And another thing you should add is the US has a new model that works for maintaining stability, this model is unique and superior to that of previous superpowers. Broadly speaking the idea is that democratic states tend to be stable entities you can work with, this is why South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Germany among others have enjoyed the room and support necessary to become advanced, open societies, this is NOT imperialism, at least not in the sense that we in Europe knew it. 

 

So, you might rightly ask why the disparity in the ME, and that comes down to energy supply, if you are reliant to the extent that we all are on a relatively fragile oil supply then you have a real vested (existential) interest in maintaining that supply - I'm not happy about the hypocrisy either, we are propping up a regime militarily that we might in different circumstances be happy to see the back of - but there's no real alternative if our society is heavily reliant on oil imports - there are signs that technology, as it has tended to in the past, might wean us slowly off the gulf supply. 

 

Even without the above caveat, there are still benefits to having a major power underpinning the global system of trade, of free trade routes, when threats emerge, terrorist or state-based that threaten to severely disrupt that system they become subject to broader interest - objectives that the modern world loosely supports. That is why, oil or no oil, states like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea can not simply be ignored, that is why they will remain a focal point for the foreseeable future. 

 

As to China, how could you ignore their intentions?

 

R 

AHOY,

 

So is Karzai an enemy now, for putting a decree in place to not allow UAV attacks in afghan urban areas? Will we kill him, in his home surrounded by his family?

 

Is Desmond Tutu wrong when he suggest that the U.S. supreme court should not place itself in the position of saying u.s. citizens lives are worth more than other peoples lives on earth?

 

I'm going with Mark Twain, paraphrasing; Patriotism is supporting you nation all the time and the government when it deserves it.

 

The U.S. drone pilots are killing kids and thus producing more enemies than they kill with these drone strikes. And unlike Al-quiiiiiedah, they (the pilots) are among us.

 

 

G-day!  

WarNerd wrote:

 

 

OK, I have a question. What if you lived in a country ruled by an unelected oligarchy put in place and supported financially and militarily by a foreign power? What if that foreign power regularly engineered coups or even marched their troops in to overthrow your government and those of your neighbors when every once in a while, they refused to kowtow? Even if your government was democratically elected (e.g. Iran, 1953)? What if that oligarchy brutally stamped out any opposition? What if this pattern persisted for decades? What would your attitude likely to be with respect to this foreign power and their Quisling agents running your government?

 

Sure there are terrorists extolling the Caliphate, damning equal rights for women, and championing Palestinian rights. But we both know that most Arabs -- including the terrorists -- regard Palestinians with contempt. We know that these sundry propaganda blatherings are not the main drivers that afford the terrorists traction with the Muslim-in-the-street and the benefits of tolerance if not active support in various countries. Because the average Muslim-in-the-street wants pretty much what we want: the opportunity to live peacefully, make a living, and raise his or her kids with a reasonable expectation that things can be better for them. And from their perspective, it appears that the major obstacle to those eminently reasonable aspirations is the imperialistic actions of the USA and their allies...and the oppressive policies of the corrupt lackeys America puts in charge in most of these countries. And if you were a Saudi or Yemeni or Pakistani citizen (and not one of the 1% raking in the US dollars to effect America’s bidding), it would look the same way to you.

 

So how do we defeat the terrorists? Instead of playing into their hands by reliably providing fresh evidence that we are promulgating an anti-Islam Crusade, we should marginalize them by proving them wrong. Yes, pull our troops out! We cannot effectively promote liberty by denying it to others. They say Islam is incompatible with modernity? Absurd on the face of it! The Islamic community in the USA is one of the fastest-growing on the planet, and the vast majority of those folks demonstrate that one can be Muslim and modern every day! And this is not an outlier: back when the religion was young, Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world! Advances in mathematics, medicine, poetry, engineering, astronomy, law, natural sciences far outstripped what anyone else was doing at the time!

It's true that following this path would deal a short-term setback to the military-industrial complex, as arms sales would decline. But the longer-term benefits to humankind of redirecting our efforts to peaceful pursuits, and of reclaiming the third of humanity that has largely opted out of pulling their weight with respect to the advance of civilization for the past 1000 years or so far outweighs the short-term financial drawbacks.

Multiple StrategyPage articles have pointed out how bad the Taliban et al are at maintaining popularity whenever they attempt to impose their antediluvian notions of how everyone must live day-to-day. Take away their one genuinely popular appeal -- that of being a bulwark against Crusaders seeking to crush Islam -- and they will fold up like a house of cards. What matter how many excuses they come up with to attack the West if no one cares anymore? They will have only their own choir to preach to. 

Note: I am not saying that once we bring our troops home that there will magically cease to be deranged criminal individuals and groups to whom attention must be paid. I am saying that if we stop inflating their importance and treating the problem as a “war” in pursuit of our own short-term financial benefit, their capacity for mischief will be considerably degraded and what damage they can still inflict will be limited to isolated incidents rather than potentially destabilizing entire nations.

Some other notes: I salute your adeptness at ascribing to me arguments that I have not advanced and then refuting them. E.g., I never said drones constituted autonomous robots, just that the progress of AI/robotic tech requires us to keep the big picture in mind with respect to the relationship between robots and humans. To wit, in the medium term I would be much more concerned about figuring out what low-skilled humans can do to be productive and earn their keep in the light of the increasing capability of AI/tech to automate many former human jobs than I would about Terminator tech. Also I specifically said we should cooperate with China and Russia (explicitly with respect to North Korea and Pakistan), not that we should stop trading/doing business with them. Although I did not previously state this, it so happens that I do consider most US government-sponsored foreign aid to be wasted and would stop it...but I do not oppose UN peacekeeping missions, NGO famine relief efforts, and the like. Perhaps you have difficulty in distinguishing between the Peace Corps (which I do NOT consider a wasteful program) and the Marine Corps but please do not project such confusion onto me. 

AHOY,

 

From the article;

 

After all, a UAV is not a robot, it is under control of human operators, who identify the targets and pull the trigger. 

 

 NJD; How are they identified? Why don't we see any of the 120 magnification "mug shots" this would help to show the accuracy. 

  

From the article;  

 

  Both UAV operators and pilots can see TV quality images of who is on the ground and whether they are civilians or not and who is armed. 

 

 NJD; so who decided that someone carrying a firearm with them in a foreign nation full of gun owners, is a legitimate target?

 

 From article; 

 

The UAVs make it much less likely that civilians will be hit. 

 

 NJD; yet we still have at least 10 times the civilians being killed than the targets.

 

 From the article; 

 

What it really comes down to is a philosophical attitude towards dealing with terrorism.  

 

 NJD; as if terrorism is knew to warfare, like they are ghost or demons, like we can only kill them from miles away. And why is there no concern about interrogating them for information?

 

like old Binladen, (the mastermind leader or one of them) standing in the corner of his bedroom in his pajamas, next to his wife. And this seal with total body arm and back up had to shoot him.  

 

 G-day! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AHOY,

 

From the article;  

 But this is mostly about ROE (Rules Of Engagement) and demands for fewer civilian casualties, even if it means the troops are put in more danger. Sometimes this approach actually puts civilians in more danger. For example, in the last few years American troops have increasingly encountered angry Afghan civilians who demand that the Americans act more decisively in pursuing and killing Taliban gunman, even if it puts Afghan civilians at risk.

 

 NJD; the troops I thought signed up for danger, that's how they should earn the metals. Civilians in more danger? I don't think so, if I had my choice as an afghan civilian, I would rather dodge bullets than 500 or more pound munitions, with no warning. And we could limit the troops magazine capacity too lol. 

 

IMO the Afghans are saying the same thing here, and everyone understands a shoot out but not homes exploding. IMO the Afghans would respect the troops on the ground for risking there lives at the same time. And this would be seen as a noble fight i.e. best man wins. 

 

And imo the only so called change in ROE has been on pager.

 

 

From the Article;

 

 What to do?

 

NJD; show everyone the UAV videos, like the point I've made before this would be like a scene out of the movie, "cobra" i.e. your the disease and I'm the cure.

 

 From the article; 

 Taliban propaganda, and the enthusiasm of the media for jumping on real, or imagined, civilian deaths caused by foreign troops, made people forget that far more civilians (about four times as many) had been killed by the Taliban. But because Afghans have been conditioned to expect more civilized behavior from the foreign troops, much less media attention is paid to the civilians killed by the Taliban and al Qaeda.

 

 NJD; so you really think the grape vine of such tightly net communities is unable to sort out the facts. Are there only taliban an non taliban killings in these areas, no other crime or gangs waging war with each other. Do you U.S. media and sites like this not have any figures on those killings. Do they watch CNN or Fox news in Afghan villages?

 

 

G-day!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AHOY,

 

From the article;

 

 Under the new ROE you had to, in effect, do a casualty analysis and consult a lawyer before a deliberate missile or smart bomb attack is made on the Taliban. To their credit, the U.S. Air Force targeting specialists (who do most of this) can carry out the analysis quickly (often within minutes). Even the lawyers have gotten quick at the decision making game. The bad news is that attacks are often called off just because there's some small risk of harming civilians.

 

 NJD; what is a small risk, 3 to one 1 to one?  Why is all this data not made public? Why just claim the all out efforts you are going to. Dose the analysis include a census and daily schedule of locals? Do we know the names and address of all taliban members? 

 

 

From the article;  

 The Taliban are aware of the ROE and take advantage of it. The Taliban try to live among civilians as much as possible. But the Taliban and al Qaeda do have to move around, and the ability of NATO and U.S. ground forces, aircraft, and UAVs to keep eyes on a Taliban leader for weeks at a time has led to the deaths of many smug guys who thought they had beat the system.

 

 NJD; what the taliban knew the ROE before it was known by U.S. citizens? Where are these rules posted? Do taliban members understand all the lawyer terms etc. Do they the top leaders believe the U.S. well follow these rules? In weeks of surveillance these taliban leaders never go out by themselves to take a dump. IMO there are no more taliban in the hills or country side they are always on busy streets or in built up areas surrounded by civilians. So no chance for zero risk to civilians. 

  

 from article; 

 

 Most of the Afghan civilian casualties occur when airpower is called in to help NATO and U.S. troops under attack. In these conditions the ROE is much more flexible but now Taliban use of civilians as human shields can sometimes be allowed to get friendly troops killed. The tactics used by foreign troops will change to adapt to this and there may be tense situations where Afghan troops are getting hammered, calling for a smart bomb, and told that they can't have it because of the risk of civilian casualties. Another risk is the possibility of the Taliban dragging some women and kids along with them when they move, simply to exploit the ROE and avoid getting hit with a smart bomb.

 

 NJD; What U.S. commander well admit to not calling in any and everything he can to save a U.S. troops life? Give me or please show me one example with time date, names and location. And I wont to see the letter to the parents of the U.S. KIA too, explaining this sacrifice, lol. 

 How can any large units of Afghan or U.S. troops be getting hammered by a small group of taliban? And how would a large group of taliban, escape from the UAVs sensors with out being tracked. Not to mention all the "near space" assets imo there are in use. Or even get into position to attack in the first place. What UAV boys a sleep at the wheel. 

 

 Taliban dragging women and kids, Yeah right, and their own wifes and children would put up with this too, lol And would then travel by themselves to meet with the husbands.

 

 G-day!

 

 

 

AHOY,

 

Don't no one brake in here, and yet the web master dose not do away with me.

 

So I here the drone metals are coming. We all knew that would happen. 

 

I still do not believe it is right to kill your enemy with a weapon from so far away. And with out them having a chance to kill you. However... 

 

I looked up some figures on the civilians KIA, during these drone attacks and I was shocked to see that just about everyones figures showed much less civilian than I believed was the case.

 

I'm sure you all can find your own way to wekileaks lol wekipedia and find the same info I did.

 

So one of the main problems here may be communications between people. I am very impressed with the ability of so many member here to recall all the "official revealed facts".  Yet so many people and members seem to only "card stack" i.e. info in their favor and ignore those who question. My post here being case in point. IMO individuals are now different than the media with their agendas, I just wish I could find a sponser, lol 

 

G-day!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AHOY, 

 

Just don't go and read todays post on my blog. Its not about drones. LOL

 

And like I posted today on my blog I failed to put the lol after my title here on my post i'm replying about.

 

I do thank the web master if this is all viewable by members and web surfers. And I well reframe from commenting to much at all in the future.  

 

G-day!  

So, am I correct in guess that you think this can be treated as strictly an internal police problem? Since you will no longer be interacting with the corrupt governments of the countries that these groups operate from in order to obtain intelligence about the groups that will require a very large and powerful internal surveillance network. You worry about ‘Terminator tech’ robots in the future, I worry about ‘1984’, where the TV watches you.

 

in pursuit of our own short-term financial benefit -- Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by that, or should we just assume that you believe in some of the more radical 9-11 conspiracy theories?

 

what damage they can still inflict will be limited to isolated incidents rather than potentially destabilizing entire nations -- So you blame all the revolutions in the Muslim world on the US in Afghanistan, not the corrupt regimes that are being overthrown? Sounds like an excuse to stay there if we are creating that much of a good effect.

Then why did you bring it up given that it is not relevant to the topic at hand? Technological progression, job elimination, and retraining are a continuous process, but totally irrelevant to the current discussion.