Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate to break it to you, but governments must do what is in their "national interests" at all times, or risk destruction.
America will kill anyone who stands in our way. Whether it is million of Vietnamese and Cambodians, or millions of Arabs, or millions of American-Indians, or Africans, or Germans, or even our own citizens.
If you threaten the national security of America, you will be dealt with, harshly. Lincoln killed hundreds of thousands of Americans to "Preserve the Union". And today, we will throw you in prison, or cast you into an internment camp, or send you to Guantanamo Bay, the moment you pose any real risk.
If a Civil War broke out in this country tomorrow, you can guarantee there would be tens of thousands of people shot, or hung, or otherwise dealt with.
The United States has, for decades, propped up a multitude of strong-man dictators, who have killed or imprisoned anyone who threatened their rule. We will do whatever must be done to serve our national interests. Nothing is off the table.
Do you know who our most-important ally in the Middle-East is? Saudi Arabia. And do you have any idea what its like inside that country?
So why are they our ally? Obviously not because they are in favor of freedom, or democracy, or secular Western-values. But merely because it serves our national interests. And we will continue to support them, regardless of how many people they stone to death, or hang, or oppress, as long as it serves our interests.
Grow up.
That's a cozy philosophy and on the surface it all seems to hang together but here's the problem; it takes more than just being safe to be successful as a nation. You could surely argue that Stalin's USSR or Mao's Red China were very "safe" in that their near-term national security was guaranteed through fear and intimidation. But were they successful in the long run? Was it sustainable? The answer in both cases was no. Eventually, even those highly authoritarian regimes were eroded by the power of the Western democracies.
Point is, it is in our strategic "national interest" to avoid alliances that could destroy or degrade the core American values and undermine American freedoms, which are essential to future prosperity and stability. Those are the crown jewels, without those the USA will eventually self destruct. An alliance with Putin/Assad in the short run sounds fancy and feels good but in the long run such an alliance will only damage us. There is no up-side.
There's a disclaimer in the Amnesty report footnotes. It's extrapolating from an assumption, not even observed data.
"These estimates were based on the following calculations. If between seven and 20 were killed every 10-15 days from September to December 2011, the total figure would be between 56 people and 240 people for that period. If between 20 and 50 were killed every week between January and November 2012, the total figure would be between 880 and 2,200 for that period. If between 20 and 50 people were killed in 222 execution sessions (assuming the executions were carried out twice a week twice a month and once a week once a month) between December 2012 and December 2015, the total figure would be between 4,400 and 11,100 for that period. These calculations produce a minimum figure of 5,336, rounded down to the nearest thousand as 5,000, and 13,540, rounded down to the nearest thousand as 13,000."
The head of Amnesty International is also a US State Department employee. It's basically part of the echo chamber in the propaganda war.
It is the most amateurish EO this country has ever seen. It took Trumps own advisers by surprise, government departments were not ready, it had to be amended multiple times in the first few days and even then it was challenged by the courts. In football terms, it is called a FUMBLE.
Which ones did it take by surprise? Steve Bannon? Stephen Miller?
Trump gave an overview of what would be in the travel ban prior to finalizing the Executive-Order. The executive-order itself has not been amended.
I do agree that the various agencies weren't ready for the order, and that there was a lot of confusion, which had to be clarified, because the various agencies weren't all consulted or debriefed prior to it being signed.
But with that said, the courts would have challenged it regardless. You know it, and I know it.
That's a cozy philosophy and on the surface it all seems to hang together but here's the problem; it takes more than just being safe to be successful as a nation. You could surely argue that Stalin's USSR or Mao's Red China were very "safe" in that their near-term national security was guaranteed through fear and intimidation. But were they successful in the long run? Was it sustainable? The answer in both cases was no. Eventually, even those highly authoritarian regimes were eroded by the power of the Western democracies.
The United States is always looking at both its near-term and long-term national security. And so is every other nation on Earth.
Do you even know why the USSR collapsed? Do you have any idea why China is rising? Isn't China an authoritarian regime?
Think of Pinochet in Chile, he was an authoritarian, but he was an authoritarian-capitalist. Hitler was an authoritarian. But Germany had the strongest economy in Europe in 1939, and nearly conquered the entire world, practically by itself. China today is a quasi-capitalist authoritarian society.
Why does the United States rule the world? Can you honestly say its because of freedom? Is America even the most-free country? Is it the richest country? Does it provide the best life to its citizens?
What exactly is a "Western-style democracy" anyway? Why did democracy take over the world? Why did all experiments of democracy in the past, fail?
What enabled America to become so powerful anyway? How did we become such a massive country? From where and how did we get all this land? Was it from freedom?
Why did Abraham Lincoln go to war with the south to prevent secession? Was it because of freedom and democracy?
Not every country can rule the world. There are always going to be winners, and losers. And to win, you need lots of land, lots of natural resources, and its beneficial to have two massive oceans between you and your rivals.
Without the United States moving hundreds of thousands of troops into Germany, the Soviets would likely have marched across the entire European continent, and who knows where else?
Did we defeat the Soviets with freedom? Or did we defeat them with guns, and bombs, and technology?
Freedom is not a requisite for power. But it is easier to control a man, if he believes he is free. Go read some George Orwell for Christ's sake.
BEIRUT — Syrian authorities have killed at least 13,000 people since the start of the 2011 uprising in mass hangings at a prison north of Damascus known to detainees as "the slaughterhouse," Amnesty International said in a report Tuesday.
The report covers the period from 2011 to 2015, when Amnesty said 20-50 people were hanged each week at Saydnaya Prison in killings authorized by senior Syrian officials, including deputies of President Bashar Assad, and carried out by military police.
Other rights groups have found evidence of massive torture leading to death in Syrian detention facilities. In a report last year, Amnesty found that more than 17,000 people have died of torture and ill-treatment
If Obama would of carried the Red Line Threat maybe we not have this lever of murder. Having a Relation with anther super power is good, but countries will do theses kinds of murders.
I haven't listened to most of this show yet, but it sounding like from this program that this 13,000 prisoners hanged thing is fake news.
The one thing I can say, from this little of the program I have listened to this far, is the Celtic Richie Allen is 100% correct at around the 4:20 minute mark of the show when he says the Sky journalist broke from ethical, orthodox journalism and started speaking propaganda. I've taken a journalism class in community college and I know ethical, orthodox journalism requires not injecting your personal biases nor representing the biases of another party in your story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
