Drones being operated in UK attacking Afghanistan

[Vague_Boy]

Attacks being targetted from UK airbases. Should this be done?

 

UN Official: Aspects of US Drone Program Clearly 'War Crimes'

 

UN Official: US Drone War in Pakistan is Illegal

[MrSmith]

The Israelis will like the sound of that. Shades of Nasser. He was a 'strong' Arab leader too. Except he wasn't as strong as he seemed. Because he lost, massively. Saddam was supposed to be this 'strong' Arab leader too. However he still ended up getting strung up by his own people, who were smoking cigarettes, and wearing denim jackets.

 

Thankfully we didn't ignore him long enough for him to be strong enough, unlike Hitler whom we ignored for too long.

[callippo]

Nasser was strong politically but not militarily. Saddam was the other way round. That was the thing about Saddam. He wasn't strong at all, in 2003. He was in the 1980s though and in 1990 at the time of Operation Desert Storm relatively. If you'd have told Churchill and Roosevelt at Yalta in 1945 that some tinpot Arab wearing a tea towel on his head from what to them at that time was a nothing place like Iraq would have like 10,000 tanks at his disposal a generation hence, they'd have thought you were nuts. They wouldn't have thought such a thing was possible. But that was what Iraq, courtesy of the Soviet Union, had by the mid-80s. But by 2003 Saddam was a busted flush and not the threat to anyone at all he had previously been. Of course the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a big mistake. Many people that opposed it then did not oppose it because they wanted to hug a terrorist, or because they were a bit squeamish and they didn't like the idea of bombs exploding and guns going off. They opposed it because in 2003, Saddam was not a threat. And that the west and Israel had him where they wanted him anyway.

[mjw47]

I call him smart.

 

You on the other hand appear to be the type who would willingly expose himself if you were in a dugout with a machine gun "just to give the other chap a sporting chance"

 

War is not a game of cricket old boy

 

Hello Harleyman my old mate, thought you'd be in on this one you old drone lover you .

 

So Osman Bin Laden who did his level best to keep out of harms way was smart was he?

 

Incidently I have no interest in cricket, I prefer Hurling, a game now played by the US Marine Corp. Google 'fastest game on grass' & you may be able to guess why they would be interested in playing it .

 

Talking of the Marines & whilst you're on google type in Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine that ever lived.

Go on his Wikipedia page & scroll down to the section marked 'lectures' & read the highlighted section describing his views on his years of service.

 

I read that speech years before Google or Wikipedia were invented & it changed my views on Military interventions, which up to that point had been a bit on the 'Boys Own Adventure' way of thinking. One or two posters on here apparently still think along those lines.

 

I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on Major General Butlers viewpoint as I understand you also served in the Corps.

[tinfoilhat]

Hello Harleyman my old mate, thought you'd be in on this one you old drone lover you .

 

So Osman Bin Laden who did his level best to keep out of harms way was smart was he?

 

Incidently I have no interest in cricket, I prefer Hurling, a game now played by the US Marine Corp. Google 'fastest game on grass' & you may be able to guess why they would be interested in playing it .

 

Talking of the Marines & whilst you're on google type in Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine that ever lived.

Go on his Wikipedia page & scroll down to the section marked 'lectures' & read the highlighted section describing his views on his years of service.

 

I read that speech years before Google or Wikipedia were invented & it changed my views on Military interventions, which up to that point had been a bit on the 'Boys Own Adventure' way of thinking. One or two posters on here apparently still think along those lines.

 

I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on Major General Butlers viewpoint as I understand you also served in the Corps.

 

Bin laden, evil as he was, was exceptionally smart. Are drone attacks always successful? No, but it's down to mistakes and bad intelligence that NATO forces kill civillians. The taliban and al queda delibrately target civillians (see 911 - and countless bomb attacks in Iraq) they also hide amongst civillians. Drones protect our servicemen and women and I'll bet any amount of money that if they had been available in 1916 your relitive would have been glad to see one.

 

Besides, we'll be out of Afghanistan next year - it can't come soon enough.

[Hillpig]

He wasn't conscripted, he volunteered, that alright with you? My point is fairly straightforward.

Dropping bombs from 10,000 feet would require courage if the enemy possessed ground to air missile capability and/or fighter cover. In the absence of that protection it would be 'shooting fish in a barrel' & hardly grounds for admiration.

 

There are a number of posters on here who come across as jingoistic bloodthirsty types who positively revel in military action.

Fair enough, each to their own. My point is that not everything 'our side' do is correct & honourable just because it's 'our side' that's doing it.

 

When we engage in actions which invariably result in the deaths of innocent people, & when those actions carry no risk whatsoever to the perpetrators I question whether we are in the right.

 

Tell me, what do you call a man who takes the life of another man whilst ensuring that he himself remains safe & anonymous?

 

Ask yourself a simple question. When the other side obtain drones, as inevitably they will, & they decide to use them against us will you think they are such a wonderful idea?

Their justification will be that we were the ones who came, uninvited, to their countries, & we were the ones who attempted to impose our wishes upon them. Also of course we introduced drones into the equation.

 

And that of course is how situations develop to the point where everyone ends up los

 

 

Your post seems to hark back to a time when men jousted or fought honorably man to man. That was always a fantasy, this discussion is not about heroes and villains it is about competing ideologies and what we, in the west, should do to protect ourselves against an intolerant fascistic doctrine which wishes to take over the world.

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2013 at 13:21 ----------

 

It will only take one strong Muslim leader to lead the rest of the Muslims into war, just like Hitler lead the Germans into war.

 

Exactly, it seems to me tragic that every generation has to learn the lesson. Weakness and inactivity lead directly to the second world war. The emergence of a charismatic leader within the Muslim world with the money of the middle east could lead to a further conflagration.

 

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

[mjw47]

Bin laden, evil as he was, was exceptionally smart. Are drone attacks always successful? No, but it's down to mistakes and bad intelligence that NATO forces kill civillians. The taliban and al queda delibrately target civillians (see 911 - and countless bomb attacks in Iraq) they also hide amongst civillians. Drones protect our servicemen and women and I'll bet any amount of money that if they had been available in 1916 your relitive would have been glad to see one.

 

Besides, we'll be out of Afghanistan next year - it can't come soon enough.

 

Yes & if that complete git Tony Blair had any idea as to the history of his own country - he admitted to 'not being interested' in history - he would never have got involved in Afghanistan in the first place.

 

My point is that militarized Nation States have at their disposal armed forces. These usually comprise Army, Navy & Air Forces also they have the use of Military Intelligence, civilian Intelligence Services & the national Police Force.

They also have access to satellite surveillance & real time drone tv pictures.

Not only that, but they have all of the above in huge numbers & 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

 

This leaves the Terrorist/Freedom Fighter/Insurgent, with only two options, give up or fight dirty.

 

The Nation States claim right is on their side, because the opposition is breaking the Law. Now - leaving aside the fact that Nation States write their own Laws -they believe this gives them the moral high ground & I can go along with that, to a certain extent.

 

Where I begin to lose a little bit of confidence in our beloved leaders, is the point where they begin to break the law themselves. You know, those laws which they wrote, & swore to uphold.

 

Flying armed drones over the territory of a sovereign state which you are not at war with, & killing innocent people is against the Law.

This makes the Nation responsible- in my opinion - worse than a terrorist. As I said, the terrorist only has two choices, the Nation, given the above arsenal & personnel available to them have many choices. Giving away the moral high ground should not be one of them.

[tinfoilhat]

Yes & if that complete git Tony Blair had any idea as to the history of his own country - he admitted to 'not being interested' in history - he would never have got involved in Afghanistan in the first place.

 

My point is that militarized Nation States have at their disposal armed forces. These usually comprise Army, Navy & Air Forces also they have the use of Military Intelligence, civilian Intelligence Services & the national Police Force.

They also have access to satellite surveillance & real time drone tv pictures.

Not only that, but they have all of the above in huge numbers & 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

 

This leaves the Terrorist/Freedom Fighter/Insurgent, with only two options, give up or fight dirty.

 

The Nation States claim right is on their side, because the opposition is breaking the Law. Now - leaving aside the fact that Nation States write their own Laws -they believe this gives them the moral high ground & I can go along with that, to a certain extent.

 

Where I begin to lose a little bit of confidence in our beloved leaders, is the point where they begin to break the law themselves. You know, those laws which they wrote, & swore to uphold.

 

Flying armed drones over the territory of a sovereign state which you are not at war with, & killing innocent people is against the Law.

This makes the Nation responsible- in my opinion - worse than a terrorist. As I said, the terrorist only has two choices, the Nation, given the above arsenal & personnel available to them have many choices. Giving away the moral high ground should not be one of them.

 

You're moving goalposts here. We shouldn't be attacking targets in Pakistan without their permission - (I think in some cases they should give it - but that's another argument) be it drones, planes or special forces. It's illegal as far as I know and when it goes wrong....not good. That said, they did get bin laden with minimum fuss and really that's a result for the world, not just the US.

 

However, and this is the original argument, drones controlled in the uk flying over Afghanistan (with their permission)taking out insurgents (ideally with no civillian casualties and giving support to NATO and ANA troops is a good thing.

[mjw47]

You're moving goalposts here. We shouldn't be attacking targets in Pakistan without their permission - (I think in some cases they should give it - but that's another argument) be it drones, planes or special forces. It's illegal as far as I know and when it goes wrong....not good. That said, they did get bin laden with minimum fuss and really that's a result for the world, not just the US.

 

However, and this is the original argument, drones controlled in the uk flying over Afghanistan (with their permission)taking out insurgents (ideally with no civillian casualties and giving support to NATO and ANA troops is a good thing.

 

Didn't think I was moving the goalposts. Not good in my opinion. You say 'ideally with no civilian casualties', there have already been civilian casualties & there always will be innocent bystanders killed by this type of action.

 

Each innocent person killed is a huge recruitment aid to terrorists, after Bloody Sunday in Derry the IRA couldn't deal with the number of volunteers, they simply didn't have the number of people to train them.

 

France tried brutal military force in Algeria & Vietnam it didn't work. The Russians were forced out of Afghanistan & make no mistake, so are the US & the UK.

 

Within six months of withdrawal Afghanistan will be back to exactly what it was before the invasion, an ungovernable disparate group of clans & tribes who hate each others guts & will only co operate to kill the invader.

So what will have been achieved?

[tinfoilhat]

Didn't think I was moving the goalposts. Not good in my opinion. You say 'ideally with no civilian casualties', there have already been civilian casualties & there always will be innocent bystanders killed by this type of action.

 

Each innocent person killed is a huge recruitment aid to terrorists, after Bloody Sunday in Derry the IRA couldn't deal with the number of volunteers, they simply didn't have the number of people to train them.

 

France tried brutal military force in Algeria & Vietnam it didn't work. The Russians were forced out of Afghanistan & make no mistake, so are the US & the UK.

 

Within six months of withdrawal Afghanistan will be back to exactly what it was before the invasion, an ungovernable disparate group of clans & tribes who hate each others guts & will only co operate to kill the invader.

So what will have been achieved?

 

Generally we achieved sod all. We sort of dismantled al Qaeda but its sprung up in Pakistan and other places anyway. We've helped train afghan security forces but as the government is that corrupt its moot point anyway. I think after 911 it seemed a good idea, 12 years on, not so much.

 

I think comparing this conflict to most others is wrong, Ireland in particular. The way we fight wars now is different, particularly since the 60s. Civillian deaths are generally surgical strikes gone wrong rather than carpet bombing or destroying villages, we're more likely to help rebuild them - under threat of ieds etc.

 

But you are right in one respect, it will more than likely go back to prehistoric hole it was before.