-->
@Username
They probably did not intentionally mean to kill those Ukranian and Canadian civilians.
Iran launches missles at U.S. bases in Iraq
Posts
Total:
90
-->
@Greyparrot
@Dr.Franklin
Lol that plane was an accident what is your point.
-->
@Username
stop defending Iran,If America accidently shot down a plane, the left would be in crazies. Iran did that on purpose, it's a terrorist state
-->
@Dr.Franklin
10/10 argument
-->
@Username
10/10 terrorist sympathizer comment right there,
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Disagreeing with President's actions = sympathizing with terrorism
We never hear what should have been done with Sulimani.
Nothing? With him slaughtering Americans? Is that a serious option?
Talk to Iran? When his killing of Americans was what pleased them in the first place?
Punished Iran some other way that did not involve death? How is that different from allowing Sulimani to continue to kill Americans?
People just up and condemn the President, never admitting that there was no better option.
They say, "He was an official of a foreign government!"
So what? How does his office protect him from the charge of murder?
They say, "More Americans will be killed!"
So we should overlook the deaths of 600 Americans because the killers will kill more? Is that not the aim of terrorism?
-->
@Username
That it probably was an accident?
there is now evidence leading toward an intentional attack by a shot on the plane.
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought Dr.Franklin was referring to missing the US military base in Iran i.e. no casualties
-->
@Username
Well, we really don't know for sure what was planned or not as we can only make a best guess, but the optics really look bad for Iran if they were planning on appealing to people that believe Iran is rational and can be reasoned with outside of their Theocracy.
-->
@Greyparrot
they accidentally shot down a civilian plane and they want nuclear bombs? hmmm....
-->
@Vader
War is never the solution, but I hate how people are defending a terorrist. Hezzbollah Solemani was evil and commit acts against UN by crossing into the Iraqi border as well
Your country has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and Afghani's , why aren't you called terrorists?
-->
@disgusted
That is an effect of a brutal war, hence why I am against the war in the first place. He murdered people without a war and without any provocation and when we got revenge, he seemingly backed down.
-->
@Vader
The invasion of Iraq literally was justified on false pretenses and killed tons of Iraqis and Americans. If that's not state sponsored terrorism idk what is.
-->
@Username
“War is the terrorism of the rich and terrorism is the war of the poor”
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's a fantastic quote.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Who said that?
-->
@Username
Sir Peter Ustinov
-->
@Username
It was an attack on Saddam Husseins terrible regime he held where he truly terrorized. Your right, Iraq still sponsor state terrorism under Hussein. It should have ended when he died but Bush wanted more and became greedy
-->
@Vader
For someone who opposes war, you aren't understanding that the U.N., and not the U.S., is obligated to resolve human rights issues and international violations. If we made it a priority to go to war with every country that was under a "terrible regime" we would be in endless war. Entering a war for a terrible reason and killing tens of thousands is state-sponsored terrorism.
-->
@Username
The UN has been ineffective at doing this "resolving inner crisis stuff." The Rwandan Genocide was supposed to be put down and safe guarded by UN, but the volunteer coups left the people to die and did nothing. But yea sure, lets put UN in charge of this stuff with their 10k troops in a violent nation when innocent civilian lives are at risk
The UN did not beef up personnel and they have failed to keep up the region, simply not having the manpower and retreating the area and had no way in preventing the fight. French troops had to come in to put the situation down and help the people by giving them a shelter from the senseless violence. Innocent lives were lost to the UN, but saved by an army fighting the enemy at hand.
Not to mention the UN endorsed the war in Iraq in 2003, later claiming it was a violation. So at the time, it was perfectly legal. After the Baghdad bombing of a UN HQ, killing 15, they left. They do not want their people dying when brute authority is at hand. They won't do anything and hence, military like the US has to help the people in these situations.
Was it ideal? No. But there was nothing the UN could do but have the big boys take care of it
-->
@Vader
You still haven't explained to me why the U.S. has to mediate every nation with bad governance. The world CAN'T BE PERFECT, and we kill tons of people by trying to mediate these conflicts in the first place. Also, like we see in South America, we often install pro-American dictatorships rather than genuine democracies (which is a smart power move because an imposed democracy will always be seen as a foreign import and will never have popular support). If the U.N. has to get it's shit together, than it's the U.N.'s job to do so, not the U.S's.
Also you've shown one example of a U.N. peacekeeping failure; peacekeeping has flaws of course, but it is shown to have generally positive effects (http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2015/09/24/enough-with-the-pessimism-about-peacekeeping/).
Don't buy your stuff on the U.N. and Iraq, I'd like to see a source please? I'm not unwilling to believe it.
I just want to re-iterate; the Iraq War was complete bullshit. The invasion of Iraq had all different sorts of dumbass neo-conservative justifications; the government had an agenda. They were already planning to invade Iraq before the WMD thing (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-right-and-wrong-questions-about-the-iraq-war/393497/),and the WMD thing and the terrorist associations things were both bullshit per the U.N. evidence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War). 100% power move.
We could debate this if you want.
-->
@Username
You still haven't explained to me why the U.S. has to mediate every nation with bad governance. The world CAN'T BE PERFECT, and we kill tons of people by trying to mediate these conflicts in the first place. Also, like we see in South America, we often install pro-American dictatorships rather than genuine democracies (which is a smart power move because an imposed democracy will always be seen as a foreign import and will never have popular support). If the U.N. has to get it's shit together, than it's the U.N.'s job to do so, not the U.S's.
I never said that we should be this global hegemon. I said in some cases in the world we need to act upon the people that are there. We haven't gone and invaded North Korea for its abuse of their population. We haven't gone into China and help the tortured Muslims. We only go into these when we can and have the resources to do so. And if the UN can not get their shit together for helping the world, so we need other countries to do so. While I agree it is a waste, there is no other option since countries in the UN like Russia and China don't contribute funds or people to help these places, and instead focus on building this global hegemon to take out the US
Also you've shown one example of a U.N. peacekeeping failure; peacekeeping has flaws of course, but it is shown to have generally positive effects (http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2015/09/24/enough-with-the-pessimism-about-peacekeeping/).
This flaw cost millions of people their lives, the 4th most deadly, behind the Nazi German Regimes, Cambodian, and Soviets. The UN failure led to 20% of the Rwandan population dying
Don't buy your stuff on the U.N. and Iraq, I'd like to see a source please? I'm not unwilling to believe it.
I just want to re-iterate; the Iraq War was complete bullshit. The invasion of Iraq had all different sorts of dumbass neo-conservative justifications; the government had an agenda. They were already planning to invade Iraq before the WMD thing (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-right-and-wrong-questions-about-the-iraq-war/393497/),and the WMD thing and the terrorist associations things were both bullshit per the U.N. evidence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War). 100% power move.
Again, Saddam Hussein was an evil person who needed to be stopped along with his harmful regime. Once he was taken out, the war should have been over. Instead we stood there and did absolutely nothing but destroy. The justification at first was OK, but after SH was killed, it was not needed for the extra war
We could debate this if you want.
I'm extremely busy atm, but maybe after this week
-->
@Vader
I never said that we should be this global hegemon. I said in some cases in the world we need to act upon the people that are there. We haven't gone and invaded North Korea for its abuse of their population. We haven't gone into China and help the tortured Muslims. We only go into these when we can and have the resources to do so. And if the UN can not get their shit together for helping the world, so we need other countries to do so. While I agree it is a waste, there is no other option since countries in the UN like Russia and China don't contribute funds or people to help these places, and instead focus on building this global hegemon to take out the US
Myanmar is practicing ethnic cleansing. Saudi Arabia is literally wiping out Yemen's citizens and murdering Shi'a activists. Turkey is attacking and jailing people who oppose their government. Venezuela uses force on protestors. The human rights situation in all of Africa is terrible. These are all nations which we are much stronger than militarily. Why not invade them? (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/23/amnesty-ten-global-hotspots-for-major-human-rights-violations-in-2017.html, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/02/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-venezuelas-human-rights-crisis/)
This flaw cost millions of people their lives, the 4th most deadly, behind the Nazi German Regimes, Cambodian, and Soviets. The UN failure led to 20% of the Rwandan population dying
But like I said, U.N. peacekeeping is generally successful. U.S. peacekeeping is hardly better. Peacekeeping isn't exactly easy you know.
Again, Saddam Hussein was an evil person who needed to be stopped along with his harmful regime. Once he was taken out, the war should have been over. Instead we stood there and did absolutely nothing but destroy. The justification at first was OK, but after SH was killed, it was not needed for the extra war
Like I said above it's not the U.S.'s job.
-->
@Username
This is the failure of the UN. They aren't doing any better. We only go into conflict when the US is in risk of losing their lives. It is selfish, but frankily the US doesn't want to go to war when American lives are at riskMyanmar is practicing ethnic cleansing. Saudi Arabia is literally wiping out Yemen's citizens and murdering Shi'a activists. Turkey is attacking and jailing people who oppose their government. Venezuela uses force on protestors. The human rights situation in all of Africa is terrible. These are all nations which we are much stronger than militarily. Why not invade them? (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/23/amnesty-ten-global-hotspots-for-major-human-rights-violations-in-2017.html, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/02/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-venezuelas-human-rights-crisis/)
But like I said, U.N. peacekeeping is generally successful. U.S. peacekeeping is hardly better. Peacekeeping isn't exactly easy you know.
Like I said above it's not the U.S.'s job.
If the UN won't do anything and backs away, they want a hegemon to take control and they'll support them. Saddam Hussein was evil and was not going down unless a foreign intervention occured
-->
@Vader
This is the failure of the UN. They aren't doing any better. We only go into conflict when the US is in risk of losing their lives. It is selfish, but frankily the US doesn't want to go to war when American lives are at risk
"The U.N. exists therefore human rights violations should be over"
What are you talking about? What at-risk American lives caused us to invade Iraq?
Not subscribing to read this article dude. And you still haven't addressed this: http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2015/09/24/enough-with-the-pessimism-about-peacekeeping/.
Saddam Hussein was evil and was not going down unless a foreign intervention occured
That sucks. U.S. still shouldn't get involved. Why do you think Iraq would've abandoned Ba'athism forever and strictly abided human rights if the U.S. killed Saddam Hussein? You don't think that would just make them angrier at the U.S. and their democracy? We both realize how many human rights were violated and how many died in the Iraq war, right? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq#Human_rights_abuses_by_insurgents)