BruceVC

Welcome back 2133, you have been quiet for a while and I was worried about you. This pandemic has wrecked havoc in many families and you never know who might have succumbed to it, glad you okay

This made me laugh

Yes, I am not suggesting their should be no civilian oversight across all military matters but it becomes complicated because when do you bring in civilian oversight when it comes to strategies like drone strikes in non-conflict areas? And which civilians because most civilians wont agree their is a valid reason for the examples I mentioned like the Swart Valley in Pakistan Yet their are known Taliban camps in this area which still actively kill Afghanistan citizens and US soldiers. So lets say for example you have input, would you support Drone strikes against these camps? Its unfair to expect civilians to decide military actions unless they understand the nature of the conflict

Its concerning because most civilians are not trained in military strategy so they have no institutional experience in warfare and the nature of warfare especially with dealing with Islamic extremist groups like AQ, ISIS or the Taliban

No thats missing the point completely. In a military conflict you leave the military decisions to experts and that is the military leaders and generals. If the generals and military intelligence decide to do a drone strike in a non-conflict area we should trust their is a valid reason because of the nebulous nature of how some these conflicts exist If the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups were engaged in conventional warfare their would be no need for drone strikes but thats not the nature of how they conduct themselves And I will just ignore the second paragraph because that is not what I have tried to explain at all

Malc, wanting citizens of a country to somehow control the decisions of the military is a very bad idea and as Gfted1 said it really scares me

Okay, let me explain in more detail because I understand the various military conflicts the US are involved and how they involved can be complex and this creates additional confusion around the legitimacy of valid strategies like drone strikes The article states "Kirby said the action was part of a broader review by the new administration into the legal and policy frameworks that govern when and how these missions take place outside of parts of the world such as Yemen or Somalia that are clearly defined war zones, like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan " Also " "areas of active hostilities" – in an attempt to standardize the semi-legal policies governing U.S. troops operating in conflict zones where war had not been declared formally " So Pakistan is not considered a formal conflict zone and therefore drone strikes and Commando raids need additional authorization. But as I mentioned the Western border of Pakistan and an area known as the Swart Valley is not controlled by the Pakistan government and tribes hold sway. Some of these tribes give the Taliban sanctuary and the Taliban cross into Afghanistan to continue to prolong the war and commit acts of violence. So drone strikes are necessary even though Pakistan is not an active conflict zone, now this will be harder to initiate and make the war effort harder for the US and its allies. And I can give you similar examples in places like Yemen and Somalia https://indianexpress.com/article/pakistan/taliban-bomber-kills-11-soldiers-in-pakistans-swat-valley-5050995/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/10/7/us-drone-strikes-taliban-camp-in-pakistan

Yes I read the article and quoted from it, did you read my post ?

I see this as a bad but well meaning military decision I support both necessary drone strikes and Commando raids because it avoids boots on the ground in real conflict areas like dealing with the Taliban in Pakistan who cross the border to Afghanistan to kill US and other coalition soldiers and then run back like cowards across the border thinking they can find sanctuary in Pakistan. Im not sure what you think is a reasonable alternative in this actual example ? These types of military strategies reduce the real loss of lives. At least the article says "drone strikes and commando raids in some conflict zones "....so the operative is " some "

Our opinions are just words on any forum and dont translate to veracity Post links of all the violent protests the CCP has allowed to continue for months in China, if you cannot even support your own view with facts you undermine your own argument. Did you do debating at school, this is something you learn about how to make a convincing point in any debate

Oh no it absolutely holds water, the CCP doesn't allow anti-government protest or any protest for that matter So we could absolutely arrest ANTIFA protesters without evidence or trial if the USA became like China If you disagree post some links where the CCP has allowed violent protests to continue for months in any city in China ?Prove me wrong as I genuinely want to read about it ?

Oh no I am not obsessed at all, I am responding directly to what people say. The original ANTIFA was a valid movement that fought against Fascism. But Fascism has a real definition, like White Supremacy, and its unhelpful to throw the word around if its not Fascism or the context is not the same The definition of fascism is " Fascism is a set of right-wing political beliefs that includes strong control of society and the economy by the state, a powerful role for the armed forces, and the stopping of political opposition " https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fascism The US government is not a fascist government and the objectives of BLM and ANTIFA dont target real fascism. ANTIFA nowadays claims to believe violence is acceptable to target violence by white supremacists and right wingers. These groups dont control the USA because the USA is a Constitutional Democracy So its incorrect to say " Antifa exists to combat Fascism, we are at war " because anti-BLM protests and right wing influence is not the same as a real Fascist government and the USA is not at war with Fascism internally. This is hyperbole I am surprised you would ever justify the violence we see from ANTIFA based on the reality of what we see in the USA ?

This is a very good point and pertinent, the response to BLM and Antifa sometimes leads to a harsher response and laws being implemented depending who is in power in each state and creates unnecessary fearmongering. It galvanizes and creates support for more rightwing views from normal citizens who normally wouldnt support such outcomes like Federal security forces being deployed in places like Portland and it becomes justified for many people when you see months of protracted violence

This is where I agree with you about all our countries becoming like China. If the USA was like China the authorities would make sweeping arrests with no evidence and trials necessary and all ANTIFA activists can be arrested and vanish into reeducation camps like what is a happening to the Uighur Muslims in China Problem solved, no more Antifa to irritate us and perpetuate violence. Society would be more peaceful and their would be less disruptive protests hiding behind this pesky thing called " freedom of speech and freedom of protest " So Comrade we do have things in common ....I always try to see the constructive aspects to the other side in a debate

Great topic Gromnir and one worthy of debate because this discussion around " woke supremacy " is something we see in most of our countries as it manifests itself in different forms and causes different degrees of consternation, disruption and irritation Firstly I dont think you should or can compare true white supremacy with the term " woke supremacy " because the former is historical, global and does exist and has real structures in certain countries. Its not common but its real and the real white supremacists have appalling ideological views that we should all reject Sadly the term white supremacy gets horribly abused nowadays, often for example "woke supremacists " have an issue with a development or ruling around alleged police violence the accusation is " this is because of white supremacy ". So we should all stop using certain words to describe everything and anything because it looses its effectiveness and meaning if everything becomes " white supremacy ". Words matter and their is nuance and complexity to why people have views on things " Woke supremacy " can also lead to people like me losing interest or support in certain initiatives because I am not going to support sweeping, biased and or inaccurate generalizations about history, the police or events. This doesnt mean I would ever support the ideological views of white supremacists but I may sometimes be forced to agree with the views on FOX even if our political intentions and goals are different So in closing I dont think its reasonable to compare white supremacy with " woke supremacy " because the latter is not an established ideological movement. It is more of a nebulous group that has various opinions on topics and at times is inconsistent with its own objectives. I have issues with some of the implementation and stated objectives of this group but not all of them But compared to real White Supremacists its not the the same as I have nothing in common with them

Is that the definition of cancel culture now ? Okay got it

Okay I forgive you, I am too fond of you to ever stay disappointed with you for long But yes I do have ancestral ties to the UK going back to when most of my direct family came to SA with the British army to fight the Boers in 1899. Some of them stayed in SA and some went back to the UK after that war. So I do have direct family in the UK who support the UK Monarchy but most of my SA family like the UK Monarchy but we dont have the same connection as my UK family who live in the UK

Exactly my point...so dont be angry with the UK because they have continued to support their Monarchy in a ceremonial role. Its not the fault of the UK Monarchy they are the most famous Monarchy in the world ...its the choice of millions of people around the world who choose to support and follow the UK Monarchy ...blame them

Elerond !!!! What a terrible thing to say, dont be jealous and angry because no one cares or knows about the Finnish royal family Its not the fault of the UK Monarchy that much of the world has an interest in their lives....dont be a hater

You raise a good point, would you recommend we change our laws and systems of government to become like China? I think its a one party state so who should rule supreme in the USA ? I am thinking Republicans but not Trumpism, old school George Bush Republicanism ?

Absolutely but in SA this type of incident is not considered a crime, its a form of entrepreneurship because of all the problems with our economy and people need somehow to have a revenue stream I would advise our friends in the USA to adopt the same policy, then you dont get upset or concerned when you hear about it

I wouldnt be too worried about the various examples of modern flawed socialist policies we see in some countries because you will notice these policies always end up harming the economic trajectory So in other words we dont have to worry about children being taken away because that would mean these socialist polices are working and sustainable ...and they not, they generally end up as epic failures. The biggest problem is the citizens of these countries have to now deal with the broken economic aftermath. Its tragic and unnecessary but this is what happens when societies and governments decide to address " inequality " without following tried and tested prudent free market thinking and interfere in the private sector

I have been meaning to chat to you about your personal views on the rise and collapse of the Brazilian economy. If you interested we must discuss this later when you have time I must say I am shocked Lula is legally allowed to run for president. He was jailed and linked to corruption and wasnt he also linked to the corruption of the state owned oil company Petrobras !!! Or is that Rousseff https://www.britannica.com/event/Petrobras-scandal Also remember for socialists and anti-free market people Brazil use to seen as an example of a "semi-socialist " success under Lula and Rousseff so when rampant corruption was exposed within the so called anti- Capitalist economy people refused to acknowledge it. And Bolsonaro initially won popular support because he represented everything that would fix this.....yet he became a thorough disappointment ....very thorough I am sorry for what you guys are going through, Brazil has the potential to still be the leading economy in South America but yes you do have bad luck with leaders and their respective economic and political policies

Im surprised you would say that Barti, I would have assumed I must be closest to a role model for you? Think how long we have known each other, I have been active on these forums for 11 years, and all the good advice and prudent lifestyle choices you have gained from me ? I would assume its the same for KP, I must have a similar role model position for younger forum members? Dont worry, I am a humble person and dont expect constant recognition

I was about to criticize this post heavily for its lack of patriotism as NZ in part of the Commonwealth but then I read what you said and I agree with most of it