Trump clears CIA to issue drone strikes

[Rotobeast]

I can't believe this wasn't posted, yet.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN16K2SE?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=58c764eb04d3017e295f885c&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

How do we know what the CIA is or isn't permitted to do overseas during ops we aren't suppose to talk or even know about?

[Rotobeast]

(03-14-2017, 07:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How do we know what the CIA is or isn't permitted to do overseas during ops we aren't suppose to talk or even know about?

They spoke to me, through my microwave.
They said "This crap is horrible for you. Go out and buy some fruit. And for Pete's sake, put some pants on. We can bomb the shit out of you now, you know. P.S. Let the wife rest for a night.....geesh!".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-14-2017, 07:30 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: They spoke to me, through my microwave.
They said "This crap is horrible for you. Go out and buy some fruit. And for Pete's sake, put some pants on. We can bomb the shit out of you now, you know. P.S. Let the wife rest for a night.....geesh!".

Gotcha. The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache.

[*bfine32*]

Not a fan of drone strikes regardless of who is at the controls. So I cannot say I'm a fan of this.

[BmorePat87]

Democrats will now be anti war again after an 8 year break.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-14-2017, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not a fan of drone strikes regardless of who is at the controls. So I cannot say I'm a fan of this.

Pretty much this... it wasn't good when Bush was blowing up civilians, it wasn't good when Obama was blowing up US citizens and civilians, and it won't be good when the CIA is blowing up who knows what/who.

I guess I can handle it being used up in the mountains of Afghanistan or whatever where collateral damage isn't really so much of an issue, but I don't really care for the disconnect involved in the whole operation.

[Rotobeast]

I guess my biggest problem is... Is there a steadfast list of qualifiers for determining "militants" and does it include people within our own borders ?
Is this just a tool to deal with dissent ?
As a Libertarian, am I a target ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-15-2017, 12:30 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I guess my biggest problem is... Is there a steadfast list of qualifiers for determining "militants" and does it include people within our own borders ?
Is this just a tool to deal with dissent ?
As a Libertarian, am I a target ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

There should always be rules of engagement and command and control measures in place.

[Rotobeast]

(03-15-2017, 07:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There should always be rules of engagement and command and control measures in place.

Absolutely !

As a man of the military, would you feel comfortable knowing your orders to kill came from the CIA ?
I know that it would be unlikely that you would be able to tell it from any other order coming down the pipe, but let's say you did.
Would you feel any different about it ?
What if it were "militant" rednecks or BLM, on U.S. soil ?
I'd like to think I'd know your responses, but I'll ask anyway.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-15-2017, 07:57 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Absolutely !

As a man of the military, would you feel comfortable knowing your orders to kill came from the CIA ?
I know that it would be unlikely that you would be able to tell it from any other order coming down the pipe, but let's say you did.
Would you feel any different about it ?
What if it were "militant" rednecks or BLM, on U.S. soil ?
I'd like to think I'd know your responses, but I'll ask anyway.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if that's legal. So first I would want to know if they have command authority to give me an order. If so then I would have a legal obligation to follow them unless those orders are illegal or immoral.

So for most soldiers it wouldn't matter who issued the orders as long as they are legal orders. As a soldier you have to trust the policy makers that they are doing the right thing. After the whole Iraq fiasco, my trust in them wasn't what it once was which played a part in me leaving the Army.

As far as redneck militants or BLM, the oath includes all enemies, foreign and domestic. But, the Posse Commitatis Act would preclude a soldier conducting law enforcement type operations.

In short, if the orders were legal I wouldn't care if they came from the CIA and I wouldn't feel any differently about them.

[Belsnickel]

(03-14-2017, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not a fan of drone strikes regardless of who is at the controls. So I cannot say I'm a fan of this.

(03-15-2017, 12:07 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Pretty much this... it wasn't good when Bush was blowing up civilians, it wasn't good when Obama was blowing up US citizens and civilians, and it won't be good when the CIA is blowing up who knows what/who.

I guess I can handle it being used up in the mountains of Afghanistan or whatever where collateral damage isn't really so much of an issue, but I don't really care for the disconnect involved in the whole operation.

I disapprove of weaponized drones. Period.

[Benton]

(03-15-2017, 01:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disapprove of weaponized drones. Period.

Just curious, why?

Is there a difference in shooting someone by proxy? Right or wrong, you still shot someone.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2017, 01:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disapprove of weaponized drones. Period.

As do I and the reasons are many. Just a couple:

First of all collateral damage and the problems it causes to ground forces who may have to move occupy after such a indiscriminate attack

It "cheapens' war. Anyone can strap an explosives devise on a $50 drone and crash it into innocent folks. They can then point to us as their example. 

It's nothing more than an aerial IED and that's how cowards engage in combat. 

[Griever]

(03-14-2017, 07:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I can't believe this wasn't posted, yet.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN16K2SE?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=58c764eb04d3017e295f885c&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

of course he does, how else is he going to kill the children of terrorists...

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2017, 01:47 PM)Benton Wrote: Just curious, why?

Is there a difference in shooting someone by proxy? Right or wrong, you still shot someone.

(03-15-2017, 02:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As do I and the reasons are many. Just a couple:

First of all collateral damage and the problems it causes to ground forces who may have to move occupy after such a indiscriminate attack

It "cheapens' war. Anyone can strap an explosives devise on a $50 drone and crash it into innocent folks. They can then point to us as their example. 

It's nothing more than an aerial IED and that's how cowards engage in combat. 

bfine covered two of my reasons. Another one that I have, and this is one that isn't too popular and if people disagree so be it, is that by removing the risk of human casualties from warfare we have the potential for engaging in combat with less discrimination. Even if you have a B2 flying over an area and dropping bombs or a missile fired from a ship off the coast, the person pulling that trigger is at risk in some way. When you have a drone pilot tucked inside a control room in CONUS pulling the trigger it removes that risk, and I feel like it not only cheapens war, but it makes it easier for us to make that decision to kill on a high level.

I should remark, here, that the decision to kill on the base level, the pilot that does pull that trigger, still leaves psychological scars based upon what we have seen. I am fully aware that not only are these men and women actually pilots, but they are subject to PTSD because of what they are doing as well.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-15-2017, 02:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As do I and the reasons are many. Just a couple:

First of all collateral damage and the problems it causes to ground forces who may have to move occupy after such a indiscriminate attack

It "cheapens' war. Anyone can strap an explosives devise on a $50 drone and crash it into innocent folks. They can then point to us as their example. 

It's nothing more than an aerial IED and that's how cowards engage in combat. 

What do you see as the difference between a drone strike and a cruise missile strike?

[Benton]

(03-15-2017, 03:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: bfine covered two of my reasons. Another one that I have, and this is one that isn't too popular and if people disagree so be it, is that by removing the risk of human casualties from warfare we have the potential for engaging in combat with less discrimination. Even if you have a B2 flying over an area and dropping bombs or a missile fired from a ship off the coast, the person pulling that trigger is at risk in some way. When you have a drone pilot tucked inside a control room in CONUS pulling the trigger it removes that risk, and I feel like it not only cheapens war, but it makes it easier for us to make that decision to kill on a high level.

I should remark, here, that the decision to kill on the base level, the pilot that does pull that trigger, still leaves psychological scars based upon what we have seen. I am fully aware that not only are these men and women actually pilots, but they are subject to PTSD because of what they are doing as well.

I appreciate the input.

[Dill]

(03-15-2017, 03:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What do you see as the difference between a drone strike and a cruise missile strike?

18 pound MAC Bam! minibus gone  vs 1,000 lb HE  BAM!!!! hard structure gone.

[Dill]

(03-15-2017, 03:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: bfine covered two of my reasons. Another one that I have, and this is one that isn't too popular and if people disagree so be it, is that by removing the risk of human casualties from warfare we have the potential for engaging in combat with less discrimination. Even if you have a B2 flying over an area and dropping bombs or a missile fired from a ship off the coast, the person pulling that trigger is at risk in some way. When you have a drone pilot tucked inside a control room in CONUS pulling the trigger it removes that risk, and I feel like it not only cheapens war, but it makes it easier for us to make that decision to kill on a high level.

People make the same point regarding the all volunteer military we now have.

Military actions should not be taken lightly, and we would make them more responsibly if we still conscripted the military.

But if the US has to take military action against a legitimate threat, then concerns about "cowardice" should not incline us to greater risk to maintain our manliness or whatever. Everything should be done to minimize casualties on our side and civilian on the other.

Our B2 pilots were never much at risk in Iraq or Afghanistan. They might be in Syria now, with Russian SAMs on the ground.