Real UAV's

[PatR]

Had we not bothered them in their own homes their desire to bother us in ours would have been significantly reduced. Lest we forget, the World’s major powers had divided up and controlled the resources of their lands long ago, and a little betrayal of Great Britain revised that division to more favor the U.S. and the USSR at the end of WWII.

Al Qaida did not become a problem until after we established our military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban were our supported friends and allies prior to that. We never gave how the Taliban managed their country a thought until 9/11 and from that point on what we did was in a false revenge. Matter of fact, prior to our invading Afghanistan the Taliban caused us no problems at all. Bear in mind Karzai retired from their government a very, very wealthy man, with most of his wealth obtained from us and our government.

Bottom line, had we not made them our problem by meddling in their affairs to redirect their wealth they would prolly never had been a problem. Cause and effect. Try looking at things from a neutral perspective instead of one that is U.S. centric. Start that review from a historical beginning. Then take a trip and spend some time with the people in their own environment. You might find they respond well to honesty and respect and offer both in kind.

Are their cultures brutal? From our perspective absolutely. But our perspective is not and never has been theirs. We should remember their religion is the foundation of their lives, and more important to them than family and formal government. Go see it first hand. I did, 4 years worth, and the act changed my perspective considerably, just as foreigners invading our homeland and killing our relatives might change ours.

So are we no different? Any difference is only in scope. We are just as murderous as they are, and perhaps more vicious but better at concealing it.

 

[dougcjohn]

Agree with much of that time line and societal outcomes... although disagree external forces were the sole or primary catalyst of their fighting and brutal justification to rid their Adversaries.

In the midst of that history line above... after the WWII series of events where Brits promised a better life than Germany had sold them when they were previously pushed out; USSR returned more forcibly and stepped in to not ask but "Take" the "Resources & Region" from an easily perceived defeatable Afghanistan. As in another small Asian country that all through history only sought their independence pushed the French out and we turned down their leader Ho Chi Minh request for growth & support; pushing them towards their communist neighbors. Many years later the region became a new interest primarily due to our Adversary's comfortable possession... again not driven for the "cause" of the people. This grew into a 10+ yr period that history has shown no other worth than loss of major life and serious weapons development. A very similar parallel was Afghanistan, except it was USSR attempting the take-over from a region comfortably "politically" held by USA. Through our discrete support, training and backing of Afghanistan forces, this small country became another 10 yr ordeal, only this time "inversed" with the Soviets pulling out without success... but another opportunity for new technology & weapons development and producing another small country now trained in effective modern warfare.... that later intelligently used that training & knowledge against us.

In between all this muscle flexing, initiating somewhere the 1930-40's, USA massively developed (Including other Countries: UK, Germany, etc) a mid-east economic explosion & wealth by engineering, educating & building oil businesses. This contributed to mid-east massive wealth and later motivated their Governments demanding their full independent control; we didn't politically resist because we held the interest and had secured all the regions with political handshakes. So going back far enough, yes We did interfere with their "peaceful lives" or their way of life by introducing an economic taste they didn't push away and hungrily accepted. Although these political handshakes aren't concrete foundation so in-direclty we developed their underlying wealth that later became a support channel used against "any" Foe, including USA. If the World societies had elected not to use the easily tapped Mid-Eastern resources of crude and hadn't built their wealth and mobility, history would be different.

Throughout history, even before interference of Christian visitors, this whole region has contested boundaries and battled in the name of their god or religious holly cause. The intrusion of Christians have contributed to the battles & border disputes although they certainly weren't a peaceful land and people prior. They tolerated Christian interference while they found usefulness, in sort, using Christians to reach their Needs. Creating an economy to provide defense and has provided mobility and power. This financial power has fueled "their cause" to defeat their foes or challengers. We've certainly encouraged and added to their motivation to succeed and provided "justified reasons" they can apply, but even absent of these external reasons... if the wealth remained, many of their "causes" would continue, they too responded to power. Their interest never has been and remains not globally focused on peace and unity if not within their beliefs... they didn't learn or adopt that after the Christianity Crusades initiating in 1080ad.

As any country, the passive citizens are more peaceful than those in the decision making positions. If we talked to the American Indian back in history, they had no malice toward the intruding white man.... actually welcomed initially. If we talked to Germany they had no malice towards other lands, or Vietnamese, French, etc... The majority of citizens of a society normally have no malice toward another country. Many will take up arms if threatened or if they believe the cause, history shows many of those were incorrectly communicated or received. All through time, one common is that we are quick to become an aggressor if the opportunity presents... I don't think that will change, thus believing we can reside in a global peaceful mix of societies isn't a reality.... even defense is aggression once in play.

 

[PatR]

I just have to ask, who is the terrorist? Is it the other guys when they commit acts of death and destruction in our country or is it us when we commit similar acts in their country? Which is more abhorrent, an unwanted occupying army in a country or a small disorganized force of disruptive soldiers?

If logic and honesty are used the conclusions will be difficult for some to accept.

 

[dougcjohn]

I just have to ask, who is the terrorist? Is it the other guys when they commit acts of death and destruction in our country or is it us when we commit similar acts in their country? Which is more abhorrent, an unwanted occupying army in a country or a small disorganized force of disruptive soldiers?

If logic and honesty are used the conclusions will be difficult for some to accept.

You've presented a common question and debate... there isn't a war class, military philosophy class that doesn't touch on these issues... some designed to help young commanding Officers prepare, others to help rationalize warfare.

Terrorist common definition: uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

So a developing country of multiple nationalities, say 230 yrs ago that called together farmers. tradesman, and sons to resist an intimidating Government and the largest military force by applying non-gentleman's fight tactic... often referred as savage behavior, later termed guerrilla warfare; defended their beliefs and new republic certainly weren't terrorist; but they were an untrained rag-tag force determined to defend their land & beliefs. Upon pushing the Aggressor out, didn't pursue and continue to attack other lands; instead they developed relationships, grew global commerce, and encouraged multiple religions & beliefs. (Although our treatment of the native Indian isn't a good example either)

We've taken many positions both defensive & offensive. We've invaded, bombed, assassinated, and delivered militrary force on lands. But that same military force has done more teaching, agriculture, building & bridge engineering, water treatment plants, constructed schools, medical aid, and supplied a "defense" for thousands of situations where the people of nation lacked... a lot of that was in direct defiance of the opposing force or opposing governments.

We haven't taken non-combatants, journalist, nurses, tourist as hostage and publicly beaten, burned or decapitated. We have exerted force, massive destruction and attempted to "guide" government directions; although in my opinion that isn't terrorism... that's warfare. Any difference through broader vision... Maybe - maybe not? But I do feel it separates the two and the majority of civilized nations & populations tend to agree.

Back on the UAV technology, using technology is a positive if it reduces loss on the side you believe stands in the right and may assist in ending the situation. Do modern sophisticated military UAVs separate "hand to death" and cloak the realization of death and minimize the mental impact? It does distance the human contact from the act both physically and mentally. But the spear, bullet, catapult, plane, tank, bombs, etc have distanced the element of death with knife in hand. I personally don't think it minimizes the impact, an individual knows when they've taken life(s) and it's their behavior that melds them into a warrior and their mental acceptance that later determines their tolerance. Neither right or wrong, individuals and their reactions build the future in part.

 

[PatR]

For the record, we are in alignment with what was presented in your previous post. I’m very much an American and believe strongly in our way of life, although I believe what we are now is not as great as we were. Then again, perhaps what we are IS what we were but things are more out in the open now.

Where barbarous acts are concerned, there will be times it will be necessary. “Plausible deniability” doesn’t alter what is done, it just clouds who was involved in the chain of decision making and execution..

What I’ve been attempting to do is illustrate how what might appear to be a righteous course can be just the opposite. How info is packaged and delivered is as influential as the package contents. Best not to follow a piper until we fully understand the music being played.

Indoctrination takes many forms but all of them have the same end goal. Each government tailors their message for the targeted population, manipulating information to obtain and retain favorable public opinion.

 

[dougcjohn]

Agreed whole heartily and yes, understood your position, nor the slightest doubt your standing... no one commits toward the cause what you've committed in energy and resources to be questioned even lightly.

My attempt was more intended as extended thoughts on the matters, although the further taken, the more realized it was too in-depth to cover all the tangents and twists in short quips of comments without someone stepping on an area we're not to tread.

As the Ruskies say... Dah' Commrade.

 

[R.Perry]

The conflicts are about money, natural resources, and personal power. “The people” is just a couple words bandied about for an appearance of having a just cause.

If you will remember that when Saddam stated he was going to cut off the oil supply, that's when we were told he had weapons of mass destruction, that we never found. Remember why Japan attacked us, we cut off their oil supply because of what they were doing in China. Why did we give up on Somalia, there isn't anything there worth fighting for.

I think the average American isn't a pacifist, but we aren't war mongers either. At some point we must say, enough is enough.

 

[PatR]

Who says we’ve given up on Somalia? A very famous general once said “All war is deception.”

 

[R.Perry]

Well Pat, what is in it for us, nothing I can see, and we aren't going to change their social behavior.

 

[AH-1G]

What's in it for us? Well, we need to try out our lasted military gadgets.

 

[PatR]

Well Pat, what is in it for us, nothing I can see, and we aren't going to change their social behavior.

Good question. For “us” in general my guess is nothing. Containment would work better, be cheaper, and risk fewer lives of our military personnel. Perhaps the U.N. benefits by having someplace they can claim a minor level of success because someone else did the work, or some mega corporations that get to save some money running their ships through the Madagascar strait instead of outside of Madagascar.

The southern 3/4 of Africa is still a place a lot of money can be had through political graft, skimming foreign aid, and exploiting minerals in various ways.

Those are a reach but about all I can think of.

 

[R.Perry]

As for the Madagascar straits, all we need to do he have our allies and our navy keep a couple of destroyers in the area and that would take care of the piracy. Actually a Marine Wasp assault ship would be perfect. Extremely fast response via attack helicopters. Between our navy, the British, and French, we should be able to make the area safe for commercial shipping.

As for Africa, I'm not very knowledgeable of the various controlling factions in the country, other than South Africa and from what I'm hearing that is a mess since the British lost control.

 

[R.Perry]

What's in it for us? Well, we need to try out our lasted military gadgets.

We have Afghanistan, and Iraq for that purpose. The problem with Somalia is collateral damage, once the bad guys use citizens as cover most of our really cool options like the hell fire are off the table, it becomes a ground ponders war, and when you go into someone else back yard to pick a fight you are at a disadvantage from the start. Could we do it, I'm sure we could, but at what cost.

You must remember, I believe it was Stalin that said we must first disarm American citizens before we could ever consider invading America. Thank God for the second amendment.

 

[dougcjohn]

We have Afghanistan, and Iraq for that purpose. The problem with Somalia is collateral damage, once the bad guys use citizens as cover most of our really cool options like the hell fire are off the table, it becomes a ground ponders war, and when you go into someone else back yard to pick a fight you are at a disadvantage from the start. Could we do it, I'm sure we could, but at what cost.

You must remember, I believe it was Stalin that said we must first disarm American citizens before we could ever consider invading America. Thank God for the second amendment.

I would agree, you have that correct on quote.
The 2nd Amendment to the surprise of many in modern times has discouraged many tactical considerations.

 

[R.Perry]

I would agree, you have that correct on quote.
The 2nd Amendment to the surprise of many in modern times has discouraged many tactical considerations.

Very True, Yamamoto had said the same thing prior to attacking Pearl Harbor.

 

[dougcjohn]

Every Country that had a “citizen disarmament” by their Govt was followed closely by a more “ruling” Govt or Leader.

I fail to understand how history fails to teach & educate those privy not to have experienced... even more confusing when a neighboring country falls to a new Rule and it’s not associated... and these citizens aren’t of simple mind.

And once again the 2nd Amendment is being challenged as valid.

 

[PatR]

Richard,

Regarding places of activity, you would be astounded by the number of places that are high activity, employing all the means you mentioned in your earlier post, and many more, that are made to appear forgotten or inactive to the public.

 

[R.Perry]

Richard,

Regarding places of activity, you would be astounded by the number of places that are high activity, employing all the means you mentioned in your earlier post, and many more, that are made to appear forgotten or inactive to the public.

Pat, I'm sure you are right. I'm just an old pud knocker and certainly not privileged to what our government is doing that we don't hear about. However secrets don't seem to be secrets too long. When Tom Clancy wrote "Hunt for Red October" he got called on the carpet because someone must have been feeding him classified information.

 

[PatR]

Clancy was absolute bonkers with research. He got called in because his research through open sources indicated there had to be something very special about propeller design. Digging deeper with propulsion engineers suggested what might be good for the book. Essentially some public document research and throwing a dart at the board was much too accurate a guess. The gov wanted to find out who leaked info, only to learn that hydrodynamics does not offer a lot of different paths to silent efficiency. Anyone interested in the field that can do the math will reach the same conclusions.

His early books were masterpieces of international politics, military tactics, strategy, technology, suspense, and science fiction all rolled into a single package. Like any of the great SciFi writers, much of what appears fiction is based on fact, whether or not those facts have been discovered yet. An example of undiscovered fact is the use of solar sails now being talked about for space flight. Heinlein wrote about them a long, long time ago.

 

[dougcjohn]

Clancy had tremendous creativity in writtings! It's interesting and almost intriguing how many SciFi writers touched on unknown realities. Gene Roddenberry & StarTrek, Michael Straczynski & Babylon 5 and one I enjoyed for the weapons, ballistics and tactics accuracy was Don Pendleton & Mack Bolan... several others; they all had bits of uncanny foresight or just pig's luck. The Babylon 5 has many features that have shown similar... several with the cyborgs, many others dealing with similar fears with the spread of cyber warfare, malware, and data saturation caused the fleet to have non-connected computers (Sneaker Net), written in 1994... recall malware and anti-virus wasn't much concern. Another one that touched so many realities, some almost spot on, and several still being discussed as future possibilities was Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World. The social, cultural, psychological, genetics, and decline in moral values through social structural modifications, written in '32.