If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Lawyer makes the case that CIA drone operators are unlawful combatants   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 223
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10885 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2010 at 6:35 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-13 02:07:48 PM  
dwh1963: "Resistance fighters"? Your sympathy for terrorists is disgusting. And your estimation of their capabilities is vastly overblown. You really think they're going to hack drone comms?

What an idiot. Farking moonbat.


Referring to people resisting an occupation is just proper English.

They hacked the Predators with $26 software.

Wolverines!!!

/funnily enough, you guessed who I was quite a while ago. At Raw I am someone completely different than you would guess, you can give up on the Larissa stuff.
 
2010-03-13 02:16:42 PM  
Director_Mr: Even if it wasn't authorized, the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.

You may want to read Article Six of the US Constitution before you go making an ass of yourself any further. Read the sentence on treaties and understand that the Constitution is nort a document that you can pick and choose parts you like and dislike.
 
2010-03-13 02:18:21 PM  
ra-ra-raw: Director_Mr: Even if it wasn't authorized, the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.

You may want to read Article Six of the US Constitution before you go making an ass of yourself any further. Read the sentence on treaties and understand that the Constitution is nort a document that you can pick and choose parts you like and dislike.


What in the constitution made the invasion of Iraq illegal? You have aroused my curiosity.
 
2010-03-13 02:24:50 PM  
ra-ra-raw: dwh1963: "Resistance fighters"? Your sympathy for terrorists is disgusting. And your estimation of their capabilities is vastly overblown. You really think they're going to hack drone comms?

What an idiot. Farking moonbat.

Referring to people resisting an occupation is just proper English.

They hacked the Predators with $26 software.

Wolverines!!!

/funnily enough, you guessed who I was quite a while ago. At Raw I am someone completely different than you would guess, you can give up on the Larissa stuff.


They were able to intercept and see the video feed because older Predators didn't have the capability of encrypting video. This is a lot different from hacking the thing. That implies some ability to control or affect what it does.

I don't know why anyone responds to you though. Even your name shows you are only attempting to be a troll. I suppose you've done your job well because people (including me) have certainly bitten on your posts.
 
2010-03-13 02:30:18 PM  
Director_Mr:

They were able to intercept and see the video feed because older Predators didn't have the capability of encrypting video. This is a lot different from hacking the thing. That implies some ability to control or affect what it does.

I don't know why anyone responds to you though. Even your name shows you are only attempting to be a troll. I suppose you've done your job well because people (including me) have certainly bitten on your posts.

Read the thread before you make false accusations:

ra-ra-raw: Soon resistance fighters will move beyond hacking cameras of drones and crack the guidance systems and direct them against sleeping American women and children.
 
2010-03-13 02:34:54 PM  
ra-ra-raw: Director_Mr:

They were able to intercept and see the video feed because older Predators didn't have the capability of encrypting video. This is a lot different from hacking the thing. That implies some ability to control or affect what it does.

I don't know why anyone responds to you though. Even your name shows you are only attempting to be a troll. I suppose you've done your job well because people (including me) have certainly bitten on your posts.

Read the thread before you make false accusations:

ra-ra-raw: Soon resistance fighters will move beyond hacking cameras of drones and crack the guidance systems and direct them against sleeping American women and children.


You may want to read my post before you tell me to read your post. LOL dude, are you for real?

I said they didn't hack the cameras at all. They intercepted a video feed. If intercepting a signal is hacking, watch out for the feds next time you turn on your radio, because you are hacking into some radio station when you do.

Hacking implies some kind of alteration or control. What did they control or alter in the Predator?
 
2010-03-13 02:36:27 PM  
Director_Mr: Even if it wasn't authorized, the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.

If you read Article Six you will see that 'Treaties shall be the Supreme Law of the Land' and prevent the President from doing 'whatever he pleases'.
 
2010-03-13 02:38:41 PM  
Oh, and rararaw or whatever your name is, I notice you still haven't discussed the whole Iraq war is illegal and against our constitution whargarble you were putting up. What's the deal man? Out with it: Are you a troll or just not up to par in the brains area?

I'm having a hard time deciding, and I'm looking for evidence. I suppose you are entertaining me either way, so I shouldn't worry about it.
 
2010-03-13 02:40:00 PM  
ra-ra-raw: Director_Mr: Even if it wasn't authorized, the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.

If you read Article Six you will see that 'Treaties shall be the Supreme Law of the Land' and prevent the President from doing 'whatever he pleases'.


And what treaty was violated in the Iraqi war again? I've lost that information somehow.
 
2010-03-13 02:46:47 PM  
Director_Mr: Hacking implies some kind of alteration or control. What did they control or alter in the Predator?

the free dictionary:

b. To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization

wiki:

give the user access to features that were otherwise unavailable

Internet Security Systems

The word "hacking" has two definitions. The first definition refers to the hobby/profession of working with computers. The second definition refers to breaking into computer systems. While the first definition is older and is still used by many computer enthusiasts (who refer to cyber-criminals as "crackers"), the second definition is much more commonly used. In particular, the web pages here refer to "hackers" simply because our web-server logs show that every one who reaches these pages are using the second definition as part of their search criteria.


Stop you lies and accusation, if you want to have an ordinary discussion I could handle that, but at this point you are just flaming me.
 
2010-03-13 02:49:46 PM  
Director_Mr: the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.
 
2010-03-13 02:57:26 PM  
ra-ra-raw: Director_Mr: Even if it wasn't authorized, the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.

If you read Article Six you will see that 'Treaties shall be the Supreme Law of the Land' and prevent the President from doing 'whatever he pleases'.


I guess you overlook the entire thing about treaties need to be ratified by Congress.........just like the Copenhagen thing.
 
2010-03-13 02:58:43 PM  
Little.Alex: tirob: Director_Mr: OscarTamerz:
So by this reasoning all civilian combatant groups would be prosecutable war criminals. The resistance in France that helped the allies all the way back to Rick in Casablanca are nothing but ...

No Nazi was ever prosecuted for executing any member of the French resistance.

I am not sure that no Nazis were ever prosecuted for killing French résistants, but plenty of French collaborators--who often wore the uniform of the collaborationist Milice--were executed for doing just that, often after trials that lasted...oh, about two minutes.

Killing French Resistance fighters was perfectly legal, and everyone involved knew it. It's a big part of what was so heroic about being part of the resistance. There is no expectation of mercy or the opportunity to surrender. If you get caught; you'll be questioned, then shot or hanged. -exactly what should've been done with all the Gitmo boys.

Read General Patton's memoir, "War as I knew it". He talks about shooting German prisoners with his own pistol.

War ain't about Lawyers.


You do realize that most of our Founding Fathers were lawyers, and that it's also the most occurring background for the presidency, correct?

But I guess "war ain't about" people like John Adams (who defended the British after the Boston Massacre) or Abraham Lincoln (who led us to victory in the Civil War).
 
2010-03-13 03:01:14 PM  
What do you not understand?

For once and for all:
It is not illegal when we do it
 
2010-03-13 03:01:20 PM  
WFern: Little.Alex: tirob: Director_Mr: OscarTamerz:
So by this reasoning all civilian combatant groups would be prosecutable war criminals. The resistance in France that helped the allies all the way back to Rick in Casablanca are nothing but ...

No Nazi was ever prosecuted for executing any member of the French resistance.

I am not sure that no Nazis were ever prosecuted for killing French résistants, but plenty of French collaborators--who often wore the uniform of the collaborationist Milice--were executed for doing just that, often after trials that lasted...oh, about two minutes.

Killing French Resistance fighters was perfectly legal, and everyone involved knew it. It's a big part of what was so heroic about being part of the resistance. There is no expectation of mercy or the opportunity to surrender. If you get caught; you'll be questioned, then shot or hanged. -exactly what should've been done with all the Gitmo boys.

Read General Patton's memoir, "War as I knew it". He talks about shooting German prisoners with his own pistol.

War ain't about Lawyers.

You do realize that most of our Founding Fathers were lawyers, and that it's also the most occurring background for the presidency, correct?

But I guess "war ain't about" people like John Adams (who defended the British after the Boston Massacre) or Abraham Lincoln (who led us to victory in the Civil War).


POTUS is the supreme position for shystering people...is it any wonder that lawyers are the occupation that attempt to become president more then any other?
 
2010-03-13 03:11:49 PM  
WFern: Little.Alex: tirob: Director_Mr: OscarTamerz:
So by this reasoning all civilian combatant groups would be prosecutable war criminals. The resistance in France that helped the allies all the way back to Rick in Casablanca are nothing but ...

No Nazi was ever prosecuted for executing any member of the French resistance.

I am not sure that no Nazis were ever prosecuted for killing French résistants, but plenty of French collaborators--who often wore the uniform of the collaborationist Milice--were executed for doing just that, often after trials that lasted...oh, about two minutes.

Killing French Resistance fighters was perfectly legal, and everyone involved knew it. It's a big part of what was so heroic about being part of the resistance. There is no expectation of mercy or the opportunity to surrender. If you get caught; you'll be questioned, then shot or hanged. -exactly what should've been done with all the Gitmo boys.

Read General Patton's memoir, "War as I knew it". He talks about shooting German prisoners with his own pistol.

War ain't about Lawyers.

You do realize that most of our Founding Fathers were lawyers, and that it's also the most occurring background for the presidency, correct?

But I guess "war ain't about" people like John Adams (who defended the British after the Boston Massacre) or Abraham Lincoln (who led us to victory in the Civil War).



Your writing is so disorganized and self contradictory, that I can't even guess at what point you're trying to make.

And did they fight the British with guns, or legal briefs? did we drop bombs on Germany and Japan, or subpoenas?
 
2010-03-13 03:12:53 PM  
Giltric: I guess you overlook the entire thing about treaties need to be ratified by Congress.........just like the Copenhagen thing.

The U.S. Congress has ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.
 
2010-03-13 03:19:55 PM  
ra-ra-raw: Giltric: I guess you overlook the entire thing about treaties need to be ratified by Congress.........just like the Copenhagen thing.

The U.S. Congress has ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.


So what state sponsored group in uniform that we are engaged with would your arguement apply to?

You said something about violating a treaty?
 
2010-03-13 03:32:09 PM  
Giltric: You said something about violating a treaty?

No, I didn't, I said that the President can not order the US troops around as he sees fit. Frankly I am just here to see if someone solves my word puzzle so stop bothering me with your bullshiat. Obviously, it is not going to be you or the others that have tried to call me out and then ran away when shown to be lying. Does the scroll wheel on your mouse not work?

Here is the post that started the G.C. conversation.

Director_Mr: Even if it wasn't authorized, the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.

ra-ra-raw:You may want to read Article Six of the US Constitution before you go making an ass of yourself any further. Read the sentence on treaties and understand that the Constitution is not a document that you can pick and choose parts you like and dislike.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-03-13 03:34:11 PM  
jshine

Germany used remote control glide bombs in WW2, and had at least a prototype of a radio controlled bomb with a TV camera.
 
2010-03-13 03:38:08 PM  
FormlessOne 2010-03-12 10:20:37 PM
Absolutely. Just because you're at home steering a remote-controlled weapons platform to assassinate civilians doesn't mean you're therefore not responsible for their deaths.

Unfortunately, the article's author wimps out right at the end:
And while the prosecution of CIA personnel is certainly not suggested, one wonders whether CIA civilians who are associated with armed drones appreciate their position in the law of armed conflict.

If CIA personnel are violating the Geneva Conventions, they should indeed be prosecuted. Why is it that it's OK to push others toward The Hague while we shield our own people?


When they first thing you say is that the CIA goes around assassinating civilians it makes whatever elsee you say just as retarded. You lose all credability and you might as well go play in the special olympics
 
2010-03-13 03:48:33 PM  
Gdalescrboz: When they first thing you say is that the CIA goes around assassinating civilians it makes whatever elsee you say just as retarded. You lose all credability and you might as well go play in the special olympics

I believe the correct term is the Palin American Olympics. When you buy a dictionar for your typewriter you may want to pencil it in.
 
2010-03-13 03:55:34 PM  
ra-ra-raw: Giltric: You said something about violating a treaty?

No, I didn't, I said that the President can not order the US troops around as he sees fit. Frankly I am just here to see if someone solves my word puzzle so stop bothering me with your bullshiat. Obviously, it is not going to be you or the others that have tried to call me out and then ran away when shown to be lying. Does the scroll wheel on your mouse not work?

Here is the post that started the G.C. conversation.

Director_Mr: Even if it wasn't authorized, the constitution allows the president to order around the troops for whatever reason he pleases so long as its not in our borders.

ra-ra-raw:You may want to read Article Six of the US Constitution before you go making an ass of yourself any further. Read the sentence on treaties and understand that the Constitution is not a document that you can pick and choose parts you like and dislike.


Ah I did not know it was a word puzzle you were 'tarded, maybe you can try your luck at being a pilot next....

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2010-03-13 03:57:52 PM  
ra-ra-raw: TheOther:
How many nations have voluntarily allowed its former leaders/military personnel to the Hague to tried for war crimes? Of those, how many were not previously defeated and/or faced with overwhelming international sanctions if they did not?

For the US to willingly allow prosecution would truly be exceptional...not saying Bush shouldn't be sent to the Hague; just that it would be unprecedented.

Off the top of my head-

Germany. Well, not Den Haag, but the US and Israel don't recognize it, but the historical equivalent.


I think Germany is pretty much the prototype of a 'previously defeated' country that was forced by its situation to give up citizens wanted for war crimes.
 
2010-03-13 03:59:54 PM  
ra-ra-raw 2010-03-13 03:48:33 PM
Gdalescrboz: When they first thing you say is that the CIA goes around assassinating civilians it makes whatever elsee you say just as retarded. You lose all credability and you might as well go play in the special olympics

I believe the correct term is the Palin American Olympics. When you buy a dictionar for your typewriter you may want to pencil it in.


I bet the locals have kept you in shape chasing you around with pitchforks and torches
 
2010-03-13 04:05:12 PM  
tirob: We haven't been attacked from North Korea, so there is no casus belli. North Korea posed and poses a greater threat to us than Iraq, that much I concede.

A commandeered plane ramming the Pentagon, and another that would probably have rammed the Capitol if the hijackers had been allowed to proceed unbothered, will tend to affect the outlook of our elected representatives in Washington. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't so much about their money, it was about preventing their collective asses (and some of ours) from being blown up.

It's Zawahiri. And we did kill Muhammad Atef ("abu Hafs"), the other member of the triumvirate that led Al-Qaeda before 9/11.



We weren't attacked from Afghanistan, either. Your argument is unsound in that regard.

The bulk of the attackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The few links to Afghanistan are as significant as Bush's links to Yale or maybe that week at the Texas National Guard.

Yeah, jihadist training camps are bad, the Taliban is bad if you're accustomed to better... But c'mon, the best argument you can make for the Afghanistan conflict - with the BS we've been told - is that its a trillion-dollar target in an undeclared war against ideas belonging to people who are everywhere except where we are fighting, and the people we *are* fighting are just angry widowers whose wife and kids we roasted by mistake or collusive intent.

What are the objectives in Afghanistan? What are the measures of success? Obvious questions.

As for the War on Terror: Does history provide a single example of a war against an idea where the anti-idea side won and the idea was eradicated forever? In that light, why would the War on Terror be the single exception in all of human history? And if you cannot possibly succeed in a given strategy, why would you continue that strategy even one more day?

No, that's all pure BS and distraction. Our leaders and their advisors are not nearly that stupid.

Follow the qui bono trail and you can glean explanations that make good business sense.

Or, tell me that we've stayed in Afghanistan to prevent an invasion by China so that China can have a land right-of-way to the ME, and I'm OK with that.

But can we stop it with the silly religious scare tactics and thought-war nonsense?
 
2010-03-13 04:13:41 PM  
Giblet

And you ahve mamanged to sum up the geneal knowledge of farkers with that post, absolutely nothing. At the very least you could do some research on the people we are after in afhg/pak before saying dumb shiat like that
 
2010-03-13 04:19:19 PM  
TheOther: I think Germany is pretty much the prototype of a 'previously defeated' country that was forced by its situation to give up citizens wanted for war crimes.

Yavol, I guess I skimmed the first line of the post without reading it. It is on my list above-
do not click 'post comment immediately'
 
2010-03-13 04:34:23 PM  
Director_Mr: Oh, and rararaw or whatever your name is, I notice you still haven't discussed the whole Iraq war is illegal and against our constitution whargarble you were putting up. What's the deal man?

Director_Mr: And what treaty was violated in the Iraqi war again? I've lost that information somehow.

I believe Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter would like a word with you. Feel free to also check out Chapter VII (new window) of the same. Now, we can go around and around on whether "Screw it, we're the US (and allies) and do what we want" is a sufficient exception to the UN Charter, but it's pretty hard to argue against the UN Charter as valid law.
 
2010-03-13 04:48:37 PM  
ra-ra-raw: dwh1963: "Resistance fighters"? Your sympathy for terrorists is disgusting. And your estimation of their capabilities is vastly overblown. You really think they're going to hack drone comms?

What an idiot. Farking moonbat.

Referring to people resisting an occupation is just proper English.


Your concern for the feelings of terrorists is noted.

ra-ra-raw: They hacked the Predators with $26 software.

Wolverines!!!


The were able to view unencrypted video from the drones. That's a far cry from hacking the encrypted control links like you claimed they could do. All that allowed them to do was watch their fellow terrorists get blown up.

ra-ra-raw: /funnily enough, you guessed who I was quite a while ago. At Raw I am someone completely different than you would guess, you can give up on the Larissa stuff.

What's your DUmp name?
 
2010-03-13 04:53:15 PM  
Gdalescrboz: Giblet

And you ahve mamanged to sum up the geneal knowledge of farkers with that post, absolutely nothing. At the very least you could do some research on the people we are after in afhg/pak before saying dumb shiat like that


No chance. Don't you know leftists know more about things they haven't done than people who have done them?
 
2010-03-13 05:10:56 PM  
Gdalescrboz: Giblet

And you ahve mamanged to sum up the geneal knowledge of farkers with that post, absolutely nothing. At the very least you could do some research on the people we are after in afhg/pak before saying dumb shiat like that



I'm not saying they're nice folks, but you really need to forget your impotent rage for a moment and consider the costs we're incurring while accomplishing Jack Squat.

And, those guys can't do shiat w/o funding...which comes from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, and Pakistan. Where's the love for those guys?

If we're really in Afghanistan to wipe out bad guys, then this is the perfect time to pack up and go home...and wait for the bastards to surface. Develop more intelligence assets in the region. Watch from orbit, from our assets, from spy planes, and take them out via air-strikes when it's convenient and likely to result in low collateral damage. It's cheaper, doesn't rile the natives against us, and historically, it gets the job done.

Or, if it's really important and you aren't just mucking about, declare farking war and commence with the extermination of their entire population scorched-earth style. We can render the entire area uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years w/o using a single nuke. Cuz we're awesome.shiat or get off the pot, I say. We're more than eight years into a six-month operation.

If you're that afraid of terrorist attacks, just get sent to prison. It's easy to do and you'll be really safe there.

I'd rather live with the incredibly low risk of terrorist attacks than waste another soldier's life or a single dollar on the current strategy of doing exactly what the extremists wanted us to do from the start.

I just tried to teach a chicken to solve for x, didn't I.
 
2010-03-13 05:26:59 PM  
Giblet: tirob: We

We weren't attacked from Afghanistan, either. Your argument is unsound in that regard.

The bulk of the attackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The few links to Afghanistan are as significant as Bush's links to Yale or maybe that week at the Texas National Guard.

Yeah, jihadist training camps are bad, the Taliban is bad if you're accustomed to better... But c'mon, the best argument you can make for the Afghanistan conflict - with the BS we've been told - is that its a trillion-dollar target in an undeclared war against ideas belonging to people who are everywhere except where we are fighting, and the people we *are* fighting are just angry widowers whose wife and kids we roasted by mistake or collusive intent.

What are the objectives in Afghanistan? What are the measures of success? Obvious questions.

As for the War on Terror: Does history provide a single example of a war against an idea where the anti-idea side won and the idea was eradicated forever? In that light, why would the War on Terror be the single exception in all of human history? And if you cannot possibly succeed in a given strategy, why would you continue that strategy even one more day?

No, that's all pure BS and distraction. Our leaders and their advisors are not nearly that stupid.

Follow the qui bono trail and you can glean explanations that make good business sense.

Or, tell me that we've stayed in Afghanistan to prevent an invasion by China so that China can have a land right-of-way to the ME, and I'm OK with that.

But can we stop it with the silly religious scare tactics and thought-war nonsense?


I would say that we were attacked from Afghanistan because the orders came from there, and probably the financing too, ultimately.

Our main objective in Afghanistan is to prevent the Taliban from taking power there, inviting al-Qaeda in, and harboring them. We have been fairly successful at accomplishing this so far; as I have no crystal ball I can't predict the future, except to say that I believe that if we withdraw from there now, I think the Taliban will return to power there and that al-Qaeda will set up shop there again, to what effect I don't know.

No argument that the war in Afghanistan has developed, at least as far as the Taliban are concerned, into a war for national liberation. Again, as is the case in most such conflicts, we are trying to make use of local minority (here non-Pashtun) elements in the population there to prop up the government we have installed. Which is causing a lot of outraged patriotism among the majority Pashtuns.

I think it was a mistake for the Bush administration to call it the "War on Terror." "War on the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and (later) the Ba'ath Party" would have been better truth in labeling. I don't really buy the ideological or religious explanation either, but unlike you, I see the main issue as the security of our citizens here, rather than economics.
 
2010-03-13 05:39:20 PM  
Giblet:
I'd rather live with the incredibly low risk of terrorist attacks than waste another soldier's life or a single dollar on the current strategy of doing exactly what the extremists wanted us to do from the start.


Like most leftists, you're awfully generous with what doesn't belong to you.
truth11.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-03-13 05:39:50 PM  
Giblet: Gdalescrboz: Giblet


And, those guys can't do shiat w/o funding...which comes from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, and Pakistan. Where's the love for those guys?



Ding! We've got a winner!

And the money ultimately comes from the industrialized countries that buy oil from the lands that lie around the Gulf called by most of us Persian. If someone in this part of the world could figure out a marketable substitute for petroleum, al-Qaeda would go bankrupt in a week. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
2010-03-13 05:41:51 PM  
tirob: Giblet: Gdalescrboz: Giblet


And, those guys can't do shiat w/o funding...which comes from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, and Pakistan. Where's the love for those guys?



Ding! We've got a winner!

And the money ultimately comes from the industrialized countries that buy oil from the lands that lie around the Gulf called by most of us Persian. If someone in this part of the world could figure out a marketable substitute for petroleum, al-Qaeda would go bankrupt in a week. But I'm not going to hold my breath.


How about American petroleum?

Oh, yeah -- the Left won't let us use it.
 
2010-03-13 06:06:40 PM  
tirob: I see the main issue as the security of our citizens here, rather than economics.

I disagree about Afghanistan's relevance in 9/11.

Saudi Arabia, sure. Egypt, yeah.

And the money comes from private Saudis. That is the only reason Al Qaeda let Osama into their club to begin with; his rich family, friends, and connections.

I don't see how we can solve a Saudi, Egyptian, Sudanese, Somalian, and Indonesian problem by keeping troops in Afghanistan. That aside, we're rapidly approaching the point where we just can't afford it any longer.

It's time to change tactics. The 9/11 commission and Ron Paul have clearly explained the only way out for the US. Whether they're right or not - we'll be forced to implement their strategy eventually, so why not save money and get a head start?

You make strong, clear arguments. Too bad they're so incredibly wrong... ;)
 
2010-03-13 06:14:23 PM  
tirob: If someone in this part of the world could figure out a marketable substitute for petroleum, al-Qaeda would go bankrupt in a week. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

No breath holding required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

The company that developed the method, Changing World Technologies, went bankrupt. However, the technology works, and I wouldn't be surprised to see this resurface in the future.
 
2010-03-13 06:32:42 PM  
Giblet

It is economics, thats the one thing you do have right. There are haves and have nots in the world and i really like being on the have side of it. If you want, no one will stop you from moving to Somalia to share in their eutopia. If not, and you enjoy the computer you insist on spewing fairy tale nonsense over the web with, sit down and shut the fark up while the US secures its intrests.
 
2010-03-13 06:41:57 PM  
Gin Rummy: tirob: If someone in this part of the world could figure out a marketable substitute for petroleum, al-Qaeda would go bankrupt in a week. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

No breath holding required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

The company that developed the method, Changing World Technologies, went bankrupt. However, the technology works, and I wouldn't be surprised to see this resurface in the future.



I've seen a study that used concentrated solar to provide the superheating the process requires. It had a moderate net energy gain. I can't find it now, but it may have been Changing Worlds that tested it.

I haven't seen whether the whole-system EROEI is net gain though. That's where the equation usually falls apart. If it requires more energy input to mine/refine/manufacture/maintain all of the required equipment over its expected working life than the process produces in that time, then that is an energy sink. Maybe that's why Changing Worlds went bankrupt.

Ethanol, solar, wave, wind, are all negative WS-EROEI.

The best one is wave power, but you have to weigh distribution energy costs and, with line loss and grid maintenance, it still comes out behind the curve.

Oil is probably it. When it's too expensive or unavailable, a lot of people are gonna die badly. You can't farm with a nuclear power plant. You can't mine metals to build nuclear power plants using just nuclear energy.

Fusion's a long shot but who knows?
 
2010-03-13 07:15:56 PM  
Gdalescrboz: Giblet

It is economics, thats the one thing you do have right. There are haves and have nots in the world and i really like being on the have side of it. If you want, no one will stop you from moving to Somalia to share in their eutopia. If not, and you enjoy the computer you insist on spewing fairy tale nonsense over the web with, sit down and shut the fark up while the US secures its intrests.



Well said. Hitler and Stalin would be proud of you.

I'll add that if securing your interests was the government's priority, we probably wouldn't play this pussy game of cat/mouse in Afghanistan. We'd tell the Saudis to fix it or we'll nuke their oil fields, wipe out their desalinization plants, and salt their few aquifers with high-level fissile waste. Problem solved. Cost: one phone call.

That plan leaves many billions of borrowed dollars, some of which you could spend on more meth and pork rinds.
 
2010-03-13 07:20:01 PM  
Giblet 2010-03-13 07:15:56 PM
Gdalescrboz: Giblet

It is economics, thats the one thing you do have right. There are haves and have nots in the world and i really like being on the have side of it. If you want, no one will stop you from moving to Somalia to share in their eutopia. If not, and you enjoy the computer you insist on spewing fairy tale nonsense over the web with, sit down and shut the fark up while the US secures its intrests.


Well said. Hitler and Stalin would be proud of you.

I'll add that if securing your interests was the government's priority, we probably wouldn't play this pussy game of cat/mouse in Afghanistan. We'd tell the Saudis to fix it or we'll nuke their oil fields, wipe out their desalinization plants, and salt their few aquifers with high-level fissile waste. Problem solved. Cost: one phone call.

That plan leaves many billions of borrowed dollars, some of which you could spend on more meth and pork rinds.


Welcome to the real world, where your opinion doesnt mean shiat. might as well get use to it
 
2010-03-13 07:21:21 PM  
Giblet: tirob: I see the main issue as the security of our citizens here, rather than economics.

I disagree about Afghanistan's relevance in 9/11.

Saudi Arabia, sure. Egypt, yeah.

And the money comes from private Saudis. That is the only reason Al Qaeda let Osama into their club to begin with; his rich family, friends, and connections.

I don't see how we can solve a Saudi, Egyptian, Sudanese, Somalian, and Indonesian problem by keeping troops in Afghanistan. That aside, we're rapidly approaching the point where we just can't afford it any longer.

It's time to change tactics. The 9/11 commission and Ron Paul have clearly explained the only way out for the US. Whether they're right or not - we'll be forced to implement their strategy eventually, so why not save money and get a head start?

You make strong, clear arguments. Too bad they're so incredibly wrong... ;)


The risk of another terrorist attack emanating from Afghanistan that you call low is not one I believe we should take. I think we reduce that risk somewhat by occupying Afghanistan just now. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I also think that contrary to what you appear to believe, al-Qaeda would like to see us pull out of Afghanistan at the earliest possible moment.
 
2010-03-13 07:28:26 PM  
dwh1963: tirob: Giblet: Gdalescrboz: Giblet


And, those guys can't do shiat w/o funding...which comes from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, and Pakistan. Where's the love for those guys?



Ding! We've got a winner!

And

How about American petroleum?

Oh, yeah -- the Left won't let us use it.


I don't have the figures on this, but I am pretty sure that oil imported from Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia, etc., is cheaper by far--even counting costs of freight and insurance--than oil extracted from shale in North Dakota and like places would be. It's more a question of economics than environmentalists, I suspect.

We get comparatively little of our oil from the Gulf. The EU and Asia are the main customers for the oil from that area.
 
2010-03-13 08:46:47 PM  
ra-ra-raw:

Referring to people resisting an occupation is just proper English.


An "occupation" would imply that the taliban have some sort of legitimate claim on the area being occupied. The taliban have no such claim. In fact, they are as much, if not more of an occupation force as the US is.
 
2010-03-13 08:58:14 PM  
tirob: dwh1963: tirob: Giblet: Gdalescrboz: Giblet


And, those guys can't do shiat w/o funding...which comes from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, and Pakistan. Where's the love for those guys?



Ding! We've got a winner!

And

How about American petroleum?

Oh, yeah -- the Left won't let us use it.

I don't have the figures on this, but I am pretty sure that oil imported from Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia, etc., is cheaper by far--even counting costs of freight and insurance--than oil extracted from shale in North Dakota and like places would be. It's more a question of economics than environmentalists, I suspect.

We get comparatively little of our oil from the Gulf. The EU and Asia are the main customers for the oil from that area.


I'm willing to pay the price for energy independence. Are you?
 
2010-03-13 08:58:44 PM  
Kilby: Director_Mr: Oh, and rararaw or whatever your name is, I notice you still haven't discussed the whole Iraq war is illegal and against our constitution whargarble you were putting up. What's the deal man?

Director_Mr: And what treaty was violated in the Iraqi war again? I've lost that information somehow.

I believe Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter would like a word with you. Feel free to also check out Chapter VII (new window) of the same. Now, we can go around and around on whether "Screw it, we're the US (and allies) and do what we want" is a sufficient exception to the UN Charter, but it's pretty hard to argue against the UN Charter as valid law.


Its really easy to argue against the UN Charter as valid law. When was Chapter VII ratified by congress? Who elects the UN into its positions? What is the consequence for violating UN law and who enforces it? What standing under our constitution does the UN have?

While sternly worded letters from the UN may concern some, I still see no way of showing the US violated the law and illegally invaded Iraq. I suppose one could say they violated Iraqi law by invading it. But they violated no US law.

Oh, and by the way, the articles you mentioned in the charter of the UN permit it to take action as a whole against a nation who commits an act of aggression against another nation. There is no mention of legality or illegality there.
 
2010-03-13 09:00:40 PM  
Daroc: ra-ra-raw:

Referring to people resisting an occupation is just proper English.


An "occupation" would imply that the taliban have some sort of legitimate claim on the area being occupied. The taliban have no such claim. In fact, they are as much, if not more of an occupation force as the US is.


You hush. They're brave and noble freedom fighters, fighting against the evil Imperialist running dog Americans.

Did I get that right, ra-ra-raw? Isn't that straight from the Taliban press releases Raw Story runs so fawningly?
 
2010-03-13 09:20:14 PM  
Giltric: POTUS is the supreme position for shystering people...is it any wonder that lawyers are the occupation that attempt to become president more then any other?

If you don't like Abe Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, that's cool.
 
2010-03-13 09:51:16 PM  
Daroc: ra-ra-raw:

Referring to people resisting an occupation is just proper English.


An "occupation" would imply that the taliban have some sort of legitimate claim on the area being occupied. The taliban have no such claim. In fact, they are as much, if not more of an occupation force as the US is.


Sure, I understand that war often involves demonizing your enemy and finding a name with negative connotations, but getting angry that someone else refuses to use your mislabeling is silly.
There are many groups of people fighting the occupation. I realize most media lump them all together as 'the Taliban' but it is a dishonest labeling. According to the Geneva Conventions all people have a right to fight against a foreign military force coming and installing a government and supporting that government with military force. A military dictatorship is what NATO has created in Afghanistan and the term for people fighting against that is 'resistance'. Do you really not understand that?
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report