4 ms·

And what has the US been doing for the last 50 years exactly ? If not dropping missiles and bombs on civilian populations abroad under the pretence of "spreadin

by zabana 9y ago

And what has the US been doing for the last 50 years exactly ? If not dropping missiles and bombs on civilian populations abroad under the pretence of "spreading democracy" and "stopping terrorism"

threeseed 9y ago
Your comment is just nonsense on so many levels. 1) The US does not actively target civilians. That's a war crime. There are incidental deaths absolutely but if the US was intentionally trying to cause mass deaths they would simply drop a nuclear bomb a few more times. 2) What does this have to do with spreading propaganda, cyberattacks or North Korea ?
- zabana 9y ago
  Well they refuse to bend to your will so you desperately need a way to portray them as the ultimate enemy to justify the use of force against them as someone mentioned in the comments up above. This sounds to me like the internet version of "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, we absolutely must obliterate them to protect our freedoms", yeah right.
- zabana 9y ago
  Btw I'm not defending NK and their government nor am I saying that it's heaven on earth, but a bit of balance and fair treatment doesn't hurt sometimes.
- notfreeyet 9y ago
  It's an indisputable fact of history that the U.S. military actively targeted civilians in WW2, Vietnam, and Philippines. Women and children were murdered by the hundreds of thousands. Members of the U.S. military have murdered huge numbers of surrendering POWs and raped countless people over its existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes But I agree that (in general) the modern U.S. military tries its best not to kill civilians in an excessive way. But if we really cared about civilian deaths, we would send in SEAL teams 100% of the time and sacrifice an order of magnitude more soldiers. We do still choose to kill civilians instead of risking own, when possible. We consider it common sense, but there is another ethical line we could take, which is a hard rule not to kill civilians at almost any cost. That is not our rule.
- _jal 9y ago
  Re (1), it is worth noting that the GP didn't say the US was actively targeting civilians. The GP said "dropping missiles and bombs on civilian populations abroad". You are in agreement with that multilevel nonsense.
- random314 9y ago
  > 1) The US does not actively target civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder http://abcnews.go.com/International/bombing-laos-numbers/story?id=41890565 http://abcnews.go.com/International/bombing-laos-numbers/sto...
anigbrowl 9y ago
Among other things, yes. I'm fairly sure you'd rather live in the US than North Korea, though. And I say that as someone who's not American and has a very dim view of capitalism and imperialism.

by zabana 9y ago

And what has the US been doing for the last 50 years exactly ? If not dropping missiles and bombs on civilian populations abroad under the pretence of "spreading democracy" and "stopping terrorism"

threeseed 9y ago

Your comment is just nonsense on so many levels. 1) The US does not actively target civilians. That's a war crime. There are incidental deaths absolutely but if the US was intentionally trying to cause mass deaths they would simply drop a nuclear bomb a few more times. 2) What does this have to do with spreading propaganda, cyberattacks or North Korea ?

zabana 9y ago
Well they refuse to bend to your will so you desperately need a way to portray them as the ultimate enemy to justify the use of force against them as someone mentioned in the comments up above. This sounds to me like the internet version of "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, we absolutely must obliterate them to protect our freedoms", yeah right.
zabana 9y ago
Btw I'm not defending NK and their government nor am I saying that it's heaven on earth, but a bit of balance and fair treatment doesn't hurt sometimes.
notfreeyet 9y ago
It's an indisputable fact of history that the U.S. military actively targeted civilians in WW2, Vietnam, and Philippines. Women and children were murdered by the hundreds of thousands. Members of the U.S. military have murdered huge numbers of surrendering POWs and raped countless people over its existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes But I agree that (in general) the modern U.S. military tries its best not to kill civilians in an excessive way. But if we really cared about civilian deaths, we would send in SEAL teams 100% of the time and sacrifice an order of magnitude more soldiers. We do still choose to kill civilians instead of risking own, when possible. We consider it common sense, but there is another ethical line we could take, which is a hard rule not to kill civilians at almost any cost. That is not our rule.
_jal 9y ago
Re (1), it is worth noting that the GP didn't say the US was actively targeting civilians. The GP said "dropping missiles and bombs on civilian populations abroad". You are in agreement with that multilevel nonsense.
random314 9y ago
> 1) The US does not actively target civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder http://abcnews.go.com/International/bombing-laos-numbers/story?id=41890565 http://abcnews.go.com/International/bombing-laos-numbers/sto...

anigbrowl 9y ago

Among other things, yes. I'm fairly sure you'd rather live in the US than North Korea, though. And I say that as someone who's not American and has a very dim view of capitalism and imperialism.