Collateral Damage

[K-man]

DHAMAR, Yemen: A rickety truck packed with 14 people rumbled down a desert road from the town of Radda, which al-Qaeda militants once controlled. Suddenly a missile struck flipping the vehicle over. Then a second missile hit the truck.
Within seconds, 11 of the passengers were dead, including a woman and her seven-year-old daughter. A 12-year-old boy also died that day, and another man later died from his wounds.
The Yemeni government initially said that those killed were al-Qaeda militants and that its own Soviet-era jets carried out the September 2 attack. But last week US officials acknowledged for the first time that it was an American strike and that the victims were civilians.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/village...y-us-strike-20121226-2bwg7.html#ixzz2GBwh4A1j

It's all very well to use drones and it may be possible even to justify their use under some circumstances, but when they become routine and the targets are not 100% confirmed this type of attack is not acceptable. It not only generates hatred towards the US but all Western nations by association. It is facilitating the spread of terrorist organisations rather than containing them.

 

[billc]

K-man, don't worry, obama is the one using the drones now...so it's okay. In fact, the more he uses them it actually makes people like us more....and there are more rainbows in the sky when he uses drones and everyone is happy...

 

[K-man]

The U.S. government runs two drone programs. The military’s version, which is publicly acknowledged, operates in the recognized war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, and targets enemies of U.S. troops stationed there. As such, it is an extension of conventional warfare. The C.I.A.’s program is aimed at terror suspects around the world, including in countries where U.S. troops are not based. It was initiated by the Bush Administration and, according to Juan Zarate, a counterterrorism adviser in the Bush White House, Obama has left in place virtually all the key personnel. The program is classified as covert, and the intelligence agency declines to provide any information to the public about where it operates, how it selects targets, who is in charge, or how many people have been killed.Nevertheless, reports of fatal air strikes in Pakistan emerge every few days. Such stories are often secondhand and difficult to confirm, as the Pakistani government and the military have tried to wall off the tribal areas from journalists. But, even if a precise account is elusive, the outlines are clear: the C.I.A. has joined the Pakistani intelligence service in an aggressive campaign to eradicate local and foreign militants, who have taken refuge in some of the most inaccessible parts of the country.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer#ixzz2GC77znM1

Not Obama, CIA. They have always been a law unto themselves. If any other nation in the world had an organisation like the CIA it would be labeled a terrorist organisation by the US. So, Bill, it's not OK and, until you and your fellow countrymen call the CIA to account, the world will become an even more dangerous and unstable place.

 

[billc]

Uh...you didn't read about the "kill," list then....obama gives his personal okay on quite a few targets...and they still answer to him...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/w...p-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.
They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing.

Sooo...don't you see...since obama is the one who says "kill, no kill," that makes it okay. For you to question his decision...well...that isn't nice of you K-man. We all know, now, that President obama only wants what is best for us and the world...so if he uses drones...welllll...that means they are okay now....unlike when Bush used them and they were just evil...

 

[K-man]

With the CIA's history, I doubt any president would know more than half of what goes on. Nobody, apart from the director, even knows who is in charge of these operations. Over the years covert and clandestine activities undertaken by the CIA emerge and often they show the US in a very poor light. When details emerge, promises are given that safeguards will be put in place to prevent such activities recurring, but nothing really changes.

 

[Tgace]

http://ivn.us/2012/05/31/president-...es-approval-process-as-unrest-rises-in-yemen/

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18270490

US President Barack Obama personally approves every single drone strike against suspected terrorists, so he can take full moral responsibility for the deaths these cause.

That is the main thrust of a long, detailed and fascinating piece in the New York Times.

It comes as experts have been telling me that the president is wrong to see drones as a "silver bullet" that solves some critical problems about the morality and efficacy of America's use of military power.

The New York Times paints a picture of a regular, 100-strong video conference meeting that decides the names to be put on a "kill list": the next suspected terrorists to be targeted.

It quotes the president's national security adviser, Tom Donilon: "He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go… he's determined to keep the tether pretty short."

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

Which is very much what I was saying. One has to question the intelligence if a drone can strike a civilian target twice by mistake. If the intelligence is false, as it was with Iraq, then we will get deeper and deeper in the brown stuff and the president gets to wear the blame for the incompetence of others. No win situation.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...at what point in the last four years has obama been blamed for anythng...up to this point everything is either Bush's fault, or the Republicans fault?

 

[granfire]

Hmmm...at what point in the last four years has obama been blamed for anythng...up to this point everything is either Bush's fault, or the Republicans fault?

considering that YOU are blaming Obama for everything that IS bush's fault.
you are a riot, Junior!

 

[Tgace]

Which is very much what I was saying. One has to question the intelligence if a drone can strike a civilian target twice by mistake. If the intelligence is false, as it was with Iraq, then we will get deeper and deeper in the brown stuff and the president gets to wear the blame for the incompetence of others. No win situation.

Thats a bad excuse for poor leadership...are you a responsible leader who makes sure the Intel is correct or are you a figurehead with a convenient excuse to cover your ***? "Well thats what they told me" has been used far too often by people who claim to be leaders. And we allow it.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[arnisador]

"Well thats what they told me" has been used far too often by people who claim to be leaders. And we allow it.

Agreed--GWB's invasion of Iraq on false claims of WMD's was reprehensible.

 

[billc]

Not really. Everyone thought he had them, not just Bush, and hussein did nothing to alleviate those beliefs, and some still believe they were shipped to Syria before the invasion.

hussein tried bluffing, and someone finally called him on it...and he and his psycho sons lost.

 

[WC_lun]

Sorry Bill, that's just not true. There were serious doubts in the State dept and the dept of defense at the time we went in.

 

[billc]

The intelligence agencies in numerous foreign countries also believed he had the weapons. Besides, the sanctions were all but collapsed, no one else wanted to deal with him, and we had enough paperwork on him to warrant his getting invaded.

 

[billc]

Besides, what was Bush supposed to do with all these democrats telling him saddam had weapons of mass destruction...

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes...ed-about-wmd-so-did-these-people-version-3-0/

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

 

[arnisador]

...all based on their CIA briefings.

The point of course is the hypocrisy.

 

[billc]

K-man...I find your lack of faith in President obama...disturbing...

 

[Tgace]

Which is all besides the point. Obama has admitted to approving each target on the "kill list". He likes drone strikes.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[billc]

Tsk Tsk, Tgace...Bush killed terrorists because he was evil...obama does it because he loves us...