H3 Air Strike - Page 3




 
--
 
December 3rd, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxen
Emmm,... human right, beautiful words , i think fergusen will be your answer baby.
Or a good movie baby
And I remember some words: abo ghoraib, guantanamu, hiroshima, nakasaki, antaba, uss vincenss ,orange factor and a long list of crimes.
Emm ... training of Hamas and hizballah and also ARMING them and as soon as possible the west bank will have new hamas, even you forgot Shia militants in Iraq , Afghanistan and some other countries that will surprise you in near future. US and NATO have more than 700000 troops in all over the world what are they doing in middle east what right will allow them to terror our scientists. The war shape is changed baby. IRGC will expand in all over the world. The liberalism era is going to end.
You mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were destroyed by atomic bombs by the US during the final stages of WW2. More Japanese and Americans would have died if the bombs had not been dropped and Japan taken by force. It's est. that up to 1/2 a million GI's would have died and perhaps millions of Japanese defending the home islands. Also the Empire of Japan was an incredible murderous empire killing 10 million innocent civilians in China, Singapore, the Philippines and the East Indies. Not to mention the brutal torturing, starving and murdering of hundreds of thousands of POW's. How can you even begin to compare the US to the crimes committed by the Empire of Japan?

Yes US foreign policy has resulted in the deaths of civilians, however this has never been the goal of the US and the Allies or Alliance.

Look at your old enemy Iraq under Saddam another war criminal using poison gas on Iranian troops w/o warning and on the Kurds. Now here is a war criminal.

When Iran overthrew the Shaw, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards killed thousands.

The US is not perfect but we don't export murder.
December 3rd, 2014  
moxen
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
You mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were destroyed by atomic bombs by the US during the final stages of WW2. More Japanese and Americans would have died if the bombs had not been dropped and Japan taken by force. It's est. that up to 1/2 a million GI's would have died and perhaps millions of Japanese defending the home islands. Also the Empire of Japan was an incredible murderous empire killing 10 million innocent civilians in China, Singapore, the Philippines and the East Indies. Not to mention the brutal torturing, starving and murdering of hundreds of thousands of POW's. How can you even begin to compare the US to the crimes committed by the Empire of Japan?

Yes US foreign policy has resulted in the deaths of civilians, however this has never been the goal of the US and the Allies or Alliance.

Look at your old enemy Iraq under Saddam another war criminal using poison gas on Iranian troops w/o warning and on the Kurds. Now here is a war criminal.

When Iran overthrew the Shaw, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards killed thousands.

The US is not perfect but we don't export murder.
In case of Japanese Empire Your right and They were real animals. But why you think war crimes can make peace, with this idea you premitted your enemies to destroy your people to aquire peace. It sounds not good as your logic.
But about vietnam you tried to save a dictatorship, was that for peace?
In case of saddam, we dameged by saddam but after saddam 1000000 People killed in Iraq by your army or terrorists, we perefered a crazy dictator like saddam instead of everyday people murdering, but we say thank you because of destroying one of our major enemies and make an enemy to a friend for us.

17000 Mojahidin khalgh were killed because of their murdering, the mojahidin was in us terrorist list until recent years.
You're supporting these terrorists to damage Iran.
And let me know, if Israel was in Europa or North America was there any tension between us?
US is using israel to access profits in M.E. with weapone trading and oil.
December 3rd, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
I think a few fundamental questions that need to be asked before this denigrates into a flame war is if people should be allowed to make their own decisions?

Should any type of government have the power to censure or forcibly assert dominance over a viewpoint they don't like?

Should people be allowed to think for themselves and believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples right to the same?

If the answer is "no" to any of these questions on any side...well...I don't think this conversation is going to be very productive because these ideas are fundamental principles to Western thought. I'm not saying it is right or that it is even better, what I am saying is that any intrusion into this is going to be vehemently defended.

People in the West are and have been for a long time, very suspicious of their own government when it comes to personal freedoms. We can do this because we have a reasonable assumption that our rule of law works and that in most cases, justice will be served by an impartial judiciary authority that is as transparent as possible. The presumption of innocence is absolutely core to our thinking and our ability to articulate things that may be divisive, controversial, and even offensive is absolutely crucial in order to ensure the government can be held accountable to the same degree as the individual.

It's not a perfect system and we have a lot of flaws that have yet to be corrected. The point is that the system is ever evolving so that we can try to create a better system for everyone.

To imply that your motivations are to destroy our way of life and even worse our way of thinking is not really a good way to get people to actually listen to what you have to say. Just a thought...
--
December 8th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
I think a few fundamental questions that need to be asked before this denigrates into a flame war is if people should be allowed to make their own decisions?

Should any type of government have the power to censure or forcibly assert dominance over a viewpoint they don't like?

Should people be allowed to think for themselves and believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples right to the same?

If the answer is "no" to any of these questions on any side...well...I don't think this conversation is going to be very productive because these ideas are fundamental principles to Western thought. I'm not saying it is right or that it is even better, what I am saying is that any intrusion into this is going to be vehemently defended.
The wonder in some countries they have no or little experience with democracies. Do they actually miss not being one? Many Mideast nations Saudi Arabia, Jordan, many of the Gulf states “just to name a few, in the Mideast” are not democracies, yet are at this time relatively stable. In Germany the Weimar Republic was unpopular with one main reason that Germany really didn’t want a democracy and allowed the 1st strongman into power, Hitler who in a sense picked up were the Kaiser had left off. Of course this changed once the Allies forced democracy down Germany neck. Now they are a shining example of a democracy. Still for generations they preferred a strongman at the helm. Just one case in point. The point is do some nations miss what they don’t have. And when given it lose it in the turmoil of not knowing how to handle the democratic process. Africa also has many examples.
Personally I believe the democratic way is the way to go but the people must desire it and strive for it.
 


Similar Topics
Air strike kills 15 civilians in Yemen by mistake: officials
What should fly in the Iraqi Air Force?
Differences between Army and Air Force
Chinese military aircraft present situation