PDA

View Full Version : The Toll of 5 Years of Drone Strikes: 2,400 Dead



Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 01:37 AM
Via Huffington Post: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html)


The U.S. drone program under President Barack Obama reached its fifth anniversary on Thursday having tallied up an estimated death toll of at least 2,400 people.

As the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a U.K.-based non-profit, details on its website, five years ago the CIA conducted the first drone strikes of the Obama presidency. Although there were reports of suspected "militants" killed, at least 14 civilians also died that day.


After those initial mistakes, TBIJ notes, Obama rapidly ramped up the drone program in Pakistan and increased its use in Yemen and Somalia, two countries where al Qaeda affiliates expanded their presence during Obama's presidency.


Obama recently told The New Yorker that he "wrestle[s]" with civilian casualties. But, he said, he has "a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans -- killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes."

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.

Yes, Mr. President, there are groups out there that mean to do Americans harm, but that does not mean we have to kill hundreds of innocent people in other countries to keep Americans safe. That method makes us no better than the terrorists we are trying to stop.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 01:40 AM
They must hate us because of our freedoms, I'm sure the slaughter of their family and countrymen, frequently innocents, even children, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Seems legit.

GrassrootsConservative
01-27-2014, 01:54 AM
And now Obama wants to bring those drones to America, as well.

Drones can't disobey orders to kill Americans.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 01:56 AM
And now Obama wants to bring those drones to America, as well.

Drones can't disobey orders to kill Americans.

So far, only the spy drones are used on the mainland, but yes, I think it is only a matter of time until drones are being used to fight crime and stop dissidents. We already know DARPA is building multiple different types of drones with many different functions and in many different sizes, some no larger than insects.

GrassrootsConservative
01-27-2014, 02:08 AM
Spy drones are a completely different rights violation altogether, but the drones Obama would use to kill actual American citizens is a violation of the most basic right, life.

Liberals love to violate that one.

Ivan88
01-27-2014, 02:33 AM
No doubt they have killed a lot more than 2400. They never tell the truth about their attrocities.
Drones have already been used in the USA to assassinate people:
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/mrz1.jpg
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1687.htm

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 03:08 AM
Spy drones are a completely different rights violation altogether, but the drones Obama would use to kill actual American citizens is a violation of the most basic right, life.

Liberals love to violate that one.

Uh-huh.

My point is that it hasn't happened yet, so I think we ought to save the criticisms of the drone program for stuff that is actually happened. You can't stop something that hasn't happened, whereas we can do much to stop the drone program as it is before it develops further. That should be the target. We should also remember that this isn't a partisan issue, as both sides have supported and used drone strikes and drone spying.

GrassrootsConservative
01-27-2014, 05:15 AM
Uh-huh.

My point is that it hasn't happened yet, so I think we ought to save the criticisms of the drone program for stuff that is actually happened. You can't stop something that hasn't happened, whereas we can do much to stop the drone program as it is before it develops further. That should be the target. We should also remember that this isn't a partisan issue, as both sides have supported and used drone strikes and drone spying.

No. It's not the parties. There are too many Republicans that have Democrat beliefs. It's those who are for big government and those that are against it. Ron Paul and Rand Paul, just as examples that come to mind, are both against drone strikes, so don't tell me both sides are for it because they're not. You just have to stop looking at it by party and start looking at it by what the people in the parties actually believe in their political activities.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 05:34 AM
We killed tens of thousands in conventional bombing campaigns. Drones are more surgical albeit not perfect. Eventually we'll be able to develop a "smart bullet" where only the target is neutralized with zero collateral damage. Of course, the Liberal weenies will still bitch about it.

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l518/DivineWind/Terristani_sayhitothevirgins.gif

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 05:34 AM
No. It's not the parties. There are too many Republicans that have Democrat beliefs. It's those who are for big government and those that are against it. Ron Paul and Rand Paul, just as examples that come to mind, are both against drone strikes, so don't tell me both sides are for it because they're not. You just have to stop looking at it by party and start looking at it by what the people in the parties actually believe in their political activities.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes, he's just against drones being used indiscriminately and on American citizens. As to your other statement, it's meaningless. Much as you like to pretend, there are conservatives who have no issues with drone strikes, outside of which administration is using them. Most people are not quite so politically aware as you wish they were. We are a minority.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 05:35 AM
We killed tens of thousands in conventional bombing campaigns. Drones are more surgical albeit not perfect. Eventually we'll be able to develop a "smart bullet" where only the target is neutralized with zero collateral damage. Of course, the Liberal weenies will still bitch about it.

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l518/DivineWind/Terristani_sayhitothevirgins.gif

There is nothing "surgical" about killing fifty people in order to kill one, unless your definition of "surgical" is "not Hiroshima." And if that's the case, tell me the name of your surgeon so I know whose services not to employ.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 05:45 AM
There is nothing "surgical" about killing fifty people in order to kill one, unless your definition of "surgical" is "not Hiroshima." And if that's the case, tell me the name of your surgeon so I know whose services not to employ.

It is surgical compared to carpet bombing the entire neighborhood. That's the old school way of doing it.

In the 1991 Gulf War, we lost 190 soldiers to enemy action (another 44 due to friendly fire). The Iraqis lost up to 35,000 dead and 75,000 wounded. How? A shitload of carpet bombing strikes. So, in comparison, 2400 is surgical compared to 35,000.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phzRY0DdRXk

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 05:49 AM
It is surgical compared to carpet bombing the entire neighborhood. That's the old school way of doing it.

In the 1991 Gulf War, we lost 190 soldiers to enemy action (another 44 due to friendly fire). The Iraqis lost up to 35,000 dead and 75,000 wounded. How? A shitload of carpet bombing strikes. So, in comparison, 2400 is surgical compared to 35,000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phzRY0DdRXk

The comparison is hardly relevant. The point here is that we're slaughtering innocent men, women, and particularly children to kill a few suspected terrorists (that's right, we're not even certain they are terrorists), at a rate of roughly fifty innocents to every one terrorist. That is morally and ethically abhorrent, not to mention extremely impractical. To make matters worse, we're violating the sovereignty of other nations.

GrassrootsConservative
01-27-2014, 05:58 AM
Rand Paul is not against drone strikes, he's just against drones being used indiscriminately and on American citizens.

That's the only problem I have. I don't care how many people in the Middle East get killed by them. It's much better than the way those people kill each other anyway. If you go over there, well that's your mistake. I got a coworker going to Egypt when his friend gets out of jail. Those 2 are both idiots.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 06:00 AM
That's the only problem I have. I don't care how many people in the Middle East get killed by them. It's much better than the way those people kill each other anyway. If you go over there, well that's your mistake. I got a coworker going to Egypt when his friend gets out of jail. Those 2 are both idiots.

Thank you for proving my point. This isn't about the size of government, because you admit you don't care if government has this technology and uses it.

More importantly, I'm curious about the moral aspect. Why is it so terrible if used on Americans, but a-okay if used on non-Americans?

GrassrootsConservative
01-27-2014, 06:08 AM
Thank you for proving my point. This isn't about the size of government, because you admit you don't care if government has this technology and uses it.

More importantly, I'm curious about the moral aspect. Why is it so terrible if used on Americans, but a-okay if used on non-Americans?


Where did I "admit" anything like what you are saying? I do care if government has the technology and uses it, just not that it's killing people in countries that asked for Liberal, authoritarian, oppressive, governments themselves.

And that's why it's not okay here in America. We're the best free country on earth and should strive to stay away from the Liberal idiocy that is currently ruining the rest of the world.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 06:09 AM
The comparison is hardly relevant. The point here is that we're slaughtering innocent men, women, and particularly children to kill a few suspected terrorists (that's right, we're not even certain they are terrorists), at a rate of roughly fifty innocents to every one terrorist. That is morally and ethically abhorrent, not to mention extremely impractical. To make matters worse, we're violating the sovereignty of other nations.

Disagreed. It's exactly relevant. Also disagreed that we're targeting suspects as opposed actual terrorists. Our people aren't stupid, but they aren't perfect either. Heck, we even kill our own people at times in "friendly fire" incidents. Only an idiot thinks this is done on purpose or due to a lack of caring or competence.

Our military leaders fully understand the harm caused by killing innocents in a war zone. It goes against COIN strategy. The "hearts and minds" maxim. However, the danger to Americans and the value of destroying the enemies leadership structure is balanced against the harm caused by "collateral damage". Those decisions aren't taken lightly. They are taken with due consideration. Killing "suspects" isn't worth the harm it causes in the long run.

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mDMA16U2XU5sdoL3sPp8E6w.jpg

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 06:12 AM
Where did I "admit" anything like what you are saying? I do care if government has the technology and uses it, just not that it's killing people in countries that asked for Liberal, authoritarian, oppressive, governments themselves.

And that's why it's not okay here in America. We're the best free country on earth and should strive to stay away from the Liberal idiocy that is currently ruining the rest of the world.

It's the only logical conclusion one can come to from your statements. You don't care that they are used on people overseas, and even suggested (don't get uppity, I said suggested) that if an American goes overseas and is injured or killed by a drone, then it is their own fault. You called a coworker and his friend "idiots" for daring to travel abroad.

Why should Americans have to fear their government overseas? Why should Americans be considered "idiots" for travelling abroad?

And furthermore, I reject your final premise. There is nothing "free" about America as it is, and I'm sure if we took the time to study it, we'd find that there are countries more free than our own currently is.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 06:14 AM
Disagreed. It's exactly relevant. Also disagreed that we're targeting suspects as opposed actual terrorists. Our people aren't stupid, but they aren't perfect either. Heck, we even kill our own people at times in "friendly fire" incidents. Only an idiot thinks this is done on purpose or due to a lack of caring or competence.

Our military leaders fully understand the harm caused by killing innocents in a war zone. It goes against COIN strategy. The "hearts and minds" maxim. However, the danger to Americans and the value of destroying the enemies leadership structure is balanced against the harm caused by "collateral damage". Those decisions aren't taken lightly. They are taken with due consideration. Killing "suspects" isn't worth the harm it causes in the long run.

The data and admitted statements from officials involved with the program suggests otherwise.

GrassrootsConservative
01-27-2014, 06:14 AM
It's the only logical conclusion one can come to from your statements.

There's no need to conjure up conclusions. I told you my thoughts, there's no need for you to manufacture new ones.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 06:17 AM
There's no need to conjure up conclusions. I told you my thoughts, there's no need for you to manufacture new ones.

If you don't want folks coming to conclusions about what you say that you don't believe, perhaps you should do a little proofreading and make sure that your statements are logically sound. That way, there's no other deduction that can be made except that which you agree to.

GrassrootsConservative
01-27-2014, 06:19 AM
If you don't want folks coming to conclusions about what you say that you don't believe, perhaps you should do a little proofreading and make sure that your statements are logically sound. That way, there's no other deduction that can be made except that which you agree to.

What, exactly, was your train of thought that lead you from

I don't care how many people in the Middle East get killed by them.
To me not caring whether our government has drone technology and uses it?

I even PREVIOUSLY specified that I am against it.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 06:24 AM
The data and admitted statements from officials involved with the program suggests otherwise.

The thing about intelligence operations in a free society is that our failures come readily to light but our successes are often obscured for years, if not decades.

Do we really want the enemy to know how good we are? What our strategies are? How we hunt down, target and eliminate terrorists?

You do know that our drones don't just fly around looking for rag heads, right? You do know that targets are often identified and located by human intelligence assets on the ground, right? That if those human assets were revealed, we'd find their heads on stick? This is why such operations are classified. The failures are revealed not by our government, but by news agencies or the enemy themselves.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 06:31 AM
What, exactly, was your train of thought that lead you from

To me not caring whether our government has drone technology and uses it?

I even PREVIOUSLY specified that I am against it.

You don't care how many people get killed by drones. It logically follows that you don't care too much that drones exist and are used, otherwise, you'd care that ANYBODY is being killed by them. At least, I don't see how you could possibly not care that people are being killed by them and yet care that they exist.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 06:34 AM
The thing about intelligence operations in a free society is that our failures come readily to light but our successes are often obscured for years, if not decades.

Do we really want the enemy to know how good we are? What our strategies are? How we hunt down, target and eliminate terrorists?

You do know that our drones don't just fly around looking for rag heads, right? You do know that targets are often identified and located by human intelligence assets on the ground, right? That if those human assets were revealed, we'd find their heads on stick? This is why such operations are classified. The failures are revealed not by our government, but by news agencies or the enemy themselves.

Until such a time as our government decides to engage in that transparency it promised back in 2008 (you know, what actual​ free societies do), I'll operate on the information I have.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 06:42 AM
Until such a time as our government decides to engage in that transparency it promised back in 2008 (you know, what actual​ free societies do), I'll operate on the information I have.

Transparency? You mean publish in the New York Times attack plans, strategies, how we find and identify terrorists?

Sorry, man, but think that would be naive. Not to mention deadly.

Is it better to kill a few terrorists with drones or pull out, wait for them to kill a few thousand Americans then see us totally destroy another country in retaliation?

The total numbers of Afghan casualties is difficult to determine, but 16,000-19,000 dead is one estimate. So, the decision our leaders must face is "Do we inflict 2400 dead with drones or over 25,000 (ours and theirs) dead with conventional war?"

It's a tough choice. I know which one I'd pick. Which would you pick?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/01/reporting_afghanistan_casualti.html

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 06:54 AM
Transparency? You mean publish in the New York Times attack plans, strategies, how we find and identify terrorists?

Sorry, man, but think that would be naive. Not to mention deadly.

Is it better to kill a few terrorists with drones or pull out, wait for them to kill a few thousand Americans then see us totally destroy another country in retaliation?

The total numbers of Afghan casualties is difficult to determine, but 16,000-19,000 dead is one estimate. So, the decision our leaders must face is "Do we inflict 2400 dead with drones or over 25,000 (ours and theirs) dead with conventional war?"

It's a tough choice. I know which one I'd pick. Which would you pick?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/01/reporting_afghanistan_casualti.html

Considering the fear of a terrorist attack on American soil is nothing but fearmongering (after all, how many attacks have happened since 1789? One.), and the tactics we employ in the region only creates more terrorists rather than reducing the number of terrorists, my choice is clear. Pull out of the region and put every soldier on the borders and every ship in our shores, and point every missile outside. I'd challenge any camel jockey to get into Fortress America.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 07:04 AM
Considering the fear of a terrorist attack on American soil is nothing but fearmongering (after all, how many attacks have happened since 1789? One.),

1. Disagreed about the fear mongering. Yeah, I know it is played up during elections, but the Obama administration is actually trying to play it down. In fact, if it was up to them, the entire drone war would be secret. That's not fear mongering, dude.

2. What was that at the WTC in February 1993? Oklahoma City in 1995? What about attacks upon Americans outside our borders? Do we just let that go?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 07:09 AM
1. Disagreed about the fear mongering. Yeah, I know it is played up during elections, but the Obama administration is actually trying to play it down. In fact, if it was up to them, the entire drone war would be secret. That's not fear mongering, dude.

Obviously I wasn't very clear. The accusation of fear-mongering was leveled at you, though the Obama administration has certainly done its share.


2. What was that at the WTC in February 1993? Oklahoma City in 1995? What about attacks upon Americans outside our borders? Do we just let that go?

The 1993 bombing of the WTC, I'll give you, but OK City was done by an American, so your drone strikes on sand niggers wouldn't have helped much. As for attacks on Americans outside our borders, that's hardly our responsibility. It would certainly be cause to demand the host country step up their security measures if they want to continue to see American tourists, but it's not cause for us to violate their sovereignty (which would be an act of war, if we weren't the world's biggest superpower) and kill their civilians.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 07:32 AM
Obviously I wasn't very clear. The accusation of fear-mongering was leveled at you

Sorry you don't understand the big picture. It's not fear-mongering to say there are forces around the world who seek to kill innocent people through terrorist incidents. Sorry you think the Russians are fear-mongering by being concerned about terrorism at Sochi.

Sorry you don't see that the same measures to prevent foreign terrorism are used to prevent domestic terrorism and vice versa. The quandary being, balancing liberty and security.

Sorry you don't see the 2009 Fort Hood shooting or the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings as being related to international terrorism.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 07:46 AM
Sorry you don't understand the big picture. It's not fear-mongering to say there are forces around the world who seek to kill innocent people through terrorist incidents. Sorry you think the Russians are fear-mongering by being concerned about terrorism at Sochi.

Sorry you don't see that the same measures to prevent foreign terrorism are used to prevent domestic terrorism and vice versa. The quandary being, balancing liberty and security.

Sorry you don't see the 2009 Fort Hood shooting or the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings as being related to international terrorism.

Statements you won't find anywhere in my posts.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 08:53 AM
People who are pro-drone usually have never had to spend a day in the Sand Pit or Trashcanistan. In both countries there are factions who will give our "intelligence agencies" intel to help further their goals and take out the other guy. This happens in the drug war, too, but we don't use drones on that in large numbers.

If the goal of these hellfire strikes was to stop terrorism then someone needs to check their head because it just makes people that weren't angry at us before, angrier. We're shooting missiles into nations we haven't declared war on. That's an act of war. We're killing people in another nation who went out to have tea that morning and smoke a hookah and end up dead because someone told someone else a terrorist is in that marketplace.

IF someone said that about a European marketplace (where 911 terrorists hung out) no one would shoot a hellfire at it.

We are not accomplishing with them what a team of spec ops could do without killing 100 other people. We are using this technology because our contractors want to supply more of it.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 10:43 AM
If the goal of these hellfire strikes was to stop terrorism then someone needs to check their head because it just makes people that weren't angry at us before, angrier.

Compared to carpet bombing or shooting cruise missiles into their villages? I think not.

Anlenis
01-27-2014, 10:51 AM
We really need to elect people who won't bomb other countries this way.

We as a whole loose so much money to other countries by bombing on them, they say its for the greater good but there are actually private corporations making the money :/

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 10:52 AM
Compared to carpet bombing or shooting cruise missiles into their villages? I think not.

We're growing new terrorists each day because of this. I have friends over there who worked with us and its harder and harder for them to make excuses.

We need to send in spec ops and dig them out. It's not that hard and it causes less harsh feelings than taking out a wad of civilians without appropriate IDing of the target.

Mainecoons
01-27-2014, 10:53 AM
Loose = not tight
Lose = being separated from something. As in to lose one's money.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 10:59 AM
We're growing new terrorists each day because of this. I have friends over there who worked with us and its harder and harder for them to make excuses.

We need to send in spec ops and dig them out. It's not that hard and it causes less harsh feelings than taking out a wad of civilians without appropriate IDing of the target.

On a case by case basis, I agree that extraction and rendition or outright assassination is better than blowing up an entire building. Still, Spec Ops make mistakes too just as SWAT teams do. Human adventures aren't perfect.

As it is, are we so certain Spec Ops isn't being used on a regular basis? The President had the option of flattening Osama bin Laden's compound with a bomb. Safer for our guys too. Instead, they used a high risk SEAL team mission. Why? To confirm he was dead and to extract intell. That philosophy applies to lesser terrorist leaders too. It makes since it would be used were feasible.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 11:02 AM
On a case by case basis, I agree that extraction and rendition or outright assassination is better than blowing up an entire building. Still, Spec Ops make mistakes too just as SWAT teams do. Human adventures aren't perfect.

As it is, are we so certain Spec Ops isn't being used on a regular basis? The President had the option of flattening Osama bin Laden's compound with a bomb. Safer for our guys too. Instead, they used a high risk SEAL team mission. Why? To confirm he was dead and to extract intell. That philosophy applies to lesser terrorist leaders too. It makes since it would be used were feasible.

We are used on a regular basis. We could be used more. This is why I maintain our use of drones is purely to keep some defense contractors in business.

If these are high profile leaders why not extract and waterboard the fucks?

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 11:09 AM
We are used on a regular basis. We could be used more. This is why I maintain our use of drones is purely to keep some defense contractors in business.

If these are high profile leaders why not extract and waterboard the fucks?

I don't buy the military-industrial complex conspiracy theory, but it is reasonable to think that sometimes those guys just use the tech as a real-life test bed. What better way to develop the technology than to use it against live targets? It's a twofer!

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 11:11 AM
I don't buy the military-industrial complex conspiracy theory, but it is reasonable to think that sometimes those guys just use the tech as a real-life test bed. What better way to develop the technology than to use it against live targets? It's a twofer!

We'll disagree. I think we need to waste missiles to buy more and we want to move to drones in general. Contractors need to be fed.

If these are high profile targets and we keep swearing water boarding works on AQ leadership then why not dig them out and get more intel?

It's because we're not 100% sure which is why drone use is pure assholery.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 11:12 AM
BTW, I say this as someone who volunteered for this shit. None of us mind, in fact its what we live for if honest, going in black.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 11:21 AM
The comparison is hardly relevant. The point here is that we're slaughtering innocent men, women, and particularly children to kill a few suspected terrorists (that's right, we're not even certain they are terrorists), at a rate of roughly fifty innocents to every one terrorist. That is morally and ethically abhorrent, not to mention extremely impractical. To make matters worse, we're violating the sovereignty of other nations.

Here's my thing. Do they really need an explosive warhead on a single target? Why not just mount a rifle with a tungsten slug and fire with high velocity?

If we wanted surgical strikes, they would be surgical strikes. Sure in comparison to carpet bombings and Hiroshima it is surgical, but it is essentially comparing crapping the bed to crapping your pants - they both suck.

Why not crap in the toilet? Or just kill the one guy you are actually after? Are they really trying to tell me they don't have the technology to mount a spiffy rifle capable of firing tungsten sabots at a target from an aerial platform?

If so I declare them frosty headed ninny-muggets. And big giant poo poo heads for living in the past.

It boils down to the fact that wiping out 50 or so people for the sake of one target is 'good enough' for the american public. If we cared less we would go straight back to carpet bombing.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 11:48 AM
We'll disagree. I think we need to waste missiles to buy more and we want to move to drones in general. Contractors need to be fed.

If these are high profile targets and we keep swearing water boarding works on AQ leadership then why not dig them out and get more intel?

It's because we're not 100% sure which is why drone use is pure assholery.

There is a bit of truth in "feeding contractors". The US ship-building industry went through this several years ago. Without new orders for ships, the industry would collapse and workers would go to other industries. Okay as long as our Navy doesn't need new ships, but it really sucks if we need to replace subs and aircraft carriers. Can't very well go to the Russians and Chinese, can we?

Although I don't condone torture nor do I believe our nation should condone it, it does make sense to capture leaders and interrogate them for more intell. The problem, as with those in deepest Yemen, is extracting them without losing an entire SEAL team. The Hellfire missile option is the best choice in that situation.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 12:09 PM
There is a bit of truth in "feeding contractors". The US ship-building industry went through this several years ago. Without new orders for ships, the industry would collapse and workers would go to other industries. Okay as long as our Navy doesn't need new ships, but it really sucks if we need to replace subs and aircraft carriers. Can't very well go to the Russians and Chinese, can we?

It is a good thing for defense contractors to be hungry. It means that their products aren't needed.



Although I don't condone torture nor do I believe our nation should condone it, it does make sense to capture leaders and interrogate them for more intell. The problem, as with those in deepest Yemen, is extracting them without losing an entire SEAL team. The Hellfire missile option is the best choice in that situation.

Drone + hellfire missle + crowd with one target in it = lots of dead innocents for one guy we're actually looking for.

Drone + spiffy rifle + crowd with one target in it = dead target, living innocents.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 12:18 PM
Drone + hellfire missle + crowd with one target in it = lots of dead innocents for one guy we're actually looking for.

Drone + spiffy rifle + crowd with one target in it = dead target, living innocents.

Agreed on keeping contractors hungry, but my point was to avoid losing the industrial capability, much less our technological edge, completely.

I concur option 2 is the better of the two. However, it's not always possible.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 12:29 PM
Agreed on keeping contractors hungry, but my point was to avoid losing the industrial capability, much less our technological edge, completely.

Grudgingly I agree. But we don't have to wage war just to keep R&D sharp and shiny. We can test weaponry on goats.



I concur option 2 is the better of the two. However, it's not always possible.

I do understand that some people will use human shields. While sad, we seem to become less and less concerned about overcoming them.

The Sage of Main Street
01-27-2014, 12:35 PM
We really need to elect people who won't bomb other countries this way.

We as a whole loose so much money to other countries by bombing on them, they say its for the greater good but there are actually private corporations making the money :/

OPEC jihadis have spent a lot of money financing propaganda here that turns Americans into Dhimmi weaklings. They have been waging war on us ever since the 1973 Embargo. Allowing them to do that back then was their first proof that Americans are pushovers. They continued with their aggression by creating terrorism, which would not exist if we bankrupted them by annexing their oilfields. The only people at home who have to worry about domestic drones are the sleeper cells the Muslims have sent here to wage jihad once the signal is given.

There is no such thing as a non-combatant in a combat zone. The only thing patriots should have against droning is that it kills pawns instead of kings. But these "victims" are killers, so there is nothing wrong about killing anyone in this predatory religion.

anthony_butler
01-27-2014, 12:35 PM
Via Huffington Post: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html)



Yes, Mr. President, there are groups out there that mean to do Americans harm, but that does not mean we have to kill hundreds of innocent people in other countries to keep Americans safe. That method makes us no better than the terrorists we are trying to stop.

Yeah, so true. The drones make too much mess. Too much collateral damage :/

texan
01-27-2014, 12:59 PM
Thank you Obama

Ivan88
01-27-2014, 01:11 PM
5631
Our love of lies and war and the resultant suffering and death is from the apostasy of Christian Israel America who has become like the scarlet woman riding the beast of the Talmud and making the world drunk on the pharmecopia of her wickedness. Revelation 17

Christian America is under the Judgment of "nature's God" and the Curses of the Law because:
1. They reject the Kingship of "nature's God" because they say He is not here, did not fulfill His Word, nor ruling His Creation, but coming someday;

2. They refuse to rule the world according to the "weightier matters of the Law, Truth, Mercy and Faith;

3. They released the beast of Talmudic doctrine from the bottomless pit it was cast into, protected it, encouraged it, financed it, and armed it to re-create the the bloody oppression that murdered the Perfect Man and those who follow Him.

4. They have lost the character of Christ, and are fit for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men. He has ordered that they be brought before him and slain. Matthew 5:13, Luke 19:27

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 01:18 PM
Thank you Obama

More appropriately, thank you General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.

Making craters out of bad guys for over a decade. You guys rock!!!! USA! USA! USA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qncyuC0sKZY

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 01:23 PM
Yeah, so true. The drones make too much mess. Too much collateral damage :/

Seriously? Have you ever seen an A-6 strike, much less a wave of B-52s?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTa39S2EUL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeAQudbZsDA

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 01:40 PM
Ever clean up a village after a Hellfire visited?

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 01:41 PM
Fact is we can send in spec ops and do it all the time.

Ivan88
01-27-2014, 01:51 PM
Yes, Go! Go! USA!
563656375638
We have "become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." Revelation 18:2

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 01:56 PM
We have "become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." Revelation 18:2

If you listen weally, weally carefulwy at night, Ivan, you can hear the buzz of the drones monitoring that chip implanted in your but-tocks.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 01:57 PM
Ever clean up a village after a Hellfire visited?

Nope. If it's like a plane crash, the human parts can be cleaned up with a baggy and a pair of latex gloves.

A smoking hole is a smoking hole as far as clean up goes.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 02:10 PM
Nope. If it's like a plane crash, the human parts can be cleaned up with a baggy and a pair of latex gloves.

A smoking hole is a smoking hole as far as clean up goes.

And the smoking hole doesn't clear the area around it, trap people under rubble?

I always think that its peculiar when a sniper like me has more humanity than other people about this stuff. Killing people who have nothing to do with the beef is serious bullshit.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 02:14 PM
Rubble

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/files/2013/03/Drone-strike-in-Pakistan.jpg

Bloody rubble and future terrorists

http://www.mintpress.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/afghan-drone-690x389.jpg

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 02:16 PM
Rubble

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/files/2013/03/Drone-strike-in-Pakistan.jpg

Bloody rubble and future terrorists

http://www.mintpress.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/afghan-drone-690x389.jpg

Kinda blows that "they hate us for our freedoms" argument right out of the water doesn't it? If someone did that to my family I would contemplate a life of terrorism myself. Anybody would. Vengeance although foolish, is a common denominator for violence.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 02:20 PM
Kinda blows that "they hate us for our freedoms" argument right out of the water doesn't it? If someone did that to my family I would contemplate a life of terrorism myself. Anybody would. Vengeance although foolish, is a common denominator for violence.

The fucked up part is we're not even officially at war with these nations. Looks like war to me.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 02:25 PM
The fucked up part is we're not even officially at war with these nations. Looks like war to me.

Has the blood and guts to prove it is a war. But the western way of sanitizing anything remotely awkward is SOP.

Whore/slut = Escort/sex worker/liberated woman etc...
War = Police action/peacekeeping/surgical strike etc...
Illegal Immigrant = Undocumented workers etc...
Retard = Special needs/handicapped/ 'special' etc...

Just call it what it is and quit changing its clothes already. It is dumb and it doesn't fool anybody.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 02:25 PM
We shouldn't be doing any of this, hell, we shouldn't be in any war, period, and every time you murder someones family member in cold blood and label said person "collateral damage," you create a dozen new "terrorists"

It's evil, not productive, and overall, just total madness.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 02:34 PM
Kinda blows that "they hate us for our freedoms" argument right out of the water doesn't it? If someone did that t-bao my family I would contemplate a life of terrorism myself. Anybody would. Vengeance although foolish, is a common denominator for violence.


Better to let them kill a bunch of rag-bag Americans civilians first, then go in and take down the entire country. That way we don't have to hear a lot of bitching about it. I'm serious.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 02:36 PM
Better to let them kill a bunch of rag-bag Americans civilians first, then go in and take down the entire country. That way we don't have to hear a lot of bitching about it. I'm serious.

Why are you serious? How about we just bomb the countries we're officially at war with? I mean, that's kinda worked before.

Just throwin that out there.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 02:36 PM
We shouldn't be doing any of this, hell, we shouldn't be in any war, period, and every time you murder someones family member in cold blood and label said person "collateral damage," you create a dozen new "terrorists"

It's evil, not productive, and overall, just total madness.

Isolationism. The new "give peace a chance" meme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM

The Xl
01-27-2014, 02:37 PM
Isolationism. The new "give peace a chance" meme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM

One attack on our soil induced by blowback. Spin it any way you wish, that fact will always remain.

And you still don't even know what isolationism is, despite being shown multiple times across two different forums. I guess you just listen to what you agree with, and nothing more.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 02:38 PM
Isolationism. The new "give peace a chance" meme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM
Ethereal is that you? :laugh:

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 02:40 PM
Why are you serious? How about we just bomb the countries we're officially at war with? I mean, that's kinda worked before.

Just throwin that out there.

My guess is because terrorism isn't conventional war. The Yemenis and Pakistanis "officially" bitch about it, but they don't really take any action against us for it since they have the same concerns as we do.

The Pakistanis officially condemned the US for invading their airspace the night of the OBL raid, but the Pakistani air defense radar didn't turn itself off that night.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 02:41 PM
One attack on our soil induced by blowback. Spin it any way you wish, that fact will always remain.

I said it above. Time to pull ourselves back and let the terrorists do it again. A few thousand more dead New Yorkers is worth proving our righteousness.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 02:43 PM
Better to let them kill a bunch of rag-bag Americans civilians first, then go in and take down the entire country. That way we don't have to hear a lot of bitching about it. I'm serious.

Actually not a bad plan. We'd actually have a reason to do it then. But if we do go to war, we should eradicate everything. Give them a chance to correct themselves first, but if it becomes a pattern? Wipe them out. No sense in letting seeds blossom into future thorn bushes.

If we fought wars with genocide as the first tactic we would either run out of opponents or they would simply choose to not be our opponents.


Why are you serious? How about we just bomb the countries we're officially at war with? I mean, that's kinda worked before.

Just throwin that out there.

Yeah, actually declaring war with people might make the governments housing them think more carefully about it. Especially with the genocidal war ethic mentioned above.

"I want their hearts and heads on a plate, you have 8 days or we declare war. Toodles." - Da Prez.

*sound of middle eastern country defacating themselves... madly scurrying to find the turd who pissed us off*

I could see that working pretty good.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 02:43 PM
I said it above. Time to pull ourselves back and let the terrorists do it again. A few thousand more dead New Yorkers is worth proving our righteousness.
Our foreign policy caused 9/11, and you want to turn up the volume.

Carelessness and sheer madness.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 02:53 PM
Our foreign policy caused 9/11, and you want to turn up the volume.

If that were true, then why are they also attacking the Russians, the Brits, the Spaniards, the Indians and a host of other nations?

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

Information on Over 113,000 Terrorist Attacks

The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) is an open-source database including information on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2012 (with annual updates planned for the future). Unlike many other event databases, the GTD includes systematic data on domestic as well as international terrorist incidents that have occurred during this time period and now includes more than 113,000 cases. Learn more (http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/about/)

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 02:55 PM
If that were true, then why are they also attacking the Russians, the Brits, the Spaniards, the Indians and a host of other nations?

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that although there were many countries with fingers in the pie, the USA hand a whole hand in it.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 02:56 PM
If that were true, then why are they also attacking the Russians, the Brits, the Spaniards, the Indians and a host of other nations?

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

A host of other nations also have interventionist policies, that's why.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 02:57 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that although there were many countries with fingers in the pie, the USA hand a whole hand in it.

Pretty much this.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 03:06 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that although there were many countries with fingers in the pie, the USA hand a whole hand in it.

Nevertheless, if XL is correct, all those dead Brits, Spaniards, Indians and such were asking for it. The fault doesn't belong to the terrorists who killed them according to XL's philosophy.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 03:08 PM
Nevertheless, if XL is correct, all those dead Brits, Spaniards, Indians and such were asking for it. The fault doesn't belong to the terrorists who killed them according to XL's philosophy.

Well what do you expect when you meddle incessantly with another's turf? They eventually get pissed off and decide killing you is on the options table. Some even carry it out.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 03:09 PM
Nevertheless, if XL is correct, all those dead Brits, Spaniards, Indians and such were asking for it. The fault doesn't belong to the terrorists who killed them according to XL's philosophy.

Cause and effect, my man, cause and effect.

According to your line of logic, the innocents we've killed had it coming to, no? It was their fault, wasn't it?

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 03:12 PM
Cause and effect, my man, cause and effect.

Now you know why we're launching drone strikes on terrorists.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 03:14 PM
Well what do you expect when you meddle incessantly with another's turf? They eventually get pissed off and decide killing you is on the options table. Some even carry it out.

Meddle? We were invited into Saudi Arabia. Just because a radical minority objects doesn't justify murdering almost 3000 Americans.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 03:14 PM
Now you know why we're launching drone strikes on terrorists.

You have it wrong, it would seem. It started via our FP, now we're just rolling with the madness we created.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 03:18 PM
Meddle? We were invited into Saudi Arabia. Just because a radical minority objects doesn't justify murdering almost 3000 Americans.

Didn't say that it does. But you can also overstay your welcome. We have, and it has consequences.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 03:22 PM
You have it wrong, it would seem. It started via our FP, now we're just rolling with the madness we created.

I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong, sir. Isolationism or any form of withdrawal only allows others to fill in the vacuum. After Vietnam, the US, stunned, shunned and bitter over 10 years and 56,000+ American dead withdrew from the world. The result was having our Embassies attacked, our flags burned and our civilian ships and airliners attacked and held for ransom.

While I agree that, in the past, specifically during the Cold War, the US did some things that are now biting us in the ass, to place the blame entirely on the US is exactly the type of uninformed crap I used to hear from college students dreaming of rainbows and unicorns.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 03:31 PM
I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong, sir. Isolationism or any form of withdrawal only allows others to fill in the vacuum. After Vietnam, the US, stunned, shunned and bitter over 10 years and 56,000+ American dead withdrew from the world. The result was having our Embassies attacked, our flags burned

Okay, so we're not wanted here, here, and here, check. Stay away.



and our civilian ships and airliners attacked and held for ransom.

Hunt them down and quarter them. If they flee to sponsoring state, issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Carpet bomb them appropriately until they cough them up.

Teddy Roosevelt had a couple things right. One of them was "Speak softly and carry a big stick." And then don't hesitate to smack the hell out of somebody with it if needed.



While I agree that, in the past, specifically during the Cold War, the US did some things that are now biting us in the ass, to place the blame entirely on the US is exactly the type of uninformed crap I used to hear from college students dreaming of rainbows and unicorns.

I don't excuse the rag heads for killing our countrymen. But I feel the same about them as I do those in Washington ordering other innocent people to be killed using clumsy munitions.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 03:33 PM
I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong, sir. Isolationism or any form of withdrawal only allows others to fill in the vacuum. After Vietnam, the US, stunned, shunned and bitter over 10 years and 56,000+ American dead withdrew from the world. The result was having our Embassies attacked, our flags burned and our civilian ships and airliners attacked and held for ransom.

While I agree that, in the past, specifically during the Cold War, the US did some things that are now biting us in the ass, to place the blame entirely on the US is exactly the type of uninformed crap I used to hear from college students dreaming of rainbows and unicorns.

I don't really see how any intellectual honest conversation about the topic at hand can be hand until you actually learn the meaning of the word isolationism.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 04:04 PM
Drone strikes are not only unfair but they're like a breeder for terrorism. Just not a smart move. If someone said we should level the entire country of Afghanistan with a nuke in 2001 it would be wicked but smart.

War is ugly and you must inflict maximum cruelty for multiple generations to prevent future wars or blowback. We don't have the ancient world's views on that, so we're half-assed and have rag heads and wanna be ragheads from Chechnya trying to kill us.

This is why we need non-interventionism and diplomacy. That whole go hard or go home has a "go home" attached.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 04:31 PM
i don't really see how any intellectual honest conversation about the topic at hand can be hand until you actually learn the meaning of the word isolationism.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
from shakespeare's romeo and juliet, 1600
You may think you know what you are asking, XL, but you have not thought through the consequences of what withdrawing all of our forces back the US beaches means for our nation, our allies and many other, mostly poorer nations of the word. Do you recall what happened when Bush finally decided to go with the Ethanol Mandate in 2007?

Unintended consequences: US ethanol revolution causes 'ecological disaster' (http://rt.com/usa/us-green-push-ethanol-615/)
On top of this, the price of corn has more than doubled since 2010.

While isolationist, anti-capitalist folks like yourself don't give a shit if the price of cattle feed goes up, what you are forgetting is that a large part of the planet's human population also lives on that same corn for their primary food supply. When that food supply cost doubles or triples, it puts it out of reach for those making only a few dollars a month.

Ethanol and its unintended consequences (http://www.ocala.com/article/20070210/OPINION/202100321#gsc.tab=0)
Bush's idea, however, is adding corn-based fuel to protests in Mexico City. Existing federal laws that mandate ethanol in U.S. gasoline have diverted trainloads of corn from America's food supply-chain to ethanol factories. This boosted U.S. corn prices nearly 80 percent in 2006.
That's bad enough if you buy corn on the cob for a weekend barbecue. But it's much worse if you are a poor Mexican surviving on corn tortillas. A kilo (2.2 pounds) of tortillas recently has shot up 55 percent, from 5.5 to 8.5 pesos. Poor Mexicans are not taking this sitting down.

So what is the purpose of this little history lesson? Just pointing out that actions have consequences, including withdrawing from the rougher parts of the world and allowing chaos to reign. A lot of people are starving now in Somalia, the Sudan and other parts of the world where no one wants to become involved. If the free world withdraws from the places they are involved, that pain will spread, not shrink.

Ethereal
01-27-2014, 05:12 PM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) is that you? :laugh:

Ah jeez. Like we haven't refuted this tired misrepresentation a million times. If anything, it's the left- and right-wings in America who better meet the definition of "isolationists", what, with their perverse fixation on protectionism and nationalism.

Ethereal
01-27-2014, 05:15 PM
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
from shakespeare's romeo and juliet, 1600
You may think you know what you are asking, XL, but you have not thought through the consequences of what withdrawing all of our forces back the US beaches means for our nation, our allies and many other, mostly poorer nations of the word. Do you recall what happened when Bush finally decided to go with the Ethanol Mandate in 2007?

Unintended consequences: US ethanol revolution causes 'ecological disaster' (http://rt.com/usa/us-green-push-ethanol-615/)
On top of this, the price of corn has more than doubled since 2010.

While isolationist, anti-capitalist folks like yourself don't give a shit if the price of cattle feed goes up, what you are forgetting is that a large part of the planet's human population also lives on that same corn for their primary food supply. When that food supply cost doubles or triples, it puts it out of reach for those making only a few dollars a month.

Ethanol and its unintended consequences (http://www.ocala.com/article/20070210/OPINION/202100321#gsc.tab=0)
Bush's idea, however, is adding corn-based fuel to protests in Mexico City. Existing federal laws that mandate ethanol in U.S. gasoline have diverted trainloads of corn from America's food supply-chain to ethanol factories. This boosted U.S. corn prices nearly 80 percent in 2006.
That's bad enough if you buy corn on the cob for a weekend barbecue. But it's much worse if you are a poor Mexican surviving on corn tortillas. A kilo (2.2 pounds) of tortillas recently has shot up 55 percent, from 5.5 to 8.5 pesos. Poor Mexicans are not taking this sitting down.

So what is the purpose of this little history lesson? Just pointing out that actions have consequences, including withdrawing from the rougher parts of the world and allowing chaos to reign. A lot of people are starving now in Somalia, the Sudan and other parts of the world where no one wants to become involved. If the free world withdraws from the places they are involved, that pain will spread, not shrink.





This is just a bunch of blather that avoids the FACT that "isolationism" is not a policy endorsed by libertarians.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 05:18 PM
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
from shakespeare's romeo and juliet, 1600
You may think you know what you are asking, XL, but you have not thought through the consequences of what withdrawing all of our forces back the US beaches means for our nation, our allies and many other, mostly poorer nations of the word. Do you recall what happened when Bush finally decided to go with the Ethanol Mandate in 2007?

Unintended consequences: US ethanol revolution causes 'ecological disaster' (http://rt.com/usa/us-green-push-ethanol-615/)
On top of this, the price of corn has more than doubled since 2010.

While isolationist, anti-capitalist folks like yourself don't give a shit if the price of cattle feed goes up, what you are forgetting is that a large part of the planet's human population also lives on that same corn for their primary food supply. When that food supply cost doubles or triples, it puts it out of reach for those making only a few dollars a month.

Ethanol and its unintended consequences (http://www.ocala.com/article/20070210/OPINION/202100321#gsc.tab=0)
Bush's idea, however, is adding corn-based fuel to protests in Mexico City. Existing federal laws that mandate ethanol in U.S. gasoline have diverted trainloads of corn from America's food supply-chain to ethanol factories. This boosted U.S. corn prices nearly 80 percent in 2006.
That's bad enough if you buy corn on the cob for a weekend barbecue. But it's much worse if you are a poor Mexican surviving on corn tortillas. A kilo (2.2 pounds) of tortillas recently has shot up 55 percent, from 5.5 to 8.5 pesos. Poor Mexicans are not taking this sitting down.

So what is the purpose of this little history lesson? Just pointing out that actions have consequences, including withdrawing from the rougher parts of the world and allowing chaos to reign. A lot of people are starving now in Somalia, the Sudan and other parts of the world where no one wants to become involved. If the free world withdraws from the places they are involved, that pain will spread, not shrink.





Point out where me or most libertarians endorse isolationism. I'll wait. And anti-capitalist? The hell are you babbling about?

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 07:15 PM
Point out where me or most libertarians endorse isolationism. I'll wait. And anti-capitalist? The hell are you babbling about?

Anti-capitalists refuse to defend trade routes and trading partners.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 07:16 PM
This is just a bunch of blather that avoids the FACT that "isolationism" is not a policy endorsed by libertarians.Please state the party platform of libertarians on this issue.

Green Arrow
01-27-2014, 11:58 PM
Please state the party platform of libertarians on this issue.

Non-interventionism. Via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism):


Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul

Max Rockatansky
01-28-2014, 06:33 AM
Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.

Another way of returning to Pre-WWI Isolationist America. Sure, we'll trade with other countries, but if anyone attacks/threatens our allies and/or trade routes, we'll run for home. I'm not sure our economy can be sustained in such conditions. In 1915 our population was a third it is today; 101 million Americans with 40 million in the work force. Today our population is 317 million with a labor force upwards of 155 million. Much of our economy is intertwined with the global economy. To effectively withdraw from that would undoubtedly put our nation deep into recession.

For those who don't understand why this must be so, consider China, our allies and the South China Sea. Resources are an important part of any nation's economy. The seas and the seabed are an essential resource. Competition for these vast resources are keen. It requires an effective presence to protect those resources.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21594355-china-creates-adiz-fish-hai-handed

EVEN fish, it seems, are not exempt from China’s territorial claims. On January 1st new regulations from the government of Hainan, China’s southernmost province, came into effect, requiring all vessels planning to fish in waters under Hainan’s jurisdiction to get permission from the Chinese authorities. Since China claims parts of the South China Sea which are also claimed by others, the rules seem highly provocative. Provocation may not actually be China’s intention, but its neighbours hardly feel reassured.

The Philippines and Vietnam, the littoral countries with the most active territorial disputes with China, were quick to condemn the regulations. America called them “potentially dangerous”. Japan’s defence minister compared them to China’s unexpected announcement in November of an Air-Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over parts of the East China Sea, including the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands administered by Japan. He said China was “unilaterally threatening the existing international order”.

...more

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140118_ASM967.png

Pulling all US military forces to our own beaches and not supporting our allies in these disputes means we are effectively becoming isolationist and letting disputes such as the South China Sea dispute play out on its own.

texan
01-28-2014, 04:01 PM
I blame Global Warming.

Cthulhu
01-28-2014, 04:08 PM
Anti-capitalists refuse to defend trade routes and trading partners.

I will only point out that the security of goods and their transfer are the company's responsibility.

donttread
01-28-2014, 05:13 PM
Via Huffington Post: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html)



Yes, Mr. President, there are groups out there that mean to do Americans harm, but that does not mean we have to kill hundreds of innocent people in other countries to keep Americans safe. That method makes us no better than the terrorists we are trying to stop.

True but those groups mean us harm to begin with because of shit like this!

Peter1469
01-28-2014, 06:12 PM
Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.

Another way of returning to Pre-WWI Isolationist America. Sure, we'll trade with other countries, but if anyone attacks/threatens our allies and/or trade routes, we'll run for home. I'm not sure our economy can be sustained in such conditions. In 1915 our population was a third it is today; 101 million Americans with 40 million in the work force. Today our population is 317 million with a labor force upwards of 155 million. Much of our economy is intertwined with the global economy. To effectively withdraw from that would undoubtedly put our nation deep into recession.

For those who don't understand why this must be so, consider China, our allies and the South China Sea. Resources are an important part of any nation's economy. The seas and the seabed are an essential resource. Competition for these vast resources are keen. It requires an effective presence to protect those resources.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21594355-china-creates-adiz-fish-hai-handed


Pulling all US military forces to our own beaches and not supporting our allies in these disputes means we are effectively becoming isolationist and letting disputes such as the South China Sea dispute play out on its own.

The mere presence of a US carrier task force would quell this problem. It is not the same thing as advocating the occupation of a semi-primitive "nation" in the middle of nowhere.

Green Arrow
01-28-2014, 06:40 PM
Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.

Another way of returning to Pre-WWI Isolationist America. Sure, we'll trade with other countries, but if anyone attacks/threatens our allies and/or trade routes, we'll run for home. I'm not sure our economy can be sustained in such conditions. In 1915 our population was a third it is today; 101 million Americans with 40 million in the work force. Today our population is 317 million with a labor force upwards of 155 million. Much of our economy is intertwined with the global economy. To effectively withdraw from that would undoubtedly put our nation deep into recession.

For those who don't understand why this must be so, consider China, our allies and the South China Sea. Resources are an important part of any nation's economy. The seas and the seabed are an essential resource. Competition for these vast resources are keen. It requires an effective presence to protect those resources.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21594355-china-creates-adiz-fish-hai-handed


Pulling all US military forces to our own beaches and not supporting our allies in these disputes means we are effectively becoming isolationist and letting disputes such as the South China Sea dispute play out on its own.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse at this point.

Peter1469
01-28-2014, 06:43 PM
I think you are being deliberately obtuse at this point.

Sometimes you have to go all in to defend your position... :shocked:

Green Arrow
01-28-2014, 06:47 PM
Sometimes you have to go all in to defend your position... :shocked:

Yes, well, going full retard doesn't help much ;)

Max Rockatansky
01-28-2014, 07:43 PM
The mere presence of a US carrier task force would quell this problem. It is not the same thing as advocating the occupation of a semi-primitive "nation" in the middle of nowhere.

First, I expressly do not advocate occupying anything. Despite the rhetorical bullshit, we are not occupying Saudi Arabia, Germany, Britain or Japan.

Second, while the "walk softly and carry a big stick" policy often works, if people find out you'll never, ever use the stick, it will quickly fail. This is why many nations see the US as basically a big pussified bully. That we'll throw our weight around, but if given a bloody nose, we will run for home. This worked in Lebanon and Somalia. In the end, it worked in Vietnam too.

Max Rockatansky
01-28-2014, 07:51 PM
Actually not a bad plan. We'd actually have a reason to do it then. But if we do go to war, we should eradicate everything. Give them a chance to correct themselves first, but if it becomes a pattern? Wipe them out. No sense in letting seeds blossom into future thorn bushes.

If we fought wars with genocide as the first tactic we would either run out of opponents or they would simply choose to not be our opponents.

I don't advocate genocide nor killing anymore than we have to, but agreed that we shouldn't fight any wars without the aim to win and to win we should use maximum force.

After we were attacked on 9/11, a few nations bitched, but most either condoned or actively supported the US actions in Afghanistan. We had the good will of the world behind us. When we executed a preemptive war in Iraq, we pissed all of that good will away. Worse, we unnecessarily started a second front without finishing the first front. Afghanistan should have been over in 2004 and we should have been out of there by 2006. Iraq, the loss of over 4400 American lives and over a trillion taxpayer dollars was a huge fucking mistake.

donttread
01-28-2014, 07:54 PM
Meddle? We were invited into Saudi Arabia. Just because a radical minority objects doesn't justify murdering almost 3000 Americans.

Its not about "justification" its about prevention

Green Arrow
01-28-2014, 08:16 PM
First, I expressly do not advocate occupying anything. Despite the rhetorical bullshit, we are not occupying Saudi Arabia, Germany, Britain or Japan.

Second, while the "walk softly and carry a big stick" policy often works, if people find out you'll never, ever use the stick, it will quickly fail. This is why many nations see the US as basically a big pussified bully. That we'll throw our weight around, but if given a bloody nose, we will run for home. This worked in Lebanon and Somalia. In the end, it worked in Vietnam too.

Under non-interventionism (which, if you read the word, does not spell "isolationism" no matter how much you want it to), the big stick will be used. The difference between non-interventionism and interventionism is that we'll only use the big stick if someone tries to use their big stick on us. In interventionism, you use the big stick on everybody regardless if they so much as look at you cross-eyed. It's a retarded philosophy for multiple reasons, chief among them being that it is fiscally retarded and creates more enemies than it gets rid of.

Max Rockatansky
01-28-2014, 08:18 PM
Its not about "justification" its about prevention

Disagreed. "Prevention" can mean killing anyone who isn't in total agreement. "Justification" means only killing those where one has no other choice but self-defense against an attack.

Max Rockatansky
01-28-2014, 08:21 PM
Under non-interventionism (which, if you read the word, does not spell "isolationism" no matter how much you want it to), the big stick will be used. The difference between non-interventionism and interventionism is that we'll only use the big stick if someone tries to use their big stick on us. In interventionism, you use the big stick on everybody regardless if they so much as look at you cross-eyed. It's a retarded philosophy for multiple reasons, chief among them being that it is fiscally retarded and creates more enemies than it gets rid of.

Yeah, I know the difference. I've also seen many "libertarians" post repeatedly "non-interventionist" policies which include pulling all of our military back to the US.

As posted elsewhere,

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/641/duck11.jpg

Cthulhu
01-28-2014, 08:25 PM
I don't advocate genocide nor killing anymore than we have to, but agreed that we shouldn't fight any wars without the aim to win and to win we should use maximum force.

After we were attacked on 9/11, a few nations bitched, but most either condoned or actively supported the US actions in Afghanistan. We had the good will of the world behind us. When we executed a preemptive war in Iraq, we pissed all of that good will away. Worse, we unnecessarily started a second front without finishing the first front. Afghanistan should have been over in 2004 and we should have been out of there by 2006. Iraq, the loss of over 4400 American lives and over a trillion taxpayer dollars was a huge fucking mistake.

We should also take land when we go to war. Otherwise there is very little actual purpose in being there. Of course this is with the prerequisite eradication.

Green Arrow
01-28-2014, 08:27 PM
Yeah, I know the difference. I've also seen many "libertarians" post repeatedly "non-interventionist" policies which include pulling all of our military back to the US.

You're calling a sheep a duck just because they are both white. Pulling our military back to the US is a very non-interventionist policy. That it is also an isolationist policy does not mean it isn't a non-interventionist one. Find me one libertarian who says we shouldn't go to war to defend ourselves and I'll show you an isolationist.

Codename Section
01-28-2014, 08:54 PM
Yeah, I know the difference. I've also seen many "libertarians" post repeatedly "non-interventionist" policies which include pulling all of our military back to the US.



Right. :)

Which is not isolationism where you boycott places like Iran and Cuba as well as not occupying countries. Selling good products or buying products goes far in making friends.

Max Rockatansky
01-28-2014, 09:28 PM
Right. :)

Which is not isolationism where you boycott places like Iran and Cuba as well as not occupying countries. Selling good products or buying products goes far in making friends.

I always thought the Cuban boycott was fucked up ever since Nixon went to China.

Max Rockatansky
01-28-2014, 09:29 PM
Pulling our military back to the US is a very non-interventionist policy

Thank you for confirming you advocate pulling the US military back to the US. This affirms what I mentioned to Peter; we can't very well show the "big stick" if our ships are in port.

Green Arrow
01-28-2014, 09:31 PM
Thank you for confirming you advocate pulling the US military back to the US. This affirms what I mentioned to Peter; we can't very well show the "big stick" if our ships are in port.

Our ships aren't in port, in my scenario. They would be patrolling our waters with our weaponry facing outward at anybody that tries to play chicken.

Mister D
01-28-2014, 09:33 PM
I always thought the Cuban boycott was fucked up ever since Nixon went to China.

Cuba was snuggling with the USSR not China.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 06:10 AM
Cuba was snuggling with the USSR not China.

Correct, but my point was that we opened up trade with both of the biggest commie nations on the planet yet we still boycott a two-bit Marxist Third World shit hole? WTF?

IMO, it's because of over 130,000 Cuban voters in Miami. I worked down there for several years. Want to start a bar fight? Go in telling everyone how much you admire Castro. :D

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 09:34 AM
Thank you for confirming you advocate pulling the US military back to the US. This affirms what I mentioned to Peter; we can't very well show the "big stick" if our ships are in port.

Sure we can. We can show it to them when we use it on them - if they step out of line that is.

Stealth bomber, or a tactical nuke ICBM, simple really. The 'stick' has quite the reach on it now days.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 10:08 AM
Sure we can. We can show it to them when we use it on them - if they step out of line that is.

Stealth bomber, or a tactical nuke ICBM, simple really. The 'stick' has quite the reach on it now days.

If they see our stealth bombers or ICBM's, I submit that the advantage of those weapons systems has been lost. :D

Additionally, there is such a thing as trying to kill a fly with a hand grenade. Stealth bombers and ICBMs would have have been any use in Kuwait, the Iranian hostage crisis or at the Benghazi consulate.

Being able to project force includes "showing the flag". That flag doesn't have to be a purely US one. We can have a NATO fleet, for example. Still it requires the US Navy and Marine Corps to be both forward deployed and have the assets to resupply those forces. It takes 10 days to sail across the Atlantic to the Med and 30 days to sail from San Diego to the IO. Unless we want those forces to be stuck aboard ship their entire 6 month deployment, besides reliable supply sources, they will need secure places to port.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 10:21 AM
If they see our stealth bombers or ICBM's, I submit that the advantage of those weapons systems has been lost. :D

Fact. The reality is most of our enemies are our technological inferiors by a long shot.



Additionally, there is such a thing as trying to kill a fly with a hand grenade. Stealth bombers and ICBMs would have have been any use in Kuwait, the Iranian hostage crisis or at the Benghazi consulate.

Being able to project force includes "showing the flag". That flag doesn't have to be a purely US one. We can have a NATO fleet, for example. Still it requires the US Navy and Marine Corps to be both forward deployed and have the assets to resupply those forces. It takes 10 days to sail across the Atlantic to the Med and 30 days to sail from San Diego to the IO. Unless we want those forces to be stuck aboard ship their entire 6 month deployment, besides reliable supply sources, they will need secure places to port.

Here's the thing, I agree with you. Using a grenade to swat a fly is kinda dumb. But you're only going to have to do it once, maybe twice before all of the other flies figure it out. Self preservation is a powerful motivator.

In the Iranian hostage situation I would have carpet bombed the hell out of that country and not bother with negotiations. If a nation wants to engage in warfare with me - fine. Do so at their won peril. I would gleefully go to the front lines my self and proceed to butcher people to instill that horror on their people, the men specifically - not a ton of women go around starting wars.

Same with the north korean reporter incident a while back. I would gladly pummel the entire country for the sake of those reporters - our citizens. The fact that we didn't use force was extreme cowardice on the part of the administration.

I would do so for the sole purpose of being a nightmare to go to war with - that reputation will spread around. We lost that scary reputation, now we have to deal with the aftermath of it. We have the capacity, just not the will to make the world respect us again.

I would rather not bother 'showing the flag', but rather let them be terrified of their grandfather's stories of 'when the marines came...'.

But that is my thinking if I had to command a government and operate within the state sponsored paradigm. It would work, but isn't necessarily my cup of tea. I would rather be a loved trading partner than the scary man who pummels people when they piss me off. There is no sense in jeopardizing a good trade relationship.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 10:36 AM
Fact. The reality is most of our enemies are our technological inferiors by a long shot.

Here's the thing, I agree with you. Using a grenade to swat a fly is kinda dumb. But you're only going to have to do it once, maybe twice before all of the other flies figure it out. Self preservation is a powerful motivator.

In the Iranian hostage situation I would have carpet bombed the hell out of that country and not bother with negotiations. If a nation wants to engage in warfare with me - fine. Do so at their won peril. I would gleefully go to the front lines my self and proceed to butcher people to instill that horror on their people, the men specifically - not a ton of women go around starting wars.

Agreed our tech is superior than many, but to stay that way we must keep "feeding the military-industrial machine". Additionally, the reason we have ICBM's is to stop terrorists, but to follow the maxim of Vegetius: Si vis pacem, para bellum. "If you want peace, prepare for war".

As discussed in other threads, many people don't learn from history. We'd have to throw that hand grenade every ten years or so. Additionally, as was pointed out earlier, if every Hellfire is creating a handful of new terrorists, what do you think destroying an entire city of innocents just to kill a few assholes would do? Piss off an entire nation for 100 years?

The Greeks and the Turks still hate each other. Same goes for Serbs and Croats, Armenians and Turks and a few other societies around the globe.

Drone-launched Hellfire missiles are not a perfect solution, but it's a better alternative than carpet bombing an entire village or city. It saves more innocent lives and creates less enemies.

What the isolationists want, besides cloaking themselves in Newspeak of "non-interventionist", is to totally pull out. That means letting groups like al-Qaeda or rogue nations like the DPRK do as they please until they reach our own beaches. That's not going to work. Nipping in the bud is better than waiting until the entire mess results in another World War.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 10:47 AM
Agreed our tech is superior than many, but to stay that way we must keep "feeding the military-industrial machine". Additionally, the reason we have ICBM's is to stop terrorists, but to follow the maxim of Vegetius: Si vis pacem, para bellum. "If you want peace, prepare for war".

There is wisdom in maintaining a sharp and shiny arsenal. A lack of wisdom lies in using it when you don't need to.



As discussed in other threads, many people don't learn from history. We'd have to throw that hand grenade every ten years or so. Additionally, as was pointed out earlier, if every Hellfire is creating a handful of new terrorists, what do you think destroying an entire city of innocents just to kill a few assholes would do? Piss off an entire nation for 100 years?

The Greeks and the Turks still hate each other. Same goes for Serbs and Croats, Armenians and Turks and a few other societies around the globe.

Drone-launched Hellfire missiles are not a perfect solution, but it's a better alternative than carpet bombing an entire village or city. It saves more innocent lives and creates less enemies.

What the isolationists want, besides cloaking themselves in Newspeak of "non-interventionist", is to totally pull out. That means letting groups like al-Qaeda or rogue nations like the DPRK do as they please until they reach our own beaches. That's not going to work. Nipping in the bud is better than waiting until the entire mess results in another World War.

I wouldn't bother them until they bothered me and made it clear that they would not stop bothering me. But when I bothered them back, there would be nobody left to bother me in the future.

I would proclaim peace three times, after that, all bets are off and it is OT warfare time. Total annihilation. That or just slaughter all of the males and anybody else who bothers us. Claim the land afterward - your forward deployed base in the future if people get squirrely with you.

Bottom line is why are we in another country killing people who aren't in our country killing our people? The military is supposed to defend that the nation first and foremost, and then go smash the guy that attacked us. Proactive or preemptive strikes tend to create the need for more proactive and preemptive strikes. It is a self propagating problem. Especially when done with hellfire missiles.

Might be a different story if we just used snipers/spec ops or drones with sniper rifles. But we're lazy and we don't care enough about innocent life is what it boils down to.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 11:09 AM
There is wisdom in maintaining a sharp and shiny arsenal. A lack of wisdom lies in using it when you don't need to.I completely agree.


I wouldn't bother them until they bothered me and made it clear that they would not stop bothering me. But when I bothered them back, there would be nobody left to bother me in the future.Good advice in general. Would Somali pirates harassing our ships and kidnapping our people constitute "bothering"?

Telling the pirates thrice to stop won't stop them, but nuking Haradeere, would kill thousands, mostly innocents, and not stop all of the pirates since not all would be in port at the time. Obviously the current hostages held by the pirates would die too.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47574000/gif/_47574605_somali_pirates_466_2.gif

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 11:19 AM
Good advice in general. Would Somali pirates harassing our ships and kidnapping our people constitute "bothering"?

Most definitely. But to be specific, most of these are company ships more than capable of paying for their own security. But it would stand to reason that they pay for military protection via taxes, so an escort is not out of the question. Part of the problem with the military is that it is used for things it is not meant for, thus confusing the mission, or at least what people perceive that mission should be.



Telling the pirates thrice to stop won't stop them, but nuking Haradeere, would kill thousands, mostly innocents, and not stop all of the pirates since not all would be in port at the time. Obviously the current hostages held by the pirates would die too.

In this instance, I would simply recommend they stay away from the area. Going there is optional after all. Do so at your own risk. Or go their with security on board like some oil and cargo ships are doing - the anarchist solution.

Talking yields little, but bullets from a M240 golf work nicely. The military could easily provide an escort in certain shifts if the demand was high enough using drones based from the micro carries we now have - a good purpose for a hellfire missile. But I don't think the military should be policing the open water like that. But if the demand were high enough I could see it being a legitimate use of tax dollar to defend tax payers - the statist solution. But this would be overrun with demands, which is why they don't do it I imagine.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 12:19 PM
Most definitely. But to be specific, most of these are company ships more than capable of paying for their own security.My understanding is that it's illegal to arm civilian ships. I don't know why, but it makes sense that they have a self-defense capability stronger than a locked door and a couple of fire hoses.

Requiring shipping companies to hire an entire flotilla would be cost prohibitive. Either it would break the shipping companies or drive prices up astronomically for consumers.


In this instance, I would simply recommend they stay away from the area. Going there is optional after all. Do so at your own risk. Or go their with security on board like some oil and cargo ships are doing - the anarchist solution.I never liked the "succumb to intimidation" solution. So what happens when the pirates or rogue nation in question is emboldened to spread their range of operations? We pull back even further? To the beach line?

Sorry, I know there is an upper limit to these things, but I feel there is also a bottom limit too. Letting pirates or rogue nations rule international waters isn't a good solution.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 12:30 PM
My understanding is that it's illegal to arm civilian ships. I don't know why, but it makes sense that they have a self-defense capability stronger than a locked door and a couple of fire hoses.

Stupid laws ought to be ignored.



Requiring shipping companies to hire an entire flotilla would be cost prohibitive. Either it would break the shipping companies or drive prices up astronomically for consumers.

Loomis Fargo hasn't bankrupted the banking industry. We sent marines to defend mail routes in the past, the mail is now safe. Yet postal workers no longer have military armed escort. If you do something right once, you might not have to do it again.



I never liked the "succumb to intimidation" solution. So what happens when the pirates or rogue nation in question is emboldened to spread their range of operations? We pull back even further? To the beach line?

Sorry, I know there is an upper limit to these things, but I feel there is also a bottom limit too. Letting pirates or rogue nations rule international waters isn't a good solution.

Not seeing the rolling over here. How is hiring armed security to kill people if needed 'succumbing to intimidation'? Those who want to do so may. If they reach the shore line, they get to deal with His Majesty's Awesomeness. And then later when we bring His Majesty's Awesomeness to visit.

If every boat was packing heat, piracy would be at an all time low except for the craziest and most motivated/desperate. Wolves hunt the weak and defenseless. People aren't much different.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 02:10 PM
Stupid laws ought to be ignored. While I understand your sentiment, I doubt you'd be willing to lose your job and bankrupt your family ignoring "stupid laws" so why should the owners of shipping companies?


Loomis Fargo hasn't bankrupted the banking industry. We sent marines to defend mail routes in the past, the mail is now safe.
Now you're starting to get it. Once those "mail routes" are safe, there would be no need for a military presence. Since they are not safe now, there is a need.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 02:15 PM
While I understand your sentiment, I doubt you'd be willing to lose your job and bankrupt your family ignoring "stupid laws" so why should the owners of shipping companies?

Prices might change, but I highly doubt they will bankrupt people if companies were allowed to defend themselves. Gov needs to step off their windpipe.



Now you're starting to get it. Once those "mail routes" are safe, there would be no need for a military presence. Since they are not safe now, there is a need.

That is in america. What need to have to be abroad? Let companies manage this in whatever way they deem fit. I would bet most would pile on the security to thwart would be pirates.

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 02:15 PM
I completely agree.

Good advice in general. Would Somali pirates harassing our ships and kidnapping our people constitute "bothering"?

Telling the pirates thrice to stop won't stop them, but nuking Haradeere, would kill thousands, mostly innocents, and not stop all of the pirates since not all would be in port at the time. Obviously the current hostages held by the pirates would die too.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47574000/gif/_47574605_somali_pirates_466_2.gif


People are moving to private security contractors to handle pirates. In fact a lot of devil dogs are about to get real rich off this.

I love pirates. :D

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 02:17 PM
People are moving to private security contractors to handle pirates. In fact a lot of devil dogs are about to get real rich off this.

I love pirates. :D

Lots of red tape to it though. I wanted to get my TWIC card and go do that a while ago.

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 02:20 PM
Lots of red tape to it though. I wanted to get my TWIC card and go do that a while ago.

Not if you go through a business, devil dog. :)

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 02:23 PM
Not if you go through a business, devil dog. :)

Well I am short one of those at the current moment. Still gotta see if such a line of work is temporarily viable being a family man and all that noise. But I hear it is a great way to make serious bucks.

Although I wonder when the somalis will try swarm tactics to overwhelming the security crews and try to split the pot of the ransom. But with tolerable security and a good vantage point I don't think it will much matter how many do it. High ground has its perks.

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 02:46 PM
Well I am short one of those at the current moment. Still gotta see if such a line of work is temporarily viable being a family man and all that noise. But I hear it is a great way to make serious bucks.

Although I wonder when the somalis will try swarm tactics to overwhelming the security crews and try to split the pot of the ransom. But with tolerable security and a good vantage point I don't think it will much matter how many do it. High ground has its perks.

4 snipers on cabin top, 2 special teams in the belly.

The Xl
01-29-2014, 02:49 PM
We have a right to defend our land and territories, not ones that belong to other nations.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 03:29 PM
4 snipers on cabin top, 2 special teams in the belly.

How often you think they would bother attacking at night? That would seem to be the wiser move.

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 04:18 PM
How often you think they would bother attacking at night? That would seem to be the wiser move.
Cthulhu

No difference. Night vision. Jeez, devil dog. How long's it been, brother?

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 07:01 PM
@Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872)

No difference. Night vision. Jeez, devil dog. How long's it been, brother?

I gather that. PVS-14's are a marvelous thing and so are night vision mounts. But the green goblin eye gets to be a real pain in the arse when looking through it for hours on end at an LP/OP.

The other concern would be fog. And potentially aircraft from more well outfitted pirates. Or do you guys just pack a Barrett light .50 for such occasions? Codename Section

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 07:04 PM
I gather that. PVS-14's are a marvelous thing and so are night vision mounts. But the green goblin eye gets to be a real pain in the arse when looking through it hours on end at an LP/OP.

The other concern would be fog. And potentially aircraft from more well outfitted pirates. Or do you guys just pack a Barrett light .50 for such occasions?


I want to name her "Vera". :)



As to the other we have former USMC "Hawks".

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 07:07 PM
I want to name her "Vera". :)

I would call mine the "Negotiator" if I had one. That or "Back Hand".




As to the other we have former USMC "Hawks".

'Hawks'? Elaborate.

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 07:18 PM
I would call mine the "Negotiator" if I had one. That or "Back Hand".

Well, I have "Black Beauty", "Mister", and a few other dumb names, but my Barrett (thanks Alyosha) was the prettiest weapon I ever saw.




'Hawks'? Elaborate.

((shakes head)) Anti-aircraft?

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 07:23 PM
Well, I have "Black Beauty", "Mister", and a few other dumb names, but my Barrett (thanks Alyosha) was the prettiest weapon I ever saw.

A Barrett is one my list of things that I 'want but will likely never be able to buy' list.



((shakes head)) Anti-aircraft?

I am but a wee grunt, and given simple tools of the trade. I just play the mushroom - they keep me in the dark and feed me shit the whole time.

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 07:25 PM
A Barrett is one my list of things that I 'want but will likely never be able to buy' list.

It is a thing of beauty. I have to say it.




I am but a wee grunt, and given simple tools of the trade. I just play the mushroom - they keep me in the dark and feed me shit the whole time.

I was a grunt, too, for a bit. Best time I had in the corps, actually. Grunts rule!

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 07:27 PM
People are moving to private security contractors to handle pirates. In fact a lot of devil dogs are about to get real rich off this.

I love pirates. :DShould be a few interesting stories to come out of it. Are the contractors operating independently of the freighters or aboard them?

I wonder why some people aren't operating a few "Q-ships" like the Brits did to handle U-Boats on the high seas.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/qships.htm

The US had a few too: http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/q-ships.htm

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 07:28 PM
Should be a few interesting stories to come out of it. Are the contractors operating independently of the freighters or aboard them?

Both. Have to.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 07:30 PM
Both. Have to.

Now there is a curiosity. Why can't they just ride on the freighters? Why the necessity for another vessel in tow? I imagine that would vary based on the craft you're protecting wouldn't it?

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 07:34 PM
Now there is a curiosity. Why can't they just ride on the freighters? Why the necessity for another vessel in tow? I imagine that would vary based on the craft you're protecting wouldn't it?

Depends on what you're trying to do and what you're specifically hired for. If you're apprehending for bounty, then you want both.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 07:36 PM
Both. Have to.

Make sense to me, but it always astounded me they didn't arm the ships in the first place. The pirates are in motor whaleboats. A couple of M-60s, much less a couple of M-2s mounted on either side of the superstructure would have the "high ground" and make easy work of a wooden open deck boat.

http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/somali-pirates.jpeg

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 07:38 PM
Make sense to me, but it always astounded me they didn't arm the ships in the first place. The pirates are in motor whaleboats. A couple of M-60s, much less a couple of M-2s mounted on either side of the superstructure would have the "high ground" and make easy work of a wooden open deck boat.

http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/somali-pirates.jpeg

No, some of them have military equipment. Old military equipment, but they have it (including boats).

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 07:39 PM
Depends on what you're trying to do and what you're specifically hired for. If you're apprehending for bounty, then you want both.

Makes sense I guess. I personally subscribe to the school of watch it sink and watch them swim as the disappear into the horizon. While drinking tea and eating crumpets of course.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 07:40 PM
No, some of them have military equipment. Old military equipment, but they have it (including boats).

Bushmaster 25mm would take care of most sea threats. But so would a mk-19.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 07:43 PM
No, some of them have military equipment. Old military equipment, but they have it (including boats).

Which goes back to the need for formal military or, as you've mentioned, private security. Taken to an extreme, we could have a world of National Guardsmen holding the beaches while private armies roam the world working for the highest bidder. Might be a downside to that one.

Cthulhu
01-29-2014, 07:46 PM
Which goes back to the need for formal military or, as you've mentioned, private security. Taken to an extreme, we could have a world of National Guardsmen holding the beaches while private armies roam the world working for the highest bidder. Might be a downside to that one.

Possibly. But there are limits to what even mercs will accept. The conscripted soldier has no choice, the Merc does. His self preservation and freedom to leave will ruin the would be tyrant's plan by simply refusing to do certain things.

Codename Section
01-29-2014, 08:14 PM
Which goes back to the need for formal military or, as you've mentioned, private security. Taken to an extreme, we could have a world of National Guardsmen holding the beaches while private armies roam the world working for the highest bidder. Might be a downside to that one.

lol we do that now. Carlyle Group helped push us into Iraq. Who made billions? Blackwater. Halliburton. CACI. Lockheed.

Green Arrow
01-29-2014, 08:19 PM
lol we do that now. Carlyle Group helped push us into Iraq. Who made billions? Blackwater. Halliburton. CACI. Lockheed.

Dick Cheney.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 10:23 PM
lol we do that now. Carlyle Group helped push us into Iraq. Who made billions? Blackwater. Halliburton. CACI. Lockheed.

Major bucks, yes, but in military terms, small potatoes. Blackwater didn't cycle 100,000 troops through Iraq for 9 years plus tens of thousands more in Afghanistan.

It would literally take a full private mercenary army to replace national armies in several places of the world. An interesting scenario since they would be loyal to corporations, not nations.

Max Rockatansky
01-29-2014, 10:39 PM
Possibly. But there are limits to what even mercs will accept. The conscripted soldier has no choice, the Merc does. His self preservation and freedom to leave will ruin the would be tyrant's plan by simply refusing to do certain things.

Not all mercs. It depends on a lot of factors ranging from esprit de corps to pay and benefits. It's a global economy. It doesn't take too much of a stretch of the imagination to see mercs having more loyalty to a corporation than a nation. It's about the same thing, right?

We often talk about how we don't fight for those at home, but for our brothers beside us. That wouldn't be any different for a mercenary. Swearing allegiance to a corporation flag wouldn't be much of a shift from swearing allegiance to a national flag.

Add to that, since abolishing the draft, the division between the 2% of Americans who serve their nation as opposed to the 98% rag-bag civilians who do not is becoming greater. I saw several Left-Wingers have little sympathy for military losses "since they volunteered". We've seen it before in the treatment of veterans and we're seeing it again.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/822/ppup.jpg