U.S. drone strikes in northwest Pakistan kill 4

[News_Editor]

U.S. drone strikes in northwest Pakistan kill 4

2011-08-20 03:17:38 GMT+7 (ICT)

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. drone strikes in southwestern Pakistan on Friday killed at least four suspected militants, local media reported.

A U.S. drone launched two missile strikes on Friday afternoon at a residential house which was suspected to be a militant hideout in the Tehsil Bermal area of Pakistan's volatile tribal region of South Waziristan, the Nation reported. Four people were killed and two others were injured.

Last Tuesday, another four people were killed during U.S. drone strikes in Miranshah, the main town in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. And earlier in the month, on August 1 and 2, unmanned aircraft killed an additional four people in South Waziristan, and then another four in North Waziristan the following day.

In the first seven months of the year, 51 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed at least 443 people, according to a report by Conflict Monitoring Center. The report showed that the two deadliest months were June and July, when 117 and 73 people were killed respectively. One of the deadliest attacks was carried out on July 11 and 12, when four air strikes killed 63 people, the report said.

Controversy has surrounded the drone strikes as local residents and officials have blamed them for killing innocent civilians and motivating young men to join the Taliban. Details about the alleged militants are usually not provided, and the U.S. government does not comment on the strikes.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said in its annual report that the U.S. drone strikes were responsible for 957 extra-legal killings in 2010. Since August 2008, there have been over 250 drone attacks which have reportedly killed more than 1,500 people in North and South Waziristan alone.

Pakistan's Afghan border, which the United States considers to be the most dangerous place on Earth, is known to be a stronghold of the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani Network, considered one of the top terrorist organizations and threats to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-08-20

[bkkjames]

Don't confuse this drone strike with the Fresh one two topics down.

This was in fact not that fresh apparently.

[flying]

Don't confuse this drone strike with the Fresh one two topics down.

This was in fact not that fresh apparently.

They all don't smell too fresh to me.

More like the rotting stench of inequity

I hope the world knows that the majority of Americans do not condone it

Yet our own elected government disregard our opinions....for now.

Edited August 20, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I can not find any poll that suggests that most Americans are against drone strikes, but, according to pollsters, terrorists in Pakistan are largely against them.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

I can not find any poll that suggests that most Americans are against drone strikes,

Well you dont live in America so you may no be privy to it?

There are many

Here is but one.....

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting

But I think I am pretty clear on where you stand on all of it.

Carry on

Edited August 20, 2011 by flying

[Scott]

Stop bickering.

Being against a war and being against drone strikes are two different things. I would hazard a guess that there would be a correlation between the two, however.

[flying]

Being against a war and being against drone strikes are two different things. I would hazard a guess that there would be a correlation between the two, however.

I would agree there is a correlation both are economic and strategic liabilities that the U.S. cannot afford.

They are both unfunded liabilities..

Again without even going into the lack of concern for human welfare side of it.

Edited August 20, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

I can not find any poll that suggests that most Americans are against drone strikes,

Well you dont live in America so you may no be privy to it?

There are many

Here is but one.....

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting

But I think I am pretty clear on where you stand on all of it.

Carry on

Your linked article does not support your supposition that most Americans are against drone strikes. It does support a withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan but there is no mention of drone strikes.

My supposition is most Americans would probably support the drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is no danger involved to US troops, no body bags coming home, little cost when compared to waging a ground war and some of the bad guys are still getting wiped out.

If you can find an article that supports your position that most Americans oppose drone strikes, please let us know.

[flying]

Your linked article does not support your supposition that most Americans are against drone strikes. It does support a withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan but there is no mention of drone strikes.

One would not exist without the other.

Take a wild guess at what 1 yes ONE drone strike costs in money we do not have?

Thought you were also one who wanted the spending of that which does not exist stopped?

[Ulysses G.]

My supposition is most Americans would probably support the drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is no danger involved to US troops, no body bags coming home, little cost when compared to waging a ground war and some of the bad guys are still getting wiped out.

Exactly.

[chuckd]

Your linked article does not support your supposition that most Americans are against drone strikes. It does support a withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan but there is no mention of drone strikes.

One would not exist without the other.

Take a wild guess at what 1 yes ONE drone strike costs in money we do not have?

Thought you were also one who wanted the spending of that which does not exist stopped?

Certainly one would and could exist without the other. without the war on the ground, we could always have a drone operation.

Now you might consider what I said in the second paragraph, which you omitted, since you asked about the financial aspect of drone operations.

Quoted herewith is my second paragraph:

______________________________________________________

"My supposition is most Americans would probably support the drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is no danger involved to US troops, no body bags coming home, little cost when compared to waging a ground war and some of the bad guys are still getting wiped out."

______________________________________________________

My statement that drone attacks bear "little cost WHEN COMPARED TO WAGING A GROUND WAR" is pertinent.

The cost of a Predator drone is $4 Million each. The cost of each Hellfire missile is $68 Thousand each. You lose a Predator fully armed and the cost is $4,136,000.

The cost of one Boeing Chinook helicopter is $35 Million (average) not counting armament, electronics and the loss of human lives should one be lost.

Which one is more costly to operate or lose in combat? Which one is more likely to cost the lives of coalition troops during combat?

I know your position on the so called military/industrial complex. Putting that aside for a moment, the US Constitution provides very limited authority to the US government, i.e. regulating commerce between the states, dealing with foreign governments and providing for the national defense. My position is the federal government, ever since FDR, has over stepped their limited authority in every matter except providing for the national defense.

The items that I have a problem with are such things as the State Department spending some $750 Million to restore Islamic Mosques in Egypt and the US government spending $6.347 Billion for UN operations in 2009.

I could provide many more instances of federal excesses but our time and band width are limited.

Those are things that should be deleted from the budget...not national defense.

[Ulysses G.]

I could provide many more instances of federal excesses but our time and band width are limited.

Those are things that should be deleted from the budget...not national defense.

Exactly (part 2).

[flying]

Certainly one would and could exist without the other. without the war on the ground, we could always have a drone operation.

Now you might consider what I said in the second paragraph, which you omitted, since you asked about the financial aspect of drone operations.

Quoted herewith is my second paragraph:

______________________________________________________

"My supposition is most Americans would probably support the drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is no danger involved to US troops, no body bags coming home, little cost when compared to waging a ground war and some of the bad guys are still getting wiped out."

______________________________________________________

My statement that drone attacks bear "little cost WHEN COMPARED TO WAGING A GROUND WAR" is pertinent.

The cost of a Predator drone is $4 Million each. The cost of each Hellfire missile is $68 Thousand each. You lose a Predator fully armed and the cost is $4,136,000.

The cost of one Boeing Chinook helicopter is $35 Million (average) not counting armament, electronics and the loss of human lives should one be lost.

Which one is more costly to operate or lose in combat? Which one is more likely to cost the lives of coalition troops during combat?

I know your position on the so called military/industrial complex. Putting that aside for a moment, the US Constitution provides very limited authority to the US government, i.e. regulating commerce between the states, dealing with foreign governments and providing for the national defense. My position is the federal government, ever since FDR, has over stepped their limited authority in every matter except providing for the national defense.

The items that I have a problem with are such things as the State Department spending some $750 Million to restore Islamic Mosques in Egypt and the US government spending $6.347 Billion for UN operations in 2009.

I could provide many more instances of federal excesses but our time and band width are limited.

Those are things that should be deleted from the budget...not national defense.

Yes *literally* one could exist without the other. But my statement was based on the reason the US is even in Afghanistan which is the same reason they are now in Pakistan.

It is the same non-reasons that has led to the loss of many American rights & freedoms under the guise of National security.

It is a very large part of the deficit & the decline of America both in financial & diplomatic terms.

I did consider your 2nd paragraph & I disagree. The cost is measured in more than dollars yes & I am sure the many innocents killed should be included.

It is nice to think that the two or more wars are not all connected & it is nice to think that conducting drone attacks have no repercussions that do in fact cost ever more lives on both sides...but.... that is just literal momentary thinking.

Your literal costs in dollars also does not take into account many things both in dollar costs & diplomatic costs.

It is all cause & effect.

Many would say 9-11 the supposed start of this insanity was just that.

As I said in the other drone thread I know where UG stands & I will now say the same to you. I of course do not deny you your opinion but I do not agree.

The things you say are all right to cut... I agree they are useless & should not be spent as we quickly decline into bankruptcy.

( actually by strict definition we are already bankrupt)

But it is your opinion that we are not overspending on National Defense. It is my opinion that this has absolutely nothing to do with National Defense. These are 100% offensive moves not defensive. Same with the Libya nonsense. Other countries have civil wars it is none of our business.

We now mimic empires that history has shown all failed for the very same reasons. It is not National Defense as there never was a threat that demanded this kind of response.

As I said I know where you stand & we do not agree. At least that is one freedom we still have eh?

Edited August 20, 2011 by flying

[slapout]

I and many others seemly agree with the use of drones in that volatile area of Pakistan. I am not sure that the border is that well defined between the two countries and the enemy certainly isn't when it comes to nationality, gender, nor residence. It is described as the most dangerous place on earth and from my reading/understanding, one of the least accessible to those not welcome. When the Gurkha's were deployed in the area, I thought things would improve for the good guys. Maybe they have and the negative being published is coming from the sympathizers to the bad guys.

The sermons on problems pertaining to US economy/budget, etc, shortcomings ???, are directed at the wrong choir in my opinion.

[Ulysses G.]

The drones drastically improve the chances of stopping formerly unreachable terrorists in their tracks and the demise of Western civilization has a lot more to do with all of the spoiled, ungrateful young people who have turned into spoiled, ungrateful adults since the 60s than anything to do with money spent on National Security.

[flying]

The drones drastically improve the chances of stopping formerly unreachable terrorists in their tracks and the demise of Western civilization has a lot more to do with all of the spoiled, ungrateful young people who have turned into spoiled, ungrateful adults since the 60s than anything to do with money spent on National Security.

Dogma is Dogma but numbers don't lie. Those are facts not opinions. The totals are there for all to see.

National Security? mmmm maybe a better choice would be to bring the National Guards back to their lawful post first.

Maybe move the TSA goons to incoming passengers instead of departing passengers.....After all which is more of a threat to National security? Someone entering or someone leaving?

Maybe bring all those kids serving home from Iraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan & let them form a circle around the US instead.....

Even though none of the places being invaded have navies,air forces etc. At least it would allow you some continued spending

Edited August 21, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Dogma is Dogma but numbers don't lie. Those are facts not opinions. The totals are there for all to see.

What numbers are you talking about? You make the claim that "most Americans are against drones" and then provide a link to an article about something completely different. Your opinions are not "facts" and the stale isolationist rhetoric is not either.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Let us look at some numbers.

The two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, have cost the US an estimated total of $1.291.5 Trillion through fiscal year 2011.

The Iraq war costs a total of $802 Billion.

The war in Afghanistan costs $455.4 Billion.

Enhanced security at Embassies, etc., cost another $28.6 Billion.

Unable to locate is the final $5.5 Billion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

The Troubled Assets Relief Program cost $700 Billion.

The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka Stimulus Bill) cost $821 Billion.

Those two give-away programs cost more in the two years they were enacted than nine years of a war on terrorism.

Obama's budget request for 2012 is $3.7 Trillion...for one year.

Defense spending is not the bane of the federal government. It is the massive giveaway programs being enacted and signed into legislation by our elected representatives

PS: I am a little disingenuous with these numbers since the TARP act, passed under GWB, has largely been repaid by the borrowing banks. At least GWB had sense enough to loan it to borrowers that intended to pay it back, unlike Chrysler and Government Motors (aka the UAW).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/02/obama-stimulus-bill-has-new-price-tag----another-one/1

Edited August 21, 2011 by chuckd

[flying]

Defense spending is not the bane of the federal government. It is the massive giveaway programs being enacted and signed into legislation by our elected representatives

I have said many times I am against spending what we as a country do not have....

I would agree it..Defense Spending is not the *only* bane...but it is another one & together they all add up to spending what we do not have.

So it has to be created. When the government creates currency it is created as debt. You do not get two nickels for your dime.

Most with a basic understanding of debt realize there is interest to be paid. This interest is never mentioned in the basic costs folks like to use as examples. Anyone who has bought even a house knows what interest looks like on something as small as a few hundred thousand dollars. Now look at the military spending & other programs you mention & imagine the interest on that.

Again at the end of the day I have a problem with even calling it defense spending because in reality it is not defense...nor is it making us any safer.

As for costs of wars...Yes many various figures exist & they do not tell the whole story. They show you a fraction...yet they do not talk about extended health care, vet benefits etc...etc...etc.

Here are some very recent examples

http://www.freep.com/article/20110821/NEWS07/108210487/War-costs-may-top-3-7-trillion

[slapout]

Not being a world class economist nor a expert on military costs, etc. I look at the drones operations as preventive operations and consider it money well spent. Of the many costs to individuals, that people forget to consider, is the cost of insurance and the payout which have been made as a result of terrorists acts. The cost of petroleum and its by products have skyrocketed from the early/mid 2000's to present day. perhaps just a small cost in the overall picture, but you have to start at the bottom and work upward to approach run away costs, apparently.

A recent topic on this news forum, mentions, a kidnapped 10 year old sent across the border of Afghanistan for education/brainwashing. and then brought back on attempted suicide mission. I wonder if some of the so called, civilian causalities of the drones, may have included some of his classmates or even so called 'teachers'?

What is life worth? Ask those who have lost family due to the acts of groups, deemed terrorists. I do not know the answer, if there is one, but the worlds major countries seem to have gone past the 'Isolationist' mode. Some probably wish Gates and company, could install a "revert to prior date procedure' but then someone would try to take advantage on that also.

[maidu]

I'm an American, and I can see merit in both sides of the discussion above. With regard to the 2 wars, they're a mega quagmire, but the alternatives have to be looked at squarely. To not get actively involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least to try to get them to stand on their own (albeit shaky) feet, is to allow a sore to fester - which will likely have harmful repercussions for others in the world. It will certainly be mega harmful for females in those places, if Taliban gets back in charge. If the US moved out now, they would quickly amplify their internecine problems. though it would bring US military back the the States, and save some federal money. However, they've proved, (particularly the Afghans) that they're eager to spread troubles elsewhere in the world (harboring Al Qaeda was the main reason they were run out of power by the US, 10 years ago).

The US is currently the biggest spender on military, and also the biggest in % of GDP of developed countries. The US has 11 aircraft carrier groups. France and Russia each have one, and China and the UK have zero operational, same for Japan and Germany. The US military loves big ticket items and is famous for overspending and boondoggles (remember 'star wars'?). The US should take some lessons from the Israelis on how to spend less and get leaner meaner armed services.

As for drones, they're the right tool for the job. Message to bad guys: go try and hide in a sand dune or wherever, but put your women and kids somewhere far away.

[flying]

Not being a world class economist nor a expert on military costs, etc. I look at the drones operations as preventive operations and consider it money well spent.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

That governments & citizens who seem to not understand or care about basic economics continue to feel that money they do not have is in any way money well spent.

It is probably already too late but that kind of thinking brings a household, a State, a Government, a Nation to its knees.

Total collapse inevitably occurs & then the question will be...Do you still think spending what you did not have was well spent?

But again we speak only of the economic devastation & overlook the devastation of innocent human lives & their blowback results

Edited August 21, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

Stop bickering.

Being against a war and being against drone strikes are two different things. I would hazard a guess that there would be a correlation between the two, however.

I would bet that the overwhelming majority of people would be for MORE drone strikes if it means bringing the soldiers home.

[Wallaby]

I'm an American, and I can see merit in both sides of the discussion above. With regard to the 2 wars, they're a mega quagmire, but the alternatives have to be looked at squarely. To not get actively involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least to try to get them to stand on their own (albeit shaky) feet, is to allow a sore to fester - which will likely have harmful repercussions for others in the world. It will certainly be mega harmful for females in those places, if Taliban gets back in charge. If the US moved out now, they would quickly amplify their internecine problems. though it would bring US military back the the States, and save some federal money. However, they've proved, (particularly the Afghans) that they're eager to spread troubles elsewhere in the world (harboring Al Qaeda was the main reason they were run out of power by the US, 10 years ago).

The US is currently the biggest spender on military, and also the biggest in % of GDP of developed countries. The US has 11 aircraft carrier groups. France and Russia each have one, and China and the UK have zero operational, same for Japan and Germany. The US military loves big ticket items and is famous for overspending and boondoggles (remember 'star wars'?). The US should take some lessons from the Israelis on how to spend less and get leaner meaner armed services.

As for drones, they're the right tool for the job. Message to bad guys: go try and hide in a sand dune or wherever, but put your women and kids somewhere far away.

But why do you think drones only kill bad guys. People can jump up and down and swear they have never killed any innocents, like the CIA says, but in reality, how can they know? They can say the drones are 100% accurate and only hit intended targets, but is anything that can have human error 100% accurate? The CIA wants you to believe that. But what of the intended targets, you can say they hit them, but are they terrorists, could it be that intelligence is wrong and so the intended targets are not what they thought? Of course the CIA will say not and some posters on here believe that because it says so on the internet.

Drone attacks, same as indiscriminate bombings are having the opposite effect of what it is trying to achieve. It is causing the families of those killed to have a deep hatred of all things Western and is a good recruiting mechanism for would be terrorists.

[Ulysses G.]

War is never 100% accurate and civilians always get killed, but that is the way that mankind "solves" its problems - it has always been so and is likely to be so far into the future.

What is more disturbing is those who who ignore and make excuses for the bad guys who purposely target civilians and only condemn those that try to stop them.