Barack Obama is not the first blood-soaked war criminal to get the Nobel Peace Prize, and certainly not the worst. The prize has been meaningless, and utterly uncorrelated with peace, for a long, long time.
It's not astounding to the Pakistani civilians his Predator drones have been murdering since his third day in office, continuing the tactics of his war criminal predecessor.
I strongly disagree. This is a war, and in wars, people die, sometimes innocent ones. The Taliban represent a threat not only to us, but to sane cultures everywhere. I personally think that B-52 strikes would be more effective, but that's just me.
This is a war? And when did Congress declare this war? Just kidding! I know we don't bother with silliness like that old Constitution any more. And the Taliban regime represents no threat to the United States whatsoever, and never has. Perhaps you're confusing them with Al Qaeda, who would have posed no threat had it not been for our unbalanced, intrusive foreign policy over the past five or six few decades on behalf of another paranoid, nuclear-armed, aggressor nation in the region.
Yes, people die in war, and sometimes civilians (all presumed innocent by the Geneva Conventions). There are still rules to warfare, and they include taking care when it comes to hitting suspected targets surrounded by civilians. Plus things are a bit different when the evil aggressor nation (in Afghanistan and Iraq, that means US) is doing the killing. The fact that the current war criminal in the White House isn't as bad as his predecessors yet doesn't change the facts. Barack Obama has the blood of innocent men, women and children on his hands. He inherited two aggressive wars, one of which he is ramping up, and he is saber-rattling against another country. And he has done nothing to pursue his predecessor war criminal, itself a war crime.
B-52 strikes? Nuclear, perhaps? "Kill them all, Sire - the Lord will know his own?"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori and
no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 02:55 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 05:13 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 11:39 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 14:41 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 14:58 (UTC)Yes, people die in war, and sometimes civilians (all presumed innocent by the Geneva Conventions). There are still rules to warfare, and they include taking care when it comes to hitting suspected targets surrounded by civilians. Plus things are a bit different when the evil aggressor nation (in Afghanistan and Iraq, that means US) is doing the killing. The fact that the current war criminal in the White House isn't as bad as his predecessors yet doesn't change the facts. Barack Obama has the blood of innocent men, women and children on his hands. He inherited two aggressive wars, one of which he is ramping up, and he is saber-rattling against another country. And he has done nothing to pursue his predecessor war criminal, itself a war crime.
B-52 strikes? Nuclear, perhaps? "Kill them all, Sire - the Lord will know his own?"