You canot compare killing a dog for by the fun of it with the food industry.
Of course it`s some shitty stuff going on in that aswell, but they canot be compared.
You canot compare killing a dog for by the fun of it with the food industry.
Of course it`s some shitty stuff going on in that aswell, but they canot be compared.
And where do you think hotdogs came from?
:ices_rofl
I get your point, but still, IMO you canot compare those two situations.
I get your point, but still, IMO you canot compare those two situations.
Both things happen for our pleasure. They are unnecessary cruelty
Killing for fun is not the same as killing ... to...uhm..eating?
That didn`t sound right, but as I mention, throwing a puppy of a cliff can not be compared that I chose to eat meat.
That didn`t sound right, but as I mention, throwing a puppy of a cliff can not be compared that I chose to eat meat.
/me votes for Putting the Soldiers who do that against the wall and Anal Probe them with 660.000Volt sticks
i would take that scared dog home with me to help it :'(
i would take that scared dog home with me to help it :'(
Can there be legal actions against these idiots? At least make the clips apear on TV so everyone see what they did..
The Falklands was completely different. The other conflicts were started by Western aggression and fought on foreign soil whereas the Falklands was purely defensive.
I try not to buy battery farmed meat where possible. I still hope that even if my chicken has been stuck in a cage all its life it hasn't had rocks thrown at it or that my rasher of bacon wasn't thrown off a cliff or my roast beef wasn't blown up.
Bad example methinks - tbh when i tried to think of a combat that was similar my mind drew a blank but i thought i'd chuck one in so i was't specifically having a go at the US.
Also the way the death toll is calculated raises some questions, as they go to families and say "anyone you know died", which means that people who were killed because they fired weapons at allied forces, or were a suicide bomber, or even died of totally unrelated causes, if the person ask says "oh yeah Americans killed Ali Baba" that person gets added to the death toll.
The most conservative estimate that I've read is ~20,000. I have also read that it's virtually impossible to count the dead, accurately.
I am, of course, aware that it's cynically useful to assert as high a number as possible (as if the number really matters, anyway), just as it is cynically useful to assert that "Bush Lied!", "the war is illegal," "Bush did it for his daddy," "the war is to steal oil," "the war is to enrich Halliburton and US VP Cheney," "the war is racist," and even (I've actually heard this one, in person, at a rally) "the war is for the purpose of oppression, by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat," etc., etc., etc.
Oh, yeah; I forgot one of the favorites: "it's American imperialism."
The methodology (which isn't as simplified as the above "Ali Baba" example :really
used to calculate current Iraqi deaths is the same used previous in many theatres of conflict including Kosovo, Somalia and other former & current hotspots and has been accepted as accurate in every case. Of course estimation has to come into it to some extent - not everyone who gets cluster-bombed in their backyard or taken out in a marketplace suicide-bombing is issued with an official death certificate right away. Noone's raised any objections to this method of data gathering before. The objecting nations in this case are, unsurprisingly, the ones responsible for the 1.1+ million estimate and have everything to gain by casting doubt on those numbers.
But even if the body count estimates are as much as 50% out, that's still half a million people who were killed with no justification whatsoever. Picking holes in the precision of the methodology used to estimate Iraqi deaths just shifts the focus from where it should be.
David, you can trot out all the theories & strawmen & foil-hat caricatures you want, but the facts remain: there were no WMD in Iraq, no links between Saddam & al-Qaeda or Osama and no connection to 9/11. They were the first bunch of justifications for this war and they have all been solidly debunked. At this point it's only academic to talk about oil or imperialism or corporate handjobs.
The point is, the war's in progress & people are getting killed every day. The war was started by choice, not by necessity, not in self-defence, and on entirely false premises. The real reasons are irrelevant - at least until the troops are home and politicians start to get asked some tough questions. Who cares if it's about oil or imperialism or racism or Halliburton? The fact remains it's NOT about 9/11, Osama, al-Qaeda, freedom, democracy or any of the other bullshit Fox News/Whitehouse talking points people over there seem to lap up like lolcats.
Bush and his team DID lie to you and the world. The war IS an illegal act of aggression under the Nuremberg Charter and the US Constitution (which disallows any military action abroad in the absence of a clear & present danger to the US - such a danger was demonstrably neither clear nor present). But if you're comfortable with nearly 4000 dead US troops, a million dead Iraqis with millions more maimed, displaced or homeless, your government taking your freedoms away one by one and over 500 billion dollars gone, all for a pack of lies and god knows what else, then I guess you'll always be able to justify it somehow.
used to calculate current Iraqi deaths is the same used previous in many theatres of conflict including Kosovo, Somalia and other former & current hotspots and has been accepted as accurate in every case. Of course estimation has to come into it to some extent - not everyone who gets cluster-bombed in their backyard or taken out in a marketplace suicide-bombing is issued with an official death certificate right away. Noone's raised any objections to this method of data gathering before. The objecting nations in this case are, unsurprisingly, the ones responsible for the 1.1+ million estimate and have everything to gain by casting doubt on those numbers.But even if the body count estimates are as much as 50% out, that's still half a million people who were killed with no justification whatsoever. Picking holes in the precision of the methodology used to estimate Iraqi deaths just shifts the focus from where it should be.
David, you can trot out all the theories & strawmen & foil-hat caricatures you want, but the facts remain: there were no WMD in Iraq, no links between Saddam & al-Qaeda or Osama and no connection to 9/11. They were the first bunch of justifications for this war and they have all been solidly debunked. At this point it's only academic to talk about oil or imperialism or corporate handjobs.
The point is, the war's in progress & people are getting killed every day. The war was started by choice, not by necessity, not in self-defence, and on entirely false premises. The real reasons are irrelevant - at least until the troops are home and politicians start to get asked some tough questions. Who cares if it's about oil or imperialism or racism or Halliburton? The fact remains it's NOT about 9/11, Osama, al-Qaeda, freedom, democracy or any of the other bullshit Fox News/Whitehouse talking points people over there seem to lap up like lolcats.
Bush and his team DID lie to you and the world. The war IS an illegal act of aggression under the Nuremberg Charter and the US Constitution (which disallows any military action abroad in the absence of a clear & present danger to the US - such a danger was demonstrably neither clear nor present). But if you're comfortable with nearly 4000 dead US troops, a million dead Iraqis with millions more maimed, displaced or homeless, your government taking your freedoms away one by one and over 500 billion dollars gone, all for a pack of lies and god knows what else, then I guess you'll always be able to justify it somehow.
I have done a quick Google and already am I counting huge gaps in death toll, one claims 65,000, another claims 1,000,000. With gaps that large I do not put any credence in the current system, agreed the articles were about a month apart, so in that month maybe they found the missing 935,000 bodies, but I doubt it.
Really?
You should notify President Thomas Jefferson that his sending of marines to Tripoli, to fight the Barbary pirates, may have been unconstitutional, and why.
BTW, just for fun, here is what a "lie" is:
1) It is a statement
2) that is false
3) and known, by the speaker, to be false
4) and intended, by the speaker, to deceive his audience.
Most persons already knew this, by the time they were about 3 years old.
Please...the watergate scandal was more "illegal" than the Iraqi War. Dont confuse "immoral" with "illegal". Keep in mind that under the War Powers Resolution, Bush didn't do anything illegal unless Congress takes an opinion against the war. They didn't or at least at the time. When the Iraqi Resolution was passed and it WAS passed with a majority might I remind you, that gave Bush the ok to go to war. Bush didn't just abruptly go to war without going through the obstacles of checks and balances. He went through the entire process and after much deliberation the war was still a go. I remember Bush was even hurrayed for going to war
Lets not forget Andrew Jackson and Lyndon Johnson as well
i heard on the radio today that a new US Army study showed that 3/4 of the american soldiers that served in Iraq have a psychological disorder.
i believe it now...
i believe it now...
"The Congress shall have Power ... To Declare War."
--- Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, The Constitution of the United States of America.
No formal declaration of war has been forthcoming, yet the US is at war (same with Korea, same with Vietnam). Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. Without a declaration of war, both the actions in Afghanistan (which almost could be argued isn't an act of war) and the invasion & occupation of Iraq (an aggressive act of war by any definition) are simply in violation of the US Constitution.
As for your rather cute definition of "lie", thanks. But the first two parts (making a false statement, unknowingly) are sufficient to define the word. Ignorance, while being no excuse for lying, is a trademark of this president and we're all used to that. But add the third part of your definition (knowingly making a false statement) and the actual reason you're doing it (part four) swiftly becomes irrelevant - redundant, in fact. If you know that what you're about to say is false you already know (or hope) that people will be deceived by it. If there's a good reason for lying a nation into a war I've yet to hear it.
In the case of Tripoli, war was first declared on the United States by Tripoli, which prompted Thomas Jefferson to act quickly and without a formal declaration, sending frigates to the Mediterranean initially for defense of US interests only. Alexander Hamilton contended that a formal declaration of war was not necessary in this case - hostilities were initiated by Tripoli and, as such, a state of war already existed.
No such parallel can be drawn in the case of the Iraq invasion. In the absence of any threat from Iraq against the US or its interests and no formal declaration of hostilities from either side, a devastating aerial bombardment of both military & civilian infrastructure was nonetheless launched, which paved the way for a land assault, invasion & occupation. Even if you remove the Whitehouse's dishonesty in initiating this invasion, the fact remains it was done illegally.
--- Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, The Constitution of the United States of America.
No formal declaration of war has been forthcoming, yet the US is at war (same with Korea, same with Vietnam). Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. Without a declaration of war, both the actions in Afghanistan (which almost could be argued isn't an act of war) and the invasion & occupation of Iraq (an aggressive act of war by any definition) are simply in violation of the US Constitution.
As for your rather cute definition of "lie", thanks. But the first two parts (making a false statement, unknowingly) are sufficient to define the word. Ignorance, while being no excuse for lying, is a trademark of this president and we're all used to that. But add the third part of your definition (knowingly making a false statement) and the actual reason you're doing it (part four) swiftly becomes irrelevant - redundant, in fact. If you know that what you're about to say is false you already know (or hope) that people will be deceived by it. If there's a good reason for lying a nation into a war I've yet to hear it.
In the case of Tripoli, war was first declared on the United States by Tripoli, which prompted Thomas Jefferson to act quickly and without a formal declaration, sending frigates to the Mediterranean initially for defense of US interests only. Alexander Hamilton contended that a formal declaration of war was not necessary in this case - hostilities were initiated by Tripoli and, as such, a state of war already existed.
No such parallel can be drawn in the case of the Iraq invasion. In the absence of any threat from Iraq against the US or its interests and no formal declaration of hostilities from either side, a devastating aerial bombardment of both military & civilian infrastructure was nonetheless launched, which paved the way for a land assault, invasion & occupation. Even if you remove the Whitehouse's dishonesty in initiating this invasion, the fact remains it was done illegally.
"Please"?
Confuse "immoral" with "illegal"? Watergate - a half-baked break & enter, some sloppy espionage - more illegal than this invasion? Now who's confused? So, tell me: what if the war was simply immoral and against every decent impulse in your body - but legal in every sense of the word - would that make it ok?
Yeah, I know Bush was "hurrayed". I guess that makes it ok. My mistake. I guess that means everything he said was true. Yay for George.
Actually, I was interested in your assertion that
The US Constitution divides warmaking Powers between the President and Congress. The President is Commander-in-Chief, during war, since strategic decisions must often be made rapidly, which is most effectively accomplished by a single person. However, inasmuch as a decision to embark upon a war, is consequential for the entire nation, and tends to require the support of the entire nation, therefore it is a decision appropriately made by the entire people, which is accomplished through their congressional representatives.
Congress stated its intent to wage war, against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, thereby satisfying its Constitutional function, in this regard. That this intent was stated as "we authorize the Commander-in-Chief to wage war," rather than "we declare war," is without any Constitutional significance that I can recognize.
Additionally, it has been reasonably argued that, inasmuch as Saddam Hussein repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the cease-fire that suspended (most of) the armed conflict (the American participation in which, was also authorized by Congress) that resulted from his invasion of Kuwait, and inasmuch as he continued to wage war, by repeatedly attacking American and British aircraft flying defensive patrols of the "no-fly zones," therefore the invasion of Iraq was not even a new war, requiring a formal declaration, but merely a resumption of the greater hostilities of the first Gulf War (which resumption was regarded as arguably more urgent, since the USA had become aware of the extent of the threat to it, posed by Middle-Eastern terrorists, along with a recognition that Saddam Hussein - with his enmity, wealth and weapons - would be a capable, and likely willing, resource for assisting them).
In any case, you have not satisfied my curiosity, with regard to your assertion that
which Constitutional requirement is unknown to me, and would seem to be too nebulous in meaning, to be of practical value as determinative Constitutional law.
You should probably think about this, a little more carefully, unless you want to cause huge problems (for yourself, and others) - including getting persons expelled from schools for violating Honor Codes, inasmuch as "lying," for writing the incorrect answer to a question on an algebra test (or maybe you would argue that Aristotle was "lying," before Copernicus came along, or that Newtonian physicists were "lying," before Einstein came along, or that generations of parents, and teachers, were "lying," in describing their understanding of things, before a better understanding was achieved). My description of the characteristics of a "lie," represents the dictionary definition and the common meaning, as well as the reason that "lying" is regarded as representing dishonesty, different in meaning from (e.g.) the widely-used phrase "an honest mistake" - which, by your definition, would be an oxymoron - or, for that matter, irony, a metaphor, a written novel or a joke (these being but a few examples that immediately come to mind).
Instead, it is the frequent, political misrepresentation of any inaccurate statement, as being a "lie," that is cynical, false and therefore problematic.
I've never said it was ok. In fact, if you actually remember everything I've posted about the war I was one of the few who held the opinion that the war was a mistake all the way back when it started (i know, rare for a conservative).
But "immoral" and "illegal" are two totally different terminologies and in the eyes of politics and law they have nothing to do with each other. The average mentality is, if it is not "illegal" then it's fine. This ranges from corporate scandals to "aggressive action against another country".
Do I personally think it's fine? No, I've never said that. As I restate, I've always thought the war was a mistake and something immoral. But Bush didn't do anything "illegal". What he did was "immoral". But since when did politics and morality coincide anyway?
My point for him being "hurrayed" was this: The Iraqi Resolution and at the time no one bothered to stop and think "wait...this is actually wrong to just invade another's country". And yet, with the giant hole that US dug itself in, people are so anxious to just voice against Bush when many themselves were voicing FOR Iraq back in it's inauguration. (I'm not pointing fingers to any specific user fyi)
Also, if you've remembered from my previous post. I was the one reiterating that Bush HAD lied and he was being immoral. But does that mean he did something illegal? NO. The whole Iraq situation stank to high heaven but no one really bothered to carefully examine the situation at the time, so now everyone wants to jump ship and avoid responsibility? Congress and Bush's cabinet did MUCH more than Bush himself might I remind you. In this age, presidential power is heavily limited and it's best to keep that in mind.
In either case, this type of situation isn't new. Remember the Invasion of Grenada by Reagen? Was he acing "illegally"? What about the covert CIA operation to Nicaragua when they supported the Contras? Hungary of 1956? Bay of the Pigs in Cuba? Noriega's ousting in Panama? US's refusal to accept the Geneva treaty between France and Vietnam by Lyndon Johnson? Cambodia/Lao bombing? Massacre and rape of vietnamese citizens? Agent Orange screw up? Somalia? Rwanda (although this was more of a UNSC collective batch)? What Bush did was very minor considering American's activities before. But does this make Bush (or should I say his cabinet, the CIA for falsifying reports and Department of Defense) right in invading Iraq? Of course not. But is it as simple as saying "OMG Bush did something immoral so it must be illegal then lets impeach him and send him to jail OMG this is so horrifying"?
You know, some people just are this moralless and moronic by nature. I´m sure these nutcases were trash at home too. That´s army recruiting for you. People are capable of doing this in a non-war situation, you can read about it almost everyday. Call me emo or whatever, but humankind is the cancer of the earth. No other creature gets fun out of torturing. That doesn´t mean there are no good people ofcourse.
I would never be capable of doing this...never. No, I´ve never been in a war situation, but I just know that I could never be transformed into something like these retards.
War ****s up your mind, not your heart.
Good statement. I also think these guys would have done the same shit at home.
this just shouldnt have been put up, simple as that!
i blame the solders not the US
sick c***'s....
i blame the solders not the US
sick c***'s....
I' am a secon leutnant in the swiss army. I was for 6 months in Bosnia-Herzigovnia to join the Freedom Forces. We had our fun too but we never injured someone. But i do agree that after some months you get crazy about the things happening around you. People getting killed for no reason (or odd reasons) and then always the fear of mines which will bomb your leg away. It was a hard time but i don't regret it 'cause we helped a lot of people to sruvive.
But I think that what the US Army is doing in Afghanistan and in Iraq is just a shame for all people working for the army and for their country. You should be proud to have the honour to wear the uniform of your country and with this actions you only show how dumb you are. I hope this soldiers will be punished by the government.
This forum post doesn't represents the thoughts of the Swiss Army. It's just my own opinion.
But I think that what the US Army is doing in Afghanistan and in Iraq is just a shame for all people working for the army and for their country. You should be proud to have the honour to wear the uniform of your country and with this actions you only show how dumb you are. I hope this soldiers will be punished by the government.
This forum post doesn't represents the thoughts of the Swiss Army. It's just my own opinion.
Are you describing yourself?
On the other hand, there is a species of wasp that paralyzes an animal, lays its eggs within it, and the hatchlings eat their way out. Also, I've been told that some cats enjoy "playing" with captured mice, in a manner seeming to be cruel (although I've not personally seen such behavior), and dogs, monkeys and apes are sometimes similarly "cruel" in their behavior toward one another.
More noteworthy, perhaps, is that ethics may be a consideration that is uniquely human, although all social animals are likely to exemplify empathetic, as well as savage, behavior.
This is a wondrously thought-provoking statement. Thanks.
See what US Army is really doing in Iraq
(151 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG