|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:16 am Post subject: Have we become too soft? |
 |
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12784129
I once spoke with a friend regarding the Phoenix program in Vietnam, I asked him the question because the actions he supposedly did during that war (according to rumor) seemed similar to an issue I read in the book about the program.
Drones 'winning' war against al-Qaeda, says ex-CIA head
| Quote: |
Gen Hayden denied the attacks were state-authorised assassinations. He said the US was at war with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and was simply acting in self-defence.
When I pointed out that legally the war was in Afghanistan not Pakistan, he said that was not how the American administration looked at it.
"No they're not assassinations. This is a war, this is action against opposing armed enemy force. This is an inherent right of America to self-defence.
Judge, jury and executioner
There is another side to the equation.
I think we'd be naive to believe the propaganda that says that firing these fantastic weapons is killing the right people�
End Quote
Clive Stafford Smith
Human rights lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic have grown increasingly concerned about the US government appearing to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Jameel Jaffer of the American Council for Civil Liberties said: "This is quite an awesome power, the power to label somebody as an enemy [then] wipe them out without judicial process of any kind."
His sentiments are echoed by the director of Reprieve, Clive Stafford Smith.
"Who does get killed? Are these really Taliban people and al-Qaeda or are they random civilians who had nothing to do with it?" he said.
"I think we'd be naive to believe the propaganda that says that firing these fantastic weapons is killing the right people."
Gen Hayden has not been fazed by such arguments.
community do not share Gen Hayden's view about winning the war.
In her first television interview, I asked the former director general of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller, if she thought the war was winnable. She has spent 40 years fighting terrorism.
|
(The above has ben editted).
When I asked him whether the Phoenix program was assassination, he said "maybe the US calls it that, but we just called it War".
How do you win a fight with one hand tied behind your back?
Al Qaeda took an action on 1 day that will be remembered for many years, both by thier supporters and enemies.
Thier supporters never question the action, thier enemies question too much.
Win the war and then discuss the issue or lose it but dont regret it.
Its not called War for no reason, otherwise we would call it sports.
(editted) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So what are you suggesting? The more we bomb Muslim countries, increasing civilian casualties, the more support Islamic nutjobs will get and the more difficult it will be to combat terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand. We don't declare war within the United States (well, we do, but we understand the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty to be terrible and failed forms of rhetoric). Is it because we are soft?
The issue is strangely phrased. At what point does needless brutality and gross imprecision become good because it is not soft? It is difficult to identify and target militants within civil societies. Usually, when we do so in our own country, we employ the courts and systems of justice and concepts like reasonable suspicion. Why shouldn't we employ the same rule of law outside our borders? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Have we become too soft? |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
How do you win a fight with one hand tied behind your back?
Al Qaeda took an action on 1 day that will be remembered for many years, both by thier supporters and enemies.
Thier supporters never question the action, thier enemies question too much.
Win the war and then discuss the issue or lose it but dont regret it.
Its not called War for no reason, otherwise we would call it sports.
(editted) |
This is exactly the attitude I don't want our society to take. The false choice between total war and "sports" is especially ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How does one "win" a War on Drugs? Poverty? Terror?
Soft in the head maybe... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nero
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Summer Wine, I hate to do this but I have noticed it in other threads you have started - It's 'their' not 'thier'.
THE with an added IR. I only bring this up because we are English teachers, right?
Anyway, as you were... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nero wrote: |
Summer Wine, I hate to do this but I have noticed it in other threads you have started - It's 'their' not 'thier'.
THE with an added IR. I only bring this up because we are English teachers, right?
Anyway, as you were... |
I used to commit the same spelling mistake habitually until sometime during uni (and my spelling was always generally pretty good). I may not even be fully cured.
It's a "wierd" word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nero
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| nero wrote: |
Summer Wine, I hate to do this but I have noticed it in other threads you have started - It's 'their' not 'thier'.
THE with an added IR. I only bring this up because we are English teachers, right?
Anyway, as you were... |
I used to commit the same spelling mistake habitually until sometime during uni (and my spelling was always generally pretty good). I may not even be fully cured.
It's a "wierd" word. |
Yes, (just to completely derail this thread) I always had problems with 'field' and 'feild'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not meaning the war on drugs, cancer etc.
What I mean is that during WW2, there was a defined goal, which was to win. They bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo etc.
In certain cases in the past they won the war and then walked away from it and developed a society that lives in peace.
These days they try to fight a war without causing civilian casualties or even targeting the combatants in certain cases. They are constantly questioned and even thier methods are described in terms of police like actions.
Though they aren't police and those they are against are not their civilians. The enemies whether the NVA/Viet Cong, or Al Qaeda/Taliban, did not and do not limit or seem to question their actions.
The past combatants won, the present will likely win in some form. It just seems so pointless to sideline play the war as if it is something you see on the TV and it can be fought according to certain rules like a sports game.
War is called Hell for a reason, you either fight one or you dont, but second guessing your own actions, allowing non combatants to second guess your actions seems a silly way to fight one. I don't believe that people should have wars, but if you are going to have to fight one then fight it, don't try to fight with one hand tied behind your back.
Wars weren't won in the past because of noble actions, regardless of how they are presented by the victors. I realise that people will say but we dont want to fight like that, but if the enemy does then either fight the same way, support those who do and stay home or just give up and surrender.
But trying to couch military actions with civilians ideas seems a good way to lose when your life is on the line. If you support the US leaving, fine but then dont second guess the result.
If you spoke to individuals in the past, you will note that Al Qaeda used the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan as a reason to feel that they could attack the US and possibly change the Global order in thier favor. If they percieve themselves to have defeated the US then what will their next aim be? To think that they will simply stay home and drink cups of tea, while revelling in their so called victory is naive.
Therefore the system needs to be changed whereby they are seen to lose, either militarily, politically or socially (take your pick) but they can't be percieved to be the victors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
