Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on October 27, 2008, 04:10:36 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7693583.stm
:rolleyes:
Just when you think America's policy in the Middle East couldn't get any more idiotic, they manage to surprise you.
-
I might write a comment, I might write references to other articles and such...but right now I feel I can say only one thing:
:lol:
-
Seconded.
Silly A-Rabs :).
-
I'm almost surprised...but not. Whatever they could do wrong in the region...they have done wrong. No matter what...come January 2009 the US will be in far better hands.
-
You know, that I think of it George's statement is even more irritating due to the fact that Berlusconi(and, supposedly, all Italians :doubt:) support Bush and have a very high consideration of him. Silvio claimed that Bush turned out to be a good president... :mad:
I recall an old British band, the "Talk Talk", and one of their famous songs...uhm..."Such a shame"....it fits admirably...
-
Silly I-Talians :).
-
I might write a comment, I might write references to other articles and such...but right now I feel I can say only one thing:
:lol:
Seems an appropriate reaction to 8 innocent people killed.
-
You mean silly 70+ years old man whose name is Silvio :p
-
No matter what...come January 2009 the US will be in far better hands.
Funny thing is, this is exactly what Barack Obama has claimed he would do to 'take out' Osama bin Laden. I don't agree with it, as it's a blatant violation of a nation's sovereignty and would lead to utter chaos if every nation did the same.
Such things should be handled by the UN with international support, and as a permanent member of the Security Council and its primary funder, the US has the influence to make it so. The harm done to the US, international relations, and Middle East stability by this kind of thing far outweighs the benefit of killing a single terrorist.
-
just hopes bin ladins not visiting Meca that day
:nervous:
-
Killing civilians who you don't like the look of is the right thing to do IMO.
If you kill 5,000,000 people at least 1 of them has to be a terrorist!
(In case you didn't notice this post was intended sarcastic.)
-
and an unamed american official has said that an important terrorist/arms:ppl smuggler was killed in raid....... sources bbc radio and routers
-
and an unamed american official has said that an important terrorist/arms:ppl smuggler was killed in raid....... sources bbc radio and routers
That's probably half-true.
Like, they thought he was there, but he wasn't and just decided to start killing people randomly.
-
Nobody will believe until Fox news say so!
LIVE on Fox!
A terrorist leader has recently been killed in a heroic air strike in Syrian territory...
-
and on more recent news, an Albanian terrorist network,
The hammer of Light Hard Light Productions was shut down by US Marine forces.
Wait... we seem to be having techni... OMFG AAAARGHJH!!!
And that`s how we toked Earth. Thanks CNN.
But seriously, once again USA proofed it hates itself.
-
Get those ballots in, folks.
-
Get those ballots in, folks.
Vote McCain.
-
waits for the helicopters
-
wow split n locked
-
Vote McCain.
Al Qaeda agrees with you. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html)
-
Don't you American's listen to Greenday? "Bombs away is your punishment" (for existing).
I don't see how they work out that some people living in the middle of nowhere are terrorists. In fact, if one is, all people within a 100m radius must also be killed in case they are also terrorists... :doubt:
Actually, Bush himself could be labelled a terrorist...(note that I do not support terrorists of whatever race)
-
I think we all knew he was going to do something stupid like this either against Syria or Iran, possibly to try and force the next administration to expand the military adventure.
-
Well they needed to hit somewhere so they could claim to have fresh intelligence when they get Bin Laden right before the election. :nervous:
-
Is it just me, or did that article not mention the President once?
-
Authorizing an attack on foriegn soil at a level below at least the Secretary of Defense is grounds to get yourself thrown in military prison for the rest of your life. (Hell, technically speaking getting shot is on the table, though I doubt it'd actually happen.) Nobody lower in the command structure then at least a three-star could even hope to make it stick.
I am unprepared to judge this action entirely unwarranted. Syria hasn't exactly cooperated, and if the operation was successful the grim truth is it probably saved quite a few Iraqi civilians.
...there's also the minor matter that the Syrian record on dealing with civilians is not too good, and if they had been cooperative, the bodycount probably would have been noticibly higher.
-
i think we shoulda used nukes
-
Vote McCain.
Al Qaeda agrees with you. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html)
Interesting article..However, ever heard of reverse psvchology?
Maybe they deliberately say they support McCain so people wouldn't vote for him, cause they fear him more than Obama?
We now return to our discussion in progress:
@Nuke - you would ALWAYS use nukes. For everything.
-
Vote McCain.
Al Qaeda agrees with you. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html)
Interesting article..However, ever heard of reverse psvchology?
Maybe they deliberately say they support McCain so people wouldn't vote for him, cause they fear him more than Obama?
We now return to our discussion in progress:
@Nuke - you would ALWAYS use nukes. For everything.
I, for one, frequently perform reverse psychology on private, password-locked message boards.
-
Maybe they deliberately say they support McCain so people wouldn't vote for him, cause they fear him more than Obama?
This has already happened.
Give McCain some credit. He pulled that off all by himself :).
-
Perhaps the Syrians were at a funeral? I wonder how certain they were that their man was there, I bet it wasn't over 51%.
Watch Eagle Eye
-
so did Bush personally order this strike, because if not what is the point of the title.
-
so did Bush personally order this strike, because if not what is the point of the title.
Even if he personally didn't, someone in his administration must have. The buck ultimately stops with him.
-
so did Bush personally order this strike, because if not what is the point of the title.
Even if he personally didn't, someone in his administration must have. The buck ultimately stops with him.
Military does run its own show too occasionally.
Ever consider that not everything is a US government conspiracy?
-
Ever consider that not everything is a US government conspiracy?
It's GenDisc...why would you suggest a silly thing like that?
-
Military does run its own show too occasionally.
Ever consider that not everything is a US government conspiracy?
Frankly I find the idea that the military can decide to just fly into another country and start shooting stuff a much more worrying prospect than if Bush ordered it.
-
We won't need to worry about Bush in a few months........... Unless the iluminati get involved. :p
-
Which is why I'm worried by the attitude of people who seem to want to say that this is just the military acting the way the military should. Bush will be gone in a few months. If this was a unilateral attack from the military without government oversight then those people will still be around, regardless of whoever wins.
Now can you imagine the ****storm that will ensue when the so-called terrorists are thought to be in Iran?
so did Bush personally order this strike, because if not what is the point of the title.
I rejected the title America Decides It Hasn't Caused Enough Trouble In The Middle East since I felt it would yet again get me accused of Anti-Americanism. If you want I can change it. :p
But if this wasn't Bush's orders and he thought it was a bad idea he can immediately sack or punish the person who ordered it. Otherwise it is his responsibility.
-
Military does run its own show too occasionally.
Authorizing an attack on foriegn soil at a level below at least the Secretary of Defense is grounds to get yourself thrown in military prison for the rest of your life. (Hell, technically speaking getting shot is on the table, though I doubt it'd actually happen.) Nobody lower in the command structure then at least a three-star could even hope to make it stick.
Then they were total friggin' morons.
-
I rejected the title America Decides It Hasn't Caused Enough Trouble In The Middle East since I felt it would yet again get me accused of Anti-Americanism. If you want I can change it. :p
How about 'Trouble in the Middle East, Bush Accused of Terrorism'?
-
Bush is President of a country, if he is not to be held responsible for its actions towards other countries, then what is the point of his title? ;)
-
Well part of the premise of this title is that Bush has cause previous trouble in the Middle East. Like freeing Iraq? Keeping Iran and its nuclear program at bay? It's not like he was the first one to intervene in Middle Eastern politics. Sometimes the president is just doing the best he can to pick up the pieces. Of course, we could have left Iraq alone, and stayed out of Iran's affairs, etc. But saying he's caused enough trouble is quite sensational and biased though.
-
You really should put sarcasm tags after a comment like that. People might think you're serious when you talk about freeing Iraq. :p
-
if the military did this on there own , then it still falls on bush as he is the commander in chief as such so the buck stops there ...
Well part of the premise of this title is that Bush has cause previous trouble in the Middle East. Like freeing Iraq? Keeping Iran and its nuclear program at bay? It's not like he was the first one to intervene in Middle Eastern politics. Sometimes the president is just doing the best he can to pick up the pieces. Of course, we could have left Iraq alone, and stayed out of Iran's affairs, etc. But saying he's caused enough trouble is quite sensational and biased though.
bush did not free Iraq , yes he did remove Saddam from power but at the same time had zero planning in place for the ppl and at the last count more than 200,000 civilians dead..., as for the Iranian nuclear program , that we will never know as it has been as well managed as the weapons of mass distruction , and alkidah links in Iraq, there will always be tension in this region as Long as the Israel /Palestine issue is unresolved with the Israel state holding a nuclear arsenal and willing to use it, other countries will try to have a nuclear deterrent,
and never forget only one country has used nuclear weapons against civilans
-
Blinks.
Well part of the premise of this title is that Bush has cause previous trouble in the Middle East. Like freeing Iraq? Keeping Iran and its nuclear program at bay? It's not like he was the first one to intervene in Middle Eastern politics. Sometimes the president is just doing the best he can to pick up the pieces. Of course, we could have left Iraq alone, and stayed out of Iran's affairs, etc. But saying he's caused enough trouble is quite sensational and biased though.
Are you being serious here?
-
A true magician never reveals his secrets.
-
A true magician never reveals his secrets.
but he does get bit by the rabbit and shat on by the doves from time too time
-
A true magician never reveals his secrets.
You're not a magician though.
-
I suppose the way I look at it is that if the Iran military launched a missile attack on a nearby country, you can be damn sure that Bush, or anyone else, would not be saying 'Don't blame Ahmadinejād, it was his army that did it.'
-
God i wish we had made it a national mission to break ourselves of oil dependence 7 years ago. By now we could have broken loose and could actually be fairly objective with our dealings with the region. That or it would have been nice if we had looked a little beyond the USSR during the Cold War :P Well hopefully the next administration keeps their eye on the ball when it comes to energy independence.
While it's funny to point and laugh at the US and the FUMTU situation thats been our current administration's foreign policy; against the whole of historical screw ups its relatively minor. The US has only been in a position to screw over other countries for 50 years, most nations have been doing it for centuries, even millennia.
-
I suppose it's more a question of when that who, the US is in the unfortunate position of being the 'Empire' of the information age, where the whole world is watching.
50 years ago, if the UK bombed a village of dissidents in India, nobody in the UK really found out unless the Government wanted them to, and when people did find out, maybe 40 years later, then its a case of 'Well, that was then, we've changed.', which makes it sound like a voluntary thing, not the fact that everyone is now watching.
Psychology and Politics are a dangerous mixture.
-
politics and anything is a dangerous mixture
scratch that
politics are dangerous when in the hands of idiots
scratch that
politics are just dangerous
and psychology is for sheep
-
Yeah, I suppose people who are about to commit terrible acts and kill people wouldn't really be helped by psychology would they. :doubt:
(my point is, there's a place for it, and it's not just for sheep)
Hell, I think a lot of politicians would be helped by a little counseling.
-
Yeah, I suppose people who are about to commit terrible acts and kill people wouldn't really be helped by psychology would they. :doubt:
(my point is, there's a place for it, and it's not just for sheep)
Hell, I think a lot of politicians would be helped by a little counseling.
counselling maybe , i think a lot of politicians would be helped more by water boarding.....
-
The danger of Psychology and Politics is the fact that it works. If it didn't apply to the majority, it wouldn't be a very viable form of psychology.
Politicians themselves have always had a knack for it anyway, otherwise they wouldn't last long as politicians, however, nowadays large sums of money are spent paying people to work this stuff out. Take, for example, the growing belief that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or the fact that so few questions are asked about the supposed WMD's that Saddam had nowadays.
Millions of local currency are spent by governments in finding ways not to deal with problems, but to avoid admitting they actually exist, or in playing them down as someone elses' problem. It's much easier, apparently, to stick their nose into peoples' personal lives, tell them how to live, how to raise their children etc, than to actually take responsibility for things like education which have a direct effect on quality of life. So they tell people 'you should be living better lives' whilst taking no tangible action to give them the opportunity to do so.
-
like i said
and psychology is for sheep
as long as we lie on our backs and except what politicians do and say then we are sheep... hudling together and waiting
politics must have a sense of responsibility and community but as soon as we see any form of politics trying to do this it is daemonised by the large "democratc" states
-
God i wish we had made it a national mission to break ourselves of oil dependence 7 years ago. By now we could have broken loose and could actually be fairly objective with our dealings with the region. That or it would have been nice if we had looked a little beyond the USSR during the Cold War :P Well hopefully the next administration keeps their eye on the ball when it comes to energy independence.
Damn straight, but with the stranglehold the oil industry has on our political system (the politicians like Bush who placate them) I'm somewhat skeptical that this will happen.
-
'US strike' on Pakistani village
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45162000/jpg/_45162616_292d4f91-5fce-4a13-a975-55d979a4256d.jpg)
At least 15 people have been killed in a suspected US missile strike in Pakistan, security officials said.[/b]
They said the attack hit a house in the village of Mir Ali, in North Waziristan, bordering Afghanistan.
Reports said the target of the attack was an al-Qaeda operative, but it was unclear if he was among the dead.
Officials named the man as Abu Kasha, believed to be Iraqi. Residents said a Pakistani tribesman lived in the house. The US military has not commented.
The US has launched many missile strikes from Afghanistan against suspected militant targets recently.
Border tension
In Friday's incident, two missiles were fired by a pilotless "drone" aircraft, anonymous officials told Reuters news agency.
On Sunday, a suspected US missile strike killed 20 people, including a top Taleban commander Mohammad Omar in South Waziristan, witnesses and officials said.
Tensions between the US and Pakistan have increased over the issue of cross-border incursions against militants by American forces based in Afghanistan.
Pakistan's foreign ministry said it had voiced its concern to the US envoy in Islamabad on Wednesday.
"It was underscored to the ambassador that the government of Pakistan strongly condemns the missile attacks which resulted in the loss of precious lives and property," the ministry said in a statement
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7702679.stm
-
Just as a twist: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/10/syria-did-damas.html
-
It does seem a bit of a reach to me to say that Syria must have authorised the raid simply because they didn't shoot down the American helicopters. Especially when there is another obvious reason why they didn't.
Because they're not ****ing stupid!
-
It couldn've been the frakking Scorponok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eHJJQ0JQi0&fmt=18) and we wouldn't be any wiser... That said, I suppose karajorma's explanation is the more probable of the two, but apparently anything is possible in that area. :ick:
-
It does seem a bit of a reach to me to say that Syria must have authorised the raid simply because they didn't shoot down the American helicopters. Especially when there is another obvious reason why they didn't.
Because they're not ****ing stupid!
Yes, because if Syria had--God forbid--defended itself against the big bad United States, we might have just decided to send that country back to the Stone Age. Watch out Syria! :rolleyes:
Not defending the theory Syria gave us the go-ahead (that's simply ridiculous), but do you have any idea how silly your theory sounds?
-
I think he has a valid point.
Do you really think the powers that be would let the downing of US helicopters slide, even if it was our own fault?
-
Yes, because the US's image is tarnished with the world by this point. Maybe if we hadn't already pissed off every part of the world for one reason or another, the US might be able to play that card.
Fact is, the past five years have collectively been a foreign relations disaster. By this point, Syria couldve shot the helicopters, because, honestly, what's the US going to do in response?
Nothing. We can't afford to launch a full scale attack on another country. If we did label Syria as a country harboring terrorists and imposed embargoes, who would be on our side for it to make a difference?
-
No doubt gordon brown would kneel before bush.
And also he'd help out.
-
And I'm sure we'd never invade a country with faulty intelligence when the UN disapproves.
-
Fact is, the past five years have collectively been a foreign relations disaster. By this point, Syria couldve shot the helicopters, because, honestly, what's the US going to do in response?
A cruise missile attack on some arbitrarily picked military installation seems to be the standard US response to anything they don't like when they don't want to actually invade.
-
And I'm sure we'd never invade a country with faulty intelligence when the UN disapproves.
If you'd read my post you'd see that I said we can't afford to invade another country.
And the Iraq debacle just underscores my point about the US having shot its relations with the rest of the world.
Fact is, the past five years have collectively been a foreign relations disaster. By this point, Syria couldve shot the helicopters, because, honestly, what's the US going to do in response?
A cruise missile attack on some arbitrarily picked military installation seems to be the standard US response to anything they don't like when they don't want to actually invade.
I really hope you're not trying to compare Infinite Reach to what happened in Syria.
Because that would be silly if you did.
-
Are you seriously telling me you couldn't see the Bush government responding to Syria shooting down one of their helicopters?
You're acting like America's options are an invasion or just taking it. That's ridiculous.
-
No I can't, because the cruise missile bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan were responses to terrorist attacks, not a country defending itself, which completely invalidates your reference to Operation Infinite Reach. With regards to Syria, the US was at fault in the first place by sending the helicopters, and responding militarily to a Syrian shoot-down would only confirm the helicopter attack as an act of aggression, rather than an operation aimed at killing a single al-Qaeda member.
-
gotta say that Syria complaining about naitonal souvereignity is a hoot.
Lebanon anyone?
-
No I can't, because the cruise missile bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan were responses to terrorist attacks, not a country defending itself, which completely invalidates your reference to Operation Infinite Reach. With regards to Syria, the US was at fault in the first place by sending the helicopters, and responding militarily to a Syrian shoot-down would only confirm the helicopter attack as an act of aggression, rather than an operation aimed at killing a single al-Qaeda member.
You really expect the Bush government to put there hands up and go "Hmmmm. An entire helicopter full of dead soldiers. Our bad! They shouldn't have been there in the first place. Sorry families of the dead, we screwed up"
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.
-
Fact is, the past five years have collectively been a foreign relations disaster. By this point, Syria couldve shot the helicopters, because, honestly, what's the US going to do in response?
A cruise missile attack on some arbitrarily picked military installation seems to be the standard US response to anything they don't like when they don't want to actually invade.
I hate to say it, but I agree with Kara. Even Clinton did that. I wish they'd cut it out.