Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Options
1…117118119120121123»

Comments

  • Options
    #3662
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You ever see me laud Obama? Care to show me a single post where I praise him? Obama isnt in office Trump is, Obama hasn't set this dangerous new precedent Trump has.
    You just did.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3663
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LbMJlniBA4


  • Options
    #3664
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,592 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You just did.

    What? :confused:


  • Options
    #3665
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Yes Obama did expand the use of drones. They're not quite the surgical tool he described them as, and I understand that there were civilian casualties.

    However it's beside the point. The issue isn't the choice of weapon. The issue is that Suleimani was not a legitimate target.


  • Options
    #3666
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You just did.
    laud:
    verb
    praise (a person or their achievements) highly.
    "the obituary lauded him as a great statesman and soldier"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3667
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You ever see me laud Obama? Care to show me a single post where I praise him?

    lol. Are you kidding?? :P Here's one in reply to one of my posts:
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Obama inherited a broke country in the middle of recession, he dragged it back up


  • Options
    #3668
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »
    The issue isn't the choice of weapon. The issue is that Suleimani was not a legitimate target.

    I disagree


  • Options
    #3669
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I disagree
    There was a post a while back quoting the laws which were broken by the attack. It is fact and not opinion that the target was illegitimate.


  • Options
    #3670
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »
    There was a post a while back quoting the laws which were broken by the attack. It is fact and not opinion that the target was illegitimate.

    Fair enough. I just happen to be of a different opinion regarding whether the terrorist was a legitimate target.

    I'm unashamedly pro USA when it comes to foreign policy so I admit my opinion is skewed.


  • Options
    #3671
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Fair enough. I just happen to be of a different opinion regarding whether the terrorist was a legitimate target.

    I'm unashamedly pro USA when it comes to foreign policy so I admit my opinion is skewed.

    It is not a matter of opinion whether he was a legitinate target, it is a matter of fact. and the fact is that he wasnt a legitimate target. the opinion of you, or anybody else, to the contrary is irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3672
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Fair enough. I just happen to be of a different opinion regarding whether the terrorist was a legitimate target.

    I'm unashamedly pro USA when it comes to foreign policy so I admit my opinion is skewed.
    Under US law the attack on Soleimani was legal, but the legality of the attack under international law is somewhat dubious. GW Bush and Obama used the same reasoning as Trump has when they did it. Trump would need to show that Soleimani was planning imminent attacks against US forces or US interests to the Security Council to indicate that the strike was lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the UN is made of US and Trump hating countries, anyway, so why bother.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3673
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    notobtuse wrote: »
    But the UN is made of US and Trump hating countries, anyway, so why bother.

    Is that how most UN council members work? They make decisions based on the leader of another country and not based on if that country is making a legal action to defend its interests?

    The UN council members are the same as an average twitter user?


  • Options
    #3674
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    ohnonotgmail wrote:
    It is not a matter of opinion whether he was a legitinate target, it is a matter of fact. and the fact is that he wasnt a legitimate target. the opinion of you, or anybody else, to the contrary is irrelevant.

    That's a little disingenuous. For example, abortion can be murder to a person as a matter of opinion. The legality of it doesn't change the person's opinion.

    I agree that by international law, it could be deemed illegal, but whether or not someone's opinion is irrelevant? It's a discussion board. Opinions are all that matter.


  • Options
    #3675
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Ironicname wrote: »
    That's a little disingenuous. For example, abortion can be murder to a person as a matter of opinion. The legality of it doesn't change the person's opinion.

    I agree that by international law, it could be deemed illegal, but whether or not someone's opinion is irrelevant? It's a discussion board. Opinions are all that matter.

    when something is a matter of fact then individual opinions are irrelevant.


  • Options
    #3676
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Ironicname wrote: »
    That's a little disingenuous. For example, abortion can be murder to a person as a matter of opinion. The legality of it doesn't change the person's opinion.

    I agree that by international law, it could be deemed illegal, but whether or not someone's opinion is irrelevant? It's a discussion board. Opinions are all that matter.

    I believe a better analogy is, if abortions were illegal internationally just as assignations like this are illegal.
    Should some people be operating down alleyways giving coat hanger abortions once they believe it is moral and they have a good chance of getting away with it.


  • Options
    #3677
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Ironicname wrote: »
    That's a little disingenuous. For example, abortion can be murder to a person as a matter of opinion. The legality of it doesn't change the person's opinion.

    I agree that by international law, it could be deemed illegal, but whether or not someone's opinion is irrelevant? It's a discussion board. Opinions are all that matter.
    legitimate
    adjective
    /lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/
    1.
    conforming to the law or to rules.


  • Options
    #3678
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote:
    legitimate adjective /lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/ 1. conforming to the law or to rules.

    The other definition is "able to be defended with logic or justification; valid".


  • Options
    #3679
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Ironicname wrote: »
    That is one definition.

    The other definition is "able to be defended with logic or justification; valid".

    I see why you didn't bother including that in your attempt to make fun of my opinion.
    The context and usage made it obvious which meaning to apply.

    It's like if I said "I put money in the bank", and you said "That's stupid, it will get washed away."


  • Options
    #3680
    TheAsYLuMkeY
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭TheAsYLuMkeY


    Whoa this thread has been dragged into the mud,

    Fact and Opinion merge at points, as a particular law that is offered as Fact was decided on by the opinion of a group of people.
    Laws from one country to another are different because the underlying opinions and sentiments of the law makers are different.

    Now, there is the possibility of looking at something and deciding was it right or wrong, in the better interest.

    In this case, I believe it to be wrong, now don’t get all hot and bothered about that reply, I also believe that the current people in control of Iran should be removed from power, only because I don’t agree with Theocracies telling people how they should behave and live their lives, but that is my opinion. If we are to practice what we preach, that has to be allowed to come to fruition without bloodshed as we are of the opinion that bloodshed to control and persuade is wrong.

    Do I believe that a man who was an Iranian general was planning imminent attacks on United States people or Assetts, no I don’t, do I believe he was hugely influential in undermining the United Sates position in that region of the world, whatever you believe their reason for being there is, Yes, absolutely.

    Should he have been assassinated, absolutely not, as if we allow our ethics, morals and judgment outside of man made laws to unwind into the savage approach of removing anyone who threatens your plans we are allowing the human race to go backwards.

    Lets call it for what it was,

    An overt state assassination of a man they deemed so influential that if they removed him it would have a detrimental effect on the Iranian state military and strengthen the United Sates grip over the region.

    Now totally my own opinion on why the United States wants to maintain that grip,

    There is a huge amount of money being made by private military companies as long as American military hardware remains in multiple countries in that region, there is a divide that exists there in that region prior even to the birth of the United states, the big military contractors have sought to exploit that situation pretty much over the last half century and have close quarter influence over how foreign policy is decided in America.


Advertisement