|
Post by jdredd on Apr 13, 2010 13:57:47 GMT -5
Refocused fighting is a must to make any gains in winning over the population. Good economic structure building is another major obstacle to overcome which means food crops in place of opium which is seemingly unreasonable from a pure economic view...one has to sell a whole lot more tomatoes to make the same acre profits... So basically a population that is already sold to the devil is not likely to tend the Lord's Crops! If the CIA has a selective hit list and it prevents mass collateral damage and death to civillians then why is this so bad JD? Does it not address both issues... Possibly because I don't trust the CIA to be judge, jury, and executioner of suspected terrorists. Who is doing the deciding and what criteria are they using? Why are they employing mercs? Are they making more enemies than they are killing? It's all done it the dark without accountability IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 2, 2010 15:55:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 12, 2011 12:29:16 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world/asia/12pakistan.html?_r=1&hp"The drone campaign, which is immensely unpopular among the Pakistani public, had become the sole preserve of the United States, the Pakistani official said, since the Americans were no longer sharing intelligence on how they were choosing targets. The Americans have also extended the strikes to new parts of the tribal region, like the Khyber area near the city of Peshawar." "A drone attack last month, one day after Mr. Davis was released, hit Taliban fighters in North Waziristan, but also killed tribal leaders allied with the Pakistani military, infuriating General Kayani, who issued an unusually strong statement of condemnation afterward." This is the CIA's big f-up. They are "winning the battle" by killing a bunch of SUSPECTED Taliban leaders (and anyone else nearby), but are losing the war by alienating Pakistan. And I'd love to know how they are choosing targets myself. How accountable are they really being held by Congress or the President?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 24, 2011 13:53:44 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/24/pakistan.drone.protest/index.html?hpt=T1"(CNN) -- A Pakistani opposition leader on Sunday threatened to have supporters block NATO supply routes to Afghanistan and march to Islamabad if U.S. drone strikes in the country were not halted. Imran Khan, a famous former cricket player and the head of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf, or justice movement party, made the ultimatum at the end of a two-day sit-in in Peshawar in protest of the drone strikes, which he says have killed civilians." The CIA can take out hundreds of "suspected" militants in Pakistan but can't take out one obviously guilty dictator in Libya?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Apr 24, 2011 20:44:28 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/24/pakistan.drone.protest/index.html?hpt=T1"(CNN) -- A Pakistani opposition leader on Sunday threatened to have supporters block NATO supply routes to Afghanistan and march to Islamabad if U.S. drone strikes in the country were not halted. Imran Khan, a famous former cricket player and the head of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf, or justice movement party, made the ultimatum at the end of a two-day sit-in in Peshawar in protest of the drone strikes, which he says have killed civilians." The CIA can take out hundreds of "suspected" militants in Pakistan but can't take out one obviously guilty dictator in Libya? They haven't taken out Obama er...Osama yet either! Don't forget, Obama stated taking out Gaddafi was not his intention, that is for the people of Libya to do.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 2, 2011 21:44:23 GMT -5
When I heard that Obama was going to have a special national security news conference, I was hoping it was because Khaddafi was sent to meet his maker, but eliminating Osama was just as good. And I am willing to eat crow when necessary (if Turk shoots it?), and give kudos to the CIA for it's part of nailing Osama. Now go get Khaddafi. And can we leave Afghanistan now? We killed the only guy worth killing.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 2, 2011 22:55:30 GMT -5
When I heard that Obama was going to have a special national security news conference, I was hoping it was because Khaddafi was sent to meet his maker, but eliminating Osama was just as good. And I am willing to eat crow when necessary (if Turk shoots it?), and give kudos to the CIA for it's part of nailing Osama. Now go get Khaddafi. And can we leave Afghanistan now? We killed the only guy worth killing. While Osama and al Qaida are reasons for having gone to Afghanistan, they became minor combatants in the Afghan war while the displaced Taliban is the major combatants. They want to return to power and take control of Afghanistan again. I am not sure exactly what it will take to win that war but I am positive that Obama has no intention of doing so. He has been working to help the Afghan's secure their own country against the Taliban and any other insurgents. Although, now that Osama is dead, Obama may relax the push of self security and plan an early exit. Possibly mid-2012 might be a good time for the elections! Will he sell out Afghanistan to buy an election? I think it is a very likely possibility. Can you wait 13-16 months? That would be leaving an unfinished job in the destruction of al Qaida though as many are still safely in Pakistan which will be even safer once we leave Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by animal on May 2, 2011 23:55:07 GMT -5
I say let Pakistan figure out thier own future.... bring the soldiers home and put them on the AZ-Mexico border.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 3, 2011 3:26:27 GMT -5
I say let Pakistan figure out thier own future.... bring the soldiers home and put them on the AZ-Mexico border. I don't have much arguement about putting them on our borders
|
|
|
Post by animal on May 3, 2011 18:52:25 GMT -5
germany... pakistan... afganistan.... iraq.... bring them all back now.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 3, 2011 3:04:07 GMT -5
OK, I'm over here in this "I hate the CIA" thread now so you guys can continue your debate uninterrupted in the "Due Process" thread.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Oct 3, 2011 11:36:57 GMT -5
OK, I'm over here in this "I hate the CIA" thread now so you guys can continue your debate uninterrupted in the "Due Process" thread. JD, Thank you. The other thread is still open for honest input - the topic. You used to be able to do that. Just so you know ... I am not falling for the whiner pup, poor jd thing. You sucked me into that before, I didn't listen to others, and you took us on a merry path of doom.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Oct 3, 2011 17:12:50 GMT -5
Why is it again the CIA could assassinate an American but they couldn't assassinate Khaddafi? It wasn't as if we didn't try. We just missed. Then he wanted to try to bury the hatchet.I think we had an administration or two that saw value in working with him... for a while. Apparently he wanted to bury the hatchet in our back when he made the Lockerbie Bomber a hero. But, who knows, maybe we ARE trying to assassinate Khaddafi by proxy. The CIA didn't make any decision to kill Al-Awlaki. The NSC did. It's called a targeted killing.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Oct 3, 2011 18:58:33 GMT -5
Good point - especially about the NSC & CIA.
Re: Assassination of Qaddafi --- Doesn't it have something to do with assassinating head of state of another country being against world wide rules - unless of course we are in active war against them and even then we should try to take them alive.
Correct me if I am mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 30, 2012 21:06:55 GMT -5
security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/30/obama-administration-yes-we-use-drones/"The Obama administration publicly justified its use of unmanned drones to target suspected terrorists overseas for the first time Monday, with a top official saying the strikes are conducted "in full accordance with the law." John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser said strikes are used when the option of capture is not feasible. Brennan discussed the strikes during a Monday address at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think-tank. "President Obama said here five years ago, if another nation cannot or will not take action, we will," Brennan said. "And it is an unfortunate fact that to save many innocent lives we are sometimes obliged to take lives - the lives of terrorists who seek to murder our fellow citizens." The fact that the Obama regime feels the need to justify drone strikes shows progress is being made. Of course, it might also be a cynical ploy to tout Obama as being "tough" on terrorism in an election year.
|
|