This can't be good.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/497799/remote-controlled-war-pakistan-seeks-us-explanation-on-drone-manual/
QuotePakistan has asked the United States to halt its highly controversial drone campaign following reports that US President Barack Obama's administration was planning to give the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) a "free hand" to continue its remotely-controlled war in tribal regions.
The issue was raised by Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar in a meeting with Richard Olson, the US ambassador in Islamabad, on Tuesday, a foreign ministry official told The Express Tribune.
Foreign Minister Khar voiced her concern over reports that the CIA would step up its drone campaign in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, said the official, who wished not to be named.
She also urged Ambassador Olson to explain his government's position on the new "playbook" for targeted killings, which would not apply to Pakistan. This, according to The Washington Post, means the CIA will continue to hunt for al Qaeda and its Taliban cohorts in the tribal regions for a year or so before the new rules become applicable to it.
John Brennan, tipped to become next head of the CIA, is very,
very (unhealthily) keen on drone attacks, you should recall.
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.
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.
It's the perfect war.
Tape a quarter to the side of the control console, just like in the good old days of Space Invaders.
Bleep bleep bloop bloop
And clean young American monsters far, far away from the scene can finish their business and then maybe go out for a beer. It's a rough old war.
Seems like a reasonable way to prolong the "war on Terror".
QuoteKhar sought to address the lawmakers' concerns. "We repeatedly raised our concerns on drone strikes. They are proving counter-productive in the war against terrorism," she said.
A clear-cut opinion was emerging in the entire world, including the US, against drone strikes, she added. At the same time, the world is also raising concerns over the civilian casualties in drone strikes.
I have yet to encounter anyone in day to day life that is aware of the constant drone strikes, let alone have a negative opinion about it. As far as I can tell for the western world its not worth discussing.
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?
It's kind of pathetic. We're bombing the shit out of them, and they can only "express concern".
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.
It's almost like the murder of civilians creates extremists somehow.
TO THE LABORATORY!
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 23, 2013, 07:47:35 PM
It's almost like the murder of civilians creates extremists somehow.
TO THE LABORATORY!
It's almost like that's the
intent.
But who would have an interest in prolonged worldwide conflict?
Who? WHO?
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 23, 2013, 07:52:45 PM
But who would have an interest in prolonged worldwide conflict?
Who? WHO?
Obvious answer: Military contractors and suppliers.
More accurate answer: The CIA fucks with people because they
can. Just for the hell of it. That's not hyperbole, either.
I see anti-drone stuff on fecesbook all the time. But the people who post it are usually Libertards doing it for the wrong reasons: "SEE? OBAMA SUCKS! YOU COULDA HAD RON PAUL". I don't think they sincerely give a fuck about drone strikes.
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 23, 2013, 08:03:42 PM
I see anti-drone stuff on fecesbook all the time. But the people who post it are usually Libertards doing it for the wrong reasons: "SEE? OBAMA SUCKS! YOU COULDA HAD RON PAUL". I don't think they sincerely give a fuck about drone strikes.
They probably don't give a fuck about the people being killed, but even if their reasons are simply that they believe it is detrimental as foreign policy, or they just think it's a waste of money, or even if they just want to shout at obama supporters because they're still sore that Ronpaul lost, who cares? if they're one of the few groups shouting about it, let them shout. it should be more widely known, right?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
Considering Obama's killed more people than Bush, is that even possible?
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.