US attack kills 16 innocents in hospital of a help organization in Kundus

[holy scheisse 22,934]

We don't have direct influence, not, but we indirectly place people in power that make these decisions. It's how our democratic republic works.

True democracy in the USA has been trumped by capitalism, long ago. the system is messed up and no longer represents the people. it's run by business, money, power, and influence. we are just pawns in the money making game. war stimulates the economy and makes money, thats why it happens. People climb the caste system in the military, starting at the bottom and working their way up. we don't vote or choose who ends up in power.

 

[Melech 9,900]

"Collateral damage"  

I don't think average American knows or cares how many civilians were killed in this so called "war on terror". 

 

Both sides Kabul and Washington knew the GPS-Dates of the Hospital, i'm pretty sure it wasn't an accident 

[lego 44,165]

Both sides Kabul and Washington knew the GPS-Dates of the Hospital, i'm pretty sure it wasn't an accident 

They'll make up some excuse. They always do.

[FATCAT 60,888]

True democracy in the USA has been trumped by capitalism, long ago. the system is messed up and no longer represents the people. it's run by business, money, power, and influence. we are just pawns in the money making game. war stimulates the economy and makes money, thats why it happens. People climb the caste system in the military, starting at the bottom and working their way up. we don't vote or choose who ends up in power.

 

While I do agree that business has a large hand in the way our government is run today, and that it has skewed the system a lot, and that it should be taken out, the second half of your post is just rambling. Like, I have no idea how to respond to it. If responding is even a good idea(?).

 

[Sizzily 14,571]

WTF and WHY  

 

This is a bit of topic but I noticed the hospital was "run by Doctors Without Borders". SGDQ just raised 1.2 million dollars for charity and some of that went to Doctors Without Borders.

[Hecturr 1,937]

The United States of America is a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the Anerican people vote for representatives to represent their views on local, state, and national levels. Of these representatives, there are three branches: the legislative, judicial, and executive branch. The executive branch is what post people symbolize America as, because it is the branch that Obama, our commander-in-chief is at the top of. He designates the department of defense head, who is currently Ashton Carter. While Obama is the head of the military, and in turn all branches, we indirectly elect the head of our military as well. There is no "opting out". You either vote, or you don't. If you don't, then that's on you.

Your argument is as invalid as calling every new popstar princess of pop  

You can't judge people  for following the system in their country. If you dont vote, then by your logic you could say the non voters are indifferent to what the head of militray is doing in other countries.  

 

Also, this scenario should make sense to you too then:

oh you went to the grocery store and bought a frozen pizza. but the store owner owns shares in a company that deals with slave labor. therefore you are a bad person, because you indirectly supported slave labor. You see how messed up your argument is? I do see your points, but I don't agree.

[holy scheisse 22,934]

While I do agree that business has a large hand in the way our government is run today, and that it has skewed the system a lot, and that it should be taken out, the second half of your post is just rambling. Like, I have no idea how to respond to it. If responding is even a good idea(?).

 

i mean you are responding to it right now, its okay you dont understand the implications of my points.

-- people with money (big corporations) want war to make more from sales of weaponry, machinery, materials, goods involved in carrying out military operations
-- we don't influence a) any of these powerful corporations that influence and lobby the government to push their agendas and ideals b) any of the people in the actual military that rise the ranks and then carry out these operations

 

thats all jenna. but im bored of this now so, this was a fun debate.

 

[FATCAT 60,888]

Your argument is as invalid as calling every new popstar princess of pop  

You can't judge people  for following the system in their country. If you dont vote, then by your logic you could say the non voters are indifferent to what the head of militray is doing in other countries.  

 

Also, this scenario should make sense to you too then:

oh you went to the grocery store and bought a frozen pizza. but the store owner owns shares in a company that deals with slave labor. therefore you are a bad person, because you indirectly supported slave labor. You see how messed up your argument is? I do see your points, but I don't agree.

That's not what I'm saying at all, in this given scenario I'm saying that everyone is in the super-market, and you want to go buy a pizza. One has similar views as you, so for instance we'll say they're anti-slave labor, and another brand uses slave labor. But there's also a brand that uses some slave labor, and another that actively works against slave labor. You use your money, or in this case your vote, to chose which side of the issue you want. If you chose to buy the pizza that supports slave labor, then you are immoral, because slave labor is a terrible thing, but the fact still stands that if you're a savy voter, and you keep up to date with what pizza brand supports/doesn't support, then you won't be blindly supporting slave labor. My argument is very valid because our system, in the US, is open for anyone (given some minor criteria) to not only vote, but to run for government positions if they're ideas aren't present. I'm not blaming the American people for the bombing, I'm blaming the people in charge at the time. Which we did indirectly vote in.

[LoveandMagic 1,731]

How horrendous! I don't even know what to say. 

[Whispering 18,865]

Both sides Kabul and Washington knew the GPS-Dates of the Hospital, i'm pretty sure it wasn't an accident 

It was an accident. 

It is past time to move completely out of the Middle East...completely. The US can't help them with ISIS or the Taliban, no one can. Afghan soldiers are laying down their weapons and running, just like what happened in Iran. It's time to for everyone who isn't a citizen of whatever country to move out and let the local soldiers either fight or give up. 

Just give up and move out! 

[Morphine Prince 109,676]

What is the excuse?

 

[Hecturr 1,937]

So, yea, people have a right to judge us based on our military actions. 

There is no "opting out". You either vote, or you don't. If you don't, then that's on you.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all, in this given scenario I'm saying that everyone is in the super-market, and you want to go buy a pizza. One has similar views as you, so for instance we'll say they're anti-slave labor, and another brand uses slave labor. But there's also a brand that uses some slave labor, and another that actively works against slave labor. You use your money, or in this case your vote, to chose which side of the issue you want. If you chose to buy the pizza that supports slave labor, then you are immoral, because slave labor is a terrible thing, but the fact still stands that if you're a savy voter, and you keep up to date with what pizza brand supports/doesn't support, then you won't be blindly supporting slave labor. My argument is very valid because our system, in the US, is open for anyone (given some minor criteria) to not only vote, but to run for government positions if they're ideas aren't present. I'm not blaming the American people for the bombing, I'm blaming the people in charge at the time. Which we did indirectly vote in.

 

You say that people have a right to judge us based on our military actions, and that there is no opting out. And if you chose to opt out by not voting, then that's on you. Yet you also state that you don't blame the American people but rather the people in charge at the time. which we did indirectly vote in. 

So what exactly are you trying to say? That people have a right to judge all american citizens because they voted in a president who selected someone to run the military that made this happen? Or that they don't have the right to blame all american citizens for the bombing? Note that all american citezens include people under 18 who are not able to vote or influence politics. Your arguments confuse me slightly to be quite honest.

 

Also, let's say they chose to not go with any of the pizza brands because they weren't educated in what the different brands' stance were on the matter. Then they chose to go with the one brand that doesn't support slave labor later on, but not that day. If you then make it about voting which is basically what this argument is about anyway. By your logic, the people who decided not to vote until they got more educted in the opinions and ideologies of the candidates running, can be judged because they didn't vote, even though they vote during the next election, because at one point they were ''indifferent'' ?

Another unlikely scenario is that an avid voter do their research, yet no candidates are against x offensive ideology or philosophy. They chose not to vote, but then, that's on you. Although this is probably not the case at all, you put blame on innocent americans for something they have literally little to no control over