Former president Carter is not too happy with the O- Team's " bomb first, declare dead guys terrorists" approach to foreign policy in the Middle east and central Asia.

http://nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/a ... .html?_r=2

Key paragraphs:

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.

These policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and military officials, as well as rights defenders in targeted areas, affirm that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families toward terrorist organizations, aroused civilian populations against us and permitted repressive governments to cite such actions to justify their own despotic behavior.

But hey, what does he know? Just another table-banging hippie activist who'll never amount to anything. Young dumb idealist, doesn't understand the way the world Really Works.

I don't give a fuck what anyone says, carter was one of the best presidents we've had in a LOOOOONG time.

gendoikari87 wrote:I don't give a fuck what anyone says, carter was one of the best presidents we've had in a LOOOOONG time.

He wasn't very effective as president, but he's made up for that as an active former president.

He's afraid all his friends in Hamas will get killed for killing Israelis. He needs to go back to building houses instead of pretending he's relevant.

SwampGrouch wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:I don't give a fuck what anyone says, carter was one of the best presidents we've had in a LOOOOONG time.

He wasn't very effective as president, but he's made up for that as an active former president.

He told the damned truth and tried to get us to start alternative energy. That's enough in my book.

wlewisiii wrote:He's afraid all his friends in Hamas will get killed for killing Israelis. He needs to go back to building houses instead of pretending he's relevant.

Yeah. He should have upstanding righteous friends like Pinochet or Saddam Husein or de Klerk or any of the other lovely people that have been US allies.

I'm sure you've got a better argument than "I don't agree so shut up". Tell us more.

wlewisiii wrote:He's afraid all his friends in Hamas will get killed for killing Israelis. He needs to go back to building houses instead of pretending he's relevant.

There needs to be peace in the Middle East and Israel's policy of apartheid for the Palestinians needs to come to an end, sooooo, I guess he's relevant.

punkinlobber wrote:

wlewisiii wrote:He's afraid all his friends in Hamas will get killed for killing Israelis. He needs to go back to building houses instead of pretending he's relevant.

There needs to be peace in the Middle East and Israel's policy of apartheid for the Palestinians needs to come to an end, sooooo, I guess he's relevant.

One Jewish- American author recently came under fire from Abe Foxman and the other Zionists at the ADL for having the temerity for pointing out the bleeding obvious- that Israel is committing ethnic suicide by holding onto these territories. The Palestinian population is growing much faster than the Israeli population and after a few decades the occupied territories will be almost wholly Arab, with the exception of a few crackpot Jewish settlers.

I like Carter.

Events these days have no comparison to what has been and what could be. Have we forgotten Dresden and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and carpet bombing in Vietnam? That was indiscriminate killing of civilians. Have we forgotten what happens when tyrants are left unchecked, groups like the Hutu, the Khmer Rouge, the Serbians, and what happens to civilians when those groups are left unchecked? That is all "within our lifetime" atrocities.
The US government is not intentionally targeting civilians, and that is the big difference... it is trying to kill animals that think 9-11 type civilian massacres are not only OK but good tactics.
I wish there was zero collateral damage. Give me some alternate solution.

Awake wrote:Events these days have no comparison to what has been and what could be. Have we forgotten Dresden and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and carpet bombing in Vietnam? That was indiscriminate killing of civilians. Have we forgotten what happens when tyrants are left unchecked, groups like the Hutu, the Khmer Rouge, the Serbians, and what happens to civilians when those groups are left unchecked? That is all "within our lifetime" atrocities.
The US government is not intentionally targeting civilians, and that is the big difference... it is trying to kill animals that think 9-11 type civilian massacres are not only OK but good tactics.

There is a huge difference between vietnam, afghanistan, and iraq and the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. The japanese were more than just a local threat, they were in fact threatening U.S. Resources, which is why they had to attack us in the first place, because they were going to come in contact with us eventually. Vietnam, iraq, and to some extent afghanistan, didn't pose that level of threat. in any case, we have the technology to capture these criminals (and that's what they are), without killing civilians and to not use that technology to that end is a criminal offense, even if we would not have had the same option 30 years ago. Killing civilians is not something you do lightly, we didn't join up in the military for a reason, we don't want to be in the middle and you don't get to have the right to kill us just because we are in the way of your oil reserves.

I wish there was zero collateral damage. Give me some alternate solution.

Stop dicking around in the middle east, pour the money that was going into the wars into alternative energies, and leave the muslim world the fuck alone so they don't have the desire to attack us.

Do not forget people, we were the ones to throw the first stones in this fight, not the terrorists. We just have better spin machines.

Awake wrote:Events these days have no comparison to what has been and what could be. Have we forgotten Dresden and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and carpet bombing in Vietnam? That was indiscriminate killing of civilians.

Just because we have the technology now to make killing more precise doesn't mean we can use that technology whenever we want. Look at it from the perspective of a Pakistani, you're essentially telling them "Hey, sure a car with a family full of kids was blown up by a Hellfire missile because we thought the guy we're calling the Al Qaeda #2 was in there, but just think, if this was WW2, we would have just firebombed or nuked the whole province!"

The difference between the raw inhumanity of attacks on Dresden and Hiroshima is that we were attacking nation-states which had attacked us and had the potential to continue doing so until we forced them to stop. What nation are we trying to force to surrender now? Like Carter pointed out, what we've been doing simply increases the popularity of the terrorists.

Awake wrote:Have we forgotten what happens when tyrants are left unchecked, groups like the Hutu, the Khmer Rouge, the Serbians, and what happens to civilians when those groups are left unchecked? That is all "within our lifetime" atrocities.

Apparently so, if we're emulating them.

Awake wrote:The US government is not intentionally targeting civilians, and that is the big difference...

We consider any military age male to be an enemy combatant, and the CIA has been targeting first responders and funerals. The US government is intentionally targeting civilians.

Awake wrote:it is trying to kill animals that think 9-11 type civilian massacres are not only OK but good tactics.

Since 3000 American civilians died on 9/11, an estimated (and this is a solidly midrange estimate) 900,000 Iraqi and Afghani civilians have died.

The message there, to people in the Middle East, being that 1 American life is worth 300 Middle Eastern lives.

Awake wrote:I wish there was zero collateral damage. Give me some alternate solution.

Treat them like criminals and seek a legal solution. Don't use a lawless military solution. It clearly isn't working, and it never will. Our drone strikes are accomplishing one thing, and one thing only, and that is to turn the world against us.

Read these books:
Blowback
The Sorrows of Empire
Nemesis
Anybody who would like a copy of one or all three, just PM me your address and I'll buy them on Amazon and have them shipped to you.

Awake wrote: The US government is not intentionally targeting civilians, and that is the big difference... it is trying to kill animals that think 9-11 type civilian massacres are not only OK but good tactics.

So now it's cool to kill people who merely think bad thoughts about the U.S. ?
Yowza...

Inquisitor wrote:I like Carter.

+1 ...relevant too.

I warned my conservative GOP friends what would happen if Obama got elected. They thought he would be weak on national security. We laugh about it now.

the comedian wrote:

Awake wrote: The US government is not intentionally targeting civilians, and that is the big difference... it is trying to kill animals that think 9-11 type civilian massacres are not only OK but good tactics.

So now it's cool to kill people who merely think bad thoughts about the U.S. ?
Yowza...

If those 'thoughts' include planning on intentionally blowing up innocent people just to make a statement, then yes, it is OK to kill them.
There is a difference between combat deaths and intentionally targeting innocent bystanders. If a planeload of US soldiers gets blown up on its way to Afghanistan, and the civilian flight attendants die in the process, maybe it is a legitimate war tactic. If a planeload of tourists gets intentionally blown up on their way to Disneyland, there is no way to justify it. In either case, if the US government finds out about it in advance, or even finds out about plans to do it, it is the DUTY of the US government to strike preemptively.

Since 3000 American civilians died on 9/11, an estimated (and this is a solidly midrange estimate) 900,000 Iraqi and Afghani civilians have died.

The message there, to people in the Middle East, being that 1 American life is worth 300 Middle Eastern lives.

It has been said that the best defense possible is a reputation for extreme vengeance.

If those 'thoughts' include planning on intentionally blowing up innocent people just to make a statement, then yes, it is OK to kill them.

I actually disagree here, if what they are planning is so bad and you know about it, you can catch them in the act, and arrest them or kill them then. So I disagree that any thought can be a crime, certainly not one worthy of the death penalty. and I am vehemently opposed to any form of speech as being considered a crime.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Since 3000 American civilians died on 9/11, an estimated (and this is a solidly midrange estimate) 900,000 Iraqi and Afghani civilians have died.

The message there, to people in the Middle East, being that 1 American life is worth 300 Middle Eastern lives.

It has been said that the best defense possible is a reputation for extreme vengeance.

If those 'thoughts' include planning on intentionally blowing up innocent people just to make a statement, then yes, it is OK to kill them.

I actually disagree here, if what they are planning is so bad and you know about it, you can catch them in the act, and arrest them or kill them then. So I disagree that any thought can be a crime, certainly not one worthy of the death penalty. and I am vehemently opposed to any form of speech as being considered a crime.

Thoughtcrime is a groupthink concept that I find abhorrant.

I liked President Carter, most of all for his ethical approach to issues. His weakness, if it is indeed a weakness, was he would not play by the 'rules' of the political establishment.. Too bad because in the end I would have enjoyed where we went as a nation if he could have served as long as FDR.; Damn good peanuts too but his brother's beer tated like piss, or so i have heard

paul
formerly from Vermont, Bernie's country, now in the land of the not so free, Floriduh.

ErikO wrote:...Thoughtcrime is a groupthink concept that I find abhorrant.

Thinking and going "gee, that'd be nice" is one thing, and I see no reason why it should be illegal. Amassing the tools required for an attack, meeting with others who are known for attacking, and actually planning to blow up innocent people to make a statement? That's where I draw the line.

Do you think "conspiracy to commit a crime" is ever a valid legal charge against someone?

CrazyWolf wrote:

ErikO wrote:...Thoughtcrime is a groupthink concept that I find abhorrant.

Thinking and going "gee, that'd be nice" is one thing, and I see no reason why it should be illegal. Amassing the tools required for an attack, meeting with others who are known for attacking, and actually planning to blow up innocent people to make a statement? That's where I draw the line.

Do you think "conspiracy to commit a crime" is ever a valid legal charge against someone?

And is there proof that a bunch of sheepherders 5,000 miles away in the hills of Pakistan and Yemen are planning an attack on the U.S.A.? And if they were planning it, how in the hell are they going to carry it out? Buy a bunch of canoes and paddle across the Pacific to attack California? These guys ain't bin Laden with millions of dollars and surprise on their side.
Methinks you overestimate the threat just a wee bit.
The truth is that these insurgents are an embarassment to the mighty U.S. government and since the idea of invading another country anytime soon is out of the question the current administration blasts any suspect with remote contolled missiles and doesn't give a damn how many innocent bystanders are killed in the process.
The real threats are Muslim extremists in Western countries and Interpol and the DHS are taking care of the various shoe and underwear bombers. And all without launching a Hellfire missile into a suburban apartment block.

CrazyWolf wrote:

ErikO wrote:...Thoughtcrime is a groupthink concept that I find abhorrant.

Thinking and going "gee, that'd be nice" is one thing, and I see no reason why it should be illegal. Amassing the tools required for an attack, meeting with others who are known for attacking, and actually planning to blow up innocent people to make a statement? That's where I draw the line.

Do you think "conspiracy to commit a crime" is ever a valid legal charge against someone?

If the co-conspirators are caught during the commission of said crime I am fine with the non-actor getting punished as well. That is not what we're seeing here. What we've seen are the FBI dupes that are damned close to entrapment domestically and a group that a little over a decade ago we were backing blowing the crap out of our troops the way that only a local insurgency can.

If I have to choose between civil liberties and some level of security, I choose freedom every single time. My personal security is my own responsability, as per the court case in my sig line.

ErikO wrote:If the co-conspirators are caught during the commission of said crime I am fine with the non-actor getting punished as well. That is not what we're seeing here. What we've seen are the FBI dupes that are damned close to entrapment domestically and a group that a little over a decade ago we were backing blowing the crap out of our troops the way that only a local insurgency can.

We're also seeing, in Pakistan and Yemen, local informants selling out their neighbors to the CIA as "terrorists" for hefty rewards. No way that can be abused.

Then whoever gets killed by a missile from a remote control drone piloted from the other side of the world is either an enemy combatant or collateral damage, and they had to die to Make America Safe.

Progurt wrote:

ErikO wrote:If the co-conspirators are caught during the commission of said crime I am fine with the non-actor getting punished as well. That is not what we're seeing here. What we've seen are the FBI dupes that are damned close to entrapment domestically and a group that a little over a decade ago we were backing blowing the crap out of our troops the way that only a local insurgency can.

We're also seeing, in Pakistan and Yemen, local informants selling out their neighbors to the CIA as "terrorists" for hefty rewards. No way that can be abused.

Then whoever gets killed by a missile from a remote control drone piloted from the other side of the world is either an enemy combatant or collateral damage, and they had to die to Make America Safe.

Not to mention, the vast majority of detonated IADs in Iraq until 2008 came from the ammo dump by Baghdad that went unsecured in 2003 until that Guard unit from LA got posted at the airport...

CrazyWolf wrote:

ErikO wrote:...Thoughtcrime is a groupthink concept that I find abhorrant.

Thinking and going "gee, that'd be nice" is one thing, and I see no reason why it should be illegal. Amassing the tools required for an attack, meeting with others who are known for attacking, and actually planning to blow up innocent people to make a statement? That's where I draw the line.

Do you think "conspiracy to commit a crime" is ever a valid legal charge against someone?

Never. Even if that means amassing an arsenal. if it's just a fringe group you can set up a sting, catch them in the act and stop it before anyone gets hurt. if it's something much more say a few thousand people all over the nation meeting in taverns plotting to throw tea into the harbor, tar and feather tax collectors, ect, ect, well then I'd say you have a bigger problem than the people trying to do that, you have a core problem for which they are trying to solve the only way they see how, and you should take a look at that.