Imagine China sending a drone into the USA airspace to kill someone....

[Logical]

they thought was a terrorist against their country. I assume everyone that thinks we can attack enemies inside a country we have not declared war against against would be ok with that?

Can you imagine the USA reaction to a foreign drone attacking someone in the USA? And a couple of innocent bystanders dying in the attack?

Soon many countries will have the same ability.

[randome]

1. This is the most ridiculous hypothetical of all.

In the first place, we are in other countries at the request of their governments.
Secondly, we do not have groups of people plotting to blow up China.
Thirdly, we do not have people beheading women and chopping the hands off unbelievers in America. (Not as a matter of course, that is.)

And last, it's just fear-mongering on your part.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. It is not ridiculous at all, your other assertion of fact is wrong, and something like

this will inevitably happen.

We base drones in countries that allow us to do so, we have asserted the right to conduct drone strikes anywhere on the planet, and have done so in countries that have no given us permission to conduct military operations.

We have established a precedent that will be used against us.

[randome]

4. What country has not given us permission? I hope you're not thinking of Pakistan.

Another point I need to add to my list: we don't have groups trying to overthrow the government to install an Islamic dictatorship.

[BainsBane]

5. Iran

So now you are justifying it because of your hatred of Islam? Really?

[randome]

10. Where do you get 'hatred' from?

I'm talking about terrorist groups who treat women and children abominably and want to install Islamic dictatorships. That's not hatred, that's a recognition of reality.

Again, countries have requested that we stop those who want to install Islamic dictatorships. That's a fact, too.

[BainsBane]

13. You said "Islamic dictatorship"

You used the word Islamic to justify attacks.

You obviously know nothing about Islam. You are taking the worst examples of Islamicist groups and imagining that pertains to all of Islam.

[randome]

15. I am not doing that.

'Islamic dictatorship' is a recognizable term. Look it up.

I'm not studying Islam. I have no doubt the vast majority of Islamic peoples are kind and want nothing to do with the terrorist activities of their brethren.

[BainsBane]

19. it is a dictatorship

characterized by Islam. It means nothing else. You did not say caliphate, or fundamentalist, Islamicist regime, you said Islamic dictatorship. You clearly are bigoted toward Muslims. You have made that clear in a number of posts in this thread.

[randome]

24. As I said, I have not studied Islam.

I do know what Islamic dictatorships typically mean for women and children.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. You have not studied Islam?

That's pretty clear, because all you know is the propaganda.

[Turborama]

29. "Islamic peoples"?

Why don't you call them Muslims, like everybody else?

[randome]

31. Because I don't always proofread as well as I should.

[gholtron]

111. I guess you never heard of

Saudi Arabia,
Iran,
Yeman,
Jordan,
Libya before the death of Kadafi.
SYRIA
Just to name a few Islamic dictatorships

[BainsBane]

116. You ignore my point

Firstly, we aren't at war with those countries. So that is hardly a defense. Secondly, how does the fact a dictatorship is Islamic make its people justifiable targets for murder as opposed to another kind of dictatorship? Thirdly those all happen to be dictatorships we have bankrolled and propped up. Iran is not a dictatorship. They were a dictatorship before the Revolution of 1979, when the US backed the shaw and overthrew democratically elected governments in the 1950s. Neither Jordan, Libya under Qaddafi or Syria were "Islamic" dictatorships. They were/are in fact secular dictatorships with Muslim populations. This country has long been cozy with dictatorships and put many of them in place, like in Iran and the right-wing military dictatorships throughout Latin America is the 70s and 80s. Dictatorship is hardly a justification for war, unless of course you are a neo-con with no understanding of your nation's history of foreign relations. Your point is wrong on every level.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Pakistan, Somalia, for starters.

Pakistani Ambassador Sherry Rehman rejected prevailing perceptions that her government publicly condemns the drone strikes while privately cooperating with the US on them. Instead, she says, the Pakistani government unequivocally opposes the strikes as a violation of sovereignty and as a recruitment tool for extremists.

“There is no policy of quiet complacency, no wink and nod,” Ambassador Rehman said at a Monitor breakfast with reporters in Washington.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2013/0205/US-drone-strikes-There-s-no-wink-and-nod-from-Pakistan-ambassador-says

We just bully Pakistan. They have never given us permission. The situation in Yemen is also unclear.

[randome]

16. Right. The Pakistani government is definitely afraid of being overthrown.

They wink and nod at us all the time. They gave us intelligence to find OBL then denied it to their people.

If we operated in the country without the government's awareness, why would they let an Ambassador mention it and not make any official statement of their own? Why the silence from Pakistan's lawmakers?

The truth is they are only too happy to have us rout out the extremists in their midst.

[Bonobo]

43. Oh, I get it.

Is that like when a woman asks you to stop but you just KNOW they don't really mean it?

[randome]

45. Um...no.

Pakistan gave us intelligence about OBL then denied to their people they did.

It makes sense that the Pakistani government does NOT want an Islamic dictatorship to overthrow it.

Do you think Malala Yousafzai wants that to happen?

http://blogs.dw.de/womentalkonline/2012/11/30/pakistan-women-and-politics/

[Bonobo]

47. So they SAY "stop the drones" but they don't mean it, right?

I mean you said that NO countries have asked the US to stop the drone attacks and then when Pakistan and Somalia are pointed out, you say they don't MEAN it.

Have I put words in your mouth?

[randome]

49. Pakistan says 'stop the drones' by way of an ambassador.

Their lawmakers don't seem to mind a bit. Although I haven't done research on that, admittedly.

Somalia is involved in a civil war so things are quite a mess there. But we have been offering resources to the government so I think we have their cooperation.

On edit: Pakistan does appear to be becoming more vocal about our drone strikes in their country. I would prefer that we NOT operate without the support of the local government.

[Bonobo]

51. Everyone knows senior ambassadors are NOT to be considered as representing the will of the govt.

Oh wait... yes they are.

[randome]

52. You have a point.

[randome]

64. However, they clearly have wanted us there in some instances.

About once a month, the Central Intelligence Agency sends a fax to a general at Pakistan's intelligence service outlining broad areas where the U.S. intends to conduct strikes with drone aircraft, according to U.S. officials. The Pakistanis, who in public oppose the program, don't respond.

On this basis, plus the fact that Pakistan continues to clear airspace in the targeted areas, the U.S. government concludes it has tacit consent to conduct strikes within the borders of a sovereign nation.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/us-isnt-waiting-pakistans-permission-drone-strikes/57285/

[unapatriciated]

140. lol

That's a good one,

[dixiegrrrrl]

68. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and by now, I suspect in Mali.

Drone use was a rare and almost exclusively U.S. military capability a decade ago, Zegart said, yet today at least 70 countries have unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, as drones are called in security parlance.

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-drones-global-precedent-20130206,0,6491459.story

[Bonobo]

42. Pakistan has repeatedly asked the US to stop.

And it certainly is also the will of the people that they stop.

[randome]

75. They also turn a blind eye to our operations.

See my post above. We warn them when and where we have targeted a drone strike and they clear the airspace for us.

Pakistan is complicated. What nation isn't?

[polly7]

93. Why the U.S. Is Not Winning “Hearts and Minds” in Pakistan

http://pulitzercenter.org/articles/pakistan-flood-why-us-not-winning-hearts-minds

"As Pakistan struggles to remain afloat, American foreign policy certainly isn't helping. Traveling from the southern tip of Karachi to the northern tip of Kohistan, I recently spoke with countless internally displaced Pakistanis about the epic floods, their government's response to the tragedy, and America's involvement in their country. Pakistanis consistently told me the U.S. cannot win their "hearts and minds" through a schizophrenic policy of distributing food with one hand, and arming drones with the other. Many said they are infuriated that CIA drones carried out 21 strikes in September — the highest number since the clandestine operation began six years ago — just a month after their country experienced the worst natural disaster in its recent history. "In the U.S., almost ten years ago, you experienced 9/11 but, here in Pakistan, almost every day we are experiencing 9/11," said Hassan Ali Khan who works with a local grassroots nonprofit, Omar Asghar Khan Development Foundation (OAKDF). Pakistanis such as Khan told me the drones are not only seen as unjust, but also as an act of American cowardliness (the pilotless planes are maneuvered with a joystick thousands of miles away) and imperial arrogance (nobody provides any justification, recourse, or reparations to the victims of the drone attacks). A recent public opinion poll sponsored by the New America Foundation and conducted in Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun tribal areas in July confirms that U.S. drone strikes are deeply unpopular and likely to become even more unpopular."

[randome]

98. I'm not in 'favor' of drone strikes anywhere. I'm not in 'favor' of overseas meddling at all.

But Pakistan's military shares a great deal of the 'blame' in this in that they cannot contain their own terrorists and are just as powerful as the government.

Like I said, it's complicated. If we're going to be over there, I would prefer that we do as much 'winning of hearts and minds' as possible.

But I also believe we currently have in office the most intellectually astute President in our lifetimes. I lean toward trusting Obama that this is worth the effort. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong. But so far I am willing to support him on this and not, like some, scream 'Fascist! Dictator!' at the first sign of something I don't agree with. (Not saying that's you, BTW.)

[gholtron]

122. what did hou think the Talibans did in Afghanistan?

[randome]

127. For starters, this.

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

[dogknob]

139. We DO have groups trying to overthrow the government and install...

...a corporate, fascist, women-and-non-whites-hating dictatorship.

[noiretextatique]

141. +1000

we sure as hell do.

[BainsBane]

3. I disagree

It succinctly gets at the double standard that Americans consistently apply to themselves vs. the rest of the world. Drones enter foreign airspace without consent all the time. Terrorism is one tactic of aggression against a people, and drone strikes are another. We have killed far more civilians in the war on terror than terrorists have killed Americans.

Lastly, your comments about Muslims are stereotypical and ignorant. It's the sort of thing Fox News promoted to justify the war on terror.

If it would have outraged you under Bush, it should outrage you under Obama.

[randome]

6. Oh, so your objection is 'foreign airspace'?

I'm not that concerned about it. Neither are the other countries, apparently, except to pay lip service to the concept.

'Stereotypical', huh? You do know how the Taliban treat women, right?

We would kill MANY more civilians if we put troops on the ground.

And you do not get to tell me that I need to be consistent according to your rules. I'm talking about here and now, nothing else.

[BainsBane]

11. You raised the issue of permission

Now you claim it doesn't matter. The Taliban isn't all Muslims. It isn't even all Afghans. What if I were to justify killing you because of the hatred of Westborough Baptist or some other right wing fundamentalist group? That is exactly what you are doing with Muslims.

No, you only need to be consistent if you consider yourself to be a person of integrity. Only you can make that determination.

[randome]

17. I recognize the Taliban isn't all Muslims.

Do you think Obama is trying to exterminate all Muslims?

[BainsBane]

21. no, I don't

but you justify his actions based on your antipathy toward Muslims and your absolute ignorance about them.

[randome]

12. You do realize how these terrorist groups treat women and children, right?

You do realize that the groups we have targeted want to install Islamic dictatorships everywhere? Right?

'Islamophobe'? I guess I am a 'WhiteSupremacistPhobe', as well.

[randome]

30. 'Proof'? No.

Plenty of sources for how the Taliban and Al-Quaida treat women, though.

You can start with this if you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talibanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[randome]

36. It goes to Wikipedia. Not sure why it won't work for you.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that women and children are always treated as equals in terrorist groups?

It's not so much my point of view as it is a fact that many terrorist groups badly mistreat women and children.

[randome]

40. I agree, we don't target based on that criteria. Not that I'm aware of, anyways.

But some of the countries we are in are afraid of the fundamentalists in their midst and don't have the resources to deal with them.

If we have to go after terrorists -and I'm not saying we do- then why not recognize that some of these groups are absolute monsters when it comes to the rights of women and children?

[randome]

50. I think the local police can handle matters fine.

We don't have local police in the mountains of Pakistan or Somalia.

[Go Vols]

97. Correct

We should not be the "World Police".

[randome]

99. The vast majority of those countries have asked for our resources and help.

Because they cannot corral their own groups of terrorists and are afraid of another Islamic dictatorship taking hold.

[polly7]

56. I hope you're not trying to say the 'wars' or drones are in any way

way helping, or were even meant to help women and children. They were never even a consideration, imo. Just as the women in Afghanistan weren't when tribal lords there with child brides were given Viagra, in trade for something or other.

"KK: You know, beyond Kabul, our friends tell us that it's very, very frightening. The children, they hear a drone overhead when they go to sleep at night.... My friend's sister's husband was killed and a little 5-year-old - his mother is still trying to explain to him that a computer killed [his] father.

There's a great deal of anxiety. Somebody could knock at your door, and in the culture, if that person asks for food or beverage, you give it to them. Well, if it's the Taliban who's appearing on a screen to somebody in Creech Air Force Base, Hancock Field or Whiteman Air Force Base, then you may very well be a subject of a night raid or worse - a weaponized drone could target your house. People know over there that President Obama gets together on a Tuesday, [two dozen] people on a conference call to assemble a kill list of people who will be assassinated that week. Any young person between the ages of 15 and 30 is eligible to be on that list. There's a great deal of fear and tension and nowhere to run, nowhere to hide."

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-longest-war-afghan-people-face-fearful-future-as-american-troops-prepare-to-exit-the-ravaged-country-by-kathy-kelly

"Like George Bush's government in Iraq, Obama's administration neither documents nor acknowledges the civilian casualties of the CIA's drone strikes in north-west Pakistan. But a report by the law schools at Stanford and New York universities suggests that during the first three years of his time in office, the 259 strikes for which he is ultimately responsible killed between 297 and 569 civilians, of whom at least 64 were children. These are figures extracted from credible reports: there may be more which have not been fully documented.

The wider effects on the children of the region have been devastating. Many have been withdrawn from school because of fears that large gatherings of any kind are being targeted. There have been several strikes on schools since Bush launched the drone programme that Obama has expanded so enthusiastically: one of Bush's blunders killed 69 children.

The study reports that children scream in terror when they hear the sound of a drone. A local psychologist says that their fear and the horrors they witness is causing permanent mental scarring. Children wounded in drone attacks told the researchers that they are too traumatised to go back to school and have abandoned hopes of the careers they might have had. Their dreams as well as their bodies have been broken.

Obama does not kill children deliberately. But their deaths are an inevitable outcome of the way his drones are deployed. We don't know what emotional effect these deaths might have on him, as neither he nor his officials will discuss the matter: almost everything to do with the CIA's extrajudicial killings in Pakistan is kept secret. But you get the impression that no one in the administration is losing much sleep over it"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats

"First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.

Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves."

http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

[KoKo]

60. +1

[randome]

67. I am NOT saying that is America's prime concern. Perhaps it should be.

I'm saying that current governments have every right to fear being overthrown by monsters like the ones we are fighting.

As far as civilian casualties, there would be far more of them with troops on the ground. In addition to casualties among our troops.

[polly7]

69. Well I'm saying they're of 'no concern'.

And isn't that just sick ....

[randome]

72. How would you stop terrorists who blow up bars and school buses in other countries?

[Dragonfli]

78. Damn Right! During the troubles in Belfast I recall

The US blowing up a pub or two to stop the IRA, more would have died had we invaded the UK!

We know most in the pubs killed were terrorists because they were mostly male and of age and well, we blew them up, those three criteria make an enemy combatant or so the man Obama wants to head the CIA tells us, evidence enough for me!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. You're confusing "terrorism" with "Islam"

Terrorism is a TACTIC that has been used by malcontents of every political stripe and of every religion and no religion throughout history.

Just as a for instance, some of the Western terrorists of the 1970s were led by women.

[randome]

80. I am NOT confusing the two. I have no issue with anyone's religion.

'Islamic dictatorships' typically include brutal treatment of women and children.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. So do non-Islamic dictatorships

North Korea, anyone?

Ceausescu's Romania?

But seriously, it's never REALLY been about the women and children. In fact, the CIA SUPPORTED the Taliban in the 1990s because they were the most organized of the Mujahedin factions. Feminists and leftists were complaining about the Taliban YEARS before Bush suddenly "discovered" that they were brutal in 2001.

You need to do some homework.

[randome]

84. America is not consistent. I acknowledge that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. By the way, for all your alleged concern for the women and children...

do you know where one of the major drone bases is?

Saudi Arabia.

Yes, THAT Saudi Arabia.

[randome]

89. I acknowledged that, too, in another post in this thread.

I wish we DID put more pressure on SA to open up their society. But American foreign policy has never been consistent, has it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. At the moment, American foreign policy is more than inconsistent---

it is downright immoral.

[Sheepshank]

59. ok, you win the most stupid post award

deliberate misreading and drawing the extereme conclusion.

Welcome to DU

[Sheepshank]

70. It seems to be a growing habit here from a few

and it would appear that you think that tack is fine and dandy.

It's not, and isn't condusive to 'discussion'. It sets up defense mechanisms and diverts the discussion to nonsensical, unsubstantiated motivations rather than the discussion at hand.

[Dragonfli]

85. All that by making an observation of a remarkable islamophobe

that didn't even bother to hide his hatred of Islam?

Do you get just as angry when people point out someone's hatred of African Americans?

[Sheepshank]

87. No I don't see an extreme hatred of Islam in the comment

and your decision in extreme and unsubstatiated interpretation, parsing out one word, focusing on one word rather that the body of statements, is proving my point....exactly.

Look at your second line...you are clearly double down'ing in trying to put me on the defensive. It's pathetic, predictable and shallow.

[Dragonfli]

104. You KNOW that I am right, the guy constantly makes use of the word as interchangeable

with terrorism and dictatorship. His use of the word Islam as
used to portray the Muslim faith as a mere descriptor of terrorism is constant and does not offend you, my use of the word to point out his proud phobia is somehow very very bad; where his use
(usually seen employed by racist Bush apologists to justify invasions) is innocent - yet we are all meanies if we do not agree.

Don't bother being defensive, you both are actually quite "offensive" and I doubt I will care much for your justifications and or self righteous belief that Islam is the best way to describe terrorists.

[randome]

106. Talk to my lawyer!

[Dragonfli]

107. Wow, I never thought you could be so honest about your influences

I have to say I respect the honesty, I always knew you preferred right wing policy and have a special love for the insurance industry (there never was a health Insurer or policy that you would not defend including their right to become rich denying care)

I just thought you were a third way Max Baucus style neolib "democrat"

I never had you pegged as a Gopper.

[randome]

109. Gotta go. Almost lunch time.

?w=497

[Sheepshank]

108. As if your judgements of me are innocuous?

they are manufactured and vapid.

You continue to prove the point. Extremism is always a fail.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Got to say, your post is ridiculous as well as FoxNewsy.

Also deeply hypocritical. One of our bases is in Saudi Arabia, our ally which as a matter of course chops off heads and hands. Capital offenses include false prophecy,, apostasy, adultery, witchcraft and sorcery and can be carried out by beheading with a sword or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning. They are all carried out in public. The body is sometimes crucified and hung for public display. In addition, the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi.

So your stance is that beheading unbelievers is reason to bomb some people, but also it is reasonable to have as allies those who do the exact same thing? So we put a base in a 'behead the sinner' nation and fly from there to punish nations that behead sinners? Is that about right?

[randome]

28. I never claimed American foreign policy was consistent. It has never been so.

Nothing about this is 'reasonable'. But I don't see why some want to defend the terrorist groups that DO behead women and keep them as virtual slaves. IMO, we should be putting more pressure on Saudi Arabia to clean up its own act, as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Yeah, but you stated those actions as reasons for acts of war when the same actions are done

by the nations in which we have drone bases. This is not a matter of inconsistent policy, it is about your inconsistent argument. I have not heard any official claim drones have to do with beheading of women and heretics, you made that claim. The fact is, our bases are in such nations and that alliance is a defense of a government of despots who keep 'virtual' slaves, I'd just say slaves, and do the public beheadings of 'witches'. Your own insistence that their beheadings call for 'pressure' but their neighbor nations beheadings call for war is a defense of Saudi's actions. Why does one deserve death from above and the other a handshake and a huge fee?

[randome]

37. Some of the terrorist groups we are fighting are determined to install Islamic dictatorships.

I consider Islamic dictatorships to be 'not good' because of the history of enslaving women and children.

I'm not saying that is the prime reason we are fighting them. I'm saying that if we need to be fighting anyone -and I'm not even saying we should be doing that- then why object to the fact that some of these people we are fighting are monsters?

[rug]

55. Tactical cooperation is not an invitation to a bombing.

"Bomb us!"

[Floyd_Gondolli]

94. Agreed

This is starting to remind me of the fundie response to gay marriage.

"What's next, men marrying squirrels? Women marrying their cats?"

It was batshit crazy then, and it's batshit crazy now.

[Arctic Dave]

112. Ummm, actually we have hundreds, if not thousands of people plotting

to blow up China and all the other nations in the world. It's called the Pentagon.

Not mention the other hundred alphabet soup departments the DoD sponsors.

Let's say Syria used them to blow up targets in Turkey and the US just happened to be there helping them. Or, say Mali gets some (hypothetical, I know) and they decide to launch an attack against the base that is supporting the operations.

[randome]

119. Sure. Every country has plans to blow up every other country. What a waste.

Syria is in the midst of a civil war so, yeah, anything could happen there. Let's hope Assad gets the hell out.

If Mali doesn't want the French or the U.S. in their country, they need to say so. Right now, they have their own civil war to worry about. Again, anything could happen.

Just because 2 countries are in a volatile mess right now is no reason for us to pull out so we can sit in our comfy chairs secure in the knowledge of our noble intentions.

We're not always noble, of course, but on balance I think we do more good than bad.

[Arctic Dave]

134. "We" always think we do more good then bad.

"They" have other opinions. And since they are the ones who bear the brunt of our "noble intentions" I believe their opinions matter more then ours.

Maybe that is why they want to kill americans.

[randome]

135. Yeah, well, some don't care about America.

They just want to kill their wives for committing the crime of allowing themselves to be raped.

But I agree, we may be making more future enemies than future partners. But I'm no geopolitical expert, either. Obama is the most intellectually astute President we have had in office in a long time.

For the most part, I trust what he's doing.

[bvar22]

114. Thats odd.

I don't remember the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan requesting our Invasion and Occupation.

If you are referring to the puppet governments we put in place in these countries after killing their original governments,
they hardly count. The people whose pockets we are filling with $BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars are biased.

Meet Hamid Karzai
or as President Obama calls him, "The Government of Afghanistan".

He was appointed by Bush the Lesser to run Afghanistan.
He is one of the most despicable criminals in The World,
But NOW we like him so much
that our children fighting and dying in the deserts of Afghanistan to keep him in power.


Hasn't Afghanistan asked us to "please get the fuck out"?

[randome]

118. So because of the Bush Regime, we should huddle in our homes and withdraw from the world?

That's not a bad conclusion to reach but I don't think many share it. America -even today- is no 'Mother Theresa' when it comes to caring for the rest of the world. But we sometimes do good. Routing out terrorists and those who want to install Islamic dictatorships in their countries are good things, IMO.

[bvar22]

130. That is one of the most extreme Strawman Logical Fallacies I have seen on DU!

Congratulations!
Winning an award for an extreme Logical Fallacy on DU these days is difficult.
That is a High Bar to hurdle.
Well Done!


Of course, there ARE other alternatives than to "huddle in our homes and withdraw from the world"

.....but to acknowledge this would mean that you have no argument at all.
Maybe nobody cansee through your clever ploy to save face?
Ya Think?

[randome]

133. I truly don't enter into discussions here to prove myself right or wrong. Or to 'save face'.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm good with that.

But my post responded to the idea that because Bush & Co. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilized things there, we should leave them alone. I'm not even saying we should be over there NOW but it seems to me that part of putting things right -at least in those 2 places- is remaining to see that the Taliban or Al-Quaeda don't become a major threat to us or those countries again.

[bvar22]

136. It is obvious you want "something",

...or you wouldn't be working so hard in this thread,
where,
even to the most casual reader,
it is apparent you are in way over your head.

People who don't want something,
don't work that hard,
or resort to extreme Logical Fallacies
in failed attempts to salvage their positions.

[randome]

138. Is that a Haiku?

You think this is work? Pfft! This is just a warm-up for the rest of my day.

[Katashi_itto]

120. Let's say I am a Chinese dissident blogger in the U.S....with my posts I've become a problem

for the Chinese Govt. They demand my being turned over to them...for crimes against their govt

Our Govt refuses....


"Boom" drone strike.

[randome]

123. Then the world economy collapses and so does China.

[Katashi_itto]

125. How so? That would be a throwback to M.A.D. doctrine

The idea the U.S. would destroy itself and the world economy over a dissident, it just wouldnt happen.

No, what would really occur is lots of protests and counter protests. Then life would go on.

U.S. has already set precedence.

[randome]

128. I think it is a form of M.A.D.

Not the best situation, no doubt. It's nothing to the world economies when large nations invade small nations. But when two superpowers go at it -even in a 'minor' scuffle- I think the repercussions would be greater.

All of this is conjecture, of course.

We have been requested to aid most -if not all- of the countries we are currently operating in. See some of the other posts in this thread on that subject.

[Katashi_itto]

129. I agree all conjecture...oh we might have a bit of frosty relations for a while...

but the two countries need each other to much for any long term serious damage to be done to each other.

Don't get me wrong, one would plant a knife in the others back at the drop of a hat, but only if it didnt hurt themselves in doing it too.

[Recursion]

7. No. The only countries that could do that are Mexico, Canada, and Cuba

And Cuba is trying to find a detente with us, not piss us off.

I think you're vastly underestimating the logistics chain that is required to do what we do with drones.

Have you ever read Thucydides? The Melian Dialogue is a pretty good treatment of this question.

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

[BainsBane]

18. You aren't thinking beyond this year

What if China establishes a military alliance with Mexico or Cuba? They are already starting to replace the US as a hegemonic power in Latin America because of their investment and aid to the region. In ten year's time, geopolitics could look very different, and we might find ourselves victims of the precedent we set today.

Or what if, at some point in the future, Mexico decides the only way they can gain control over the drug cartels is to take out gun dealers along the border? It seems impossible now, but the world changes quickly. The point is we reap what we sow.

[Recursion]

20. I think you're missing the big point here: we have drones, and a Navy

that's why other countries won't do this to us. If Pakistan had drones and a powerful Navy, we wouldn't be doing it to them. Seriously, read the Thucydides some time. It's a very interesting take on this question.

[BainsBane]

22. my point stands

It is why countries don't do it now. They cannot. But China is rapidly replacing the US as the global hegemonic power.

[Recursion]

25. They'll probably have it out with India in the next half century

As far as a global hegemon? Conceivably, though they'd need the kind of Navy they don't show much interest in actually building (even that "carrier" was bought from the Russians) and doing that takes 30 to 40 years. We'll certainly be a less unipolar world than we have been for the last 20 years, which is probably a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact that we will be far and away the strongest military power for the foreseeable future: nobody's even bothering to try to catch us.

[BainsBane]

57. they can sit back and watch us sink ourselves

and go the way of all failing empires in history, by overextending ourselves militarily and running the nation into the ground.

China does EVERYTHING faster. If they want a strong navy, they'll have it. (I don't know why you are so concerned with navies about all else, but I'll defer to you on this point. It does remind me of horses and bayonets though).

Perhaps I'll get to Thucydides at some point. I'm current reading about suicide among nineteenth-century Italian nuns. But at least I'm getting paid to do it.

[Junkdrawer]

9. That's ridiculous. Everyone knows the US, not China, determines International Law....

The ignorance of some people.

[Logical]

32. LOL, good one! n-t

[Kolesar]

23. China would not risk hitting a Wal*Mart or one of their managers ... eom

[KharmaTrain]

35. Let's Go A Smaller Scale...

How about two African nations...or even tribes (such as in Somalia). The technology is inexpensive and surely has to be on the "shopping list" of every military and para military that can afford them. I read that the French were using drones in Mali and I'm sure that the Chinese and other major powers already have this technology or are well on their way. The era of "push button" warfare is at hand and they will proliferate.

What could be even more ominous would be a Mexican cartel with a weaponized drone...

[randome]

38. In Africa, they're going at each other with machetes and machine guns now.

Or at least they were in the recent past.

The best thing to do would be to stop all the conflicts. That's always easier said than done.

[KharmaTrain]

44. It Wont Be Long...

I just did a quick google search and came up with:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/121114/china-unveils-new-drones-developing-economies

ZHUHAI, China — Although China’s drone technology may be several years behind top manufacturers in the United States and Israel, the country’s unmanned aerial vehicle manufacturers are hoping their mid-range prices and middling technology will lure potential customers from developing countries looking for deals.

Delegations of military and civil-aviation officials from Kenya, Russia and other countries made the long journey to get a closer look at some of China's top exportable UAVs the government allowed to be publicly displayed for the first time at the biennial Zhuhai Air Show, which began here in south China on Tuesday.

Representatives from China Aerospace Long-March International, a division of the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), were on hand at a display of a medium-range UAV called the CH-4. They spoke with relative candor about that and two other drones the company was showing for the first time.

"We've been contacting many countries, especially from Africa and Asia," Guo Qian, a director at a division of CASC, said when talking about the interest and marketability of the company's military grade drones. "They are quite interested in the intermediate and short-range UAVs because they are portable and low-cost."

It appears this article is from 2011...so...

[randome]

48. But they have no reason to pick a war with America.

America is no threat to them. We do not border their country. We are not in danger of putting a Tea Party Fundamentalist group into power.

[KharmaTrain]

53. The Point Is About The Proliferation Of These Weapons...

The OP brings up the possibility of China using a militarized drone to strike the U.S. to go after a "security threat". Right now there are few international laws governing these new weapons and my point is there needs to be. Drones can and will become a popular new weapon and could become a new problem within the "third world" (that doesn't need more problems) and could come back to haunt Americans abroad.

I'm no way saying that China is looking to pick a war with America. It would be economic suicide for Beijing as we're their biggest customer and our consumption keeps their masses from turning against their leaders. The problem could come from a drug cartel that gets their hands on a weaponized drone and turn our already bloody borders into a bigger war zone.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA comes out in favor of public ownership of drones...

Cheers...

[randome]

63. How would we ever be a security threat to China?

That's a long-ranging hypothetical, IMO.

[KharmaTrain]

73. Weapons Sales For Fun and Profit...

The point is the technology behind making drones is already being made available on the world wide arms market...the article I found showed a Chinese company already looking to fill orders from cash-in-hand customers. I'm sure American companies are also looking at turning profits from selling drones...military or otherwise...to anyone who can afford the $3 million or so per copy. Again...there's no laws addressing this matter and we could see a future world where not only nations but para military organizations will incorporate drones into warfare.

Again...there isn't anything mentioned about China being a security threat. The OP used that as a hypothetical...the issue I'm looking at is the need to address the use of drones on an international level...at the U.N. so that there can be monitoring and possible regulation on the use of these weapons.

Like others, I'm concerned about domestic uses of drones without some kind of judicial oversight...similar to a FISA court, but I'm not concerned about "Red" China launching drone attacks on Duluth. However, I could see Chinese made drones sold to a Syria used against its own people or a Tutu-dominated government in Burundi intent on settling scores with Hutus in neighboring Rwanda. Or...unforunately...against U.S. citizens abroad in the wrong country at the wrong time...

[randome]

74. Eh. The technology for nuclear bombs is everywhere, too, and we still maintain a balance of power.

I agree there should be more oversight but I can't say it keeps me awake at night.

[KharmaTrain]

90. Cost Comparison...

Launching a drone that costs about $3 million a copy is a whole different animal than establishing a nuclear program...enriching weapons-grade uranium then building a rocket, tipping it with a functioning missile and then launching it half way around the world.

I'm not losing sleep about this issue either...but I can't say the same for someone in the wrong neighborhood in Pakistan or Yemen...

[spanone]

41. when's the last time ANYONE has 'declared' war.....the earth is in a perpetual state of war

humans suck

[Recursion]

58. Comoros, against Anjouan, in 2008

At least, that's the last time I know of that the words "declaration of war" were used.

[Gman]

61. Reduction to the absurd

This is ridiculous.

[rhett o rick]

65. You are unnecessarily making this complicated. We are the good guys. Nuff said.

[Logical]

96. I hope it was sarcasm! n-t

[rhett o rick]

105. It was intended as sarcasm, but a lot of DU posters use it for justification. nm

[Logical]

121. I agree! It amazes me at times! n-t

[rhett o rick]

137. As I see it, we all have our individual reality boxes. Some are willing to expand their

boxes via education, etc., while other fight to keep the comfort level for their boxes. Conservatives dont like to take the risk that box expansion requires.

For some rationalization is the key to happiness.

[plethoro]

66. You are right as rain, logical. Your detractors as per usual will

come back with, "but, goshes, China is not like us. We don't do things like China does..." That's bullshit; we in fact do many things worse than China does RIGHT NOW!. And this will only get worse as we move away from the guide of the Constitution. This Drone horseshit CANNOT be allowed. I will fight it with time and money. I will not slip into fascist control without a fight! Obama and the globalist's larger agenda is to morph society into Orwell's 1984/Huxley's Brave new world at a slow pace so that the frogs (us) don't jump out of the pot before we're boiled. Becoming clear as glass. And I voted for Obama.

[Dragonfli]

71. I think I would welcome the justice strikes! Assuming they say "they picked me with care"

They must also claim there is evidence that proves I am an enemy of China, obviously I would not ask to see the evidence (nor would I be allowed to, of course), that would be rude, if a leader says he has definitive proof, their word should be good enough for me! Hidden evidence that no one sees is always 100% proof of guilt, everyone knows this, if an executive is smart enough to act as judge , jury, and executioner then that executive is smart enough to know without question if I am an enemy of China. Leaders would never lie about evidence either, everyone knows that, it doesn't even matter if the leader is changed, once the crown is on the head the leader becomes infallible and ever honest.

I can't wait to find out if I am (an enemy combatant of China), I have never thought I was a dangerous enemy of theirs, but not being a leader, I am hardly qualified to know if I did something bad or not, I may have bombed Beijing and not noticed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Not so far fetched

We have actual Chinese dissidents, including several survivors of Tiananmen Square, living in the U.S.

[slackmaster]

82. It wouldn't last long

[ProSense]

83. They could also

"Imagine China sending a drone into the USA airspace to kill someone...."

...start a war with the United States. I mean, let's flesh out the hypothetical.

Americans are actively plotting against China. A group of them actually bombed facilities in China, and are now back in hiding in the United States. The U.S. government is dragging its feet to aid the government of China in finding the terrorists.

China learns via Canadian intelligence that the group is in a mountainous, heavily wooded and lawless region of the United State, plotting more acts of terrorism. The U.S. government tacitly agrees to allow China to search the area and apprehend or kill the suspects.

Yeah, it's a ridculous hypothetical, but so is the premise upon which it's based.

The more likely scenario would be law enforcement or if determined that the U.S. government were involved, war.

[Sheepshank]

88. Perhpas you could explain why the USA doesn't send drone strikes into China, or North Korea?

Perhpas there are some moral imperatives or rules of engagement after all?

[Logical]

95. Lol, because they would fight back! Understand now?? n-t

[malaise]

92. Then the real fun will begin

All are violations of international law.

[DCBob]

100. If we were harboring anti-Chinese terrorists and not doing anything about it..

then I suppose China would have the right to do what was necessary to protect themselves.

[SidDithers]

101. Imagine Canada nuking Des Moines...

'cause that's just as likely as your OP.

Sid

[randome]

103. Imagine Sarah Palin with wings, swooping down to zap all unbelievers with her deadly eye beams!

[SidDithers]

113. Pew! Pew!...

Sid

[DreamGypsy]

102. The U.S. has been known to accept dissidents from China and other countries...

..all China has to do is decide that one of the dissidents harbored in the U.S. is a threat to Chinese security.

After all, we have written and now published the legal precedents and other vagaries that justify such an action.

[MineralMan]

110. I doubt any such thing would happen.

China's very interested in trade between the two countries, so it seems very unlikely.

Another example might be more logical, actually.

[indepat]

115. At a minimum, others who use drones to kill their enemies located on U.S. soil should be as

circumspect as the U.S. in keeping collateral damage down to an acceptable lever?

[arely staircase]

117. they would if they could

but that is a mute point

[Sunlei]

124. That is an excellent point. I also think it's wrong for the USA to stand alone as the drone senders

What I mean is if the Saudis or Israel or even the droned countries own Gov. backs/allows these drone attacks they should stand up and claim the attacks (and the failures) along with us.

That goes for America working with Chinese to pressure North Korea, Tibet,Formosa or anyone else China doesn't like as a neighbor or who has been crushed.

If America assisted the chinese taking over Formosa and now ignores or even assists the slow crushing of Tibet,NK, the people of the world deserve to know.

[stevenleser]

126. Multiple reasons why your analogy doesn't work.

First, as another poster upthread pointed out:

1. "we do not have groups of people plotting to blow up China."
2. "we do not have people beheading women and chopping the hands off unbelievers in America. (Not as a matter of course, that is.)"

To which I add:

A. Most countries have treaties with each other that govern how persons of interest in investigations are handed over. Those treaties cannot be honored by Pakistan or Yemen in the cases of the places where Al Qaeda are hiding because those governments do not have control over those areas.

[arely staircase]

131. really only one reason, though all of yours are valid

they can't

i am sure there are chinese dissidents living here that their government would target for killing if they could get away with it.

now whether or not one considers the killing a chinese dissident and the killing of an al-quaeda operative as morally equivalent is a different matter, as is how much power a democracy grants to its government to do such killing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

132. It's much easier to imagine us buying drones from China 'cuz they're cheaper.