trippdogg: [assets4.designsponge.com image 624x420]Bridal Tip #17:Don't invite known terrorists to your wedding
neaorin: Easy to say that when it's not your own country getting bombed.
neaorin: Pakistan is a country of 180 million who are supposed to support a government return the rule of law to all its territories. And the US does their best to undermine its authority by carrying out extrajudicial killings inside their country while the government watches on.
neaorin: My impression is that the current US administration doesn't know what to do to help Pakistan solve its terrorism problem, so they have resigned to doing what they do best. A game of whack-a-mole with the Taliban in which they are both assisted and opposed by the army.When the US eventually gets out of Pakistan, it will leave behind an even more politically powerful Pakistani Army, a weaker government, a Taliban force that's still fighting, and a more negative view of the US inside Pakistan (and incidentally the world). Mission accomplished?
RanDomino: SmackledorferI didn't claim to solve the problem. I implied that helping some, but not all, would be stupid to label as an atrocity. I guess that wasn't obvious enough. My apologies.I could have been clearer. To match the analogy to reality better, yes, the message being pushed is that ACA is The Answer. Maybe not in those words, but it's being pushed as SO GREAT, OH MY GOSH YOU GUYS, THIS IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER FOR EVERYONE I CAN'T EVEN okay but what about the tens of millions of people who NEVER MIND THAT, IT'S SO GREAT, WE'RE DOING THIS AND IT'S AWESOME also the horrible crushing bureaucracy and acceptance of the commodification of healthca YAAAAY ACA YAAAAY but it's not perfect or even good enou WE'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING TO MAKE IT MORE PERFECT, WHICH BY THE WAY IT ALREADY IS but that doesn't LOOK JUST SHUT UP AND CHEER OKAYMaybe it's not being called The Answer, but those cheerleading for it are critical of every position but that of agreeing that it's The Answer- it's saying such by omission and implication*.So, yes, they're calling a half-solution a full solution, which impairs efforts for an actual full solution, which will result in the deaths of thousands, which is atrocious. What were we even talking about?*Which is a lot of how the Democratic Party seems to communicate these days now that I think about it."Is the administration in favor of using drone strikes against American citizens?""The administration will use any means available to keep Americans safe while adhering to the Constitution.""So... I'm just going to put that down as 'yes,' okay?""WOAH WOAH WOAH BUDDY, I never SAID that!"
Biological Ali: The bulk of the drone strikes are more analogous to that incident when a bunch of Somali pirates were shot dead by SEALs - it was an action necessitated by the fact that there simply was no other authority capable or willing to deal with them.Your opinion regarding the use of drones in Pakistan seems to be in the minority. Actually the whole sections dealing with terrorism and US attitudes are an instructive read. Biological Ali: Actually, the opposite is true, at least in terms of the last paragraph. The Pakistani military has increasingly retreated from politics - this trend started with the previous Chief of Army Staff and is expected to continue with his successor. As for a negative view of the US, it's kind of like Americans who have a "negative view" of Congress - it perhaps speaks to the person's basic emotional state, but it's not clear what (if any) the tangible implications actually are. Keep in mind also that the US still gives Pakistan massive amounts of aid (including nonmilitary aid), and I can assure you that the Pakistani government's desire to keep that aid flowing is far greater than their feigned outrage over the US hitting military targets in regions that they don't even control.
Nabb1: Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administrationSo you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?I don't. I just think we give zero farks about collateral damage because there appear to be no repercussions for it. I mean, Amnesty International has labeled our drone strikes as "war crimes," but you have to pay attention to foreign media sources to find out about that.
neaorin: Again - the price the US in particular is paying for carrying out drone attacks might have been worth it, if the attacks worked long term. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I'm sure they are preferable to sending kids out there to get killed, but that's about it.
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 20 2017 08:45:47
Runtime: 0.306 sec (305 ms)