'My daddy is a hero': Girl, 6, attends funeral of her father

[ifuseekamy]

http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Oh yes, a most noble war.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's no point killing everyone in the armed forces for no reason, I wouldn't go against China because that's dumb, but if there is a country which is being oppressed by a dictator then I believe that they should be liberated.

We'd all like freedom and we'd all like a world utopia, but it is not going to happen and cannot happen no matter how many corrupt governments you attempt to prop up around the world.

Actually I refer to it every time it is mentioned, people just ignore me because they are too 'sick and 'disgusted' about how someone with bipolar disorder could not control their emotions and killed someone.

Also at the moment I am far more beneficial to this country by contributing to the economy than being one of those people who waste millions of pounds per day with 'cover fire'

Well this is another topic, and I made the point about how genuinely mentally impaired people are in prison for committing crimes when they should be in asylums being cared for as they used to be, until we closed the large majority of them down. A great deal of prisoners/killers though are not mentally impaired, and even if they were - being disadvantaged (depends on what extent) does not give you a free pass.

To praise a hero doesn't require being one. To insult a hero's efforts? Walk a day in their shoes.

They don't support it? Why did they join the Army? Not what I would call a smart life choice

Well you see i'll give an example, soldiers in the U.S. army in 2000 would expect to be called up to defend their country when it is needed and would expect their government not to send them into battle unless it was critically needed to secure U.S. security - in 2003 we invaded Iraq. That says it all, nobody should expect their government to send them to battle unless it is absolutely nessacery (and I would recommended you watching the conclusion of Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore).

Your country's wishes are unimportant to me when it means the saving and bettering of innocent people's lives can take place at little to no consequence for you.

What absolute nonsense, they are now joining the Taliban/independence fighters en mass because they don't want to be occupied, their family members are dead and their crops (which keeps them and their family fed) have been firebombed by the U.S. air force.

Again, they decided to pursue a career in military. Also again, it might not be peaceful for the next 100 years, but atleast it's gotten a heck of a lot better than it was.

Better than it was? I can't believe you actually think that - it was terrible to begin with, its worse now and the longer we stay there its going to get worse and worse and worse. It has a corrupt government that rigged elections (and also Mr Kazai has oil links, perhaps why he signed a deal to have a pipeline built upon becoming Premier) - he and his government are hated as are the troops there.

People have lost their homes, lost family members, ha crops destroyed, are still under the thumb of militant groups anyway - and they look at the puppet government in Kabul and quite rightly they pick up arms and go and fight with the militants, Afghanistan has a history of rejecting occupiers; the British, the Soviets and soon it will be the U.S. coalition.

If there's an opposition to peace there's a cause to fight for. How do you know when I'm not older that I don't have intentions of being involved in foreign peace keeping?

What utopian nonsense, there will never be peace in Afghanistan - especially for as long as we are there.

As for yourself, oh I do hope you sign up and go and serve yourself rather than expecting others to do it in place of yourself.

This is uberlame. Obviously what they fought and died for isn't void. Last time I checked the commies, or the taliban aren't the victorious power in the East anymore. Oh, and by saying it's all void I guess you're completely neglecting all the local lives which have been saved in OUR hospitals in places like Kandahar. Tell you what, once you've lived in Kandahar for a year if you still think the cause is completely void I'm all ears.

What is lame is the use of ridiculous dreamy terms you've been using, I can come up with some now "we need to spread peace and stability through the Middle East" or "we need to have a stable and peaceful Afghan government which is democratic and not corrupt" - both are as far from reality as they will ever be and we certainly cannot introduce them with a government in a box.

As for its all void, yes it is all void - stop bringing in absolute nonsense like U.S. hospitals who are most likely in hospital in the first place because they've been caught in crossfire between coalition troops and the Taliban forces.

We couldn't be victorious in China. Or if we could there wouldn't be anyone left on the face of the Earth to acknowledge the feat.

We could be, but thats not all we can do is it - so you'd be all for cutting off trae links with China would you? do you not realise that every world superpower has fallen because of debt, and if a major/semi-major conflict were to kick off (for example China-Taiwan) and the U.S. got involved it would mean the end of the U.S. as the world superpower and the beginning of China as the world superpower? the U.S. does not have the money for these wars and neither does the western world in general - stop pretending and look at Great Britain after the second world war.

The Cuba situation is extremely weird because it's the Americans who have completely screwed Cuba over initially in the first place. If we could remove of their communist dictatorship whilst avoiding international ramifications leading to armageddon then yeah, I am all for heading in. I certainly think we have a better chance of success at correcting Cuba than I do China - and the ace in the deck with taking Cuba is China would likely do nothing to prevent us from going in. They're too busy loving trade with the free world whilst the Chinese LDC lifestyle lives on.

Here's a thought, what if the Cubans for example don't like the way you run your country (with China, India and Russia in agreement) - what does that lead to? it leads to war, war on a major scale.

Having said all that too though again I think what would save the most lives and what would improve the lives of the most people is the best course of action to take. I also believe isolationism is stupid and any country, especially when their corporations are exploiting works in various parts of the world, is entirely in the wrong.

Don't you realise that wherever we go (Iraq, Afghanistan) the only people who benefit are the corportations?

I'm all for war if it's going to better the lives of innocent people. Heck, I'm for a lot of things if it means making the lives of those better where history has taken its toll. I don't see countries independently Dan. You and I weren't born into richer and more stable places because we're more worthy. We just got more lucky than 70% of the rest of the world. And I will happily walk through the gates of hell the day I die if I live my life in luxury knowing the guys next door are being raped or starving to death.

Of course you don't, why not just establish world government? (which creates an even more dangerous situation than before) - it is not upto you or the western world anymore to decide who runs Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - although mentioning Iran I must ask; considering Israel have 200 nuclear weapons (supplied by the west which breach nuclear treaties and are 'illegal' under international law although I don't accept such a thing exists) would you support an invasion of Israel seeing as they are not doing what we are telling other countries to do? that's why countries like Iran are fed up, they are sick of being told what to do by a gang of complete hypocrites.

More to the point its actually not possible, we do not have the money to do it.

Of course we should start with the little countries. If you see two bullies at school, one has a knife and the other's a litte kid beating up on a little girl are you going to ignore the little girl's pleas for help just because you can't help whoever's being victimized by the knife - the bigger bully? Of course not. The attitude you're presenting here is, well.. if we can't help everyone we should help nobody. What? How silly

That isn't remotely similar, the only silly thing is your attitude where you think you have the right to tell the world how to run its government/its own policies. Although I am interested in your moral standpoint, what about this?;

The European Arrest Warrant and the fact that most of my countries laws are made by unelected politics in Brussels.
Going to liberate us are you?

The arrest of Julian Assange for using the free right of speech and expression.
Going to lecture China are we on human rights concerning political prisoners?

The fact that Britain can now hold people without charge in prison for a period of weeks.
Going to lecture the world on fairness are we?

Guantanamo Bay.
Going to lecture the world on the virtues of freedom, democracy and justice are we?

Israel and its *secret* nuclear weapons programme.
Going to lecture Iran on nuclear weapons they haven't even built yet?

Britain and its CCTV state; ID cards, state surveillance, government databases.
Going to lecture China on freedom are we?


I could go on, but we'd be here for some time - so maybe when the western world has sorted itself out both financially, morally and socially i'll listen to the utopian dream of policing the world - until then, well it's all complete warmongering garbage. Quite frankly with views like the ones you have given, I would advise Iran and every other country the west doesn't like to acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.

[HotelUser]

We'd all like freedom and we'd all like a world utopia, but it is not going to happen and cannot happen no matter how many corrupt governments you attempt to prop up around the world.

It's eventually going to happen, and it's a long way off. Until then we can certainly improve conditions - surly you've taken note of the collapse of the Soviet Union, loss of Taliban control? You're looking at resolving ongoing international conflicts with the wave of a wand and since that's impossible again you're completely signing it all off. Why? We can and have proven that a difference can be achieved.

Well you see i'll give an example, soldiers in the U.S. army in 2000 would expect to be called up to defend their country when it is needed and would expect their government not to send them into battle unless it was critically needed to secure U.S. security - in 2003 we invaded Iraq. That says it all, nobody should expect their government to send them to battle unless it is absolutely nessacery (and I would recommended you watching the conclusion of Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore).

No that proves nothing at all though - because many employees of many industries expect things within the role of their career but they're certainly never going to go the way they want. The military is no different. Infact it's even more sporadic and especially in America where they're always under the spotlight and have a long and twisting path of being involved in international affairs which don't become involved with America first. Moreover that's only relative to a several year era because those soldiers who disagreed with the invasion would have had more than ample time to leave the military in the handful of years to follow.

What absolute nonsense, they are now joining the Taliban/independence fighters en mass because they don't want to be occupied, their family members are dead and their crops (which keeps them and their family fed) have been firebombed by the U.S. air force.

And under Taliban rule sports, television and flying kites were illegal and female depression rates were horrendous. There's always two sides of a spectrum so naturally there will be a group of locals who condem NATO for involvement in the East - there's also a vast amount of locals who are glad for the international community taking interest in their well being. We have a fair standard for how we feel citizens of a nation should be treated and if someone's going against that to the extent that they're fighting against us I have no sympathy for them.

Better than it was? I can't believe you actually think that - it was terrible to begin with, its worse now and the longer we stay there its going to get worse and worse and worse. It has a corrupt government that rigged elections (and also Mr Kazai has oil links, perhaps why he signed a deal to have a pipeline built upon becoming Premier) - he and his government are hated as are the troops there.

People have lost their homes, lost family members, ha crops destroyed, are still under the thumb of militant groups anyway - and they look at the puppet government in Kabul and quite rightly they pick up arms and go and fight with the militants, Afghanistan has a history of rejecting occupiers; the British, the Soviets and soon it will be the U.S. coalition.

This is simply presented poorly, Dan. The British and Soviets took the nation for no reason other than greedy imperialism. A group of NATO nations being involved modern day to establish order in kayos and to make better the lives of the locals is hardly in pursuit of self interest. Oh, and what's more - we might not even of had to be involved in Afghanistan if England or the USSR hadn't initially screwed them over so many years ago, anyway!

Compared to what it was life quality is and will continue to get better with time.

What utopian nonsense, there will never be peace in Afghanistan - especially for as long as we are there.

As for yourself, oh I do hope you sign up and go and serve yourself rather than expecting others to do it in place of yourself.

This is entirely pessimistic and based off nothing especially considering you have no idea what the future can hold. Worse beasts have been sleighed than the conflict and its roots in the East.

What is lame is the use of ridiculous dreamy terms you've been using, I can come up with some now "we need to spread peace and stability through the Middle East" or "we need to have a stable and peaceful Afghan government which is democratic and not corrupt" - both are as far from reality as they will ever be and we certainly cannot introduce them with a government in a box.

As for its all void, yes it is all void - stop bringing in absolute nonsense like U.S. hospitals who are most likely in hospital in the first place because they've been caught in crossfire between coalition troops and the Taliban forces.

Obama has said himself in interview that America's overall goals in Afghanistan are to not only be there militarily but during the aftermath be available to provide electricity, construct roads and provide other infrastructure necessary to sustain a nation. It's not all void, do you seriously think America, as well as England, Canada and -- oh wait:



Alright Dan are you suggesting all the above countries just in layman's words suck? You must be if you're actually suggesting that not a single one of the above hadn't acknowledged their obvious failure to come from the get go, right?

We could be, but thats not all we can do is it - so you'd be all for cutting off trae links with China would you? do you not realise that every world superpower has fallen because of debt, and if a major/semi-major conflict were to kick off (for example China-Taiwan) and the U.S. got involved it would mean the end of the U.S. as the world superpower and the beginning of China as the world superpower? the U.S. does not have the money for these wars and neither does the western world in general - stop pretending and look at Great Britain after the second world war.

I think it foolish to consider any military action in China because it just wouldn't play out well. I think this to be unfortunate, but I also think China's downfall will be future internal politics, in conjunction with advances in technology - because as technology advances even in the scope of several richer countries it will affect both how things are produced as well as the ease at which a higher standard of quality of live is achieved.

Here's a thought, what if the Cubans for example don't like the way you run your country (with China, India and Russia in agreement) - what does that lead to? it leads to war, war on a major scale.

Don't you realise that wherever we go (Iraq, Afghanistan) the only people who benefit are the corportations?

China, India, and Russia wouldn't agree? And Cuba probably does think that, but comparing life quality there to here it's easy to see that such a belief is misplaced.

Of course you don't, why not just establish world government? (which creates an even more dangerous situation than before) - it is not upto you or the western world anymore to decide who runs Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - although mentioning Iran I must ask; considering Israel have 200 nuclear weapons (supplied by the west which breach nuclear treaties and are 'illegal' under international law although I don't accept such a thing exists) would you support an invasion of Israel seeing as they are not doing what we are telling other countries to do? that's why countries like Iran are fed up, they are sick of being told what to do by a gang of complete hypocrites.

More to the point its actually not possible, we do not have the money to do it.

It is upto us when we see abuses of human rights. Saying otherwise is selfish.

That isn't remotely similar, the only silly thing is your attitude where you think you have the right to tell the world how to run its government/its own policies. Although I am interested in your moral standpoint, what about this?;

The European Arrest Warrant and the fact that most of my countries laws are made by unelected politics in Brussels.
Going to liberate us are you?

The arrest of Julian Assange for using the free right of speech and expression.
Going to lecture China are we on human rights concerning political prisoners?

The fact that Britain can now hold people without charge in prison for a period of weeks.
Going to lecture the world on fairness are we?

Guantanamo Bay.
Going to lecture the world on the virtues of freedom, democracy and justice are we?

Israel and its *secret* nuclear weapons programme.
Going to lecture Iran on nuclear weapons they haven't even built yet?

Britain and its CCTV state; ID cards, state surveillance, government databases.
Going to lecture China on freedom are we?


I could go on, but we'd be here for some time - so maybe when the western world has sorted itself out both financially, morally and socially i'll listen to the utopian dream of policing the world - until then, well it's all complete warmongering garbage. Quite frankly with views like the ones you have given, I would advise Iran and every other country the west doesn't like to acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.

I think the Western World should never stop sharing and trying to internationally uphold its moral standards. Again Dan you're sort of dancing around this now, in that you're suggesting if we can't help everyone we should help no one.

[karter]

But we know we can't defeat the Taliban and that we are being defeated in a scenario mirroring the British imperial occupation, the Soviet occupation, the Vietnam war; but why don't you go and volunteer to fight in Afghanistan if you believe that we can? or are you all words but no action just like most of the supporters of this war.

..and if your not old enough I do hope your planning to go over there when you do come of age.

What? If we quit already..Imagine what can happen?.. All the countries have to contribute in order to defeat the Taliban. It's just not USA or Canada or whatsoever.

[Jayke]

Only dead have seen the end of war - Plato

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's eventually going to happen, and it's a long way off. Until then we can certainly improve conditions - surly you've taken note of the collapse of the Soviet Union, loss of Taliban control? You're looking at resolving ongoing international conflicts with the wave of a wand and since that's impossible again you're completely signing it all off. Why? We can and have proven that a difference can be achieved.

Whats going to happen? the only thing happening and being 'achieved' (again you keep harping on about achievements, what achievements have we made over ion Afghanistan) is that our soldiers are being placed in a battle zone as easy picking targets for groups which despise the western world mainly due to general hypocrisy in foreign affairs and the fact that many are now picking up arms to free their country of the occupying forces! so what are we achieving - nothing!

No that proves nothing at all though - because many employees of many industries expect things within the role of their career but they're certainly never going to go the way they want. The military is no different. Infact it's even more sporadic and especially in America where they're always under the spotlight and have a long and twisting path of being involved in international affairs which don't become involved with America first. Moreover that's only relative to a several year era because those soldiers who disagreed with the invasion would have had more than ample time to leave the military in the handful of years to follow.

You've just completely blanked it all - I have just made the point that being in Afghanistan does nothing for U.S. security and only serves to make it worse in which the United States is seen as the occupier, I care because our politicians are keeping a war going which they know is pointless, fruitless - yet they still keep our troops there in order to prop up an unpopular and hated corrupt government in Kabul which serves the interests of large U.S. corporations such as United Defence and Haliburton.

And under Taliban rule sports, television and flying kites were illegal and female depression rates were horrendous. There's always two sides of a spectrum so naturally there will be a group of locals who condem NATO for involvement in the East - there's also a vast amount of locals who are glad for the international community taking interest in their well being. We have a fair standard for how we feel citizens of a nation should be treated and if someone's going against that to the extent that they're fighting against us I have no sympathy for them.

Oh what rubbish, female depression rates - well you might be interested to know that the man you toppled in Iraq (Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath regime) were actually liberators of women against the practise of old islamic law - but of course when Saddam refused to play the dance of the U.S., he all of a sudden turned into a very nasty man who was simply terrible but then we had George W Bush and his family going over to meet the Saudi regime which was one thousand times worse than the Ba'ath regime in Iraq. Absolute hypocrisy, and you wonder why people like the Taliban hate everything about the west!

In terms of Taliban rules, you may be interested to know we have laws like that here - for example we can no longer protest by our war memorial (the cenotaph in London) under the 'serious and organised crime act', so i'm in no position and nor is the west to criticise the Taliban for banning kites, sports and television.

This is simply presented poorly, Dan. The British and Soviets took the nation for no reason other than greedy imperialism. A group of NATO nations being involved modern day to establish order in kayos and to make better the lives of the locals is hardly in pursuit of self interest. Oh, and what's more - we might not even of had to be involved in Afghanistan if England or the USSR hadn't initially screwed them over so many years ago, anyway!

I can't believe i'm hearing this; greedy imperialism? so what does that say about the likes of United Defence who have made billions out of these wars, or the Haliburton group along with various other large U.S. corporations of the military-industrial complex who have made billions upon billions out of these wars of which the taxpayers suffers for in the end. How about the oil pipelines signed by Hamid Karzai (who he himself worked for the oil company Unocal) which will benefit large U.S. corporations and corporations generally around the world? what about the massive lithium deposits that just happned to be found in Afghanistan - I will take no lessons on imperialism from the liberal neo-cons such as yourself, at least the British Empire invested something back into its colonies and had something to show for it.

The locals are poor, the locals are turning against the occupiers and it will end up like Vietnam. A western world with no values will troop back off home, its nations deeper into crippling debt while the large corporations pocket billions.

Compared to what it was life quality is and will continue to get better with time.

If we leave it will, if we don't then the country will continue to be a cesspit of corruption and chaos.

This is entirely pessimistic and based off nothing especially considering you have no idea what the future can hold. Worse beasts have been sleighed than the conflict and its roots in the East.

I think you will find its being realistic, do you honestly think that by introducing a government in a box (which is hated and despised by the people of Afghanistan) is really going to improve anything? if you do then you are greatly naive.

Obama has said himself in interview that America's overall goals in Afghanistan are to not only be there militarily but during the aftermath be available to provide electricity, construct roads and provide other infrastructure necessary to sustain a nation. It's not all void, do you seriously think America, as well as England, Canada and -- oh wait:

And how is the U.S. affording all of this? - it can't.

Alright Dan are you suggesting all the above countries just in layman's words suck? You must be if you're actually suggesting that not a single one of the above hadn't acknowledged their obvious failure to come from the get go, right?

What is the question? the only thing that sucks if this unpopular and fruitless military adventure which has failed, is failing and will continue to fail. Why not just admit failure now and bring the soldiers home before anymore die for a void reason?

I think it foolish to consider any military action in China because it just wouldn't play out well. I think this to be unfortunate, but I also think China's downfall will be future internal politics, in conjunction with advances in technology - because as technology advances even in the scope of several richer countries it will affect both how things are produced as well as the ease at which a higher standard of quality of live is achieved.

Wouldn't play out well? and Afghanistan is playing out well is it? absolute nonsense.

As for China, China is rapidly overtaking the bankrupt west and will continue to do so as the United States meets the same end that the British Empire did as with all Empires/superpowers - if a medium sized conflict kicks off then the United States if history, even if it wins the battle just as Britain apparently 'won' World War II. China has minimal regulation, a much more capitalist economy than we have with less regulation and they are buying up the assets in the western world and moving them east - all thanks to the socialist-corporatist model imposed on the west, and the U.S. will be the one who suffers the most because the U.S. will fall from its plinth just as we did.

China, India, and Russia wouldn't agree? And Cuba probably does think that, but comparing life quality there to here it's easy to see that such a belief is misplaced.

No its hypothetical, if they did come to that conclusion how would you feel? and maybe they feel their life quality is better.

It is upto us when we see abuses of human rights. Saying otherwise is selfish.

It's not selfish its realistic, we haven't got the money - accept this.

I think the Western World should never stop sharing and trying to internationally uphold its moral standards. Again Dan you're sort of dancing around this now, in that you're suggesting if we can't help everyone we should help no one.

I've just given various examples of how we have no moral standards and you've just blanked them all, in the next reply please do address these before you start proposing we go around the world sorting out everybody else and their standards.

What? If we quit already..Imagine what can happen?.. All the countries have to contribute in order to defeat the Taliban. It's just not USA or Canada or whatsoever.

What will happen? you tell me. 9/11 was composed by a group of Saudis, the same can be said for the 7/7 attacks in the United Kingdom which were committed by home-grown islamic fundementalists. So why did we firstly invade Iraq and then Afghanistan? I love this clip so i'll have to put this in, it just shows the stupidity of the whole adventure and how it has nothing to do with terrorism and anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves;