10 ms·

How ironic will it be if the next generation of German kids has to rise up to fight the totalitarian might of the USA? I see it happening, already .. truly a s

How ironic will it be if the next generation of German kids has to rise up to fight the totalitarian might of the USA? I see it happening, already .. truly a staggering circumstance that we are here now in the 21st Century, and not even Germany can stand up to the tyrants.

gadders 13y ago
The US are tyrants? Seriously?
- phaer 13y ago
  In the context of international politics they are a clear match for most definitions of tyranny. Killing civilians based on behavioral profiles (look up "signature strikes drones") without any declaration of war against the countries in question (Pakistan, Yemen) is just one example. The relations between the US and most south-american countries is another one.
  - gadders 13y ago
    I think compared to the Soviet Union they are positively benevolent.
    - sp332 13y ago
      I don't think we should make the Soviet government the standard.
      - gadders 13y ago
        No-one is making it the standard, but it is relevant seeing that NATO and the US were the only things that guaranteed West Germany's safety from Soviet Russia.
        phaer 13y ago
        ...that might have been an argument almost 25 years ago, but the NATO continues to exist while the Soviet Union is long gone, and its questionable if that's for the benefit of the worlds population.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Your post implies that the US operates in Pakistan and Yemen without their consent -- there is definitely consent. Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb their country, for a variety of reasons that are as silly and contradictory as one can imagine.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      Silly and contradictory enough that it's probably more confusing than not to imagine a Pakistan or Yemen with a united will. The weak and fractured governments of Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb there. Yemen's being so weak it barely deserves the name.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        The recognized leaders of these countries are the ones who are allowing this. Read Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill for more.
  - josefresco 13y ago
    Official declaration of war on a state entity is almost quaint given how modern conflicts are now waged. If only it were as easy as declaring war on country "X" with complete disregard for native and non-native controlling factions. What happens when your old rules of warfare aren't followed by your new enemy? Do you stand by those rules or adapt to the new reality? Targeted drone strikes based on human and data intelligence is light years beyond declaring official war and shelling/bombing an entire region to the ground with no regard to what side the inhabitants may be on.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      Not if your intelligence is worthless. If your intelligence is worthless, it's almost indiscernible. You're creating a false dichotomy between "targeted" drone strikes and shelling and bombing an entire region. By the way, each perpetrator of shelling and bombing entire regions has historically made similar claims of "targeting/precision".
      - josefresco 13y ago
        Your points are right on, and I think as technology gets better, civilian deaths do decrease. However what happens is we start to cringe at the effectiveness of a cruise missile or drone attack forgetting that the alternative is bloodier, more dangerous and arguably a lot less effective. How do we balance our tolerance for casualties with our tolerance of more and more effective weapons? My point was not to say that drone strikes were wrong or right, only that the technology shouldn't be on trial, the intelligence, effectiveness and purpose should be. I'm sure when airplanes and modern firearms took over the battlefield many thought they were "unfair" and dehumanized the process or war. And I don't doubt that in the future we'll be equally scared of newer more effective weapons.
        eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        It's not a war. No more than the war on drugs is a war. I don't agree that as technology gets better that the number of civilian deaths decrease. I would point to the atom bomb and chemical warfare. As drone technology gets cheaper, I don't see why civilian deaths would decrease. This is not an argument for ludditism. You're presenting regional carpet bombing as the only alternative. This is not the case. There are alternatives other than drone strikes, and regional bombing that you seem to be ignoring. Using your terms, how many countries is the US at "war" with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... These are not wars, this is unilateral, self appointed world policing. Unfortunately, the drone technology is not sufficient to guarantee accuracy. You can tell this because of how civilian deaths have been "redefined" by the US administration and the US military. Both refuse to publish their statistics. Historically, US intelligence has been anything but accurate, maybe the refusal to publish is another example of this. I question the effectiveness of attacking funerals and weddings half way across the world, under the guise of preventing terrorism. Particularly with spectacular failures recently making the news. The technology is not on trial, the US's reputation is. The technology has already been shown to be bunkum - the US's defence is that it's cheap bunkum. This isn't progress on any front. The US does not need cheap drone strikes in these countries, nor does it need to bomb the regions. It's not the weapons people are scared of, it's who is using them. [0] http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ [1] http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-american-drone-warrior/ http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-a... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-...
- fit2rule 13y ago
  Yes. This fact is becoming increasingly more clear to the rest of the world.
bananacurve 13y ago
That is a lovely fantasy but I'd be surprised if they even cut back on US military bases.
- aluhut 13y ago
  They won't. The cuts on the German Army bases is already considered a mistake. Forcing (no idea how) the US to close down bases would only hurt the local and regional politicians. I don't belive it at all.
  - marktangotango 13y ago
    Why was it a mistake? Just curious. When I was stationed over there in 98-00, we pumped A LOT of money into the local economies, I personally bought a lot of beer! I love Germany, such a beautiful country, awesome people.
    - aluhut 13y ago
      I'm sorry, I guess there was a misunderstanding based on my bad choice of words. I ment the Bundeswehr bases. Because of that decission many german soldiers are forced to move or travel a lot. Currently the new Defence Minister tries a more US approach on military bases by intergrating some kind of infrastructure within the bases. And yes, the US (as well as german) bases pump really much money into local economies. And local economies are suffering from closed down bases a lot.
mortyseinfeld 13y ago
We saw what happened when Germany "rose up" in the middle of the last century. I guess Germans though the jews were tyrants back then.
- smackay 13y ago
  you forgot the homosexual tyrants, the gypsy tyrants, the slav tyrants and not forgetting the tyrants with disabilities. The takeover of the German state by the National Socialist party was little more than a coup by a gang of thugs, psycopaths and criminals. The persecution of Jews and other minorities was just a convenient scapegoat to drag the majority of the population along. The horrible crimes perpretated during this period cannot in anyway be ascribed as a (popular) uprising.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    The Jews etc. were the scapegoats of Germany, and the party and their leader rose to power because Germany was the scapegoat of WW1 (justly or not). I don't imagine that Hitler and his party would actually have gotten such a foothold if it wasn't for the fact that the German people were resentful for being under everyone's heel, and that Hitler's leadership brought Germany out of a slump in the 30's. No? My knowledge of history is rusty.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      I believe the main reason for the failure of the Weimar Republic was that most people actually didn't want a democracy. Right-leaning people saw it as a decadent and weak form of government and wanted the monarchy back, and left-leaning ones were split between a dozen different brands of communism or anarchism. And of course it didn't help that previous military leaders had been worthless cowards who continued a losing war to a point where they could not longer sue for peace, then leave it to the newly formed democratic government to accept the onerous conditions imposed by the opponents and end up getting blamed for something they had neither caused not any choice in.
    - gdy 13y ago

gadders 13y ago

The US are tyrants? Seriously?

phaer 13y ago
In the context of international politics they are a clear match for most definitions of tyranny. Killing civilians based on behavioral profiles (look up "signature strikes drones") without any declaration of war against the countries in question (Pakistan, Yemen) is just one example. The relations between the US and most south-american countries is another one.
- gadders 13y ago
  I think compared to the Soviet Union they are positively benevolent.
  - sp332 13y ago
    I don't think we should make the Soviet government the standard.
    - gadders 13y ago
      No-one is making it the standard, but it is relevant seeing that NATO and the US were the only things that guaranteed West Germany's safety from Soviet Russia.
      - phaer 13y ago
        ...that might have been an argument almost 25 years ago, but the NATO continues to exist while the Soviet Union is long gone, and its questionable if that's for the benefit of the worlds population.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Your post implies that the US operates in Pakistan and Yemen without their consent -- there is definitely consent. Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb their country, for a variety of reasons that are as silly and contradictory as one can imagine.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Silly and contradictory enough that it's probably more confusing than not to imagine a Pakistan or Yemen with a united will. The weak and fractured governments of Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb there. Yemen's being so weak it barely deserves the name.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      The recognized leaders of these countries are the ones who are allowing this. Read Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill for more.
- josefresco 13y ago
  Official declaration of war on a state entity is almost quaint given how modern conflicts are now waged. If only it were as easy as declaring war on country "X" with complete disregard for native and non-native controlling factions. What happens when your old rules of warfare aren't followed by your new enemy? Do you stand by those rules or adapt to the new reality? Targeted drone strikes based on human and data intelligence is light years beyond declaring official war and shelling/bombing an entire region to the ground with no regard to what side the inhabitants may be on.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    Not if your intelligence is worthless. If your intelligence is worthless, it's almost indiscernible. You're creating a false dichotomy between "targeted" drone strikes and shelling and bombing an entire region. By the way, each perpetrator of shelling and bombing entire regions has historically made similar claims of "targeting/precision".
    - josefresco 13y ago
      Your points are right on, and I think as technology gets better, civilian deaths do decrease. However what happens is we start to cringe at the effectiveness of a cruise missile or drone attack forgetting that the alternative is bloodier, more dangerous and arguably a lot less effective. How do we balance our tolerance for casualties with our tolerance of more and more effective weapons? My point was not to say that drone strikes were wrong or right, only that the technology shouldn't be on trial, the intelligence, effectiveness and purpose should be. I'm sure when airplanes and modern firearms took over the battlefield many thought they were "unfair" and dehumanized the process or war. And I don't doubt that in the future we'll be equally scared of newer more effective weapons.
      - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        It's not a war. No more than the war on drugs is a war. I don't agree that as technology gets better that the number of civilian deaths decrease. I would point to the atom bomb and chemical warfare. As drone technology gets cheaper, I don't see why civilian deaths would decrease. This is not an argument for ludditism. You're presenting regional carpet bombing as the only alternative. This is not the case. There are alternatives other than drone strikes, and regional bombing that you seem to be ignoring. Using your terms, how many countries is the US at "war" with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... These are not wars, this is unilateral, self appointed world policing. Unfortunately, the drone technology is not sufficient to guarantee accuracy. You can tell this because of how civilian deaths have been "redefined" by the US administration and the US military. Both refuse to publish their statistics. Historically, US intelligence has been anything but accurate, maybe the refusal to publish is another example of this. I question the effectiveness of attacking funerals and weddings half way across the world, under the guise of preventing terrorism. Particularly with spectacular failures recently making the news. The technology is not on trial, the US's reputation is. The technology has already been shown to be bunkum - the US's defence is that it's cheap bunkum. This isn't progress on any front. The US does not need cheap drone strikes in these countries, nor does it need to bomb the regions. It's not the weapons people are scared of, it's who is using them. [0] http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ [1] http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-american-drone-warrior/ http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-a... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-...
fit2rule 13y ago
Yes. This fact is becoming increasingly more clear to the rest of the world.

bananacurve 13y ago

That is a lovely fantasy but I'd be surprised if they even cut back on US military bases.

aluhut 13y ago
They won't. The cuts on the German Army bases is already considered a mistake. Forcing (no idea how) the US to close down bases would only hurt the local and regional politicians. I don't belive it at all.
- marktangotango 13y ago
  Why was it a mistake? Just curious. When I was stationed over there in 98-00, we pumped A LOT of money into the local economies, I personally bought a lot of beer! I love Germany, such a beautiful country, awesome people.
  - aluhut 13y ago
    I'm sorry, I guess there was a misunderstanding based on my bad choice of words. I ment the Bundeswehr bases. Because of that decission many german soldiers are forced to move or travel a lot. Currently the new Defence Minister tries a more US approach on military bases by intergrating some kind of infrastructure within the bases. And yes, the US (as well as german) bases pump really much money into local economies. And local economies are suffering from closed down bases a lot.

mortyseinfeld 13y ago

We saw what happened when Germany "rose up" in the middle of the last century. I guess Germans though the jews were tyrants back then.

smackay 13y ago
you forgot the homosexual tyrants, the gypsy tyrants, the slav tyrants and not forgetting the tyrants with disabilities. The takeover of the German state by the National Socialist party was little more than a coup by a gang of thugs, psycopaths and criminals. The persecution of Jews and other minorities was just a convenient scapegoat to drag the majority of the population along. The horrible crimes perpretated during this period cannot in anyway be ascribed as a (popular) uprising.
- Dewie 13y ago
  The Jews etc. were the scapegoats of Germany, and the party and their leader rose to power because Germany was the scapegoat of WW1 (justly or not). I don't imagine that Hitler and his party would actually have gotten such a foothold if it wasn't for the fact that the German people were resentful for being under everyone's heel, and that Hitler's leadership brought Germany out of a slump in the 30's. No? My knowledge of history is rusty.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    I believe the main reason for the failure of the Weimar Republic was that most people actually didn't want a democracy. Right-leaning people saw it as a decadent and weak form of government and wanted the monarchy back, and left-leaning ones were split between a dozen different brands of communism or anarchism. And of course it didn't help that previous military leaders had been worthless cowards who continued a losing war to a point where they could not longer sue for peace, then leave it to the newly formed democratic government to accept the onerous conditions imposed by the opponents and end up getting blamed for something they had neither caused not any choice in.
  - gdy 13y ago