U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[elfoam]

On that conversation about the fighter jets, I remember the F-22 program being one of the more expensive ones in the past few years. Back in 2011, the program totaled $66.7 billion with each individual unit being $354.9 million... putting it into perspective, the new Gerald Ford-class carriers unit cost $13 billion per ship, and only the Pentagon knows how many of those they want to produce. I used to think the idea of a stealth fighter was cool, but looking back, "stealth" technology on fighter jets seems fairly impractical, not to mention how high-maintenance and expensive the material can potentially be for something that's going through mass production like the F-35 and (formerly) the F-22.

 

Maybe the stealth tech makes it harder for missiles to lock on to the plane, but with advances in weapons technology and the not-too-likely scenario where the fighter jet in question needs to use its cannons instead of destroying its target from afar, the idea of "stealth" becomes somewhat obsolete.

The F22 will never fly actual combat missions. Not unless the sh*t hits the fan. If it were to fly over Syria today, tomorrow the russians would know it's radar signature (If they don't already). Pointless aircraft even it it's the best fighter in the world as soon as a sam site can see it, it's redundant. Should have learnt with the F117. Soon as it got shot down it was scraped.

[sivispacem]

The F-22 has already flown combat missions over Iraq and Syria- something like 5% of combat missions are flown by them. I think you're slightly misunderstanding how stealth aircraft work.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Pointless aircraft

So pointless that the Russians and the Chinese are scrambling to rip off its design? Stealth technology never intended to make these weapon systems invincible.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Spaghetti Cat]

Meh Russian trolls, what can ya do?

 

Anywho, since it was brought up...

 

Beyond that, what do you want President Obama to do? Create a government programme to employ millions of people? That'll solve it! Work for everyone.

 

 

He has! But before we get into all of that, let's rewind a bit and review.

 

The original genesis of my comments had to do with companies heading overseas and Trumps comments about it. Yes, I agreed that was part of it. Another piece is the effect of the federal government, through regulations, taxes, etc. My point was that our own government was putting workers at a competitive disadvantage. Full stop. Period. End of Comments.

 

Everyone still following along? Ok.

 

After that the employment rate was brought up. It was referenced that according to our current employment rate that we're doing a-ok. So, the follow on comments had to do specifically with the employment rate.

 

Here's the wrinkle, I don't believe the numbers coming out of the Administration. I don't have any proof that they are fudging the numbers, however it is clear that they are putting their best foot forward. Given all of that I was STILL willing to accept the numbers just for argument's sake.

 

Alrighty, so the hub-hub was about the specific numbers. See Spaghetti Cat, ya big dummy, it's just about the same from the crisis in '08. The problem is you guys are looking at the number and not the dynamics behind it.

 

So, two points:

 

1) Those jobs are not apples to apples. Many of those people who were fired or lost their jobs at the time have not found comparable employment. In most cases it is either lower wages, less benefits, or even just Part-Time work.

 

2) After trillions and trillions spent by the Federal government, we've basically gotten back to Bush's terrible economy levels.

 

Now then, let's get back to the above quote. There has been a jobs program by Obama. It was called the Stimulus Package, passed fairly early on in Mr. Obama's term. Fun fact, the 700+ billion spent in the Stimulus was baked into every federal budget from '09. After several trillion spent on 'jobs' we're right back where we are.

 

So allow me to ask my big government friends: Why have your proposals not worked? We have had 7+ years of the Obama economy, where are the good jobs?

 

Adding to the malaise of this economy are the afore mentioned taxes and regulations. If these are good things, why is our economy flat?

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

2) After trillions and trillions spent by the Federal government, we've basically gotten back to Bush's terrible economy levels.

Regardless of the "levels", economic performance was on a downward trajectory when Bush was in office. Not only is the economy healthier now, it is on an upward path for now. But while we are talking in terms of levels and complaining about Obama....we have a current budget surplus.

 

 

And can you name any specific industries that are no longer competitive as a direct result of government actions that were in relatively good shape beforehand? I agree that underemployment sucks for the US economy. But it's not a result of big government action. It's inaction if anything. And the congressional Republicans have been on a mission to oppose Obama action because they are more or less a bunch of degenerates. This blame all of our problems on Obama narrative is getting tired. Especially since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act you are referring to wasn't aimed at creating a new generation of long-term jobs at the drop of a hat. It was a successful injection of money into the economy to help stop the bleeding. It also worked....

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12185/05-25-arra.pdf

Edited May 14, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Spaghetti Cat]

Sure, how about the coal industry?

 

Requiring sequestration: http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/ghg-standards-for-new-power-plants

 

When it wasn't going to work: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/OIG-SR-16-02.pdf

 

You don't think that those coal miners in West Virginia were feeling the Bern do ya? They were giving Mrs. Clinton the middle finger.

 

 

 

Right Tim?

 

How about business above thirty workers that have to deal with the new Obamacare regulations?

 

How about businesses (and employees) that have to pay into Unemployment Insurance system? Not that I'm against Unemployment Insurance, but 100 weeks is a bit excessive.

 

That's three examples right there.

 

 

[sivispacem]

That's not really any examples. The coal industry is dying because international environmental regulations dictate it does, and about thirty years after the rest of the developed world. The other two "exanples" don't even begin to resemble actual examples.

 

It's not the Obama administration's fault that the costs of coal power outweigh the drawbacks of using oil or gas instead. The reason clean coal hasn't really been forthcoming is the "free" market. If you want to save domestic coal, support economic interventionism.

[Svip]

Moreover, what Americans are missing isn't actually manufacturing jobs, but Unions. Think about it, when US manufacturing was at its most prestigious, the workers also enjoyed great work stability, pensions, work hours and pay. Well, at least great to compared to what most of them would get now if these jobs were to return to the United States.

 

And for a large part, these benefits to manufacturing jobs were provided by Unions. But when businesses decided to ship its manufacturing jobs to countries where they could pay workers less, the government in the US stepped in and weakened Unions. The result being that jobs continued to leave the United States and those that stayed just became sh*ttier.

 

Unless Trump can somehow level the playing field, either by making all other countries have the same minimum work standards as the US or lower US working standards to theirs, I don't see him bringing back manufacturing jobs, beyond protectionism (like huge tariffs on foreign products). And besides, if he were to lower US standards, I doubt the US workers getting manufacturing jobs (possibly again) wouldn't be too happy about these new standards.

 

Additionally, I'd argue that if coal miners think Sanders is going to get them their jobs back, they have another thing coming. How can he? Moreover, wouldn't it be rather contrary to Sanders' environmental stances? Coal miners need to be re-employed in other industries. They better reserve themselves to the fact that they are in a dying industry. And the jobs will only be fewer from here on.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Svip

[Spaghetti Cat]

That's not really any examples.

Your opinion doesn't make it a fact.

 

Let's rewind. In 2008, while running for President, then Sen. Obama said this:

 

 

 

His administration directed the EPA to mandate sequestration, so-called 'clean coal' technologies. (See the link in the previous post.)

 

After spending millions of taxpayer monies, the IG reports that the technology doesn't work. Nor does it make economic sense. (See the second link)

 

The EPA still mandates sequestration, causing mines and companies to close.

 

When asked, 'what industries have been negatively effected by government regulation?' Answer: The Coal Industry.

 

Make all the excuses you want, those are the facts.

 

With regards to both Obamacare and Unemployment Insurance, those are unneeded taxes placed on businesses. The burdens placed on businesses make them less competitive. Not having that competitive edge hurts workers across all demographics. Which has been my point all along.

[sivispacem]

When asked, 'what industries have been negatively effected by government regulation?' Answer: The Coal Industry.

That's nice and all, but literally nobody asked that question so I don't know why you're answering it.

 

His administration directed the EPA to mandate sequestration, so-called 'clean coal' technologies.

Actually, a great deal of the federal financial investment for clean coal enacted by the US was done under the Bush administration. Something like $3bn invested before 2008.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is, though. The EPA's mandating of clean coal is necessary if the US wants to meet its international obligations on greenhouse emissions. The problem has been that it makes less financial sense for power generation companies to invest billions of dollars in converting older plants to meet clean coal regulation than it does converting them to use oil or gas, both of which are far more cost efficient.

 

To me, blaming EPA clean coal regulations for the collapse of the US coal industry is a bit like blaming regulations banning the use of hydrogen for rigid airships for their being surpassed by fixed-wing aircraft.

[Spaghetti Cat]

 

 

When asked, 'what industries have been negatively effected by government regulation?' Answer: The Coal Industry.

That's nice and all, but literally nobody asked that question so I don't know why you're answering it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And can you name any specific industries that are no longer competitive as a direct result of government actions that were in relatively good shape beforehand?

 

 

 

He even underlined it, which is like the polite CAPS LOCK.

 

I responded with the Coal Industry, even provided links to government agencies to back it up.

 

My point, once again, is that unwarranted regulations like this sequestration mandate depresses businesses and makes workers in the US uncompetitive.

 

If you want to make a global warming argument, go ahead. I'm just talking about the economics of the mater, and how it relates to jobs. Simple as.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Spaghetti Cat

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

You still didn't answer my question. I even underlined the most relevant part of the question which emphasized "in relatively good shape beforehand". The coal industry was well on it's way out without government action. Devastating environmental impacts aside (which you have arbitrarily labeled as economically irrelevant), natural gas was going to drive coal out anyway. So no, it was not in relatively good shape beforehand.

 

 

Republicans seem to have this sense of entitlement to jobs that directly harm the environment on the basis of "miners having no other employment options" for instance. Yet they take a strong sadomoralist tone against the inner city drug-dealing youth who lack employment prospects.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[sivispacem]

 

 

When asked, 'what industries have been negatively effected by government regulation?' Answer: The Coal Industry.

That's nice and all, but literally nobody asked that question so I don't know why you're answering it.

 

 

 

And can you name any specific industries that are no longer competitive as a direct result of government actions that were in relatively good shape beforehand?

 

They're not actually the same question.

 

"Negatively affected" is not the same as "no longer competitive"

The problems of the US coal industry aren't actually product of government action but a huge decline in demand driven by more efficient fuels

The coal industry globally, not just in the US, hasn't really been in good shape for a long time.

[gtamann123]

I'm not voting in this years election. The results of this election has no impact on my life since none of the major issues being discussed are important to me or are connected to my long term plans for my life. My life would turn out the same regardless if Trump, Clinton, Sanders or Santa Claus we're to be elected. So I just can't see myself taking the time to register to vote and then to get to the polls in November.

 

But if I had to choose any candidate to win it would be Trump. Simply because I think it would be hillarious to watch him make a fool of himself trying to be a world leader and failing miserably

 

Moreover, what Americans are missing isn't actually manufacturing jobs, but Unions. Think about it, when US manufacturing was at its most prestigious, the workers also enjoyed great work stability, pensions, work hours and pay. Well, at least great to compared to what most of them would get now if these jobs were to return to the United States.

 

And for a large part, these benefits to manufacturing jobs were provided by Unions. But when businesses decided to ship its manufacturing jobs to countries where they could pay workers less, the government in the US stepped in and weakened Unions. The result being that jobs continued to leave the United States and those that stayed just became sh*ttier.

 

Unless Trump can somehow level the playing field, either by making all other countries have the same minimum work standards as the US or lower US working standards to theirs, I don't see him bringing back manufacturing jobs, beyond protectionism (like huge tariffs on foreign products). And besides, if he were to lower US standards, I doubt the US workers getting manufacturing jobs (possibly again) wouldn't be too happy about these new standards.

 

Additionally, I'd argue that if coal miners think Sanders is going to get them their jobs back, they have another thing coming. How can he? Moreover, wouldn't it be rather contrary to Sanders' environmental stances? Coal miners need to be re-employed in other industries. They better reserve themselves to the fact that they are in a dying industry. And the jobs will only be fewer from here on.

I agree Svip, US manufacturing is dead. As well as the American economy as a whole. None of the current politicians seem to want to admit it and only a tiny fraction of the general population does either. Everyone wants to hold onto the hope of the US economy becoming prosperous again and the middle class returning to it's former glory but it's impossible. The rise of automation will destroy all unskilled and semi skilled labor. And i personally feel that there needs to be ample economic opportunities for unskilled workers in order for us to have a thriving middle class and return to the "glory days" of the 50s-70s.

 

 

Seriously, how the f*ck would the US compell Mexico to pay for the wall? Anyone who thinks that that's vaguely possible is completely delusional.

Trump Supporters in general are completely delusional. Edited May 17, 2016 by gtamann123

[El Dildo]

I completely understand the sentiment of wanting to sit this one out.

that being said I'm unable to otherwise sit by and just watch the general election without at least casting the opposing vote against Donald. Hillary is not my first choice but she's far from my last.

 

even people who are "sure" they're going to sit this election out; I would still encourage you to at least go and vote for one of the other several parties that will be on the ballot. vote for the Libertarian candidate, vote for the Green candidate, or the candidate from one of the actual Socialist parties. they're all running. staying home doesn't send a message. voting will send a message. then go out and do it again during your local congressional election.

 

write in "f*ck you" on the ballot line, but do something. don't just sit idle.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

I completely understand the sentiment of wanting to sit this one out.

that being said I'm unable to otherwise sit by and just watch the general election without at least casting the opposing vote against Donald. Hillary is not my first choice but she's far from my last.

 

even people who are "sure" they're going to sit this election out; I would still encourage you to at least go and vote for one of the other several parties that will be on the ballot. vote for the Libertarian candidate, vote for the Green candidate, or the candidate from one of the actual Socialist parties. they're all running. staying home doesn't send a message. voting will send a message. then go out and do it again during your local congressional election.

 

write in "f*ck you" on the ballot line, but do something. don't just sit idle.

I agree. You will make a bigger statement by voting for one of the other parties rather than not voting....

 

Maybe a co-ordinated Online campaign to produce a solid third place is the answer, either that or just drawing phalluses against each candidate.... Just use your right while you have it rather than stay home.

[X S]

I've voted 3rd party twice. It's just a vote based on principle. It was "meh", at the end of the day.

 

This time, however, I'm quite certain I will vote either Democrat or Republican. I, unlike many others, am not really phased by Trump's rhetoric because I know most of it is said with the intention of stirring up controversy. After reading his book, it's clear that he uses controversy to sell himself. In other words, he uses the media against themselves, and then seeks to dominate headlines by selling sensationalism and inadvertently stealing attention away from his opponents. As an example, the "wall" has no practical application to it; it's just a symbol of nationalism and something people can point to and say, "there it is". As a result, the media will cover it all day long with "How will he build it?" or "this is outrageous," and my favorite "Trump is a RACIST." That sells headlines, and then his opponents complain he gets too much attention. It's exactly what he wants, fully outlined in his book, staring everyone in their dumb little faces.

 

So that's not what bothers me. What does bother me is the inconsistency in his positions, and his inability to properly articulate himself. I just can't handle the dog and pony show anymore. I'm tired of it. It's not funny anymore. It's f*cking game time; let's get serious. If he can't tone it down over the next few months, I'm definitely going to vote for Clinton, which brings me to the Democrats.

 

If Hillary can resist pressures to bring on Elizabeth Warren, I'm all go for Clinton, and I don't necessarily think Clinton needs to make any concessions to that crowd, especially since she'll most likely win the nomination outright. All she needs to do is convince Bernie's supporters is that no vote is a vote for Trump, as El D said. That's her selling point. That's the cake. As it stands, she's set to win, and as much as I hate dynastic politics, you at least know what you're getting with the Clinton's. It's the conservative choice.

Edited May 19, 2016 by X S

[Queen]

I've actually been thinking about reading The Art of the Deal, if only to understand Trump better. Frankly, I'm opposed to Hillary...so unless it's third party, I'll vote Republican. Make no mistake, I'm not a huge Trump fan...some of the sh*t that comes out of that man's mouth is disgusting...rather I'd be voting for the lesser of two evils.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Queen

[El Dildo]

As it stands, she's set to win, and as much as I hate dynastic politics, you at least know what you're getting with the Clinton's. It's the conservative choice.

Freudian slip? Clinton is not a conservative choice

she stands for considerable more progressive policies than the Don.

 

she's a sane choice; if that's what you meant...

 

 

I'm not a huge Trump fan...some of the sh*t that comes out of that man's mouth is disgusting...rather I'd be voting for the lesser of two evils.

oh god, I just lost a lot of respect for Queen as well.

a vote for Trump is a vote for fascism. open your eyes. the man is a pig. don't cut off your nose to spite your face. vote for a third party if you can't stand Hillary. the few policy positions Trump has actually taken are objectively ruinous both economically and in terms of foreign relations.

Edited May 19, 2016 by El Diablo

[X S]

I've actually been thinking about reading The Art of the Deal, if only to understand Trump better.

 

A lot of it was so spot on with what been going on lately, but most of that is only discussed in the earlier chapters. The rest of the book just describes major points in real estate career.

 

One of his tactics is anchoring high and then slowly nibbling down until he gets what he wants. Commonly, this is seen a highly aggressive tactic, and is not advised, but it seems to work for him. Case in point, claiming he'll get Mexico to pay for the wall. In reality, he's trying to offset the trade deficit by attempting to do things such as halting remittances, but even that's highly questionable. It's just an example of how he makes big bold claims and then tries to make practical application of it. This is applicable to every big bold claim he's made, from barring Muslims, deporting illegals, to building up the military, even his slogan "Make America Great Again" is a product of this.

 

 

Freudian slip? Clinton is not a conservative choice

 

she stands for considerable more progressive policies than the Don.

 

she's a sane choice; if that's what you meant...

 

I was gonna say the safe choice, but yeah lol..

Edited May 19, 2016 by X S

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

A lot of it was so spot on with what been going on lately, but most of that is only discussed in the earlier chapters. The rest of the book just describes major points in real estate career.

 

One of his tactics is anchoring high and then slowly nibbling down until he gets what he wants. Commonly, this is seen a highly aggressive tactic, and is not advised, but it seems to work for him. Case in point, claiming he'll get Mexico to pay for the wall. In reality, he's trying to offset the trade deficit by attempting to do things such as halting remittances, but even that's highly questionable. It's just an example of how he makes big bold claims and then tries to make practical application of it. This is applicable to every big bold claim he's made, from barring Muslims, deporting illegals, to building up the military, even his slogan "Make America Great Again" is a product of this.

 

He is admittedly far more calculated than the media and the left gives him credit for. However, one of his biggest flaws is the misguided belief that successful business practices translate into successful governance. I can't imagine Trump's success translating into many other fields even within the private sector...let alone in government. He can boast of his smart business deals all he wants. But his overall business expertise is debatable given the less-than-cerebral nature of commercial real estate investment when your father gives you access to multi-million $ properties as a 20-something. At the end of the day, he is still the most ignorant Presidential nominee from either major party in the last ~50 years (maybe even longer). Even at his best, he is hardly analytical.

 

The constraints placed on public administrators (gov't executives) are highly restrictive even at the local and state government level relative to the constraints placed on private-sector executives. At the Presidential level, these constraints would be unfathomable to someone like Trump. Policy-making is by design no where nearly as swift and efficient as business decision-making. Instances of confident high-flying CEOs falling flat on their faces when transitioning into the public sector (albeit at much lower levels of government) have been well-documented by public policy scholars.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Abel.]

 

 

It's the conservative choice.

 

Good post, but I don't think there's really a valid "conservative" choice this time around. Trump is not conservative and Hillary is bland and has no principles. If I were American I'd probably vote for her as she's a safer bet than Trump, but I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.

[Stephan90]

Hillary Clinton is not conservative she is neo-conservative. Neo-con PNAC founder Robert Kagan endorses her.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/neocon-kagan-endorses-hillary-clinton/

 

Her foreign policy as a president would be just as disastrous as the foreign policy of Bush and Obama.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Stephan90

[Abel.]

the foreign policy of Bush and Obama.

 

 

Both policies can be strongly criticised, sure, but they're hardly alike. Obama's drone campaign has been, to his credit, successful in dismantling the leadership of various AQ cells, but other than that his Middle East policy has been to minimalist. Withdrawing troops from Iraq too early was his first blunder.

 

 

Being neo-conservative is hardly an insult, especially as an American leader; it's a realistic and principled political stance.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Failure

[GTA_stu]

 

the foreign policy of Bush and Obama.

 

 

Both policies can be strongly criticised, sure, but they're hardly alike. Obama's drone campaign has been, to his credit, successful in dismantling the leadership of various AQ cells, but other than that his Middle East policy has been to minimalist. Withdrawing troops from Iraq too early was his first blunder.

 

I think his drone policy is about the only thing that actually worked in his foreign policy, in the ME anyways. Even then it only half works. I think Obama's and Bush's foreign policies have been about as bad as each others, in fact Obama's might even be worse. Bush cocked up Iraq, but Obama cocked up Iraq, Syria, Libya, and ISIS. Both have been total and complete failures overall.

[Saggy]

 

the foreign policy of Bush and Obama.

 

Both policies can be strongly criticised, sure, but they're hardly alike. Obama's drone campaign has been, to his credit, successful in dismantling the leadership of various AQ cells, but other than that his Middle East policy has been to minimalist. Withdrawing troops from Iraq too early was his first blunder.

 

 

Being neo-conservative is hardly an insult, especially as an American leader; it's a realistic and principled political stance.

Obviously we won't agree but I think Bush should have pulled out of both Afghanistan and Iraq shortly into his second term. That being said I think Obama wasn't really as expedient as he should have been. Now the inheritance of that mess will go to either Trump, Clinton or Sanders. Not one of them really inspire confidence in foreign affairs.

[sivispacem]

Hillary Clinton is not conservative she is neo-conservative.

There's a lot more to neoconservativism than just foreign policy. Clinton is not a neocon.

[Eutyphro]

 

the foreign policy of Bush and Obama.

 

 

Both policies can be strongly criticised, sure, but they're hardly alike. Obama's drone campaign has been, to his credit, successful in dismantling the leadership of various AQ cells, but other than that his Middle East policy has been to minimalist. Withdrawing troops from Iraq too early was his first blunder.

 

 

Being neo-conservative is hardly an insult, especially as an American leader; it's a realistic and principled political stance.

Obama's drone campaign has been incredibly effective to increase radicalisation in the region. Al-Qaeda is not that strongly hierarchical, and they can quickly replace lost leaders. The drone campaign is a completely ineffective terror campaign.

 

The disaster that is Iraq is pretty much all Bush's fault. Withdrawing troops by Obama, in other words, ending an illegal occupation, was the right thing to do. What could've been done to limit the humanitarian catastrophe that is IS was to help Assad protect his border, but obviously the United States was not interested in that, considering Assad is a tyrant that doesn't fall under US control.

 

But your talking points seem to be the ones that come from the mouth of war criminals Cheney and Rumpsfeld.

[Abel.]

We've discussed the drone campaign before. All of your points were emotional appeals or political.

 

 

 

Let me preface by saying this: you guys are sitting here with very little knowledge of the region or of counterterrorism strategy, and you say the drone program doesn't work. And yet, the CIA and the US intelligence community, the intelligence services of Pakistan and a good amount of MENA countries, which have immense knowledge of both, believes it does, and that it works. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported the drone program, because, well, it works pretty damn well. It has its drawbacks but they are far outweighed by the successes. That's why, you know, like everybody supports it. The only people you find that are against the drone program are a couple of academics that are by far the minority given the inherently realist nature of the IR field anyway.

 

There's literally no other alternative to the drone program. These people targeted by the drone program have to be taken out, end of story. If it isn't with drone program, then you're talking about ground troops. If you'd rather have US troops in on the ground risking their lives to kill mid level Salafi Jihadists then you can make that case. But I would wager you'd be equally opposed to that.

 

I never argued that point. what I said is that those countries really don't have much a choice given the United States initiative in this whole invasion.

They do have a choice. Yemen and Pakistan, where the drone program is most visibly employed, both actively support the drone program through their intelligence services (though Yemen is currently in shambles but yeah) This is an indisputable fact. Not some conspriacy theory.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/us/politics/deep-support-in-washington-for-cias-drone-missions.html

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/you-say-pakistanis-all-hate-the-drone-war-prove-it/267447/

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare

 

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/06/17-drones-obama-weapon-choice-us-counterterrorism-byman

 

The last article is a scholarly piece that's very detailed on the entire drone program. The first 3 are more or less about the universal support for it amongst American policymakers of both parties and from all sectors of the IC, as well as the tacit approval and significant assistance the Pakistanis give to it. They don't wwant Islamists running around their country any more than we do. Your references to US invasion of Iraq is a strawman. That's not remotely what either of us were talking about.

 

 

 

It's a choice between troops on the ground from the Near East to South East Asia, more ground wars and occupations or the drone campaign. Unless you assume that leaving AQ operate unchecked would've been better, which is just wrong.

 

 

 

 

Let me preface by saying this: you guys are sitting here with very little knowledge of the region or of counterterrorism strategy, and you say the drone program doesn't work. And yet, the CIA and the US intelligence community, the intelligence services of Pakistan and a good amount of MENA countries, which have immense knowledge of both, believes it does, and that it works. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported the drone program, because, well, it works pretty damn well. It has its drawbacks but they are far outweighed by the successes. That's why, you know, like everybody supports it. The only people you find that are against the drone program are a couple of academics that are by far the minority given the inherently realist nature of the IR field anyway.

Well, you're wrong. http://www.alternet.org/world/wikileaks-cia-knew-2009-drone-strike-program-could-backfire
The CIA knew all the reasons the drone program could fail as hard as it has, but US foreign policy tends to prefer when in doubt to choose for the using force option, most likely because of the military industrial complex or other corporate interest groups. Your argument is similar to were someone to say that the reason the Ferguson police responded to unrest by showing up with military type arms and gear, because they must've made an independent analysis that that's a perfectly good idea. Anyone sane can understand that that's a horrible idea, but there are influential interest groups that think the more and the heavier the arms the better.

 

Lol @ alternet being a legitimate source compared to Brookings, the NY Times, The Atlantic, and the New Yorker. Ok bud, whatever. By the way, even if it is legit, it's still bunk because the wikileaks cables are State communications, not CIA communications. If you knew how the US national security apparatus worked you'd know the former has absolutely zero influence over the latter.

 

 

LOL the CIA says it's working!

and they've never lied to us, or misled us, or gotten anything wrong ever. so the agencies who RELY ON THE FUNDING for the Drone Program claim that it's working.... no way. who would've thought?

 

you know, Dick Cheney loved to go around and talk about how effective his torture tactics were, too.

because his legacy depends on it. not because he's feeding us accurate information.

 

sorry Irv but I don't believe you have any special knowledge that the rest of us are missing out on... I think you're just drinking the koolaid full-gulp. those countries do not have a choice despite what their public relations will have you believe. the US has strong-armed this whole unnecessary, destructive situation. we make it look however we want to make it look until we decide to change our plans. that's how our 'diplomacy' works in the modern era.

I didn't say I had special knowledge..? I said I had the experts in the IR field who almost unanimously agree with the drone program, as well as the intelligence communities of the US and Pakistan. Take a look at the articles. The drone program is by far one of the smartest uses of force the US has ever employed. Again, that's kinda why everybody who matters in policy circles supports it, GOP or Democrat.... military or IC.

 

You are completely straw-manning at this point. You've blown off the mounds of evidence and expert testimony, and are now just making a completely outlandish claim that CIA/IC is making up the whole thing to get more money. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about on this matter, and if you'd like to have one, you can take a look at the articles and conduct your own research to make some claims that are actually relevant, and not just come in here saying "LOL DICK CHENEY LIED".

 

 

 

I don't need the opinion of a drone operator who feels bad about himself for operating a weapon of war, and is trying to rectify his personal feelings by criticizing a program that, at the end of the day, brings with it less civilian casualties and less margin for error than any other type of military operation out there.

 

Again, to repeat my previous point, we could either use the drone program, or we could send troops in on the ground. We don't have another choice. You can't let these people operate unimpeded, it's that simple.

 

Euty, again, your knowledge of the US intelligence community and foreign policy apparatus is being proven exceedingly poor every time you post in here. A counterinsurgency manual from the CIA that's totally unrelated to the cable leaks proves literally absolutely nothing of the points you're trying to make here.

 

 

 

yeah keep drinking it up.

the CIA and intelligence community relies on these programs right now for their very livelihood. I'm not blowing off mounds of evidence or testimony, I'm simply not surprised that they have produced it once again. they produced "mounds of evidence" for the WMD's that didn't exist, essentially ruining Colin Powell's career. they produced "mounds of evidence" for the supposedly foiled terror plots supported by torture, all of which were fabricated. they've gone to extreme lengths, suppressing freedom of speech and the press, in order to obfuscate and conceal wide scale illegal surveillance activities.

 

they've been doing this for awhile now in case you haven't noticed.

maybe you forgot that the CIA is directly responsible for the existence of the Mujahideen itself? at the end of the day, they're dropping rat poison on the rats that they let loose.

 

they're going to produce whatever they need to produce in order to justify their own existence.

but they constantly f/ck it up, and we don't usually find out about it until years later, long after the damage is done, and the anti-American sentiment has set in to rot. I don't believe the drone program makes us any safer in the long run and it sure as hell doesn't win us any new friends.

And you keep trying to find errors in things by assuming there's ulterior motives that don't exist.

 

Your continued referencing of the Iraq War is getting really, really old dude. We have mounds of evidence that the drone program works because like, you know, we've eliminated almost all of AQ's top leadership with it under the Obama drone program, including the worst of them all, al-Awlaki, who 20 minutes from where I am right now operated a mosque radicalizing Americans, and then when he fled the country, did it from the internet to Muslims worldwide. So spare me this nonsense that the evidence that it works is all made up. The dead bodies of the terrorist leaders that it has killed is proof enough.

 

No, you're wrong about the mujaheddin by the way. Sivis wrote a pretty big post somewhere explaining it, but in short, the CIA supported the ISI, who supported the mujaheddin. The CIA is not "directly responsible" for the mujaheddin.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Failure

[Eutyphro]

Of what you quoted there was only one small paragraph actually mine. And the response, that Pakistan actively supports the drone program, is true to a very limited extent, and mostly false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Pakistani_position