harris campaign, clean up on aisle Electoral College

[boomerangutang]

        Every type of effective weapon first started on one side, and then the other side got it, ....and then nearly everyone else.  It's happened since the club, the spear, the bow & arrow, blunderbuss, the gun, the rifle, cannon, bombs, nukes, .......and it will happen with weaponized drones.    Things will get particularly interesting when the baddies get drones.  ......and nukes.  

[Grubster]

6 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

it is not just being killed or injured it is the stress of living under the drones knowing any building and blow up at any time. hard for us to comprehend what that must be like. i really dont understand how they can 100% identify their targets. of course they cant.

Many times they have informants on the ground to help but if there happens to be a couple innocents near than your right they die. War has always been ugly and I doubt it will get any less so soon. It is also very stressful for those living amongst these terrorists wondering when they will be raped or killed. I am with you though, I think the US should get out and stay out. Let the cards fall where they may.

[Grubster]

4 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

American lives matter others not so much. 

I wish G W Bush would have felt that way before he started this mess.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

But unlike Normandy, we are NOT at war with the countries we are using drones in. A blanket 'war on terror' does not mean you have permission to conduct air strikes in other sovereign territory that we are not at war with. There are still dangerous terrorists living in Belfast, Northern Ireland, does your precedent make it ok for us to carry out a 'precision' drone strike in the middle of Belfast to try and kill the terrorist when we know we will kill innocent women and children? There are dangerous terrorist groups in most major cities world-wide. We use policing NOT indiscriminate drone strikes. Terrorists DO hide amongst normal population. They are not sovereign armies. You cannot apply fighting techniques used on one against the other. Just sayin'. 

 

You say in a post up above that you have no problem using drones for precision attacks against possible terrorists. You WOULD have a problem if one of those precision attacks also took out your wife and kids, and they were labeled 'collateral damage'. If there is no possibility of taking out civilians then do it, but face the consequences - for every civilian you kill you create 10 more people intent on killing you or not co-operating with you in trying to catch the bad guys.

"Terrorists DO hide amongst normal population. They are not sovereign armies. You cannot apply fighting techniques used on one against the other. Just sayin'. "

 

Exactly correct.  That's why precision munitions launched from drones are used instead of larger, cheaper weapons.

 

These drone strikes are not happening where there is rule of law and an effective police force.  They happen in tribal areas, failed states or contested regions in nations in a civil war. 

 

Drone strikes killed an al Qaeda bomb maker who was in the final stages of a plan to put explosives disguised as printer ink jet cartridges on commercial air planes.  I have no problem with his death.  Do you?

Edited March 14, 2017 by heybruce

[mogandave]

I don't much of a difference between the CIA using drone strikes and the military using drone strikes. Why is one okay and not the other?


Live, love, laugh

[Andaman Al]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I don't much of a difference between the CIA using drone strikes and the military using drone strikes. Why is one okay and not the other?


Live, love, laugh

Because one is civilian, the other is military. Once you great the lines, in 10 years the state police will have UAV's with weapons on.

[rijb]

9 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

in 10 years the state police will have UAV's with weapons on.

Nope.  They'll have them before Trump leaves office.

[mogandave]

Nope.  They'll have them before Trump leaves office.

As far as I know, the President has no say over how the state police are equipped. Do you know different?

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

I wish G W Bush would have felt that way before he started this mess.

Point well taken. 

[rijb]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

As far as I know, the President has no say over how the state police are equipped. Do you know different?
 

 

The Pentagon set up a program in 1997 that gave unneeded military equipment such as mine-resistant armored vehicles, grenade launchers and bomb-disposal robots to local police for free. It also includes more mundane things like clothing and office supplies, tools and rescue equipment. Since its inception, the program has transferred more than $6 billion worth of property to more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies enrolled in the program. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-robot-20160708-snap-story.html

[elgordo38]

17 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I don't much of a difference between the CIA using drone strikes and the military using drone strikes. Why is one okay and not the other?


Live, love, laugh

You left the best part till last. My new aluminium hat buzzes when a drone is in the area. 

[mogandave]

Because one is civilian, the other is military. Once you great the lines, in 10 years the state police will have UAV's with weapons on.

So you're okay with the military using drone strikes?

I do see your point, it's much like gun control legislation, in that today it's hi-cap magazines, tomorrow it's semi-autos, then it's revolvers, pretty soon only the rich can afford a pea-shooter.

[mogandave]

You left the best part till last. My new aluminium hat buzzes when a drone is in the area. 

You needed a new one, the old one must be pretty worn out...

[elgordo38]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

You needed a new one, the old one must be pretty worn out...

 

Learned a long time ago you cannot please all the people all the time. I tried. Do you want a refund??

[mogandave]

The Pentagon set up a program in 1997 that gave unneeded military equipment such as mine-resistant armored vehicles, grenade launchers and bomb-disposal robots to local police for free. It also includes more mundane things like clothing and office supplies, tools and rescue equipment. Since its inception, the program has transferred more than $6 billion worth of property to more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies enrolled in the program. 
 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-robot-20160708-snap-story.html

So than the CIA's use of drones is (apparently) moot as the police get everything the military gets now.

[smotherb]

4 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

you need to do some research. look up some stats on how many people in the west are killed by terrorists.  its almost none. the media just hypes it up to fool simple people into buying their newspapers.  over a million people die on the roads every year. here is a real problem that is largely ignored because it does not make good news. 

george, I have done post-doctoral research on the correlation of cultural difference to terrorism. I lost a cousin and a nephew in the twin towers 9/11. I spent 12 years in the Middle East, ten years in the South of Thailand and two years in the South of the PI.  I am sufficiently aware of terrorism.

 

Are you suggesting that because most deaths resulting from terrorism occur in the terrorist-origin areas of the world; that there is no problem for the rest of us if we just leave them alone?

 

And, I am afraid you lost me on road deaths; what possible connection does that have to terrorism?

[impulse]

8 hours ago, smotherb said:

I did not read anyone say they would do nothing.  However, I did not read anyone suggest anything else.

 

That is the real problem, it is much easier to complain than to take action. Drone strikes keep our boots off the ground and may be less likely to result in the collateral damage numbers that will result from conventional air strikes. Even if the collateral damage is the same, not having our troops in harm's way is preferable; is it not?

 

Let's face it, any type of ordnance action will likely result in civilian deaths--collateral damage--and I see no success with any verbal negotiation, do you? 

 

So, I will modify muffy's question; what do you suggest? 

 

Why is it either "boots on the ground" or "raining death from above"?

 

How about get the hell out of the civil war that was set in motion 100 years ago by the failed Euro colonialism, and let the locals sort it out with their own blood and their own treasure.  

 

We have the worst of both a law enforcement and war going on.  Even if the bad guys were willing to lay down their weapons today, we've created a situation where their only options are dying in the fight, dying at a wedding- or similar drone target, or dying in a black hole after a lifetime of captivity.  Not hard to see why negotiating with them is impossible.  What do you figure would have happened if we insisted that every member of the Wehrmacht would be hanged as a condition of surrender?

 

It's as if someone in my neighborhood were dealing crack and the cops were blowing up crack house after crack house (killing an occasional kid passing by) and not letting up until they're all dead.  That's exactly the kind of collateral damage being perpetrated in OUR name.  Problem is, leaving aside the morality of the innocent deaths, the numbers just don't work when you create more enemies with each attack than you kill.

 

 

[smotherb]

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Why is it either "boots on the ground" or "raining death from above"?

 

How about get the hell out of the civil war that was set in motion 100 years ago by the failed Euro colonialism, and let the locals sort it out with their own blood and their own treasure.  

 

We have the worst of both a law enforcement and war going on.  Even if the bad guys were willing to lay down their weapons today, we've created a situation where their only options are dying in the fight, dying at a wedding- or similar drone target, or dying in a black hole after a lifetime of captivity.  Not hard to see why negotiating with them is impossible.  What do you figure would have happened if we insisted that every member of the Wehrmacht would be hanged as a condition of surrender?

 

It's as if someone in my neighborhood were dealing crack and the cops were blowing up crack house after crack house (killing an occasional kid passing by) and not letting up until they're all dead.  That's exactly the kind of collateral damage being perpetrated in OUR name.  Problem is, leaving aside the morality of the innocent deaths, the numbers just don't work when you create more enemies with each attack than you kill.

 

 

Are my words invisible? I did not limit it to boots or rain, I said, "what do you suggest? "  It appears obvious that they want to kill each other. We could do as you suggest and let them have at each other. However, I doubt anyone but the terrorists would win such a deal. Then, I suppose you suggest they would simply live happily ever-after.

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, smotherb said:

 However, I doubt anyone but the terrorists would win such a deal. Then, I suppose you suggest they would simply live happily ever-after.

 

Why should I care if they live happily ever after or keep themselves and each other in abject misery?  That's on them and up to them.  I only care the the extent that it spills over their borders into my neighborhood.  Which it has no reason to do if I'm not propping up a brutal regime.

 

Look around South America and Israel (of all places) and even Ireland.  Yesterday's terrorists have a way of becoming political parties and governments when they're forced to. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by impulse

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

As far as I know, the President has no say over how the state police are equipped. Do you know different?
 

 

The President has no say in who gets 'wire tapped' either    But this one thinks different. Care to bet on where his boundaries are?

 

 

1 hour ago, elgordo38 said:

You left the best part till last. My new aluminium hat buzzes when a drone is in the area. 

The quote you have made is not from me, it is from Morgandave. Please remove your post or ask the mods to remove it thank you.

[williamgeorgeallen]

5 hours ago, Grubster said:

Many times they have informants on the ground to help but if there happens to be a couple innocents near than your right they die. War has always been ugly and I doubt it will get any less so soon. It is also very stressful for those living amongst these terrorists wondering when they will be raped or killed. I am with you though, I think the US should get out and stay out. Let the cards fall where they may.

america seems determined to keep going down the same road. one middle eastern country after another. i read there are more drone pilots than actual pilots in the american airforce.  wish trump would have tried something different but then again war is big business.

[williamgeorgeallen]

10 hours ago, smotherb said:

george, I have done post-doctoral research on the correlation of cultural difference to terrorism. I lost a cousin and a nephew in the twin towers 9/11. I spent 12 years in the Middle East, ten years in the South of Thailand and two years in the South of the PI.  I am sufficiently aware of terrorism.

 

Are you suggesting that because most deaths resulting from terrorism occur in the terrorist-origin areas of the world; that there is no problem for the rest of us if we just leave them alone?

 

And, I am afraid you lost me on road deaths; what possible connection does that have to terrorism?

there is some thing called rational and irrational fear. there is a far greater risk of dying on the roads (many thousands of times more likely) for example than there is of dying in a terrorist attack yet many people are scared by the media into being more worried about terrorism than they are about the dangers of using roads.

[mogandave]

there is some thing called rational and irrational fear. there is a far greater risk of dying on the roads (many thousands of times more likely) for example than there is of dying in a terrorist attack yet many people are scared by the media into being more worried about terrorism than they are about the dangers of using roads.

People understand and accept the risks associated with driving because they want to drive and consider the risk reasonable compared to the benefit.

People generally do not want to accept risk not associated with a benefit.

[williamgeorgeallen]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

People understand and accept the risks associated with driving because they want to drive and consider the risk reasonable compared to the benefit.

People generally do not want to accept risk not associated with a benefit.

 

agreed. of course there is some risk associated with working in a high rise building, traveling on a plane or going to a public event. doing these things has to be weighed against the risk of being targeted by a terrorist.

[mogandave]

agreed. of course there is some risk associated with working in a high rise building, traveling on a plane or going to a public event. doing these things has to be weighed against the risk of being targeted by a terrorist.

So it's rational to think you'll get killed while working in a high rise building, flying, driving or attending a public event, but it is not rational to think terrorist increase that risk.

We're clear now, thanks.

[williamgeorgeallen]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So it's rational to think you'll get killed while working in a high rise building, flying, driving or attending a public event, but it is not rational to think terrorist increase that risk.

We're clear now, thanks.

 

not sure how you think i said that. not sure at all. i did not say anything was rational or irrational. some people will not fly because they are scared of terrorists, some will. each of us weighs up risks and benefits and makes a decision on weather or not to do things. how ration each decision is to do different things is pretty subjective. 

[mogandave]

not sure how you think i said that. not sure at all. i did not say anything was rational or irrational. some people will not fly because they are scared of terrorists, some will. each of us weighs up risks and benefits and makes a decision on weather or not to do things. how ration each decision is to do different things is pretty subjective. 

Sorry, my bad.

[smotherb]

14 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Why should I care if they live happily ever after or keep themselves and each other in abject misery?  That's on them and up to them.  I only care the the extent that it spills over their borders into my neighborhood.  Which it has no reason to do if I'm not propping up a brutal regime.

 

Look around South America and Israel (of all places) and even Ireland.  Yesterday's terrorists have a way of becoming political parties and governments when they're forced to. 

Well, first, my comment about living happily ever after was facetious. Secondly, how do you suggest we "force" them to become "political parties and governments"?  I am sure they will say they are already political parties and governments.

[smotherb]

4 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

there is some thing called rational and irrational fear. there is a far greater risk of dying on the roads (many thousands of times more likely) for example than there is of dying in a terrorist attack yet many people are scared by the media into being more worried about terrorism than they are about the dangers of using roads.

Well, you did manage to address one of my statements--the one farthest from the topic. I doubt many people are concerned with whether their fear of terrorism is rational or irrational.   

[williamgeorgeallen]

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

Well, you did manage to address one of my statements--the one farthest from the topic. I doubt many people are concerned with whether their fear of terrorism is rational or irrational.   

what were your other issues?