The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Quick question https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9398 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Hopwin [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Quick question |
Was watching Harold and Kumar Christmas and it occured to me. We don't talk about Guantanamo Bay, the Afghan War (or its casualties) or drone assassinations. Why is that? Really, truly without snark when did we collectively decide not to care about these things anymore? |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I don't think I've ever cared about any of that. Its hard to give a **** when your country's economy is in the shitter. |
Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Give the population bread and circuses, and they'll let you get away with everything. |
Author: | Rynar [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Because Republicans are thrilled that Democrats didn't close Guantanamo Bay; and Democrats don't care that it's still open because that would mean opposing their emperor. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Also doesn't Kumar work for the administration? |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
When people decided it's the government's responsibility to fix the economy, but not to defend the country. |
Author: | Rynar [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
Diamondeye wrote: When people decided it's the government's responsibility to fix the economy, but not to defend the country. I think you completely misunderstood Hopwin's post. He was speaking to specific areas of our military involvement that haven't changed since the Bush Administration, and drew massive opposition from the left when he was in office; yet now, under the Obama Administration, are no longer concerns. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
Yes, exactly. And the left is notorious for thinking its the job of the government to fix the economy, but finding fault with anything done to defend the country. When Bush was in office, complaining about both was the priority. Now that Obama's in office, and especially during the election cycle, playing up the economy became the priority (because that was the way to get him re-elected) and anything involving foreign policy and defense policy fell to the back burner (because otherwise they'd have to criticize their own guy). The left still dislikes Gitmo, drones, the Afghan war, and pretty much anything done in relation to national defense since the end of WWII,to complain about when a Democrat is in office. If it's a Republican, then those things are grist for the "whaaa we're oppressing brown people" race politics; when it's a democrat they can just overlook it. |
Author: | Aethien [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:58 am ] |
Post subject: | |
As someone who's left of left, I never thought that any of those things really got much play except in relation to how they could be used for political advantage. Once Obama was in office and continued the same basic policies (and in fact upped the ratio of drone strikes, etc.), it raised the uncomfortable truth for most "liberals" that he really was no different, fundamentally, than what came before (or what will come after). The system shapes the man, not the other way around. Jimmy Carter showed this, Clinton showed this, and the Republican presidencies before, between and after confirmed it. Henry Kissinger once pointed out that the best way for a bureaucrat to get his preferred policy outcome was to frame it in terms like this: (a) Surrender, (b) Nuke the enemy, or (c) Carry out whatever policy it is you're trying to promote. We may see more change now that Obama has been in for four years and had a chance to meld the bureaucracy a bit and/or doesn't have to worry about re-election, but, really, nothing's going to change markedly. Why don't we pay attention? Because it's a hidden world. AF guys living in Denver, conducting drone strikes. It's a much less painful policy (for us), as it doesn't bring the war home the same way. Unless you know someone who is involved in this personally, you don't really think about it day to day. I know it goes on, and it's a pretty revolting way to carry out a war, but I don't make it the defining principle of my identity, because I have a lot of other things going on - family, everyday life, and, yes, trying to find a job in a shitty economy. I just don't have the energy to devote to it, although I know it's essentially immoral - the U.S. wouldn't stand for another country doing what we do - and will come back to haunt us. Kumar used to be in the administration, but he left a couple of years ago, I think. |
Author: | SuiNeko [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:28 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
I can tell you the reason I don't talk about them /here/ is that the feeling of constructive interesting debate has waned for me. I still live you all, but political debate has become partisan insult, rather than constructive engagement. So I largely avoid it. I guess it feels like the outcome is more likely to be hectored than enlightened. Since montes ban the viewpoints here are also considerably more homogenous. Just like the prez |
Author: | Micheal [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:13 am ] |
Post subject: | |
+1 Sui, everyone has made their positions clear, rehashing the same old arguments does not appeal to me. |
Author: | Aizle [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
Hopwin wrote: Was watching Harold and Kumar Christmas and it occured to me. We don't talk about Guantanamo Bay, the Afghan War (or its casualties) or drone assassinations. Why is that? Really, truly without snark when did we collectively decide not to care about these things anymore? Well here is my position. 1. Until such time as the makeup of the congress changes drastically, Guantanamo Bay is at a stalemate so there really isn't much to talk about. 2. We are going through the slow process of pulling out of the Afghan War so from my perspective it's moving in the right direction. 3. Frankly I don't really have a lot of heartburn over the drone assassinations. Going after the enemy in those situations in any other way would lead to more deaths (on both sides) not fewer. |
Author: | Talya [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:21 am ] |
Post subject: | |
There's a reason I've said Obama's no different than the shrub. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:23 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Aizle: Drone strikes have a ratio of 49 innocent to 1 tied to terrorism. We also have a policy of firing, waiting for rescue people to give aid and then firing again to increase body count. How you could "not have a lot of heartburn" over this barbaric and murderous practice is beyond the pale. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:50 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Aizle: Drone strikes have a ratio of 49 innocent to 1 tied to terrorism. We also have a policy of firing, waiting for rescue people to give aid and then firing again to increase body count. None of this is remotely accurate. In fact, you're purposefully cherry-picking the most wildly exaggerated estimate of civilian casualties because it fits what you want to think. The real fact is you don't care one iota about civilian casualties; you've just glommed onto this as yet another excuse to ***** about military involvement just because you don't like the format Congress used to authorize it. Quote: How you could "not have a lot of heartburn" over this barbaric and murderous practice is beyond the pale. It probably has to do with the fact that what you're stating is total nonsense. Wikipedia, with direct citations found at the bottom: Quote: The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[4] These attacks are part of the United States' War on Terrorism campaign, seeking to defeat Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan.[4] Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes have increased substantially under the Presidency of Barack Obama.[5] Some media refer to the series of attacks as a "drone war".[6][7] Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks, but has secretly shared intelligence with the United States[8] and also allegedly allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi Airfield in Pakistan until 21 April 2011, when 150 Americans left the base.[9] According to secret diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani not only tacitly agreed to the drone flights, but in 2008 requested Americans to increase them.[10] However, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, "drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens."[11] The strikes are often linked to anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the growing questionability of the scope and extent of CIA activities in Pakistan. Reports of the number of militants versus civilian casualties differ.[12] According to the Pakistani authorities, 60 cross-border predator strikes in the period from January 2006 to April 2009 killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders and 687 Pakistani civilians.[13] [14] In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."[15] In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.[16] The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.[17] The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that some experts disputed.[12] The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.[18][19][20] Barbara Elias-Sanborn has also cautioned that, "as much of the literature on drones suggests, such killings usually harden militants' determination to fight, stalling any potential negotiations and settlement."[21] However, analysis by the RAND Corporation suggests that "drone strikes are associated with decreases in both the frequency and the lethality of militant attacks overall and in IED and suicide attacks specifically."[22] Drone strikes were halted in November 2011 after NATO forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in the Salala incident.[23] Shamsi Airfield was evacuated of Americans and taken over by the Pakistanis December 2011.[24] The incident prompted an approximately two-month stop to the drone strikes, which resumed on 10 January 2012. The 49-to-1 ratio is only an estimate by certain "Pakistani Authorities" and only from 2006 to 2009. Furthermore, just because there have been follow-up strikes does not somehow mean that there is a "policy" of them, nor is there any concern whatsoever with "increasing body count". The objective is not simply killing people willy-nilly. In fact, as it states, the Pakistanis can't even make up their mind since the Pakistani military thinks that most of those killed have been militants. Even the "Bureau of Investigative Journalism" listed above estimates only about 1 civilian death for every 3 to 4 militants killed, depending on which end of their considerable number spread you buy into. (It's a little suspicious that they can only narrow down overall civilian and militant deaths to within a few hundred, but somehow know that exactly 160 children have been killed.) As for the term innocents, there aren't any. Innocents is a term that people like to use to pretend that there's some dichotomy between peaceful civilians who want only to be left alone and militants, when in fact the sort of war the Taliban is fighting relies upon the support of a large portion of the population. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:32 am ] |
Post subject: | |
The Obama administration and a general have both stated repeated drone strikes as policy. Our reported numbers are of no use DE because they now consider any male at the site to have been guilty because they were in an area near the target. Thus we report lower innocents being killed because we consider everyone hit guilty by (association or relative distance - take your pick). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... istan.html http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asi ... index.html Yes DE the idea that there are innocent victims in war is doubleplusungood. You're preaching nothing but amorality here if not actively seeking to spread immorality. Reports of drone strikes in Pakistan in 2012: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asi ... index.html http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... Eg&cad=rja http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... attack.htm Obama admitting drone strikes are happening in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan "US President Obama admitted on 30 January 2012 that the US was conducting drone strikes in Pakistan. " Finally - drone strikes are not limited to Pakistan. "The CIA's general counsel, Stephen Preston, in a speech entitled "CIA and the Rule of Law" at Harvard Law School on 10 April 2012, claimed the agency was not bound by the laws of war; in response, Human Rights Watch called for the strike program to be brought under the control of the US military.[53]" |
Author: | Müs [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Good. **** them. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Guantanamo is a horrific tragedy of policy and an embarrassment to the world. It's also a special embarrassment for Obama, which is why the left has dropped the issue entirely. |
Author: | TheRiov [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: (It's a little suspicious that they can only narrow down overall civilian and militant deaths to within a few hundred, but somehow know that exactly 160 children have been killed.) Could it be they have an exact death toll, but cannot tell civilian from militant (whereas separating child from adult is easy?) |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
No one is denying that drone strikes are occurring you fool. As for these studies, are arrived at by taking ONLY those 'known' to be militants, and assuming anyone not 'KNOWN' is automatically assumed to be totally innocent. That's exactly how the Pakistaini "officials" arrived at, suspiciously, exactly the same ratio. You're taking studies from a known hotbed of liberalism, too, Stanford. Any study Stanford is involved in can be counted on to go to any lengths necessary to make the drone campaign look like some sort of indiscriminate bombardment. Your "Daily Mail" link finds it necessary to call the study "authoritative", but mysteriously doesn't talk about the methodology. As for the testimony of those living in the area, that's basically worthless. They claim to be able to hear drones all the time.. except that you can't hear them. They don't fly low enough to be heard; that would expose them to ground fire. These people claim to be living in fear of a drone strike - because they almost all support the Taliban! 345 drone strikes (from your CNN link) in 8 years is less than a strike a week, spread over a country of over 300,000 square miles. Even if we restrict that to only about a third of the country where the Taliban is, that's over 100,000 square miles, and the population of that country is over 180,000,000 people! More than half the U.S. population! The chances of any given person being actually attacked by a drone are vanishingly small; the casualties are comparable to the WTC casualties... except spread over 8 **** years! Your CNN link then contradicts the Daily Mail link regarding the same study: Quote: "TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study. 881 out of 3325 is not one out of fifty being a terrorist. And again, these people can't make up their mind how many people have died, but mysteriously know how many "children" have died exactly. Never mind that they're probably defining anyone under 18 as a "child" despite the fact that being under 18 is no deterrent to fighting in that part of the world. These studies are a total fraud. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
TheRiov wrote: Diamondeye wrote: (It's a little suspicious that they can only narrow down overall civilian and militant deaths to within a few hundred, but somehow know that exactly 160 children have been killed.) Could it be they have an exact death toll, but cannot tell civilian from militant (whereas separating child from adult is easy?) They don't have an exact death toll. Their estimate varies from 1650 to 2600; so they are only sure within just under a thousand bodies at the time of that study. That's an enormous level of possible error. As for telling a child from an adult, yes it's easy to tell a small child from a grown man or woman, but adolescents over about 13 years of age are not necessarily children or noncombatants. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8515012/Taliban-recruiting-nine-year-old-suicide-bombers.html http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/2010-09-12-child-soldiers-afghanistan_N.htm?csp=34news |
Author: | DFK! [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
"We" don't talk about them as a society because the R's were already okay with murderous foreign policy and the D's have their guy in charge. |
Author: | SuiNeko [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
As an aside the daily mail is a notoriously nationalistic, right wing, foreigner hating paper, assuming its the UK one. Not exactly a mouthpiece for liberals and lefties. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
Anything foriegn, eh? |
Author: | Khross [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Quick question |
Aizle wrote: Hopwin wrote: Was watching Harold and Kumar Christmas and it occured to me. We don't talk about Guantanamo Bay, the Afghan War (or its casualties) or drone assassinations. Why is that? Really, truly without snark when did we collectively decide not to care about these things anymore? Well here is my position. 1. Until such time as the makeup of the congress changes drastically, Guantanamo Bay is at a stalemate so there really isn't much to talk about. 2. We are going through the slow process of pulling out of the Afghan War so from my perspective it's moving in the right direction. 3. Frankly I don't really have a lot of heartburn over the drone assassinations. Going after the enemy in those situations in any other way would lead to more deaths (on both sides) not fewer. 1. Guantanamo Bay had a closure and sunset path in place when Obama took office. His Justice Department and policies created the stalemate that led to it remaining open. 2. Obama continues to change our withdrawal from Afghanistan and alter our strategic and military goals in the region. We would have been gone had we followed the time-table in place when he assumed office. 3. At least one strike includes the summary execution of a U.S. citizen ... that's reason enough to feel heartburn over the drone situation. So, 3 positions based on blatant administration fabrications; at least we know which side your bread is buttered on, Aizle. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |