Helter Skelter: Mexico, Iran, Australia, Yemen

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 12:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well that's every war ever.  And is it possible that the hatred could be directed at those who are bringing this on them?  Especially when they purposefully use innocent people to protect themselves.

Some wars more than others. Civilian deaths were minimal in WWI. They were the bulk of casualties in WWII

People in droned areas do hate the people bringing this on them--the U.S.

Most drone victims are tribes people living in the homes they grew up in with their families.

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why?

As far as observation drones go, I never liked the irritating sound--like lawnmowers in the sky.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2017, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: According to the leak, he said "into" Mexico.

Why do you find my reporting of this "presumptuous," but not Trump's actions.

Again:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?_r=1
On Sunday, another Yemeni official said that at least eight women and seven children, ages 3 to 13, had been killed in the raid.

In addition to the loss of one Seal, the US also lost a 70 million dollar Osprey.
My concern about the recent raid is Trump's ability to judge when to go and when not.

The point posting a cluster of foreign policy blunders is to question Trump's competence and judgment. In one day we have had enough scandal from Trump to cover a year in any other administration. And I did not even include other issues soon to be on the table, like moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem or a reset with China or removal of sanctions from Russia.

If you don't find any of Trump's foreign policy actions then take the time to explain why you thinking he is building a foreign policy which will serve US interests.

I cannot find anyplace in your link where he is quoted as saying "into".

Again according to the link you provided it said one child.  And you have no idea if his judgment was good or bad here.  We lost a good chunk of SEAL Team 6 and a CH-47 a few years ago.  

If you look I've criticized Trump plenty because there's plenty to criticize. It doesn't mean every criticism is valid.

[Griever]

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-trump-20170201-story.html

[Bengalzona]

Like it or not, drones, robots, etc. are the inevitable future of warfare. China, Russia, Iran, India, Israel, even ISIL are all producing drones. Russia's new MBT has a fully automated turret and gun and the rest of the tank is expected to be converted to remote operation in the next decade. Their Iskander missile is partially guided by a remote operator. China is building an armada of aircraft drones. At this point, Pandora's Box is open and these things aren't going back in.

The main criticism of drones is target verification and collateral damage. This has always been a problem in warfare, just more so with drones because of the lesser quality of field information. But I believe there is a far greater concern. With the proliferation of drones and the subsequent reduction in the risk to live troops, I think it will increase the likelihood of countries viewing open conflict as a reasonable option.

Or, maybe we evolve and become a little more civilized and just have wars where drones target each other rather than human beings to settle things.

I wouldn't hold my breathe for that to happen.

[Bengalzona]

I'm no fan of Trump, but I can't see criticizing him for this raid at this point.

BTW- Yemen is one f***ed up mess right now. I've been meaning to post a thread on it, but haven't had a chance.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2017, 01:20 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Like it or not, drones, robots, etc. are the inevitable future of warfare. China, Russia, Iran, India, Israel, even ISIL are all producing drones. Russia's new MBT has a fully automated turret and gun and the rest of the tank is expected to be converted to remote operation in the next decade. Their Iskander missile is guided by a remote operator. China is building an armada of aircraft drones. At this point, Pandora's Box is open and these things aren't going back in.

The main criticism of drones is target verification and collateral damage. This has always been a problem in warfare, just more so with drones because of the lesser quality of field information. But I believe there is a far greater concern. With the proliferation of drones and the subsequent reduction in the risk to live troops, I think it will increase the likelihood of countries viewing open conflict as a reasonable option.

Or, maybe we evolve and become a little more civilized and just have wars where drones target each other rather than human beings to settle things.

I wouldn't hold my breathe for that to happen.

Yeah like robot-wars for real. 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2017, 01:25 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm no fan of Trump, but I can't see criticizing him for this raid at this point.

BTW- Yemen is one f***ed up mess right now. I've been meaning to post a thread on it, but haven't had a chance.

That's because of that stuff they chew on.  Can't remember what it's called, but I'm pretty sure I'd like it.

[Bengalzona]

(02-02-2017, 01:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's because of that stuff they chew on.  Can't remember what it's called, but I'm pretty sure I'd like it.

LOL!

In some ways, Yemen mirrors Syria. Because of the convoluted nature of the conflict there, our government has ended up sending arms to Al Quaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

Speaking of Syria, get this. When their civil war started, Russia was building a huge oil refinery in Syria. The Russians kept working on it as the conflict was going on. The area it is in was overrun by ISIL. ISIL left the Russians alone and they completed the facility. ISIL made a deal with Russia and began sending crude from its captured territories to the facilities for processing. Eventually, the Syrian government retook the area. A deal was made and now both, the Assad regime and ISIL, pay the Russians to develop their crude at this facility (the Syrian government allows ISIL to transport to the site).

Things are never quite as simple and black or white as they may seem, particularly when dealing with governments and even more particularly in the Middle East.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2017, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why?

Because drones can cause quite a bit of colateral damage and troops on the ground are often sent in to clean it up. Many times facing a hostile community that may have otherwise been cooperative. There's vaarious other reason; as well. They would much rather have drones for recon and "on call" missions.

Griever Wrote:because he said so

dont question him

You're still here?

[Griever]

(02-02-2017, 01:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because drones can cause quite a bit of colateral damage and troops on the ground are often sent in to clean it up. Many times facing a hostile community that may have otherwise been cooperative. There's vaarious other reason; as well. They would much rather have drones for recon and "on call" missions.



You're still here?

sorry snowflake, i am

[NATI BENGALS]

I think the rising threat of nuclear war with China belongs on the original list.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2017, 11:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He* sure is terrible












* He refers to Donald Trump for those that have difficulty understanding.

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 01:20 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The main criticism of drones is target verification and collateral damage. This has always been a problem in warfare, just more so with drones because of the lesser quality of field information. But I believe there is a far greater concern. With the proliferation of drones and the subsequent reduction in the risk to live troops, I think it will increase the likelihood of countries viewing open conflict as a reasonable option.

Yes. Just as going to the all volunteer military made it easier to engage in foreign wars. 

All those cost factors which go into politicians war calculations are being removed.

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 01:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's because of that stuff they chew on.  Can't remember what it's called, but I'm pretty sure I'd like it.

 
It's called "Kat" or "Kot."

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 01:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I cannot find anyplace in your link where he is quoted as saying "into".

Again according to the link you provided it said one child.  And you have no idea if his judgment was good or bad here.  We lost a good chunk of SEAL Team 6 and a CH-47 a few years ago.  

If you look I've criticized Trump plenty because there's plenty to criticize.  It doesn't mean every criticism is valid.

You are correct. I do not find that word "into" either. My mistake. The quote is "You have a bunch of bad hombres down there. You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it." I guess I assumed that meant troops going "into" Mexico because how else would he take care of the bad hombres? I don't expect he would just shoot at them from the border.

But again, the issue is not whether he actually said "into," it is the insulting tone taken with an ally and trade partner and the threat.

I gave you three links, but again again, this one, which I quoted regarding the children, has the numbers I gave.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?_r=1

I am not the only one who thinks Trump's judgment was bad in this case:
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/yemen-seals-raid-al-qaida-women
"almost everything went wrong during the operation"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/middleeast/donald-trump-yemen-commando-raid-questions.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/31/how-trumps-first-counter-terror-operation-in-yemen-turned-into-chaos/?utm_term=.7942ba08c32e

[McC]

(02-02-2017, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: And if you see innocent people killed it might add to hatred.

Much like throwing a cup of water into the oceans adds to the water.

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: And if you see innocent people killed it might add to hatred.

According the US Army in A-stan, killing one insurgent--especially if he is not really an insurgent--may produce as many as 20 more insurgents--the brothers, cousins, and uncles of the one killed.

 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2017, 07:24 PM)Dill Wrote: You are correct. I do not find that word "into" either. My mistake. The quote is "You have a bunch of bad hombres down there. You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it." I guess I assumed that meant troops going "into" Mexico because how else would he take care of the bad hombres? I don't expect he would just shoot at them from the border.

But again, the issue is not whether he actually said "into," it is the insulting tone taken with an ally and trade partner and the threat.

I gave you three links, but again again, this one, which I quoted regarding the children, has the numbers I gave.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/middleeast/yemen-raid-women-qaeda.html?_r=1

I am not the only one who thinks Trump's judgment was bad in this case:
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/yemen-seals-raid-al-qaida-women
"almost everything went wrong during the operation"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/middleeast/donald-trump-yemen-commando-raid-questions.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/31/how-trumps-first-counter-terror-operation-in-yemen-turned-into-chaos/?utm_term=.7942ba08c32e

But the Mexican government is denying that he was ever insulting or hostile.  

[Dill]

(02-03-2017, 10:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But the Mexican government is denying that he was ever insulting or hostile.  

Yes, they are doing the right thing to stabilize appearances. And they are trying to get him to stop twittering foreign policy.