BS: Double Standard? Of Course!

Subject: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:43 PM

"Obama drone joke: Was it offensive?

Everyone agrees that President Obama was funnier than Jay Leno at the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night. But this joke is inspiring some backlash:

"Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I'm joking?"
"You have to wonder why in the world the president's speech writers would think it was a good idea to throw a joke about predator drones into the president's speech during the White House Correspondent's Dinner, given that an estimated one-third of drone casualties, or between 289 and 378, have been civilians," wrote Adam Serwer at the American Prospect.

"Let's be honest, fellow progressives, we'd be all over Bush if he made the same 'predator drone' joke Obama told last night," Philadelphia Daily News' Will Bunch tweeted.

Drone attacks in Pakistan have killed hundreds of suspected insurgents since early 2009 -- but they have also killed civilians and stirred up animosity towards the U.S. in Pakistan.

President Bush was pilloried for making light of the lack of WMDs in Iraq at the 2004 White House Correspondents' Dinner. Does Obama deserve similar treatment?"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/obama-drone-joke-was-it-offens.html?hpid=artslot

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:51 PM

same old logic... "If 'X' did that, I know what you'd say"

He made some pointed **JOKES**.... some at his own expense...

Don't just C&P stuff... offer an opinion WITH detailed explanation of why you think it relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: bobad
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:52 PM

Grow a funny bone.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 10:37 PM

President says something that offends people. Film at 11.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: michaelr
Date: 03 May 10 - 10:47 PM

Does Obama deserve similar treatment? Absolutely.

bb is quite correct in that Bush's "joke" was greeted with outrage by the left. So should Obama's.

There is nothing, nothing remotely funny about flying killing machines (operated by people thousands of miles away who have no more connection to the effects of their actions than players of video games) that may or may not hit actual bad guys among the many innocent civilians they kill. They are an unmitigated evil and a stain on our national conscience.

The war stunk under Bush, and it stinks now. As concerns letting Obama off the hook for the many Bush policies he's continuing, even exacerbating, the hypocrisy among my fellow Mudcat lefties is getting very, very thick.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: LadyJean
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:47 AM

As I remember, Bush crawled around looking for weapons of mass destruction that weren't there. He looked like a bigger jackass than usual.
Obama just offered a variant on the "Get near my daughter and I'll kill you," that is probably older than dirt. My father never used it, but my mother certainly did. Lacking access to drones, she simply mentioned that she was a dead shot with a pistol, without mentioning that she didn't own one.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:08 AM

It's a Big Fucking Deal Ha Ha Ha

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:28 AM

"If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun"

"Argue With Neighbors, Get In Their Face"

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:53 AM

"...we'd be all over Bush if he made the same 'predator drone' joke Obama told last night," Philadelphia Daily News' Will Bunch tweeted.

First, it's only a 'double-standard' **IF** you can show that such a similar incident happened. You cannot base a real argument on a supposition.
Second, the entire tempest-in-a-teapot was developed from people's over-developed idea of 'political correctness'. I watched re-runs of the speech, and it was clear that it was a joke with NO suggestion that he was serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: michaelr
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:59 AM

Of course it was a joke. Problem is, the subject matter isn't funny.
Bad judgment, at the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Becca72
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:22 PM

Just because it wasn't funny to you doesn't mean some of us didn't chuckle.
If you go through life expecting to never be offended you're in for a long haul.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:27 PM

Both funny and offensive. I wish he hadn't said it.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:49 PM

There are a lot of things I wish he wouldn't say......clean coal for instance.   This one is a bit tasteless but I wouldn't have jumped the Shrub for saying it any more than Obama.

Go find something real to copy and paste for us......then don't unless you have some opinion on it.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 10 - 12:55 PM

Spaw,

When others DID jump on Bush for his statements, I don't recall you making any comments like

"Go find something real to copy and paste for us......then don't unless you have some opinion on it."

That makes you hypocritical to make those comments to me.


Silence implies consent in the law- The LACK of such comments on such posts against Bush tells me much about those here on Mudcat.

As for MY opinion, when I state that I am told to post sources and articles.

I will repeat the last line of the OP, stating it is ALSO my opinion, and asking why **I** am being attacked, rather than the point being made:

"President Bush was pilloried for making light of the lack of WMDs in Iraq at the 2004 White House Correspondents' Dinner. Does Obama deserve similar treatment?"

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:01 PM

In my opinion, yes. Now what?

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:21 PM

In my opinion, no...because the context was totally different. The point was that **Bush** made indefensible claims about WMDs based on faulty intelligence..information he sought to justify a war he was going to pursue anyway.

Obama ...and many others ...were simply using Bush's proven flawed errors to make a point. Much as Lincoln asked in a wry but pointed way, "Find out which brand of whiskey Gen. Grant drinks and issue some to my other generals." He was NOT promoting drunkenness.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:25 PM

BTW...many jokes and remarks were made about JFK's most serious error in allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion. He and his administration deserved every jibe for not thinking THAT one thru better.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:29 PM

and...sure, LBJ, even though he agonized over it, allowed Viet Nam to get out of control, and deserved all the remarks and jokes which followed him to his grave.

So.. I am willing to point to blame where it is due, even toward those whom I mostly agree with, and give credit where it is due to those I mostly DISagree with. For instance, GW Bush was excellent at dodging shoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:36 PM

BillD,

"The point was that **Bush** made indefensible claims about WMDs... "
AT THE 2004 White House Correspondents' Dinner????

Obama has been killing civilians with those drones- yet I hear a deafening silence from those who screamed about US attacks killing civilians ( by mistake) when it was Bush in the White House.


I know that to ask the Left for fairness, or to apply the same standards they applied to Bush to Obama, is a pipedream, but a man can dream, can't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:48 PM

Well, they are two different men.

BUsh mocked those who faulted him for starting a war on false pretenses.

Obama, on the other hand, is doing the best he can to wrap two for them that Bush began up as responsibly and safely as possible. You may not have noticed but Obama has not started any wars.

Just as he did not start any economic collapses.

Different men, of different character and record, get different responses when they say similar things.

This has nothing to do with your claims of hypocrisy, but with the nature of the poeple making the statements.

I do agree that making jokes about predators is in poor taste.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:50 PM

No NOT "AT THE 2004 White House Correspondents' Dinner"....that IS one reason why their remarks are not comparable.

Every war inevitably has some civilian casualties... I believe use of the drones, imperfect though it is, reduces this over, say, carpet bombing or invading with 100,000 troops and blasting villagers who look suspicious. What would YOU prefer we do to find and attempt to eliminate terrorists in this mountains? Should we just pack up & leave?

There were FAR more civilians killed as our armor rolled thru Iraq on the pretense of 'finding WMDs'. You could look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:55 PM

"I know that to ask the Left for fairness, or to apply the same standards they applied to Bush to Obama, is a pipedream, but a man can dream, can't he? "


Flame alert.

By the way, Bruce, should you not also expect fairness from the right and that they apply the same standards to Obama as Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:59 PM

Yes, and I do- but since the Left predominates here, I get far more examples than of the Right.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:06 PM

Majorities in as majorities does.... ask the Supreme Court who just overturned decades of rulings about what defines an 'individual'.

Just out of curiosity, Bruce...why would you suppose that there IS a majority of 'lefties' here. And if you have a good answer for that, you can work on why there is a majority of 'righties' in the KKK or on the boards of Wall Street businesses.

I have quite a long list of reasons for each.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:23 PM

Because the threads actively drive those who have centristr or conservative viewpoints away, by personnal attacks and abuse?

I have quite a long list of THOSE, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:26 PM

Personal attacks like this?
"I know that to ask the Left for fairness, or to apply the same standards they applied to Bush to Obama, is a pipedream, but a man can dream, can't he?"

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:30 PM

Bill, you asked: "What would YOU prefer we do to find and attempt to eliminate terrorists in this mountains? Should we just pack up & leave?"

Bill, it is the American and other invading foreign coalition troops who are the primary terrorists involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

*(Though they are clearly not aware of that...soldiers from anywhere virtually always imagine they are among those termed the "good guys" in any conflict they happen to find themselves in...and it isn't their fault...it's the fault of the dishonest politicians and greedy power brokers who SENT them there.)

And, yes, you should just pack up and leave, because your armed forces are unlawfully invading countries which did not attack you in the first place.

Obama's behaviour in the joking instance mentioned by BB is typical of the arrogant behaviour of the commanders of great imperial powers throughout history, and, yes, it is offensive. No surprise there.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 10 - 03:05 PM

Little Hawk:

The launching of the military-magnitude attacks of 9-11 occurred in Afghanistan.

I agree the joke was in bad taste, but I stronly suspect that in the very unlikely event you were placed in charge of security and policy decisions for the UNited States you would be much less judgemental.

This does not change the fact that very stupoid economic and political decisions built up a nasty bunch of potential long before 9-11 ever occurred.

But do not forget that when US troops first moved into Afghan soil, it was to help the locals get the Sovietsoff their backs. Remember that?

Perhaps we should have let Afghanistan roll over and succumb to the occupation by the Soviets? WHatcha think?

Or should we have taken the position that Afghanistan's covert support of the AL Qeda attacks was forgiveable and none of our business even though it made the 9-11 attacks possible?

Whatcha think?

I hope you know me better than to suppose from this that I am a supporter of either of these goddamn wars, but I also have some sense of history and of realpolitik and with your understanding of the ebb and flow of history I would expect you would also, and not just churn out these vague denouncements without regard to situational dynamics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 10 - 03:42 PM

The term "Left" is as nebulous and non-personnal as the term "Teapartiers": You want me to give examples of personnal attacks on conservatives here at Mudcat???

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 04:05 PM

"the threads actively drive those who have centristr or conservative viewpoints away"

ummm...you're still here, as is Doug R, sawzaw, pdq, ichMael and a number of others.

Nothing 'drives' anyone away....that's why Mudcat gets unusual amounts of debate on BOTH sides of issues.

Genuine personal attacks are usually deleted...which is not the same as heavily 'opinionated' viewpoints...from your side as well as mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 04 May 10 - 04:32 PM

Bruce,

It would be a lot less rude of you to include your own opinions with the cut and pastes. It also makes you look lazy and inconsiderate.

On the other hand...

If Obama had suggested using the drones against innocents then the joke would have been in bad taste. But we are talking about the Jonas Brothers!! here.

As far as the double standard goes. No, we wouldn't have been all over Bush for such a small misstep. He had so many "Bushisms" it probably would not have been noticed. Would it have held a candle to "Make the Pie higher?", "Is our children learning?", "Doctors practicing their love.", "Good Job Brownie?", "No one foresaw the Levis breaking." "Mission accomplished" Etc etc etc. It seems apparent that Will Bunch has a serious memory problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Genie
Date: 04 May 10 - 05:07 PM

I, for one, would not have been "all over" Bush if he had made the same joke about guys wanting to date his daughters.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Smedley
Date: 04 May 10 - 05:14 PM

I can only admire a man who would rid the world of the Jonas Brothers.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Genie
Date: 04 May 10 - 05:18 PM

Oh, and, Bruce, Obama has made a couple of joking comments in the past - like the "Special Olympics" comment - for which he apologized, as he should. I don't think that the media in general or "the left" give him a pass when he really says something tasteless or offensive.

I just don't put this joke in the same category as Bush "joking" about the "have mores" being "my base" or trivializing the fact that the "weapons of mass destruction" that were the premise for invading Iraq were nowhere to be found.   

This particular joke was, as mentioned above, just a Commander-In-Chief's variation on the old father's joking threat to his daughters' would-be suitors that "Remember, I've got a shotgun in my pickup."

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Emma B
Date: 04 May 10 - 05:23 PM

"But do not forget that when US troops first moved into Afghan soil, it was to help the locals get the Sovietsoff their backs. Remember that?

Perhaps we should have let Afghanistan roll over and succumb to the occupation by the Soviets? WHatcha think?"

That doesn't quite tie in with my 'sense of history'

the time lines I understand go more like -

On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, Fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt (Atta), and one from Lebanon

Osama bin Laden the founding leader of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda is himself a member of the prominent Saudi bin Laden family

After leaving college in 1979 bin Laden joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan   
Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan in February 1989, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990 initially as a hero of jihad
He continued to speak publicly against the Saudi government for harbouring American troops, for which the Saudis banished him. He went to live in exile in Sudan, in 1992
In May 1996, under increasing pressure on Sudan, from Saudi Arabia and the United States, bin Laden returned to Jalalabad, Afghanistan

In 1998 however it was reported that bin Laden was operating his Al Qaeda network out of Albania. The Charleston Gazette quoted Fatos Klosi, the head of the Albanian intelligence service, as saying a network run by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden sent units to fight in the Serbian province of Kosovo. Confirmation of these activities came from Claude Kader, a French national who said he was a member of bin Laden's Albanian network.


Soviet-Afghan military cooperation had actually begun on a regular basis in 1956, and further agreements were made in the 1970s, which saw the USSR send advisers and specialists.
A final pre-war treaty, signed in December 1978, allowed the PDPA to call upon the Soviet Union for military support

The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 24, 1979 under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. The final troop withdrawal started on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989 under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviets' Vietnam

In fact there was American involvement as the CIA covert aid to the Mujahadeen as early as July 3, 1979 but it wasn't until after 11 September 2001, U.S. interest in Afghanistan was renewed as it became apparent that Bin Laden was again based in Afghanistan and was supported by the Taliban government in Kabul

Following unsuccessful political attempts to force the Taliban government to expel Osama bin Ladin and his group, the United States began a bombing campaign on 7 October 2001, directed at Taliban military and political installations. By 13 November 2001 the Taliban government had fallen, and a U.S.–backed Afghan interim government was formed in December

So to sum up -

Soviets leave finally in February 15, 1989 American begins a bombing campaign on 7 October 2001, directed at Taliban military and political installations.

In fact I remember the date well as I was en route to Chania which is a Nato airport and was subjected to spending several hours in the airport in London instead

When US troops first moved into Afghan soil it was over a decade after the Soviet withdrawal and aimed at the previous anti-soviet ally the Taliban

Regarding the use of drones I would suggest reading the Hearing on The Rise of the Drones II: Examining the Legality of Unmanned Targeti

It's a little short on humour as was the 'joke'

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:00 PM

I am not a fan of GW Bush, but I had no problems with him sending forces to Afghanistan when it was clear that 9/11 had been planned and coordinated there and that the Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden.
I think almost ANY president, liberal or conservative, would have done the same.
Everyone knows how awkward it is to conduct a military campaign there, when the country has very little central government and a strong tradition of disliking most outsiders.....add to this the terrain, and the politics of working with Pakistan...etc... and I can't imagine an easy answer to HOW much and for HOW long to pursue this.

Somehow, the old expression "having a tiger by the tail, and afraid to let go" comes to mind.

The Taliban and Al Quaida have found it 'harder' to organize & conduct operations when they have to hide, but if we simply left, I suspect they would again reassert influence there because it IS in many ways the most convenient place to work from.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:20 PM

I fail to see the purpose of this thread. First, the `joke` ain`t funny. Second, do ya know how to clear out an Iraqi bingo parlor? Call out, `B-52`.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:22 PM

Of course, if Bush had told that `joke` he`d have fucked up the diction. No offense meant to old George.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: pdq
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:39 PM

"I am not a fan of GW Bush, but I had no problems with him sending forces to Afghanistan when it was clear that 9/11 had been planned and coordinated there and that the Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden." ~ Bill D

Thank you for stating that in clear terms.

The Senate vote to send US troups into Afghanistan at that time was 98-0, so our elected representatives saw it the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:58 PM

Yep... I only have problems with using force for bad, mostly 'personal' reasons...or because my puppeteer made me.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: John P
Date: 04 May 10 - 09:08 PM

BB, Every liberal I know has a long list of things they angry with Obama about, so no, he's not getting a free pass on anything that matters in any way. You getting worked up over a dumb joke makes it sound like you are reaching pretty far to find something to bash him about. How 'bout worrying about something important?

And no, I wouldn't get upset at Bush for making a joke, either. Get real.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 10 - 10:45 PM

...except that W's jokes were usually much cruder.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:30 AM

"You may not have noticed but Obama has not started any wars."

Does that mean he would not have supported a war in Afghanistan if he was in Bush's position?

He was always for the war in Afghanistan like he says on his website, I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan.

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won,

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 05 May 10 - 07:58 AM

As a Father of three daughters I understood the "Joke", and at the same time I feel for those innocents that the drones took out.

I don't care what Bush or Obama says about that war; the fact remains that no foreign invader has ever whipped those people. From Alexander the great to the British to the Russians and now us, some of the most powerful countries that ever were, all have gone down to defeat. The only difference is, we are taking longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:10 PM

This particular thread started by BB? Of Course!

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:39 PM

I know Bearded Bruce wouldn't be caught dead noticing anything Keith Olbermann says, but Olbermann took President Obama to task, soundly, for that very joke, on his program shortly after the dinner.

So pfft! to your "double-standard!" Not happening, not true, not there, and -- not surprising, coming from your side.

Good-bye.

Bob Clayton

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:43 PM

When I hear those posting HERE talking about what Glen Beck is saying ( and not just attacking him) I'll start to waste my time with Keith Olbermann. I listened to him, and found him objectionable.

But glad to see I can be attacked for saying something that Keith Olbermann said as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:56 PM

I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., all the time.
I don't hear anything worth discussing seriously.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 10 - 04:46 PM

Gad. It must thrill you to be that knowledgeable about what they all have to say! ;-) But where do you find the time?

Would you be willing to also listen to that barking dog next door who won't shut up? I mean, if you could do it for me, then I wouldn't have to, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Smedley
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:04 PM

as a Brit, I watched Glen Beck on Fox TV for the very first time recently. (Fox was the only English-language channel on my hotel TV when I was in Spain trapped by VOLCANIC ASH.)

I thought he put together a brilliantly funny parody of crazed far-right American thinking.

I refuse to believe it was anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:15 PM

**big grin**

Well Smedley, it would be nice if it WAS only a parody, but unfortunately he is mostly serious....Of course, he's PAID to make it all as controversial as possible, because even stupid controversy attracts some viewers and 'some' advertisers.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:34 PM

I agree fully with Michealr...a brave post under the present circumstances here.

The issue of the use of "drones" to murder people indiscriminately is so odious and disgusting that we should all be protesting against their use, rather than sniggering at idiotic jokes, no matter who makes them.

As i said on another thread, the toleration of this sort of "warfare2 makes us worse than beasts.

No wonder the shooters on the Iraq video thread behaved as they did.
What a fucking example!!

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:42 PM

"...use of "drones" to murder people indiscriminately is so odious and disgusting..."

Gee, Ake... the whole point of the drones is to make the targets as specific as possible, not 'indiscriminate'. That's WHY he was able to use a line about the Jonas Boys.

You might as well specify that that ANY armed conflict is "odious & disgusting"...then we could easily agree on that, if not on our personal senses of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Emma B
Date: 05 May 10 - 06:51 PM

I fully agree with Michealr too.

I hope that someone might just follow my link up from 04 May 10 - 05:23 PM on the evidence given to the Hearing looking at the use of drones

One of the witnesses was Mary Ellen O'Connell from Notre Dame Law School

She has written -

"The CIA's intention in using drones is to target and kill individual leaders of al-Qaeda or Taliban militant groups.

Drones have rarely, if ever, killed just the intended target.

By October 2009, the ratio has been about 20 leaders killed for 750-1000 unintended victims. Drones are having a counter-productive impact in Pakistan's attempt to repress militancy and violence."

Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009

"The use of the drone is, therefore, violating the war-fighting principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality and humanity."

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 May 10 - 12:40 AM

LH-
I am sure you have all the time in the world to do whatever things you wish up in that rarified air oh so far above our heads. I had forgotten how utterly superior you are to us peons. Please say hello to the Gods and Goddesses for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 01:00 AM

TIA -- Are you incapable of contributing to the conversation? I know I am, but I was hoping I was the only one. Your self-righteousness reminds me of a saying about pots and kettles.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Emma B
Date: 06 May 10 - 06:37 AM

The CIA's covert Predator and Reaper drone missions over Pakistan are separate from the U.S. military's unmanned flights in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Jane Mayer, an American investigative journalist, gives some details about the use of drones

"The C.I.A. runs a secret targeted-killing program, which really is an unprecedented use of lethal force in places where we are not at war, such as Pakistan. It's a whole new frontier in the use of force.

You've got a civilian agency involved in targeted killing behind a black curtain, where the rules of the game are unclear, to the rest of the world and also to us.
Where is the battlefield? Where does the battlefield end?


Toward the end of the Bush Administration, the drone program in Pakistan ramped up, but when Obama became President, he accelerated it even faster.

It's surprising, but the Obama Administration has carried out as many unmanned drone strikes in its first ten months as the Bush Administration did in its final three years.


According to intelligence officials, drones are more surgical in the way they kill—they usually use Hellfire missiles and do less damage than a fighter jet might.
At the same time, the fact that they kill civilians at all raises the same problem that McChrystal is trying to combat, which is that they incite people on the ground against the United States. When you're trying to win a battle of hearts and minds, trying to win over civilian populations against terrorists, it can be counterproductive.

That's why [the former Petraeus adviser and counterinsurgency theorist] David Kilcullen wrote,

"Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement."


"It doesn't take as much talent or experience or training to pilot a drone as it does to pilot a real plane. The skills are much like what you need to do well in a video game. And the C.I.A. has outsourced a lot of the drone piloting, which also raises interesting legal questions, because you not have only civilians running this program, but you may have people who are not even in the U.S. government piloting the drones."


In fact, according to a New York Times report, the Blackwater private security firm (now known as Xe) has taken up a role in America's most contentious counterterrorism program

Blackwater operatives assigned to the Predator bases are trained at the Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. They are taught how to load Hellfire missiles and laser-guided smart bombs on the drones, current and former employees say.

The CIA claim however that Blackwater is not involved in selecting targets but former employees say the company's direct role in these operations has occasionally led to disputes with the agency; when a drone misses a target, CIA operatives accuse Blackwater of poor bomb assembly,

One thing is certain, inside the targeted area some say bluntly that they would avenge the killing of their relatives, if they could only reach those remotely piloting the drones buzzing thousands of feet over their heads.

As Mayer concludes

"if the United States can legally kill people from the sky in a country that we're not at war with, other countries will argue they can do the same thing. And the people using those joysticks in Langley and the deserts of Nevada could now be considered under international law to be engaged in warfare, which means they can legally be retaliated against. It's a new horizon."

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:58 AM

As Emma points out, the USE of drones does not guarantee that there will not be other casualties. It is even a fact that some terrorists have made it a practice to locate their base within non-combatant areas in hopes of deterring attacks....and it often has. A couple of early opportunities to get bin Laden were called off because of probable civilian casualties.

This leads to quite a moral dilemma when we KNOW a terrorist leader is in some specific location, such as a house. I suppose the rationale is that any others in that house 'ought' to know that certain people ARE dangerous to be around. A secondary rationale would be to make it harder for terrorist leaders to to find anyone WILLING to harbor them.

The drones themselves are fairly accurate, and can hit small targets....they just can't tell possible innocents who may be around from the bad guys.

It is also true that ANY deaths of civilians tends to cause hardened attitudes among their friends & relatives....but it is likely that those harboring terrorists were not exactly charitable in their attitudes toward US even before an attack. It is a calculated risk that using them will accomplish the overall objective....I am just glad *I* don't have to do those calculations.

It is WAR....or whatever you want to call this stupid game. There are NO easy answers, no matter how we 'spin' our reasoning. It is a nasty, dirty, sad business. Hiroshima was horrible, Dresden was horrible, the London blitz was horrible....but my guess is, that if we'd had drones in 1945 and could have hit a few 'selected' targets in Tokyo, we might have avoided Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In 1945, we fought well-defined enemies, with regular armies, representing specific countries. Now we are struggling to redesign the very PROCESS of combat against an enemy with no specific location and often shadowy leadership. We have evidence that IF we were just to go home and stop all our operations 'over there', they would not stop their attacks on US. Their 'reasoning' for attacking us is very different than that of Germany & Japan in the 1940s, and is being fueled partly by religious leaders with THEIR own objectives.

   It feels like we are playing this huge, serious game of "Whack-a-mole", where the moles are whacking back and opening new boards in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Emma B
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:49 AM

'it is likely that those harboring terrorists were not exactly charitable in their attitudes toward US even before an attack.'

Bill the question has been asked elsewhere -

'If an omnipotent superpower Afghanistan invaded the United States, how many patriotic Americans would cooperate with an Afghan occupation and help the invaders kill American 'bad guys'?
How many American kids would be willing to die fighting the Afghani and other foreigners that have overwhelming firepower including terrifying all seeing drones in the sky firing missiles?'

Is one man's 'terrorist' another man's freedom fighter"?

However - back to the 'joke' and the reality behind it

An extract from a report by a female correspondent embedded with US forces in Afghanistan.


"We were doing a story on air strikes and civilian casualties, and I wanted the point of view of the soldiers dropping the bombs.
And that's what happened on our first night at Camp Blessing, the battalion headquarters in the Pech River valley in eastern Afghanistan.

We were inside the TOC – the tactical operations centre, which is like a big, classified PlayStation. The landscape comes to life on a movie screen by way of Google Earth and Predator drone video feeds. The Americans zeroed in on a few bad guys firing mortars from a roof.

One soldier joked that we were about to get our first glimpse of Kill TV. The screen flashed, bright static, as a 500lb bomb hit the roof. The mortar stopped. So did the men.

It was a snuff film. They call it pred porn.

Early the next morning we were in a Chinook, hugging the contours of the rocky peaks and then sprinting across the landing zone to avoid getting shot at. I found big, brash 27-year-old Captain Dan Kearney, dubbed the Lord of the Korengal Valley, in the well-equipped medic's tent.
On the bed sat a boy with blood-stained eyes, his face covered in gashes. He wouldn't or couldn't talk.
The villagers said he was wounded by the American bomb that also killed two women. Two more women were wounded and outside the gate, but the villagers wouldn't let them be treated because the medic was a man. The women could die, said the medic. The men still refused. "Welcome to my life," said Dan. Taliban attack his soldiers from the villages. He retaliates. Afghan women and children die.

"Pull out his eyes, apologise; apologise, pull out his eyes". The old, taunting rhyme bounced in my head as I looked into the eyes of an Afghan woman lying limp and frightened on a hospital bed down the valley in Kunar's capital. Attached to her was a nursing child.
The bomb had landed on her house, killing her husband. Her eyes moved behind me, seemed to tour the room; then, seeing no salvation, they lost focus. There were other wounded women in the beds. One had lost her husband a year ago in a feud, and now her teenage son had been killed in the bombing. She was asking the doctor, me, anyone who'd listen, "Who will take care of me?"

The doctor translated for them and then pursued me down the hall, urging me to tell the Americans to please stop bombing their villages. "It's too much, it's too much," he said.
He was young, with a creased, tired face and was craning his head to catch up with me. "Please tell them," he said. "They might listen to you. They won't listen to us."

I said that I would and I meant it, and I knew it would make no difference. It was as a 12-year-old girl had asked me five years earlier in Kandahar, squirming in her hospital bed. She'd been playing in the courtyard at her sister's wedding when gunships burst out of the night, killing her entire family. "Why do you bomb us and then come saying you're sorry?"

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Emma B
Date: 06 May 10 - 12:21 PM

post script about the Korengal valley mentioned in the report above and published Sunday 11 April 2010

"After years of sustained fighting and casualties with little evident progress, the US military closed Korangal Outpost on April 14, 2010.

Military officials speculate that their presence in the valley may have actually created Taliban sympathies among the previously neutral Korangalis, who have rejected American aid and have wished the Americans to leave.

New York Times

"Occasionally a Taliban or Al Qaeda member was transiting through that location, but the Korangalis were by no means part of the insurgency," he said. "Unfortunately, now they are, because they were willing to accept any help to get us out."
Maj. James Fussell, a former Army Special Forces soldier

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 10 - 03:17 PM

I tried to imagine the rationale for certain methods....but because stories like Emma notes are all to common, I would not complain or object IF we just pulled out and brought everyone home.
I have no idea if OUR danger would be worse in the long run, and I doubt we WILL just withdraw, but I'm willing to see how THAT tactic works. There's just too much predictable suffering as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 10 - 03:42 PM

Great posts Emma!

There is no doubt who the terrorists are in the Middle East, or any other of the aggressive actions undertaken by the super powers.

The more powerful and "civilised" we become, the more we practice terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 10 - 04:03 PM

It has to be asked what we genuinely think we will acxcomplish with these policies. It surely is not winning hearts and minds. We would do more in that direction if we pulled out and left only an intel network with a strong HumInt component. If we could back off far enough tosee the actual threats as they formed and before they caused harm, it might be possible to stick to the right targets.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 10 - 04:15 PM

Do you think Amos, that we will ever be able to "back off" far enough to see that we are the problem, not the answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 10 - 07:32 PM

Pretty simplistic answer, ake. You ought to know by now that NOTHING in world politics and conflict is that easy to explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: akenaton
Date: 07 May 10 - 03:11 AM

It is simple Bill, while we continue to rob,exploit, and indoctrinate other nations and cultures, we will continue to be the problem.

The complicated part, is how do we retain our unsustainable lifestyle, without robbing, exploiting and indoctrinating?

Subject: RE: BS: Double Standard? Of Course!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 11:37 AM

You miss (or intensionally ignore) my point... that "rob,exploit, and indoctrinate" part is not simple... it is **subjective**...it is a matter of opinion whether policy A is exploitive or not. (I am not defending any particular thing.) One man's 'exploitation' is another's 'honest competition'.

When ANYONE makes a simplistic claim, there are unspoken assumptions as premises which they are not willing...or able... to discuss. Even when we agree that some actions or policies 'tend' towards immoral behavior, there are many shades of gray in deciding how much is too much.

I suppose I am over sensitive these days as I listen to members of Congress make sweeping pronouncements and try to over-simplify complex issues.....but there needs to be MORE of me doing it!