Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
I think what they're getting at is that there's no consensus on what the Pakistani government does want.
I know. If there is no consensus, how will they stop us from droning them to death?
Basically my point is that saying that countries, except, maybe, Israel, do not have the capacity to stop us from conducting drone strikes in them, even if they knew when and where the strikes would happen. We have the most powerful military in the world. With such great power comes great responsibility. Among that responsibilities are not conducting attacks on civilians in neutral territory. We have failed that basic responsibility, and we have failed it miserably.
They have lots of planes. That doesn't mean they have the capacity to shoot down the drones. Even if they had the will to shoot them down, and it was unified, our drones are probably faster and more maneuverable than anything they have, and we would probably be able to go toe to toe with them without a scratch on most of our drones. In addition, since drone attacks could potentially happen at any time, and we do not have any sort of published schedule or announcement of when the drone strikes will happen, they would have to be on 24/7 alert to even hope to catch all of the drones, and, if we're smart, they'd have to be on 24/7 alert to even hope to catch any of our drones since we can always send the drones when the Pakistani are not on watch. That would probably simple be unfeasible for them.
![]()
Again, the United States has been telling Pakistan where and when drone strikes will occur. If they really wanted to, they could start shooting down drones and declare that any more drone strikes in their territory would constitute an act of war. Given that Pakistan is a nuclear power, I don't see the U.S. ignoring such a warning.
edited 22nd Oct '12 1:22:38 AM by RavenWilder
I was referring back to what Deviant Braeburn quoted earlier, which referenced Wiki Leaks documents.
edited 22nd Oct '12 1:27:24 AM by RavenWilder
^^
Not too badly — considering the Pakistani Air Force
operates F-16A/B/C/D model fighters, along with a lot of capable older-model aircraft*, the Pakistani Air Force is old but capable and actively being modernised with new Chinese and American equipment.
^
Drones are for ISTAR* roles, and are not designed for air-to-air combat. I don't think even the most advanced models have air-to-missiles.
edited 22nd Oct '12 1:40:14 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
To my understanding, drones are small and really fast. A small and fast target is one that is hard to hit.
...To be honest, I don't actually understand much of what you're saying there... Like, I know none of those fighters, except the F-16s, but, even then, I just really know of them...
edited 22nd Oct '12 1:43:07 AM by deathpigeon
@Green: You mean the article on the Pakistani Air Force? To be honest, it's a long article on something I have no interest in and sort of disgusts me, namely the military, so I have absolutely no motivation to read it. However, would a drone really need to go supersonic to be fast enough to be a hard target to hit? Plus, isn't the purpose of the drones that do drone strikes launching missiles, rather than surveillance?
This drone strike business is slightly off-topic, but it is relevant if Obama and Romney claim to have differing opinions about drone strikes.
A couple of things need to be clarified here:
1. Most of the drone strikes take place in Pakistan. As discussed previously, Pakistan seems to condemn the attacks in public while supporting them in private.
2. The strikes are very effective. The strain they put on al-Qaida was such that, according to letters signed by bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders, the movement was having difficulty recruiting new members and was even considering changing its name to distance itself from a couple of problems. (The main problems were the number of innocent Muslims they had killed and the number of high-ranking members of the organisation who had fallen, mostly to drone strikes.) Here are a couple of al-Qaida officers who were killed by drone strikes (I found them through a 5-minute Wiki Walk in The Other Wiki):
Anwar al-Awlaki
(who was Yemeni-American, so there is a truth in the claim that Americans can be targeted; though if you read up on this guy, you can see that he was very guilty and dangerous.) Abu Yahya al-Libi
. Atiyah Abd al-Rahman
.
3. Drones are relatively easy targets, as they're not very fast. Their main functions are reconnaissance and surveillance, and one of the main arguments for using them rather than multi-role fighters is that they're much cheaper and don't require a pilot. They don't have a whole lot going for them in terms of defending against an air-to-air or surface-to-air missile.
4. Pakistan operates a very modern variant of the F-16 in significant numbers. They're more than a match for a drone.
5. It's true that many civilians have been killed. Estimates vary, but according to Wikipedia's article on the drone attacks in Pakistan
, "The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants." So even Pakistan, the country where most of the civilian victims are from, admits that the strikes are effective and well aimed. Then there's this:
Braeburn gave up the close Senate races, so out of interest I went to RCP and pulled up the average poll numbers for try and figure out a theoretical future.
Arizona Jeff Flake VS Richard Carmona\\ - Toss-up ( Flake+0.8 )
Connecticut Chris Murphy VS Linda Mc Mahon\\ -Murphy+4.3
Florida Bill Nelson (i) VS Connie Mack IV\\ - Nelson+6.5
Indiana Richard Mourdock VS Joe Donnelly\\ - Toss up
Maine Angus King VS Charles E. Summers, Jr. VS Cynthia Dill\\ King +15.3
Massachusetts Scott Brown (i) VS Elizabeth Warren\\ Warren +1.7
Missouri Claire Mc Caskill (i) VS Todd Akin\\ Mc Caskill+5.0
Montana Jon Tester (i) VS Denny Rehberg\\ Rehberg +0.3)
Nebraska Bob Kerrey VS Deb Fischer\\ Fischer
Nevada Dean Heller (i) VS Shelley Berkley\\ Heller+4.8
North Dakota Heidi Heitkamp VS Rick Berg\\ Berg
Ohio Sherrod Brown (i) VS Josh Mandel\\ Brown +5.6
Pennsylvania Bob Casey, Jr. (i) VS Tom Smith\\ Casey +5.3
Virginia Tim Kaine VS George Allen \\ Kaine+1.0
Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin VS Tommy Thompson\\ Baldwin+2.4
So that's 8 Democratic, 1 independent, 6 republican (including Indiana) which is only a gain of a single seat for the Republicans out of these races. So with that and the way the lower House and Presidential races are going, you can look forward to the exact same political climate for the next two years. How does that feel?
edited 22nd Oct '12 4:07:55 AM by SomeSortOfTroper
If it goes the way it's looking right now (narrow Obama victory, no filibuster-proof majority in the Senate) then we're looking forward to 2 years more deadlock (at least), and very few laws passed. I'm OK with that, but not happy about it either.
In that event, I expect to see Obama's attempts to do as much as he can without new law, though executive privilege, which is not necessarily something I approve of (since it generally butts up against Constitutional limits that were there for good reason). Alas, it possibly also means Obama is more and more interested in international accomplishments than domestic ones. I don't think he's a war-starter, though.
A brighter future for a darker age.If Scalia gives up the frigging ghost in the next 4 years an Obama victory will have been worth it.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Sperm-inator was not different from the mainstream GOP,he made all the same axes on education,bloated the prison system,...and yes lots of tax cuts on the wealthy. Sorry outside California tropers who thought the state was so blue even the GOP were reasonable,but it just wasn't like that.
If we do have dead-locks for the next two years,2016 will probably result in the victory of a Santorum-esque candidate.
I suppose in a recession like this with the Dems being spineless,Failure Is the Only Option
Whyyyyyyyyyyy
I wanted Obama to be an inspirational message. He gets reelected, and a generation of black children see a black man in the Oval Office. The optics were promising. Now he gets caught with a double dip recession and the story will be "yes, if you're black you can grow up to be President, and then have both houses of Congress kick your ass for four or eight years".
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
