The All Things Political Thread (The World and US Reunited)

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Malcador said:

US civilians like to kill **** as much as the uniformed services, anyway.  

This made me laugh 

[BruceVC]

15 minutes ago, 213374U said:

And I bet you also thought that the military being subordinate to civilian authority was like, democracy 101.

Heh, sucker.

also, ITT: financial types wax clausewitzian on "the nature of war" lmao

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 

[BruceVC]

22 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Always bring in oversight, surely the Pentagon can raise a persuasive case for a strike if it's actually needed and is based on reliable data.  US civilians like to kill **** as much as the uniformed services, anyway.  It's a bit much to complain you need to notify and/or justify w.r.t your actions.

This post made me think of something, we dont rely on the advice generally on layman or non-qualified people in other sectors of our lives. For example its doctors and scientists who carry the most weight in most countries when it comes to Corona and I dont know one bank I have ever worked at that relies on people outside the financial sector or have no banking experience to decide business strategy 

So why should the  military be different? Surly its the same thing, we rely on people with military experience to define most strategies ?

[Malcador]

16 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

This post made me think of something, we dont rely on the advice generally on layman or non-qualified people in other sectors of our lives. For example its doctors and scientists who carry the most weight in most countries when it comes to Corona and I dont know one bank I have ever worked at that relies on people outside the financial sector or have no banking experience to decide business strategy 

So why should the  military be different? Surly its the same thing, we rely on people with military experience to define most strategies ?

Because the Pentagon is part of the US government, so it's not like the NSC are some random dudes off the street.

[ShadySands]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This post made me think of something, we dont rely on the advice generally on layman or non-qualified people in other sectors of our lives. For example its doctors and scientists who carry the most weight in most countries when it comes to Corona and I dont know one bank I have ever worked at that relies on people outside the financial sector or have no banking experience to decide business strategy 

So why should the  military be different? Surly its the same thing, we rely on people with military experience to define most strategies ?

Who do you think they are letting make these decisions, random people off the street? As has already been said, these people ARE the experts with the vast majority having been in the military themselves or having some other relevant experience. You're arguing against the system we already have and have had for like forever. Civilian leadership and oversight is one of the core tenets of our military.

Edited March 10, 2021 by ShadySands

[Raithe]

SWAT team tears down woman’s home and leaves her with a $50,000 bill (upworthy.com)

Vicki Baker was all set to sell her home when SWAT officers raided her home during a standoff, destroying the property. Not only did the sale of her property fall through, but she was also charged $50,000 for the damages caused by the McKinney cops. Vicki Baker, who was relying on the sale of her property had nothing to do with the standoff. An armed fugitive hid in her home in McKinney, Texas, along with a 15-year-old girl, with who he had claimed to have "run-off." The teenager managed to escape the home, but when the cops stormed the house, the fugitive killed himself, reported Vice. While the incident became the talk of the town and the cops were lauded for saving the teenager, Vicki Baker, through no fault of her own, had her home destroyed. Baker's daughter’s dog, which came running out of the home during the stand-off, ended up nearly blind and completely deaf.

 

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Who do you think they are letting make these decisions, random people off the street? As has already been said, these people ARE the experts with the vast majority having been in the military themselves. You're arguing against the system we already have and have had for like forever. Civilian leadership and oversight is one of the core tenets of our military.

I dont know who specifically at the National Security Council has military experience, I will take your word for it

But when you say " Civilian leadership and oversight is one of the core tenets of our military" I am not sure what your define by that because I have been following the US military since 9/11 and drone strikes have been around for ages and that was part of the official strategy. So their is no reason it cant continue but now changes are coming but that doesn't mean the previous strategies weren't part of what anyone can define as " core tenets of our military" 

So in other words you dont need this extra oversight and it would still be an acceptable military strategy because it has been used for years 

 

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Can you link an example of this occurance?

The very first drone strike, like ever?

There was also the infamous case from February 2002 where some poor Afghan farmer got droned literally because they were tall. And that's off the top of my head.

Considering how much effort the US goes to to obfuscate the negative nature of its drone program- everyone killed by them is a terrorist, unless it can be proven otherwise so no civilians are killed etc- it's surprising there's even those examples, and they're only known because of the turf war to sometimes literal war by proxy, between the CIA and the military.

[Gfted1]

The article seems to imply that the entire point of the operation was to kill someone but they screwed up on which platform would do it. So not a rogue strike from loose cannon general.

But Im not defending the loss of innocent civilians. Thats never good regardless of what platform kills them. I image had those F-16 delivered the 1000lb bombs then a couple of blocks of the city would have been leveled.

[Zoraptor]

Well yeah, technically, it was a rogue strike from the civilian CIA rather than from a military general. That's not exactly running counter to the overall point though, indeed, having rival operators stepping on each others' toes is an illustration of it being shambolic and not in any way a denunciation of it. The natural evolution was exactly what we got a decade later- CIA backed Syrian rebels actively fighting against Pentagon backed Syrian rebels.

[Sarex]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

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 

So you support what's happening in Myanmar?

[midnite rule]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

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

 

In 1998 Rwanda invaded The Democratic Republic of the Congo. They claimed to act in response to raids originating from Congolese territory. The raiders were mostly ethnic Hutus, with whom the Tutsis ruling Rwanda had some bad blood. The invasion of The DRC started the Second Congo War (also known as the African World War) a conflict that killed 6 million people (the deadliest since WWII).

 

Query: was Rwanda justified in invading DR Congo?

[Raithe]

Trump’s new fundraising group has an unfortunate abbreviation (msn.com)

“He explicitly told his supporters not to give money to anyone but him, telling the faithful to donate through his Save America PAC. That’s SAP, for short."

[Bartimaeus]

The article doesn't say and I can't seem to figure it out - what's the exact significance of it being abbreviated to "SAP"?

All this whining and complaining from both the left and the right about DINOs and RINOs is kind of hilarious. Very often, these types of politicians are where they are because they are the only ones who can win given their locale. Joe Manchin is a conservative Democrat, and sure, that sucks right now for passing a progressive agenda...but he's the only kind of Democrat that can win in West Virginia at all. He might be literally the only Democrat who can win there at all given his long family history with the state. So if it wasn't him or someone just like him, the Senate would still be 51-49 Republican right now. Same with a few Republicans like Susan Collins of Maine. I bring this up because Trump is whining and screaming about RINOs in that linked article - whether you're Republican or Democrat, those compromise candidates are critical to being able to control the Senate - if you instead nominate a crappy full MAGA or full Bernie Sanders candidate in an area that isn't receptive towards them, congratulations on automatically losing any shot of winning that seat and instead handing it over to the opposite party. Though I bet it felt great for a while to be utterly deluded and nominate someone who was predictably and inevitably going to walloped, right?

Edited March 10, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Zoraptor]

22 minutes ago, midnite rule said:

In 1998 Rwanda invaded The Democratic Republic of the Congo. They claimed to act in response to raids originating from Congolese territory. The raiders were mostly ethnic Hutus, with whom the Tutsis ruling Rwanda had some bad blood. The invasion of The DRC started the Second Congo War (also known as the African World War) a conflict that killed 6 million people (the deadliest since WWII).

Query: was Rwanda justified in invading DR Congo?

It was a bit more than bad blood, since Interahamwe were literally literally the remnant Hutu genocide gangs from 1994.

(Not Bruce, but the legal justification for the intervention was fine, under international law. You can 'invade' a neighbour if they're unable to prevent cross border raids against your country. It's certainly an oft abused position though, and the Rwandan intervention was not just about raids any more than for others who abuse that justification like the US and Turkey. OTOH, that specific war would almost certainly have happened in some form with or without Rwanda as the central Congolese state was and largely remains extremely weak with the country being an impoverished mish mash of ethnicities and local power blocs theoretically ruled over (up until recently) the decidedly non democratic Laurent Kabila)

[Gorth]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

So in other words you dont need this extra oversight and it would still be an acceptable military strategy because it has been used for years

Bruce, you seriously need to learn to read. The talk wasn't about adding a tonne of red tape. It was about formalizing things the way they were *before* Trump. The latter didn't want the responsibility of calling the shots, so it got delegated away from the civilian government.

 

I'm not joking when I say, I think you somewhere deep at heart hate democracy and favour military junta type governments to run countries. So far, in this whole conversation, you've said nothing, null, njet, rien, nada to contradict that impression. Your mileage may vary of course, but I prefer democratically elected leaders to call the shots when it comes to things like when , where and how to take military action (scope and rules of engagement), order the military to work out plans and strategies accordoingly and then approve these. Not the military telling the government what to do and how to run the country, which is what you're advocating at the moment.

[rjshae]

It's amusing because Trump is very much a RINO. The term is about allegiance to Trump, rather than the individual's Republican credentials. I can't remember how many times Mitt Romney has been labelled a RINO by the Trumpies, but he certainly isn't a Democrat.

[Gorth]

2 minutes ago, rjshae said:

It's amusing because Trump is very much a RINO. The term is about allegiance to Trump, rather than the individual's Republican credentials. I can't remember how many times Mitt Romney has been labelled a RINO by the Trumpies, but he certainly isn't a Democrat.

Maybe you could can grind their noses into a fine powder and sell it as an aphrodisiac?

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

Bruce, you seriously need to learn to read. The talk wasn't about adding a tonne of red tape. It was about formalizing things the way they were *before* Trump. The latter didn't want the responsibility of calling the shots, so it got delegated away from the civilian government.

 

I'm not joking when I say, I think you somewhere deep at heart hate democracy and favour military junta type governments to run countries. So far, in this whole conversation, you've said nothing, null, njet, rien, nada to contradict that impression. Your mileage may vary of course, but I prefer democratically elected leaders to call the shots when it comes to things like when , where and how to take military action (scope and rules of engagement), order the military to work out plans and strategies accordoingly and then approve these. Not the military telling the government what to do and how to run the country, which is what you're advocating at the moment.

No I dont hate Democracy or Democratically elected  governments at all. Of course not and I dont want a military junta running any country 

This debate around Drone strikes has been around for a long time and despite what you may think or believe their is  a valid case for  it and their has also been a movement to stop it and make them harder to initiate

That is what this is about, the article is just an outcome now that the Biden is in power, its not about left vs right because Obama authorized many drone strikes or his administration did. Its more about the type of war countries are involved in and the nature of war

Anyway thanks for the debate, I think we have made our respective points and we can agree to disagree 

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Sarex said:

So you support what's happening in Myanmar?

Definitely not, its a stretch to suggest because I support the US military primarily being the ones to authorize drone strikes I would ever support the appalling and illegal behavior of the  Junta in Myanmar 

[Zoraptor]

8 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Like Somalia..

At bare minimum Ethiopia and Kenya have intervened in Somalia.

[BruceVC]

56 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

At bare minimum Ethiopia and Kenya have intervened in Somalia.

Yes that is true and their is a UN sponsored military force  but how effective has it been and where is the real commitment from the AU that is suppose to deal with its own internal conflicts ?

 Kenya was forced to intervene because Al-Shabaab militants were literally crossing the border and kidnapping Western tourists and doing immense harm to the perception of Kenya tourism

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14943300

And since then Kenya has faced the wrath of Al-Shabaab attacks and suffered hundreds of casualties like the example below 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_shopping_mall_attack

And then their are the terrible military casualties their own forces and others have faced within Somalia in the real efforts and sacrifice to defeat Al-Shabaab 

https://www.newsweek.com/somali-president-al-shabaab-el-adde-430287

But the truth is if the AU really had the political will and was prepared to commit its own resources to the real  objective of a united, working African continent ( which can be achieved, its not a pipedream ) we would have  a proper effort and ending of this type of violence and instability 

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, midnite rule said:

In 1998 Rwanda invaded The Democratic Republic of the Congo. They claimed to act in response to raids originating from Congolese territory. The raiders were mostly ethnic Hutus, with whom the Tutsis ruling Rwanda had some bad blood. The invasion of The DRC started the Second Congo War (also known as the African World War) a conflict that killed 6 million people (the deadliest since WWII).

 

 

 

Query: was Rwanda justified in invading DR Congo?

 

Yes I am very familiar with that conflict as I live in SA and I have worked in the DRC

Its not a well known conflict but one that cost many lives and the DRC still is a country that is unstable and its people suffer terribly but most of the interventions from African countries in the DRC are  about gaining resources. That war was no different, if you look at the countries that sent armies to "help " you will notice countries like Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe got involved and they have no real tribal or ethic link to the DRC yet they somehow could send troops yet we dont see that type of commitment from Africa leadership in dealing with any other conflict on the continent. Like Somalia or current violence in northern Mozambique with that Al- Shabaab linked group 

The DRC should be the wealthiest country in  Africa and its people should have a great life but its vast resources have always made it a target for other countries to " intervene " and help yet its not about helping the people of the DRC 

[ComradeYellow]

Limited intel available is showing that North Korea is finally opening up their economy a bit with aid from China.  Good on them, with a mixed economy they'll be able to compete with South Korea.

[BruceVC]

24 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Limited intel available is showing that North Korea is finally opening up their economy a bit with aid from China.  Good on them, with a mixed economy they'll be able to compete with South Korea.

I always appreciate your early morning humor, people dont joke much anymore on these forums