CAN'T CONDEMN THE SNOWDEN

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · October 16, 2015, 10:02:38 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

eggsalad · October 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AM

You don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.

Haven't won by playing whack-a-mole either.

challengerX · October 16, 2015, 10:57:57 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Turkey · October 16, 2015, 11:04:13 AM

Just pulling a snippet from the melodramatic 'Drone Papers' site:

Quote

During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

This is literally how bombing has worked for the past century. Saying 90% of casualties aren't the intended targets is kind of silly. We've moved on from carpet bombing entire bases, with much higher rates of civilian casualties, to precision strikes on key personnel and their staff. Do innocent people die? Probably, but there's far more work put into deciding targets and strikes than there ever have been in history -- we're talking orders of magnitude more effort. Dozens or even hundreds of people contribute to compiling profiles and mission parameters for each strike. From the article:

Quote

On average, one document states, it took the U.S. six years to develop a target in Somalia, but just 8.3 months to kill the target once the president had approved his addition to the kill list.

Look, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.

Alternative Facts · October 16, 2015, 11:07:45 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:57:57 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AM
Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AM
You don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.
Haven't won by playing whack-a-mole either.
This isn't a war you can win in a few months.

Apparently, thirteen years isn't enough either.

This conflict is going to go down as a second Vietnam tbh.

challengerX · October 16, 2015, 11:11:05 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Republicunt · October 16, 2015, 11:45:10 AM

Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 11:11:05 AM

Quote from: spewky bewgie on October 16, 2015, 11:07:45 AM
Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:57:57 AM
Quote from: eggsalad on October 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AM
Quote from: challengerX on October 16, 2015, 10:08:16 AM
You don't win a war by capturing your enemy and trying him in court.
Haven't won by playing whack-a-mole either.
This isn't a war you can win in a few months.

Apparently, thirteen years isn't enough either.

This conflict is going to go down as a second Vietnam tbh.
Winning this isn't in the elites' best interests. Conflict in that region is a goldmine for those selling weapons, bullets, tanks, helicopters.

Not necessarily. Congress would've already been pumping trillions into the military industrial complex even if we weren't at conflict in that toxic region. Boeing, Lockheed and numerous others would still be laughing all the way to the bank regardless, and they will continue doing so even after we finally leave the ME.

eggsalad · October 16, 2015, 12:11:51 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 16, 2015, 11:04:13 AM

Look, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.

Not to disregard the above body of your post, because it is correct and important, but hasn't the deterioration of the situation in Iraq again and the continued existence of Al-Qaeda illustrated that the war essentially is a matter of trying to actively delay the revival of international terrorism rather than finding a permanent solution? Essentially endless whack-a-mole because if we stop things will get worse?

Turkey · October 16, 2015, 12:29:32 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 16, 2015, 12:11:51 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 16, 2015, 11:04:13 AM
Look, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.
Not to disregard the above body of your post, because it is correct and important, but hasn't the deterioration of the situation in Iraq again and the continued existence of Al-Qaeda illustrated that the war essentially is a matter of trying to actively delay the revival of international terrorism rather than finding a permanent solution? Essentially endless whack-a-mole because if we stop things will get worse?

I think our exit strategy (i.e., publicly announcing a withdrawal date more than a year out without allowing the nation to stabilize) contributed largely to the renewed presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the formation of ISIS. The permanent solution really is to kill their leadership; most rank and file members of these organizations are uneducated, poor, and driven to extremism through desperation and cults of personality. The solution is to eliminate them, build up the affected nations to be self-sustainable (i.e., winning the hearts and minds of the people as was so often repeated as a primary objective of our presence in Iraq), and ensure the wealthy radicals controlling all those people don't have the chance to do so again.

October 16, 2015, 06:39:58 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 16, 2015, 11:04:13 AM

Just pulling a snippet from the melodramatic 'Drone Papers' site:

Quote
During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

This is literally how bombing has worked for the past century. Saying 90% of casualties aren't the intended targets is kind of silly. We've moved on from carpet bombing entire bases, with much higher rates of civilian casualties, to precision strikes on key personnel and their staff. Do innocent people die? Probably, but there's far more work put into deciding targets and strikes than there ever have been in history -- we're talking orders of magnitude more effort. Dozens or even hundreds of people contribute to compiling profiles and mission parameters for each strike. From the article:
Quote
On average, one document states, it took the U.S. six years to develop a target in Somalia, but just 8.3 months to kill the target once the president had approved his addition to the kill list.

Look, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.

If even a single innocent dies in an attack, the person who ordered it is personally responsible and should be tried for murder.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · October 16, 2015, 07:10:54 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 16, 2015, 11:04:13 AM

Just pulling a snippet from the melodramatic 'Drone Papers' site:

Quote
During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

This is literally how bombing has worked for the past century. Saying 90% of casualties aren't the intended targets is kind of silly. We've moved on from carpet bombing entire bases, with much higher rates of civilian casualties, to precision strikes on key personnel and their staff. Do innocent people die? Probably, but there's far more work put into deciding targets and strikes than there ever have been in history -- we're talking orders of magnitude more effort. Dozens or even hundreds of people contribute to compiling profiles and mission parameters for each strike. From the article:
Quote
On average, one document states, it took the U.S. six years to develop a target in Somalia, but just 8.3 months to kill the target once the president had approved his addition to the kill list.

Look, the alternative is to send infantry or special forces in to capture the target, which is hardly viable in places like Somalia. Eggsalad mentioned you don't win wars by playing whack-a-mole...well actually you can; that's how the Taliban was deposed in Afghanistan after their regime fell via conventional warfare, and that's how Tanzim Qaidat was successfully combated in Iraq.

The point is that it doesn't fit the Obama administration's narrative that drone strikes are morally justified. Especially when re-election is part of the picture, they'd never actually volunteer such information that would lose them the support of their own base. It's understood that there's no such thing as a clean, collateral-free bombing campaign, but a 10% rate of success is ridiculous. Most folks would not have actually supported it if they knew about the details, and the administration knew that, so they acted accordingly.

But this is in addition to the previous revelations that the administration would often order drone strikes without going through the proper legal channels. Illegally crossing borders to commit an extrajudicial assassination that isn't even legal under US law, never mind the other country's, just to not even get the guy you're aiming at (because you knew they probably wouldn't even be there), and then cover all of that up, is so egregiously, blatantly illegal, unjustifiable, and morally reprehensible.

I don't know how anyone can be so content with being lied to. It's the same kind of logic that never worked during the Bush years, and we're still feeling the results of that. Unsurprisingly, more of that logic isn't going to fix the problems it's already caused. To paraphrase that Bush guy, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Turkey · October 16, 2015, 11:24:03 PM

Quote from: Kupo on October 16, 2015, 07:10:54 PM

but a 10% rate of success is ridiculous.

I think you misread. 10% of the casualties are the intended target, meaning for every one target they kill, on average, they kill 9 other militants.

Quote

But this is in addition to the previous revelations that the administration would often order drone strikes without going through the proper legal channels. Illegally crossing borders to commit an extrajudicial assassination that isn't even legal under US law, never mind the other country's, just to not even get the guy you're aiming at (because you knew they probably wouldn't even be there), and then cover all of that up, is so egregiously, blatantly illegal, unjustifiable, and morally reprehensible.

I'm not sure if you're referring specifically to Anwar al-Awlaki, but his death was pretty well-justified. As for supposedly sweeping authority to kill Americans abroad, that's an entirely separate issue from what is discussed in 'The Drone Papers'. As for the legality, it's plainly clear that targeted killings and assassinations are completely different legal and ethical entities. Killing a leader of an active militant group is tantamount to national self defense, just like any other strike or attack.

Quote

I don't know how anyone can be so content with being lied to.

Predator drones, their capabilities, and the legal discussion behind their use, have been talking points for more than two decades. Being ignorant is not the same as being deceived.

More Than Mortal · October 16, 2015, 11:30:15 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 16, 2015, 11:24:03 PM

Being ignorant is not the same as being deceived.

Oh shit.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · October 18, 2015, 09:47:52 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on October 16, 2015, 11:24:03 PM

Quote from: Kupo on October 16, 2015, 07:10:54 PM
but a 10% rate of success is ridiculous.
I think you misread. 10% of the casualties are the intended target, meaning for every one target they kill, on average, they kill 9 other militants.

EDIT: Fact-checked myself, huh.

The uncertainty of it all when a strike gets approved is very, er, legally fishy. A warrant is specific; you can't search George's house when the warrant is for Ringo's house instead. Extrajudicial assassinations help the administration avoid countless legal challenges for getting the wrong guys time and time again, and I can't say I'm a fan of them being above the law.

I mean, I'd very much prefer the administration have more solid intel than what they're using to approve these strikes that end up missing their intended targets, and I'm really concerned about the legality of it all... but I can't say the world's going to miss most of those other guys.

Spoiler

*ahem* back in character

Quote

I'm not sure if you're referring specifically to Anwar al-Awlaki, but his death was pretty well-justified. As for supposedly sweeping authority to kill Americans abroad, that's an entirely separate issue from what is discussed in 'The Drone Papers'. As for the legality, it's plainly clear that targeted killings and assassinations are completely different legal and ethical entities. Killing a leader of an active militant group is tantamount to national self defense, just like any other strike or attack.

I'll give you that part about al-Awlaki, but a targeted killing is an assassination by definition.

I'm going to have to disagree with that last part. It's a hawkishly broad rationale that's ripe for abuse.

Quote

Being ignorant is not the same as being deceived.

You make a strong case for them going hand-in-hand.