Home | Community | Message Board


Cannabis Seeds UK
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Kraken Kratom Shop: Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 23,898
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 50 minutes, 50 seconds
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1254945 - 01/28/03 09:58 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

"In Kosovo, senior British commanders claimed that the American-led bombing campaign killed three civilians for every Serbian soldier"

That statistic, if true, would be in better perspective if we knew how many innocent people would have been killed by those Serbian soldiers.

If it's 2, then what was the point? if it's 20 then they saved 17 lives for every 3.

The enemy would make it a lot easier if they didn't use innocent people as human shields, but they love to hide in populated civilian areas.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1255001 - 01/28/03 10:14 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

***your above statement mirrors my point. ***

perhaps if i rephrased it then you'd see my point.

We have the ability to defend ourselves against any country with overwhelming force. is that better? I hate to have conversations where i have to tame my language.

basically we americans are murderers is that what you're saying? What does that make Canada?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 7 days
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1255114 - 01/28/03 10:43 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Apples and Oranges...No-one would ever compare American Military to Canadian Military. Ours is used primarily for peace keeping...yours seems to focus on conquest as of late.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1255137 - 01/28/03 10:53 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Ours is used primarily for peace keeping...yours seems to focus on conquest as of late.

How late is "of late"? Can you please tell us the most recent country America added to its list of colonies?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 7 days
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1255151 - 01/28/03 10:58 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Come now Pinky...you know exactly what I'm referring to...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1255176 - 01/28/03 11:06 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

No, I don't. What is the latest country the US has "conquered"?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 7 days
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1255191 - 01/28/03 11:11 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Okay...I'll humour you and start this dance again since you seem to want to continue the same old argument. How about Afghanistan and the U.S. friendly regime that was installed recently...or the soon to happen Iraq regime change?

Now of course you will say "wait..those aren't actually considered American states or new land..etc." But we both know that the U.S. isn't after their land per se...like I've said long before it was "fashionable"..it's all about the oil.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (01/28/03 11:25 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1255221 - 01/28/03 11:22 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I understood exactly what Rono meant. But I have a feeling he can also understand why you can't (or won't). For you, there is only one kind of "conquest".

It's funny how the most fundamental free marketeer we have here can also be so anxious to defend U.S. foreign policy.

Does the libertarian concept of an army for national defense apply to overseas investments? I can't see why else you would defend U.S. world militarization.

And can't you see the problem with that? U.S. businesses and U.S. government/military are leap-frogging all over the planet and you're here trying preserve the integrity of the word "conquest".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: hongomon]
    #1255258 - 01/28/03 11:31 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Does the libertarian concept of an army for national defense apply to overseas investments?



No, not from where I stand. Businesses that invest in foreign countries should bear the full burden of making a bad investment in a country that is unstable or does not have well established property rights. Why should the tax payers who do not own the business be forced to pay for the military for the benefits of a few or to 'underwrite' foolish business decisions? The only justifiable use of the military is for the common defense. Using the military to promote overseas business interests is merely another form of corporate welfare.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Edited by Evolving (01/28/03 11:34 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1255358 - 01/28/03 12:12 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Rono writes:

How about Afghanistan and the U.S. friendly regime that was installed recently...

a) The head of the provisional government in Afghanistan was chosen by Afghanis in a process supervised by the United Nations.

b) The reason he was able to be chosen is that the Taliban had been ousted by the Northern Alliance with assistance from the UN coalition forces operating there. Remember the reports in the media of the Northern Alliance warlords foaming at the mouth because the UN forces weren't bombing the Taliban? The US reply was that they were not interested in bombing TALIBAN forces, they were interested in AL-QAEDA forces. In the eyes of the Northern Alliance, THEY were the ones responsible for ousting the Taliban, NOT the UN coalition forces.

...or the soon to happen Iraq regime change?

You speak of a POSSIBLE future US action as if it is an accomplished fact. The US may not need to do a thing -- Hussein may be assassinated tomorrow.

Look, if you want to make sloppy statements don't get miffed when you are called on it. If you meant to say the US military is "used aggressively" or the US military is used for "direct intervention", then SAY SO. To say that lately the US military is used for "conquest" is inaccurate. You're an intelligent and articulate man. I presume you choose your words rather than just randomly typing the first one that pops into your head.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 7 days
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1255380 - 01/28/03 12:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Okay...here we go again...

Quote:

a) The head of the provisional government in Afghanistan was chosen by Afghanis in a process supervised by the United Nations.


And this leader just happens to be a former employee of Unocal?...this would strike most people as suspicious at the very least.

Quote:

You speak of a POSSIBLE future US action as if it is an accomplished fact. The US may not need to do a thing -- Hussein may be assassinated tomorrow


Oh come on...you know perfectly well that GW isn't going to deploy 150,000 troops on the borders of Iraq and not use them. The invasion of Iraq is a foregone conclusion.



--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1255436 - 01/28/03 12:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

And this leader just happens to be a former employee of Unocal?...this would strike most people as suspicious at the very least.

Are you saying his selection was rigged by the United States? Why then has not a single member of the UN body who supervised the selection process protested?

The invasion of Iraq is a foregone conclusion.

So you say. What if Hussein were assassinated tomorrow? Do you say there are no people who would like to see him assassinated rather than see US troops cross Iraq's borders?

Once again, my objection is with your sloppy phrasing and the use of loaded words. Your phrase was: "yours seems to focus on conquest as of late."

An act that has yet to occur (and may not occur) doesn't fit the syntax of your statement -- "of late".

Face it, I pointed out your use of the word "conquest" was inappropriate, and now you are thrashing around trying to come up with an example of a US conquest -- to no avail. I have already conceded that the US military can arguably be said to be used inappropriately. It can NOT be said that it is used for CONQUEST, and that is all I was pointing out. Concede the point and move on.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 7 days
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1255482 - 01/28/03 12:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Are you saying his selection was rigged by the United States? Why then has not a single member of the UN body who supervised the selection process protested?


Yes...that is exactly what I am saying...notice you said "selection"..not "election".

Quote:

I have already conceded that the US military can arguably be said to be used inappropriately. It can NOT be said that it is used for CONQUEST, and that is all I was pointing out. Concede the point and move on.



I concede nothing...it just shows to me that your version of
the word "conquest" is more antiquated than mine...and when it comes down to it, none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread. You have not refuted any of the points I brought up, you are just arguing about my choice of words. You can do better....




--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (01/28/03 12:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1256946 - 01/28/03 10:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Rono writes:

Yes...that is exactly what I am saying...notice you said "selection"..not "election".

I did that deliberately, because I (unlike others posting in this thread) believe in using words accurately. The word "selection" is accurate because the entire populace of Afghanistan was not involved in a nationwide balloting process to ELECT the current head of the provisional Afghani government. However, it was a group of Afghanis who decided who would head their provisional government, not a group of Americans. I ask again, if it was America who dictated who would head the provisional Afghan government, why have we not heard a peep of protest from anyone who was there? There was certainly no shortage of UN observers present.

I concede nothing...it just shows to me that your version of the word "conquest" is more antiquated than mine...

Ooooh... "antiquated"... I love it. Standard Libbie ploy -- deny that words have specific meanings; insist that the word "conquest" means whatever a Libbie says it means, then bash the opponent for not being clairvoyant enough to know which secret Libbie decoder ring to use today to figure out what has actually been stated.

you are just arguing about my choice of words.

And if I had said "The UN coalition aided the Afghan rebels in LIBERATING Afghanistan," you would not have objected to my choice of words? Yeah, right. It was the USSR who CONQUERED Afghanistan, not the USA.

none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Correct. In reference to the topic, ask yourself what it means when there are more "friendly fire" casualties in a war than enemy casualties. Someone capable of thinking logically would conclude that the OVERALL casualties of the conflict must have been pretty small, indicating that the objective was accomplished just about as efficiently as is possible in an undertaking as inherently dangerous, complex, and uncertain as a war of liberation.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (01/28/03 10:41 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: hongomon]
    #1256954 - 01/28/03 10:52 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

hongomon writes:

I understood exactly what Rono meant.

It doesn't surprise me that you as a Libbie would be fluent in Libbiespeak. I, unfortunately, lack that fluency.

It's funny how the most fundamental free marketeer we have here can also be so anxious to defend U.S. foreign policy.

I don't defend all of it. I have stated here repeatedly my opposition to past US foreign policy such as the Viet Nam war. I have also stated my opinion that foreign aid is a bad idea, and that the US should withdraw from the UN.

In the case of Afghanistan, however, I have no objection to their trying to capture Al-Qaeda members protected by the Taliban. If bin Laden and the boys had been holed up in Yemen or the Sudan or Libya or wherever and the government of the country involved had been harboring them, I would have supported US attempts to capture them in Yemen or the Sudan or Libya.

Does the libertarian concept of an army for national defense apply to overseas investments?

Nope. I'm with Evolving on this one.

I can't see why else you would defend U.S. world militarization.

I don't defend US "world militarization". Where have I done that?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1257102 - 01/29/03 12:59 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

****Apples and Oranges...No-one would ever compare American Military to Canadian Military****

That is correct, however the canadians are followers and go along with just about everything we do. So i guess Canadians are just as murderous as we are eh?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Edited by Innvertigo (01/29/03 01:01 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1257440 - 01/29/03 05:41 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I have no objection to their trying to capture Al-Qaeda members protected by the Taliban If bin Laden

Sorry to break this to you but Bin Laden was never captured. With attention now focused on the oil fields of Iraq (after sewing up the Afghan pipeline) there isn't even the pretence of trying to find Bin Laden. Y'think perhaps someone was lying to you when they said they were going in to "find Bin laden"?

Do you feel foolish for believing your masters?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 7 days
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1257495 - 01/29/03 06:13 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Where to start, where to start...

Quote:

However, it was a group of Afghanis who decided who would head their provisional government, not a group of Americans. I ask again, if it was America who dictated who would head the provisional Afghan government, why have we not heard a peep of protest from anyone who was there?




Please explain to me which Afghanis decided who their provisional leader would be...The same ones that the U.S. was bombing and would be more than happy to cut any deal with the U.S.? Or the Northern Alliance who was already in the back pocket of the U.S.? You deluding yourself if you honestly think that the present leader of Afghanistan is not in bed with U.S. Oil...hence Bush. Afghanistan's interim leader, Hamid Karzai, Turkmenistan's President Niyazov, and Pakistani President Musharraf met in Islamabad to sign a memorandum of understanding on the trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project that I mave brought up several times. The three leaders will met for more talks on the project in October 2002. The Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistani gas pipeline accord has been published and can be viewed at the following website: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts22622.htm
This is old news and should be common knowledge to anyone outside the U.S.

Appointed Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai is a former paid consultant for Unocal.
President Bush appointed Zalmy Khalilzad as a special envoy to Afghanistan. Khalilzad is also a former employee of Unocal...
Now flash back to Feb. 12, 1998 - Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca (who also became a special ambassador to Afghanistan) Testified before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. ]http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm]



Quote:

Ooooh... "antiquated"... I love it. Standard Libbie ploy -- deny that words have specific meanings; insist that the word "conquest" means whatever a Libbie says it means, then bash the opponent for not being clairvoyant enough to know which secret Libbie decoder ring to use today to figure out what has actually been stated.


No secret decoder ring required Pinky...any dictionary would work just as well.
con?quest [ k?n kw?st, k?ng kw?st ] (plural con?quests)
noun
1. subjugation of enemy after fighting: taking control of a place or people by force of arms

2. something acquired by conquering: something that has been acquired through force of arms, for example, land, people, or goods ...as in OIL


Invertigo...

Quote:

****Apples and Oranges...No-one would ever compare American Military to Canadian Military****

That is correct, however the canadians are followers and go along with just about everything we do. So i guess Canadians are just as murderous as we are eh?



Does the phrase "If you're not with us you're against us" mean anything? Trust me..the vast majority of Canadians want nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy, but as a U.S. ally we are forced to do things that we are against. You'll notice that the U.S. is getting little or no support for this recent Iraq fiasco.







--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (01/29/03 07:13 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Rono]
    #1258504 - 01/29/03 12:30 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Rono asks

Please explain to me which Afghanis decided who their provisional leader would be...

Most likely the leaders and high-level advisors of the allied Afghan forces which ousted the Taliban. In any case, it was whichever ones the UN committee in charge of supervising the formation of the interim administration of Afghanistan decided were appropriate to make the decision. It shouldn't be hard to do a search of news stories from the time the interim administration was being formed. The POINT here is that it was Afghanis who made the choice, not Americans.

If those Afghanis decided it would be advantageous for them to choose someone they felt would be more acceptable to Americans than another, what's wrong with that? Remember that this is an interim administration (even the text of the pipeline agreement you linked refers to it as such). When the UN eventually gets off its butt and finally arranges the democratic nationwide elections its mandate calls for, it is entirely possible that the current leader of that administration will be voted out -- there is apparently a lot of popular support for the ex-King of Afghanistan.

taking control of a place or people by force of arms

America doesn't control the country of Afghanistan or the people of Afghanistan. In actuality, even the current Afghani interim administration doesn't yet control ALL of Afghanistan.

something that has been acquired through force of arms, for example, land, people, or goods

What land, people, or goods have been acquired by America in Afghanistan? So far, it seems that the only thing that has been acquired is the POSSIBILITY that American firms will be allowed to make up part of the consortium that will eventually build a trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline. Note that a pipeline is not oil -- the oil is not Afghanistan's to give away in the first place, it belongs to Turkmenistan. Note further that the link you provided which publishes the full text of the Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistan pipeline accord makes no mention of any country owning the pipeline. This is what it has to say on OWNERSHIP of the pipeline:

"The parties to the agreement will choose an international consortium that has experience of carrying out such projects, and the pipeline will be built by, belong to and be used by that consortium."

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 23,898
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 50 minutes, 50 seconds
Re: U.S. friendly fire incidents... [Re: Phred]
    #1259054 - 01/29/03 02:52 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

If I recall correctly, we wanted the factions that supported the Taliban involved in building the new government, but none of the other tribes did.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Kraken Kratom Shop: Red Vein Kratom

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Friendly fire Xlea321 850 18 01/19/03 07:53 AM
by Anonymous
* "Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam" EchoVortex 1,357 14 03/23/03 01:03 AM
by Xlea321
* American Education= conspiracy?
( 1 2 all )
DoctorJ 3,475 20 07/18/03 01:50 AM
by CeeEssGee
* SNIPERS!!
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 1,408 36 06/10/03 02:04 AM
by uno
* U.S. Soldiers Kill 13?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Madtowntripper 2,397 75 04/29/03 10:14 PM
by Madtowntripper
* US Convoy hit then Russian convoy hit-- By the US
( 1 2 3 4 all )
PsiloKitten 2,272 71 04/10/03 01:06 PM
by Azmodeus
* reasons TO hate corporate america
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Psilocybeingzz 5,297 109 01/08/03 11:10 PM
by GazzBut
* Typical trigger happy yanks killing allied troops SalviaEngland 456 2 03/31/03 03:48 PM
by Azmodeus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,234 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.085 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 17 queries.