I believe we are working in cooperation with Pakistan though. They have traditionally desired to minimize publicizing that.

87

Given that the US invasion of Iraq made the world a more dangerous place, I don’t have faith in the capability of the US to analyze benefits and risks.

88

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]

One was a deliberate attack on a civilian building, designed to maximize civilian casualties for a political end.

The other is an attack on the combatants who do such things, in which civilians were killed. The civilian deaths could not be avoided beyond simply leaving the said combatants alone, or the US would surely have done so.

You don’t see a difference?[/quote]

It’s debatable, at best, either the people being bombed in Pakistan have anything to do with the 9-11 attack. Same goes with Iraq. The civilians certainly have nothing to do with it. If you compare how many people died on 9-11, and how many people died in Iraq, you can seriously reverse the question. I ask you, don’t you see the difference? It’s a bit of mystery how many people died in Iraq, but estimates range from low to high mid six-figures. How many of them do you think had anything to do with the 9-11 attack, terrorists, politics, etc? In other words, how many people do you think were just civilians like the people who died on 9-11? Not to mention that the death toll for 9-11 really pales in comparison with how many Americans died in Iraq.

How does that make any sense? Are we really better off now than we were where we started? Is the world safer? NO! It’s just that now thousands more lives, families and homes were destroyed.

Just make sense of that for me.

marboulette

89

I wasn’t talking about 9-11, except to point out the difference between the deliberate murder of civilians for political purposes and the death of civilians as a result of a military action, or Iraq. It is my understanding that Obama is going to wind down our presence in Iraq. I was talking about the predator bombing in Pakistan on January 23, and I thought that was the problem in particular you had with Obama.

90

[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“marboulette”]

Just make sense of that for me.
[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about 9-11, except to point out the difference between the deliberate murder of civilians for political purposes and the death of civilians as a result of a military action, or Iraq.[/quote]Yes, I know, and I was pointing out that A- At least 50 times more innocent civilians were killed in Iraq than on 9-11, and B- Far more Americans died in Iraq than on 9-11, and C- At the end of the day more lives were lost on both sides, and the world isn’t a safer place. Hence it doesn’t make any sense.

[quote]It is my understanding that Obama is going to wind down our presence in Iraq. I was talking about the predator bombing in Pakistan on January 23, and I thought that was the problem in particular you had with Obama.[/quote]At this point it is. The guy hasn’t even had time to untie his damn shoes and innocents are already being killed on his watch. Should I not be disappointed? Tell me that the Americans and the world over were not hoping for a president that would put an end to such atrocities. Americans want change, the world needs change, and that is not it.

marboulette

91

[quote=“marboulette”]The guy hasn’t even had time to untie his damn shoes and innocents are already being killed on his watch. Should I not be disappointed? Tell me that the Americans and the world over were not hoping for a president that would put an end to such atrocities. Americans want change, the world needs change, and that is not it.

marboulette[/quote]

Marbouette, I am no fan of America, but I am curious: please tell me how you would have “changed” everything already if you has been president since Jan. 20.

92

One was a deliberate attack on a civilian building, designed to maximize civilian casualties for a political end.

The other is an attack on the combatants who do such things, in which civilians were killed. The civilian deaths could not be avoided beyond simply leaving the said combatants alone, or the US would surely have done so.

You don’t see a difference? . . . [/quote]

Seventy civilians were killed in the attack on the Pentagon on 911. Were their deaths legitimate acts of war?

93

[quote=“trebuchet”][quote=“marboulette”]The guy hasn’t even had time to untie his damn shoes and innocents are already being killed on his watch. Should I not be disappointed? Tell me that the Americans and the world over were not hoping for a president that would put an end to such atrocities. Americans want change, the world needs change, and that is not it.

marboulette[/quote]

Marbouette, I am no fan of America, but I am curious: please tell me how you would have “changed” everything already if you has been president since Jan. 20.[/quote]Did I say that I hoped for Obama to change “everything” within two weeks? I don’t think so. What I’m saying is that the new measures are not significant in terms of foreign policies, and such policies are the main reason people the world over have a beef with the US, including Americans. What I’m saying is that only a few days after he walked in the oval office, Obama authorized more destructions and more lives, families and homes to be destroyed and I find it quite disappointing. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory.

The US have nearly 400,000 troops deployed in over 150 countries. That’s roughly 80% of all countries.

What would I do? Well, geez… There are a lot of options that do not include killing more people, that do not include further damaging the US diplomatic tenure, that do not include spending billions on military ventures that cost more American (and other) lives than the actual 911 attack, and that do not include doing the exact opposite of what the vast majority of the people who voted for “change” were hoping for. Use your imagination.

marboulette

94

Marlboroette,
I guess I just have more patience than you. I never thought that Obama was a miracle worker. Is their any world leader currently the leader of a country with any kind of power who gets perfect marks in your book? Why so hard on him?

95

[quote=“spook”][
Seventy civilians were killed in the attack on the Pentagon on 911. Were their deaths legitimate acts of war?

[/quote]

Was the attack on the Pentagon a legitimate act of war? That’s hard to say. Let’s look at the facts:

Is the Pentagon a military target: Yes
Is Al Qaeda a belligerent nation state: No
Did Al Qaeda declare war on the US: Doesn’t matter as they aren’t a nation state, thereby can’t declare war and don’t have Casus belli

Can an airplane be used in a military fashion: Yes
Is an airplane with civilians in it a military target: No
Is an airplane with military personal in it a military target: Yes
Is a hijacked civilian airplane with only civilians on board a legitimate military participant: No

I would say no, their deaths weren’t legitimate acts of war. Their deaths were as a result of terrorism. You can’t fly a civilian airliner, full of civilians into a military building and call that an act of war. Kamakazi pilots in WW2 used themselves to crash into military targets (US Navy vessels). They didn’t fill up a civilian aircraft full of nuns and use perfidy to try and attack legitimate military targets. That’s what Al Qaeda did.

Al Qaeda is also not a nation state. They have no territoriality, no government, in which to declare war against. The lack there of makes it so that they have no recognized ability to declare war against the US.

96

[quote=“trebuchet”]Marlboroette,
[/quote]That’s a pretty big typo you have there, Mr. trebuchet. Should I interpret that as a friendly gesture?

[quote]Is their any world leader currently the leader of a country with any kind of power who gets perfect marks in your book?[/quote]In my book, there are no world leaders. None that I would follow.

[quote]Why so hard on him[/quote]People are so fucking desensitized, it’s fucking sickening. He is authorizing the killings of other human beings. Why the fuck should I not be hard on him? :s

marboulette

97

Here’s a list of hilarious recent measures that have been and will be effective…NOT!

I just think Obama’s fantastic.
U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes
He keeps on pushing up my future earnings!

I do enjoy laughing while the world burns dollars like they don’t mean a thing. Well at least they are finally admitting it I suppose.

98

It looks like in the light of Obama’s outreach and appeal to the world, he may need to do a little patchwork and conciliation in his own American states. The states give the federal government power and legitimacy, not vice versa.

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty: Obama’s $1 trillion deficit-spending ‘stimulus plan’ seen as last straw

[ul][list][color=#330000]As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

“What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state’s business,” Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND…

The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [/ul][/list:u][/color]

99

[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“spook”][
Seventy civilians were killed in the attack on the Pentagon on 911. Were their deaths legitimate acts of war?

[/quote]

Was the attack on the Pentagon a legitimate act of war? That’s hard to say. Let’s look at the facts:

Is the Pentagon a military target: Yes
Is Al Qaeda a belligerent nation state: No
Did Al Qaeda declare war on the US: Doesn’t matter as they aren’t a nation state, thereby can’t declare war and don’t have Casus belli

Can an airplane be used in a military fashion: Yes
Is an airplane with civilians in it a military target: No
Is an airplane with military personal in it a military target: Yes
Is a hijacked civilian airplane with only civilians on board a legitimate military participant: No

I would say no, their deaths weren’t legitimate acts of war. Their deaths were as a result of terrorism. You can’t fly a civilian airliner, full of civilians into a military building and call that an act of war. Kamakazi pilots in WW2 used themselves to crash into military targets (US Navy vessels). They didn’t fill up a civilian aircraft full of nuns and use perfidy to try and attack legitimate military targets. That’s what Al Qaeda did.

Al Qaeda is also not a nation state. They have no territoriality, no government, in which to declare war against. The lack there of makes it so that they have no recognized ability to declare war against the US.[/quote]

I assume you’re referring to some off again/on again facet of international law for all your unsupported assertions. I say off again/on again because the way the game goes is whenever we’re in the process of hammering hundreds or even thousands of of their civilians into oblivion international law, the Geneva Conventions – pretty much anything in the way – goes right out the window with disdainful cynicism. As soon as the tables are turned though they’re right back on again in full force with every t crossed and i dotted. That’s, of course, why we unsigned our initial agreement to be a party to the International Criminal Court. We would be expected to abide by the same rules we apply to others and that’s just plain unfair.

100

[quote=“spook”]

I assume you’re referring to some off again/on again facet of international law for all your unsupported assertions. I say off again/on again because the way the game goes is whenever we’re in the process of hammering hundreds or even thousands of of their civilians into oblivion international law, the Geneva Conventions – pretty much anything in the way – goes right out the window with disdainful cynicism. As soon as the tables are turned though they’re right back on again in full force with every t crossed and i dotted. That’s, of course, why we unsigned our initial agreement to be a party to the International Criminal Court. We would be expected to abide by the same rules we apply to others and that’s just plain unfair.[/quote]

You may think it’s an on again off again position, and you are entitled to your belief, but I don’t think that’s the case. I also don’t see how my assertions were unsupported. Were the aircraft used in 9/11 the property of civilian airlines? Yes they were. Is the Pentagon a military building? Yes it is. Is Al Qaeda a member of a specific nation state? No. Which of my assertions is unsupported? Please kindly point which ones you take issue with and I’ll try to address them.

The fact is you are attributing unintentional civilian deaths by whatever means, be it accidental shooting, bad intelligence or outright negligence with the deliberate aim of crashing civilian airplanes into civilian (and military) buildings. In the end people die. That the only similarity I can see. The distinction comes down to what purpose the two sides have. If you don’t view there being any legitimate distinction, then it is impossible to contradict your argument. People die in different ways and means every day. The law takes that into account; the difference between an accident resulting in a death and a planned murder.

That distinction in necessary to make. The US military isn’t in the business of purposely killing civilians. Sometimes civilians get killed, by the means I mentioned before. If it is an intentional crime then the parties involved get prosecuted, like the Hadith Marines. If it is an accident then the individuals involved are not held criminally liable, even if it fucks with their head that they killed an innocent family instead of a terrorist training cell. When the two are intermingled in a geographic area as closely as they are, more innocent families end up getting killed than terrorist training cells. That goes double when you pay people for information and the snitch fingers a guy he owes money to.

Where is it that Al Qaeda has to follow the laws of war or international agreements? Just as you point out that the niceties get bent or broken sometimes by the US, I would point out that Al Qaeda never follows them. They have no qualms against using suicide bombers to kill civilians. If you look at the number of civilians who died in Iraq, far more came from suicide bombings and sectarian violence than by direct US attacks. Now the US screwed up by appointing an idiot (Bremer) to the position and that lead to an intensification of the sectarian violence. It would have still happened, but far milder, if Bremer hadn’t done his de-Baathist program. That still doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t the US who was strapping bombs onto people and sending them into crowded marketplaces.

The Geneva conventions and Laws of War try to minimize the number of civilians who are killed. They don’t say that if even one civilian dies, or may die, that action shouldn’t be taken. Thousands of civilians can die without them being directly targeted.