Drones

@Gargantua:

Let’s look at this a different way… how many non-muslim nations are we in -conflict- with?

How many governments of non-oil producing Muslim nations are we in conflict with? Are the conflicts actually about religion? Are the real motivations of the terrorists being obscured (both to them and us) to hide the class conflicts they are really rooted in?

@Gargantua:

@Jermofoot:

Not to mention the majority of those we initiated…but that won’t stop Garg from rejecting reality.

Oh so America initated 9/11?

I was unaware.

Yes, because nothing ever happened in those regions prior to 9/11.  So, right you are.

No offense Garg, that’s some primitive reasoning.

This is not aimed specifically at you but this is my rant for the last decade of American foreign policy.

Most people in Muslim nations are just trying to live their lives without be killed by autocratic dictators or Islamists. I have spent a good part of my adult life fighting against some of the poorest people in the world and I honestly can’t say what for. I know they had nothing to do with attacks against America. The guys who planned 9/11 fled Afghanistan years ago, leaving illiterate locals to die for them. There is really nothing honorable or noble about what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan and the last decade have made me realize our foreign policy makes no fucking sense.

Okay, so we are at war with the Muslims or terrorists or whatever.

So what are we doing in Syria? Why are we arming Salafist rebels against a secular dictatorship?

Why do we knowingly allow people who pose security risks into our country?

What did overthrowing Saddam Hussein accomplish? Iraq isn’t even a strong US ally. It now has a Shiite prime minister with close ties to Iran. Was that really worth trillions of dollars?

Isn’t it funny how most of our problems with Islamic terrorism come from Saudi backed Wahhabis and Salafists. Guess how many of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi themselves?

At the end of the day, the War on Terror is nothing more than a sad attempt to find a new foreign enemy now that the Soviet Union is history. How can you wage war against a military concept or a religion with millions of adherents?

You are more likely to be murdered by black or hispanic gangsters than get killed in an Islamic terrorist attack. Look up the statistics. Yet I don’t see anyone advocating droning the shit out of ghettos. The biggest threat to our lives is our own out of control government and failing economy.

@Harry:

No offense Garg, that’s some primitive reasoning.

This is not aimed specifically at you but this is my rant for the last decade of American foreign policy.

Most people in Muslim nations are just trying to live their lives without be killed by autocratic dictators or Islamists. I have spent a good part of my adult life fighting against some of the poorest people in the world and I honestly can’t say what for. I know they had nothing to do with attacks against America. The guys who planned 9/11 fled Afghanistan years ago, leaving illiterate locals to die for them. There is really nothing honorable or noble about what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan and the last decade have made me realize our foreign policy makes no ����ing sense.

Okay, so we are at war with the Muslims or terrorists or whatever.

So what are we doing in Syria? Why are we arming Salafist rebels against a secular dictatorship?

Why do we knowingly allow people who pose security risks into our country?

What did overthrowing Saddam Hussein accomplish? Iraq isn’t even a strong US ally. It now has a Shiite prime minister with close ties to Iran. Was that really worth trillions of dollars?

Isn’t it funny how most of our problems with Islamic terrorism come from Saudi backed Wahhabis and Salafists. Guess how many of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi themselves?

At the end of the day, the War on Terror is nothing more than a sad attempt to find a new foreign enemy now that the Soviet Union is history. How can you wage war against a military concept or a religion with millions of adherents?

You are more likely to be murdered by black or hispanic gangsters than get killed in an Islamic terrorist attack. Look up the statistics. Yet I don’t see anyone advocating droning the ���� out of ghettos. The biggest threat to our lives is our own out of control government and failing economy.

I totally agree with all of your sentiments.

But not acknowledging that for whatever reason, there is a large group of “Islamic Extremists” or whatever it is your choose to call them - out their trying to kidnap, exploit, kill, or otherwise eliminate Americans, Westerners, and even Europeans is a serious lack of judgement.

Anyways, Harry,

You want to know what it’s all about at the end of the day? And what you’ve spent your life fighting for? What American soldiers risk thier lives every day for? The status quo.  And the price ain’t cheap.

Let me clarify - For America to Stay #1 in the world, to be the power on the top (which is a good thing for the average world citizen), for America/the-west to have that voice of reason, and to be the world police, America/the-west pays in blood.  That’s it, and we don’t want that to change.

Ask yourself this: If the US Military, sank all thier boats, disabled all their planes, and melted down all their guns and tanks tomorrow.  What would the world look it?

Let me tell you, it would be total chaos. Every despot and their dog would be out their carving a new empire for themselves, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions would die.  That’s what makes the status quo important.

As for Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places, and why we’re there… the real reason is simple.  In maintaining the status quo (which saves lives) you have to deal with the opponents to the status quo, and there is a price to pay in blood. and more or less, it’s better to fight those fights over there, than it is to fight those fights here at home.

No offense Garg, that’s some primitive reasoning.

Violence is primitive and often without reason.  I stand by my claims.

@Gargantua:

No offense Garg, that’s some primitive reasoning.

Violence is primitive and often without reason.  I stand by my claims.

That’s how I feel about your posts.  But I still read them.  :wink:

Is violence never necessary?  Is it always primative?

America should become North American energy independent in about 5-10 years.  I wonder what the middle east will look like then when the only reason to be there is to keep Israel safe for the second coming of jesus.  Support of mid east oil dictators et al is why many Muslims hate the west.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

America should become North American energy independent in about 5-10 years.  I wonder what the middle east will look like then when the only reason to be there is to keep Israel safe for the second coming of jesus.  Support of mid east oil dictators et al is why many Muslims hate the west.

Even if the US is energy independent, China and India will still buy Middle Eastern Oil,. so I think they will be just fine. 
If Iran gets the atomic bomb soon, I don’t think the US will ever be out of the Middle East- we will have to prop up Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as a counterbalance.  ugh.

The short-term military gains are miniscule compared to the long-term damage that the targeted killing program causes. In the place of one slain leader, new leaders swiftly emerge in furious retaliation for attacks in their territories. And with each strike, it becomes ever easier to belong to a militant group in the region where your tribe lives.

As Khaled Toayman, a young Sheikh from Marib and a son of a Yemeni member of parliament told me, “We are against terrorism and we seek to live in peace and dignity like anyone else in the world. I don’t hate America or Americans. I just want to know why my relatives are killed.”

In my visits to the areas affected by drone strikes, I observed an increasing sentiment that America is part of a problem and not a solution, something that is hard for diplomats to feel while living disconnected from Yemenis in the emerging Green Zones of Sanaa. In Yemen, it’s impossible to win a war with drone strikes where basic services and human needs remain unmet. For a loaf of bread, you can push a hungry, desperate and angry young man to fight for al-Qaeda, possibly regardless of his ideological beliefs.

An interesting take on drones.

Interesting take on drone strike.  Agreed that it is no way to win a war.  Would it be better to send in ground forces though?

At some point you have to blame the government for not providing services to its people and/or denying things such as food aid to its people (perhaps sending any and all aid to the army).

“What is your thoughts on using drones to eliminate targets?”

Oh ,well, where shall I start? Right now it is kinda killing my nerves, because:

In 2001 the Germans created a Program to built Drones for Europe, the so called Euro Hawk. They crunched the nbrs. and figured it will cost the Tax payers about 1.74 Billion €. The body and the EADS program for the Drones were provided by the American Northrop Grumman Group wich built them selfs Drones I think.
One Drone is now ready built (600 million € are allready spent for that) and would be ready to fly but received a NO GO!! from the Government because a important detail is missing on the Drones program, the program to evade other flying objects, planes etc. .
Grumman will not supply this program (why should they,lol) and for Germany it is too costly NOW to change it (the whole cost allready raised to about 2.34€ billions).
Five should have been built ,- FOR WHAT?? and those allready 600 million€ could have been spent on Kindergartens and Retirement home and simple stuff the people just need but NO, they spent it for Drones were they knew allmost right after the beginning that these problems will occur.
So either way those Drones kill and I’m not sure if we need them in any paticular order or way to destroy lifes.
on a side note: it is also not right to kill with an extended arm other peoples without giving them the chance in court, because it is not really clear or plaussible if the Targets are what they are, GUILTY!

haven’t read it all

I agree with what I have read about drones being just another long range weapon easy to use.

I also agree/think that the question is; where is the line between war and murder.

However, I got another idea for this discussion; effectiveness. Effectiveness in the sense of winning the peace.

Every weapon that makes fighting a war cheaper (human and monetary cost) makes it easier to use the weapons for the people in the field. This will probably lead to many cases where a dronestrike is used when an arrest is possible but have higher immediate cost. This way of fighting terrorism will make it difficult winning the peace. After all, I think everyone agree that the war in afghanistan at this point is about winning the peace.

What comes next is not meant to be against the american millitary, more against the mentality of shooting first.

I have friends that have been in afghanistan. They have told me that the americans are very good at solving any problem that can be solved with a gun, and are too willing to use that solution over other possible solutions. For my firends, this means that whenever they are moving into an area after the americans, their main job will often be damagecontroll. They will have to give money to the local population as compensation for damage, give first aid etc.

I think one possible reason drones should not be used is that they can make it easier to do a strike rather than an arrest, when it is possible. Every strike where an arrest is possible makes it harder to win the peace.

It would be hard to explain to American families back home that their spouses died in an arrest attempt when a drone strike could have been used.

Do we arrest people in other countries?  Aren’t we at war?  Did we arrest Germans in Germany during WWII?

you do arrest people in afghanistan…… you did arrest people in iraq…

these are wars of occupation, not a war where there are frontlines. Find one nation US is officially at war with and pursuing that war. (except for North Korea).

Wars of occupation is won by winning over the people (or genocide, like the indians), even the germans arrested people in the occupied zones in ww2.

arresting will probably reduce the cost of american lives in the long run.

if usa is capable of sending drones there, usa is probably capable of sending some boots there to make an arrest.

Point  is; lets say us would have chosen to arrest a person instead of using a 400K$ cruise missile. If us would use a drone strike instead of making an arrest, then the drones are hurting more than they are helping.

Well, I’m not there, nor have I been to Afghanistan, so I cannot comment other than conjecture.

However, I’m not sure sending in a couple dozen soldiers into a neighborhood to arrest a suspected or known terrorist would work out particularly well.  There would likely be a firefight and dead Americans as well as dead terrorists/civilians.  Besides, I believe it would probably have to be up to local law enforcement, which could be infiltrated by terrorists themselves.

Besides, how much of the ‘civilian’ deaths are propaganda?  Do we really know if those civilians are not terrorists?  Sure, dead children are a travesty, but the terrorists are hiding behind them putting them in harms way.  What to do?  Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

I don’t think this is an occupation in the traditional sense.  The US is actively trying to prop up a local government (that doesn’t like us very much either… look at Karzai’s comments), build infrastructure and such for the eventual withdrawal of American troops (end of 2014 if I’m not mistaken).  It worked fairly well in Germany and Japan following WWII- the American occupiers rebuilt those countries into powerhouses today.  The Germans during WWII would never have withdrawn from conquered lands.

alot of what you are saying are side comments not really relevant to the point, so I will not address them

one thing I would like to say first is, most of the people fighting against nato in afghanistan are taliban fighters, not terrorists, there is a MAJOR difference. Taliban is an army that controlls certain areas of the landscape and to use drones to fight an army is within what I consider completely legitimate, however the area both have military and civilian leaders, and if using drones to kill the civilian leaders is legitimate, then it is legitimate for taliban to use bombs to kill public servants in usa (which it is not).

I am not arguing for sending in solders in every case, I am arguing that since drones are so cheap, they will be sent when we would have sent infantry instead if we didn’t have them. Thus killing instead of arresting in SOME cases. If the military situation would dictate that it was better to use an expensive missile than sending troops, I am all for sending drones in that situation.

Besides, how much of the ‘civilian’ deaths are propaganda?  Do we really know if those civilians are not terrorists?  Sure, dead children are a travesty, but the terrorists are hiding behind them putting them in harms way.  What to do?  Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

let me turn thisone upside down;
Besides how many of the terrorist deaths do we really know are terrorists? Answer is; we don’t, and everyone KNOWS we don’t. Unless there have been a trail we cannot be sure, and we help the terrorist recruit.

I am not sure what you mean with an “occupation in the traditional sense”,

(Sarcasm)

I seem to vaguely recall a group of people who had a “final solution” for all these kinds of problems.

Who were those guys again?

(/Sarcasm)

@Kreuzfeld:

alot of what you are saying are side comments not really relevant to the point, so I will not address them

one thing I would like to say first is, most of the people fighting against nato in afghanistan are taliban fighters, not terrorists, there is a MAJOR difference. Taliban is an army that controlls certain areas of the landscape and to use drones to fight an army is within what I consider completely legitimate, however the area both have military and civilian leaders, and if using drones to kill the civilian leaders is legitimate, then it is legitimate for taliban to use bombs to kill public servants in usa (which it is not).

I am not arguing for sending in solders in every case, I am arguing that since drones are so cheap, they will be sent when we would have sent infantry instead if we didn’t have them. Thus killing instead of arresting in SOME cases. If the military situation would dictate that it was better to use an expensive missile than sending troops, I am all for sending drones in that situation.

Besides, how much of the ‘civilian’ deaths are propaganda?  Do we really know if those civilians are not terrorists?  Sure, dead children are a travesty, but the terrorists are hiding behind them putting them in harms way.  What to do?  Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

let me turn thisone upside down;
Besides how many of the terrorist deaths do we really know are terrorists? Answer is; we don’t, and everyone KNOWS we don’t. Unless there have been a trail we cannot be sure, and we help the terrorist recruit.

I am not sure what you mean with an “occupation in the traditional sense”,

I don’t think anything I said was a side comment, as all of it was relevant to my point.  If you want to ignore part of my post than I suppose its your prerogative.

I tend to lump terrorists and the Taliban into the same group, as they have similar tactics.  Additionally it seems that they welcome terrorists to their cause.  However, you are right - technically the Taliban is an army.  If they are enemy combatants, then it makes even more sense to use drones rather than ‘arresting’ them.

I can’t say that there are ‘civilian’ leaders of the Taliban, not sure anyone can but the Taliban themselves.  To the outsider, the Taliban appears to be guerrilla-style army group with no civilians, but I suppose the Taliban make no distinction between civilian and military.

I also cannot say how often the US and Afghan forces conduct arrests compared to drone strikes.  We tend to hear about the drone strikes and not the arrests.  Perhaps they are doing precisely what you are saying?  Arresting when they can and using drones when its too dangerous?

You are right, we don’t know 100% if the terrorists/Taliban we kill in drone strikes are guilty.  I have to assume that the military errs on the side of caution.  I don’t think the enemy feels the same way about us.  They still have suicide bombers in markets and fire RPGs indiscriminately.

Occupation in the traditional sense- I meant an occupation with the goal of annexation, exploitation, and/or extermination.  Like the Roman occupation of Gaul, the German occupation of Poland, and the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe.  Not exactly what we are doing now- with the stated purpose of trying to liberate Afghanis from the Taliban and build up infrastructure so it can be a positive player in the world…  And then leave.  The Taliban did harbor terrorist training camps- the primary reason we went there in the first place.

Let´s play pretend for a second.
Let’s say Germany is about to have a few Drones, Euro Hawks with a permitted license to fly over Europe and a fixed NON - Collision program on board 8-). No Big deal right?
Let’s say they can be easily armed and equipped with every single modern weapon. No Problem right?
Let’s say Russia has a few and playing arround in other countries, Is that still ok?

My point is ,would you still consider it legal or permitted what Drones can do if somebody else is in posession of a few drones and not America? And would you still argue the same way because you think it is right to use them as an extended executioner without a trial?