• 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!

U.S. drone strikes kill more than 150 al Shabaab fighters

Obama killing radical islamist ? I sincerely doubt it.

And 150 deaths is " large scale " ? Nope.

And we were supposedly killing ISIS in Syria ( thousands of sorties ) until we learned that we we weren't.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yeah, like when they brought the drug cartels to their knees when they arrested Pablo Escobar, or Carlos Lehder, or Chapo, or any of the other hundreds. :lol:
Click to expand...

Or Al Capone. You never win the struggle with all criminals; just with one after the other and then the next and the next ad nauseam. But you can always stop fighting and pay the Mafia for protection.
 
Casper said:
Shhhhh, that is supposed to be a secret, and not for mass consumption. I believe you just might have made the hit list, and I am not talking top 40.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say anything like that either, but not because it shouldn't be mentioned. The oversimplification is just so primitive that it would be embarrassing to utter it.
 
joG said:
Or Al Capone. You never win the struggle with all criminals; just with one after the other and then the next and the next ad nauseam. But you can always stop fighting and pay the Mafia for protection.
Click to expand...

Or, you can repeal the stupid damn law that brought Capone and Chapo and Escobar a thousands of others into business in the first place. It's not rocket science. The Mafia and drug cartels are powerful ONLY because of a poor public policy of prohibition.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Or, you can repeal the stupid damn law that brought Capone and Chapo and Escobar a thousands of others into business in the first place. It's not rocket science. The Mafia and drug cartels are powerful ONLY because of a poor public policy of prohibition.
Click to expand...

That would be a smart move. It would weaken organized crime considerably by forcing them into less profitable areas. What it would not do is eliminate crime.
 
Sherman123 said:
Awesome. Nothing more to say really.
Click to expand...

So the Pentagon tells you they killed 150 Shabaab Fighters and not only do you not question them in the slightest...but you take great joy in what they did - even though there are few details provided and no (apparently) corroborating evidence from an unbiased source as to the accuracy of this information.

It is nice to know that I will now be able to see what you look like - for curiosity. Because after that response your face will surely appear on at least one dictionary next to the word 'gullible'.
 
faithful_servant said:
Did we have permission from the UN to do this??
Was this a violation of international law??
Where are all the Code Pink protesters??
Is this a violation of our domestic laws??
Are we at war with al Shabaab??
Did Somalia give us permission to carry out this action??
Click to expand...

None of this mattes so long as a Democrat is in the White House. Now if a Republican did all of this...
 
JANFU said:
U.S. drone strikes kill more than 150 al Shabaab fighters - The Globe and Mail


Thoughts are?
So far appears to be a good strike.
Click to expand...

I agree ... it's a good strike but is it going to work?

Playing whack-a-mole with those terrorists hasn't proven terribly effective in the past. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of striking terrorists. I like the idea of striking Iran before they get nuclear weapons. In fact, I like the idea of removing the current regime from power.
 
TheIceman said:
I agree ... it's a good strike but is it going to work?

Playing whack-a-mole with those terrorists hasn't proven terribly effective in the past. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of striking terrorists. I like the idea of striking Iran before they get nuclear weapons. In fact, I like the idea of removing the current regime from power.
Click to expand...

True, and drone strikes which have increased under Obama have had and continue to have significant blow back. Targeting a large group of terrorists, with few civilian casualties, well I can agree with that.
Going after a single but important leader, usually results in significant civilian causalities. Whether it is family or relatives, these do create more blow back.
Having boots close by to act in concert with our so called allies, like Saudi and Qatar, who should take the lead, in most, not all, and put their blood on the line.


We know who (many not all) in Saudi, Qatar and other countries that provide material and financial support to these groups. But due to base politics, little is done.
 
Fenton said:
Obama killing radical islamist ? I sincerely doubt it.

And 150 deaths is " large scale " ? Nope.

And we were supposedly killing ISIS in Syria ( thousands of sorties ) until we learned that we we weren't.
Click to expand...

Until the Russians came in and scattered them in less than 2 months.
 
joG said:
That would be a smart move. It would weaken organized crime considerably by forcing them into less profitable areas. What it would not do is eliminate crime.
Click to expand...

No, nothing will eliminate crime. Repealing prohibition would not eliminate crime, but it would remove the main source of income for drug cartels and even youngsters selling on street corners.
 
TheIceman said:
I agree ... it's a good strike but is it going to work?

Playing whack-a-mole with those terrorists hasn't proven terribly effective in the past. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of striking terrorists. I like the idea of striking Iran before they get nuclear weapons. In fact, I like the idea of removing the current regime from power.
Click to expand...

Just curious if you know of any examples in which our "changing regimes" has had the intended effect? Hillary's strategy certainly did not work in Libya, and Bush's strategy like that did not work in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Do you suppose it's true that continuing a failed strategy and tactics again and again is one sign of being irrational?
 
DA60 said:
So the Pentagon tells you they killed 150 Shabaab Fighters and not only do you not question them in the slightest...but you take great joy in what they did - even though there are few details provided and no (apparently) corroborating evidence from an unbiased source as to the accuracy of this information.

It is nice to know that I will now be able to see what you look like - for curiosity. Because after that response your face will surely appear on at least one dictionary next to the word 'gullible'.
Click to expand...

Yep. I have every reason to believe they struck a militant camp and that they inflicted enormous casualties. I'm quite glad of that fact. I'm not so insecure that I'm in persistent need to put the tin-foil hat on my head and question everyone and everything in search of ultimate verification. US reports on engagements and casualties figures have, historically speaking, been broadly accurate. I'm not inclined to see anything conspiratorial here.

But I'm sure you revel in feeling as though you have some sort of special knowledge that us sheeple lack. So please continue to enjoy that.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Just curious if you know of any examples in which our "changing regimes" has had the intended effect? Hillary's strategy certainly did not work in Libya, and Bush's strategy like that did not work in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Do you suppose it's true that continuing a failed strategy and tactics again and again is one sign of being irrational?
Click to expand...

Well regime change in Germany, Italy, and Japan certainly seemed to have the desired effect. The Philippines, Hawaii, Panama, the Domincan Republic, etc all, more or less, had their desired effect. We've launched relatively few 'regime change' military campaigns all told, furthermore the final pages of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have yet to be written. Libya is especially tragic because it would have been relatively easy to avoid this outcome if we had been more decisive.
 
Was the excitement that they were in formation or it was graduation?
 
Sherman123 said:
Well regime change in Germany, Italy, and Japan certainly seemed to have the desired effect. The Philippines, Hawaii, Panama, the Domincan Republic, etc all, more or less, had their desired effect. We've launched relatively few 'regime change' military campaigns all told, furthermore the final pages of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have yet to be written. Libya is especially tragic because it would have been relatively easy to avoid this outcome if we had been more decisive.
Click to expand...

In the most general of terms, I have no objections to legitimately declared wars, such as the Italy, Germany and Japan that you mention. To suggest that it was our efforts to change regimes of those countries led to WWII is a bit disingenuous however.

Including Libya and Iraq, our illegitimate efforts to regime change have destroyed the country and culture of what were civilized countries with functional governments, electricity, sewers and other infrastructure. I don't see how those efforts can be defended, and those efforts are the main reason there is so much hatred for us in those parts of the world.
 
Fenton said:
And we were supposedly killing ISIS in Syria ( thousands of sorties ) until we learned that we we weren't.
Click to expand...
When did this happen?

Thoreau72 said:
Until the Russians came in and scattered them in less than 2 months.
Click to expand...
Russia's intervention has hardly made a dent against ISIS in comparison to ours. That's not because of any lack of military prowess - and I, admittedly, was quick to underestimate Russian capability at the outset of Putin's campaign - but because Russia's main focus is helping Assad defeat the rebellion. The regime-opposition conflict is the main issue at stake in the Syrian Civil War, with ISIS being largely a sideshow. Meanwhile, almost all American actions have been geared towards defeating ISIS specifically, so we can count more concrete victories against them.
Thoreau72 said:
In the most general of terms, I have no objections to legitimately declared wars, such as the Italy, Germany and Japan that you mention. To suggest that it was our efforts to change regimes of those countries led to WWII is a bit disingenuous however.
Click to expand...

The thing about declared wars is that they're very rare: most wars in history have been undeclared. Furthermore, the point of a declaration of war is that we recognize the enemy as a legitimate state (which the Axis were, even if their conquests were illegitimate), so groups like al-Shabaab and especially ISIS define themselves by their opposition to the international order and to sovereign states as we conceive them. So long as there is majority Congressional backing for our military interventions, I see the need for a declaration of war as obsolete in an era where we're fighting nonstate actors rather than national governments.
 
MadLib said:
When did this happen?


Russia's intervention has hardly made a dent against ISIS in comparison to ours. That's not because of any lack of military prowess - and I, admittedly, was quick to underestimate Russian capability at the outset of Putin's campaign - but because Russia's main focus is helping Assad defeat the rebellion. The regime-opposition conflict is the main issue at stake in the Syrian Civil War, with ISIS being largely a sideshow. Meanwhile, almost all American actions have been geared towards defeating ISIS specifically, so we can count more concrete victories against them.


The thing about declared wars is that they're very rare: most wars in history have been undeclared. Furthermore, the point of a declaration of war is that we recognize the enemy as a legitimate state (which the Axis were, even if their conquests were illegitimate), so groups like al-Shabaab and especially ISIS define themselves by their opposition to the international order and to sovereign states as we conceive them. So long as there is majority Congressional backing for our military interventions, I see the need for a declaration of war as obsolete in an era where we're fighting nonstate actors rather than national governments.
Click to expand...

That almost sounds like an official position formed and propagated at some military academy somewhere. Certainly the government talking points. Several international observers such as those who write at Global Research and Veterans Today, disagree with your claim that the US has been attacking ISIS all along.

We bombed Syria for about 14 months and ISIS was still in business and doing very well. Our actions displaced hundreds of thousands of refugees as we destroyed their homes. Some claim we covertly helped resupply ISIS groups, and even the MSM covered the US originated Toyotas. The reasons for all that are quite simple--we were trying to overthrow Assad, probably some for us, and certainly some for our Mideast allies like Turkey and Israel.

When Russia entered the conflict in defense of Assad, things changed pretty darn quickly, suggesting that there had been some measure of deception regarding US forces striking ISIS.

It appears now that the Russian actions have forced the hand of the US, and now they seem to be actually striking ISIS. Have we again betrayed our former agents? Likely. And now Europe has told Turkey that if they provoke war with Russia, they are on their own. Bravo.
 
JANFU said:
True, and drone strikes which have increased under Obama have had and continue to have significant blow back. Targeting a large group of terrorists, with few civilian casualties, well I can agree with that.
Going after a single but important leader, usually results in significant civilian causalities. Whether it is family or relatives, these do create more blow back.
Having boots close by to act in concert with our so called allies, like Saudi and Qatar, who should take the lead, in most, not all, and put their blood on the line.


We know who (many not all) in Saudi, Qatar and other countries that provide material and financial support to these groups. But due to base politics, little is done.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I forgot about that. It's like past time for Saudi Arabia to be dealt with. Their government has been out of control for far to long. If they are supporting these groups, they need to be bombed; however, due to the strategic importance of our bases there, strikes will never happen.

That whole area of the world is a HUGE cluster... :p
 
Thoreau72 said:
That almost sounds like an official position formed and propagated at some military academy somewhere. Certainly the government talking points. Several international observers such as those who write at Global Research and Veterans Today, disagree with your claim that the US has been attacking ISIS all along.
Click to expand...

Global Research and VT are largely "Resistance Axis" propaganda rags and echo chambers. I wouldn't accept sources that blindly praise the United States or its authoritarian allies like Saudi Arabia, and obviously the same should apply to Russia, Iran, and Syria (who are notorious for lying). In any case, I get most of my information from the Syrian Civil War subreddit, which in turn relies largely upon Twitter accounts of the actors on the ground or individual reporters who have privileged access to updates. Mainstream media tends to present an incredibly diluted and simplified version of what goes on in Syria, at least from my experience.
We bombed Syria for about 14 months and ISIS was still in business and doing very well. Our actions displaced hundreds of thousands of refugees as we destroyed their homes. Some claim we covertly helped resupply ISIS groups, and even the MSM covered the US originated Toyotas. The reasons for all that are quite simple--we were trying to overthrow Assad, probably some for us, and certainly some for our Mideast allies like Turkey and Israel.
Click to expand...
But we don't really have an interest in directly aiding ISIS. There are moderate rebel groups we could easily justify supporting against Assad that have received little aid; making the main opposition to Assad a genocidal terrorist group that attacks rebels we support and directly tries to undermine our interests would extremely irrational.

As far as Syria goes, Israel doesn't particularly care about Assad or the rebels so long as Hezbollah doesn't gain in strength or capability. Turkey does want Assad overthrown, but we've deeply frustrated Erdogan by supporting a Kurdish group that he opposes.
When Russia entered the conflict in defense of Assad, things changed pretty darn quickly, suggesting that there had been some measure of deception regarding US forces striking ISIS.
Click to expand...
What major ISIS defeat can be directly attributed to the Russians? I can easily think of several Coalition victories over ISIS that dwarf Russian ones: Kobane, Tikrit, Ramadi. There have been plenty of strategically significant Russian victories, but most have them have been against the rebels, since ISIS is not a major threat to the regime in the short or long term.
It appears now that the Russian actions have forced the hand of the US, and now they seem to be actually striking ISIS.
Click to expand...

What the Russian campaign has mainly done is to give the regime the upper hand in Syria and thereby force us to narrow our focus. For all the rhetoric about a "Cold War II" between the US and Russia, we are still somewhat united by the common enemy of Salafi jihadism, and we'd already begun to prioritize ISIS over Assad long before the Russian intervention (the rebel proxy group we trained and equipped was specifically forbidden by us from fighting Assad). I am in principle against the Russian intervention and despise Assad, but right now it looks like Russia can play a constructive role if it is genuine about making peace with the opposition and is willing to pressure Assad to relinquish power to at least some extent.
 
I don't see Russian drones killing people all over the middle east. Their military seems much more a force to defend the homeland than in projecting power. Syria is an exception to that, but Putin made his intentions clear and the UN, and he supports a legitimate government.

We OTOH kill un-named and unidentified civilians by the dozen, at least. We destroy hospitals with gunships. We commit military aggression and overthrow legitimate governments 'round the world, for decades.

Rather a stark contrast IMO, and having served in the military a long time ago, rather a sad contrast.

Russian propaganda seems more even-handed and honest than western propaganda. NATO's actions along the Russian border are belligerent, for sure. Our propaganda regarding MH17 was patently false, as are our actions and lies regarding Syria and Libya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom