Support NeoGAF

[Mesousa]

If only Potam, and other Americans, had the same outrage when the US government killed Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki for no reason other than having the wrong father.

Don't we all jump on the North Korean hate train for killing the family members of criminals? What makes it ok when the US does it?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Not saying that it's true but if it is what do you think is the reason for it? Your freedom?

While "hate our freedom" is a ridiculous oversimplification, the cultural divide is part of the problem. Along with stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and funding the groups that eventually became the Taliban.

Setting that aside, the complexity of the causes doesn't make it okay to say that the only correct response is "introspection." And despite the destabilizing effect on the region, taking apart the Taliban was still a worthwhile exercise, as was decimating Al Qaeda.

Wasn't it under 3,000?

Whoops, misread the source. Yeah, ~3000 deaths, 6000+ injuries.

Not really the point, tho

If only Potam, and other Americans, had the same outrage when the US government killed Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki for no reason other than having the wrong father.

Don't we all jump on the North Korean hate train for killing the family members of criminals? What makes it ok when the US does it?

Because one is an accident, and the other is systematic genocide and oppression.

Neither is okay, but equating them is ridiculous.

 

[foxtrot3d]

If only Potam, and other Americans, had the same outrage when the US government killed Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki for no reason other than having the wrong father.

Don't we all jump on the North Korean hate train for killing the family members of criminals? What makes it ok when the US does it?

Because that incident wasn't intentional...

 

[Mesousa]

While "hate our freedom" is a ridiculous oversimplification, the cultural divide is part of the problem. Along with stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and funding the groups that eventually became the Taliban.

Setting that aside, the complexity of the causes doesn't make it okay to say that the only correct response is "introspection." And despite the destabilizing effect on the region, taking apart the Taliban was still a worthwhile exercise, as was decimating Al Qaeda.



Whoops, misread the source. Yeah, ~3000 deaths, 6000+ injuries.

Not really the point, tho



Because one is an accident, and the other is systematic genocide and oppression.

Neither is okay, but equating them is ridiculous.

Because that incident wasn't intentional...

It was intentional, and its always intentional when you start classifying EVERY adult killed by drones as enemy combatants.

 

[funkypie]

Things took longer than expected or wanted, sure, but Iraq and Afghanistan shouldn't have been left alone.

Saddam Hussein cheered the events of 9/11, sponsored terrorism, used chemical warfare on his citizens, invaded neighboring territories like Kuwait, and fired at American and British planes. He also brutalized women. He despised the U.S. This was after he ignored 17 UN resolutions to stop and disclose the weapons many thought at the time would be revealed. In a post 9/11 war, that was a risk the White House couldn't leave alone, especially since he supported terrorism. They decided to lead a coalition to remove Saddam because of that risk.

As for Afghanistan, that needs no argument. The Taliban who supported al Qaeda was in control of Afghanistan at the time, so it's obvious why we got involved there.

Too much time and death and money has passed since and it has taken too long for us to remove ourselves, but it's clear why a post-9/11 U.S. had to get involved with Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.

Its been 11 years and still people trying to defend Iraq lol cute.

 

[The Lamp]

Its been 11 years and still people trying to defend Iraq lol cute.

I just typed up some facts from a presidential museum and was actually having a good discussion with another poster, and all you have to say is something ridiculously patronizing. Good show.

 

[Liha]

I just typed up some facts from a presidential museum and was actually having a good discussion with another poster, and all you have to say is something ridiculously patronizing. Good show.

A presidential museum is just pure propaganda and not a reliable source. This museum is just a medium to justify his war crimes and bad decisions. To be fair, I'd do the same lol.

 

[potam]

Them jimmies rustled?

What's your asinine reasoning for Americans turning a blind eye to the carpet bombing of Germany? Most Americans hate white Europeans, apparently.

 

[Oersted]

It was intentional, and its always intentional when you start classifying EVERY adult killed by drones as enemy combatants.

Besides that, the "it was just an accident" is just plain scary on a human level. We really reached quite a new low.

 

[The Lamp]

A presidential museum is just pure propaganda and not a reliable source. This museum is just a medium to justify his war crimes and bad decisions. To be fair, I'd do the same lol.

Regardless, I'd more readily believe information sourced from the White House than patronizing eye rolls from strangers on the internet like funkypie.

 

[HK-47]

I didn't think war was officially declared. It's just a "military operation."

We dont declare war anymore.

 

[HK-47]

Regardless, I'd more readily believe information sourced from the White House than patronizing eye rolls from strangers on the internet like funkypie.

How about believing neither because niether are good sources?

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

well, I'm sure the Afghans are glad that, that is over! What a party, eh guys??


guys??


guise?

all the girls that's back in school is thankful

 

[dripdripsplash]

I want to tell you to shut the fuck up, but I don't want to get banned.

Well... It's the truth.

 

[Anjelus_]

I just typed up some facts from a presidential museum and was actually having a good discussion with another poster, and all you have to say is something ridiculously patronizing. Good show.

The trouble is, people don't actually know what they're talking about. But they still want to say something. They just can't not say anything, and this is a forum so they have the opportunity and right to do it. You can basically come up with the most structured argument possible and someone will still say "YA WELL BUSH IS DUM HAAHA."

And America is an easy target for criticism, so it happens. In general, I try to only jump in when I see something blatantly inaccurate or if I think I actually have something valuable to contribute to an otherwise reasonable conversation. I'd love to sit and defend the country from America bashing trolls all day, but then I'd never actually get anything done in real-life America.

 

[foxtrot3d]

The trouble is, people don't actually know what they're talking about. But they still want to say something. They just can't not say anything, and this is a forum so they have the opportunity and right to do it. You can basically come up with the most structured argument possible and someone will still say "YA WELL BUSH IS DUM HAAHA."

And America is an easy target for criticism, so it happens. In general, I try to only jump in when I see something blatantly inaccurate or if I think I actually have something valuable to contribute to an otherwise reasonable conversation. I'd love to sit and defend the country from America bashing trolls all day, but then I'd never actually get anything done in real-life America.

I feel you man.

 

[FyreWulff]

Good

fuck those that said we should stay there for 100 years in full combat mode, but we also have a habit of never giving up bases once we establish them.

We still have 3-4 times the troops stationed in Germany from a war ~70 years ago than we do in Afghanistan with this announcement.

edit:

49,500 Japan
38,800 Germany
28,500 South Korea
11,300 Italy
10,000 Afghanistan
09,500 Kuwait
09,000 Great Britain
02,100 Spain

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Why are people reacting so negatively to this news? It's a good thing.

 

[Siegcram]

Why are people reacting so negatively to this news? It's a good thing.

May want to read it again.

 

[Anjelus_]

Good

fuck those that said we should stay there for 100 years in full combat mode, but we also have a habit of never giving up bases once we establish them.

We still have 3-4 times the troops stationed in Germany from a war ~70 years ago than we do in Afghanistan with this announcement.

edit:

49,500 Japan
38,800 Germany
28,500 South Korea
11,300 Italy
10,000 Afghanistan
09,500 Kuwait
09,000 Great Britain
02,100 Spain

Is this supposed to be bad? The U.S. has maintained a military presence in Europe because it's the main military power in NATO and was absolutely crucial to countering the USSR. While the argument can be made that this is no longer necessary after 1991, I think recent developments in Eastern Europe prove that estimation premature.

Deployments in South Korea and Japan are almost entirely to prevent North Korea from invading S. Korea again. Also to support East Asian allies that otherwise would have limited muscle against a certain ginormous nation in that part of the world.

The U.S. gives up bases all the time and we do not maintain permanent military presences in other countries without good reason. The USSR's take over of Eastern Europe is more in-line with what you're looking for.


Edit: I do think it may be necessary to dial down our military spending to a certain degree. But maintaining bases in Europe and East Asia will continue to be pretty vital for the foreseeable future.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The problem is that during the initial invasion, U.S. sent special forces working in conjunction with the Norther Alliance to take out the Taliban. They achieved that through a mixed guerilla warfare/air strikes. I could be way off, but having a conventional war seemed pointless.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

May want to read it again.

I read it just fine.

 

[Yaphett Kotto]

Good

fuck those that said we should stay there for 100 years in full combat mode, but we also have a habit of never giving up bases once we establish them.

That is not entirely true. There are FOBs in Afghanistan now that are being utilized by the ANA or are totally abandoned due to the drawdown.

There are also some bases from back during the Cold War era that we have given up too. Bases aren't just kept open for the sake of keeping them up.

The ones we keep now are for multiple reasons. Like the bases in UK, Germany, etc. are there to reinforce the backbone of NATO versus Russia.

 

[Coriolanus]

Is this a good time to remind warmongers that the US has never formally classified the Taliban as a terrorist group? Cuz it hasn't.

Also Pakistan was giving cover to Bin Laden and yall did jack shit to that government.

But hey, not like the whole region hates you more than ever after all the torture and droning or anything.

 

[leroidys]

Dumbest war ever with a motivation equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Much less dumb than Iraq. And this is 20th century dumb. Wars have been fought over far, far, far, far more trivial things in the past.

 

[Phoenix]

We created the Taliban to fight the Russians. Then, when no longer had need of their services, reined in resources, leaving them to be slaughtered. Then terrorists, many of which were identified as Saudi, with mysterious funding, attack the World Trade Center. Rather than investigating the source of the funding (the smoking gun really) we attack Iraq. Then Osama Bin Laden, an ex-CIA asset, claims responsibility for the attacks, justifying the invasion of Afghanistan. Later, Osama bin Laden is killed (not captured which would have allowed us to untangle the terrorist web) in a compound in Pakistan with no footage and only a Kathryn Bigalow movie to detail the events. And of course his body is disposed of at sea in case anyone wanted to confirm the legitimacy of the story put forth by the Obama administration.

Seems like a game of pitch and catch. Bush set it up, Obama took it home.

All to accomplish what? I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but even a bad one should list some specific and tangible objective that was gained through the action.

 

[Anjelus_]

Is this a good time to remind warmongers that the US has never formally classified the Taliban as a terrorist group? Cuz it hasn't.

Also Pakistan was giving cover to Bin Laden and yall did jack shit to that government.

But hey, not like the whole region hates you more than ever after all the torture and droning or anything.

1. The Afghan Taliban is not on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. So? I'm not sure what your point is. The Taliban is pretty focused on its war in Afghanistan. You don't automatically become a terrorist organization just by fighting the U.S. military.

2. Pakistan is an intensely fractured and divided state. What exactly is there for the U.S. to do in such a situation, and who are we to punish and how would we punish them? It's possible for elements of the Pakistani government to act without the consent of the actual head of government, this is why the U.S. didn't seek Pakistani consent on the UBL raid.

3. Okay.

 

[leroidys]

Well... It's the truth.

Do you honestly think that "the vast majority" of Americans only care about white people? That's not only very sad, but also grossly misinformed and insulting.

 

[dripdripsplash]

Do you honestly think that "the vast majority" of Americans only care about white people? That's not only very sad, but also grossly misinformed and insulting.

I honestly think that Americans in general don't care so much to the degree that they'd do something about a drone program that kills hundreds of civilians, if not thousands, because it's in a land far away, out of sight and it kills people that doesn't look like them or have the same culture as themselves. Yes.

A lot would think it's wrong yeah, but at the end of the day they wouldn't care to the degree that they'd do something about it. It's just a lowly yemeni farmer somewhere, who cares.

 

[foxtrot3d]

I honestly think that Americans in general don't care so much to the degree that they'd do something about a drone program that kills hundreds of civilians, if not thousands, because it's in a land far away, out of sight and it kills people that doesn't look like them or have the same culture as themselves. Yes.

A lot would think it's wrong yeah, but at the end of the day they wouldn't care to the degree that they'd do something about it. It's just a lowly yemeni farmer somewhere, who cares.

I don't remember when the US started intentionally bombing lowly Yemeni farmers.

 

[dripdripsplash]

I don't remember when the US started intentionally bombing lowly Yemeni farmers.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.co...-definition-of-civilian-in-secret-drone-wars/

I'm sure their aren't doing it intentionally. Why waste a missile on a Yemeni farmer, but they sure as hell ain't good at stopping it from happening.

Two US reports published today provide significant insights into President Obama’s personal and controversial role in the escalating covert US drone war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

In a major extract from Daniel Klaidman’s forthcoming book Kill Or Capture, the author reveals extensive details of how secret US drone strikes have evolved under Obama – and how the president knew of civilian casualties from his earliest days in office.

Civilian Deaths from Day Three
As the Bureau’s own data on Pakistan makes clear, the very first covert drone strikes of the Obama presidency, just three days after he took office, resulted in civilian deaths in Pakistan. As many as 19 civilians – including four children – died in two error-filled attacks.

Yet despite the errors, the president ultimately chose to keep in place the CIA’s controversial policy of using ‘signature strikes’ against unknown militants.That tactic has just been extended to Yemen.

On another notorious occasion, the article reveals that US officials were aware at the earliest stage that civilians – including ‘dozens of women and children’ – had died in Obama’s first ordered strike in Yemen in December 2009. The Bureau recently named all 44 civilians killed in that attack by cruise missiles.

It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

The US Military Enlistment Standards for age are between 18-35 for the US army according to this site: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlage.htm

Better not be between 18-35 if your Yemeni then.

 

[foxtrot3d]

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.co...-definition-of-civilian-in-secret-drone-wars/

I'm sure their aren't doing it intentionally. Why waste a missile on a Yemeni farmer, but they sure as hell ain't good at stopping it from happening.

The US Military Enlistment Standards for age are between 18-35 for the army according to this site: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlage.htm

Better not be between 18-35 if your Yemeni then.

First of all I know about all of that and have written extensive papers on the U.S. Drone Program.

Second, this is a war. As difficult as it may be to accept civilian deaths are a part of war until we invent magic bullets and bombs that can only kill the enemy. In war decisions have to be made based on the intelligence at hand which is often incomplete, I'm pretty sure no one is gunning to drop a bomb which they know will result in at least 30 civilian deaths. Hindsight is 20/20, the realities of war are not.

Third, the program is and remains classified thus remarks from anonymous administration officials makes it hard to accurately criticize the program. For instance, the reclassification of a "civilian" to not include military age males doesn't state when this change occurred and we have no idea if such a policy is still in place. The classified nature of the program, mainly due to the fact that the CIA instead of the DOD effectively runs the program, also makes it hard to accurately account for the number of civilian deaths. There are WIDE discrepancies between government sources regarding the number of civilian deaths and private research groups, the truth probably resides somewhere in the middle.

 

[FyreWulff]

fuck the drone program, people have accepted bombing other countries' civilians as page 3 news solely because the pilot is flying the plane via remote control instead of actually sitting in it

due process for everyone, motherfuckers

 

[MacNille]

Dumbest war ever with a motivation equivalent of a temper tantrum.

a temper tantrum you say? good to see that for you, this is a temper tantrum.

¨
Then tell me, what do you call what ISIS is doing? another temper tantrum?

 

[Shock4ndAwe]

lol, the war in Afghanistan over because we say so? Not how things work.

Radical Islam isn't so easily beaten.

 

[DY_nasty]

Just as a reminder, there are still over 10000 soldiers and around 100000 private contractors. This isn't quite over yet.

combat mission over =! everyone out

the us military is all over the world in places that stopped being official warzones decades ago...

 

[OraleeWey]

Am I the only one who sees the misspelled thread title?

 

[Mgoblue201]

We created the Taliban to fight the Russians. Then, when no longer had need of their services, reined in resources, leaving them to be slaughtered. Then terrorists, many of which were identified as Saudi, with mysterious funding, attack the World Trade Center. Rather than investigating the source of the funding (the smoking gun really) we attack Iraq. Then Osama Bin Laden, an ex-CIA asset, claims responsibility for the attacks, justifying the invasion of Afghanistan. Later, Osama bin Laden is killed (not captured which would have allowed us to untangle the terrorist web) in a compound in Pakistan with no footage and only a Kathryn Bigalow movie to detail the events. And of course his body is disposed of at sea in case anyone wanted to confirm the legitimacy of the story put forth by the Obama administration.

Seems like a game of pitch and catch. Bush set it up, Obama took it home.

No, even a cursory glance at the evidence demonstrates that this is all wrong. The Taliban was founded in the early 1990s and officially began operating in 1994, long after the end of the Soviet war, so the US couldn't have created them to fight the Russians. And the CIA had no tangible relationship with bin Laden. He was barely even on their radar at the time. I think these "facts" are repeated so often that they simply become orthodoxy.

 

[funkypie]

I just typed up some facts from a presidential museum and was actually having a good discussion with another poster, and all you have to say is something ridiculously patronizing. Good show.

you're 'facts' have been dis-proven many times before. The decision to invade iraq was made before 9/11, 9/11 just made it easier.

the middle east is a cesspit and as bad as it sounds you need people like Saddam and Assad or if you don't, the country and the region around it, turns to shit. Some people wanted liberal democracy in Syria which quickly got high-jacked my extremists and terrorists which led to ISIS, good job the USA was there providing, intelligence, training and weapons /facepalm.

thousands may have died under Saddam, but that pales in comparison to the US led war into iraq and the aftermath.

I suppose you think iran is an aggressive regime that needs taking care off too?

This isn't america bashing but there is no defence for the iraq war. Even tony blair got a nice pay off from organisations related to israel and he had personal invested energy interests in iraq.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

the middle east is a cesspit and as bad as it sounds you need people like Saddam and Assad or if you don't, the country and the region around it, turns to shit.

Yes, the savage Arab must be kept in line like a rowdy dog.

 

[funkypie]

Yes, the savage Arab must be kept in line like a rowdy dog.

best call team america world police, their nation building/building democracy really worked out.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

best call team america world police, their nation building/building democracy really worked out.

Tell me more about the feral Mahometans

 

[Enco]

who won?

Everyone is damn loser.

Some lost more than others.

 

[funkypie]

Tell me more about the feral Mahometans

analyse the region before you talk utter shit. maybe my language used wasn't the best, but that chip on your shoulder is heavy.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Because one is an accident, and the other is systematic genocide and oppression.

Neither is okay, but equating them is ridiculous.

That's a bit naive. What about the thousands of civilians victim to drone strikes? That can no longer be called an accident, either.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

analyse the region before you talk utter shit. maybe my language used wasn't the best, but that chip on your shoulder is heavy.

lol you think the issue is your phrasing and not the viewpoint of essentially "the uncivilised Arab needs to be ruled with an iron fist lest their beastly nature be allowed to run free"

Please tell me how I need to ~analyse the region~, time-travelling late-Victorian anthropologist

 

[leroidys]

I honestly think that Americans in general don't care so much to the degree that they'd do something about a drone program that kills hundreds of civilians, if not thousands, because it's in a land far away, out of sight and it kills people that doesn't look like them or have the same culture as themselves. Yes.

A lot would think it's wrong yeah, but at the end of the day they wouldn't care to the degree that they'd do something about it. It's just a lowly yemeni farmer somewhere, who cares.

So no, you don't actually think that all Americans are racist, you're just posting drive-by, dickish comments to heighten the level of discourse?