I've been watching this guys videos for a while now and he has helped me changed my mind set in alot of things.

 

But listen to what he believes Trump's strategy has been and the impact it has had.

 

I personally wouldn't vote for Trump if I were American, but if you break down and analyse his charisma, it is just something else (in a good way)

 

The video basically breaks Trumps strategy into these steps:

1. Get Attention - did this with the whole controversial Mexican & Muslim speeches
2. Win one audience at a time - Republicans
3. Remove threats one at a time
4. Define the terms of engagement
5. Be flexible

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I

There are always casualties in war, and this is a war. Nevertheless civilian casualties in military operations have drastically fallen, even since the 90s due to evolving technology and a serious effort to reduce them.

 

This also explains the difference between civilians killed by the US and those killed by the terrorists. The US wants to minimize collateral damage while taking out high priority targets, while the terrorists go specifically for soft targets and seek to kill or harm as many as possible.

 

Except not everyone we bomb are at war with us. Perhaps this article can help shine a light on the issue

 

There are always casualties in war, and this is a war. Nevertheless civilian casualties in military operations have drastically fallen, even since the 90s due to evolving technology and a serious effort to reduce them.

 

This also explains the difference between civilians killed by the US and those killed by the terrorists. The US wants to minimize collateral damage while taking out high priority targets, while the terrorists go specifically for soft targets and seek to kill or harm as many as possible.

 

Except not everyone we bomb are at war with us. Perhaps this article can help shine a light on the issue

 

 

Sure, like every method, this too is an imperfect one. But what is the better alternative then? "Not fighting back at all" is the only option that will not result in innocents dying - at least on that side.

I am saying that we either take the highroad or we don't. Right now we aren't and we are hiding the fact. Many of these "terrorists" are actually just normal people. These bombings turn them into martyrs. I would rather leave 1 alive than make 10 more because we killed people are random.

If by taking the high road you mean full commitment to eradicate these individuals, then yes, I agree we should do that, even if it isn't a popular stance. I agree that the drone program is a kind of half-solution that's far from ideal.

 

However, letting terrorist leaders to operate with impunity or without fear of punishment is the worst possible course of action.

If by taking the high road you mean full commitment to eradicate these individuals, then yes, I agree we should do that, even if it isn't a popular stance. I agree that the drone program is a kind of half-solution that's far from ideal.

 

However, letting terrorist leaders to operate with impunity or without fear of punishment is the worst possible course of action.

 

Just because they are classified as terrorists, or have terrorist links doesn't mean they are.  The high road would not be killing people with impunity because we feel that one day they might be a threat to us. We are making martyrs and setting up more hate against the US than we are saving. Children are scared of clear days because that is when the bombs fall. No innocent killed by these drones are acceptable casualties and we shouldn't be doing it because there is no proof it is even helping us.

 

Here is some data as of May 21st in Pakistan (a country we are not at war with)

Total strikes: 424

Obama strikes: 373

Total killed: 2,499-4,001

Civilians killed: 424-966

Children killed: 172-207

Injured: 1,161-1,744

 

source

Actually, those numbers aren't so bad. That's 2-3000 terrorists dead, and I'd wager those that are designated as "civilians" might not always be completely innocent either.

 

That is not to say there can't be improvement, or a better way, but I'll argue that leaving 3000 militants alive would result in a lot more civilian deaths than the collateral damage. Hell, there's a good chance these would mostly happen in Pakistan too

As American citizen that only real civil duty to do is to vote, I believe we are screwed regardless of who we vote for. My opinion this election is just picking which of the of the two are the lesser evil. So time to pack my bags and move to another country.

Actually, those numbers aren't so bad. That's 2-3000 terrorists dead, and I'd wager those that are designated as "civilians" might not always be completely innocent either.

 

That is not to say there can't be improvement, or a better way, but I'll argue that leaving 3000 militants alive would result in a lot more civilian deaths than the collateral damage. Hell, there's a good chance these would mostly happen in Pakistan too

 

So you are okay with possibly only 40% of the people who died being terrorists? These are mostly bombings on towns, weddings, birthdays and family gatherings. Not just training camps and army formations. 

It's more around 15-20%, but the point is that civilian casualties are on the decline. Accuracy and policy can be improved. Abandoning a workable solution while offering no viable alternative is the worst possible approach.

It's more around 15-20%, but the point is that civilian casualties are on the decline. Accuracy and policy can be improved. Abandoning a workable solution while offering no viable alternative is the worst possible approach.

 

They claim. They can say someone is a terrorist and put them in the terrorist column. Suddenly that village they bombed and killed 20 innocents to kill the 1 guy they thought might be a terrorist becomes 15 terrorists dead and 6 women. And let me be very clear, even 1 civilian casualty caused by us against a country we are NOT at war with is unacceptable. This is not for our defense, this is creating future terrorists and not helping us. 

 

It's more around 15-20%, but the point is that civilian casualties are on the decline. Accuracy and policy can be improved. Abandoning a workable solution while offering no viable alternative is the worst possible approach.

 

They claim. They can say someone is a terrorist and put them in the terrorist column. Suddenly that village they bombed and killed 20 innocents to kill the 1 guy they thought might be a terrorist becomes 15 terrorists dead and 6 women. And let me be very clear, even 1 civilian casualty caused by us against a country we are NOT at war with is unacceptable. This is not for our defense, this is creating future terrorists and not helping us. 

 

^

Dozens of sheep were once bombed because they were thought to be Taliban. Reason being, they were white and the Taliban were believed to wear white. So one day a flock of sheep was mistaken for a congregation of Taliban and bombed. Dozens were killed. They were all sheep. 

That should give you an idea of how precise our bombing really is. 

So improve on your intelligence systems and the precision of your technology. Get the defense contractors and your intelligence agencies working on that. That's the solution here.

So improve on your intelligence systems and the precision of your technology. Get the defense contractors and your intelligence agencies working on that. That's the solution here.

 

Except you were defending it as it is now. As it is now they are flawed and our country is doing acts of terrorism in the guise of killing terrorists. 

 

I am all for bombing terrorists, I just want to make sure it is only them that are getting bombed.

Also, Hillary is an American killing amoral bitch.

 

LOL THERE WERE LIKE 12 BENGHAZIS WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE BUT YOU FAGGOTS DIDNT REALLY CARE THEN. SOME WOMEN WITH A D NEXT TO HER NAME AND IT HAPPENS AND NIGGAS WONT LET IT GO SMDH FAM I NEED SOME DICK, RICK.

 

So improve on your intelligence systems and the precision of your technology. Get the defense contractors and your intelligence agencies working on that. That's the solution here.

 

Except you were defending it as it is now. As it is now they are flawed and our country is doing acts of terrorism in the guise of killing terrorists. 

 

I am all for bombing terrorists, I just want to make sure it is only them that are getting bombed.

 

 

Any method should always be improved on by default, which had been the case. Remember in the nineties, much more people died in F15 strikes and the such, today's drone strikes are way preciser. We should further better these strike capabilities to reduce collateral damage, but that is exactly what's being done. The reason for that is that the US does not seek to harm civilians by policy and each unnecessary death results in significant blowback which nobody want to deal with.

 

In the mean time, stick to the best available method.

 

 

In the mean time, stick to the best available method.

 

 

Best method to do what exactly? Drones have only proven effective in killing people, not in preventing bad guys from hurting the west.

They did help in preventing them from rallying enough people to take back Afghanistan completely, that's gotta count for something...

I am arguing against the strikes against civilian areas, in a country we are not at war with. Double damning offense

All right, but that's what a policy change is for. It is undeniable that many high-profile targets were killed this way - Mullah Mansur being the latest.

Toss enough bombs or shoot enough bullets and eventually you will kill a high value target. 

I question how much killing high-profile targets even help. It seems we've killed a bunch of them but the situation in the middle-east hasn't exactly been improving. I mean, ISIS has been losing some territory but I think that'd happen either way from the airstrikes on ISIS military & FSA/Kurds on the ground.

If it did a lot to help, then okay maybe but if it's not doing much, why do it?

Cause that's the only way of continuing the war without getting their own soldiers killed. Looks like killing civilians is alright because they were living close to suspected terrorists so they must be too, right?

Just because the drone program is not enough on its own to destroy an organization, it doesn't mean it doesn't have any effect at all. The frequent disruption of top leadership, loss of assets and personnel, etc, is still harming them, but is admittedly not enough on its own. Hence my call for significantly more commitment, which should be international, and not just the US alone. But since that isn't coming, what we have is still better than nothing.

Edited May 29, 201610 yr by ccabal86

If bombing was enough to win guerrilla wars then Vietnam would have been shorter and in our favor. More bombs were dropped during that war than any other and we had a significant presence on the ground. While I am sure the drones help, they by no means disrupt their chain of command. They could sit inside a cave and relay their orders with cell phones indefinitely and not fear the drones. 

 

So to bring back my original point, drone bombing villages isn't effective enough to justify doing it. Hell I personally wouldn't justify it even if every single bomb killed Bin Laden and 1 civilian. The cost is too high.

 

 

 

By the end of the war, 7 million tons of bombs had been dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia - more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II

 

Source

Secondary Source

If bombing was enough to win guerrilla wars then Vietnam would have been shorter and in our favor. More bombs were dropped during that war than any other and we had a significant presence on the ground. While I am sure the drones help, they by no means disrupt their chain of command. They could sit inside a cave and relay their orders with cell phones indefinitely and not fear the drones. 

 

So to bring back my original point, drone bombing villages isn't effective enough to justify doing it. Hell I personally wouldn't justify it even if every single bomb killed Bin Laden and 1 civilian. The cost is too high.

 

Well, they still have to leave from time to time, and they do. See Mullah Mansur, he was in a car with his driver. It's not just the top brass that's being hit, it's the mid-level guys too, you just don't hear it on the news that often.

 

Vietnam is just an example of how much technology has advanced and how bombings are now a viable tool (even if not enough on its own). Instead of bombing the jungle, you now can hit actual targets

 

As for civilian casualties, I accept that they are inevitable, even if undesired and should therefore be kept at a minimum. You on the other hand don't think even a single innocent's death is acceptable which is fine, but we're not going to find a middle ground here. But consider that there is no such a thing as a purely positive or negative outcome, and inaction too can have very negative consequences. A loss today may avert an even greater loss tomorrow. It's really the net outcome that matters, and if that's positive, it's worth taking.

 

EDIT: so much for the OP, it might not be salvageable at this point

Edited May 29, 201610 yr by ccabal86