Discussion
Mr_B said:
just me said:
MX7 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Imagine that some terrorists were attacking Venezuela & hiding out in Miami. The Venezuelan government has a drone that launches a missile into a Miami apartment, killing the terrorists with zero collateral injuries.
Would America be happy enough about it or would they feel that Venezuela had committed an act of war? Might they possibly be even more upset if a few US citizens were accidentally killed in the process?
Then ask what the difference is between the imaginary Venezuelan strike & the actual US strikes.
RH
Daft.Would America be happy enough about it or would they feel that Venezuela had committed an act of war? Might they possibly be even more upset if a few US citizens were accidentally killed in the process?
Then ask what the difference is between the imaginary Venezuelan strike & the actual US strikes.
RH
The analogy given wasn't that far off the mark IMO, and we know full well the US would not like it one bit.
The US' strength advantage is exactly why they should take extra care when doing this sort of s
t, and it's brandishing their power like this that will perpetuate the very thing they are fighting against.
What would I do?
1) talk to the Pakistani govt and note exactly what concerns there are with the evidence. Get their support/involvement in the strike/addressing of the individuals.
2) if they refuse, use economic might to persuade them. Full lock down on any funds, arms etc into their country.
3) attempt to get as many people on side with (2) to increase the pressure.
4) if you still really, really must assassinate someone, do it quietly. And make damn sure there is not a single piece of collateral damage. Even if that means risk to the people executing the task.
The US' strength advantage is exactly why they should take extra care when doing this sort of s
t, and it's brandishing their power like this that will perpetuate the very thing they are fighting against.What would I do?
1) talk to the Pakistani govt and note exactly what concerns there are with the evidence. Get their support/involvement in the strike/addressing of the individuals.
2) if they refuse, use economic might to persuade them. Full lock down on any funds, arms etc into their country.
3) attempt to get as many people on side with (2) to increase the pressure.
4) if you still really, really must assassinate someone, do it quietly. And make damn sure there is not a single piece of collateral damage. Even if that means risk to the people executing the task.
just me said:
DJRC said:
And what would you do to stop them? Whether you like it or not is irrelevent to them, all that matters is what you would do about it. Lets be honest, there is a good chance you would do fk all, sit there, whinge about it and in the end just take it like a good little bh.
He is opposed to it, whether he can do something about it or not. You seem very, very comfortable with it. That makes you the arse-licking bk all, sit there, whinge about it and in the end just take it like a good little bh.h.
I am however, intrigued as to how I can be an arse-licking b
h? Who's arse am I licking? Why? Im rather afraid I merely point out the mockery of "Interational law" by paraphrasing a Roman quote and noting how it still holds true in the modern world.Edited by DJRC on Wednesday 6th June 13:18
DJRC said:
Why? Simple...because America is strong enough to do so and they are too weak to prevent them.
Welcome to International Politics.
Its also the politics of the playground bully.Welcome to International Politics.
If you keep p155ing people off then, no matter how big or ugly you are, sooner or later they will find a way of smacking you in the mouth.
That's why things like 9/11 happen
Countdown said:
Its also the politics of the playground bully.
If you keep p155ing people off then, no matter how big or ugly you are, sooner or later they will find a way of smacking you in the mouth.
That's why things like 9/11 happen
9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom" didn't it?If you keep p155ing people off then, no matter how big or ugly you are, sooner or later they will find a way of smacking you in the mouth.
That's why things like 9/11 happen
Personally I agree with you Countdown. There's only so long you can insist on one rule for yourself and another for everyone else.
rohrl said:
9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom" didn't it?
Personally I agree with you Countdown. There's only so long you can insist on one rule for yourself and another for everyone else.
Whilst I'm sure some fruitcake will always find a reason, I can't help but think that if the West didn't interfere so much in the Middle East, and get itself tangled with the Israel situation, we might not have seen terrorism in the way we have.Personally I agree with you Countdown. There's only so long you can insist on one rule for yourself and another for everyone else.
Trouble is, our economies have become so tied to oil that there's no way that will ever stop.
The US would have been better off spending its military budget on alternative power sources. It'd be free of the need for oil by now and could let the camel jockeys fight amongst themselves.
Countdown said:
DJRC said:
Why? Simple...because America is strong enough to do so and they are too weak to prevent them.
Welcome to International Politics.
Its also the politics of the playground bully.Welcome to International Politics.
If you keep p155ing people off then, no matter how big or ugly you are, sooner or later they will find a way of smacking you in the mouth.
That's why things like 9/11 happen
9/11 happened because of a failure of Intelligence, just as 7/7 did.
What however, will be the ultimate outcome of 9/11 ? America removes public enemies 1 and 2. Gets its mits on lovely secured oil contracts for the next x many years. Gets to throw its heavyweight military muscle around to remind unfriendly states of just what it can do when it wants to. Aaaaand the slow eradication of the AQ organisation.
So it looks like working out OK for them. Once they mopped up the elements of AQ they want to get at in Pak, they will hot foot it out of Afghanistan. Job done.
You keep looking at it as if from some moral dimension. There isnt one. What good is the smug satisfaction of thinking someone is a playground bully a second before they put a bullet in your brain? There isnt one. So long as the ends are achieved in an acceptable relation to the cost then the methods are discounted as irrelevent.
That unfortunately is the nature of The Great Game. It has ever been thus, it will ever be thus in human relations so long as Sovereign States exist. Im not arguing its right or wrong, Im just arguing that it is.
DJRC said:
Countdown said:
DJRC said:
Why? Simple...because America is strong enough to do so and they are too weak to prevent them.
Welcome to International Politics.
Its also the politics of the playground bully.Welcome to International Politics.
If you keep p155ing people off then, no matter how big or ugly you are, sooner or later they will find a way of smacking you in the mouth.
That's why things like 9/11 happen
9/11 happened because of a failure of Intelligence, just as 7/7 did.
What however, will be the ultimate outcome of 9/11 ? America removes public enemies 1 and 2. Gets its mits on lovely secured oil contracts for the next x many years. Gets to throw its heavyweight military muscle around to remind unfriendly states of just what it can do when it wants to. Aaaaand the slow eradication of the AQ organisation.
So it looks like working out OK for them. Once they mopped up the elements of AQ they want to get at in Pak, they will hot foot it out of Afghanistan. Job done.
You keep looking at it as if from some moral dimension. There isnt one. What good is the smug satisfaction of thinking someone is a playground bully a second before they put a bullet in your brain? There isnt one. So long as the ends are achieved in an acceptable relation to the cost then the methods are discounted as irrelevent.
That unfortunately is the nature of The Great Game. It has ever been thus, it will ever be thus in human relations so long as Sovereign States exist. Im not arguing its right or wrong, Im just arguing that it is.
Hmmm.... Wondering why the usual few feel the need to make statements along the lines of "that's how it is, America is top dog, this is what happens in the real world" in some macho condescending tone when WE ALL fkING KNOW THAT, WE ARE NOT ARGUING WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T DO IT WE ARE DISCUSSING WHETHER IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG. Furthermore I've not seen a valid response to any of the queries of how the West would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. One thing about the Russians poisoning targets on British soil, at least they killed him and not his entire family or anyone unfortunate to have been at the dinner table with him. Lastly there are powerful nations on the rise, making alliances to counter U.S hegemony as can be seen with Russia and China's current meetings and (right or wrong) stance on Syria, and the U.S cannot continue to feel it can write the rules or break the rules as it wishes because these nations will soon have the power to do just that too and all that will result in is a free for all.
kING KNOW THAT, WE ARE NOT ARGUING WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T DO IT WE ARE DISCUSSING WHETHER IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG. Furthermore I've not seen a valid response to any of the queries of how the West would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. One thing about the Russians poisoning targets on British soil, at least they killed him and not his entire family or anyone unfortunate to have been at the dinner table with him. Lastly there are powerful nations on the rise, making alliances to counter U.S hegemony as can be seen with Russia and China's current meetings and (right or wrong) stance on Syria, and the U.S cannot continue to feel it can write the rules or break the rules as it wishes because these nations will soon have the power to do just that too and all that will result in is a free for all.Who is arguing America is top dog?
For America, insert China or Vlad in Russia. Or the British Empire. Or the Romans.
You dont get to argue whether its right or wrong or not because there is none. You do however, get to argue the cost/benefit analysis of the drone strikes. At the moment, using the cold, hard, brutal logic of the situation played out, the benefits of using them for the protagonists far outweigh the costs.
A more interesting debate would be the development of drone strike capabilities and tactics as they are now in a position of actually achieving viable and repeatable success with them, whereas previously it could be argued that the costs *were* far outweighing the results.
For America, insert China or Vlad in Russia. Or the British Empire. Or the Romans.
You dont get to argue whether its right or wrong or not because there is none. You do however, get to argue the cost/benefit analysis of the drone strikes. At the moment, using the cold, hard, brutal logic of the situation played out, the benefits of using them for the protagonists far outweigh the costs.
A more interesting debate would be the development of drone strike capabilities and tactics as they are now in a position of actually achieving viable and repeatable success with them, whereas previously it could be argued that the costs *were* far outweighing the results.
If I'm one of your 'usual suspects' then I'll have a go. They wouldn't like it, not one sodding bit.
As to the right or wrong question, IMO it doesn't even register and I could draw analogies from nature to the bombing of Dresden but it still boils down to survival of the fittest and I can't really see how you argue with that.....how about comparing our 'civilised' attitude to those we consider unable to support themselves? such as those on benefits, the cost of which is rapidly exceeding the ability of those able to carry on?
As to the right or wrong question, IMO it doesn't even register and I could draw analogies from nature to the bombing of Dresden but it still boils down to survival of the fittest and I can't really see how you argue with that.....how about comparing our 'civilised' attitude to those we consider unable to support themselves? such as those on benefits, the cost of which is rapidly exceeding the ability of those able to carry on?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I was. Hence why I posed the question of previously to now. The "cost" of achieving the aim I was refering to *was* the secondary effects and their consequences.Previously they were getting little to no benefit from the strikes, but the collateral costs were in full view of the media. Now though there appears to be a very definate successful doctrine of use that is delivering results.
The long term repercussions? Such as? With AQ now fairly effectively being ground down from top down, the game plan is obviously to shatter it as an organisation, reducing it down to smaller splinter groups. To put together another "AQ" or similar financed and resourced organisation will take at least decades. So any effective "revenge" against the US would take a cpl of decades from now. AQ had been around for quite a while before it got any decent traction. Frankly if your repercussions are 20yrs away, no Sovereign State will give a flying f
k.DJRC said:
...With AQ now fairly effectively being ground down from top down, the game plan is obviously to shatter it as an organisation, reducing it down to smaller splinter groups. To put together another "AQ" or similar financed and resourced organisation will take at least decades. So any effective "revenge" against the US would take a cpl of decades from now. AQ had been around for quite a while before it got any decent traction....
Not wholly sure all that's true though. Is it?A splinter group or two would be enough to cause havoc to the US and elsewhere. Do they need elaborate funding mechanisms? Especially if operating as smaller cells under an overarching "idea"? "Revenge" could very easily be enacted in any number of ways.
OBL gave the terrorist a fresh outlook. The symbolism of what he did for the cost was massive, and the idea has been sown. Maybe the AQ people left are thinking again in light of a drone attack. Maybe they aren't.
The US have never yet learnt that you cannot kill an ideology with military might. Indeed the closer you think you are, the further away you probably are. Drone attacks are all well and good, and an improvement on full on invasion (Pakistan should be thankful it has no oil!). But I'd say even more surgical approaches, combined with non-military persuasion, would be even more effective in the long run...That's not the American way though. Nothing in it for Haliburton and not shouting from the rooftops isn't the done thing.
Rovinghawk said:
Apache said:
I think the difference is that the US would make a concerted effort to eradicate terrorists on their home turf and take care of business by keeping its house in order
Like they did with the IRA on their turf for so many years?RH
Murph7355 said:
DJRC said:
...With AQ now fairly effectively being ground down from top down, the game plan is obviously to shatter it as an organisation, reducing it down to smaller splinter groups. To put together another "AQ" or similar financed and resourced organisation will take at least decades. So any effective "revenge" against the US would take a cpl of decades from now. AQ had been around for quite a while before it got any decent traction....
Not wholly sure all that's true though. Is it?A splinter group or two would be enough to cause havoc to the US and elsewhere. Do they need elaborate funding mechanisms? Especially if operating as smaller cells under an overarching "idea"? "Revenge" could very easily be enacted in any number of ways.
OBL gave the terrorist a fresh outlook. The symbolism of what he did for the cost was massive, and the idea has been sown. Maybe the AQ people left are thinking again in light of a drone attack. Maybe they aren't.
The US have never yet learnt that you cannot kill an ideology with military might. Indeed the closer you think you are, the further away you probably are. Drone attacks are all well and good, and an improvement on full on invasion (Pakistan should be thankful it has no oil!). But I'd say even more surgical approaches, combined with non-military persuasion, would be even more effective in the long run...That's not the American way though. Nothing in it for Haliburton and not shouting from the rooftops isn't the done thing.
Small scale, individually resourced and funded, independant and uncoordinated groups are much easier to deal with on the Intel and Operational basis. To be successfully is a resource hungry mission.
Apache said:
good point, well made, but I hope we've have moved on from those times
Was it just over a year ago they admitted to torturing prisoners?http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/09/george...
America only gets involved in doing the 'right thing' when they themselves have suffered. Pearl Harbour is a perfect example.
They have double standards as I've suggested with their likely reaction if they were attacked similarly to the way they attack others.
They've regularly breached the Geneva Convention but would be a tad upset if any of their troops were mistreated as prisoners. They haven't moved on, really.
RH
Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 6th June 19:41
DJRC said:
But to do what OBL did with AQ took over a decade of building the organisation, expertise, experience, knowledge and resources up and having OBL's personal fortune.
Small scale, individually resourced and funded, independant and uncoordinated groups are much easier to deal with on the Intel and Operational basis. To be successfully is a resource hungry mission.
But even though the man is dead, is the structure and ideology?Small scale, individually resourced and funded, independant and uncoordinated groups are much easier to deal with on the Intel and Operational basis. To be successfully is a resource hungry mission.
I think it's way, waaaaaay too premature to note "they're as good as done for" and "it will take decades for them to do something similar again" (paraphrasing).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff