- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Nothing like inventing BS to scare people into your perspective.
Obama has a role for the UN.
The United States, which periodically lectures to developing Third World nations about protecting human rights, rule of law, good governance and high moral standards, annually issuing ‘human rights practices’ of other countries, cannot restrain its own Special Operations forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from indiscriminately killing innocent civilians.
The worst is that U.S. authorities blatantly lie about these atrocities and war crimes by twisting the story to read that ‘insurgents’ were killed in a confrontation.
This week, the United States, the foremost advocator to the Globe on human rights and rule of law while accusing other nations of committing genocide, war crimes and other atrocities, was exposed how U.S. Special Operations forces killed an innocent family in Afghanistan last February and another civilian massacre in Iraq in 2007.
U.S. war crimes-atrocities in Iraq/Afghanistan exposed: Attempted cover-up foiled | Asian Tribune
I didn't invent anything up.....Looks like those New Sources didn't give you any out huh?.....Moreover it would be basic strategy. I thought even you could have figured that one out little younger brutha.
A NYT articles claims that, in addition to expecting the promise of supplying of S300s to be fulfilled, anti-ship missiles will be provided. Another article claims confirmation of S300 delivery. There is no confirmation of anti-ship missiles and if there was we would need to wonder about the effectiveness of them against a first-strike. The S300s mean nothing to the US. We are still the only country with invisible planes and we can certainly bring Assad to his knees virtually overnight.The real challenge will be the assembly of a transitional government, hopefully better than was managed in Iraq. Though, we couldn't really guess that excluding the Baath would leave nobody in the room, forcing us to go looking for common scoundrels to make up the transitional government.
You raise some complex issues that extend well beyond the scope of this thread. I'll provide my personal opinion, but keep it brief.
1. There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilian objectives and accidentally hitting them. That's one distinction and it's vital. One should be careful to avoid drawing false equivalences e.g., as were drawn during the intifada of terrorism unleashed against Israel. At the same time, it should be noted that there have been elements of U.S. forces that have engaged in what properly can be termed war crimes. One such suspect responsible for a massacre in Afghanistan was recently convicted in the U.S. That he was tried and convicted indicates that the U.S. is making efforts to deal with these problems. One can't say the same about every country.
2. When carrying out military strikes, one has to be careful to ensure that the expected harm to civilians is not excessive relative to the military advantage expected to be attained. Where there is doubt or where an reasonable assessment can't be made, there should be no strike. Like any forecasting exercise and any act of human judgment, expectations can prove off the mark. Accidents can also occur. Other unforeseen scenarios can unfold.
What I would like to see is much greater review of operations to compare outcomes with expectations. Based on the empirical evidence, if harm to civilians is consistently excessive in cases or greater than expectations, adjustments to the decision making process should be made. Adjustments could include limiting certain kinds of targets, seeking greater information prior to targeting, using different approaches to implement military operations in certain cases, and building in more realistic assumptions to guide decision making. The reviews need to occur on a continual basis.
It is not illegitimate for foreign nations, partners, even the U.S. government to continually ask whether the U.S. could do better. With a robust review process, it probably is not unreasonable to expect improvements. Such improvements could only reduce the incidence of the issues in question, foster fewer unfavorable perceptions, and increase the likelihood of the U.S. meeting its larger goals.
3. In the larger foreign policy framework, the U.S., like any country, can't be expected not to articulate its ideals, including those related to human rights. However, it should be careful not to be overbearing, as that can only result in others' exploiting its own shortcomings when they invariably arise. It is also unrealistic for one to expect every country to embrace a liberal, democratic system as exists in the U.S., Western Europe, parts of Asia, etc. Homegrown factors be they sectarian rivalries, historic experience (especially recent experience), institutional/legal frameworks, etc., create different structural environments, some of which are quite hostile to sustainable democratic governance.
4. The U.S. should remain willing to cooperate with other states in areas of common interest, even those with different political systems than the U.S. Avoiding excessive idealism can allow the U.S. to find more of the common ground that exists and to achieve more successful foreign policy outcomes. In turn, that can amplify its diplomatic capacities and reduce the need for it to resort to hard power. As is the case with any other state, the U.S. needs to respect the critical interests of other states to the extent possible in pursuing realistic foreign policy goals. Occasionally, interests will diverge, and the U.S. cannot be expected to abandon its critical interests nor its strategic allies. Its the defense of those allies and interests that can make the use of force necessary. The sectarian conflict in Syria and recent civil war in Libya do not rise to that threshold. I believe the use of force in the former would be an error inconsistent with American interests. I believe the latter was a mistake and it has led to unintended consequences without materially benefiting American interests or strategic allies. In contrast, a deliberate attack on Jordan or Israel, as two examples, would rise to that level where, if necessary, the use of force would be justified.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on what are really some complex issues, both in substance and perception.
No Don we intentionally incinerated whole cities in Germany & Japan with the express purpose of wiping out civilians.
Basically if you don't want to kill people, then you shouldn't be at war, but then gee there'd be no reason at all to continue
spending trillions of dollars feeding the Military/industrial complex?
I still say we are not getting nearly the bang for our bucks we deserve.
No Don we intentionally incinerated whole cities in Germany & Japan with the express purpose of wiping out civilians.
Basically if you don't want to kill people, then you shouldn't be at war, but then gee there'd be no reason at all to continue
spending trillions of dollars feeding the Military/industrial complex?
I still say we are not getting nearly the bang for our bucks we deserve.
I don't think the stealth aircraft are invisible anymore. I remember in Kosovo/Croatia it was discovered that the Stealth aircraft interfered with cell phones, ergo competent individuals have most certainly devised cellular phone frequencies to detect the invisible stealth aircraft. It doesn't have to be radar. It could be field interruption. Sequential cell phone connections across a given area and as they are interrupted sequentially, it becomes the track/signature of the stealth aircraft. Monitor to track specific speed ranges consistent with the stealth capabilities expected. I think there biggest strength is the ability to cruise at treetop level with terrain guidance systems. Low and slow and perhaps below the radar.
I suppose those cellphones can locate and track the plane :roll:
It's going in that direction! haha
Read it until it makes sense. The interruptions would be between the cell phone links and the planes movement would pass through i.e. a connection from Palestine to Western Greece, then Northern Palestine to Eastern Greece, then Lebanon to slightly offshore Syria. Then Damascus to Alleppo. The track would move from West to East between the given locations. End of story.
A NYT articles claims that, in addition to expecting the promise of supplying of S300s to be fulfilled, anti-ship missiles will be provided. Another article claims confirmation of S300 delivery. There is no confirmation of anti-ship missiles and if there was we would need to wonder about the effectiveness of them against a first-strike. The S300s mean nothing to the US. We are still the only country with invisible planes and we can certainly bring Assad to his knees virtually overnight.
The real challenge will be the assembly of a transitional government, hopefully better than was managed in Iraq. Though, we couldn't really guess that excluding the Baath would leave nobody in the room, forcing us to go looking for common scoundrels to make up the transitional government.
They can target them by timing the cellphone disruption and guessing the location and exact direction. Well, they could try that if any were any left after a first strike.
What happens when we use cruise missiles and Syria has no capacity to respond? Are you gonna be like "oh, well, it coulda been different"? No, it can't be. Syria can do nothing against a US first-strike.
You tell me, with all those civilians that will be standing out there by anything of value. :roll:
Assad will use human shields?
No Don we intentionally incinerated whole cities in Germany & Japan with the express purpose of wiping out civilians.
Basically if you don't want to kill people, then you shouldn't be at war, but then gee there'd be no reason at all to continue
spending trillions of dollars feeding the Military/industrial complex?
I still say we are not getting nearly the bang for our bucks we deserve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?