As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
a
GPIA7R
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
.
GPIA7R on
0
Posts
Though a lot of the times we kill civilians because we're stupid or careless or don't give a fuck because they're not American civilians.
Also, we're already kind of enemies with Russia, just not in the gonna-blow-each-other-up sense anymore. They're run by an evil fucker who wants to rebuild the USSR. Opposing that isn't exactly a terrible thing, as long as we oppose it intelligently.
The second article doesn't present any official statement as to why this way done. I think there is definitely a problem of locals getting paid as informants to make up stories about other locals. That's been going on in military operations all over the world by most major countries for many decades.
And, in general, we kill a lot less bystanders today than we have in previous wars and occupations (well, adjusting for level of violence). That number will never be zero, though.
At the end of the day, we're going to get the fuckers we want to get...we are not going to pass up opportunities to take them out if they present themselves just to spare the feelings (well, respect the sovereignty) of countries that A) don't really like us anyway and
I mean it happens, and every time it happens it reminds me of why we shouldn't be there. The other guys pay no heed whatsoever to civilian casualties, and that ends up getting blamed on us in the rural middle east because we're there.
Every time an American kills 10 terrorists it does little to further our standing in the middle east, but if an American kills 10 terrorists and 1 civilian with a missile, it will hurt our public image. This is why the longer we stay there the more people will join up with "the bad guys"
See, your example is in no way analogous.
Now, what if anti-Mexican revolutionaries were using base camps in Arizona or hiding with relatives in El Paso to avoid capture by Mexican authorities, and we A) refused to apprehend them (or were unable to) and/or
My answer? Not all that long.
Obviously, us being America, Mexico wouldn't do jack shit. But the point is that they'd be perfectly justified if they did. Which just goes to show that you shouldn't harbor the enemies of more powerful nations, because eventually they're bound to fuck your shit over it.
Of course, the fun part is that in general we don't do shit like that anyway...generally the only time we harbor enemies of foreign states is when we harbor political refugees who had the gall to exercise their basic human rights. Generally.
This is true, and it's why I don't support either our general conduct in the region or continued occupation of Iraq. But it's not like we aren't justified in our actions. I'm more worried about the actual results than any moral implications.
The second article, well its harder to say. I can only assume a bunch of people were fairly confident terrorists were in there because the USA doesn't go around with death squads killing people randomly. The article doesn't even say for sure weather any of the people killed were terrorists or not, only that a bunch of locals claim they are civilians.
Yes, they know. Because we are telling them, "Hey, there's a bad guy in your country. He's over there. Please go kill him." And they are telling us to fuck off for whatever reason.
Al Qaeda are killers and will kill anyone of any race or ethnicity that gets in their way. The people that harbor and protect them are hardly innocent.
It sucks that people who aren't directly involved in some things get punished, but then again, it's their fault that they're involved at all.
Secondly, we've given Pakistan and Syria plenty of opportunities to take this matter into their own hands. We're saving their own population from these asshats. They refuse to intervene.
It's a sad, but necessary, evil.
Honestly, these raids into Pakistan and Syria are some of the few good ideas the Bush Admin and the Generals have had. Shame McCain is such a gigantic fucking pussy.
They would be morally justified, huh? What if those "anti-mexican" revolutionaries were friends of America and wanted to topple the corrupt Mexican government and install one friendlier to America? Would the Mexicans be perfectly justified coming in and bombing the fuck out of the revolutionaries, killing innocent American citizens in the process?
Depends on the actions of those revolutionaries. Do they commonly bomb random civilians on the Mexican side of the border? Because that's what insurgents in Iraq do. And that's speaking from the general moral standpoint, of a detached third-party observer. Either way if it was feasible for the Mexican government to do so, they'd be justified in taking such action from their perspective...but feasibility comes down to how powerful they are, how powerful their opponent is, and what world opinion of such an act would be...the last bit is what, at least in theory, can keep corrupt or oppressive governments in check in such situations.
Though yeah, it doesn't always work.
Seems like an invitation to me.
The US is at war with neither Syria nor Pakistan, however. I don't think you could say that these types of strikes are unavoidable.
For as long as these nations make no good-faith effort to ensure that they're not providing a safe haven for the people that we are fighting (even if it's not technically a war) these strikes are a necessity.
Pakistan's government is very new and still fragile. The likelihood of cooperation with US anti-Taliban/AQ efforts is high (the new President's wife was killed by them, after all). We need to do what we can to work with them.
This Frontline episode gives some fantastic insight about that situation, along with Afghanistan as a whole. It also does a good job describing just how insanely fucked up the Taliban are.
EDIT: Pakistan is not "providing" a safe haven. The Taliban literally rolled in and killed pretty much all the local tribal leaders in Waziristan. The Pakistani army isn't doing much about it because it can't, yet.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
And Syria?
I think that so far the US government has been pretty understanding about their situation. They can go after these people themselves, or they can give us permission to handle it for them. We're willing to entertain any offer that actually results in the bad guys being dealt with. We're not willing to have the Pakistanis both refuse to do the work and refuse to let us do the work.
Yeah, fuck those guys.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Ummmm, no one's really been in a position to spearhead that kind of effort in Pakistan. That country is in serious danger of destabilization.
I have a strong feeling the new government will work with us, but right now they've got a ton of shit to work our on their own end (like dealing with a massive fucking earthquake and a huge political opposition). I would be shocked if we didn't have their cooperation in a matter of months, though.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Okay, so we're at least in the same chapter if we aren't on the same page.
As far as Pakistan goes, I'm with ElJeffe...they need to either let us take care of it, or take care of it themselves...it not getting taken care of is not a valid third option. I get that they're trying, but if any country is unwilling or unable to handle this shit I think we're justified in doing what we need to...even though, unfortunately, it's usually going to be messier that way.
See, this is where we disagree. I think the consequences of a bigger rift between the West and Pakistan and the consequential increase in anti-Western radicalism is too large.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I'm pro intervention in Pakistan as long as it's well thought out. No more cowboy bullshit. If we can do that, we could do ourselves a lot of good, both in terms of the war on terror and our international standing.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
1. Russia
2. Korea
3. Iran
4. USA being a dick to any of the above
2. N. Korea is scary. I'll agree with you here. I'm not sure how best to handle the situation, but I don't think forceable disarmament is the answer.
3. Iran as a state isn't that scary. It's the various actors within Iran that are potential problems. It's a very delicate situation, and it needs approached as such. Quickly.
4. I got nothing here. GOBAMA.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
2) N. Korea is only crazy because China lets them be crazy. The only reason that N. Korea is allowed to remain an isolated state is because China uses them as a buffer between them and S. Korea and the US military presence there. And, China doesn't want beef with the US atm. So, it's safe to assume that N. Korea isn't really gonna start a war with anyone.
3) Iran.. I dunno. But Ahmadinajad isn't even really in charge. It's the Theocracy. And, I don't think they're so bent on self destruction as to attack the US or it's allies. Of course, funding terrorists is another thing altogether...
The US and the countries it is invading should be trying to hammer out these guidelines right now, ideally in a public forum *cough* UN *cough*. Maybe this is happening, if it is I'm ignorant of it. If it isn't, I consider the governments of both nations partially responsible for the deaths of any civilians involved.
If the people we're going after are actively involved in mass murder, we should try to respect the sovereignty of Syria through diplomacy. If they aren't responsive, I consider them to be actively aiding these guys. If they can't help, then I question their sovereignty in that particular region. This all depends of course on the evidence against these guys being rock solid. I'd like to see more transparency here.
I also believe we should be making more of an effort to take some of these guys alive, even if it puts our guys at more risk. If we don't have them subdued, then move to subdue them, by killing them if absolutely necessary. I don't think we're justified in killing everyone in the house, including children, just to get one guy every time. Maybe they don't report it, but it doesn't seem like we every bring prisoners back from these raids. I'd rather preserve innocent life then actively take the lives of the guilty unless they pose an immense and immediate risk to others.
Then we'd blow the everloving fuck out of them. In the age of megaton explosives, that's really all we've got when an entire state turns into an irrational actor.
That said, no one on that list is going to do that. Survival instinct keeps the people who control those countries from starting fights they can't win and that are likely to end in their annihilation.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Then join the Army.
Personally I've had enough of being a part of Oceania's military flexing on foreign lands. I won't approve of using 3rd generation warfare and long occupations anymore.
I truly wish that Sen Murtha would have his way, and that America would experience a massive draft. Start pulling the boys out of college, off of their jobs and away from their families; then send them all over to the sandbox... It sounds extreme, but I'm pretty sure that it will get the people moving, and finish this BS 'war on terror,' in a hurry.
Fun fact, you can see crazy bunkers and shit in N. Korea with Google earth.
North Korea is off the terrorist threat list.
North Korea is dismantling their nuclear program, albeit slowly, but its not were living in 2006 after they detonated a nuke underground. I would not consider N. Korea an imminent thread.
I would never call Russia toothless, they still have a shitload of nuclear weapons and a rather large army. I would say Russia has been westernized and they continue to work with the USA on issues like N.Korea even if Russia doesn't play nice with some of its smaller former soviet neighbours. Again, I would say not an imminent threat.
Iran-well we have a bit of a problem here. A theocracy is kind of a scary form of government, and thats where the real power is in Iran. We need to work on peaceful positive solutions that strengthen the bonds between Iran and the International Community, because we don't want to end up with a clusterfuck worse then Iraq. I direct your attention to this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080703026.html
With regard to the USA being a dick...well hopefully Obama will usher in a new era of international relations. But for all the mistakes the USA has made, I feel they were made in an attempt to do the right thing, hindsight is 20/20.
None of these are threats really worthy of fear. They're all problem areas that require a delicate touch to keep things from getting out of hand, and if not handled improperly or ignored they can become serious issues.
They're like cavities. Keep an eye on them, fill them if needed. If you don't fuck it up, you won't have to deal with a root canal.