sâmbătă, 19 martie 2011

Jocuri video care ucid

sunt cele pe care le joaca americanii care controleaza dronele ucigase din Pakistan si de pe unde or mai fi prin lume.
adica sta un tip in fata unor monitoare (sper ca are minim 15 ani), probabil controleaza cu un joystick sau un sistem optic de ochire si, cand vede ceva bun si oportun, pac! trimite o racheta spre tinta.
am mai omorit unul!

e o mica problema aici.
SUA nu e in razboi cu Pakistanul, nicidecum.
iar ceea ce se intimpla se numeste executie, nu razboi.
si mai sunt niste mici probleme: civilii care se intimpla sa fie pe langa tinta din jocul video ultrareal.
ultima data au fost 40, care au murit fiinda trebuia neaparat executat cineva.
oare ce-o fi asta?
justitie, sigur nu.
razboi, nu.
poate arogarea dreptului de-a omori pe cine vrem, cand vrem.
sa ne jucam un pic de'a Dumnezeu.

de aia sunt asa "populari" americanii pe o buna parte de planeta!
de aia se gasesc tot timpul frati, veri, unchi si ce-or mai fi care vor sa se razbune.
datorita si vinatorii umane, a jocurilor mult prea reale si a dronelor cica anonime.
oare ONU de ce nu zice nimic ?
nu e petrolul la mijloc, nu? 

6 comentarii:

  1. Glumesti...
    Ce legatura ar putea avea cu petrolul???
    Nu, nicidecum, de fapt totul are legatura cu instaurarea "democratiei" in lume!
    Conteaza faptul ca democratia ta nu este acelasi lucru cu democratia mea? Nici vorba...
    Dar, daca esti american, evident esti detinatorul adevarului absolut... asa ca nu putem comenta, nu?

    Ce ma doare pe mine foarte tare in momentul de fata este urmatorul lucru: a inceput razboiul impotriva Libiei. Nu comentez legitimitatea acestui razboi (in cazul in care ar exista).
    Nu, pe mine ma doare faptul ca, dupa o saptamana de la dezastrul din Japonia, unora le arde de pornit razboaie.
    Stiu, poate voi fi considerata naiva, dar nu ma pot opri sa ma intreb: avem o singura planeta, chiar vrem sa o distrugem noi cu mana noastra?

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  2. cutremurul din japonia e important doar pentru ca pune sub semnul intrebarii industria nucleara in ansamblul ei, altfel pentru japonezi va fi un pretext de crestere economica, la modul extrem de pragmatic.
    in schimb petrolul e o chestie care arde la propriu si o vedem si noi zi de zi.

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  3. Eu cred ca lumea se imparte in doua categorii, din punctul de vedere al americanior: lumea "civilizata" - adica ei si aliatii lor plus lumea "primitiva", care nu conteaza pentru ei decat ca resurse materiale.
    Deci nu e un pacat sa omori niste primitivi pentru a le lua resursele, asa cum nu e pacat sa alungi albinele cu fum pentru a le lua mierea.

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  4. I'll worry about the US popularity in the world when the visa lines in front of an Embassy will be full of Americans waiting to escape to Pakistan. Or, more vividly, when 3m row boats w/ people putting their life at the mercy of the ocean will run from Miami to Cuba instead of the other way around (like they do now every day). Just the other day, the US operative w/ diplomatic cover that got arrested by Pakistanis for shooting to kill the two thugs that attacked and mugged him, US end up paying the Arabic "blood money" to the family, but guess what, they also wanted - and got - US GREEN CARDS. So badly they hate America.

    I remain amazed on how the tug of popular sentiment and ideological laziness could turn an intelligent - indeed brilliant - person into an ignoramus. Just checking here, but do you have any idea what the PROCESS for a Predator Drone attack is? First off, do you know how much IT COSTS (say compare with bombing something casually, as you suggest)? And don't mind just the machine, we have JAG lawyer at $400/hr sitting in the Command Room in order for a

    (btw, IT IS war, authorized by US Congress in Joint Session, Resolution 14, Sep. 14, 2001 - in case that date still rings a bell, or a thunder)

    (also, I do this for a living - knowing who buys oil from where - but it takes 5' to bother find out that US gets LESS THAN 10% OF ITS OIL FROM MIDDLE EAST; In fact, we're not even in the top 10 customers of Saudi Arabia, for instance; Europe and Japan - and now China and India - need and use that oil; of course, I and my fellow tax payers pay up for the bloody Fifth Fleet to keep the wackos over there from killing each other; just the damn floating runway costs $5 Billion, not to mention the hundreds the planes and dozens of escorts in a carrier strike group; and we keep one there 24/7 for 40 years now, just to keep the oil flowing; TO OTHER PEOPLE; which are nice and grateful for this to us for it; you know, like your post)

    when I get reimbursed for SOME of this, we can START talk about oil; otherwise, let's just keep it to an IQ of at least same octane you put in your car.

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  5. -piata petrolului e o piata globala, nu conteaza de unde cumperi
    - nu pentru democratie au atacat Libia, de ce nu au atacat China dupa Tienanmen?
    asta facand abstractie ca Gaddhafi e un dictator si un terorist
    - de cand razboiul se declara persoanelor fizice?
    - daca un luptator Al Qaida ar fi depistat in mijlocul NY, masina lui ar fi bombardata de drone?
    - de cand juristii semneaza sentinte la moarte?

    RăspundețiȘtergere
  6. 1. Ok, oil is fungible; then why don’t you strap on those boots and go guard it? We split the bill according to its fungibility: each country pays % of the security bill proportional to its imports from the global oil trade that NEEDS GUARDING (why that’s relevant, think about how much the Finns care about security of supply from their neighbors, the Norwegians). Hell I feel flush, let’s split the bill proportional w/ TOTAL IMPORTS, even if over here we don’t really worry about, say, Canadian aggression. Yes, full disclosure, I own the Canadian oil sands (Saudi Arabia is pocket change); which brings related point 1, US has no NEED to import oil, it’s a “choice” imposed by our EnviroNazis here, dig a little “Arctic”,“shale” and “combined oil+gas” reserves by country; which brings related, subtler point2, oil is not THAT fungible, look up Texas – Brent differential (hint, is 2x the $/bbl it takes to ship oil across Atlantic).
    2. You’re barking at the wrong tree on this one, I have no dog in the Libya fight. Perfect summary of my position on Libya here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263110/art-inconclusive-war-mark-steyn. (if you don’t have patience, the money quote, from our “citizen of the world” President, is this: “It is our military that is BEING VOLUNTEERED BY OTHERS to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.” To get a good visual of whom is “volunteering our military” let’s look at a map: http://web.stratfor.com/images/middleeast/art/Libya_Energy_800.jpg

    3. Now you’re actually getting somewhere: the way the “international system” has been working was the VIOLENCE MONOPOLY O F THE NATION STATE. The previous threat to it, High Seas piracy ,has been effectively outlaw in 1697 when then-powers England/Spain/France understood that any dings in that monopoly threatens them all, so they agreed to enforce this monopoly regardless of who the pirates worked for (England or Spain etc). (in fact, even today for instance Geneva Convention offers protection ONLY to “lawful combatants” , i.e. a guy w/ a uniform (or at least insignia) who has “a chain of command” – the legal purpose is to be able to identify the “top” of that chain, and hold “that” responsible, same as a nation-state). But you’re still wrong on nuances, US Congress’ 2001 Authorization of Military Force was not against “persons” but rather (specific) regimes harboring them.

    4. (IN GENERAL, if your feet are on US soil, you have Constitutional protections even as a foreign criminal; however, when you blow up a building in NY arguably is not to commit crime – say to kill your adulterous wife in her cubicle – it is a VIOLENT ACT WITH POLITICAL ENDS, which is the definition of war). Now, a FOREIGN COMBATANT is not subject to civil process, but military one, in that sense his being “behind front lines” (e.g. in NYC) is what WW2 called a “saboteur” ; so, yes, he CAN be shot by US military in NYC or, more likely, tried by a military tribunal (but still as saboteur/combatant, NOT CRIMINAL, and that’s the key distinction); indeed, FDR tried and executed the handful of German saboteurs that landed by U-boat in New Hampshire.

    5. The JAG lawyers in the control room of a Predator drone are not there to “sentence” anything, they are paper-pushers ensuring that ROE (Rules of Engagement) are followed. Target list and such ends up the chain all the way to the NCO (National Command Authority, i.e. the President), whose legal authority is either Congressional mandate (in say Afghanistan) or the War Powers Clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11). Note that most of the clandestine stuff (such as a Predator strike in Pak or Yemen) comes under latter. For basic understand of War Powers Clause, look up Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 74, as well the Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, when James Madison famously replied "The sword is in the hands of the British king; the purse is in the hands of the Parliament. It is so in America."

    RăspundețiȘtergere