Even invasions aren't much of a guarantee that the populace is involved. A professional military gives us a distance from the conflict, it insulates us from the sacrifices of war, except for the money.This is true, until the blowback occurs. Troops in foreign lands are unfortunatly the target of blowback. When a US missle, fired via drone, kills someone's son, daughter, etc, who do the survivors avenge themselves upon?
The point that Im trying to make is that we should not be doing any of these things, troops or drones. These kinds of actions are what cause terrorism in the first place, and unless we actually kill literally everyone, we are not going to win the war on terror.
Agreed. Even though a draft is dodge able, it makes the pain that much more evident to the citizenry.
The barracks bombings in the 90's were horrible, but they became short term news stories, the USS Cole stuck around a little longer. While 9/11 was much more horrific, the civilian population wasn't shielded from it either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hee hee! I liked it when Comrade Knife called Lord Dice a war-monger.
Damn, For a minute, I read that as "whore-monger," and got all excited to see what I'd missed since the thread was necro'd.
So, to review.
Me: Obviously I'd prefer neither, but if that's our only choice I'd prefer drone strikes, since it has less collateral damage.
You: "I would much rather we always go the invasion route." and "Having to actually stage an invasion would mean that we only try to kill those worth killing."You can see where I might get confused?
OK so now back to square one.
WHY would you prefer invasion, given those two choices, when one will result in one or two unfortunate casualties whereas the other results in tens if not hundreds of thousands of collateral deaths, as well as the likely destruction of the infrastructure of a country, as well as cost a trillion dollars?
Why? On one hand: President (any president) thinks to himself: "I dont like -----, Shadowy CIA guy strike him for me." CIA guys kills ---- with no oversight or debate over whether ----- should die. American people learn about it when ------'s nephew/son/pap/whatever sets off bomb in a subway station.
On the other hand: President (any president) thinks to himself: "I dont like -----, General lets start making war plans and we'll see if we can get Congress to declare war." Congress, ideally, debates whether we should even go to war just to get ----- or whether to treat it as law-enforcement issue, which it previously had always been. If war is decided, American people have the opportunity to decide whether they think the trillions of dollars and the innocent lives lost as collateral damage are worth it, without the worry that they too may be targeted for dissent sometime in the future.
Is that clear? I am not saying that I prefer war. I am saying that I prefer option c (none of the above). But if are going to go to war, do it right and above-board, at least. As an aside, can someone tell me why the CIA, an intelligence gathering agency, is involved in war-making anyway? (beyond gathering intelligence to justify whether or not to go to war, in the first place.)
Edit-TL,DR version: because it is a deterrent to war.
Hee hee! I liked it when Comrade Knife called Lord Dice a war-monger.Damn, For a minute, I read that as "whore-monger," and got all excited to see what I'd missed since the thread was necro'd.
Ha. Once again, I apologise Hit-Dice. But you can be a whore-monger if you want.
So you'd rather invasion becasue at least there's some oversight?
No, although that it is a good reason. In summary, I would rather go invasion, because the harder and costlier that you make it to go to war, the less wars you get in.
Edited
Ahh.
I don't disagree, White. Personally, I think the only justified war is one when a population is fighting off an invasion or occupation. (Does that mean the "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified? No comment.)
I'm make the comment: Yes. (or at least largely yes)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, although that it is a good reason. In summary, I would rather go invasion, because the harder and costlier that you make it to go to war, the less wars you get in.
Edited
The last 40 years of American history seem to disagree with you.
You seem to be under the illusion that wars are ever declared these days. Please shake yourself of this illusion.
stuff
I don't think you read my post.
We don't get congress to declare war. It doesn't happen. It hasn't happened recently. We just sorta go in guns blazing.The American people had no such opportunity to decide whether to go to war or not, but our representatives did, and did us a disservice, putting 3 trillion on the credit card in the process.
So let's stop dealing with hypotheticals, but rather the facts as they stand.
I'll propose these questions to you:
Do you think we were justified/right in invading Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda after the attacks of September 11th?
If drone strikes were an option at that time, do you think it would have been a better option to simply attack the Al Qaeda camps than a full-scale invasion? Assume for this question that AQ can be eradicated within Afghanistan with minimal collateral damage.
Would you be willing to entertain drone strikes if there was a legal process tied to them that involved the military, the civil court system, possibly a Congressional subcommittee? Basically, that there was oversight by our elected officials?
What I find amusing/scary is that Obama is the Democrat. Somehow a republican candidate (i.e. Mitt) needs to have a stance to the right of this. Perhaps Mitt will need to okay drone strikes on American soil should he win?
Only for Justin Bieber.
/zing
the DoD can only be funded two years at a time.
Because checks don't exist that can hold enough 0s to fund it.
M'lord Dice said war is a necessary evil, provided the goblins do the fighting, but once the upper classes are called to serve we should sue for peace to avoid cultural dissolution. Then I said, "What about the goblin upper classes?" He hasn't stopped laughing since.
How many times do I have to tell you, Dicey?
On Sugar Candy Mountain where the Anklebiters dwell there are no classes. We are an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...
Executive officer does the oppression.
Hee hee! I liked it when Comrade Knife called Lord Dice a war-monger.Damn, For a minute, I read that as "whore-monger," and got all excited to see what I'd missed since the thread was necro'd.
Plenty of the the visitors to my estate pass me a gratuity to spend a night in the goblins kennels; what they do there is no one's business but their own...
Executive officer does the oppression.
Not true.
All decisions of that officer must be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of strictly internal affairs but by a 2/3rds majority in the case of more...
Executive officer does the oppression.Not true.
All decisions of that officer must be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of strictly internal affairs but by a 2/3rds majority in the case of more...
Solution: executive has ruling council under his thumb and their children in prison. They'll vote his way if they know what's good for them.
Comrade Anklebiter is fascist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you read my post.
We don't get congress to declare war. It doesn't happen. It hasn't happened recently. We just sorta go in guns blazing.
The American people had no such opportunity to decide whether to go to war or not, but our representatives did, and did us a disservice, putting 3 trillion on the credit card in the process.So let's stop dealing with hypotheticals, but rather the facts as they stand.
I answered what I would have preferred, just like you asked. I know that we dont declare wars anymore, I b*tch about it all the time on here. but go ahead and move the goalposts.
I'll propose these questions to you:
Do you think we were justified/right in invading Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda after the attacks of September 11th?If drone strikes were an option at that time, do you think it would have been a better option to simply attack the Al Qaeda camps than a full-scale invasion? Assume for this question that AQ can be eradicated within Afghanistan with minimal collateral damage.
Would you be willing to entertain drone strikes if there was a legal process tied to them that involved the military, the civil court system, possibly a Congressional subcommittee? Basically, that there was oversight by our elected officials?
1. no. the afghanis had done nothing to us. To this day, your typical Afghani tribesman doesnt even know what a 9-11 is.
2.I thought we werent entertaining hypotheticals anymore? I would rather that we presented evidence of Bin Laden's guilt to the taliban and let them turn him over to a third country, then put him on trial internationally.3. without specifics, I cannot faithfully answer this.
I don't think you read my post.
We don't get congress to declare war. It doesn't happen. It hasn't happened recently. We just sorta go in guns blazing.
The American people had no such opportunity to decide whether to go to war or not, but our representatives did, and did us a disservice, putting 3 trillion on the credit card in the process.So let's stop dealing with hypotheticals, but rather the facts as they stand.
I answered what I would have preferred, just like you asked. I know that we dont declare wars anymore, I b*tch about it all the time on here. but go ahead and move the goalposts.
I'll propose these questions to you:
Do you think we were justified/right in invading Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda after the attacks of September 11th?If drone strikes were an option at that time, do you think it would have been a better option to simply attack the Al Qaeda camps than a full-scale invasion? Assume for this question that AQ can be eradicated within Afghanistan with minimal collateral damage.
Would you be willing to entertain drone strikes if there was a legal process tied to them that involved the military, the civil court system, possibly a Congressional subcommittee? Basically, that there was oversight by our elected officials?
1. no. the afghanis had done nothing to us. To this day, your typical Afghani tribesman doesnt even know what a 9-11 is.
2.I thought we werent entertaining hypotheticals anymore? I would rather that we presented evidence of Bin Laden's guilt to the taliban and let them turn him over to a third country, then put him on trial internationally.
3. without specifics, I cannot faithfully answer this.
After my previous statements it my sound odd, but I was all in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan. I mean, not just military action, but full on invasion and occupation to remove the Taliban from power. However, it's worth remembering that we didn't invade to root out Al Qaeda, but because the Taliban would not hand over bin Laden. It sounds like splitting hairs, but it's exactly the reason the UN sanctioned the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq.
I also think the invasion of Afghanistan was not handled well. If we'd really used a shock and awe strategy instead of just shouting it in the press cause it's such an awesome soundbyte, things would have gone very differently IMO. Call it cynicism, call it realism, it seems almost as if we invaded Afghanistan and immediately decided to use it as a staging ground for the invasion of Iraq.
Back on topic: I think there's no way to put the drone strike genie back in the bottle. That doesn't worry me that much. Means of warfare advance, and that's just sorta that. Not so psyched about the President's ability to declare anyone a unlawful combatant, but that seems a separate issue to me.
I understand that view, Hitdice, but IIRC, the Taliban were going to hand over Bin Laden, they just wanted evidence that he was involved first. "There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt" quipped President GW Bush.
About your second paragraph, thats why I dont criticise the president overly much about the Bin Laden raid. Thats how it should have been done from the get go (with the nit-pick of they should have tried just a little bit to have taken him alive, imagine both the intelligence that could be learned as well as the international goodwill that could be gained via affording him a fair and open trial.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!
WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY NINE MONTH SLUMBER!?
I understand that view, Hitdice, but IIRC, the Taliban were going to hand over Bin Laden, they just wanted evidence that he was involved first. "There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt" quipped President GW Bush.
About your second paragraph, thats why I dont criticise the president overly much about the Bin Laden raid. Thats how it should have been done from the get go (with the nit-pick of they should have tried just a little bit to have taken him alive, imagine both the intelligence that could be learned as well as the international goodwill that could be gained via affording him a fair and open trial.)
That's sort of what I was talking about with shock and awe. It's an actual military strategy wherein the invading force bombs the s**t out of the country (shock) and then immediately provides tons and tons of humanitarian aid (awe). Two weeks after the start of hostilities the conquered country is saying, "WTF just happened? I don't know, but my belly's full and that was never the case under the last regime. These new guys are awesome!" I often wonder how much international good will we would have kept if we'd really rebuilt Afghanistan's infrastructure; it might have made the Arab Spring an American movement, no insult to the protesters. Unfortunately, here in the US foreign aid is for wimps, so we went with shock and invade Iraq instead.
I too was rather aghast at how quickly "kill or capture" morphed into "that means we get to kill him, right?"
I think the Taliban offer came after hostilities began, but don't quote me. If however I am correct, that means it took bombing to get the Taliban to a point where they were willing to discuss the subject. (Mind you, W was horribly inarticulate. "There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt" sounds like a bullet point on an internal White House memo. "That's great to hear! We'll stop bombing just as soon as you hand him over..." is something one diplomat says to another.)
the DoD can only be funded two years at a time.Because checks don't exist that can hold enough 0s to fund it.No.
Article 1, Section 8 (Enumeration of Congress's powers), Clause 12
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Really? You're unable to recognize humor and sarcasm you say?
Fascinating.
That's sort of what I was talking about with shock and awe. It's an actual military strategy wherein the invading force bombs the s**t out of the country (shock) and then immediately provides tons and tons of humanitarian aid (awe). Two weeks after the start of hostilities the conquered country is saying, "WTF just happened? I don't know, but my belly's full and that was never the case under the last regime. These new guys are awesome!" I often wonder how much international good will we would have kept if we'd really rebuilt Afghanistan's infrastructure; it might have made the Arab Spring an American movement, no insult to the protesters. Unfortunately, here in the US foreign aid is for wimps, so we went with shock and invade Iraq instead.I too was rather aghast at how quickly "kill or capture" morphed into "that means we get to kill him, right?"
I think the Taliban offer came after hostilities began, but don't quote me. If however I am correct, that means it took bombing to get the Taliban to a point where they were willing to discuss the subject. (Mind you, W was horribly inarticulate. "There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt" sounds like a bullet point on an internal White House memo. "That's great to hear! We'll stop bombing just as soon as you hand him over..." is...
Just 2 points to add: Yes the offer for turning him over didnt come about until after a few bombing runs. It doesn't mean that we shouldnt have entertained the offer though. (After all, it is entirely possible that with remoteness of the tribal areas and proximity with Pakistani border, the Taliban might not have even known if he was in Afghani territory or whether they could gain custody of him.)
Secondly, just wanted to point out that the mention of "international goodwill" in my post was only directed at giving Bin Laden a fair trial.Otherwise completely agree. And I do hope no one gets the wrong idea about me. I am not anti-American. I love America despite her faults. I absolutely revere our military. That is why I despise it's misuse.
That's sort of what I was talking about with shock and awe. It's an actual military strategy wherein the invading force bombs the s**t out of the country (shock) and then immediately provides tons and tons of humanitarian aid (awe). Two weeks after the start of hostilities the conquered country is saying, "WTF just happened? I don't know, but my belly's full and that was never the case under the last regime. These new guys are awesome!" I often wonder how much international good will we would have kept if we'd really rebuilt Afghanistan's infrastructure; it might have made the Arab Spring an American movement, no insult to the protesters. Unfortunately, here in the US foreign aid is for wimps, so we went with shock and invade Iraq instead.I too was rather aghast at how quickly "kill or capture" morphed into "that means we get to kill him, right?"
I think the Taliban offer came after hostilities began, but don't quote me. If however I am correct, that means it took bombing to get the Taliban to a point where they were willing to discuss the subject. (Mind you, W was horribly inarticulate. "There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt" sounds like a bullet point on an internal White House memo. "That's great to hear! We'll stop bombing just as soon as you hand him over..." is...
Just 2 points to add: Yes the offer for turning him over didnt come about until after a few bombing runs. It doesn't mean that we shouldnt have entertained the offer though. (After all, it is entirely possible that with remoteness of the tribal areas and proximity with Pakistani border, the Taliban might not have even known if he was in Afghani territory or whether they could gain custody of him.)
Secondly, just wanted to point out that the mention of "international goodwill" in my post was only directed at giving Bin Laden a fair trial.Otherwise completely agree. And I do hope no one gets the wrong idea about me. I am...
Oh, you had to say that on the 6th of July, huh? Seriously, HBO ran the entire John Adams miniseries on the 4th. I felt patriotic and wept like a little sissy through the whole thing; I'm just glad I was in private all day.
I guess I'm saying I love the idea of America, it's just the execution that bums me out.
Oh, you had to say that on the 6th of July, huh? Seriously, HBO ran the entire John Adams miniseries on the 4th. I felt patriotic and wept like a little sissy through the whole thing; I'm just glad I was in private all day.
I guess I'm saying I love the idea of America, it's just the execution that bums me out.
A John Adams show on HBO?!? How did I not know about this. grumble.
I would have much preferred to have him hung for treason but when you make it so very obvious you are committed to killing US citizens and waging jiyad against the U.S. due process for this scumbag seems silly.
About bin Laden, I am sorry, but I can't see what was reported as anything resembling truth. They killed him, then within 24 hours, they dumped his body at sea. Nobody except the uppermost echelons of US power ever saw any evidence that it was him, because "that is not who we are".
Right.
If they had specially trained marines there, they could just as easily have taken him alive and snuck him out to the copter.
If they had his body, they would not have dumped him at sea THAT QUICKLY. Eventually, yes, but not within that time frame.
If they had killed him, the photos would be spread far and wide. A nation that bombs countries the way america did to get him would hardly lose any moral edge by showing photos of a dead man.
Something is not what was claimed. On the other hand, we can be reasonably certain he is dead - doing this stunt while he was still alive would mean risking he came back.
About bin Laden, I am sorry, but I can't see what was reported as anything resembling truth. They killed him, then within 24 hours, they dumped his body at sea. Nobody except the uppermost echelons of US power ever saw any evidence that it was him, because "that is not who we are".
Right.
If they had specially trained marines there, they could just as easily have taken him alive and snuck him out to the copter.
If they had his body, they would not have dumped him at sea THAT QUICKLY. Eventually, yes, but not within that time frame.
If they had killed him, the photos would be spread far and wide. A nation that bombs countries the way america did to get him would hardly lose any moral edge by showing photos of a dead man.
Something is not what was claimed. On the other hand, we can be reasonably certain he is dead - doing this stunt while he was still alive would mean risking he came back.
So you're saying he died of natural causes and we just took the credit?
I am saying it wasn't him in the bunker. And, for the US to avoid risking something, they had to know he was dead FIRST.
This guy had a very serious kidney condition, apparently, which required hemodialysis. Makes it a tough thing to hide. Even with the best of health care, which likely was not exactly available in the Afghan caves they reported about, expected life expectancy is about two years.
If they could kill this old man at point blank, as the saga goes, they could have given their ultra-cool and massively invincible special forces orders to TAKE HIM ALIVE. Why didn't they, if they could do so? After all, pumping his brain for any shred of knowledge about what he knew on terror and terror networks would be a pretty good idea, no?
All in all, I find it most likely that they did this as a publicity stunt and to incite a nationwide "America F*&* YEAH!"-party at a time when the president really needed all the opinion help he could get. Without taking risks, of course.