|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Feb 16, 2021 14:01:42 GMT
True. However, from what I have read, that hellfire variant was in development during the Obama Administration and not available for deployment until after his second term ended. To state that "at least" Trump's drones were surgical using these modified hellfires is misleading due to the fact that this Hellfire [AGM-114R9X] variant was (as far as the public knows) not an option for Obama. We can only (pointlessly) speculate whether or not Obama would have used them if they were an option during his time in office.
The article you provided provides a limited explanation regarding the evolution of the Hellfire missile over course of nearly 40 years. Each new "generation" has become both more efficient at killing its intended target while reducing the degree of collateral damage (bystander casualties), culminating with the use of the AGM-114R9X variant. Even when using this improved variant, such strikes have not been reported as bystander casualty-free.
While the latest hellfire might not have been available to Obama, I would have at least expected his admin to be able to interpret the intel to distinguish a terrorist caravan from a wedding party... Obama's admin was, to be polite, negligent in pretty much everything they did - fast and furious, indiscriminate drone strikes, Benghazi, Clinton's private email server... |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 16, 2021 14:16:18 GMT
How many investigations did the Republicans launched on Benghazi and the server and what did they find? Nothing of note. Trump also indulged in indiscriminate drone strikes and he had his own military fuck-up in Yemen.
Fast and furious was a major fuck-up though.
Let us not forget the huge fuck-up with Iraq and the "weapons of mass destruction" lie Bush used to get us into that useless conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 16, 2021 16:17:14 GMT
To counter the optics of extrajudicial killings of citizens, the government (including the President) simply needs to declare the area of the strike as a "battleground." We need to have "battleground" declarations fall under the purview of congress. Which means they'll almost never be declared, leading to better presidenting via negative optics. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 16, 2021 16:28:46 GMT
How many investigations did the Republicans launched on Benghazi and the server and what did they find? Nothing of note. Trump also indulged in indiscriminate drone strikes and he had his own military fuck-up in Yemen. Are you referring to the raid on Yakla [1], the military operation that killed up to 14 al-Qaeda fighters, and left 25 civilians (including 9 children under the age of 13 with an 8 year-old girl who was also U.S. citizen [2][3][4]) and American Navy SEAL William Owens [5] dead? In a telephone interview on Fox & Friends while on the campaign trail, Trump was on record saying, "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families."[6]Allegedly earlier in his presidency, after watching a drone strike that was momentarily delayed until the target had gone outside their house (leaving the family inside), President Trump had asked, "why did you wait?" [7] If this allegation is true, then he doesn't seem to care about others getting killed in the process. 1 Wikipedia: Raid on Yakla2 Wikipedia: Nawar al-Awlaki3 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism: Nine young children killed: The full details of botched US raid in Yemen 4 Media Bias Fact Check: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism5 Wikipedia: William Owens (Navy Seal)6 Fox & Friends: Donald Trump on ISIS: ‘You have to take out their families’ (Quote starting at 1:35)7 The Hill: Trump asked CIA official why drone strike didn’t also kill target’s family |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 16, 2021 17:25:24 GMT
Yep. Republican presidential hands are no more clean than democrat presidential hands and in some cases, they're worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 16, 2021 18:01:18 GMT
To counter the optics of extrajudicial killings of citizens, the government (including the President) simply needs to declare the area of the strike as a "battleground." We need to have "battleground" declarations fall under the purview of congress. Which means they'll almost never be declared, leading to better presidenting via negative optics. Hmm... At first glance, it seems like a good idea. So only Congress could define battleground in a congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) abroad[1], correct?
1 US House of Representatives -> History, Art & Archives: Power to Declare War |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 16, 2021 18:17:44 GMT
Oh, Trump is still a problem. As long as he has control of the Republican party through his followers, he will be a problem. All things considered, since Trump was elected President, he's been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, due to his mismanagement of the Covid-19 virus response (not that he'll ever be charged for that).
He is directly responsible for 5 deaths when he set a violent mob against Congress. Just because he was impeached and acquitted, doesn't mean he won't face criminal proceedings from that stunt.
So I wouldn't crow about how clean Republican hands are. They aren't.
Also, Trump had continued the drone-strike operations.
Since they were invented, every president has authorized drone strikes. Saying Trump did not, or got us out of wars is disingenuous at best.
Do you know what direct and indirect mean? He would be directly responsible if he pulled the trigger on a gun that killed 5 people. He would be indirectly responsible if he said some words and stuff happened that killed 5 people. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 16, 2021 18:19:04 GMT
Let us not forget that Kamal Derwish (yet another U.S. citizen) was also killed in a drone strike in Yemen without due process. Of course, that strike occurred in November 2002, six years prior to the Obama Administration. The killing of US citizens (without due process) has occurred before on battlegrounds before the November 2002 strike. With the advent of the military drone, target killing is now a more convenient option when the decision to specifically kill someone is made. To counter the optics of extrajudicial killings of citizens, the government (including the President) simply needs to declare the area of the strike as a "battleground." There's a rather marked difference between killing an American on the battlefield when he's fighting against you and assassinating one via drone without due process. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 16, 2021 18:31:15 GMT
Oh, Trump is still a problem. As long as he has control of the Republican party through his followers, he will be a problem. All things considered, since Trump was elected President, he's been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, due to his mismanagement of the Covid-19 virus response (not that he'll ever be charged for that).
He is directly responsible for 5 deaths when he set a violent mob against Congress. Just because he was impeached and acquitted, doesn't mean he won't face criminal proceedings from that stunt.
So I wouldn't crow about how clean Republican hands are. They aren't.
Also, Trump had continued the drone-strike operations.
Since they were invented, every president has authorized drone strikes. Saying Trump did not, or got us out of wars is disingenuous at best.
Do you know what direct and indirect mean? He would be directly responsible if he pulled the trigger on a gun that killed 5 people. He would be indirectly responsible if he said some words and stuff happened that killed 5 people. It might me a bit more nuanced that "direct vs indirect". Perhaps more by degrees? Aside from nominating/firing those in their cabinet and granting clemency for federal offenses, I'm not sure a President is directly responsible anything else. Aside from this, the President just states what they want done, leaving the details and the execution (heh, bad pun) of those intentions to subordinates who in turn leave it to their subordinates, and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 16, 2021 18:51:23 GMT
Of course, that strike occurred in November 2002, six years prior to the Obama Administration. The killing of US citizens (without due process) has occurred before on battlegrounds before the November 2002 strike. With the advent of the military drone, target killing is now a more convenient option when the decision to specifically kill someone is made. To counter the optics of extrajudicial killings of citizens, the government (including the President) simply needs to declare the area of the strike as a "battleground." There's a rather marked difference between killing an American on the battlefield when he's fighting against you and assassinating one via drone without due process. Prior to the use of military drones, I agree with you what was traditionally considered a "battleground". Soldiers lives were immediately in jeopardy on a battlefield. Now that killing via drone eliminates the risk of losing the soldier / ops team (at the expense of equipment: the drone), battleground cannot be defined in the same way as in the past. Evolution of modern warfare has continuously reduced the need for soldiers in the field. Will remotely piloted and fully autonomous war machines eventually render the use of human resources in military combat situations obsolete? Perhaps... in time. No one definitively knows.
Unfortunately, when the term "Battleground" can be defined and applied by the Executive branch it becomes a semantic argument. Do I agree with its potentially exploitative use in the Executive Branch? No. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 16, 2021 20:30:40 GMT
There's a rather marked difference between killing an American on the battlefield when he's fighting against you and assassinating one via drone without due process. Prior to the use of military drones, I agree with you what was traditionally considered a "battleground". Soldiers lives were immediately in jeopardy on a battlefield. Now that killing via drone eliminates the risk of losing the soldier / ops team (at the expense of equipment: the drone), battleground cannot be defined in the same way as in the past. Evolution of modern warfare has continuously reduced the need for soldiers in the field. Will remotely piloted and fully autonomous war machines eventually render the use of human resources in military combat situations obsolete? Perhaps... in time. No one definitively knows.
Unfortunately, when the term "Battleground" can be defined and applied by the Executive branch it becomes a semantic argument. Do I agree with its potentially exploitative use in the Executive Branch? No. We still have traditional battlegrounds all over the world, including ones that the U.S. partakes in. I do not accept the novel use of battleground you have come up with. The only difference between dropping a drone on a world leader and a sniper taking him out at 1300 yards is distance. Both are assassinations, not warfare. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 16, 2021 22:57:58 GMT
Trump is guilty of assassination as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Feb 17, 2021 9:19:41 GMT
Prior to the use of military drones, I agree with you what was traditionally considered a "battleground". Soldiers lives were immediately in jeopardy on a battlefield. Now that killing via drone eliminates the risk of losing the soldier / ops team (at the expense of equipment: the drone), battleground cannot be defined in the same way as in the past. Evolution of modern warfare has continuously reduced the need for soldiers in the field. Will remotely piloted and fully autonomous war machines eventually render the use of human resources in military combat situations obsolete? Perhaps... in time. No one definitively knows.
Unfortunately, when the term "Battleground" can be defined and applied by the Executive branch it becomes a semantic argument. Do I agree with its potentially exploitative use in the Executive Branch? No. We still have traditional battlegrounds all over the world, including ones that the U.S. partakes in. I do not accept the novel use of battleground you have come up with. The only difference between dropping a drone on a world leader and a sniper taking him out at 1300 yards is distance. Both are assassinations, not warfare. Why do you speak of a world leader, though?
So far drones don't target world leaders, but mostly some third world country paramilitary/terrorist type leaders.
I am not saying that's better at all, but it's not like the US blew up, say, Putin or Rouhani. Or that the Taliban or ISIS blew up Putin or Obama.
And when it comes to warfare, it seems to be if the choice is conventional war or assassinating leaders - world leaders or otherwise - the assassination sounds not so bad. But I guess it ignores that just because there is a public figure head that gets all the attention means that you remove the underlying cause of the conflict nor the ability to conduct conventional war. So even though it sounds like a cleaner solution, it is a very uncertain situation. The Taliban survived the death of Osama Bin Laden and is still active in Afghanistan. But it's not that the conventional warfare took them out, either. Maybe warfare just sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 17, 2021 15:23:03 GMT
Trump is guilty of assassination as well. Sure, but at least that was a terrorist NON-AMERICAN enemy of the state who has a attacked us. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 17, 2021 15:25:46 GMT
We still have traditional battlegrounds all over the world, including ones that the U.S. partakes in. I do not accept the novel use of battleground you have come up with. The only difference between dropping a drone on a world leader and a sniper taking him out at 1300 yards is distance. Both are assassinations, not warfare. Why do you speak of a world leader, though?
So far drones don't target world leaders, but mostly some third world country paramilitary/terrorist type leaders.
I am not saying that's better at all, but it's not like the US blew up, say, Putin or Rouhani. Or that the Taliban or ISIS blew up Putin or Obama.
And when it comes to warfare, it seems to be if the choice is conventional war or assassinating leaders - world leaders or otherwise - the assassination sounds not so bad. But I guess it ignores that just because there is a public figure head that gets all the attention means that you remove the underlying cause of the conflict nor the ability to conduct conventional war. So even though it sounds like a cleaner solution, it is a very uncertain situation. The Taliban survived the death of Osama Bin Laden and is still active in Afghanistan. But it's not that the conventional warfare took them out, either. Maybe warfare just sucks.
We under Trump took out an Iranian leader in Iraq a few years ago. The problem with assassination of leaders is that it opens up retaliatory assassinations of our leaders. Some options are best left untaken, and in the case of assassinations, would sometimes lead to conventional war anyway. I used leader in my example in order to show how use of a drone to kill is assassination, rather than battlefield warfare. |
|
