epiphany Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 none of which point to the USA being the cause of thousands of civilian deaths. in fact each source you provide comments on how the vast majority of civilian deaths is caused by anti-government forces i.e. taliban etc. ...which are in direct correlation to US/allied military actions which is why civilian deaths mysteriously rose during the Obama administration's escalation of the war. Bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen were also escalated so these will have contributed to the total casualties. I wonder what Obama's fate would be if the Nuremberg principles were applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 ...which are in direct correlation to US/allied military actions which is why civilian deaths mysteriously rose during the Obama administration's escalation of the war. Bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen were also escalated so these will have contributed to the total casualties. I wonder what Obama's fate would be if the Nuremberg principles were applied. what would you suggest he, or any other leader(anywhere) that was sworn in in the middle of a war, do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 what would you suggest he, or any other leader(anywhere) that was sworn in in the middle of a war, do? At the very least, not escalate it. And Wex, I'd take a closer look at the detail of some of those articles. UNAMA figures have always been underestimates, which is why recalculations are constantly being made, partly also because civilians are all too often labelled militants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 At the very least, not escalate it. And Wex, I'd take a closer look at the detail of some of those articles. UNAMA figures have always been underestimates, which is why recalculations are constantly being made, partly also because civilians are all too often labelled militants. i hear you, and wish it was possible. but outside of a king, with all his powers intact, no modern politician can single handedly change all the policies of a nation to his will. he( and many others) do the best they can but there's the opposition, the long term effects of 'just pulling out', 'the next election', the effect of said policies on other policies etc. it just can't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 because civilians are all too often labelled militants. A dishonourable tradition going right back to 30 January 1972! John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 i hear you, and wish it was possible. but outside of a king, with all his powers intact, no modern politician can single handedly change all the policies of a nation to his will. he( and many others) do the best they can but there's the opposition, the long term effects of 'just pulling out', 'the next election', the effect of said policies on other policies etc. it just can't be done. Agreed. Many were calling on Obama for a complete pull out. I was not optimistic, but I think after 2009 being the most lethal year for Afghani civilians, coinciding with the significant increase in military action, that Nobel Peace prize isn't exactly going to command a prominent place in Obama's display cabinet. And as mentioned before, it's not just Afghanistan. Foreign policy under Obama has not exactly been Bush-lite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Agreed. Many were calling on Obama for a complete pull out. I was not optimistic, but I think after 2009 being the most lethal year for Afghani civilians, coinciding with the significant increase in military action, that Nobel Peace prize isn't exactly going to command a prominent place in Obama's display cabinet. And as mentioned before, it's not just Afghanistan. Foreign policy under Obama has not exactly been Bush-lite. i think foreign policy has been as 'lite' as the politicians would allow it. he has done a lot to put america back on the right track instead of being seen as a selfish bully. the wars already going on have to be seen to the end otherwise things will get real bad real quick for the very people we're worried about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 it just can't be done. Or wont be. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/obama-restarts-guantanamo-trials-abandoning-key-election-pledge-15106847.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7914061.stm http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/mar/31/obama-failed-foreclosure-fund/ http://moveleft.org/obamas_promises/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Or wont be. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/obama-restarts-guantanamo-trials-abandoning-key-election-pledge-15106847.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7914061.stm http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/mar/31/obama-failed-foreclosure-fund/ http://moveleft.org/obamas_promises/index.html like i mentioned earlier; if the man had been king he'd done things his way coz he had ultimate power. he doesn't. the hawks, the republicans in the house, the army, the lobbyist etc all have a stake in near enough any policy to do with 'war'. pledges or not, he can just say 'right, we doing it guys. and that the bottom line coz Obama says so.' not gonna work. it's the same everywhere where people are voted into office. i'd say anyone who delivers on half of their election pledges does better than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.