I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

@ChaosEngine.

Yeah. I know. Your last sentence says it all -- he didn't achieve near as much as was hoped for. Hence your disappointment.

From my perspective, I never believed he could do all that was hoped. Because this isn't a dictatorship (thank god, maybe we can survive Trump.) It was clear to me from the beginning that is wasn't possible.

So I wasn't disappointed. I was glad for all that he did manage to get through.

And that is what makes him consequential.

I have my list of things I am pissed at him about for doing -- including the murdering of brown people, including bin Laden. (And I'm pissed at most of the people in this country for cheering state sponsored targeted assassination and ignoring the huge collateral damage of that day and the days that followed.)

History isn't going to judge him on what he promised and couldn't get done. History will judge him on what he actually did. Half-assed heathcare is half an ass more than was managed in over a hundred years. LGBT people aren't disappointed.

And being the first black president -- he'll be in the history books for being that particular breed of person -- the minority who is 10 times better than the ruling majority, who swallows the indignities of prejudice with grace and determination, who rises above the humiliations to become The First. Think Jackie Robinson -- that is what we remember about him, that is the story that has survived. (The recent PBS doc taught me a fuller picture of who he actually was after he survived those brutal first two years in the majors.) That is the story we crave.

He's consequential, all right. Not perfect. Consequential.

The very definition of collateral damage is unintentional destruction/injury. The warplane doesn't go out of it's way to cause it. The goal of the warplane is a valid one, but unfortunate things can still happen.

People are absolutely better or worse beings, based on their actions or inaction. Don't sell yourself short - you're a better person for quitting smoking.
However you didn't quite smoking so you could go up to smokers and pride over them. You did it for yourself or your loved ones.

It's the same for any other choice that means less harm or improvement to someone else life. People who do that are better people.

You're really comparing the chemical reactions of plants vs the thought driven actions of animals? And you wonder why people with that attitude are called barbarians? Please tell me you can tell the difference, and you're just being stubborn.

I've never seen a plant scream and writhe in pain to try to make it stop. I've never seen a plant look depressed, or cower away because of bad memories.
You couldn't be more wrong about the way animals react to pain: Even when animals hear another animal in agony, they will stop doing the thing which they think is causing it. There have been studies where even pigeons will stop pressing a button that gives them food, and even starve themselves when they know that button also causes pain to another animal.

I grew up on a farm too, and the animals were never abused, but they were killed. There is a big difference between how the farm animals behave and how animals in a sanctuary behave - they run around like pets.

Let's be realistic, most of the work our war planes do has collateral damage. We don't simply use them on 'the bad guys', but again that is a simplification to allow you moral latitude.

Non-smokers are no better than smokers, I know since I used to be a smoker. Just because I decided that I no longer wanted to smoke doesn't mean I feel the need to go up to someone smoking and start telling them how much better I am that I quit. Again, I'm not any better of a person than they are, I just chose to do something different. That is one of the things you can't seem to grasp, because you continue to say that morally you are more good than someone who does not practice a vegan lifestyle. You aren't.

As far as the functional capacity for feelings, of course animals feel pain, it is a stimuli that helps in their survival instinct. That instinct is what drives them to avoid pain because it means they might not survive. It doesn't mean that they have the logical thought capacity to relate pain to more than an instinctual response. I am pretty sure that no pig ever felt pain and said to itself, I feel pain therefore I exist as a being, they felt the pain and instinct told them to get away from it. Plants even have stimuli that they will respond to in order to grow or try to avoid damaging forces, but they aren't self-aware. Neither are animals until you get to a certain level of intelligence, like dolphins or great apes.

I grew up in the country, I have seen first hand and used my hands in regards to the butchery you speak of. Never once have I had a pig who had seen another be slaughtered do anything that would give me the belief that they were responding in any other fashion than a "shit, flight time since I might be next" natural instinct that is in all prey animals. Factory farms may not be totally humane, and that should be reformed, but all they are doing in the end is killing prey animals on a much larger scale than I did growing up.

I had the same thought.

And.

This is something else again. They'll do what they think is right, when it is their idea.

But a blowhard who insults the military and destroys the mission with his mouth? And gives the order to target the families of terrorists?

I think they will draw the line happily there.

Military folks can be pretty black and white -- and the bad guys "deserve it" and collateral damage, as distasteful as the concept is, is a historical reality of war.

Targeting the children of our enemies for assassination? The military won't go there wholesale. (The CIA? Probably already has....)

Seriously...anyone stupid enough to behave like this while -knowing- they are being recorded, is simply too stupid to be a decent employee. Even ignoring the potential PR backlash against the company, sooner or later, they're going to do something else stupid that -will- cause significant damage to the company.

Frankly, he's too stupid to live...but it's the universe's job to carry out that sentence. Our job is to try and ensure that he does as little collateral damage as possible.

As I said in that thread, I don't see an incentive for the US to intervene. This isn't the Cold War battle over spheres of influence, neither does oil have the same geopolitical relevance. Despite the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Libya, none has led to a spike in oil prices? Instead it's fallen precipitously. Why, because the US being the swing shale oil producer has capped world prices.

Meanwhile I listed the reasons for Russia to intervene, none of which you have challenged or refuted. TOWs have by all accounts been supplied by the Saudis. I don't think Russia is attempting to destabilize Syria, but they do wish to prop up Assad. Bombing has conveniently been primarily of non-ISIS rebels since they challenge the regime more directly than ISIS which is being bombed already.

Syria includes a litany of rebel groups some as radical as ISIS. From what I have read it is suspected that both the Syrian army and al-Nusra/ISIS used various chemical weapons. The Syrian army has undoubtedly dropped barrel bombs, weapons designed to create indiscriminate collateral damage to civilians just like chemical weapons, it is entirely consistent that they would have also tried using chemical weapons which is practical terms are no less likely to be deadly to civilians or likely to incite terror. There are by all accounts >5,000 different rebel groups in Syria. That you would ascribe them all as wanting chaos would suggest you've been fed a narrative.

A Cold War MAD mindset makes little sense today. Russian bombing of western Europe in some kind of hypothetical retaliation against the US makes no sense in this day and age. In any case it was scrapped because of Putin's paranoia.

Nice to see a lack of verbal abuse in a discussion like this. I appreciate it as I know I'm probably treading on thin ice in a lot of minds.

I disagree that texts are devoid of meaning until we give them some. The text itself if a collection of ideas and some of those ideas are horrendous. It generally is not an individual's qualities that determine the violence of the religion as much as the history of that religion's practice in the area they were raised. A peaceful and loving Aztec that was faithful would still have supported sacrificing slaves for all the same reasons, because they would have believed the underlying superstitions that made it a rational act given the premises.

I'm not sure Maher & co. view is as a strictly religious phenomenon. You really have to do a case by case analysis. Some make no sense but for religion, while other are very easy for my to sympathize with, even as an atheist. I have to admit I'm more familiar with Harris' views than Maher's, mind you, as I find Maher's presentation of his ideas can at times be half baked.

The reason why they specifically strap bombs to their chests is largely religious. Everyone else prefers living to kill another day. There's a religious reason why they are willing to sacrifice their children in this way. The reason that they behead people instead of other forms of killing them is because that form of murder is enshrined in their texts. All of these religious justifications lower the barrier for action. They make it that much easier for someone to accept that it's a reasonable course of action. And that's because of specific words in specific books.

I agree that is smells like apologist BS when Harris talks about western intervention having good intentions. I don't think the west has good intentions most of the time. However you have to acknowledge that there is something less reprehensible about trying to kill even a likely dangerous person (with the likelihood of innocent collateral damage) as compared with deliberately targeting exclusively innocent people. Yes the wedding party massacre was horrible. That was the worst case possible from our point of view, and some efforts will be made to avoid it happening again. If think that is morally significant. If you don't think intentions are relevant to morality, we will simply disagree.

Haven't seen this one in circulation yet:

Dear Chancellor Merkel,

The never-ending austerity that Europe is force-feeding the Greek people is simply not working. Now Greece has loudly said no more.

As most of the world knew it would, austerity has crushed the Greek economy, led to mass unemployment, a collapse of the banking system, made the external debt crisis far worse, with the debt problem escalating to an unpayable 175% of GDP. The economy now lies broken with tax receipts nose-diving, output and employment depressed, and businesses starved of capital.

The humanitarian impact has been colossal – 40% of children now live in poverty, infant mortality is sky-rocketing and youth unemployment is close to 50%. Corruption, tax evasion and bad accounting by previous Greek governments helped create the debt problem. But the series of so-called adjustment programs has served only to make a Great Depression the likes of which have been unseen in Europe since 1929-1933. The medicine prescribed by the German Finance Ministry and Brussels has bled the patient, not cured the disease.

Together we urge you to lead Europe to a course correction before it is too late for Greece and for the Eurozone. Right now, the Greek government is being asked to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. Sadly, the bullet will not only kill off Greece’s future in Europe. The collateral damage will kill the Eurozone as a beacon of hope, prosperity, and democracy, and could lead to far-reaching economic consequences across the world.

In the 1950s Europe was founded on the forgiveness of past debts, notably Germany’s, which generated a massive contribution to post-war economic growth, peace, and democracy. Today we need to restructure and reduce Greek debt, give the economy breathing room to recover, and allow Greece to pay off a reduced burden of debt over a long period of time. Now is the time for a humane rethink of the punitive and failed programme of austerity of recent years and to agree to a major reduction of Greece’s debts in conjunction with much needed reforms in Greece.

We urge you to take this vital action of leadership for Greece and Germany, and also for the world. History will remember you for your actions this week. We expect and count on you to provide the bold and generous steps towards Greece that will serve Europe for generations to come.

Yours sincerely,

Heiner Flassbeck, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Finance;

Thomas Piketty, Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics;

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development, Professor of Health Policy and Management, and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University;

Dani Rodrik, Albert O. Hirschman Professor of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton;

Simon Wren-Lewis, Professor of economics, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University

OMFG. How have republicans thoroughly forgotten bailing out the banks was under Bush?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
BUSH bailed out first the airlines, for nothing in return, then the banks, for nothing in return. Obama sadly continued that flawed policy, but did at least get partial ownership and concessions for our money, and got our money back. Bush simply gave it away with a smile and a nod.

I've been hearing that BS since 3 years into his first term. It's just that, BS. A quick google search, ignoring political sites and sticking with non-partisan factual numbers, and not blindly putting the entire cost of the Iraq war on Obama because Bush kept it's costs 'off the books', will show you quite clearly you're wrong. He's not been good on debt, but a large part of the deficit he did run in his early years are due to the tanked Bush economy, and WAY less taxes coming in without spending cuts. I'll remind you again, republicans turned down a budget that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes, a budget that would have erased the deficit....but you still blame Obama?

Heard that before too...that Democrats forced lowering banking standards for home loans and securities through the republican held congress and against the wishes of the republicans and Bush...absolute BS not worth refuting, they simply didn't have the majority to 'force' anything.

How many people died of exposure, drowning long after the storm, starvation, lack of water, unsanitary conditions at shelters in NJ? As for rebuilding, Jersey insisted they would do it without FEMA, and even though they had the money, they haven't rebuilt a lot of what's damaged, but still probably a larger percentage than New Orleans.

Clinton absolutely did not have intelligence that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil, Bush did. Clinton did not allow Bin Laden's relatives to leave the country after an attack, it's reported Bush did. Clinton had an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, with unknown amounts of collateral damage in a country we weren't allowed into (so an act of war), and decided to not start a war on flimsy 'intelligence'...a good plan now that we know how that goes.

I'm pretty sure you have sand up your ass, and a sever case of cranial rectosis.

Remember that Russian dissident who was killed with polonium? He died from internal alpha particle toxicity because his killers put it in his food. It's actually a good way to poison someone since alpha radiation is easily stopped by small amounts of tissue, thus collateral damage (such as to close personal contacts) is minimal. However internalization of an alpha source can result in severe local tissue damage.

Nothing in particular pointed to the arterial bleed as the source though. Since they just cut the dudes head open, it could have been collateral damage.

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

Foreign policy is about doing things favorable to your side. Since the west represents freedom, and we do things responsibly, we keep doing them.

You can't be an isolationist in this world.

You also can't equate their civilization with ours. Ours is better. I know that makes liberals nuts to say, but even Bill Maher is saying it now.

I don't support indiscriminate drone strikes. or anything else indiscriminate, but some collateral damage is going to happen. You can't prevent it. You have to be realistic about it.

Also, I can't believe that Chaos (appropo appellation there) has to play the race card. Most of our nukes used to be aimed at Russians, who are white, last time I checked.

Also, I don't believe the American people support drone strikes just because we get to kill 'brown' people. Ridiculous.

WHAT?!?
So, we can't beat them fighting in the middle east, but we should still go to war there to keep them from 'coming here'...exactly how does that work? By fighting an unwinnable 'war' and causing FAR more collateral damage than those we are attacking have we CREATE ISIS and it's cohorts, and give them a REASON to come to our shores. The 'came here' BECAUSE we invaded them and continue to occupy more and more and exert more and more outside control over them, not the other way around, buddy.
But don't get me wrong, now that we've created and armed them, we have a responsibility to 'deal' with them. I only wish we dealt with them by supporting the locals so much that they would rather support the US over others, rather than by bombing all of them and wondering why the survivors don't love us. That CAN'T stop terrorism, because it IS terrorism.
yeah, not too worried that ISIS might build a nuke any time soon, Iran hasn't.
When you shoot Dillinger in the head while he's handcuffed, and his dog, and burn his home with his family inside, and his neighbors homes, you will automatically create at least one Dillinger Jr., if not many. It's this dehumanizing, 'our fear outweighs your life' methodology that has created the problem where a large portion of the world hates us enough to be willing to die just to hurt or scare us, and I wish we would re-think it rather than keep doubling down and hoping for different results. It's doing the same for police lately.