Drone attacks
 

Does it matter which weapon is used ... garrote, knife, sniper, F-35, poison gas... drone ?

Drones - to the public - are the latest new killing weapon in the US arsenal
The US has already killed ~1,500 humans with missiles from drones.
The US has already targeted and killed US citizens in this manner.

They are also weapons of foreign policy... here is today's item:


NY Times
ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI
October 28, 2013

Pentagon Says Shabab Bomb Specialist Is Killed in Missile Strike in Somalia
IMO, this is bad policy, not just in Somalia...

Drones are definitely an unideal option but the best we have at our disposal.

I'm pretty sure disengagement would be a better weapon. This world hegemony nonsense needs to end if we ever want to work toward a free, fair, and prosperous society.

I'm not in favor of using the drones, unless it's against Al-Qaeda, or other groups that attack us directly (like Hezbollah in the Lebanon bombing of the marine barracks, some decades ago. The Kenyans have an army in Somalia, and they can deal with Al-Shabab. Help them with the investigation or medical help for the victims that were wounded - sure. But drones aren't warranted in that case.

I'm not sure how effective that will be. I agree that the more we use drones and fight Islamist terrorists overseas, the more unpopular we become in the countries we are fighting in. This directly leads to more terrorist recruits. However, I don't fully agree that if we disengage from these countries that we will be in a better situation.

First, as shown by Afghanistan in the 90's and recently in Yemen and Mali, Islamic group tend to organize in regions outside state sovereign control where they have free reign. In the 90’s we had absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan and until recently we had no influence in Yemen and yet anti-American groups still flourished there. To me, this implies that Islamic groups with a global focus (Al-Qaeda for example) recruit many – but not all - members based on American supposed actions against Muslims in general and not that actions that directly affect them. Also, the claims that supposedly motivate Al-Qaeda and other globally focused Islamic groups – support of Israel, support of Arab Dictators, etc. – are not going to change and therefore these groups will continue to recruit members whether we disengage or not.

Second, the vast majority of Islamic groups - Al-Shabab for example - have regional focuses that may later expand to a more global focus. If we disengage we will not change the dynamics of the regionally focused groups. The Taliban in Afghanistan was a reaction to the poor ruling of the Afghani warlords in the early 90’s. The regionally focused Taliban later allied with the globally focused Al-Qaeda.

Third, based on what I have read and observed, I do think the Islamic terrorist threat is larger than what we are made to believe. When Obama was elected in 2008 he made a pretty quick change in his foreign policy. He initially went from closing Guantanamo to stepping up drone use. It is possible that this change due to him learning of the full range of threats against the US. Also, after Benghazi, security consultants sometimes mention the number of real threats against the US on a yearly basis and it was in the hundreds or something like that. The author and journalist Ahmed Rashid, who often travels in Pakistan and Afghanistan, also mentions multiple times in his books that the terrorist threat against the US is very real.

As I said, I don’t think drones are an ideal solution. The consequences of using them, terrorist recruiting and unpopularity among Muslim countries, are currently hurt us. However, if the terrorist threat is large enough to justify action against particular Islamic groups, it is the best option we have.

The Eighties.

Home Rule.

They hate us because we're free should have gone out with Bush. Obama is now part of the Washington military industrial complex bubble. One problem One hammer One solution.

I know that comes off as snarky but my perspective is that government solutions to other peoples problems put us in a position to be fighting a religious war balancing extremist against extremist playing one against the other continuously in that greater region. There is no clean escape ever. If you've noticed, humans are often very bad at things. Things like saying "we can't" when someone in a higher position asks you to do the impossible. Ask a CIA dirt bag if he can make a clean kill with a drone and he'll lie right to your face. Ask a General if smart bombs will avoid civilian casualties and you'll get the same. Ask the NSA to give you the complete picture and they'll give you an unusable digital snap shot of all. Live in that bubble of limited intelligence and limited answers long enough and before you know it you'll spying on the goddamn Germans for Christ's sake! This is drifting into a never vote major party vote again rant so I'll just stop.

If.

It was never snarky to discuss three facts ALWAYS necessary to justify war. A strategic objective is one. Going to war only to solve someone else's problems is Tea Party stupid. No valid strategic objective exists.

In history are perfect examples of how to use military power to greatest victory. Clinton did it in Haiti. Notice how much money and soldier's lives were spent removing Baby Doc. Clinton did it again in the Balkins. How many years, treasure, and lives did we waste there to obtain a massive victory (when Europe failed to take responsibility)? Clinton also stopped what could have been a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Did anyone learn from that history? Britian did same with only a battalion of Marines in Liberia. So again, how many here (probably a majority) forgot that lesson?

We have no vested interest in a Syrian war. First and foremost, it is a problem to be solved by the nations of that region. However Obama did demonstrate one condition that is a world standard taboo. He even got Putin to cooperate. By simply threatening military conflict, he got Assad to completely surrender and stop using chemical weapons. A major military victory. Another perfect example of how smarter leaders use military force combined with the entire purpose of the military. Every great victory is won at the negotiation table.

How did one get Milošević to literally negotiate himself out of power? Simple. Richard Holbrooke‎ kidnapped him in Dayton Ohio. Milosevic surrendered without America deploying any divisions. The world's greatest military victories occur that way. As even demonstrated by Alexander the Great long before anyone here learned what a military is.

Its not snarky to state the obvious. America has no strategic objectives in Syria (except Assad's chemical weapons that he surrendered due to the best use of American military power). But we have a strategic interest in doing police actions or actions no different than covert actions during the cold war. Those actions were done in America's strategic interest.

As are attacks on people who would perform cirminal acts in upon US citizens and vested interests. Kaddafi learned that the hard way after foolishly bombing some American servicemen in Germany. In every case, military victories because action (or successful threats) were only justified by a strategic objective.

Drones are only a tactical weapon. A trivial tool no different from helicopters, cruise missiles, special forces, aircraft carriers cruising nearby, CIA spies, destroyers hunting for pirates, or armored divisions. These tools are completely irrelevant to the relevant question. What is the strategic objective? What, exactly, do we intend to achieve?

When your leaders see mythical threats everything (they even believed the Cold War was still ongoing), then these fearful extremists even bugged Angela Merkel's phones when she was an unknown. Which begs a question - how many other thousands of future world leaders were routinely being bugged by a government defined by Cheney's paranoia and 'black and white' perspectives that even justified Gestapo style torture?

The NSA was only doing since 2001 what George Jr's administration told them to do. To spy on everyone and never admit to any of it. Another legacy of the an administration that all but protected bin Laden (so they always had a bogeyman) while knowing that even Ted Kennedy was an enemy.

I once asked how I could get on Cheney's enemies list. Apparently I and all others here were already on his enemies list. Nixon only had a list of hundreds. With NSA computers, Cheney, et al had millions of enemies - including Angela Merkel in 2002 when she was only another unknown politician to be feared.

Wishing the Cellar had a blocking option.

???

Like "ignore"?

More than that. Like a "doesn't exist" option.

well, you could try a combination therapy; ignore, denial and bourbon. putting your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la for periods of acute awareness could be done as needed, but it will definitely interfere with your browsing and posting experience. this is known as a side effect. I can't say if this is covered under the ACA.

Yes, it was decided in the 80's that arming radical Islamists to prevent Soviet expansion into Afghanistan was a good idea. In hindsight, there have been obvious consequences to that decision. My point is that a lot happened between the fall of the Soviet government in Kabul to the rise of the Taliban that could have prevented Al-Qaeda's safe haven there. 9/11 was due to the a poor mix of intervention and non-intervention policies.

I think there is very strong consensus on this. I haven't heard this argument since Bush honestly.

Yes, but every president is forced to become part of the military industrial complex.

I disagree. While ugly, Obama showed he wasn't going to intervene in Syria. With Iran, Obama hasn't militarily intervened but has relied on cyberattacks and economic sanctions (look at Iran's economy). Obama does use more than one tool in his foreign policy.

When it comes to fighting Islamists in the middle of Afghanistan and Yemen, while not ideal, drones seem to be the best tool.

I actually agree with this. We should not be delusional to think that we will make the world a better place by intervening. Our country has obvious limitations and this has been emphasized for the past decade. That rhetoric is usually just used to gain public support (see Syria).

However, many interventions (not necessarily military) have had positive tangible and intangible benefits for the US so this cannot be ignored. Also, I strongly believe power vacuums are usually more dangerous than intervention because some other country will be more than willing to fill the void (see Syria). Its a lose-lose situation.

"Obama showed he wasn't going to intervene in Syria."

Bullshit - the overwhelming pushback from ... well everybody ... is what convinced him.

George Jr eventually learned this in his last years - according to George Jr's recent comments. Learned when George Jr became more concerned for his legacy.

Cheney speaks much like the naive who 'solve' everything with overt military power - as some foolishly advocate here. Same strategy only makes things worse (ie Vietnam, Mission Accomplished). Cheney even insisted we 'Pearl Harbor' all Iranian nuclear facilities. A George Jr with changing priorities then asked everyone whether anyone agreed with Cheney. No one - not even one - raised a hand. Once George Jr questioned Cheney, then no one agreed with Cheney's wacko extremism.

Cheney is so extreme as to recently recommend (on Charlie Rose) that Israel immediately attack Iran's nuclear facilities. When everyone with intelligence knows that will create a strategic disaster for Israel. Quite obvious to most all; but not to Cheney who views a world in terms of black and white. An extremist cannot think pragmatically - like a moderate. Extremists foolishly want solutions using wasteful military deployments. Even advocate intervention in Syria.

America was roundly successful in Syria - despite extremists who still deny it. America intervened in what was clearly and only in our and the world's interest. A strategic objective was clearly defined and roundly accomplished. (Mission Accomplished had no strategic objective.) Threats without deploying military power indicate great leaders. It clearly accomplished THE best possible solution. Well beyond what most thought was possible. Even Putin is on board.

Enough must die in Syria to finally make obvious what really matters. That civil war will only end when enough pain makes obvious how dumb their extremists really are. When extremists are replaced by people who know by using education, logic, and basic intelligence rather than hate, religion, and child-like reasoning.

Only a wacko would advocate an American intervention in Syria's civil war. Wackos wanted and got the same thing in VietNam. Some never bother to learn from history. Do not even know how to close their eyes so as to censor what they fear. The informed remember Vietnam and contempt that extremists had for the American soldier (ie Mission Accomplished).

Those who never learn from history would advocate unilateral American intervention in Syria. Or Pearl Harbor attacks on Iran. Because so many replace lessons from history with perverted extremist rhetoric. Responsible leadership repeatedly solved such problems using patience and without a massive deployment.

If extremists (ie Cheney) recommend it, then suspect a 'classic' contempt for American soldiers.

Which is exactly what Obama did until, as I stated, virtually EVERYONE, pushed back and fought him on it. Another huge stumbling block for his desired intervention was the decision against his buddy in England.

When most of the people around him were pushing for intervention? Biden, Clinton, etc.? They were all pushing intervention. The non-intervention crowd wasn't as loud as they thought there were.

Obama had AT LEAST four chances to intervene in Syria and he never took them. The only time he seriously mentioned intervention is after Assad was accused and "convicted" of using chemical weapons. That was Obama's red line and he felt obligated. Yet, Obama never went through with any of them. The second Russia offered a chemical weapon deal he jumped on it with no hesitation.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Obama has not been hawkish with Syria.

Outside intervention will not stop the civil war in Syria. Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to keep pouring money into the fight until their side wins.

The situation will only stop when the people in Syria get sick of killing eachother.

Wow really? Did I imagine his whole impassioned speech about it?
Guess some only see what they want to see. Obama advocated strikes in Syria. Kerry did as well. Once the tide turned in Britain, and the public backlash was ENORMOUS, they sang a different tune.

You, too, need to look further. Up until the second chemical weapons attack, he was refusing to get involved militarily. Then he decided he had to maintain his "red line", and made the impassioned speech. Luckily for everyone (except the moderate rebels in Syria), an out appeared, and he jumped at it.

But the story didn't start after Syria used chemical weapons the second time. Obama was very resistant to get involved prior to that. He made absolutely no attempt. The first time he mentioned to get involved was in March or so when the first set of chemical weapon accusations were made. Obama said he would send in small arms. Did he actually go through with it? No. Also, there was very little pushback against intervention at that time.

Then, when Assad used chemical weapons the second time, it took Obama a long time before deciding to attack. Also, I remember a lot of articles calling Obama weak because he did not respond quickly to his "red line".

So I ask you the question. Did Obama delay attacking Assad because he secretly wanted to get involved but couldn't think of an excuse or because he didn't want to get involved but felt he had to because Assad crossed his red line?

Yes there was pushback after he decided to attack but then also you have to assume that Obama was suddenly influenced by the media when his past history does not always line up with that. Also, I read sources from all sides and while there was a strong non-interventionist push, there was definitely interventionist voices as well. So it wasn't "everyone" or even close to "everyone". The 90% of American against intervening in Syria poll was a skewed question that was not representative. The true poll was more like 60%.

Yes.

The CIA under Obama has been training and arming Syrian rebel fighters right along so that intervention is well under way just not acknowledged.

Iran has been a source of hope that, you know, Hope® still lives.

So why did you hear hype and myths presented for public consumption? Obama's strategy did not change. It included a staged play with the Russians where Kerry 'accidentally' dropped a suggestion that Russia took seriously. This was apparently scripted. Not entirely sure how much of the script was held by the Russians in advance. But while some had such poor sources as to be deceived into an ENORMOUS backlash, Obama's strategy to end Assad's entire chemical weapon stockpile and production facilities worked - 100%.

Not scripted was Parliament's rejection of military participation. But then Britain was there mostly for political justification. Britain's military contribution would have been minor. A few submarines launching cruise missiles were easily replaced a few more American destroyers and/or submarines.

Of course, you cannot blame Britain (or any other NATO country) for not wanting involvement. Since even in the Cellar in 2003, you can read how often and how egregiously the American administration openly lied to them - again and again.

Use of chemical weapons was a red line for the same reason first strike use of nuclear weapons must also result in world wide condemnation.

America's tiny military threat was so major to Syria that even no aircraft carrier groups were needed. That and the scripted cooperation with Russia completely defanged Assad's chemical weapons. The ENORMOUS backlash was lots of phooey and little substance. Russia got great political cover while cooperating in defanging an ally (Assad).

We have not seen such a military triumph since Holbrooke all but kidnapped Milosevic in Dayton and got him to surrender. Again without a military invasion. That's what great leaders do. Win military victories (put the dispute on a negotiation table) without deploying soldiers.

Your news sources need fixing if you really bought an enormous backlash myth.

BTW there was, apparently, more than two chemical attacks. Actual number remains vague and unconfirmed. Assad may have used chemical weapons seven times.

Meanwhile, any American intervention in Syria's civil war is obviously as bogus as Mission Accomplished. But so many extremists want it. That extremist solution is a 'classic' example of contempt for the American soldier.

The number of rebel fighters we have trained is almost negligible though...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...-program-rebel

Even though we do have a presence, it is very small compared to the Gulf States, Iran, Al-Qaeda, etc. Also, there are definite tensions between the CIA and White House about this strategy. This scale of this "intervention" is very small compared to past interventions.

I thought that was an interesting tone, minimizing the effect of hundreds of armed and trained fighters.

You have a point. To my defense, my tone is reactionary to the more vocal anti-interventionists who tend to use "intervention" as an umbrella term and make no attempt to separate the difference between the current intervention in Syria with the intervention in Afghanistan in the 80's or the Bush wars. I find that very deceiving. While there are obvious similarities, the differences are too great to be direct analogies.


But yes, we are arming and training Syrian rebels (I actually thought it was less before you pointed that out). However, when compared to other countries who are involved, the scale is much less and it is absolutely clear that changing the balance of the civil war in not one of our objectives. This is a big difference from Afghanistan in the 80's where we were one of if not the main supplier of weapons and training and had the objective of overthrowing the Soviet regime in Kabul. It is clear that the US does not want to "own" the civil war and is making a strong attempt to minimize blowback. These two points are often ignored by anti-interventionists who want to argue against the current Syrian intervention by making it into the next Afghanistan intervention.


I understand and agree that intervening in Syria is a bad idea. The situation is too complex and we will have no control over what happens. Personally, I think we should stay out of the Syrian Civil War but still keep a close eye and be prepared for unexpected events (chemical weapons, Jordan collapsing, Israel getting involved). I am not completely against the current amount intervention because it is pretty much the minimal amount of intervention we can have. We should not be a main supplier of weapons and we should not try to change the balance of powers. That is just asking for blowback.

I am just strongly against the idea of using "intervention" as an umbrella term since it can mean so many different things. I am not accusing you are anyone on here of doing that but I see it all the time in articles I read so I tend to be jumpy against it.

I wasn't precise enough. I thought the Post article was minimizing the "intervention" not you. I don't want this exchange to turn personal to the detriment of the discussion.

Agreed.

Bullshit. He was all ready to go until the last moment when he realized that EVERYONE was against him.

There exists a simple word. Bluffing. Apparently having you in a poker game is quite profitable.

Sure ... Tommy your head is so far up O's ass you would know what he had for dinner last night. Run along. Your boorish behavior is tiresome. Oh, and in case you were too ignorant to know this - Using yourself as a reference all the time is tiring, ineffective at convincing anyone of anything and ridiculous.

Mr Whiner is so extremist as to not even know what a bluff is? Rather than admit to ignorance, he now resorts to what he understands - cheapshots and insults. Posting profanity and ignorance proves intelligence.

This thing called a bluff perplexes him. Limbaugh did not tell him what it is.

To be the best archer, shoot your arrow -- and whatever it hits, call it the target.

^This.

Two questions:

1) If Obama was so inclined in attacking Syria, why did he cancel the weapon shipments to rebels earlier this year when there was little pushback?

2) If Obama wanted to attack Syria, why did he wait for congress approval (8 - 10 day wait) when he could have just attacked right after the allegations?

Will Dwellars please allow me to retract the name-calling that I started in another thread.
I think/hope it was the first time I did that, and I hate to see it perpetuated.

I apologize to all involved.

You did not start it. He has directed cheapshots at many in multiple threads for some weeks now.

That moment was when an alternative appeared. And he jumped at it.

No one has been calling me any names ...

... YOU DON'T LOVE ME ANYMORE! :sniff:



I'll just console myself reading that thread in which Clodfobble talks about getting drunk and naked. :blush:

Probably because you were being Incognito.

Oh, see now, you do care after all.

Incognito crossed the line. He hadn't learned to be the one who draws the lines and lets others cross them before he unleashes and he hadn't learned not to kick someone when they're down (even if they're provoking him). He knows better now. Perhaps Incognito will start being me.

Apology accepted and offered in return.
I haven't even been back for week you friggin tool.
Cheapshots were offered toward TWO (2) people. One in return and another at you
because you're a pompous asshole. (<--- not a cheap shot, just a fact borne out of YEARS of reading your drivel.)

Incognito. An elephant in the room that nobody sees and best to not slight. Because what is not seen is also too damn big to offend. Incognito.

Are you sure he's a Republican?

I'm not up to date on Cheney, but his black and white view on Iran's nuclear facilities, has merit. Saudi's have also been urging us to wipe out the nuclear facilities in Iran (as we learned from the stolen state dept. communications).

We have been jawing, and talking, and yakking and making the average joe in Iran, hate us. We've destroyed their economy with sanctions high and low- but their nuclear program has only increased by several thousand more centrifuges.

Since we've done nothing, Israel has done nothing, and the Saudi's feel threatened by a nuclear (shiite) Iran, so THEY have gone to Pakistan and are now purchasing nuclear weapons, from them.

So it looks like our inaction, has only caused a further spread of nuclear facilities and arms, in the Middle East.

There is a lot of sense in what you say, but despite your slanted view about Cheney, (and I'm not saying he's right on any matter, because I didn't hear the interview), we won't know which course of action was the best one to take, for decades. All we know right now, is:

1) Iran is still enlarging it's nuclear enrichment program, even with stringent sanctions in place, for several years now.

2) Still holding large "Death to America" rallies, as you might expect in Iran.

3) The Saudi's have felt threatened enough by Iran, to move ahead with buying nuclear weapons, from Pakistan.

4) Caused an obvious rift with Israel. Not a lasting rift, but it is significant, nonetheless.

So Obama's handling of the situation, has so far gone 0 for 4 in it's handling of the situation. Hard to call that a success.

Right, he should have handed you a rifle and sent you over to straighten them the hell out. :rolleyes:

I guess your desire to spend America's young men and women to bolster your pride, would help the unemployment situation.

Iraq just today unveiled it's biggest unmanned drone ever. Able to reach Israel easily. 1,300 mile range, they say.

They haven't yet announced how the drone - equipped with missiles, is going to be useful in "medical research and treatments", like their nuclear material is. ;)

Do you really believe that the Israeli's won't be attacking Iran if the negotiating fails? Of course, Iran has to be expecting that. They saw what the Israeli's did to the Syrian nuclear facility, year ago, and to the Syrian missiles going to Hamas, just recently.

Your argument is based on emotions, and after the stupid involvement in Vietnam, that's understandable. We tried the "let's not get involved, or be prepared" route in the past however, and it has never worked out well for us, over the long term.

Walking softly and carrying a teddy bear, will not deter many bad guys.

Perhaps a policy of letting every country have nuclear enrichment facilities dug into mountains, and drones and missiles able to deliver them, is a good idea, but it will be hell to get a restful nights sleep. In the long run, it's very likely to result in a nuclear war.

Where in the US is Israel again? I keep forgetting who is ultimately responsible for their security.

So far only countries who don't face MAD have been willing to go atomic. Small sample size but...

And this is my problem how?

That's Iran, and surrrre it can. 1300 mile range in that little thing, easily, surrrrrrrrrrre

(they lie, fabricate and Photoshop, it's what they do)

Yes, because there are obviously zero consequences with bombing Iran...

Sometimes we need to realize that we have much less control over these situation than we want to believe.

Kuwait (Desert Storm) also was not your problem. So why did we go to war?

We do not know how many commitments we have with Israel. In part, because nobody has asked and would not ask until we 'have to' learn about them.

Japan, Australia, Turkey, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia also are not located in the continental US. So why do we have military deployed?

I don't know, I didn't go.

What do you mean we, white man?
So we can react quickly with disaster relief?

It took the George Washington task force five days to get there. People die after three days of no water.

Of course it could be worse. George Jr took five days to let a US aircraft carrier (USS Bataan) to move only 50 miles up the Mississippi River to rescue Katrina victims in the SuperDome and Convention Center.


We (not just Americans) may have secret agreements with Israel. Unfortunately such obligations are not made public until resources must be committed. Commitments may exist even with 'neutral' countries such as Switzerland. Best way to avoid military endeavors is to negotiate solutions before a commitment becomes necessary. Like it or not, America has obligations all over the world.

Remember why Saddam invaded Kuwait. The American ambassador (April Glaspie) told Saddam it would be OK.. Another example of why we must carefully negotiate solutions from an informed position. We were, unfortunately, too ambiguous with Saddam. Kuwait was not in the continental US. So why did we deploy the entire Seventh Corp? Americans have certain (often unknown) commitments to other nations. Protecting the American serviceman means negotiating solutions before a problem festers.

However, that problem is first and foremost the obligation of regional nations. Extremists want to solve problems immediately with military deployments. Even the lesson of Nam too often get forgotten.

Even Barry Goldwater should have learned, extremism in the defense of liberty is a vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is a virtue.

Yeah, $14 Billion.

Saddam was on the take? Even dictators can be brought? How much for Assad?

Saddam owed Kuwait $14 Billion for financing the war with Iran. He decided to attack rather than pay.

I may take up a new hobby of building a model drone in a bottle now that they're launching them from submerged submarines.

When I was a kid, we used to catch drones by hand and put them in a bottle

It's fun and OK, so long as you don't make a mistake and grab a worker bee.

If I could have drones in a bottle
The first thing that I'd like to do
Is to save every missile till reason passes away
Just to spend them on you

If I could make bytes last forever
If bits could make wishes come true
I'd save every byte like a treasure and then
Again, I would spend them on you

But there never seems to be enough pow'r
To save the things you want to save, once you find them
I've looked around enough to know
That you're the one I will be doing time with

If I had a box just for wishes
And dreams that had never come true
The box would be empty, except for the memory of how
They were gathered by you

But there never seems to be enough pow'r
To save the things you want to save, once you find them
I've looked around enough to know
That you're the one I will be doing time with

the preceding is not meant to be a threat but rather parody protected as free speech