EPTOn June 24 2010 05:44 GuerrillaRepublik wrote:
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
u call it "war"? i call it genocide of the middle eastern population
I agree.
Obama fires McChrystal, installs Petraeus - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
I agree. | ||
|
InToTheWannaB
United States4770 Posts
| ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:46 Mohdoo wrote: Its not like stuff was exactly peachy before we got there. The entire Middle East situation has always been a mess that needed to be fixed. Just because we're sorting it out now rather than later doesn't mean that its any worse. LOL so killing even more people and staining Americas hands with even MORE blood fixed the situation? | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:50 InToTheWannaB wrote: Military men have no business questioning whats being asked of them. There job is to simply get whats being asked of them done, as best they can. If the President ask for your opinion as a general you give it to him, but if he ask you to do something. Even If you think its a bad idea. You shut up and try to get it done. Thats right. Shut up and obey orders you little serf! Sorta sounds like our entire government. | ||
|
GreatFall
United States1061 Posts
| ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
Me too... Except who's committing the genocide? American troops, or umm, the terrorists specifically targeting civilians by blowing themselves up in crowded markets? Durka durka durka. | ||
|
SpaceElvis
United States10 Posts
It would be one thing if he'd been overheard saying those things, say, at a party to one of his friends or colleagues. Obama probably still would have been pissed but there just would have been a private notice of displeasure. But he said it, on the record, to a journalist. When a serving military commander badmouths his commander-in-chief and govt on the record, to the press, without prompting, then there's really no choice except to fire him. It's Douglas MacArthur all over again. Something to remember is that Obama likely did not WANT to fire McChrystal. He's a politician and he reads history. He knows exactly how popular firing MacArthur made Truman and I think he can accurately predict that a lot of people will not look kindly on this sacking. Even for people who support the decision, it does not paint a picture of a mission going well. It is in fact more bad news for him, and if he could have buried the whole matter and handled it internally he would have, as it would have been in his best interests politically. I'm not sure I buy the idea that McChrystal got fired deliberately. I honestly have more respect for him as a person than to believe he'd do that, which would amount to basically abandoning his guys in a dishonorable way. Not to mention that his career may now be over. I think it's more likely that he just forgot himself and had hubris take over. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
| ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:49 EpiCenteR wrote: So we "won" a war that should have never been started. Thousands of our souldiers have dies, tens of thousands, if not more, innocent iraqis have been murdered, and put this country in a horrible fiscal hole. All for what? Throwing out a regime who had NOTHING to do with 9/11? Capturing wmds that did not exist? Yeah, we sure have won this war. It was all totally worth it. That's right. When you lose an argument, don't concede the point. Pivot to another point. That's how we do it on the internet. EDIT: Also you need to relax, I think. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 24 2010 05:58 Warrior Madness wrote: Me too... Except who's committing the genocide? American troops, or umm, the terrorists specifically targeting civilians by blowing themselves up in crowded markets? Durka durka durka. Both. | ||
|
Vile Animus
United States34 Posts
Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive. | ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
I don't see how you could argue that anyone did anything morally wrong here. Sure McChrystal's statement might have been highly unprofessional but from a moral standpoint it was the right thing to do if you want to contribute to ending the war. I personally think this war needs to go on for atleast as long as it takes to pressure the Pakistani government into destroying the taliban within Pakistan. To do this you NEED control over the Afghani border otherwise the taliban will just go back to Afghanistan. Terrorism was started by all the wars in the middle east that made some people over there get a deep hatred for westerners (primarily americans). To end terrorism you need to root out tthe terrorist military organisations and destroy them aswell as reach out to the people. People down there have been living in war zones for a long time and need to be reassured that we are the good guys. But neither of that can be acomplished unless the Taliban are forcefully disarmed. No ammount of diplomacy will change the minds of those few sorry ass brain washed wrecks. Their organisation needs to fall and to speak about diplomacy with these people is in my opinion naive. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:09 Vile Animus wrote: Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive. What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.? | ||
|
Lysis
United States147 Posts
On June 24 2010 03:30 snotboogie wrote:General McChrystal (head guy in charge in Afghanistan) was just fired by Obama for comments he made in a Rolling Stones article that disparaged the President and his camp's decisions on war. Actually I believe General McChrystal resigned from his post as commander of forces in Afghanistan, and was not fired by Obama. Please fact check yourself before posting. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:18 Lysis wrote: Actually I believe General McChrystal resigned from his post as commander of forces in Afghanistan, and was not fired by Obama. Please fact check yourself before posting. Politically, the two are unrecognizable. | ||
|
Lysis
United States147 Posts
Maybe that is so. But in terms of how people view the news, resignation is a bit more dignified than getting sacked. But if the OP wishes to sensationalize his post, he should at least get the terminology correct. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:21 Lysis wrote: Maybe that is so. But in terms of how people view the news, resignation is a bit more dignified than getting sacked. But if the OP wishes to sensationalize his post, he should at least get the terminology correct. Agreed  | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:16 EpiCenteR wrote: What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.? Slaughter? Genocide implies a malicious intent against a group. By definition, it's "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." That hasn't happened in Iraq. Most of the killing has been random, and generally the Sunni suicide bombings against Shi'a population centers have been out of desperation. You wouldn't call IRA bombings genocide. | ||
|
GuerrillaRepublik
United States34 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:09 Vile Animus wrote: Calling a war a genocide diminishes the weight of the word and repulsiveness of the concept. If every war is a 'genocide' then how do you distinguish a real genocide from a war? If you want to avoid genocides, diminishing the word to meaninglessness isn't productive. I didnt call war a genocide, because i know and believe it isnt a war but a genocide of middle eastern population. War? can you exaplain to me how its a war? because of this "War on terror" ?We "invaded" iraq because we the great nation that has the right to have 750+ military bases around the globe and act like a world dictator thought that Suddam had the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. But did we find it? no. Suddam was shown as a evil facist dictator that mass murdered there own civilians with chemical weapons but who gave them the chemical weapons? We did, to help them go to war with Iran. We invaded Iraq and just we calling it a war. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On June 24 2010 06:16 EpiCenteR wrote: What else do you call the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.? See there. It's more complex than yes/no genocide, because it depends too much on different definitions of the term, which means, in my opinion, it becomes useless to discuss it in that way unless you want to argue about it in a legal context. I still object to calling lower casualties in Iraq "winning", because that ignores the face the population is hardly any better off than before the invasion. Eventually, of course, violence and internal strife will die down to pre-occupation levels, and there doesn't seem to be any prospect of continuation of the massive violence and attacks on the scale of a few years back, although there still are a lot of suicide bombings, but that is to be expected, and not necessarily caused by any US-military intervention (I'd be interested in sources for that). (not to mention the Iraq government is basically a puppet government set up for oil interests and keeping civil unrest at a minimum. ) | ||
| ||
