• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your odds of being killed by terrorism.... [W:194]

SCitizen said:
But during Vietnam and Korean war, USA engaged in deliberate bombing of civilians -- about 2 million Korean and Vietnamese civilians were killed by USA.
Click to expand...

We've already established that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were not "genocides" like you like to claim.

And if you want to talk about bombing civilians, pal, I've got one word for you: Grozny.
 
Tigerace117 said:
We've already established that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were not "genocides" like you like to claim.
Click to expand...

That is debatable among historians. But USA did attack many civilian targets in these wars.
 
SCitizen said:
That is debatable among historians. But USA did attack many civilian targets in these wars.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any historian who claims either one of those wars was a genocide.

Attacking a civilian target does not make a war a genocide. If that were the case you'd have to declare them all to be genocides.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I don't know of any historian who claims either one of those wars was a genocide.

Attacking a civilian target does not make a war a genocide. If that were the case you'd have to declare them all to be genocides.
Click to expand...

I do not know about technical definitions. But in Korea and Vietnam, US has attacked many civilian targets with brutality unthinkable for US Military now. Before 1970s many people in USA had very strong racist ideas.
 
SCitizen said:
Thus millions of disabled people in USA did not get the help they need. Hundreds of thousands became homeless or prisoners.
Click to expand...

But wait a moment.

During the last 8 years we have had Obama and free healthcare for years.

An let's see, that is 5 years under President Bush, 8 years under President Obama.

Not sure where you are going with the rest of that rant though. Homeless or prisoners, eh?
 
Oozlefinch said:
Not sure where you are going with the rest of that rant though. Homeless or prisoners, eh?
Click to expand...

Thank G-d I am fortunate that my parents help me. I have Moderate Autism and Moderate Depression -- I am unable to drive and to work over 10 hours a week. I do not receive any help from the state.
 
SCitizen said:
I do not know about technical definitions. But in Korea and Vietnam, US has attacked many civilian targets with brutality unthinkable for US Military now. Before 1970s many people in USA had very strong racist ideas.
Click to expand...

No, the US military attacked cities(not necessarily civilian targets, especially given the level of industry and such in the cities of North Korea and North Vietnam) with a level of imprecision that does not exist today.

And racism doesn't have anything to do with either war. Korea was started by communist aggression.

I know what Russians called people from the Caucasus in those days, by the way.
 
oneworld2 said:
You would have to know a little bit about international law to understand why certain actions are considered necessary for acts of violence by states to be classed as legitimate................. i think that might rule you out.

Add on to that your complete submission to state propaganda and you might understand why there's a certain amount of reluctance to spend time trying to go through the record with you.

But just for you I'll pick one out

The US lead invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003 was a nailed on illegal war of aggression.

To attack a country with the intention of regime change is illegal under international law. That was , as shown by the subsequent documentation , the intended consequence of the US led invasion.

Cue the apologetics
Click to expand...

What "crimes"?

Maybe you and use different terms.

To me crimes are actually crimes.

And murder has a very read and precise meaning.

I tend to use hyperbole sparingly. And I tend to highlight when I use it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
No, the US military attacked cities(not necessarily civilian targets, especially given the level of industry and such in the cities of North Korea and North Vietnam) with a level of imprecision that does not exist today.

And racism doesn't have anything to do with either war. Korea was started by communist aggression.
Click to expand...

Actually both North Korea and Vietnam lost about a million civilians each as a result of US military action. I am not sure modern Americans can understand mindset of Americans at that time. Indiscriminate warfare used by USA had a goal of minimizing US losses -- even at the expense of the other side's civilians.

In 1950 -- '53 and 1966 -- '73 most Americans viewed the loss of American lives as a much greater tragedy then loss of Asian lives. In '66 -- '73, US hippies disagreed vehemently and protested against US tactics.
 
SCitizen said:
Actually both North Korea and Vietnam lost about a million civilians each as a result of US military action. I am not sure modern Americans can understand mindset of Americans at that time. Indiscriminate warfare used by USA had a goal of minimizing US losses -- even at the expense of the other side's civilians.

In 1950 -- '53 and 1966 -- '73 most Americans viewed the loss of American lives as a much greater tragedy then loss of Asian lives. In '66 -- '73, US hippies disagreed vehemently and protested against US tactics.
Click to expand...

Gee, maybe if they didn't want to lose civilians they shouldn't have invaded their neighbors. Don't ya think?

That still doesn't make it a genocide, or even close to one.

And yes, the goal in warfare is to minimize our own losses. Civilian casualties are regrettable, but often unavoidable.

So far you have yet to provide any proof that what happened in either Korea or Vietnam was a genocide.

I hate to break it to you bud, but people are always going to care more about people they know denying versus people halfway around the world, especially, as in Korea, those people started the war in the first place.

Hippies were morons. They are also irrelevant, as noticed by the fact that they didn't change a damn thing in the long run.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I hate to break it to you bud, but people are always going to care more about people they know denying versus people halfway around the world, especially, as in Korea, those people started the war in the first place.
Click to expand...

Strange as it is I am not sure Americans in 2017 can understand the mentality of Americans 1950-'53. During this time there was a deep held belief that the lives of Americans, especially white Americans are more important then lives of Asians. Thus, the loss of 33,000 US soldiers was seen as a greater tragedy then loss of over a million North Korean civilians.
 
SCitizen said:
Strange as it is I am not sure Americans in 2017 can understand the mentality of Americans 1950-'53. During this time there was a deep held belief that the lives of Americans, especially white Americans are more important then lives of Asians. Thus, the loss of 33,000 US soldiers was seen as a greater tragedy then loss of over a million North Korean civilians.
Click to expand...

Ive already explained this to you: of course people are going to care more about people they know getting hurt or killed than they are about random strangers who started the war in the first place. That's just human nature.

And given that North Korea started the war in the first place, I'd say that feeling was well placed.
 
SCitizen said:
Actually both North Korea and Vietnam lost about a million civilians each as a result of US military action.
Click to expand...

Yea. Like North Korea is not to blame at all for attacking their neighbor. Or North Vietnam for attacking their neighbor.

I guess if somebody broke into your house and took your hostage and when the police tried to take out the criminals you would blame the police if the criminals decided to take out the rest of your family. After all, it is all the fault of the police, right?

SCitizen said:
Strange as it is I am not sure Americans in 2017 can understand the mentality of Americans 1950-'53. During this time there was a deep held belief that the lives of Americans, especially white Americans are more important then lives of Asians. Thus, the loss of 33,000 US soldiers was seen as a greater tragedy then loss of over a million North Korean civilians.
Click to expand...

That is just human nature.

Over 10 times as many died in the 2011 Tsunami in Japan as did in Hurricane Katrina. But one was in our own country, the other was half a world away. We simply care more about what happens to our own country than what happens to others.

This is simply how things are, rant against it as much as you want. 5 people die in a gang shootout in your city, a tragedy I am sure. Especially if it is around the corner from you.

5 die in Chicago or Detroit, not so much.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Actually it is $1.9t. And that is a figure announced yesterday.

https://www.thebalance.com/war-on-terror-facts-costs-timeline-3306300



Really?

Now a war of aggression is generally based upon either the desire to occupy the country for land or resources (which we did not), or because of religious-ethnic purposes.

Darfur is a war of aggression. The invasion of South Korea and South Vietnam was a war of aggression. "Regime change" is actually a good reason since it involves none of those.

Taking out Hitler, that was "regime change". As was Italy, Japan, Libya, Somalia, and many of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia. You remove the government in power, and put in a more peaceful one.

Now let me throw this into the mix. The government in Iraq in 2003 was illegal. Guilty of committing decades of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They took charge in a coup, deposing the legitimately elected government and running it as a police state for 40 years.



"Millions of lives"?

Wow, is that even close to the truth?

Even the most outlandish claims of the death toll (which includes the deaths by ISIS and by the radical groups) only comes to around 1.3 million. Much less when you only count those that died in fighting the United States (less than 100,000 for all combined in over 15 years).

I love how a terrorist slaughtering Christians in some remote village in Syria is somehow the fault of the United States.
Click to expand...

You are ex US military and understandably might want to see things in a different light but there is just so much BS and assumption in the above it would take around 10 massive posts to even touch the surface, so just some bullet points .

Additionally , if you want to discuss something in particular in amongst the deluge above , even multiple ones in singular posts I'm happy to do so

1. Legality of Iraq invasion. Only the UNSC can authorize military action against any nation state for it to be legitimate/legal and there has to be a case for it. To invade a nation to induce regime change is flat out illegal. The UNSC resolutions pertaining to Iraq were concerned with disarmament , not regime change. For the UN to advocate such a thing would be against its own charter , which is a big part of what makes up international law anyway.

In international law the " aggressor " is understood to be the nation that sends its forces into the territory of another state first. Hence why the Germans were , rightly imo , classed as the aggressors for the carnage that was WW2. States usually justify their aggression with some reference to security , you missed that out of the small list of 2 reasons you think are relevant

2. The US isn't the only nation to wage wars of aggression though I would seriously , if I were you , read up on the situation WRT Vietnam and the US involvement there before you make any attempts at allocating crimes here.

3. Citing odious regimes in a debate concerning the act of regime change is expected when it comes to those wishing to defend nations that participate in it. People need to see past this in order to understand why the principle against it has such legal support. I'm sure a little time to stop and think should be sufficient but if not think along the lines of what the world would be like if nations decided to militarily attack other nations simply because they didn't like the current government/leaderships there.

4.At the time Saddam Husseins regime carried out , arguably , some of its worse crimes he enjoyed US support.

5. The US and other Western states have no problem supporting despotic regimes so long as they are considered useful to them. Past ones would include the Shahs Iran , Pinochets Chile , Duvaliers Haiti , Suhartos Indonesia ,Galtieris Argentina to name but a few, with many of the cited places having their democratic choices ground into the dust in a sea of blood. Present day ones would include Morsis Egypt , Saudi Arabia , the feudal monarchies of the Gulf states , some of the former Soviet Asian republics

6.Read what I actually wrote about the victims of these insane wars for geopolitical gain that make up the war on terror thus far. The charge that millions have been killed and/or had their lives destroyed is factually correct. Your mistake , probably deliberately , was to try to ignore/discount all of the people maimed , all of the people made homeless or made refugees in a neighbouring state. As these people are genuine and direct victims of the decisions made in Washington and London etc the real figure is in the tens of millions
 
SCitizen said:
Definitely -- now USA has much more respect for civilian lives then during Vietnam and Korea.
Click to expand...

Quantity does not change quality.

If people are being killed in violation of international law, does the number killed really change anything?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Maybe Depleted Uranium works better than either, eh? I guess it depends upon the effect one seeks.
Click to expand...

It does, and the effect one seeks during a war seems to be as many dead bodies as possible without completely bringing on the condemnation of the rest of the world.

So, no nukes, and no chemical weapons. Anything else is fair game.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Lightning and heart disease are not actively seeking people out and trying to kill you nor do they have an agenda for world domination...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



The people who make food products loaded with fat,salt and sugar spend billions advertising their death-dealing products.

Try to watch TV or use the internet without being exposed to their advertisements.
 
natsb said:
Straw man noted and ignored.
The boogeyman hasn't killed thousands of people has he?
Click to expand...
 Shall we keep the discussion to real people, real deaths, and real terror?
Click to expand...



No,it was terrorists from Al-Qaeda who killed about 3,000 people on 9/11
 
shrubnose said:
The people who make food products loaded with fat,salt and sugar spend billions advertising their death-dealing products.

Try to watch TV or use the internet without being exposed to their advertisements.
Click to expand...

We should be able to end that sort of advertising. We did, after all, end big tobacco's lies about how their product was harmless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom