View Full Version : We need to look a closer look at the drone attacks.
Detectorist
10-05-2012, 01:07
It may be that we are killing more civilians than terrorists...another thing that Obama is hiding.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/opinion/pakistan-drone-attacks-akbar/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
gwalchmai
10-05-2012, 06:25
We should pull out of Pakistan today and let them settle their own differences. Then if whoever ends up in charge attacks us we should obliterate them. It's the best in the long run.
Lowjiber
10-05-2012, 06:55
Pakistan is not our friend...it's our enemy.
I bet the Pakistaini would rather have drone strikes than the Army launching cross-border raids for every target
AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 07:14
The folly of drone attacks and U.S. strategy
By Mirza Shahzad Akbar
Well I think I've seen all I need to see in order to understand the bias that article is written with.
It may be that we are killing more civilians than terrorists...another thing that Obama is hiding.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/opinion/pakistan-drone-attacks-akbar/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I can't fault him on that. My preference for killing Pakistani terrorists, over killing any random Pakistani, is not that great. If drones could carpet bomb cities like WW II, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
muscogee
10-05-2012, 07:56
How is this worse than suicide bombers? We're not trying to kill civilians. Suicide bombers frequently are.
FLIPPER 348
10-05-2012, 08:02
...a feeble attempt at Obama bashing. Come on GT, you can do better!
ChuteTheMall
10-05-2012, 08:05
These are not the drones you are looking for.
gwalchmai
10-05-2012, 08:07
How is this worse than suicide bombers? We're not trying to kill civilians. Suicide bombers frequently are.Well, yeah, we're not actively trying to kill civilians (although that is an accepted practice in modern warfare), but since we know that there's a great possibility of collateral damage in these attacks we should either try to minimize it or find another way to win.
Or better yet, come home and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.
ca survivor
10-05-2012, 09:27
those "civilians and innocent children" are future terrorists, as far as I'm concern
Detectorist
10-05-2012, 09:46
...a feeble attempt at Obama bashing. Come on GT, you can do better!
You don't have a clue, do you. This administration has touted its drone attack program by pointing out how few civilian casualties it's produced. As a matter of fact, of course there are fewer civilian casualties than during the Bush era. It's easy when you count all teenagers and men in the strike zone as terrorists.
Maybe you're comfortable with murder and war crimes, I'm not. Doesn't matter which administration.
SPIN2010
10-05-2012, 09:51
You cannot kill a culture. Our leaders are lost and make more enemies with every move they attempt to quell the attacks.
Detectorist
10-05-2012, 09:54
You cannot kill a culture. Our leaders are lost and make more enemies with every move they attempt to quell the attacks.
I don't know what the solution is. I do know that murdering entire families is not the answer.
You cannot kill a culture. Our leaders are lost and make more enemies with every move they attempt to quell the attacks.
Bingo. We have a winner.
I can't fault him on that. My preference for killing Pakistani terrorists, over killing any random Pakistani, is not that great. If drones could carpet bomb cities like WW II, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Blowback, Bren, Blowback. Regardless of moral issues, what are the long-term consequences?
Glock20 10mm
10-05-2012, 10:27
Pakistan is not our friend...it's our enemy.
Well if you were killing my citizens without consent I would be your enemy too.
AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 10:39
Well, yeah, we're not actively trying to kill civilians (although that is an accepted practice in modern warfare), but since we know that there's a great possibility of collateral damage in these attacks we should either try to minimize it or find another way to win.
Or better yet, come home and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.
We have minimized civilian casualties.
What we should do, is stop letting civilians have input on how the war is fought/won.
Blowback, Bren, Blowback. Regardless of moral issues, what are the long-term consequences?
Dead terrorists
If you are "innocent" and don't want to die ... Don't hangout with a terrorist. If you do, your little picnic together might result in some BBQ delivery.
If you are a terrorist, and you care about your "innocent" friends and family, you might want to keep your distance from them.
gwalchmai
10-05-2012, 11:08
We have minimized civilian casualties.
What we should do, is stop letting civilians have input on how the war is fought/won.Yeah, but there's that pesky Constitution, always getting in the way, huh?
AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 11:20
I don't think you honestly, have a grasp of what you're talking about.
Which, is probably because, like most civilians, you lack any understanding of the issue, aside from what you've picked up from the news.
Perhaps you should try to minimize your speaking of how topics such as this you don't understand, or find some information so that you're not clueless?
Or better yet, leave fighting the wars to the military.
yellolab
10-05-2012, 11:21
These are not the drones you are looking for.
Nicely done!
Kevin
gwalchmai
10-05-2012, 11:31
I don't think you honestly, have a grasp of what you're talking about.
Which, is probably because, like most civilians, you lack any understanding of the issue, aside from what you've picked up from the news.
Perhaps you should try to minimize your speaking of how topics such as this you don't understand, or find some information so that you're not clueless?
Or better yet, leave fighting the wars to the military.Quoted, because this really sums you up. It also illustrates why the Army doesn't let junior non-coms make public statements. ;)
Blowback, Bren, Blowback. Regardless of moral issues, what are the long-term consequences?
The Afghans get a sea coast in the south, solving many of their economic problems. The Indians get the rest. They both are indebted to us - end of problems in SW Asia.
AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 11:43
Quoted, because this really sums you up. It also illustrates why the Army doesn't let junior non-coms make public statements. ;)
Perfectly right, I tend to have experience/knowledge of what I talk about. :rofl:
I wish I could help you understand what thats like. :wavey:
gwalchmai
10-05-2012, 11:50
Perfectly right, I tend to have experience/knowledge of what I talk about. :rofl:
I wish I could help you understand what thats like. :wavey:uh-huh.
muscogee
10-05-2012, 12:16
Well, yeah, we're not actively trying to kill civilians (although that is an accepted practice in modern warfare), but since we know that there's a great possibility of collateral damage in these attacks we should either try to minimize it or find another way to win.
Or better yet, come home and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.
Absolutely. Bring the troops home. How would we know if we won and what would we win? We've already made whatever point we went there to make.
I would like to take a closer look at drone attacks, but Eric frowns on showing gore here at GT.
On a serious note, my mother told me if I hang out with bad people, bad things will happen. It looks like my mother was right.
You think it's scary now. Wait until the day when these systems operate autonomously. Darpa has some flat out scary **** in the works. Google (DARPA robot dog).
Beware Owner
10-05-2012, 13:27
I think we should stop all of our global wars...
professorpinki
10-05-2012, 14:57
We should pull out of Pakistan today and let them settle their own differences. Then if whoever ends up in charge attacks us we should obliterate them. It's the best in the long run.
Yeah, they've only got at least 60 and up to 200 nukes
It is easy to say don't hang out with terrorists if you don't want to be blown up, but usually the civilians aren't hanging out with the terrorists, the terrorists are moving in and using the civilians for cover. So if the terrorists don't shoot them they get bombed.
We could end this in a few years if we had the national will but since no one wants to do what we need to do to cut off oil imports we are stuck with it.
If the Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, etc were as poor as the Afghans then it wouldn't be a problem. They could sit in their tents and scratch themselves. It is the rich Arab nations who bankroll terrorism who make it possible and dangerous and it is us who give them the money to buy the bombs, cell phones, computers, guns, airline tickets and false documents.
Sam Spade
10-05-2012, 15:13
You cannot kill a culture. Our leaders are lost and make more enemies with every move they attempt to quell the attacks.
A number of aboriginal tribes on several continents would disagree with you....if any were brought back from the dead to do so.
A number of aboriginal tribes on several continents would disagree with you....if any were brought back from the dead to do so.
Genocide isn't to popular these days, look what happened to Adolf
arclight610
10-05-2012, 15:21
You cannot kill a culture. Our leaders are lost and make more enemies with every move they attempt to quell the attacks.
I don't see many Mayans around anymore...
gwalchmai
10-05-2012, 15:31
Yeah, they've only got at least 60 and up to 200 nukesYou think they're going to nuke us? How does a permanent occupation protect us?
Peace Warrior
10-05-2012, 15:45
It's a real estate deal with regards to Iran.
(Hint: Location. Location. Location.)
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x262/PhotoKeith/middleeast-whatsinaname.jpg
Hell, lets just nuke the entire planet except for the USA, Canada, maybe England, and a couple tropical islands. . .
gwalchmai
10-05-2012, 16:08
Hell, lets just nuke the entire planet except for the USA, Canada, maybe England, and a couple tropical islands. . .That's crazy!
We don't have near enough nukes for that... :supergrin:
That's crazy!
We don't have near enough nukes for that... :supergrin:
My understanding is that we have (or had) enough nukes to kill off the entire world.
It may be that we are killing more civilians than terrorists...another thing that Obama is hiding.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/opinion/pakistan-drone-attacks-akbar/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I don't believe there are many "innocent civilians" in those countries.
If you know your neighbor is a terrorist & you don't alert the authorities, then you deserve to have a hellfire up your rear.
If nothing else, turn him in because you know the Americans are raining down hellfires and one might hit you...if they don't even have the sense to do that, they deserve to die.
Additionally, we're talking about Pakistan here....the country that was knowingly hiding bin laden. Lemme think.....yeah, my give-a-damn's busted for the paki's. :upeyes:
The folly of drone attacks and U.S. strategy
By Mirza Shahzad Akbar
Well I think I've seen all I need to see in order to understand the bias that article is written with.
Editor's note: Mirza Shahzad Akbar is Reprieve legal fellow in Pakistan, Director and Founder of Foundation for Fundamental Rights and a practicing human rights lawyer in Islamabad.
Yeah, I read the description above of who the author is & stopped reading.
Up next, "Why guns should be banned, by Josh Sugarmann" :upeyes:
Glocksanity
10-05-2012, 17:33
The Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
What's the big deal? They are just camel jockeys, right?
Peace Warrior
10-05-2012, 18:53
My understanding is that we have (or had) enough nukes to kill off the entire world.
Last I cared to look into it we were going to 1500. "Officially" admitted that is.
muscogee
10-05-2012, 19:35
I don't see many Mayans around anymore...
They're all over the Yucatán Peninsula . Many of them still speak Mayan.
muscogee
10-05-2012, 19:37
I don't believe there are many "innocent civilians" in those countries.
If you know your neighbor is a terrorist & you don't alert the authorities, then you deserve to have a hellfire up your rear.
If nothing else, turn him in because you know the Americans are raining down hellfires and one might hit you...if they don't even have the sense to do that, they deserve to die.
But we're going to leave and the terrorists aren't. Just like Vietnam.
ChuteTheMall
10-05-2012, 19:58
If you are "innocent" and don't want to die ... Don't hangout with a terrorist. If you do, your little picnic together might result in some BBQ delivery.
If you are a terrorist, and you care about your "innocent" friends and family, you might want to keep your distance from them.
Why do they hide behind human shields?
Because it works.
How can we stop this?
Make sure it never works again.
Without support from the so-called civilians, terrorists/guerillas cannot hide, thrive, eat, get paid, survive, train, resupply.
I'm glad we nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki instead of sending the infantry into Japan.
Sam Spade
10-05-2012, 20:41
Genocide isn't to popular these days, look what happened to Adolf
Copts. Zoroastrians. Karens.
All headed the way of the dodo. No sir, genocide is still a fact of life in parts of the world. Fact is, one *can* wipe out whole cultures. Google "extinct tribes" and you'll see that it's neither new, nor over.
RenoF250
10-05-2012, 20:44
Well if you were killing my citizens without consent I would be your enemy too.
Exactly, if another country killed you father while he was at your uncle's funeral what would you do?
We send out these drone attacks and kill civilians but then we try to convict soldiers that shoot a dead guy.
This whole thing would have taken a different course if we napalmed the bridge they were hanging the burn contractors bodies from. We would have toasted many terrorists and sent a clear message. Our message now is we are a bunch of idiots with weapons beyond our (the governments) mental capacity.
If you want to kill, do it. If not shut up and go home.
We have minimized civilian casualties.
What we should do, is stop letting civilians have input on how the war is fought/won.
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.
Clemenceau.
FLIPPER 348
10-05-2012, 21:39
They're all over the Yucatán Peninsula . Many of them still speak Mayan.
dude, epic mullet
Reheater
10-05-2012, 21:46
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.
Clemenceau.
The French getting philosophical about War is like listening to the Clergy get philosophical about ****ing.
And as somebody that has actively targeted our current Enemy, what many here would call a civilian or innocent, is anything but.
Simple way to put it:
Is he a Farmer who plants IED's or an IED placer who also harvests grapes.
certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 21:54
What we should do, is stop letting civilians have input on how the war is fought/won.
Why stop there? Why let them have any input on which wars we fight or don't fight?
tsmo1066
10-05-2012, 22:06
Why stop there? Why let them have any input on which wars we fight or don't fight?
...or go straight-up R.A. Heinlein (ala "Starship Troopers") and mandate that only veterans can vote or hold public office?
Just a thought. :supergrin:
Airborne Infantryman
10-05-2012, 22:49
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.
Clemenceau.
Should read-
War is too serious a matter to entrust to politicians.
There are no civilians over there.
AK_Stick
10-06-2012, 00:16
Why stop there? Why let them have any input on which wars we fight or don't fight?
Much different, and you know it.
As a citizen, you tell me which people to make war on.
But once you decide to let me make war, don't be upset when I think your "ideas" about how I should go about my job are stupid.
The way we fight today, and the way the enemy we fight is fighting, is completely different than it was in the 1990's. Hell, the same people that attacked us in the early 2000-2001 era, do it completely differently than they did.
Its changed so much, that eve guys who served in combat in the 90's have virtually 0 knowledge of how operations are conducted today. We've gone from no body armor, to third generation of body armor, in less than 10 years, un-armored trucks being the standard, to vehicles built and employed in specific areas, to combat specific types of threats. etc.
The civilian, has an important role to play, and I understand that. However, the problem is this.
Less than 1% of the countrys population serves. And not all of those have deployed, or serve in a capacity to be in a place to understand how/what is going on at the front.
So that means, close to 99% of the population, has no real information about whats going on. Including guys who've served formerly, and now say things like "its just a bunch of guys with mandresses on whats the big deal"
Like I said, when your information comes from what you saw on an episode of TV, or because a Waziri tribesman claims that there were no Taliban at a meeting that got rocketed, hardly moves me to agree with you.
Detectorist
10-06-2012, 02:27
Less than 1% of the countrys population serves. And not all of those have deployed, or serve in a capacity to be in a place to understand how/what is going on at the front.
So that means, close to 99% of the population, has no real information about whats going on. Including guys who've served formerly, and now say things like "its just a bunch of guys with mandresses on whats the big deal"
.
I think you underestimate how many veterans we have. It's about 22,000,000. It's far more than 1%.
Reheater
10-06-2012, 04:14
I think you underestimate how many veterans we have. It's about 22,000,000. It's far more than 1%.
You missed his point.
Mearly having served in whatever position hardly qualifies you to dictate opinions on the current ROE in the current AO. Hell there are people currently serving in capacities throughout the military that dont know dick about what goes on outside the wire.
His point was merely that people on here believing the first article they read about whatever goes on over here are just as qualified to make a statement as a guy who gassed up airplanes at Dyuss AFB during the 90s or a dentist for that matter. Merely being a veteran does not qualify your statements as gospel.
gwalchmai
10-06-2012, 04:27
Copts. Zoroastrians. Karens.
All headed the way of the dodo. No sir, genocide is still a fact of life in parts of the world.Yes, genocide, like evolution, never ends. Cultures, like species, come and go. It is ever thus. We are arrogant to assume that our culture is permanent.
Peace Warrior
10-11-2012, 04:55
...
Simple way to put it:
Is he a Farmer who plants IED's or an IED placer who also harvests grapes.
Is he a terrorist who plants a bomb on I-95 to stop some chinese tanks/hummers?
Averageman
10-11-2012, 07:49
Well, yeah, we're not actively trying to kill civilians (although that is an accepted practice in modern warfare), but since we know that there's a great possibility of collateral damage in these attacks we should either try to minimize it or find another way to win.
Or better yet, come home and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.
We are not actively trying to kill civilians because we are not Al Queda, we are however trying to kill an enemy that hides amoungst a civilian population.
When the population decides they will no longer hide them, or allow them in their cities, the civilian casualties will go down.
I'm all for leaving Afghanastan to the Afghan people, I wont however support allowing Al Queda to use them as human shields.
BTW these folks on more than one occasion have been known to dig up a fresh corpse and show up wanting money because a loved one was killed.
Relating what happens in this region to the Western values you know is unobtainable.
gwalchmai
10-11-2012, 08:14
We are not actively trying to kill civilians because we are not Al Queda, we are however trying to kill an enemy that hides amoungst a civilian population.
When the population decides they will no longer hide them, or allow them in their cities, the civilian casualties will go down.
I'm all for leaving Afghanastan to the Afghan people, I wont however support allowing Al Queda to use them as human shields.
BTW these folks on more than one occasion have been known to dig up a fresh corpse and show up wanting money because a loved one was killed.
Relating what happens in this region to the Western values you know is unobtainable.Bolding you post doesn't make it true...
If it's worth going to war it's worth winning. If it's not worth doing what it takes to win we should come home.
What we should do, is stop letting civilians have input on how the war is fought/won.
Holy poop on a stick.
gwalchmai
10-11-2012, 08:51
Holy poop on a stick.Yeah, it's kind of an interesting statement from a guy who works for Barack Obama... :supergrin:
There are no civilians over there.
There are, but people lose sight of the fact that our enemies ARE civilians, by definition. Some civilains are combatants and some are not, but none of them are part of a national army or wearing a uniform.
Holy poop on a stick.
It's basic leadership - when you want a job done, such as winning a war, you get the experts and give them a goal and let them accomplish it. When the non-experts (civilian politicians) micromanage "how" it's done, it is doomed to failure.
Reheater
10-11-2012, 09:30
Is he a terrorist who plants a bomb on I-95 to stop some chinese tanks/hummers?
Cute, but your little example ignores the fact that most of the guys we kill (Haqani, Al Quida, Etc) arent Afghani, they are fighters imported in from other nations.
So yes, if he's a Pakistani or Yemini who comes into a government void broken land known on paper as the United States (where locals simply identify it by their village). And He is planting bombs in the road all the while taking the local children in tow around him and using them as a shield while he walks around arming IEDs that kill more locals than Military. Then goes about living in the town via threat of if he is expelled by the locals he will come back in force with friends and behead the mayor, he is a ****ing Terrorist!
Now how about you go have a discussion on another thread about whatever you do for a living and have actual experience in and then Ill chime in with bull**** statements and pretend to be an expert on what goes on at your job.
It's basic leadership - when you want a job done, such as winning a war, you get the experts and give them a goal and let them accomplish it. When the non-experts (civilian politicians) micromanage "how" it's done, it is doomed to failure.
I don't disagree with any of this, but this is not the vibe he's putting out in this thread.
Detectorist
10-11-2012, 10:12
You missed his point.
Mearly having served in whatever position hardly qualifies you to dictate opinions on the current ROE in the current AO. Hell there are people currently serving in capacities throughout the military that dont know dick about what goes on outside the wire.
His point was merely that people on here believing the first article they read about whatever goes on over here are just as qualified to make a statement as a guy who gassed up airplanes at Dyuss AFB during the 90s or a dentist for that matter. Merely being a veteran does not qualify your statements as gospel.
I'm just trying to get the facts straight. If one tries to set forth an argument, at least get the facts straight.
Also, I've never argued that just because someone has 'served', he's an expert on all matters over there.
There is ample and increasing evidence that most of the folks we kill with drones are not a threat. I've read this from various reliable sources, too.
I wasn't in the Civil War either, but I can sure learn about the mistakes on both sides.
dbcooper
10-11-2012, 10:16
I'd love to take a closer look, maybe pay per view or a best of blue ray disc.
We should pull out of Pakistan today and let them settle their own differences. Then if whoever ends up in charge attacks us we should obliterate them. It's the best in the long run.
If we pull out of Pakistan, we can't support the troops in Afghanistan. If we pull out of Afghanistan, in will turn into another Vietnam pullout and thousands, if not millions, of people will be killed by the Taliban for working with us, and the atrocities of 9/11/01 will be back in the planning by those that take over.
There is ample and increasing evidence that most of the folks we kill with drones are not a threat. I've read this from various reliable sources, too.
No. Not quite right. They are the 'support' people for those that plot against America. Not actively working against us, but supporting those that do.
Detectorist
10-11-2012, 10:24
On the other hand, and I've stated it time and time again on various forums, we've never had nearly enough troops over there to do the job.
I'm not against keeping a healthy contingent of US troops over there for a while.
Peace Warrior
10-11-2012, 15:37
Cute, but your little example ignores the fact that most of the guys we kill (Haqani, Al Quida, Etc) arent Afghani, they are fighters imported in from other nations. THEN WHY ALL THE UPROAR OVER CIVILIAN CASUALTIES? ...
We are actually killing more civilians in these drone attacks than we are killing, and I'll quote your label of them, "Haqani, Al Quida, Etc."
But more importantly, if you think we had in the past, or have currently, any legitimate reason for murdering people in Afghanistan, then you're a flaming fool. The taliban had all but stopped the opium supply from Afghanistan to the world back in 2000 and 2001. Our US economy (e.g., bankers & stock holders)) needed the drug trade. So, the "leaders" of our country, with an attaboy from both NATO and the UN, conned the leaders of our military to invade Afghanistan. We went there to restore the production of opium out of Afghanistan. Period. End of story.
In doing so, the "leaders" of our political system also broke laws, began murdering sovereign people on their own sovereign soil, wiped their *sses with the American Peoples' Constitution (i.e., Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 & 16) and as well lied to you and thousands of other military men and women that if they didn't go fight, the "boogey man" would be at our front doors here in America trying to kill us. What they lied about was who the boogey man actually is, which we all know now it is the opium the CIA brings into our country every week.
You swallowed the wrong pill sir. I have the facts and would love to offer them to you in a tit-for-tat fashion if you'd like. Just lemme know. Thanks. :wavey:
So yes, if he's a Pakistani or Yemini who comes into a government void broken land known on paper as the United States (where locals simply identify it by their village). And He is planting bombs in the road all the while taking the local children in tow around him and using them as a shield while he walks around arming IEDs that kill more locals than Military. Then goes about living in the town via threat of if he is expelled by the locals he will come back in force with friends and behead the mayor, he is a ****ing Terrorist! ...
Touchdown! Yes, the person you describe is a terrorist, but the local Afghans would more than likely call him a friend.
I am speaking of the indigenous peoples, not the outsiders, and yet this glaring fact escapes you so notably. You see, if e were not illegally killing the indigenous peoples, those "migrants" you refer to would have stayed home.
Our bantering back and forth is foolishness as the real reason we went there was to restore the drug trade. The reason we are still there is maintain the supply to this country and the rest of the world.
I highly suggest you catch yourself up on history and pay noteworthy attention to the interactions between England's and China's trading 'back in the day.' Briefly, and admittedly over simplifying it, China demanded and would only accept silver from England before selling them the silk and fu-fu Chinese type stuff that the England population liked to have on their person and in their homes.
England literally started to run out of silver while China's reserves grew exponentially. Then England was able to addict the majority of the Chinese population on opium. The rest is history as they say.
... Now how about you go have a discussion on another thread about whatever you do for a living and have actual experience in and then Ill chime in with bull**** statements and pretend to be an expert on what goes on at your job.
This would be a great conversation for you to have with an indigenous Afghan. I think you are defunct in historical awareness as well as coming up way short in the area of US constitutional knowledge. Admittedly unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, the former would indeed give you some additional insight; however, the latter fact leaves you wanting extremely so. I mean, being a man of your "profession" (i.e., gleaning your job description from GT handle) and all.
Peace Warrior
10-11-2012, 15:47
Bolding you post doesn't make it true...
If it's worth going to war it's worth winning. If it's not worth doing what it takes to win we should come home.
Best post on the entire thread.
:notworthy:
Reheater
10-11-2012, 19:06
I'm just trying to get the facts straight. If one tries to set forth an argument, at least get the facts straight.
Also, I've never argued that just because someone has 'served', he's an expert on all matters over there.
There is ample and increasing evidence that most of the folks we kill with drones are not a threat. I've read this from various reliable sources, too.
I wasn't in the Civil War either, but I can sure learn about the mistakes on both sides.
Id argue that anything open source with regards to this conflict or any kind of "investigative journalism" is going to be at best a 30% picture of reality.
The vast majority of this fight is taking place behind a very dark curtain and none of those people are talking to the press. Even amongst the Special Ops people there are varying degrees of black to just how deeply isolated they are, so yeah merely talking to the locals or somebody investigating with the bias of attempting to find fault is going to leave me skeptical at best.
Every time ordnance has left my helicopter an investigation on some level has been launched with the guidelines to find anything negative about it and crucify me in order to protect the strategic goals. If you understood the level of targeting that goes into a pre-approved strike you'd understand that this isnt just people being targeted at Random or on flimsy evidence.
Reheater
10-11-2012, 19:18
Words....
You talk like somebody that has actually been on an Civil Affairs mission or sat in an Area S2 briefing. But you havent so write whatever the hell you want. If you had you would know that we currently medivac more civilian CAT A and B casualties in a day than we do NATO/ISAF or Afghan Army/Police from IED strikes. You'd have a clue as to the fact that the Commanders are in Pakistan yelling at their people here to stop killing the locals because its making them angry.
You know we killed a Chinese Taliban 2 weeks ago... Yeah Chinese, from that region of Muslim minority. Not a ****ing local. We killed 48 people crossing the Border the other day from Pakistan in the Waziri tribal region. Most were dressed as women, till they started pulling PKMs and RPGs out of the bedrolls. We talk to the locals, we have Pathfinders and engagement teams and Civil Affairs units all over the damn area doing exactly that, talking to tribal elders and Village Mulla's. We blew up half a dozen guys the other night, you know what their buddies did... they dropped their weapons and went door to door telling every villager we had just killed women and children.
You... think we're here to protect the drug trade. Which is funny since about a month ago I flew cover while a bunch of our guys pulled a couple hundred kilos of Opium out of a smugglers truck and then set it all on fire.
So in yet another thread about the military's involvement with something you've poked your ill informed nose in and been told to stfu and color by people like myself who are actually here doing the job. Your a Guard House Lawyer.
AK_Stick
10-11-2012, 21:15
I'm just trying to get the facts straight. If one tries to set forth an argument, at least get the facts straight.
Also, I've never argued that just because someone has 'served', he's an expert on all matters over there.
There is ample and increasing evidence that most of the folks we kill with drones are not a threat. I've read this from various reliable sources, too.
I wasn't in the Civil War either, but I can sure learn about the mistakes on both sides.
where is this "ample evidence?" Simply because there is an article written, like the one in this thread, does not mean its legitimate.
It takes so many checks, and balances, to put heavy ord on target, and we so often have to let legit targets walk away, because they don't meet the f-'d up rules of engagement, that when we do hit someone, you know they were bad.
Do innocent people get killed? Yeah, on occasion, but its a rarity, and people get in major trouble for it.
And, FYI, I wasn't talking about vets, I was talking about currently serving. As most vets, from anything other than the current wars, have little idea how and what we do. Which is pretty much what I had been saying.
We had about 2,915,362 troops last year, per the Armed Forces Strength Authorization figures I found.
America has a population of what? 314 Million or so per the census population clock.
Thats what .92%?
As I said, when close to 99% of the population has no clue, its hard to really take much of what is said about how wars should be fought, and whats going on seriously. Especially when you're on the other side of that 1%.
Peace Warrior
10-12-2012, 09:08
As far as what I do now or have done in the past, I've been on this earth north of fifty years now, but just chalk it all up to the fact that "I read a heck of lot."
For instance, I've read Lt. Col. Daniel Davis' revelations and even some of his non-classified reports concerning the goings on in Afghanistan. Additionally, Lt. Col. Davis has been very open, candid, and forthcoming while being interviewed live and during his public conversations with certain senators and representatives on the hill (i.e., Congress).
... You... think we're here to protect the drug trade. Which is funny since about a month ago I flew cover while a bunch of our guys pulled a couple hundred kilos of Opium out of a smugglers truck and then set it all on fire. ...
What, these idiots didn't pay their "road tolls" before leaving with that truck? Either somewhere, someone's palm didn't greased by the people operating this truck and they were made an example of, OR maybe, there was a news crew around and someone ordered our military folks to risk their lives in order to facilitate a positive news report with some good B-roll montage in the background. j/k
Now, the fact you assert is that they burned the ENTIRE TRUCKLOAD of product. Hold it a second, I admit, they may have burned it all, but then again they may have not. Since I wasn't there, I'll defer in this case and agree they burned it all. This time they did. People not paying the toll on bridges here in the US simply have to pay the toll plus a penalty. I bet that happens a lot over there all things being equal.
Anyway, it is "nice" to know that drug trade is going strong thanks to the blood of our nations' fighting men and women. Once they finally stop the drug trades, which will only occur after the bankers and businessmen set up a puppet political leadership/regime in order to get the rights to all of Afghanistan's natural resources, hopefully we will not have built any permanent bases in order to launch attacks against Pakistan or Iran down the road.
Interestingly, the entire nature of your last post makes me suspect a few things, but due to this being the internet and all, again, I'll simply defer and advise I can perceive you're a highly motivated cog (with all due respect) in the machine Reheater, and IMHO, your expertise, training, discipline and motivation is being taken advantage the whole time "they" are lying to you about why you are there. Remember general petraus(sp?) and his outright lies and false reports?
One thing is for sure, Alexander the Great's men, and most recently the Russians, along with many other great armies between these two wished the heck they would have never tried to win battles/wars in and around Afghanistan.
..
Reheater
10-12-2012, 09:43
If we are supporting the Drug trade down here and I am merely a motivated Cog in "The Machine" we are losing money hand over fist putting on a show that we arent. There is literally a couple Billion dollars of Air Power over the Reg Desert right now searching for anything and everything moving. We pull drugs, weapons, NVGs, Home Made Explosives (HME), and all sorts of other fun games and prizes off these Trucks daily. The Poppy harvest this year was one of the lowest on record.
So the Tinfoil hat wearing "We are there to make money for the Machine supporting their drug trade" argument just doesnt mathematically work.
Beware Owner
10-12-2012, 09:46
If we are supporting the Drug trade down here and I am merely a motivated Cog in "The Machine" we are losing money hand over fist putting on a show that we arent. There is literally a couple Billion dollars of Air Power over the Reg Desert right now searching for anything and everything moving. We pull drugs, weapons, NVGs, Home Made Explosives (HME), and all sorts of other fun games and prizes off these Trucks daily. The Poppy harvest this year was one of the lowest on record.
So the Tinfoil hat wearing "We are there to make money for the Machine supporting their drug trade" argument just doesnt mathematically work.
Even if WE (as taxpayers) were losing money, who isn't, and who's benefitting from it somehow?
Reheater
10-12-2012, 12:00
Even if WE (as taxpayers) were losing money, who isn't, and who's benefitting from it somehow?
I believe these are the people your looking for... :upeyes:
http://plif.courageunfettered.com/archive/wc170.gif
Averageman
10-12-2012, 20:07
Bolding you post doesn't make it true...
If it's worth going to war it's worth winning. If it's not worth doing what it takes to win we should come home.
And lower case doesn't make what you think to be true, true; it's just your lower case opinion.
If you don't like drones why dont we get you a Cessna and a box of hand grenades?
MadMonkey
10-12-2012, 20:24
This thread.. :rofl:
Peace Warrior
10-12-2012, 21:17
If we are supporting the Drug trade down here and I am merely a motivated Cog in "The Machine" we are losing money hand over fist putting on a show that we arent. There is literally a couple Billion dollars of Air Power over the Reg Desert right now searching for anything and everything moving. We pull drugs, weapons, NVGs, Home Made Explosives (HME), and all sorts of other fun games and prizes off these Trucks daily. The Poppy harvest this year was one of the lowest on record.
So the Tinfoil hat wearing "We are there to make money for the Machine supporting their drug trade" argument just doesnt mathematically work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_transnational_anti-crime_and_anti-drug_activities#Southwest_Asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_Near_East,_North_Africa,_South_and_Southwest_Asia#Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Pakistan
I understand they have you fooled hook line and sinker, but what I said about the trafficking is true, and what I said about the illegality of our "border crossing" with drones is true, whether you agree with it or not.
The stuff that's interdicted may be just a simple program of pay to play, and someone's palm didn't get greased, so that shipment is stopped and made an example of how not paying brides or kickbacks gets dealt with.
I don't know for sure, hey, I'm not there, but that's how it works in the rest of the CIA's nether world.
Reheater
10-12-2012, 21:32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_transnational_anti-crime_and_anti-drug_activities#Southwest_Asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_Near_East,_North_Africa,_South_and_Southwest_Asia#Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Pakistan
I don't know for sure, hey, I'm not there, but that's how it works in the rest of the CIA's nether world.
Between quoting Wikipedia as a source and this statement you've pretty much summed up your credibility. None.
Peace Warrior
10-12-2012, 21:37
Between quoting Wikipedia as a source and this statement you've pretty much summed up your credibility. None.
The wiki was for your sensitive palate, not mine.
gwalchmai
10-13-2012, 04:11
[B]And lower case doesn't make what you think to be true, true; it's just your lower case opinion.I believe you have just won the non sequitur award, Old Average Bean. :dunno:
;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.