Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

I believe the CIA will withdraw only some of the ones you can see and mostly leave the ones you can't see behind, while replacing those guys with more you can't see.

Fun facts.

*snip*

Looking at that website... Yea, no sovereign country would want to deal with that shit.   Though, I wonder if down the line... the US will find a reason to also Drone Strike Mexico in the 'War on Drugs'.... 
The US is obviously paying the big bucks, among other things, for the chance to go pewpew on what looks like bad guys.

[Nikov]

So... anyone taking issue with my argument and conclusion? Or are we just going to take casual swipes at if the CIA can afford plane tickets for all of its operatives?

[Urist is dead tome]

So... anyone taking issue with my argument and conclusion? Or are we just going to take casual swipes at if the CIA can afford plane tickets for all of its operatives?

Frankly I would prefer to just sit back and make fun of the CIA.

[Burnt Pies]

hur hur, CIA am little gurls?

[Aqizzar]

So... anyone taking issue with my argument and conclusion? Or are we just going to take casual swipes at if the CIA can afford plane tickets for all of its operatives?

I gotta be honest, I've been trying to follow along, and I have no idea what your "argument" actually is, aside from responding to other people's arguments.

[Nikov]

lawls teh cia ar noobs and cannot stop anon-

[CLIENT TERMINATED BY SYSOP]

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

So... anyone taking issue with my argument and conclusion? Or are we just going to take casual swipes at if the CIA can afford plane tickets for all of its operatives?

I gotta be honest, I've been trying to follow along, and I have no idea what your "argument" actually is, aside from responding to other people's arguments.

*nods agreement.

[Shinziril]

Though, I wonder if down the line... the US will find a reason to also Drone Strike Mexico in the 'War on Drugs'.... 

We've got some unarmed (at least I think they're unarmed?) drones doing border surveillance.  They work quite well.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Though, I wonder if down the line... the US will find a reason to also Drone Strike Mexico in the 'War on Drugs'.... 

We've got some unarmed (at least I think they're unarmed?) drones doing border surveillance.  They work quite well.

I would be willing to bet that the difference between an armed and unarmed drone is about 10 minutes with the ground crew.  I have a suspicion that the unarmed drones are simply and quietly collecting information and at the same time proving their effectiveness so that the case can be made to arm them.

[Shinziril]

Well, right now they're mostly just going "Hey, look over there!" to the ground teams, who do the actual arresting.  I'm not sure if they really need weapons, to be honest.  Missiles are expensive, and the drones themselves cost enough already.

[Sheb]

And shooting missiles at illegal immigrant seems like an extreme, if effective, way to stop immigration.

[ChairmanPoo]

Ineffective I daresay. Most immigrants (and I'm talking in general, not just the US ones) are already running quite big risks. I doubt a few predator drones would deter them further.

[Nikov]

And shooting missiles at illegal immigrant seems like an extreme, if effective, way to stop immigration.

Just for the giggles, assuming 100% target aquisition, five illegal aliens hit per strike on average, and no changes in behavior, it would take 720,000 Hellfire missiles at $100,000 a missile for $72,000,000,000 to kill 3,600,000 illegal immigrants.

For comparison, concrete is about $200 a cubic meter, the border is 3,130,000 meters long and so at $626,000,000 per meter-thick, meter-high run... we could build a 115 meter tall concrete wall for the same amount of money.

We would, however, wind up pouring more concrete than the Maginot Line (360 million cubic meters compared to merely 1.5 million cubic meters). And somebody will just dig a tunnel and set up a toll booth.

[hermes]

So back to the point.  For Urist and anyone else confused on the whole "America created the Taliban" (although it was more accurately al-Qaeda that the CIA created), look up pretty much anything related to Congressman Charlie Wilson, who spearheaded the effort to supply American weaponry and training to the anti-Soviet insurgency, or any books or reporting by Ahmed Rashid or Saira Shah.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani government and the CIA are still at loggerheads over the drone-strikes, but the mass spy-recall notice is more or less off the table.

I am reasonably familiar with that story, but I'm not clear on what the US relationship is with Pakistan with regards to India, former Soviet bloc countries and China.  I'd heard somewhere that one motive for going into Afghanistan was to pacify India who were worried about Pakistani militarism.  Also, there are hypotheses floating around about ISI involvement in 9/11 (requested by US).  America gives billions in military aid to Pakistan, just like Israel, has created the ISI-hydra and Pakistani nationalist-militarism... but to what end I have not the foggiest.  I can speculate on oil pipeline route control, or the threat of insurgency in west China, but that's guessing.

Can anybody explain why Pakistan is so crucial to the US (and thus, by implication, why an American withdrawal from Pakistan could be bad)?

[IronyOwl]

So... anyone taking issue with my argument and conclusion? Or are we just going to take casual swipes at if the CIA can afford plane tickets for all of its operatives?

I'm inclined to question the effectiveness (and cost effectiveness) of using drone strikes to take out terrorist "leaders." I certainly feel that dropping a hundred grand to kill six guys in a truck in the middle of the desert is obscene, even if they're known to be hostiles for an absolute fact.

In terms of the CIA, I'd say they're not classy enough to be Bond villains and probably indeed have rapid evacuation plans. I'm not certain they have all-at-once rapid evacuation plans, however.

So no, looks good to me.