Burma's military killed at least 31 people

uscitizen said:
Umm what would you call the people in Iraq we kill ?
They are protesting our invasion of their country. At least in Burma it is all the same country.
Click to expand...

You're devoid of rationality. Why is violence and suppression by a government of it's own people somehow superior or acceptable?
 
uscitizen said:
Umm what would you call the people in Iraq we kill ?
They are protesting our invasion of their country. At least in Burma it is all the same country.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between protest, which we have seen and allowed in Iraq, and violent uprising. Even the US forces have a right to defend themselves.
 
Damocles said:
There is a difference between protest, which we have seen and allowed in Iraq, and violent uprising. Even the US forces have a right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, we do not have a right to be in Iraq in the first place.

Unless you are referring to the right of might ?
 
uscitizen said:
Incorrect, we do not have a right to be in Iraq in the first place.

Unless you are referring to the right of might ?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "right". Whether we like it or not it was voted as a valid action for our government to take.
 
Damocles said:
It depends on what you mean by "right". Whether we like it or not it was voted as a valid action for our government to take.
Click to expand...

that does not make it right.

And seems like you are flipflopping on this a bit. Mr. I was never for the non declared war guy.
 
uscitizen said:
that does not make it right.

And seems like you are flipflopping on this a bit. Mr. I was never for the non declared war guy.
Click to expand...
Actually I re-read the declaration portion of the constitution. Since there is no specific way described it seems that the constitution allows for this crap. I would not support a war without a formal declaration, but that doesn't change that the constitution does allow for this hedging bets that the congress has taken to lately. They say to themselves, "If we vote for it this way, then we never have to claim it. We can always say that we were either tricked or we didn't think that the authorization would be used..."

That doesn't change the fact that any individual, even if sent to war by the US, has the right to defend their lives from aggressive action towards them. Especially when they have been asked to continue their presence by the current elected government.

It seems that you wish to equate any action taken by the US to that of another action taken by another government.

The fact is that the US allows, and has seen, protests in Iraq. They have not fired upon even armed protestors that were not taking aggressive action towards them. While in Burma we find that they fired on unarmed, unaggressive protestors because they protested.

That you want them badly to be the same thing, doesn't change that they are not. Wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which one fills faster.
 
I am sure that we have killed many more than 31 non agressive civilians in Iraq.
How man children have been killed ? No way to say for sure since we were ordered to not keep count.
 
uscitizen said:
I am sure that we have killed many more than 31 non agressive civilians in Iraq.
How man children have been killed ? No way to say for sure since we were ordered to not keep count.
Click to expand...
There, again, is a difference between directed action and indirect. It is silly to pretend that we "crushed protest" when there are stories of protests that were not crushed.

How many Burmese have this Junta killed through direct, purposeful, and willful action? I am sure it is more than these 31 during the last protests.
 
uscitizen said:
oh the old colateral damage thing. Well if we had not invaded....
Click to expand...
As I said. I agree... "Had we not invaded".

I do live in reality though. Now, from that reality I can address certain things. Do we "crush protest"? No. Do we purposefully kill innocents? No. Is there a difference between what we do and what they are doing? Yes.

Do I realize that some of what we do is wrong? Yes.
 
We do not crush protest in Iraq ?

Get real dude.

Of course in a country that has been under martial law for a few years....
 
Exactly..............

Damocles said:
There, again, is a difference between directed action and indirect. It is silly to pretend that we "crushed protest" when there are stories of protests that were not crushed.

How many Burmese have this Junta killed through direct, purposeful, and willful action? I am sure it is more than these 31 during the last protests.
Click to expand...



funny how usc and the far left never mentions Cambodia...the 'Killing Fields'...polpot et al! They killed far more than the US did during VN and the current ME war combined! And it was done intentionally!
 
uscitizen said:
We do not crush protest in Iraq ?

Get real dude.

Of course in a country that has been under martial law for a few years....
Click to expand...
Rubbish. There have been protests in Iraq. While we may "crush" military uprising, we do not "crush" protest. There have been protests against US occupation, as well as against the current government there that simply were protests. No action was taken to kill those people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top