Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13

Author Topic: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack  (Read 13565 times)

Gorjo MacGrymm

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #60 on: April 14, 2011, 02:00:56 pm »

I see a lot of disinformation here from some people who only skimmed over some wikipedia documents, failed to read that the subjects were "opinions" and then finalized their bias by not reasearching any further and then claiming their point of view to be fact and inarguable.  Well done.  Your right, arguing with said people about their beliefs IS a waste of time.

Back on topic, 2 more missiles strikes yesterday and now the pakistan's are really pissed.  Pakistan is caught between its need for US aid and funding, its divided loyalties between the east and the west half of its own country, and its bitter rival India who is just growing more powerful by the day.  The situation is as screwed up as any. (taking bets on how long till the usual suspects level blame on their favorite target.....)

Is there a solution out of this mess that doesnt involve even more bloodshed, conflict and acts of extreme selfish national interest (yours, ours, theirs, everyones, etc)?  Somehow I doubt it.
Logged
"You should stop cutting down all these herr trees, or, MAN is my Queen going to be Aaaaa-aang-Re-ee with you guys!" flipping his hand and batting his eyelashes."
"Oh my god guys, wood, is like, totally murder."

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #61 on: April 14, 2011, 03:29:09 pm »

Other than the quake damage, I'm not sure how much Pakistan really needs the US. They're worried about India and Kashmir, but that's not a problem America has ever been capable of helping with. To them Afghanistan is just a big buffer zone, that happens to be populated with many that have cultural support on both sides of the border.

I think the reality of Pakistan's situation is they need to be seen favorably internationally. Refusing to support the war on terror, when they have Al Qaeda leaders in their country, would make them a target for international scrutiny and would leave them without a counterweight to America's support of India. So they're helping. They may not really want to help, they might even be better off nationally if they didn't help, but politically they're forced to.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 03:58:23 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Nikov

  • Bay Watcher
  • Riverend's Flame-beater of Earth-Wounders
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #62 on: April 14, 2011, 04:27:42 pm »

Ah. So when the White House is red, diplomacy be damned. When the White House is blue, now the WoT is totally negotiable and diplomacy comes first, because it's the opposition's responsibility. Gotcha. I believe you guys call that flip flopping.

Fun facts. Obama has basically turned what was once a limited operation against leadership (33 strikes, 10 leadership deaths) into a precision bombing campaign (118 strikes, 12 leadership deaths). The CIA is doing a good job doing what they do, but ramping up drone strikes the way Obama has is doing very little to improve Afghanistan or Pakistan. Good operators in a good operation gone bad, to put it blithely.
Logged
I should probably have my head checked, because I find myself in complete agreement with Nikov.

Gorjo MacGrymm

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #63 on: April 14, 2011, 04:33:25 pm »

Ah. So when the White House is red, diplomacy be damned. When the White House is blue, now the WoT is totally negotiable and diplomacy comes first, because it's the opposition's responsibility. Gotcha. I believe you guys call that flip flopping.
This isnt a fair statement.  When the White House was "red", the US was heavily involved in diplomacy.  Condoleeza Rice was an amazing secretary of state and the work she did was both humbling and awe-inspiring.  Disagreeing with diplomatic direction doesnt equate to no diplomacy.  I would make the bet that in Pakistan, the Bush admin worked much harder on diplomacy than the current admin, considering the protests of the pakistani goverment atm.  This goes both ways, just because I may disgree with Obama's diplomacy, doesnt mean he isnt trying.

Logged
"You should stop cutting down all these herr trees, or, MAN is my Queen going to be Aaaaa-aang-Re-ee with you guys!" flipping his hand and batting his eyelashes."
"Oh my god guys, wood, is like, totally murder."

Aqizzar

  • Bay Watcher
  • There is no 'U'.
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #64 on: April 14, 2011, 04:58:26 pm »

The more I read through these responses, the more I want to call you a hypocrite, but I couldn't think of exactly why.  It was something itching in the back of my mind.  Then I remembered why it all sounded so familiar.

I'm not proud of quoting this, since I didn't realize how long ago it was.  But then, when it comes to quoting people entirely in context, the media at large considers your whole life fair game, so a couple years in the same venue should be perfectly in the ballpark.

Also, I do agree that the USA should have taken the moral high-ground on torture, but I am not gonna sit here and scream my anger.  The people screaming the loudest over this arent the muslim fanatics, but the fanatics in the USA who dont even understand the issues at hand and are the blindly manipulated hand of political maneuvering.

Now, I know someone is going to try to make a case for the USA killing civilians and thats CRAP.  Never in the entire history of armed conflict has a military gone so far out of its way to avoid civilian casualties.  Thats the entire reason we have smart weapons.  Its the entire reason Afganistan/Iran/Iraq/Syria arent the worlds largest exporter of glowing sand.  Its the entire reason why the Allied troops have such a problem in Iraq, because they wont just broadsword the enemy.  You could even make a case that MORE civilians area dead in Iraq because we didnt use much stronger measures and therefore the war occupation dragged on longer than it needed to.  The enemy certainly didnt care who it killed, just as long as people died and it made the news so political hounds in other countries can whine and yelp about how terrible the allies are.
You seem to think that there will be some "magic moral principle" which will suddenly make the world stop acting violently.  Its a pipe dream.  If there was such a principle, crime would also disappear, but it wont.  To think that if you act perfectly moral, wonderful, loving and become a beacon of goodness for the world to see wont create terrorists who hate us means you haven't been paying attention to this generational conflict.

The USA souldn't be torturing for the USA's sake.  Fuck what any one else might say about it.  Our morality is our concern, not anyone elses.  If a country begins to behave in a way to attempt to appease the rest of the world it will go insane.  People around the world who want to wave waterboarding in our face while ignoring the MASSIVE amount of good we do are allready predisposed to hate the USA.

Replace "waterboarding" with "un-negotiated drone-strikes against non-military targets", and let's start over from the top.  Funny how two years of a Democratic president managed to engender such a love of diplomacy, nuanced understanding of populations, and accountability with foreign governments.
Logged
And here is where my beef pops up like a looming awkward boner.
Please amplify your relaxed states.
Quote from: PTTG??
The ancients built these quote pyramids to forever store vast quantities of rage.

Nikov

  • Bay Watcher
  • Riverend's Flame-beater of Earth-Wounders
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #65 on: April 14, 2011, 05:08:55 pm »

Sure. Lets look at this absolutely mathematically.

How many people have been killed by subjected to waterboarding.

Three.

How many people have been killed by drone strikes.

1,439 - 2,290
Logged
I should probably have my head checked, because I find myself in complete agreement with Nikov.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #66 on: April 14, 2011, 05:14:48 pm »

How many people have been killed by subjected to waterboarding.

Three.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html

Wow, so what we can deduce from this is that the CIA has a staggeringly huge grudge against 2 or 3 men.
Logged

Gorjo MacGrymm

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #67 on: April 14, 2011, 05:22:14 pm »

---Nothing to see here folks, move along with your discussion   8)  *policeman waving you past traffic scene

@Aqizzar
I am trying to puzzle out what your intent there was Aqizzar.  I dont SEE my hypocrisy, but then again, objective self-investigation isnt something that I (and IMO most everyone) am very good at.  Perhaps there is an unforseen argument to my old posts I missed, or maybe I implied some nuance without realizing or intending it, or maybe I just cant/wont see it, cuz, well, being called out when your wrong sucks!  :P

But I cannot really place your quotes together with my previous post, but that doesnt mean its not valid.  I had tried to make a point to say that yes, I can be hypocritical in my own view of diplomacy also.  But not sure how my old posts show that.  I was just trying to state that saying "red whitehouse bad/no diplomacy - blue whitehouse good/diplomacy" wasnt fair and give a reason.

maybe I am missing the response you are targeting in this forum, maybe its this one:
I see a lot of disinformation here from some people who only skimmed over some wikipedia documents, failed to read that the subjects were "opinions" and then finalized their bias by not reasearching any further and then claiming their point of view to be fact and inarguable.  Well done.  Your right, arguing with said people about their beliefs IS a waste of time.

Back on topic, 2 more missiles strikes yesterday and now the pakistan's are really pissed.  Pakistan is caught between its need for US aid and funding, its divided loyalties between the east and the west half of its own country, and its bitter rival India who is just growing more powerful by the day.  The situation is as screwed up as any. (taking bets on how long till the usual suspects level blame on their favorite target.....)

Is there a solution out of this mess that doesnt involve even more bloodshed, conflict and acts of extreme selfish national interest (yours, ours, theirs, everyones, etc)?  Somehow I doubt it.
  But after reading that twice, I still dont see it.  But, since I know your an intelligent man, I am sure I probably said something foolish to earn:   Funny how two years of a Democratic president managed to engender such a love of diplomacy, nuanced understanding of populations, and accountability with foreign governments.

I am not looking for a big take-down of myself here, but maybe just highlight some sentences or something to let me see your point.  Sometimes I really think that yourself and I missread each others statements constantly, or simply fail to say what we mean cleary enough.  'Course, maybe its just me.

Logged
"You should stop cutting down all these herr trees, or, MAN is my Queen going to be Aaaaa-aang-Re-ee with you guys!" flipping his hand and batting his eyelashes."
"Oh my god guys, wood, is like, totally murder."

Nikov

  • Bay Watcher
  • Riverend's Flame-beater of Earth-Wounders
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #68 on: April 14, 2011, 05:27:15 pm »

Logged
I should probably have my head checked, because I find myself in complete agreement with Nikov.

Aqizzar

  • Bay Watcher
  • There is no 'U'.
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #69 on: April 14, 2011, 05:46:51 pm »

I am not looking for a big take-down of myself here, but maybe just highlight some sentences or something to let me see your point.  Sometimes I really think that yourself and I missread each others statements constantly, or simply fail to say what we mean cleary enough.  'Course, maybe its just me.

I will say right off that I was being a pretty snarky and you're taking this remarkably well.  Kudos, and I apologize.  But yes, let me explain myself.

"Never in the entire history of armed conflict has a military gone so far out of its way to avoid civilian casualties.  Thats the entire reason we have smart weapons." - In other words, exactly what was being done in northern Pakistan.  On the hand, it's a bit myopic, since most of the outcry over the use of drone-bombs is that they're targeting individuals and taking out whole households.  But the point of that sentence, as I understand it, is that smart-weapons are a scalpel to the hammer of conventional strikes, such as helicopters or whatever other manned missions into Pakistan as might be proposed.  Ergo, you were then lauding the exact same tactic that the Obama-authorized military is leaning on now, precisely because it's such a cleaner alternative to a heavier conflict.  Which was kinda lost with-

"Its the entire reason why the Allied troops have such a problem in Iraq, because they wont just broadsword the enemy.  You could even make a case that MORE civilians area dead in Iraq because we didnt use much stronger measures and therefore the war occupation dragged on longer than it needed to." - Wherein you proposed that taking what you considered the exceptionally humane route of smart-weapon strikes was ultimately detrimental to the war effort, and would have been better served by less concern for precision and collateral damage.  This was in the context of a different war, but the strategic principle of morality-vs-effectiveness is the same.  In other words, you were then advocating for harsher military actions, and are now criticizing the continued use of what you then called a too-cautious strategy.

But then and now, it's wasn't and isn't a question of military efficacy, but the morality to the warmaking effort itself, as relative to the different ways of fighting an enemy.  A very particular enemy, namely, al-Qaeda.  The argument revolved around your insistence that al-Qaeda was such a dangerous and reprehensible enemy that effort should be spared in exacting vengeance on them, including ignoring the authority of other governments, the protests of other nations' peoples, or treaties that the United States had signed.  To wit: "Fuck what any one else might say about it.  Our morality is our concern, not anyone elses."

That's exactly what you're getting with Obama, who has consistently chosen to pursue an enemy which you declared beyond the normal rules of engagement or law, using a tactic you specifically praised for its precision (when you weren't calling for something stronger), over the objections of another government and its people, just as you said America should.  Again, the quoted lines are about Iraq, but the conversation wandered back and forth between conflicts, and frequently conflated them as one issue, since the argument was over whether the US Government should give any credence to foreign (or legal) objections to how it conducted a global, multinational multi-front war.  That in mind, the only significant difference I can see between then and now, aside from any personal changes over the last two years which I wouldn't be privy to, is that we were then discussing the actions taken by the Bush administration, and we're now talking about Obama's.
Logged
And here is where my beef pops up like a looming awkward boner.
Please amplify your relaxed states.
Quote from: PTTG??
The ancients built these quote pyramids to forever store vast quantities of rage.

Zrk2

  • Bay Watcher
  • Emperor of the Damned
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #70 on: April 14, 2011, 06:11:43 pm »

Look, if anyone's gotten angry I'm more than willing to apologize.

I don't think I'm referring to something so powerful as true "anger," though (my fault for the poor terminology)--just an attitude that leads to general irritation and no one learning anything.

The more strongly you hold onto your ideals, the more other people will hold onto theirs in return.  So if you want to change people's minds, you have to be flexible to change yourself--and you have to be willing to argue in a way that preserves the other person's sense of self.  Call the argument ridiculous, but not the person... say that you feel sick, not that something is sickening.  In general, I think that makes more sense.  It makes your words personal, rather than societal, about your opinions rather than that of some arbitrary other person.  You wind up speaking for yourself, so that you connect with others as individuals, rather than as representatives of some organization or ideal.  And it's only on that level that any measure of "truth" and "honesty" can be found.

That's all I'm trying to say.  I don't want to confront you or something, just offer a little piece of my own experience that may help you out.

Some people do not want to compromise themselves in the name of making it easier for themselves, as it would leave them in a rather hypocritical position.
Logged
He's just keeping up with the Cardassians.

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #71 on: April 14, 2011, 06:17:21 pm »

Some people do not want to compromise themselves in the name of making it easier for themselves, as it would leave them in a rather hypocritical position.

*shrug*

I don't think that opening oneself to discussion is necessarily a compromise of the self, but again--that's why it's a suggestion, rather than a directive.  It all depends on one's goals.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #72 on: April 14, 2011, 06:25:51 pm »

Pakistan has something of a love-hate relationship with the USA, so I'm really curious to see how this could turn out. It will definitely have some wide reaching effects on the middle east and western foreign policy.

OK, serious time over. Can we please have a James Bond movie go down in Pakistan now? Plllleeeeaaaaaaaasssse?

That sounded a lot better before I read it.

The last James Bond movie was about a criminal mastermind plotting to raise the price of water by 1% IN BOLIVIA (less than it actually has risen many times). With any luck, a new movie in Pakistan would be about a mutant octopus-man trying to steal 10 tons of sand.
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #73 on: April 14, 2011, 06:59:42 pm »

Shall we count up the #'s of dead civilians and military in Iraq, Nikov? We went in there on multiple fabricated pre-tenses, in the face of international outrage, claiming a moral imperative to strike at the enemy regardless of the costs. The numbers of dead from that, still going, rank in the thousands. Just so we can be clear, do you still support the Iraq War and the attitudes and claims that brought us there? Because it doesn't square with your attitude here.
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Shinziril

  • Bay Watcher
  • !!SCIENCE!!
    • View Profile
Re: Pakistan to CIA: Hit the road, Jack
« Reply #74 on: April 14, 2011, 07:09:11 pm »

I swore I had read that several groups had done interviews with the tribal people actually living in the area targeted by the drone strikes that indicated that they were remarkably okay with them, and after looking around I managed to find it.  It's in the Wikipedia article on drone attacks in Pakistan, and it does come with reasonably credible-sounding sources.  I find this interesting in combination with the official Pakistani government's opinion on the drone strikes.  I would not be surprised to find that the Pakistani government were overblowing things in an effort to gain more political clout, like basically every national government anywhere. 

I wish this sort of thing could be less of a clusterfuck, but . . . ehhh.  Maybe we should work more on tiny, ludicrously precise missiles.  Then the problem becomes figuring out who you want dead, which isn't going to stop being a problem anytime soon.
Logged
Quote from: lolghurt
Quote from: Urist McTaverish
why is Dwarven science always on fire?
Because normal science is boring
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13