So Much for Due process, Drones

[Omicron]

Hey dummy, when was shock and awe used in the comparative recent history? Anyone with half a brain knew what I was talking about. Or do you fall outside that requirement?

Huh?

Actually, I wasn't responding, in particular, to anything you had posted.

I was skimming through the thread, and I read the phrase "shock and awe", and it got me thinking on a philosophical level, so I tossed the question back to the forum in order to read what others thought.

In particular I was curious to read what the vets had to say, because, in my experience, when talking about defense, what those who've been there have to say tends to fall into a different set of responses from those who don't, and it's always interesting to see what's different and where there is common ground (think ven-diagrams).

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I've been banned from this site for my views on war.

Probably best we leave it alone for now, in that case.

Sorry that happened to you.

 

[Omicron]

I've been banned from this site for my views on war.

Probably not so much your views, but how you express them.

 

[petros]

There is no joy in bloodshed. At all.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

There is no joy in bloodshed. At all.

Sure there is.

 

[damngrumpy]

There is a war going on whether we chose to say it or not does not
make a difference. The radical Islamists are willing to make us a
target whether we want to sit around the campfire and sing songs
doesn't count.
They want to destroy our way of life. They would if they could blow
up our trains, hijack our passenger planes and blow up infrastructure.
they are training people in the wilderness to do this. If we can kill
them from the air where they have no defence for a change that is
alright with me.
I like what Churchill said we will accept nothing less than unconditional
surrender in the end. I wonder what this discussion will be like when
they do something here and get away with it. The enemy gets no
sympathy from me no matter where they are., And just think I am not
right wing I am just fed up with them

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

There is a war going on whether we chose to say it or not does not
make a difference. The radical Islamists are willing to make us a
target whether we want to sit around the campfire and sing songs
doesn't count.
They want to destroy our way of life. They would if they could blow
up our trains, hijack our passenger planes and blow up infrastructure.
they are training people in the wilderness to do this. If we can kill
them from the air where they have no defence for a change that is
alright with me.
I like what Churchill said we will accept nothing less than unconditional
surrender in the end. I wonder what this discussion will be like when
they do something here and get away with it. The enemy gets no
sympathy from me no matter where they are., And just think I am not
right wing I am just fed up with them

Funny, I disagree with every word you wrote, and yet I agree with your conclusion.

Hope that's good enough for you.

 

[Rosebud]

You are indeed back. Unfortunately, during your absence you didn't learn the distinction between warfare and criminal procedure.

I'm game, please quote the time and date an official declaration of war was approved by congress and announced to the UN.

 

[gerryh]

Probably not so much your views, but how you express them.

Yup, people don't like the hard truths put right in front of them.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm game, please quote the time and date an official declaration of war was approved by congress and announced to the UN.

Sure. September 14, 2001. The citation is Pub. L.107-40, 115 Stat. 224.

I don't know it it was ever "announced" to the UN. I'm not even sure what that means. It was "announced" to all and sundry when it was passed.

Not that any of this matters. The laws of war apply in undeclared wars as well as declared ones.

 

[Rosebud]

I love drone strikes, period. They're targeted, efficient, and they keep our guys safe.

I'm sure our lefty friends would prefer incinerating entire cities, like we did in the "good" war.

Safe for now. Trouble is these people have a habit of taking it on families too, sometimes decades later when we think everything as settled down and we're enjoying relative peace. 9/11 is the wakeup call. The drones will create a "cornered rat" approach. No country can tolerate such a thing and eventually they will find our weak points. This is not a "pistols at 50 paces" type of aggression, no one will come on carrier decks and sign documents. These people live war through ancestry, and we should not hope to see another post war Germany where the victor and loser agree to their rolls. This is western style.

If in the past drones were to become an option, then if there were any tactical brains in the pentagon, then they would have at least plugged up the bottlenecks I mentioned in my post before using them to protect your and my grandkids.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Safe for now. Trouble is these people have a habit of taking it on families too, sometimes decades later when we think everything as settled down and we're enjoying relative peace. 9/11 is the wakeup call. The drones will create a "cornered rat" approach. No country can tolerate such a thing and eventually they will find our weak points. This is not a "pistols at 50 paces" type of aggression, no one will come on carrier decks and sign documents. These people live war through ancestry, and we should not hope to see another post war Germany where the victor and loser agree to their rolls. This is western style.

If in the past drones were to become an option, then if there were any tactical brains in the pentagon, then they would have at least plugged up the bottlenecks I mentioned in my post before using them to protect your and my grandkids.

So, relating this post back to your first post, do you think if we followed Constitutional criminal procedure, radical Islamists would say "Oh, those Americans! Capital fellows, really" and stop attacking us?

 

[Goober]

Safe for now. Trouble is these people have a habit of taking it on families too, sometimes decades later when we think everything as settled down and we're enjoying relative peace. 9/11 is the wakeup call. The drones will create a "cornered rat" approach. No country can tolerate such a thing and eventually they will find our weak points. This is not a "pistols at 50 paces" type of aggression, no one will come on carrier decks and sign documents. These people live war through ancestry, and we should not hope to see another post war Germany where the victor and loser agree to their rolls. This is western style.

If in the past drones were to become an option, then if there were any tactical brains in the pentagon, then they would have at least plugged up the bottlenecks I mentioned in my post before using them to protect your and my grandkids.

Read this please.
Officials: Israeli Drone Strike Kills 5 in Egypt | TIME.com

 

[Rosebud]

Read this please.
Officials: Israeli Drone Strike Kills 5 in Egypt | TIME.com

Anything Israeli is a continuation of a valid war that dates back to the 40's when western nations decided to partition Palestine for Jewish settlement. It had no right to do so. Just becuase the Palestinian people did not have the infrastructure to launch an effective defense, doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to remain self autonimous. If the US decided to get the other nations together to agree to have Canada settled by other people, it too would be an extenuation to this day of attempts to right wrongs of the past.

Israel is no longer the "care package" nation of those days. Now the only nation in that area with nuclear capabilities and a GNP that beats 3 european nations combined, it doesn't needed to be shored up economically and infused yearly with billions of dollars in aid. In fact it has become a bully in the neighbourhood. The press never admits this since Canada tows the US line.

Remember too that the british commonwealth countries approved this takeover in the 40's at the same time as refusing boatloads of refugees, Canada has a poor track record also for this. Don't investigate if you don't want to be shocked.

So, relating this post back to your first post, do you think if we followed Constitutional criminal procedure, radical Islamists would say "Oh, those Americans! Capital fellows, really" and stop attacking us?

Why stop there? Since we know some are innocent and you set the standard, how many of them is sufficient to prevent strike? Why not nuk them all? So what are you numbers? How many babies do feel who's lives are worthless?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Why stop there? Since we know some are innocent and you set the standard, how many of them is sufficient to prevent strike? Why not nuk them all? So what are you numbers? How many babies do feel who's lives are worthless?

All of them.

 

[gerryh]

All of them.

why is it when a hard, serious question is asked, you resort to this bullshyte? Unable to answer, or is this really your answer?

 

[Goober]

Anything Israeli is a continuation of a valid war that dates back to the 40's when western nations decided to partition Palestine for Jewish settlement. It had no right to do so. Just becuase the Palestinian people did not have the infrastructure to launch an effective defense, doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to remain self autonimous. If the US decided to get the other nations together to agree to have Canada settled by other people, it too would be an extenuation to this day of attempts to right wrongs of the past.

Israel is no longer the "care package" nation of those days. Now the only nation in that area with nuclear capabilities and a GNP that beats 3 european nations combined, it doesn't needed to be shored up economically and infused yearly with billions of dollars in aid. In fact it has become a bully in the neighbourhood. The press never admits this since Canada tows the US line.

Remember too that the british commonwealth countries approved this takeover in the 40's at the same time as refusing boatloads of refugees, Canada has a poor track record also for this. Don't investigate if you don't want to be shocked.
Why stop there? Since we know some are innocent and you set the standard, how many of them is sufficient to prevent strike? Why not nuk them all? So what are you numbers? How many babies do feel who's lives are worthless?

Oh I am well schooled.

The UN approved the partition. Much like they did with other countries.

You missed a really big point so I will let you know why I posted that link.

Israel and Egypt working together.

Now if you wish to start a Thread on Partition I suggest you become informed. As from your post it is clear that you are lacking.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

why is it when a hard, serious question is asked, you resort to this bullshyte?

I'm not aware that a hard, serious question has been asked. All I hear is just another variation on "Oh, you horrible, murderous Yanks! You're horrible and murderous!"

Unable to answer, or is this really your answer?

It's really my answer.

And by the way, by "all of them," I mean all of "ours" as well as all of "theirs."

Want a little more? OK.

I'm a bit of a student of military history, and y'know what? I can't think of a single war that really changed much of anything except temporarily and locally.

As far as the widdle bee-bees are concerned, might I suggest that you actually don't give a damn for them any more than I do? I'm just more honest about it.

 

[Rosebud]

Sure. September 14, 2001. The citation is Pub. L.107-40, 115 Stat. 224.

I don't know it it was ever "announced" to the UN. I'm not even sure what that means. It was "announced" to all and sundry when it was passed.

Not that any of this matters. The laws of war apply in undeclared wars as well as declared ones.

It was an ambiguous statement that spoke in generalizations. "War on terrorism" does not officially place notice on the aggressor which would be required because people reside in nations which has separate jurisdictions which needs to considered.

Such a proclamation standard would serve to put Canada on notice also.

The official protocol for proclamations could set a standard with the declaration of war on Japan, but in this case there is no
comparison, is ambiguous, and intentionally obfuscates for the intent of indiscriminant aggression.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It was an ambiguous statement that spoke in generalizations. "War on terrorism" does not officially place notice on the aggressor which would be required because people reside in nations which has separate jurisdictions which needs to considered.

Such a proclamation standard would serve to put Canada on notice also.

The official protocol for proclamations could set a standard with the declaration of war on Japan, but in this case there is no
comparison, is ambiguous, and intentionally obfuscates for the intent of indiscriminant aggression.

What's your point? That the AUMF failed to satisfy your personal standard for declarations of war?