One of the many possible reasons: https://www.newsweek.com/yemen-war-amer … ae-1353447
"One of the many possible reasons . . . "
Casualties from airstrikes by foreign countries (using bombs made in the US) would not be counted in a report on casualties caused by US drone strikes. They are different things.
I caught that too. Looked more like just another attempt to demonize the US, and long with that the President we put into office.
I suppose we could count the bullets we sell, the guns, the internal combustion engines, maybe even ladders: everything that can cause any harm if used improperly.
The reason being: The government doesn't really care about civilian deaths. They continue to support and sell weapons. I suggest you read the entire article if you haven't.
And yet the government spends large sums of money and not a few number of lives to limit civilian deaths.
Do you hold the ladder manufacturer responsible when some idiot uses it as a scaffold and dies? The car manufacturer, or maybe the dealer that sold it, when some idiot goes down the highway at 100 mph and wipes out a family in the other lane?
The ladder manufacturer does not represent people though. The manufacturer is a private entity and so is the person using it. The government in a democracy is by the people and for the people.
The question at the start of this thread is why stop the reporting. Do what you have to do, but as a democracy, it needs to be public knowledge to the people of the country. This is not a matter of national security of any sort so there's no reason to keep it hidden. It's not a question of stopping sales of weapons to states that misuse them.
"They continue to support and sell weapons."
"It's not a question of stopping sales of weapons to states that misuse them."
These two statements seem to be completely contradictory to me, as does your introduction of selling weapons seem irrelevant to the question of giving the world access to our military strategies, abilities and failures. Notwithstanding you claim that national security plays no part in reporting what was done where and when, that security most definitely DOES play a part - if nothing else it gives a huge emotional PR advantage to the enemy.
I agree that it would be nice to have intimate details of military strategy described and explained, along with results, but that is also a sure fire method of making that strategy less effective (killing more civilians and losing more American lives). You may not care (it is not your country losing money and lives), but I most certainly do.
I thought you were conflating drone strike casualties with casualties caused by US made munitions.
In relation to the actual reason you were highlighting, yes evidence suggests successive administrations have prioritized arms sales over concerns about what the recipients of those arms are doing with them.
I don't think the current administration has stopped reporting simply due to lack of concern though, I suspect it's more. Considering the pattern of behavior we've seen, I think it's likely to be an active attempt to avoid accountability and scrutiny.
You begin with a false premise, as if only Republican leaders have 'hopped into territories'.
I'm pretty sure that ISIS and the like are not happy with the success of drones rather than the loss of American lives. I'm also pretty sure that they will do whatever they can, including PR campaigns and efforts both politically and grass roots, to stop such attacks. If they can raise concerns, true or not, that they are used indiscriminately in civilian areas without regard to civilian lives lost, it will be to their benefit.
Terrorism makes good use of anywhere and everywhere they go, most certainly including civilian populations, as a war zone. It is how they operate; to not only include civilians in their efforts to spread fear and terror, but to do so intentionally. That those areas then become "war zones" should not be a surprise.
I'm not sure at all how the Saudis bombing anyone is a reason to not give casualty reports from our own drones. Can you explain the reasoning there?
Let me quote Ned Price: This requirement was about more than transparency. It allowed, for the first time, the US to counter disinformation from terrorist groups with facts about the effectiveness and precision of our operations. It was an important tool that we're again without.
You can also read the report on BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
Also another quote: "Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention."
"That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.
The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage."
There's a lot to say there, so let's not bring in the topic of terrorism. It's about civilian deaths, so let's stick to transparency on that.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … syria-iraq
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featu … 01484.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content … sion11.pdf
So, as you know, I am not an expert in politics and I posted to try and understand why the Trump administration would do this. From the people I've met from Iraq, I understand that the only weapon of mass destruction that Saddam had was the fact that he was planning a switch to trade crude oil in the Euro and not the USD and this threat is indirectly the cause of all the atrocities in the middle east. There are many news sources out there
If I remember correctly, after 911 the prime minister of Great Britain rushed across the pond and subsequently helped formulate the plan to strike the middle east. I watched news footage of him making the case for war.
I hate war and I hate conflict. The only reasonable argument I have seen in defense of any of this (and I disagree with the long term effectiveness, because of ongoing terror attacks in Europe, due to their historical presence in the region) is that taking the war directly to the lands of those who would wage it against us protects innocents here who harbor no animosity.
That to the side, I think the casualties of war should not be hidden, nor the means by which we wage it.
But if 9/11 is the main reason, why does SA not face any consequences? Is it because they were not trained in SA or is there some other reason. Also, Iraq had nothing to do with it, the terrorists were trained by Al Qaida in Afghanistan. The origin of Al Qaida and their initial sponsors is a whole different story too.
What did Iraq, Iran, Syria and Liba really do that needed intervention of freedom? I'd like some solid answers on that with some factual evidence. But that's not the point of this thread, so let history be history. Why the present scenario. Why hide information from the public, when it is their tax money that is being used. Why hide it from the rest of the world when the US portrays itself as the freedom fighters of the world? Everyone understands there will be some civilian casualties in a war scenario, so unless there's something huge to hide, there is no need to stop reporting.
Since I am a firm believer that the only justified reason for armed conflict is to protect innocents I can see involvement. Syria is proven to have gassed its citizens. Iraq was known to have gassed curds. I've seen footage of citizens in those countries thanking us for involvement, citizens who hope for a more secular and democratic process in their respective countries.
I'm not saying I support war to push political ideologies but I do have sympathy for those who suffer at the hands of theocracies and despots.
As to Saudi Arabia, their crimes are overflowing. Whatever strategic advantage to a relationship that could be argued, it isn't enough for me.
Yes, this is what should be used when talking to the public. Iraq gassed Kurds, then use that as the motive, and not weapons of mass destruction. But was that the reason, doubtful. Also, the hypocrisy when dealing with SA would be funny if it weren't sad.
Quote from here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/ … 24733.html
When Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranians during the war from 1980 to 1988, not only did the US look the other way, but also "aided and abetted" Iraq in committing "war crimes", Reza Nasri, an Iran-born international law expert at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (GIIDS) in Geneva, told Al Jazeera.
"The claim that the recent US attack on Syria was motivated by humanitarian considerations is not consistent with Iran's own experience as a victim of chemical attacks," he said.
He said, she said.
I don't support the ongoing conflict on many levels, but videos of those seeking to rule beheading people tells me those opposed are sometimes comparing an over ripe banana to clearly rotten fruit.
Of course. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here. Nothing more. Just stating that the US is not the God of freedom it portrays itself to be. It only works in its own self-interest. Unfortunately, more often than not it leads to wars and innocent people dying.
Let's not forget, the esteemed US army beheaded people in the Vietnam war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation
Yes and Britain tortured and killed the Irish and many during its years in Africa.
No same person would say any government is blameless. American ideals, like the ideals of any citizenship,. can be used as cause for conflict while the true reasons the government engages remain obscured.
I will add I watched an interview with a government official where they asked him why we didn't step in during the Rwandan genocide. His answer sickened me. He said 'Americans wouldn't support it because there was no evidence of gain from such an action' So wrong. Protecting life is of more value to me than anything.
Yes, this is the point I am trying to bring out here:
Americans wouldn't support it because there was no evidence of gain from such an action
As an average American, you are sickened and as someone not from the country, I am angered. The only reason you guys are in the Middle East is for self-gain and that is causing huge problems where comparatively small problems existed.
I'm not trying to say any government is a saint, all I'm saying is that the people need to know that their government isn't one. And this new move is going to be nothing but an aid to the government being a bigger devil than it already is.
Perhaps if the rest of the world quit demanding that the US be the world's police force they wouldn't have to complain how terrible my country is. They could put that emotion into their own nation instead.
Or not - it does seem odd that although Britain participated, and is participating, in the middle east wars it is still the US that Brits blame for everything that happens there.
They and all the allies are equally as guilty. Also, the world does not want America to be the police. Did the Middle East ask you guys to enter? NO!
The EU wants you to be an ally and NATO, be that if you want to. No one is forcing you to do it. You only do it because of a self-interest, not because y'all are being charitable. War on their soil rather than ours is your principle.
The rest of the world does not want you to sit on the high horse because you nor anyone else deserves it.
Point me to something where the "rest of the world" has asked the US to do the policing. I'd be happy to see that. No, don't show me some reports of where alliances are formed. Alliances are always beneficial to both parties. Show me something where governments want policing to take place.
Any policing that the countries have all agreed to is the UN.
"The EU wants you to be an ally and NATO, be that if you want to."
The EU wants the US to fund the majority of it's defense needs, not particularly as an ally.
How much has the EU spent, in money and lives, to stop terrorism? Compare that to what the US spends. Then say they don't want the US to police the world while they sit back and watch.
How much has the US spent to build up those terrorist forces? It was the US that provided them the ammo and also the training in the early stages to have them fight as rebels for their cause.
And defense is a whole different ball game than attack. Iraq and Syria never had training bases for terrorists coming into the US at the time they were attacked. So you cannot call that defense.
If it were not in your best interests you would also get out of the alliance, that's not part of this forum topic.
I think what you fail to realize is that Europe raped the world and through their incompetence started not one but two world wars. America stepped in to help in each. We didn't start them and had nothing to gain except keeping the European lunatics from attempting world domination,
Our entrance onto the world stage after that second war was, again, an act of self preservation, in the hopes that with a presence we could avert future European imperialism and stand against the Soviet Union which came into being because of the ignorance of Europeans thinking kings and queens had a right to beggar a nation.
Europe created the landscape of the Middle East which horribly put minority Muslim sects into a position of power over majority sects. And Europe is responsible for Israel being a nation state today. Don't even get me started on what they did to Africa.
You cannot ignore the past to complain about the present if you want to have a better future.
To be fair then, the US is majorly European if you want to go back in history like that. You cannot use the past to continue doing shit today if you want a better future.
Your statement is indicative of European opinion. You still have imperialistic ideals. We aren't European. We aren't minority European or majority European. We walked away from that nonsense 250 years ago.
We weren't European during any of the events I spoke of, which shaped the world stage we are now living in.
As I said, no nation is perfect but we've seen what Europe considers to be their right, we (the world, at large) live with the consequences of what Europe thought was their right.
I'm not inclined to trust European 'vision' since you guys mucked things up pretty bad the last time around.
LOL. What does a European look like? From video and visits there, you guys come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities.
If you've followed some of the threads that you've replied on you'd know that I'm Indian. Have said it out many times.
I don't follow you, sorry. I thought you had identified yourself as living in Europe.
Well then. Just to educate you. Americans are not European. Different continents, entirely.
Not really, there are two continents called the Americas and the problem is mainly with the nation called the United States of America and some European countries. Yes, I am living in Europe while I work in wind research. I do not have a European passport or nationality.
We aren't called the Americas. Yes there are two continents, North and South, and we are but one country in North America. But, don't split hairs. You called us European. We are not.
Me mistaking a guy living in Europe as European is not as foolish as calling an American European.
Show me where I called you European? You went back in time, so did I. Also, Canada and Mexico are North America, get your geography right. Did you forget about your wall? Mexico is not Central America, it's Latin America, but that's not a continent.
I said we are but one country in North America. We'll chalk that up to your misunderstanding. That meant we are one country, not the whole. You might check to verify you understand what was said prior to criticizing, falsely.
Also, if you can't remember what you post you should review your comments prior to asking someone else to. You said we were mainly European. Not one inch of our soil is within the continent of Europe.
Ah I see, sorry about that.
But, you very well know what I mean. Other than the native Americans, you guys were pretty much European descent for the most part and you took that greed with you and massacred the native population. Not very different after all.
If you notice people only dwell on the past when they cannot seem to accept mistakes happening today. This is okay because that happened. I totally understand why you want to do that and I'll let you talk about European history. Indian politics is all about the blame game too. So I understand the psychology behind that pretty well.
Oh. I get it. It's a racist argument. I'm white, they were white, so we must all be alike. Can't tell one of us from another.
Ooh running into a burrow. I went back in history just like you. Russians are white Europeans too btw. And you seem to be the one generalizing Europeans. Continentalist, you.
But it's okay don't face the truth its difficult and isn't for everybody that's the reason trump wants to hide it from delicate souls which was the point of this thread.
Exactly. And, had not Europe meddled so heavily in the Middle East years ago we wouldn't have the current problematic situation.
Europeans are incredibly adept at ignoring history in order to lay blame somewhere other than their own shores.
Europe did not go to Afghanistan and help build up Al Qaida and eventually ISIS. They didn't breed this nonsense. So don't blame them alone, they are not saints, but they are not at fault for this.
by pisean282311 12 years ago
The United States has spent more than $ 1 trillion on wars since the September 11, 2001, says a recently released Congressional report.Adjusting for inflation, the outlays for conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world make the "war on terrorism" second only to World...
by Ralph Schwartz 15 months ago
Politico, a far-left Democrat website reports that President Joe Biden refused to be swayed by his top generals to keep 3,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, instead ordering their swift removal, a stubbornness that "paved the way for havoc" in the country,About 4 weeks ago, General Mark...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
Our troops presence in Afghanistan by 4000. Do you agree or disagree?
by cindybarrymore 11 years ago
Who poses the bigger threat in the war on terrorism: Iraq or Afghanistan?When stating which region, please say why. If possible, PLEASE also defend your argument using citable facts and sources.
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq. Recently, comments about our military efforts in Afghanistan are becoming more...
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|