• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14

Surgical precision they say, minimal civilian casualties they say. Even if in the past the US has been truthful with the number of civilians killed (and honestly what are the chances of that?), this cannot be overlooked. When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out. If somebody shot a drone into the US to take out a "strategic target" and hit a wedding convey we would be outraged, and sending out entire military overseas to deal with it. If Yemen so much as considers retaliation against the United States we would be all over them.
We would be outraged even if the strategically targeted hit were accurate and no civilians were involved.
 
obama just showing everyone why he one a nobel peace prize.
 
The security committee, headed by President Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi, said Thursday's strike targeted "a car that belonged to one of the leaders of Al-Qaeda".

Two of the dead whose names were released -- Saleh al-Tays and Abdullah al-Tays -- had figured on past government lists of wanted Al-Qaeda suspects.
But most of those killed were civilians of the Al-Tays and Al-Ameri clans headed for the wedding.
Amnesty International said confusion over who was behind the raid "exposes a serious lack of accountability for scores of civilian deaths in the country."
Yemen tribe boosts protest over civilian drone deaths
so it's the same crap. no accountability to speak of, no US comment, and nothing changes.
We are doing the dirty work for the Yemeni regime
 
When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out.

If that's true, does that mean that every terrorist attack against civilians makes more enemies than they kill?
 
If that's true, does that mean that every terrorist attack against civilians makes more enemies than they kill?
Yes, but I don't think they're even wanting to affect change through friendship, but rather they want to affect change through fear and intimation. That don't give one whit about being your/our friends.
 
Yes, but I don't think they're even wanting to affect change through friendship, but rather they want to affect change through fear and intimation. That don't give one whit about being your/our friends.

It opens up interesting lines of logic:

-1 So the US can continue and, because there's more terrorist attacks against civilians than US attacks, the number of people that the terrorists make enemies out of will continue to rise much faster than the number of people that the US make enemies out of.

Or:

-2 The US should do nothing at all, and just continue to have the terrorists make more and more enemies.

Or maybe those lines or argumentation indicate that the foundation we're basing it on (that this creates more enemies than it kills) is incomplete at best and erroneous at worst.
 
It opens up interesting lines of logic:

-1 So the US can continue and, because there's more terrorist attacks against civilians than US attacks, the number of people that the terrorists make enemies out of will continue to rise much faster than the number of people that the US make enemies out of.

Or:

-2 The US should do nothing at all, and just continue to have the terrorists make more and more enemies.

Or maybe those lines or argumentation indicate that the foundation we're basing it on (that this creates more enemies than it kills) is incomplete at best and erroneous at worst.
Our whole line of world politics thinking needs re-thinking.
 
If that's true, does that mean that every terrorist attack against civilians makes more enemies than they kill?

Possibly, but that doesn't affect feelings toward the US at all....
 
There is no "logic" in this is a supposed war. It's asymetrical, it's poorly planned (nationbuilding in Iraq, and Afg), and the targeting is dubious.

At the risk of inserting some sane approach, into the Perpetual War; drone ( or airstrikes ) on so called "militants" should be used only on a high value target.
Only if that target is an imminent threat to the US, or our allies.

This is so called precison weaponry, yet the targeting is dubious at best in Yemen. Pakistan targeting is more precise, but we wind up targeting Tehreek-e-Taliban in Pakkistan's internal fight with their Taliban.

Why? Because we are commited somehow to building a stable state in Afganistan ; which given history, is almost -if not - impossible.

Better to let the Pakistani's handle their own security - like this - since we have no real long term role/concerns in that part of the world: (breaking)

Top Pakistani Taliban commander arrested in Karachi | NDTV.com
 
it's a good point, and we use them on "militants" - whatever that means. not just high value terrorists.

Our so called signature strikes: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/the-signature-strikes-program/?_r=0



And yes the Yemeni INTEl can be a cellphone call from someone in the field - I would imagine faulty data used for revenge,

ONLY way to use these is : 1. "high value" targets only 2. cross checked, or exacting INTEL. 3. limited use.

we are doing none of these as of now
I think you make some very good points... do you have data on how many new jihadis types we are creating or are you just extrapolating that it is creating more than would occur naturally in this time of, it seems, rising Muslim consciousness, especially noticeable in its extremist and radical forms. This is not my area of expertise but I do try to maintain an ongoing interest in what is what and where, sometimes the who.

I am wondering out loud whether, with limited arrows in our quiver, if maybe the drones are the way, however crude, far better than boots on the ground, sometimes far the more blunt... or should we do something else in between that and just throwing our hands up in the air... not in surrender, never, but in just ridding our minds of the whole matter, withdraw...

Then, if the US withdraws from this which means it will soon be withdrawing from all the other thats, what vacuums will be filled, where will that go?
 
American interests??
not unless it is better defined, it's pablum to simply say "American interests" when we are now devolving to the level of the terrorists,
when we knowing ourselves accept "collateral damage".

Understood there is going to be such, but ridiculous targeting, and chasing a militant on a motorcycle into a house and knowingly droning the house, killing a child...

The problem is American interests is such an elastic concept, it hasn't got any real meaning anymore. It's just more American exceptionalism, junk.

Killing AQAP simply because they are in Yemen does have counter-productive "blowback", if one reads any of the links posted in this thread.
 
I think you make some very good points... do you have data on how many new jihadis types we are creating or are you just extrapolating that it is creating more than would occur naturally in this time of, it seems, rising Muslim consciousness, especially noticeable in its extremist and radical norms. This is not my area of expertise but I do try to maintain an ongoing interest in what is what and where, sometimes the who.
I am wondering out loud whether, with limited arrows in our quiver, if maybe the drones are the way, however crude, far better than boots on the ground, sometimes far the more blunt... or should we do something else in between that and just throwing our hands up in the air... not in surrender, never, but in just ridding our minds of the whole matter, withdraw...

Then, if the US withdraws from this which means it will soon be withdrawing from all the other thats, what vacuums will be filled, where will that go?
It's impossible to quantify, one has to think of the radicalizatioj of the populations where drones loiter overhead for hours/days on end.

Just there presence is aggrevating; I can't source it - but i read someplace that in either Yemen, or Afg ( sorry i can't recall ) farmers/tribesmen, were terrified to go out side and tend there fields/livestock. The constant presence of drones.

There is much anecdotal evidence these populace is now hating, or turning against the US -
which has to leave them open for either accepting AQ operating in their midst, or possibly joining them.

try this source:
McChrystal — the former ISAF commander who implemented the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy of "winning hearts and minds" in Afghanistan — said that while drones enabled him to carry out missions with fewer troops, the impact of remotely dropping bombs from the sky has its disadvantages................

May Sudarsan Raghavan of The Washington Post reported that "unintended consequence of the attacks [in Yemen] has been a marked radicalization of the local population," noting that the number of core al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) members has more than doubled since Barack Obama ordered the first air strike there in 2009.


Read more: McChrystal Admits Drones Inspire Loathing - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
American interests??
not unless it is better defined, it's pablum to simply say "American interests" when we are now devolving to the level of the terrorists,
when we knowing ourselves accept "collateral damage".

Understood there is going to be such, but ridiculous targeting, and chasing a militant on a motorcycle into a house and knowingly droning the house, killing a child...

The problem is American interests is such an elastic concept, it hasn't got any real meaning anymore. It's just more American exceptionalism, junk.

Killing AQAP simply because they are in Yemen does have counter-productive "blowback", if one reads any of the links posted in this thread.

There's no American exceptionalism. Every nation has interests. It's the job of the US government to promote American ones.
 
There's no American exceptionalism. Every nation has interests. It's the job of the US government to promote American ones.
sure. I can't disagree on the promotion of US interests, I do disagree that our American exceptionalism, has led to the modern neo-con movement;
which most unfortunatly has infected the Obama adm, as well as it was expected to in the Bush/Cheney adm.

Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
 
sure. I can't disagree on the promotion of US interests, I do disagree that our American exceptionalism, has led to the modern neo-con movement;
which most unfortunatly has infected the Obama adm, as well as it was expected to in the Bush/Cheney adm.

That's just neorealism is international relations. Power politics exist independent of administrations. Even Carter had Ziggy B.
 
It's impossible to quantify, one has to think of the radicalizatioj of the populations where drones loiter overhead for hours/days on end.

Just there presence is aggrevating; I can't source it - but i read someplace that in either Yemen, or Afg ( sorry i can't recall ) farmers/tribesmen, were terrified to go out side and tend there fields/livestock. The constant presence of drones.

There is much anecdotal evidence these populace is now hating, or turning against the US -
which has to leave them open for either accepting AQ operating in their midst, or possibly joining them.

try this source:



Read more: McChrystal Admits Drones Inspire Loathing - Business Insider
I aqree it may be impossible to quantify, and anecdotal is just what it is. Myself, I certainly cannot make a truly supportable assessment from here, but people on the ground in these areas, perhaps less subjectively objective and with more knowledge, have made such determinations.

If those are a common every day everywhere occurrence to those people, that is not immediately acceptable to my mind. At the same time one needs to strike at your opponents the best way possible when the opportunity arises... and would assume for the most part this has to be some fairly isolated, not overly numerous areas. Surely they cannot carpet the entire country with constant drones.

I really wish you addressed your opinions on if the US begins to withdraw and let these regions just do as they do, is that better or worse, what are the ramifications? If we have no idea then it would be hard to fault the US for sticking in there, keeping the world in order, if only in our own interests, as best we can. There were some hiccups in our Cold War, as are natural in a random world, but US long term policy has, my opinion, helped keep the world a lot from its natural blood thirstiness ... even though we have had a lot anyhow.

And even with the violence that we do have over here, there is something more manageable about it, as well.

Thanks for the tips.
 
Just because you have the capability of doing something, doesn't mean you should do it. Wisdom is sorely lacking in the White House these days.
 
I aqree it may be impossible to quantify, and anecdotal is just what it is. Myself, I certainly cannot make a truly supportable assessment from here, but people on the ground in these areas, perhaps less subjectively objective and with more knowledge, have made such determinations.

If those are a common every day everywhere occurrence to those people, that is not immediately acceptable to my mind. At the same time one needs to strike at your opponents the best way possible when the opportunity arises... and would assume for the most part this has to be some fairly isolated, not overly numerous areas. Surely they cannot carpet the entire country with constant drones.

I really wish you addressed your opinions on if the US begins to withdraw and let these regions just do as they do, is that better or worse, what are the ramifications? If we have no idea then it would be hard to fault the US for sticking in there, keeping the world in order, if only in our own interests, as best we can. There were some hiccups in our Cold War, as are natural in a random world, but US long term policy has, my opinion, helped keep the world a lot from its natural blood thirstiness ... even though we have had a lot anyhow.

And even with the violence that we do have over here, there is something more manageable about it, as well.

Thanks for the tips.
I took the liberty of bolding what you wanted to discuss.
The ramifications have to be understood in terms of what happens if we leave vs. stay. But before that, one has to define what our interests are.

In AfPak, our interests are not letting the area, become a GLOBAL breeding ground for terrorism i.e. the situation we had there with the AQ training camps before 9-11.

I'm a little foggy on this, but the idea is the Taliban allowed the mujahideen to operate freely, as they are both extreme religious fundamentalist types.
Anyways - what was called for was not so called "nationbuilding" (counter-insurgency) - all that was really needed was to go after any organized AQ traing camps, and hit them again, and again. repeat as necessaryy

It's obviously not so simple, as even now the Taliban have jihaded to Syria, so it's not like you can just seal off Afg/Paki.

But the basic idea of NOT a counter-insurgency strategy; rather then just counter-terrorism would have led to a lot less grief for the ISAF forces,'
and ( iIMHO! )would not have allowed the Taliban to recruit outside of N. Waziristan.

It would be similar to keeping a lid on a boiling pot - some spill over, but not the boiling over we have now as a result of our policy.
Where the Paki Taliban are financing/recruiting the Afg, and vice vesa - afterall Paki, and Afganistan are not ours to stabilize/build, just "degrade' organized AQ.

In Yemen, we do the opposite -we never tried a counter-insurgency, just a counter-terrorism. Which is always a more sensible approach;
the problem being we are relying mostly on Yemeni INTEL, since it is difficult to get it, as we don't have the boots we do in AfPak.

So I can only tell you to look for a middle path, one that recognizes there are, and will continue to be really bad guys, that need to be droned.

But we have to do so with utmost caution, which we most decidely are NOT DOING now.

I mentioned some criteria, 1. only true high value targets, and not localized AQ.2. Only those we know as really being a threat now,
not this idea they will be some day -they may or may not, but since we are now radicalizing thepopulace, we are pushing the populace to hate us,
and radicalize what would just be ordinary local AQ, or even those fighters in their stalemated civil war.

I think the civil war is over (not sure), here is a chronology to help see the perpspective

Yemen News - Breaking World Yemen News - The New York Times
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom