Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by on Monday March 20 2017, @02:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the discuss dept.

When he was in office, former President Barack Obama earned the ire of anti-war activists for his expansion of Bush's drone wars. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state ordered ten times more drone strikes than the previous president, and estimates late in Obama's presidency showed 49 out of 50 victims were civilians. In 2015, it was reported that up to 90% of drone casualties were not the intended targets.

Current President Donald Trump campaigned on a less interventionist foreign policy, claiming to be opposed to nation-building and misguided invasions. But less than two months into his presidency, Trump has expanded the drone strikes that plagued Obama's "peaceful" presidency.​

"During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36 drone strikes or raids in 45 days—one every 1.25 days."

That's an increase of 432 [sic] percent.

Source: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/us-drone-strikes-have-gone-up-432-since-trump-took-office


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 20 2017, @03:08PM (17 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday March 20 2017, @03:08PM (#481523) Journal

    Without ground-side intelligence, what exactly is the US hitting? It's the usual air power-only problem. There's not much point to what you can destroy, if you don't know what you are hitting.

    The difficulty ... came from the impossibility of landing any efficient force or, indeed, any force at all from the air-fleet. ... From above they could inflict immense damage; they could reduce any organised Government to a capitulation in the briefest space, but they could not disarm, much less could they occupy, the surrendered areas below.

    ...

    She was the first of the great cities of the Scientific Age to suffer by the enormous powers and grotesque limitations of aerial warfare. ... it was impossible to subdue the city except by largely destroying it. The catastrophe was the logical outcome of the situation, created by the application of science to warfare. It was unavoidable that great cities should be destroyed.

    ...

    And so our Bert Smallways became a participant in one of the most cold-blooded slaughters in the world’s history, in which men who were neither excited nor, except for the remotest chance of a bullet, in any danger, poured death and destruction upon homes and crowds below.

    From "The War in the Air", H G Wells, 1907.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @05:15PM (16 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @05:15PM (#481598)

    The difference here is that we don't desire to annex land or otherwise work with the population. It wouldn't be possible even with boots on the ground. We just need them dead, so air war is fine.

    I guess in theory you could subdue them, but you'd have to run the place like North Korea or worse. You'd have to enforce religious control. Probably atheism won't stick, so you'd need to go Hindu or Buddhist or Protestant or invent something. Scientology would work, but that isn't much of an improvement. You'd need mandatory carefully-enforced rituals, probably involving things like pork. That gives them a choice: believe that your pork-tainted self is going to Hell, or give up on Islam and not feel doomed to Hell.

    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 20 2017, @08:11PM (15 children)

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday March 20 2017, @08:11PM (#481732) Journal

      We just need them dead, so air war is fine.

      And there was me thinking that the American nation had lost its collective sense of compassion.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @11:10PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @11:10PM (#481837)

        Compassion comes from the soul of a willing human; it is not extracted at gunpoint by government tax collectors as you seem to believe.

        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 21 2017, @10:05AM (12 children)

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @10:05AM (#482025) Journal

          Just out of interest, exactly how do you plan to compassionately murder all the dirty foreigners without a government funded military?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:58PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:58PM (#482082)

            You apparently posed your question under the false impression that I support either a "government-funded" military or murder.

            Firstly, the US government has no funds of its own - it steals fully 75% of its resources directly from working-class individuals via income taxes [usgovernmentrevenue.com] (when honestly including FICA/Social Security and "employer-paid" taxes, as the employee is the person paying the "employer-paid" tax in the form of lower gross pay).

            Secondly, assuming you live, work, and pay taxes within the USA, you are personally responsible for the actions of the US military by your willing cooperation and continual funding. As you are presumably just one unremarkable individual, your slice of the responsibility is small when split among the ~100 million others who are also doing what you are, but you remain personally responsible nonetheless.

            So, those assumptions made, the question is not why I support murdering dirty foreigners via the US military - it's: why are you paying to have dirty foreigners murdered? (Remember, "just following orders" is no excuse, even if the "orders" came to you from the IRS.)

            • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:26PM (10 children)

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:26PM (#482148) Journal

              Not from the US, thankfully. Not particulary happy about how my government spends my tax money, but other than voting and bitching on the internet, there's not a great deal I can do.

              I assumed you were the same AC supporting the genocide of Muslims elsewhere in this thread.

              Tax =/= Theft.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:17PM (9 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:17PM (#482175)

                I assumed you were the same AC supporting the genocide of Muslims elsewhere in this thread.

                Understandable. (#481837 [soylentnews.org] and #482082 [soylentnews.org] are from me.) I should probably start logging in to post...

                Tax =/= Theft.

                Slavery, then. This seems to be the actual foundations of most nations on earth, inasmuch as they were all conquered and ruled by force. I do live within the USA, and for a nation which apparently won its independence and established government only upon the delegation of authority from independant and free individuals, taxation can only be exactly equal to theft. If I can't take half my neighbor's production using threats of imprisonment or death, how then can I delegate that same power which I do not have my own self to anyone else?

                genocide of Muslims

                1. Islam is not a race.
                2. When examining the fundamental "perfect" written doctrine of Islam [prophetofdoom.net], it's quite clear that the mass extermination of all self-declared Muslims would be simple self-defense. Motive, opportunity, and ability have all been thoroughly documented in history both past [wikipedia.org] and near-present [wikipedia.org]. (I'd still prefer to talk Muslims out of supporting and following their murderous quest for literal world domination, but I don't really expect success from reason. Yes, this also means the weapons used should be privately-owned, including nukes!)

                • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:31PM (8 children)

                  by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:31PM (#482188) Journal

                  When your best defence against accusations of genocidal intent is to start picking holes in the definition of genocide, then the point is moot - you are a monster either way.
                  Your wacky UtraRandian economic hyperbole makes you a crazy monster.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:54PM (7 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:54PM (#482207)

                    Your wacky UtraRandian economic hyperbole makes you a crazy monster.

                    Your opinion, yourself, and I can all live together on earth in peaceful harmony along with my arsenal, as long as no one starts making threats against my life, be they plain old criminal threats or ones taken up out of the ancient claimed writings of a camel-humping child molester. See how easy things can be when dealing with fundamental elements and good ol' personal responsibility?

                    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:11PM (6 children)

                      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:11PM (#482221) Journal

                      Trouble is, I don't trust claims of "personal responsibility" from genocidal lunatics. You've just openly stated that you'd happily exterminate about a billion and a half people you've never met, simply because you perceive them as threatening. THAT IS NOT SANE. What happens when you decide that my demographic is a bit scary? Fuck you.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:43PM (#482233)

                        Trouble is, I don't trust claims of "personal responsibility" from genocidal lunatics.

                        That's fine - you don't have to. Might I suggest that you take up arms yourself so that if I ever declare that I am going to murder you and/or take your stuff by force, that you have the means to deter or stop me? 'Cause I already have my weapons, and I'm not going to give them up. (What, were you just about to suggest murdering me as an alternative option?)

                        You've just openly stated that you'd happily exterminate about a billion and a half people you've never met, simply because you perceive them as threatening.

                        Lies are not the tools of reasonable people. I explicitly [soylentnews.org] wrote that I'd "prefer to talk Muslims out of supporting and following their murderous quest for literal world domination", quite different from "happily exterminate". The second falsehood might be due to your ignorance on Islamic fundamentals, but "perceive as threatening" is not the correct word to use when "perfect" Islamic doctrine calls for a literal world war until Islam alone left as a socio-political system - and when my country has been under attack by Muslims since shortly after its establishment [wikipedia.org]. If someone calls for my death because I won't put my ass up for their god, has attacked and murdered people like me before for the same reason, and has and continues to expand their possession of the means to actually kill me, my use of force against such a person is deemed "self-defense" in most of the rational world. Muslims are not merely perceived as threatening - they are literally threatening. (I'd gladly welcome "reform Muslims" who turn away from their Islamic mandate for world war and domination... except then such people would have ceased to be Muslims.)

                        THAT IS NOT SANE.

                        One of us is openly lying and employing emotion-based attacks while at the same time attempting to determine the sanity of another who is attempting to employ reason and critical thinking. A more appropriate word for your use may be "abnormal", and sadly, I would probably then agree with you.

                        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:23PM (1 child)

                          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:23PM (#482251) Journal

                          What, were you just about to suggest murdering me as an alternative option?)

                          Hell no. I'd have local law enforcement arrest you and subject you to a mandatory mental health review, leading to your eventual incarceration. Yay taxes!

                          I explicitly wrote that I'd "prefer to talk Muslims out of support

                          Fine, I accept that only reluctantly would you murder a fifth of the human race to allay your hysterical paranioa.

                          o use when "perfect" Islamic doctrine calls for a literal world war

                          Your "perfect islamic doctrine" smacks of "no true scotsman". Of all the numerous diverse peoples calling themselves muslims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches), many of whom disagree amongst themselves about who is truly a muslim, YOU get to decide who is a muslim and who isn't, and you just happen to cherrypick the scariest, most threatening extremist definition you can find, to which only a minority of muslims adhere. You can then use that to lump ALL muslims together into your killzone for convenient, guilt-free genocide.

                          my country has been under attack by Muslims since shortly after its establishment.

                          Your link to the barbary pirates is laughable. Piracy is a crime, not a war. By that logic, every violent crime ever committed by a Christian in the US is proof of an ongoing religious war by christianity. Also, your own link tells me that Barbary piracy ended around 1830, leaving a hole of almost two hundred years in your perceived perpetual war.

                          Here's a suggestion: Get online now, and look up your local mosque. Go and knock on the door. (For fuck's sake leave your guns and nukes at home.) Open with something like "Hi. I've read a lot of bad stuff about Islam online, but I prefer to form my opinions based my own experience. Do you think I could come in and learn about what goes on here?" Start a conversation. Maybe make a friend. Believe me, it will do you a world of good.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:17PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:17PM (#482289)

                            I'd have local law enforcement arrest you and subject you to a mandatory mental health review, leading to your eventual incarceration. Yay taxes!

                            You wish to deploy lethal force against me, with the aim of kidnapping and caging me? I'd prefer you change your mind and leave in peace those who aren't threatening others. Otherwise, if you ever find yourself in a position to influence the actions of individual members of US law enforcement while continuing to espouse such threats, you'd make yourself a perfect target for the legitimate use of deadly force in self-defense. You are also showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome, in your cheering of taxes (assuming you actually pay them and aren't subsidized by them, in which case you would merely be a beneficiary of theft/slavery).

                            Your "perfect islamic doctrine" smacks of "no true scotsman".

                            Perhaps I should have been more verbose to clarify: I certainly make no claim that Islam is in any way perfect. Islam claims itself to be perfect and unchangeable. As I disagree with claims of "Islamic perfection", I used quotation marks to short-handedly denote "so-called perfect" and my disagreement with the same. Islam is vile and evil; I weep for the souls enslaved by it.

                            Piracy is a crime, not a war. [...] Also, your own link tells me that Barbary piracy ended around 1830, leaving a hole of almost two hundred years in your perceived perpetual war.

                            It's a good thing that I'd written "under attack by Muslims" rather than "under attack by Barbary pirates", then, eh? As for piracy being a crime and not a war, well, Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you [wikipedia.org] (and perhaps surprisingly to you, I disagree with Thomas: the merchants should have banded together privately to provide for their own defense in international territory rather than becoming subsidized by governments). As for gaps in attacks after winning the Barbary Wars - of course! The attacking Muslims were defeated, their soldiers killed, and their ships sunk - did you expect them back the next Tuesday? I'm not interested in revenge - what's done is done and I can't change it. However, Muslim attacks have occurred in my own country within my own lifetime, and are continuing against other Western countries, increasing in frequency and severity. I am not a blind fool, and so if the attackers cannot be reasoned with, a reasonable response is to destroy the attackers.

                            Here's a suggestion: Get online now, and [learn about Islam]

                            I did that, and I learned that Islam was not a religion of peaceful nomads with a charming culture and glamorized by the harems of the sultans as I'd previously believed, but is instead a socio-political system that mandates a literal world-war of conquest among many, many despicable things, such as effectively treating women as chattel property. There are many sources (in addition to the three Islamic "holy" books themselves: the Quran, Sura, and Hadith) from which to learn about the basics of Islam, and having already made use of several, I would turn your own advice back on you: read Prophet of Doom [prophetofdoom.net] along with a copy of the Quran, and keep your eyes peeled for conflicting claims between the two. If you do this, you will have your own experience, and you will be astounded.

                            By that logic, every violent crime ever committed by a Christian in the US is proof of an ongoing religious war by christianity.

                            Your "logic" is faulty, because the written doctrine of Christianity does not call for its adherents to wage a literal worldwide war of conquest. (That said, I am increasingly suspicious of Christianity to the point of being quite certain that the author of most of the so-called New Testament, Paul, was a liar [questioningpaul.com]. A false religion used to wage war (Inquisition, etc.) sure does seem like something a government would like to use to its advantage...)

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:48PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:48PM (#482236)

                        Oops, I forgot to also respond to:

                        What happens when you decide that my demographic is a bit scary?

                        What happens if you possess the means, opportunity, and espouse a motive for murdering me? Well then if I can't reason you out of it, I'll try to kill you before you can kill me. What a conundrum!

                        Might I suggest that you not threaten to attack and kill me? If I likewise don't threaten to strike you first in an attempt to kill you, then we should get along just fine even if we completely ignore each other.

                        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:34PM (1 child)

                          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:34PM (#482262) Journal

                          You are full of shite. You can't spout this live and let live crap after openly threatening to attack and kill about a billion people who have made no threat against you.

                          YES there are some crazy muslims out there who would like to see your head on a spike. But they are the MINORITY. There are countless more of them who just want to get on with their own lives, but YOU want them dead. YOU are the one making the threats. YOU are the one who wants to obliterate entire demographics that have done you no harm. YOU ARE THE THREAT HERE. Don't give me that "we'll all get along just fine" bullshit when you have already made it abundanty clear that you will kill anyone whose second cousin looks at you funny.

                          Tell me, when all the Muslims are dead and Breitbart needs a new bogeyman, how long do you think it will be before they make up some reason to convince you to fear people like me and pre-emptively destroy me?

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:25PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:25PM (#482295)

                            You can't spout this live and let live crap after openly threatening to attack and kill about a billion people who have made no threat against you.

                            Perhaps we could discuss this matter further after a visit to your optometrist [soylentnews.org] and/or a person who can change your mind about using lies as a means to persuade others.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @11:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @11:12PM (#481838)

        Compassion comez from the soul of a willing human being; it is not extracted at gunpoint by government tax collectors as you seem to believe.