|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 17, 2021 16:46:42 GMT
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. I'm assuming Maxperson is referring to the assassination of Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani (considered the second most powerful person in Iran aside from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) that occurred on January 3, 2020 [1]. There have been several U.S. assassination attempts of world leaders over the last 35 years, just less surgical than the drone strikes of today. The U.S. has targeted via air raids / cruise missiles Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafi in 1986, Serbian and Montenegro (also known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) President Slobodan Milošević 1999 and Saddam Hussein in 1991, 1998, and 2003. 1 Wikipedia: Assassination of Qasem Soleimani |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 17, 2021 20:49:19 GMT
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? Yes exactly. By more strongly requiring that Congress declare a "warzone", "battlefield", or "enemy target" and thus restrict the use of military assets from being deployed in "kill missions" to "warzones/battlefields/enemies" (this would include assassinations) it would better restrict the Executive's capacity to engage in war outside the Executives jurisdiction. And as you mention later, we've been "drone striking" targets outside a legal warzone for a long, long time. I've always thought this was a serious Executive overreach and I've always wondered why the Congress let Reagan start getting away this nonsense. Basically we need a new War Powers Act considering the changes we've had in our technological capacity to commit "undeclared" wars. 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. Agreed. But I believe that is something that can often lead to war, therefore should fall under the purview of Congress, not a sole individual acting within the limits of the War Powers Act. Limits which have been effectively erased. 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. If we'd had drones in WWII we'd damned sure have tried to use them assassinate Hitler or any of his inner circle. The only reason we haven't used drones against the leaders of foreign countries is that we haven't been at war with any foreign countries lately, at least not where killing a single leader would have made a difference. We damn sure wold have droned Osama during the invasion of Afghanistan if we could have. The only reason we used a SEAL team to take him when we did was because they weren't even sure it was Osama they were going after - they were like 80-90% sure, just had no verification, so the SEAL Team was sent to engage in 1) verification and 2) capture or assassination. man... that would have looked real bad if bin Laden hadn't been there. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 17, 2021 22:17:46 GMT
I agree with that for the most part. I don't think it should be up to Congress as a whole, though. I think Congress should give whatever committee deals with war(armed services, foreign affairs, etc.) the ability to make quick decisions when the President calls them. The President doesn't have the days, weeks or months it would take Congress to debate whether to hit a guy with a drone or not. The decision needs to happen fast, or the opportunity will probably be lost. |
|
|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Feb 18, 2021 9:17:19 GMT
Retaliatory assassions of leaders is primarily a problem for the leaders, suddenly they become a target ,instead of pretty much everyone else. It's not like losing military targets and suffering a bunch of colleratal damage is something people just let go!
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Feb 18, 2021 12:51:26 GMT
I agree with that for the most part. I don't think it should be up to Congress as a whole, though. I think Congress should give whatever committee deals with war(armed services, foreign affairs, etc.) the ability to make quick decisions when the President calls them. The President doesn't have the days, weeks or months it would take Congress to debate whether to hit a guy with a drone or not. The decision needs to happen fast, or the opportunity will probably be lost. The problem then becomes that that committee turns into a rubber stamp or an obstructionist partisan tool. We have that problem already with the DoJ and FBI turning the FISA court into a rubber stamp. It would *reeaalllyyy* be helpful if everyone in congress were actually there to do the people's bidding rather than having backdoor desls with foreign agents, lobbying firms, etc. Would you, for example, trust a guy in congress to serve on a committee deciding to drop a hellfire sword missile on some 3rd world warlord if his spouse were employed by a firm that has negotiated mining rights contracts in that country? |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 18, 2021 14:17:52 GMT
Or worse yet, a Marjorie Taylor Greene (either republican or democrat version, they're out there) making decisions on that hypothetical committee? That's scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 18, 2021 16:47:15 GMT
Or worse yet, a Marjorie Taylor Greene (either republican or democrat version, they're out there) making decisions on that hypothetical committee? That's scary. Better that than only one person. As Trump showed, anyone, even a Marjorie Taylor Greene can be elected and have total control over those decisions. At least on a committee she's only one voice. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 18, 2021 16:48:30 GMT
I agree with that for the most part. I don't think it should be up to Congress as a whole, though. I think Congress should give whatever committee deals with war(armed services, foreign affairs, etc.) the ability to make quick decisions when the President calls them. The President doesn't have the days, weeks or months it would take Congress to debate whether to hit a guy with a drone or not. The decision needs to happen fast, or the opportunity will probably be lost. The problem then becomes that that committee turns into a rubber stamp or an obstructionist partisan tool. We have that problem already with the DoJ and FBI turning the FISA court into a rubber stamp. It would *reeaalllyyy* be helpful if everyone in congress were actually there to do the people's bidding rather than having backdoor desls with foreign agents, lobbying firms, etc. Would you, for example, trust a guy in congress to serve on a committee deciding to drop a hellfire sword missile on some 3rd world warlord if his spouse were employed by a firm that has negotiated mining rights contracts in that country? I would rather trust a group of boys and girls that I don't know to make the decision, than one single person that I don't know. At least in a group there's a higher chance that the voice of reason can be heard. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 18, 2021 20:27:19 GMT
It would *reeaalllyyy* be helpful if everyone in congress were actually there to do the people's bidding rather than having backdoor desls with foreign agents, lobbying firms, etc. Yes, well, clearly we don't want to elect politicians who feel they are public servants, otherwise we'd have elected Bernie. Clearly the DNC wants to have plutocrats to rule over the plebeian masses. This is why I'd rather it be treated as a War Power and require the Congress. Now, in the case of a single individual, I see no reason why the President couldn't apply for War Power provisions to be voted on and if the Congress comes back and says (frex), "Okay, we've declared Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani an enemy combatant, you have the privilege to make war upon them"* then the Pres can have the Pentagon enact any plans they drafted or even spend the next however long waiting for said enemy to surface where they could be struck. * Which to be fair, we kinda already basically did. He was operating illegally outside of Iran when we droned him, so... he was in a hot zone and he knew it, he just probably expected the "toothless tiger to have no bite". The only problem I had with it was, well, we weren't at war with Iran or Soleimani, so it was a pretty damned illegal strike. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 18, 2021 22:24:27 GMT
Groups are often ruled by the loudest mouth and are only as smart as the most stupid one in the group. When both are the same, the voice of reason is drowned out. Hence we have the mess we have today.
There is also the sad fact that people in a group have the tendency to not vote for the person who will do right by them, but the person who appeals to their base emotions and delusions.
People in a group also don't like change, so they tend to stick with their choice of moron despite knowing deep down that they are morons. It takes a great deal of anger and dissatisfaction for a group to dispose of their moron in charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Feb 20, 2021 1:12:17 GMT
One just needs to recognize that Disney studios are 100% leftist populated when it comes to the execs. I disagree. I know people who know people, being I live in Orlando and have friends that are Disney "officiandos"*... there are a lot of Lefties in the Disney Studios side of Disney, but it's not 100% and the top execs at Disney itself aren't lefty, just sometimes old and out-of-touch with the day-to-day. They tend to be trusting of underlings (look how long that Kathleen Kennedy remained in play before being sidelined, and she's still "officially' in charge [it's easier† and cheaper to keep her till her contract plays out]). "Trust your underlings" is a very stringly engrained mentality at Disney. No, really in this case it's not that Gina is a 'rightoid', it's that she created waves, and right now Disney is all about not creating waves. The sleepy old execs have been getting cranky that their afternoon naps and dreams of bags stuffed with money are getting disturbed by cries of "YOU'RE RUINING STAR WARS!" and "UYGHUR GENOCIDE CAMPS!" and "DISNEY BOWS TO CHINESE RACISM AND ANTI-LGBT!" So really they just want people to be chill and since they cannot control John Boyega anymore... where Gina was still on payroll and making waves. So it comes down to which side will make more waves; the 'rightoids' and Free Speechers or the non-stop screeching Lefties? See, what Disney is missing is the quiet right and Free Speech activists will just opt out of watching Disney going forward, or will at least not pay to watch Disney. I suspect they'll see a downturn in the franchise profits again, but not as marked as they did with the Sequels. I mean, some people have still not come back to Disney (I've a friend who refuses to watch any Star Wars until Kennedy is gone) and you can't lose viewers that haven't come back. * They are deeply and heavily invested in Disney, not just monetarily, but lovers of the parks, movies, friends with execs, etc, that level of shit. Some used to work for Disney in executive capacities but have since retired, etc. † Kennedy is deeply entrenched in Hollywood. She's like an old mafia capo, she knows people and she knows where bodies are buried. She has enough pull she could make things rough for Disney if she felt like burning all the bridges on her way out. So while she's unofficially sidelined from Star Wars‡, officially she's still charge of Star Wars. ‡ Officially she's turned Disney+ Star Wars over to Favreau and Filoni and is still directly controlling the movies... but how many movies do you see being greenlight for Star Wars?  Now I said all that above, and I stand by it... Gina was fired because her speech was making too many waves for Disney execs. Is this a "free speech" thing? Not really, it's more an "anti-cancel culture" thing... but... Free Speech and Cancel Culture are directly at odds. So while I'm annoyed at Disney, it's not because 'they tried to censor her", that's nonsense. I think they shouldn't bow to Cancel Mobs over Gina anymore than they do over Cancel Mobs screaming about how Disney movies are presented in China. If Chinese money means enough they'll ignore the cancel mobs, US money should mean as much (it doesn't though. China has waaaaaaaaaaaaay more eyes to put on a screen, so way more money to give to Disney as long as the movie conforms to it's censorship). I also think every one who partakes in a Cancel Mob should be drug out into the street and beaten to death, but I'll never get my wish. You do know that she was given six chances, right? That she was fired for breaking her contract with Disney? That they gave her six chances is surprising. Disney doesn't screw around with contracts. It's kinda their thing. They weren't bowing to a cancel mob, either. Her contract was pretty explicit (it's standard for Disney) about making any sort of public statements that might put Disney in a bad light. What those comments were doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 20, 2021 2:16:29 GMT
You do know that she was given six chances, right? I don't care. When it's the company's bullshit bringing them waves (Uighur genocide camps, treatment of Finn in media, treatment of LGBTQ characters in Chinese releases, the company supporting a racist) Disney "pulls together" and "supports each other", but when it's an individual making mild waves, suddenly it's a problem. Yeah, I'm annoyed they bowed to the mob over Pedro's stupid remarks too. Fuck Disney. I'm about a hair's breadth from joining the #cancelallDisneyproducts group... and pretty much the only tv/movies I watch these days are Disney. Guess I can finally get back to reading all those books that keep piling up. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 20, 2021 13:00:26 GMT
But, but, but, isn't cancel culture bad? Oh wait. It's only bad if the left does it. If the right does it, it's peachy keeno.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 20, 2021 15:40:32 GMT
See, what Disney is missing is the quiet right and Free Speech activists will just opt out of watching Disney going forward, or will at least not pay to watch Disney. I suspect they'll see a downturn in the franchise profits again, but not as marked as they did with the Sequels. I mean, some people have still not come back to Disney (I've a friend who refuses to watch any Star Wars until Kennedy is gone) and you can't lose viewers that haven't come back. Now I said all that above, and I stand by it... Gina was fired because her speech was making too many waves for Disney execs. Is this a "free speech" thing? Not really, it's more an "anti-cancel culture" thing... but... Free Speech and Cancel Culture are directly at odds. So while I'm annoyed at Disney, it's not because 'they tried to censor her", that's nonsense. I think they shouldn't bow to Cancel Mobs over Gina anymore than they do over Cancel Mobs screaming about how Disney movies are presented in China. If Chinese money means enough they'll ignore the cancel mobs, US money should mean as much (it doesn't though. China has waaaaaaaaaaaaay more eyes to put on a screen, so way more money to give to Disney as long as the movie conforms to it's censorship). I also think every one who partakes in a Cancel Mob should be drug out into the street and beaten to death, but I'll never get my wish. You do know that she was given six chances, right? I don't care. When it's the company's bullshit bringing them waves (Uighur genocide camps, treatment of Finn in media, treatment of LGBTQ characters in Chinese releases, the company supporting a racist) Disney "pulls together" and "supports each other", but when it's an individual making mild waves, suddenly it's a problem. Yeah, I'm annoyed they bowed to the mob over Pedro's stupid remarks too. Fuck Disney. I'm about a hair's breadth from joining the #cancelallDisneyproducts group... and pretty much the only tv/movies I watch these days are Disney. Guess I can finally get back to reading all those books that keep piling up. Careful you don't actually participate in the #cancelallDisneyProducts group, evileeyore. Any optics supporting such a group may be construed as partaking in a Cancel Mob. Regardless of political leaning (right or left) or reasoning (e.g. anti-right, profiteering group-think corporatism, and/or inhumane injustices), those who have (publicly) vocally threatened or confirmed their cancellation (with or without the posting of #cancelallDisneyproducts) may qualify in your own words: "every one who partakes in a Cancel Mob should be drug out into the street and beaten to death, but I'll never get my wish."
Be wary of using hyperbole and absolutes my friend, their use has the ability of making hypocrites and murderers of us all. If one continues to use such expressions, one need be careful what they "wish" for.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 20, 2021 17:34:29 GMT
The right likes to project alot, don't they?
|
|
