it would stand to reason that anyone who (passionately) rallys against war, either by activism or art, would NOT support / endorse a president that not only continued a war of choice based on lies, but started his own, no matter how many peace prizes are hung on his wall. to me it can only be seen as totally hypocritical and discrediting!
it would stand to reason that anyone who (passionately) rallys against war, either by activism or art, would NOT support / endorse a president that not only continued a war of choice based on lies, but started his own, no matter how many peace prizes are hung on his wall. to me it can only be seen as totally hypocritical and discrediting!
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
it would stand to reason that anyone who (passionately) rallys against war, either by activism or art, would NOT support / endorse a president that not only continued a war of choice based on lies, but started his own, no matter how many peace prizes are hung on his wall. to me it can only be seen as totally hypocritical and discrediting!
What war did Obama start?
technically wars are usually declared by congress, since neither the afghan or iraq wars were declared you could make a case that they technically are not wars...im sure you know i was referring to southern Afghanistan 2009 and the surge in 2010, which called into action 50,000 more troops, both of which were very successful in recruiting more "terrorists"
it would stand to reason that anyone who (passionately) rallys against war, either by activism or art, would NOT support / endorse a president that not only continued a war of choice based on lies, but started his own, no matter how many peace prizes are hung on his wall. to me it can only be seen as totally hypocritical and discrediting!
What war did Obama start?
technically wars are usually declared by congress, since neither the afghan or iraq wars were declared you could make a case that they technically are not wars...im sure you know i was referring to southern Afghanistan 2009 and the surge in 2010, which called into action 50,000 more troops, both of which were very successful in recruiting more "terrorists"
Someone could claim that the Iraq and Afghan wars are not wars, but then they'd be an idiot, or a lawyer.
As for any surges in those ongoing wars, in an alleged effort to bring those wars to a close, they do not constitute starting a war.
technically wars are usually declared by congress, since neither the afghan or iraq wars were declared you could make a case that they technically are not wars...im sure you know i was referring to southern Afghanistan 2009 and the surge in 2010, which called into action 50,000 more troops, both of which were very successful in recruiting more "terrorists"[/quote]
Someone could claim that the Iraq and Afghan wars are not wars, but then they'd be an idiot, or a lawyer.
As for any surges in those ongoing wars, in an alleged effort to bring those wars to a close, they do not constitute starting a war.[/quote]
perfect: since we aren't being technical about wars, my question is how many people in sovereign nations have to die via "acts of aggression" for it to be considered war? here in the US it was about 3500, some more recently put the number to 3. how many humans died from drone attacks in pakistan, yemen, somalia iran and libya?
perfect: since we aren't being technical about wars, my question is how many people in sovereign nations have to die via "acts of aggression" for it to be considered war? here in the US it was about 3500, some more recently put the number to 3. how many humans died from drone attacks in pakistan, yemen, somalia, iran, and libya?
What nation attacked the U.S on 9/11?
As for extra-judicial assassinations carried out using drones; they don't constitute wars, they constitute just what I said: extra-judicial-assassinations.
how many people in sovereign nations have to die via "acts of aggression" for it to be considered war?
Depends on whether the aggression is being carried out by the government of a nation state, or by a sporadic group of individuals.
You don't wage war on a disparate group of individuals. You apprehend them and arrest them, just as you would any other criminal.
how many people in sovereign nations have to die via "acts of aggression" for it to be considered war?
Depends on whether the aggression is being carried out by the government of a nation state, or by a sporadic group of individuals.
You don't wage war on a disparate group of individuals. You apprehend them and arrest them, just as you would any other criminal.
which is what makes drone attacks, or extra-judicial assassinations, acts of war...no?
which is what makes drone attacks, or extra-judicial assassinations, acts of war...no?
Not too sure what international law states on this, but I would have thought that deadly attacks carried out on foreign soil by any government of a nation state would constitute an act of war.
which is what makes drone attacks, or extra-judicial assassinations, acts of war...no?
Not too sure what international law states on this, but I would have thought that deadly attacks carried out on foreign soil by any government of a nation state would constitute an act of war.
So what distinction are you making between starting a war and an act of war? Whether or not the other state officially returns fire? Just curious if you're making a 'lesser of two evils' argument, or defending Obama's foreign policy? (or neither and I'm missing the point)....I think JC29856 has a valid point.
which is what makes drone attacks, or extra-judicial assassinations, acts of war...no?
Not too sure what international law states on this, but I would have thought that deadly attacks carried out on foreign soil by any government of a nation state would constitute an act of war.
So what distinction are you making between starting a war and an act of war? Whether or not the other state officially returns fire? Just curious if you're making a 'lesser of two evils' argument, or defending Obama's foreign policy? (or neither and I'm missing the point)....I think JC29856 has a valid point.
Not defending Obama's foreign policy. Obama is the head of a nation state, so carrying out drone strikes on foreign soil should be considered acts of war.
Whereas someone from Saudi Arabia setting off a bomb on a New York subway, or hijacking a plane and flying it into a skyscraper, isn't an act of war. It's an act of terrorism, and should be treated like any other violent crime.
Comments
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
What war did Obama start?
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
technically wars are usually declared by congress, since neither the afghan or iraq wars were declared you could make a case that they technically are not wars...im sure you know i was referring to southern Afghanistan 2009 and the surge in 2010, which called into action 50,000 more troops, both of which were very successful in recruiting more "terrorists"
Someone could claim that the Iraq and Afghan wars are not wars, but then they'd be an idiot, or a lawyer.
As for any surges in those ongoing wars, in an alleged effort to bring those wars to a close, they do not constitute starting a war.
technically wars are usually declared by congress, since neither the afghan or iraq wars were declared you could make a case that they technically are not wars...im sure you know i was referring to southern Afghanistan 2009 and the surge in 2010, which called into action 50,000 more troops, both of which were very successful in recruiting more "terrorists"[/quote]
Someone could claim that the Iraq and Afghan wars are not wars, but then they'd be an idiot, or a lawyer.
As for any surges in those ongoing wars, in an alleged effort to bring those wars to a close, they do not constitute starting a war.[/quote]
perfect: since we aren't being technical about wars, my question is how many people in sovereign nations have to die via "acts of aggression" for it to be considered war? here in the US it was about 3500, some more recently put the number to 3. how many humans died from drone attacks in pakistan, yemen, somalia iran and libya?
What nation attacked the U.S on 9/11?
As for extra-judicial assassinations carried out using drones; they don't constitute wars, they constitute just what I said: extra-judicial-assassinations.
Depends on whether the aggression is being carried out by the government of a nation state, or by a sporadic group of individuals.
You don't wage war on a disparate group of individuals. You apprehend them and arrest them, just as you would any other criminal.
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
I have heard that the World's leaders are descended from a race of extra-terrestrial lizards.
But I have my doubts about that.
Not too sure what international law states on this, but I would have thought that deadly attacks carried out on foreign soil by any government of a nation state would constitute an act of war.
Not defending Obama's foreign policy. Obama is the head of a nation state, so carrying out drone strikes on foreign soil should be considered acts of war.
Whereas someone from Saudi Arabia setting off a bomb on a New York subway, or hijacking a plane and flying it into a skyscraper, isn't an act of war. It's an act of terrorism, and should be treated like any other violent crime.