It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by predator0187
I still don't know with certainty whether the libya intervention was the right thing to do. I may give that impression in all my posts and threads, but the reality is that all of these things are my attempt at a conclusion. But it's only a conclusion on the surface. Underneath inside my mind there's no conclusion yet. I don't have conviction or passion about my thoughts like some do. The problem with the libya intervention was it was too pre-emptive. It was not like pearl harbor where Japan attacks us and we're forced to defend ourselves. More and more wars it seems are less and less clear with respect to their justification. They're getting more abstract. Hard to grasp.
Having said that, Libya's leader did not have the benefit of hte doubt due to his past actions. That's what this boils down to. So while I do not have conviction, I can understand why we intervened. If Gadaffi hd worked harder to earn our trust it would have turned out differently.edit on 10-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman. UK Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed that British planes are in action over Libya and said that the decision was “necessary, legal and right”..
Originally posted by SupersonicSerpent
reply to post by jonnywhite
With gadaffi Britain did nothing to him but he still supplied to IRA with Semtex 100s of women and children was killed because of bomb blasts.
these Muslim country's aren't as innocent as you think.they have been at war with us ever since they figured how to get across the pond 1000s of years ago.
Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. - Hermann Goering
On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007. In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.
On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken September 20 to 24, 2007. As a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.
ORB reports that it has been "tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005."
The ORB estimate was criticised as "exaggerated" and "ill-founded" by one peer reviewed study co-authored by economist Michael Spagat and Josh Dougherty of the Iraq Body Count project.
The video below David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is an American retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought.
More recently, Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.
Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
I think the general consensus is against the West, not specifically America. As for people blaming the American people, they do somewhat have a right to. We see this injustice and do nothing to stop it. Our inability to condemn this behavior indirectly makes us supporters of it. Let us use a hypothetical example of a couple of people ganging up and bullying another person, for whatever reason; eventually, the bullying gets out of hand, and one of the harassers kills the person. The other people would be considered equally as guilty simply because they condoned, or rather did not try to prevent, the murder of the individual. The argument of "well, I didn't deliver the killing blow," really doesn't work. If someone has the power to prevent a great injustice from occurring, and does not even, at the very least, TRY to do so, then that person has blood on his or her hands.
People see our government commit these horrors, then they see us, too distracted by Dancing With The Stars, and too hung up over Kim Kardashian's "marriage," to give a damn about them. You really have to see things from both perspectives. The majority of American people SEEM TO NOT CARE, probably because they are desensitized and brought to believe that they are right and the "enemy" is wrong; as if we have the moral high ground because we can't possibly contemplate the idea that cultures outside of our own skewed culture can exist. Life is life, blood is blood, love is love, regardless of whether the vessel it belongs to is American or Afghan, French or Libyan.
Do people assume that "terrorist towelheads" are some barbaric subhuman species that they cannot feel love and loss? That their lives are somehow worth less than ours because they live somewhere else or have different beliefs? What the hell would you do if you lost your father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, cousin, best friend, neighbor (who many Americans don't even bother to get to know anymore) etc, in a drone attack from a country who was attacking you for a logic defying reason: so that a few companies could profit off of oil and rebuilding while the attacking country bankrupts itself?
This is why we cannot defeat groups like the Taliban; for every 1 suspected Taliban militant (and 50 civilians) that we kill, 10 more join the fray. These people are fighting to drive us out, we have raped their land and their culture, we have orphaned so many children, widowed so many spouses, dismembered so many families; I think they just want to live in peace. The country they had before they were "liberated" was a much safer place.
I'm glad we're leaving Iraq, and hopefully we'll pull out of Afghanistan soon, too, but the damage has been done; our image has been soiled and, given the chance that we ever redeem ourselves, we have forever scarred ourselves and the people whom we've "liberated."
The monster in human truly is inhumane. If god exists he/she/it is too busy sobbing and vomiting to do anything.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
If we somehow erupt into a WW3, and you were put on the draft list and called up to join the forces, would you? Who on here who's posting comments would? How many of us are cowards?
Looking at all these wars going on, all it will take is two opposing superpowers to cause WW3.
What is a coward? A coward is somebody who, through inaction spurring from fear, fails to act and somebody else dies as a result. This is as opposed to somebody who intentionally kills somebody else. So while a coward is not a hero, nor a man you'd want to lean on, a coward is definitely not a murderer.edit on 10-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)