oky first thing
war against terror???? define WAR... war is allways between 2 states... who is the terrorcountry and who are there citizens?
Are you actually stupid? or merely ignorant of history?
War is the use of lethal force for political purposes. Period.
All thru history, nations have fought irregular and oblique warfare.
The US dropped bombs on Cambodia, because North Vietnamese COMBATANTS were in Cambodia.
The American revolution was not a war between two 'nations'... it was a war that created a separate nation.
And Zionist Jews in palestine had no difficulty with covert actions against the british, engaging in their own terrorist bombings to attain their political aims.
the notion that war must be "declared" is ridiculous... MOST wars in history were declared by one side opening fire.
And, while I think the
term 'war on terror' is patently stupid- since you can not wage war on a 'tactic', it is just the Operational name, the bumper-sticker label, as it were, for what really is a mostly covert attempt to prevent small groups of irregular combatants from being able to mount attacks against the citizenry and military of this nation.
Given that the US spends close to 3 Billion dollars a year, around the world, just trying to prevent these groups from getting hold of weapons grade fissiles, and that these groups, hidden within cities and states around the world are actively trying to get enough fissile material to make and USE a nuclear weapon,
ought to be enough for guys like you to comprehend that we are not in the musket and uniform era any longer...
States do not generally USE nuclear weapons... they are there to keep them from being attacked... but a first use would simply not make any sense... it would lead to the immediate retaliatory dissolution of that state.
But Using a nuke
does make sense for terrorism. If they get one... they WILL use it.
So wake up, and support the Effective use of force by your president, even if you don't like the fact that he's black or calls himself a democrat
and even doring a war it isnt allowed to kill civillists... only soldier and only if they attak you...
and even to torture soldiers isnt allowed
Really? you think armies are not "allowed" to kill civilians? US soldiers in Iraq routinely killed civilians approaching checkpoints who did not follow the instructions on posted SIGNS, in a nation where only half the population can even read signs.
And what were the 3,000 folks killed on 9/11, if not civilians?
How many civilians died in the blitz on London? How many Died in Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union?
How many died in the allied bombing campaigns against the Third Reich?
Stop being naive and READ something about history.
There is a difference between trying to "limit" civilian casualties... and saying it is 'not allowed'.
When you have a lethally dangerous enemy, Hidden among a group of civilians, in a place where you can't just arrest them... you can do what Bush did... Send in an army, ( to the wrong country ) and as a result kill 100,000 civilians....
Or you can do what Obama is doing... wait until that target is identified as being in one place, preferably with as few civilians nearby as possible... and drop a missile on him. and as a result kill only a few civilians.
Your only other option is to just ALLOW your enemy to operate with impunity... to plot and and execute mass casualties of your OWN civilians.
Awalaki was targeted for his actions against his country.
His SON was NOT targeted... he just got killed because he was palling around with some al queda guys that WERE targeted...
the moral of the story? Be careful with whom you consort.
Sit next to an enemy of the US, and you may find yourself dead.
but when i follow ur arguemnts it would be absolutly legitim if britain would have assassin george washington bevor the independence war. and every single american, cause he COULD support the war
You really need to bone up on history. Both revolutionary forces and British forces killed the officers on the opposing side every chance they got.
British soldiers DID lock an entire town full of women and children in a church and burn it down.
The US won a critical battle in the war of 1812 BECAUSE a sharp shooter nailed the opposing commander from across a river.
And what the fuck do you think Benedict Arnold was trying to do in HANDING the British West Point?
War is not all pretty and honorable... It is KILLING TO GET YOUR WAY.
What you actually refer to is a fairly recent (1970's) law that proscribes the US from conducting covert assassinations of other heads of state.
The law says nothing about other folks.
And as you point out, Al Queda is NOT actually a "State", is it?
Ergo, there is no law in the US proscribing the president from ordering the killing of the head of a terrorist organization. And No law stating that the president can not order the killing of a US citizen actively engaged in armed conflict against his own country.
in germany would the gov no longer exist as soon as they execute anyone no matter if with or without trial. no matter if alien or german...
we dont see a difference between a alien and a citizen
Everytime a police or SWAT officer kills a suspect in the commission of a crime, or even just for pointing something that "looks" like a gun at an officer, that is an example of the State killing a citizen without trial.
Self defense is considered just cause for any individual or State to use lethal force.
Obama was defending YOU AND ME against another US citizen who has implemented attacks targeting YOU AND ME, and announced he was committed to further attacks. HE declared jihad on
us.
Its Obama's job, and he is actually doing rather well at it.
Why?
Because Commander and Chief stuff is the one area in which he can move that the GOP can not stymie...
He would do just as well in repairing this economy, if the GOP was not cynically and treasonously abandoning their responsibilities to the people thru actively preventing economic action for the sole purpose of defeating their lawfully elected president.
Frankly... I would support him in declaring martial law and arresting the GOP leadership for acts against the people of the US.
but american history shows that u dont care if ur gov kills aliens... or even abroad presidents (panama)
no wonder that america has sutch a bad image in the world
Look... I will agree that America was made to look pretty bad and for good reason under Bush... but, frankly, America only has a bad rep in shithole countries full of backward morons.
I really don't care of a bunch of ignorant culturally retarded rubes who live by 14th century Sharia laws don't like the US.
If the Western nations did not buy their oil, they would still be herding goats and picking dates... and warring exclusively on each other.
While I OFTEN strongly disagree with the actions of my own government, I have to point out that this nation and its people GIVE more help and assistance to the rest of the world than all the other nations combined.
I can not say that the US is without fault... we have many. But we are also one of the few places where a citizen has the freedom to actually say that... and agitate to change their government's policies.
And I would point out that, even in countries where they supposedly hate the US, that 7 out of ten of their people would jump at the chance to live in the US if they had it.
how would u reakt when canada send troops or plains into the USA to kill ur citizens without a trial?
The exact same way we reacted when Al Queda sent planes into my country to kill our citizens without cause.
After the huge success that was Japan's Pearl Harbor attack, Yamamoto, who planned it, is said to have commented that he was not celebrating... that he feared Japan had only awakened a sleeping giant whose wrath would be terrible and swift.
He was right.
Anyone attacking Rome in the first century was bound to be bested.
Anyone attacking Britain in the mid to late 1800s was simply going to get their ass handed to them.
Anyone attacking the US today will suffer the same...
And someday soon, anyone attacking China will be likewise screwed.
Sorry that the most powerful nations on earth any given time are powerful...
but they are powerful for good reasons. Their cultures work better and offer their collective citizenry greater security and greater influence than other competing cultures.
It was always this way.
It always will be this way.
The best way to get what you want, politically, from the dominant power at any time in history, is always to EMBARRASS them into it.
Like Gandhi did with Britian. Like Israel did with the US. Like Martin Luther King Jr. did with his own country...
I did not support the war in Iraq. I strongly advocated against it at every opportunity... but I am not a majority... my country over-reacted to 9/11 because people in general over-react to that kind of thing.
But the worst thing you can do is to pull something to which you know full well people will over react on a country that has the largest armed force in the world.
The result will NEVER be good... not for the ones committing the attack, and not for the country attacked.
The US over reaction to 9/11 did far more damage to the US than al queda ever has.
I am not happy about that and I would have stopped it if I could.
but I understand that there is no stopping mass demands for payback to something like 9/11.
Bin Laden ( with Bush's help) nearly destroyed the US economy.
And what has that done to the world economy?
How many people around the world are suffering because some group of cave dwelling dipshits decided to attack the sleeping giant on the block?
Sorry... As long as Obama is not slinging armies around... as long as he is trying to kill as few people as possible, and targeting the actually people who are planning this kind of thing... I am entirely on board with him.
If Bush had handled it this way, 100,000 Iraqi's would still be alive today, and the world economy would not be on the verge of collapse.
why did Obama blame iran that they tryd to kill a arabien politican??? isnt it legal to kill someone as long as the gov dont like the person?????
No. Nothing Obama did suggests such a conclusion. Trying to kill terrorists, in a foreign country, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THAT COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT, is not the same as trying to kill diplomats from one country visiting another country that hosts the United Nations.
As the host country, the US has an obligation to protect the lives of visiting diplomats.
And, Frankly, EVRY guy Obama ever targeted in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere, he would have PREFERRED to arrest and try.
But, seriously... Yemen ALLOWS us to conduct drone strikes, and so does Pakistan.
FDR is Franklin Delano Roosevelt- president of the US during most of WWII.
And SOB is short for "Son Of a Bitch"
AND NOT A SINGLE BOMB WAS TO ASSASSIN ONE OF OUR LEADERS... EVERY BOMB OVER GERMANY WAS TO DISTROY THE INDUSTRY AND TO DEMORALISE THE PEOPLE ( what dindt worked )
but im thankfull for every single bomb cause we deserved it... and now we a better country
Sorry. You are wrong. EVERY attack on Berlin ALSO targeted anyplace they thought German high command might be holed up.
That's why Hitler lived in that bunker whenever the air raid sirens went off.
And nobody in the US thought the bombing would 'demoralize' the people... they already saw that that hadn't been the effect in the blitz on London. ( with the exception of the last part of the war... the allies DID try to convince the German High command to surrender without having all of Germany destroyed thru such actions as the firebombing of Dresden... which killed almost exclusively civilians... Dresden had been spared up till that time, and the action was intended not to demoralize the German people, but to shock them with the sudden utter desolation of a relatively untouched city. It was hoped by allied leadership that this would make clear to the German leadership the utter ruin that further resistance would result in. It was hoped that this might even spark a coup to take Hitler from power, and prevent untolled loss of civilian life and infrastructure... but, alas... that did not work, and Hitler fought on till Soviet tanks were in Berlin.)
The objectives of most bombing were to damage productivity... which actually did work. Germany lost because they simply could not field enough men or equipment to counter massive allied productivity.
( to wit: even the worst German tank was better than the US Sherman, but the US could lose 10 Shermans to every 3 panzers, and Still have 15 more Sherman's on the front the next day.)
Trust me. If we COULD have dropped a laser guided bomb on Hitler on day 3 of the war... we absolutely would have.
And, BTW... I look at my own country's right wing militarism in response to 9/11 as being very much like Germany's own right wing swing after the injustice of Versailles and the early failures of democracy in Germany. ( it is only thru the harsh example of the Third Reich's politicized anti-semitism that we avoided the trap of condemning all muslims outright)
Both resulted in nationalistic fervor and stupid invasions that any qualified accountant could have foretold as disastrous.
But your premise that killing citizens without trial is illegal in acts of war is simply untrue and proven false nearly every day.
It is not even illegal to kill citizens standing on the street, if they do the slightest thing to threaten your life.