News:

TESTEMONAIL:  Right and Discordianism allows room for personal interpretation. You have your theories and I have mine. Unlike Christianity, Discordia allows room for ideas and opinions, and mine is well-informed and based on ancient philosophy and theology, so, my neo-Discordian friends, open your minds to my interpretation and I will open my mind to yours. That's fair enough, right? Just claiming to be discordian should mean that your mind is open and willing to learn and share ideas. You guys are fucking bashing me and your laughing at my theologies and my friends know what's up and are laughing at you and honestly this is my last shot at putting a label on my belief structure and your making me lose all hope of ever finding a ideological group I can relate to because you don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about and everything I have said is based on the founding principals of real Discordianism. Expand your mind.

Main Menu

CIA to be given "free hand" in Pakistan

Started by Cain, January 23, 2013, 07:28:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Cain

#15
January 23, 2013, 08:59:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2013, 07:44:05 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2013, 07:42:19 PM
Who would have thought, a way of waging war that has little in the way of political constraints and repurcussions, leads to an escalation of conflict?

Historically speaking, there's never been any real problem with letting the CIA run wild or anything.

They're professionals.

True.  Deniable operations are another way to reduce political repurcussions of wars, after all.

But usually, the drug-dealing, arms shipments and get out of jail free cards caused problems down the line.  Now...now they can just send in the killer robots.  So it's an even lower threshold than before.

LMNO

#16
January 23, 2013, 11:34:52 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on January 23, 2013, 08:55:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 23, 2013, 07:30:44 PM
Sadly, the 2012 elections proved that the AMERICAN™ people don't care about drone strikes.  Obama probably feels he can get away with it without any repercussions.

Was there an Anti-Drone candidate?

Even better, IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED AT ALL, BY ANYONE.

Cain

#17
January 24, 2013, 12:10:12 AM
No, the White House did discuss it actually.

In the final days, it was leaked that the administration would draw up rules for drone use...to prevent Romney from "abusing" it.

Pergamos

#18
January 24, 2013, 07:19:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2013, 12:10:12 AM
No, the White House did discuss it actually.

In the final days, it was leaked that the administration would draw up rules for drone use...to prevent Romney from "abusing" it.

I'm kind of curious what they had planned to rule out.

Shooting children that are American citizens seems like about as extreme as you are going to get.

Maybe no using them to round up domestic protestors on US soil?

Cain

#19
January 24, 2013, 02:37:58 PM
I don't believe that the White House actually seriously planned anything.

I believe the leak was intentional, and meant to be used as a not too subtle reminder that Romney would be even worse than Obama (as if that excuses the latter's excesses).

LMNO

#20
January 24, 2013, 02:40:52 PM
Considering Obama's killed more people than Bush, is that even possible?

Cain

#21
January 24, 2013, 04:48:09 PM
Theoretically, sure.

Most obvious scenario: Israel, emboldened by a Romney victory, engages in military provocation against Iran.  Russia, seeking to protect it's pipeline monopoly on Europe, backs the Iranian regime with easy credit, arms sales, mercenaries and military advisors.  President Romney declares our "number one geopolitical foe" is seeking the destruction of the Israeli state.  Things escalate and a flustered Romney, surrounded by incompetents, orders the use of drones against Iranian and Russian targets.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions