I think comments like these are completely disgusting. The organization provides medical help to the victims of these conflicts, they don’t take sides. They are simply trying to provide the humanitarian help to the victims. They are not politically motivated, they are the good samaritans.
The US military tries to avoid this sort of thing, yet failed to do the right thing (not strike) when the Afghans called a strike on the location, which was known to be a hospital and for which the GPS location was known to the US military. The main difference between the US military and many others is we try to avoid this sort of “collateral damage” (i.e. killing of innocent people, especially children, doctors, patients in hospitals, people in places of worship, schools in session, etc.). We failed this time, so it is realistic to expect an investigation to discover why this happened and who was involved in the decisions to bomb….
I’m the last person who would defend Russian military actions, in Syria or elsewhere. But I don’t buy the line that “we are careful, they aren’t.” I agree, they aren’t, but are we? Really? Perhaps I’ve been too much influenced by what the US did in Vietnam. We heard the same line there, but it was clear that the US didn’t try very hard at all to limit collateral damage. Bombing usually isn’t precision. The drones, which maybe should be more precise, have killed a lot of civilians. War and clean hands don’t go together.
Nine killed in Roseburg by a loner who owned 13 or so guns including hand guns, long guns, and assault rifles. This is the latest mass shooting of the week, and many are asking why? Could it be that a system that allows an unstable person to amass an arsenal of guns as if they were shiny playthings, that that person is eventually going to want to play with his toys..Twenty-two doctors and patients killed in Kunduz, Afghanistan from “friendly fire” called in by questionable allies in a foreign conflict of uncertain objectives. Many are asking why. Could it be that a system that produces the most guns and bombs by far of any other nation on earth, that that nation will want to deploy those weapons? One of the founding fathers (I forget which one) said just that – that the problem with maintaining a large standing army is that eventually governments will want to use it..Perhaps the answer to both questions is the same. It is American values. And the problem with the lone mass murderer is that he is acting out the values and the example of his government, and he has the available weaponry to do so.
When a nation spends more than the next 13 largest militaries in the world, combined, does “empire” enter the fray?
When that nation constantly invades other nations on a whim, whether a tiny island, or a major Middle East nation, and uses arms to kill innocent bystanders, in large numbers, is it amazing that it’s citizens begin to feel that a gun can solve all their problems, and make them famous, even posthumously being fine with them??
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 8 years ago
I think comments like these are completely disgusting. The organization provides medical help to the victims of these conflicts, they don’t take sides. They are simply trying to provide the humanitarian help to the victims. They are not politically motivated, they are the good samaritans.
DOUGLAS G THOMAS Premium Member over 8 years ago
The US military tries to avoid this sort of thing, yet failed to do the right thing (not strike) when the Afghans called a strike on the location, which was known to be a hospital and for which the GPS location was known to the US military. The main difference between the US military and many others is we try to avoid this sort of “collateral damage” (i.e. killing of innocent people, especially children, doctors, patients in hospitals, people in places of worship, schools in session, etc.). We failed this time, so it is realistic to expect an investigation to discover why this happened and who was involved in the decisions to bomb….
cripplious over 8 years ago
As anyone who read of the witch hunts, Inquisition, Crusades, and every other conflict of the apes called human. The innocent are thee first to fry.
lonecat over 8 years ago
I’m the last person who would defend Russian military actions, in Syria or elsewhere. But I don’t buy the line that “we are careful, they aren’t.” I agree, they aren’t, but are we? Really? Perhaps I’ve been too much influenced by what the US did in Vietnam. We heard the same line there, but it was clear that the US didn’t try very hard at all to limit collateral damage. Bombing usually isn’t precision. The drones, which maybe should be more precise, have killed a lot of civilians. War and clean hands don’t go together.
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
“Shock and Awe”.
lindz.coop Premium Member over 8 years ago
Friendly fire.
Gypsy8 over 8 years ago
Nine killed in Roseburg by a loner who owned 13 or so guns including hand guns, long guns, and assault rifles. This is the latest mass shooting of the week, and many are asking why? Could it be that a system that allows an unstable person to amass an arsenal of guns as if they were shiny playthings, that that person is eventually going to want to play with his toys..Twenty-two doctors and patients killed in Kunduz, Afghanistan from “friendly fire” called in by questionable allies in a foreign conflict of uncertain objectives. Many are asking why. Could it be that a system that produces the most guns and bombs by far of any other nation on earth, that that nation will want to deploy those weapons? One of the founding fathers (I forget which one) said just that – that the problem with maintaining a large standing army is that eventually governments will want to use it..Perhaps the answer to both questions is the same. It is American values. And the problem with the lone mass murderer is that he is acting out the values and the example of his government, and he has the available weaponry to do so.
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
When a nation spends more than the next 13 largest militaries in the world, combined, does “empire” enter the fray?
When that nation constantly invades other nations on a whim, whether a tiny island, or a major Middle East nation, and uses arms to kill innocent bystanders, in large numbers, is it amazing that it’s citizens begin to feel that a gun can solve all their problems, and make them famous, even posthumously being fine with them??