Trump: No more annual reports on # of people killed in drone strikes

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (43 posts)
  1. lobobrandon profile image91
    lobobrandonposted 2 months ago

    Since the Republicans seem to hop into territories they have no clue about, let me join the party and point out something, but this time I point out some facts and not my opinion on them. What's your take on this ? Some interesting discussions here .

  2. lobobrandon profile image91
    lobobrandonposted 2 months ago
    1. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "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.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. lobobrandon profile image91
        lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. lobobrandon profile image91
            lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              "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.

        2. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          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.

  3. Live to Learn profile image83
    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago

    You begin with a false premise, as if only Republican leaders have 'hopped into territories'.

    1. lobobrandon profile image91
      lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      By hopping into territories I am not talking about the US going into countries. I am referring to the other threads on this forum.

  4. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 2 months ago

    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?

    1. lobobrandon profile image91
      lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      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.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230941
      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

  5. Live to Learn profile image83
    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago

    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.

    1. lobobrandon profile image91
      lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I agree.

      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.

      1. Live to Learn profile image83
        Live to Learnposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. lobobrandon profile image91
          lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Live to Learn profile image83
            Live to Learnposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. lobobrandon profile image91
              lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              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

              1. Live to Learn profile image83
                Live to Learnposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. lobobrandon profile image91
                  lobobrandonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)