This comes up a bit short on some issues.

For instance, the ongoing drought in the Euphrates-Tigris area pushed people in Syria into the cities, adding pressure to already overstretched infrastructure.

Also, what about the West's glorious idea to run illegal wars of aggression in Iraq and Libya, which destabilized the entire region? Nevermind Afghanistan or the bombing campaigns in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. What about the gulag that is Palestine? What about the economic consequences of our obsession with free trade, taking away from developing countries the ability to protect and nurture their own industries? What about our subsidies of farm exports, thereby undercutting local farmers and destroying these peoples' ability to feed themselves?

All of these countries have heaps of issues of their own, but let's not forget that "we" not only didn't help, but actively made things worse in many cases. As cities drain resources from the hinterland, so do our centers of capitalism drain resources from developing nations. They are our hinterland.

Yugoslavia seems to have been forgotten by most people, but the split and following neoliberal treatment left the entire area in a state of instability. Kosovo today is basically run by organised crime.

So, as horrible as Assad's actions are, very few countries are in a position to offer meaningful criticism, having pissed away what little moral authority we had to begin with.

And as far as legal responsibilities towards refugees go, I'd say after torture, wars of aggression, global espionage, a stateless people in Europe (Roma/Sinti), destruction of a society (Greece), an openly xenophobic regime (Hungary), etc, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that "rights" are meaningless unless actively enforced by someone with the required amount of power.

Look at Calais, look at Lesbos, look at Lampedusa, and tell me all about our European morals and values...

Written by the grandson of a man whose family fled from Silesia in '45 with nothing but two bags and walked all the way to Lower Saxony on foot.

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Its a matter of chicken vs egg. They don't need huge military expenditures because security is provided by the US. But if they and all their neighbors had to provide sufficient defense, mostly against the people who are most likely to invade them (i.e. their neighbors), you get an arms race like you have with India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia. The indirect savings and the refocusing of capital and human resources away from the military in all of these allies countries makes the world a much safer place, since war no longer becomes the go to solution for states to resolve differences.

US bases do fall into 2 categories. Allies who don't want to get invaded again, and enemies who lost and became allies. As for Kuwait, that didn't work out well for Iraq, and Kuwait is still independent and an ally. Ukraine has no US bases, Russia would go ballistic if there were (surprisingly appropriate use of the word). ISIS is the anomaly, but right now you can put that down to the fact that Obama really, really doesn't want to put US troops on the ground (think he would hesitate if ISIS invaded England or Australia for example?), and that Iraq's military is trying to handle this as much as possible on their own and clearly having trouble.

I don't know if we need all 800 bases currently or if some are just vestigial. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on the necessity of them, though

*promote

...again... This is a good documentary. I'll have to see if I can find a HD backup with the same English subtitles done (as the others typically just use Google's "hope it works" system; and of course it always fails spectacularly). Not only is China doing to themselves the same things we also did to ourselves at the beginning of the 20th century, they are doing it on a far bigger scale. They are also doing many idiotic things right now around the planet. Like: they want to build a nuclear reactor in Pakistan, near heavy terrorist issues, and also a region where earthquakes and floods hit a lot; second, they want to create a "secondary" Panama Canal, that goes through Nicaragua (part of the path goes through the America's largest fresh water lake, which is also very important), and of course there are others.

They've just got their hands dirty with the industrial revolution, but they are taking a lot of bad steps; some of which just seem like they're meant to one day cause us or other countries issues...

I didn't say any such thing.
A large percentage of farm land is going to be lost by displaced people and lack of water.
A large percentage of people, those who live less than 1 foot above sea level will be displaced.
Just wow, you think we can build dykes around Florida? New Orleans is not the only low lying city in the world, you know.
We would have to start from scratch. The tech is abandoned, there's not a concord to get on no matter how much you pay, nor is there a rocket that can make it to the moon, no matter how much funding you throw at NASA, just plain old gone. We would have to start from scratch again. We're trying to use 40+ year old Russian rockets just to go to the space station, we can't even get there on our own, how do you assume we can just go back to the moon?

Food production where it's needed is the issue. The men with guns are also an issue, but even without them there's simply not enough food where people are starving. I'm not talking about instances where dictators starved their people intentionally, I'm talking about the billions of people who are lacking food because of either economic or climate pressures, or often both. If people in Africa could grow their own food, the men with guns could not stop them from eating, but no water, no fertilizer, and no seed make that impossible. We do NOT have 'more than enough food', we may have near exactly enough food if it were perfectly distributed throughout the world (accounting for spoilage, probably not though). Perfect distribution is impossible, so there's not enough food. Period.
Another reason Africa has massive crop failures is lack of water. It's a much larger reason than displacement, not smaller.

CO2 emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented. If you implement enough new tech to reduce emissions, the new industry will be more productive, create more jobs, and be better for the economy than 'staying the course' and giving it all to Texaco.
My point. No matter what we do, we are likely going to see the same climate changes through the next 100 years, it takes at least that long for the gasses to be absorbed.

Dude, did you read the link you posted? It said one glacier is stable, the rest are melting FAST. One glacier will not keep India, Tibet, Bhutan, Pakistan, etc wet, nor will it supply any other area that survives on glacier water. They showed that only one odd, incredibly high glacier was stable(they mentioned it's on K2, the highest mountain in the world, so don't even try to say there are lots more stable glaciers around the world, from what they said it's only this ONE mountain range, in the tippy top of the Himalayas, that's high enough and in the right weather pattern to be stable.)

It's not fringe when a good chunk of muslims around the world (not just the middle east) have extremist points of view:


Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband." (including 93% in Indonesia and 65% in Turkey).

Only 32% of Muslims in Indonesia say a woman should have the right to divorce her husband (22% in Egypt, 26% in Pakistan and 60% in Russia)

1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim. 22% oppose democracy

21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.

61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished

Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings

WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft.

Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land

Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers

MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)

Pew Research (2013): 39% of Muslims in Malaysia say suicide bombings "justified" in defense of Islam (only 58% say 'never').

Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.


CLEARLY, what we need is more Islam in the world. Such a force for good...

I think you missed the whole point of the video. When you say "Muslims" are you referring to people who live in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Canada? Because you're going to find wildly different rates of violence (towards women or otherwise) based on where those people are practicing their religion. In fact I'd wager you'd find more Christians and atheists beating their wives in a country like Canada than you would Muslims--probably for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (alcohol or substance abuse, history of being abused themselves, etc.).

Why do "Muslim countries" seem more violent or more violent towards women? Maybe because of the fact that the ones that are most talked about in the news have majority populations that live literally like it was 500 years ago? Or maybe because the ones that pop up in the news frequently (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) are controlled by autocratic regimes that rule with an iron fist and are far more concerned with keeping power than promoting democracy and human rights? Or maybe because of local tribal practices that pre-date Islam and have continued until today (i.e. female genital mutilation)?

If you're going to compare countries, then compare apples to apples. Compare Saudi Arabia to 1500s England in terms of the rights of women and religious freedom, because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy much as 1500s England was a Christian monarchy. Compare human rights in a developing country like Indonesia to early 1900s U.S., where other religions were ostensibly tolerated but Christian norms were de facto.

But comparing human rights in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to the modern U.S. and then generalizing the results to all "Muslim" countries is, as Reza mentioned, just stupid.

I think he has a point, I really do, however he's too dismissive of the whole problem. He claims there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world, and only a few countries are actually extremists. He mentions 3 in the video. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran. We know there are a few others (like Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc), but let's talk of these 3 only.

I actually added them up. The population in those 3 countries alone, is 300 million people. That's 20% of the 1,5 billion Reza Aslan mentioned.

At LEAST 20% of the muslims in the world are extremists (and this is a low number). This is not a fringe ideology for muslims. It is a big portion of them.

Pakistan, yes. I think we have at least a small force there. Not at all sure about the others, but likely we've got some there.
Those are not the only places we've droned, not even the places we've droned the most. Try Afghanistan and Iraq. You just hear about it more when we do it in places we aren't technically 'at war' with.

It makes little difference what the delivery system of the explosive is, that's why I always wondered what the big deal is about suicide bombers. They're just another delivery system, a low tech, radar cloaked delivery system. It's the bombing/indiscriminate killing that matters. Right? Not the delivery system.

Drones have their proper uses, and improper uses. Bombing someone you can see is setting up a booby trap to kill you or allies is appropriate. Bombing people based on their height is an improper use. This has little to do with the drone, and more to do with the leadership and their 'rules' for who's a target. For me, it's not about 'drone vs manned aircraft' though, it's 'giant bomb vs precision assassination'.

Do you think Obama is watching a little screen deciding 'bomb that guy, and that building'? He is not involved at that level, and you know it. I don't trust a disinterested tech thousands of miles removed from their actions to do the right thing, they've proven they can't be trusted, and they're the one's that matter in this instance. That said, if there were much better rules for engagement and they were draconically enforced, I would have little problem with keeping expensive planes and pilots out of danger.

We have boots on the ground in Waziristan, pakistan and Yemen?

What diff does it make to you if it's a missile off an unmanned aircraft or a missile off a manned aircraft?

Drones are looking where there are no other assets. They see a guy planting an IED, they can take care of it right then. But I would imagine the process involves intelligence-gathering, a target, then a trip to the WH to get approval.

I don't believe Obama is just sticking a pin in a map, unless it involves golf courses he hasn't yet played.

Now, if you want to say you don't trust Obama to do the right thing...that we can agree on.

Very funny. Its always "scientists" who bring that up and who first brought that up. Do you even read those reports? Scientists and their studies (more like very flawed simulations) are always quoted. First they said (Mojib Latif and others) that there wont be any hard winters anymore due to AGW. After it became evident that those utterings were utter bullshit, they said that hard winters will be very often due to AGW (PIK and others) and after we got a normal winter again, they said that this is typical for AGW too (PIK and others again).
If it wasnt for them, this hype wouldnt be nearly where it is.

They just say what is convenient and what fits into their agenda. Its all about money and personal security. Nothing more nothing less, they just think its something different due to their indoctrination. AGW has become a huge self-sustaining (thanks to those corrupt "scientists") economic booster where insurances, scientists, politicians and many many companies (even oil companies - yes, check the global warming lobby) and their lobbies are benefiting from. Its simply not possible to talk about it objectively anymore. And if you try, people like you will come up and defend it like a religion, and prove this fact very quickly. Just look at "bio" fuels. Its a HUGE part of economy already, but it simply isnt eco-friendly at all. Instead people are starving because mono cultures are used instead of different plants for food, so much water is used for producing bio fuels that people have to suffer. The rain forest and others are cleared to be able to put more mono cultures up. Companies like Monsanto are becoming more and more powerful because of it and studies that bio fuels are bad for lots of engines are being censored or simply not funded since even car manufacturers profit from it when engines blow up sooner.

More extreme weather? Bullshit aswell. Thats simply not true, as quite a few (ignored by the "consensus") studies have shown. Its just the reports about even the tiniest things that have bloated up in the globalized and interconnected world of today and untold truths that are fooling you and of course the agendas that need to be kept upright with even the tiniest happenings that fit into it. Next time when you see a report, ask yourself if something like that would have been mentioned globally 20 or 30 years ago.

Take the flood in Pakistan for example. Oh, it was soooo bad and soooo AGW caused, oh the horror, we will all see the same thing and worse in our own countries if we continue to sin in the face of our go-- err scientists!
No, it wasnt. It was as normal as all the very common floods there before. It just wasnt mentioned that since the 70s Pakistans population has tripled and the vast majority of those people have settled down on the fertile lands around the (straightened!!!) rivers.

If that wasnt enough, people like you even completely ignore the fact, even if all their claims were true, that warm periods were ALWAYS much much better for this planet and its inhabitants than cold ones and colder ones than we have right now (we live in an ice age after all) were always bad, if not catastrophic.

And because of that fact I wont be that stupid and waste my time here with more replies, since you guys have made it very obvious already where you are coming from.

Just one little thing to think about for you guys (yeah I still have hope, though its prolly not very realistic), since the rest of my posts will get marginalized by your ignorance anyway:
Just because most scientists are pro-AGW doesnt prove crap. It was always only very few if not only a single scientist who tried to prove many other scientists wrong in their assumptions and most scientists were wrong and very arrogant, especially if they formed something like a society. But like before, there are thankfully still a few of them left who treat science as science and not as their religion or extension of their ego.

I both agree and disagree.
Cops should try do de-escalate when possible, but also should not allow felonies to continue unabated and/or felons to just walk away from the violent crimes they just committed in front of officers, as they did.

Like you said, if Wesley Snipes had called out the crips and bloods (not to be racist, it's an extreme example) to protect his right to not pay taxes, the cops would almost certainly NOT have 'backed off'...I would like equal treatment across the board. They didn't back down in Waco, or Boston, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq....why start now to 'save lives', especially the lives of admitted traitors to the USA? (if you proclaim your readiness and willingness to fight an armed battle against the federal government that you publicly denounce, and ask others to join your armed insurgency, you ARE a traitor to the USA, period, in my opinion...look up "the whiskey rebellion" for historical context.)
EDIT: I think they should have called the national guard to restore order, since the local officers were so outmatched. A couple of heavy armored vehicles and a few hundred machine guns and/or a few attack helicopters buzzing about would have made them think twice about advancing, unlike the smattering of officers with pistols that backed away and allowed the theft (and killing) of confiscated cattle.

Some human lives need to end. :-) In this situation it's not about putting one person away, it's about upholding the rule of law, which is being publicly broken not only by one jackhole, but by all the armed 'terrorists' that have proclaimed 'war' on the federal government with him, and therefore on the USA.

It does 'blow a hole' in that 'tyrannical state' argument, but that argument was so full of holes to begin with it didn't need another to prove it wrong. He doesn't even believe in the federal 'state', so how can it be tyrannical? :-)

I'm also certain this isn't over, the first time he or his wife go to town without their private army they'll likely be going to the pokey. I also assume their accounts have been frozen (I hope so anyway) and the title to their family land has a federal lien on it. I also hope all federal welfare support for his family has dried up, along with his mail service and any other federal program(s) they take advantage of. He has no right to federal services, he's a tax cheat and felon.

@bcglorf of course I wasn't seriously suggesting that. Did you miss the smiley to denote "the above is tongue in cheek"?

What I was doing was highlighting the ridiculousness of your argument that you can simply declare "tribal" pakistan a separate state.

Besides whether I think arizona and pakistan are comparable is irrelevant, I have no drones. But the USA have established this precedent, they will have no moral defence against it when someone who doesn't like them eventually gets their hands on drone tech. They can "declare war in all but name:" on the USA and strike civilian targets to get at people they feel mean them harm.

@ChaosEngine, At least take the topic seriously. You can't really think Arizona and North Waziristan have meaningful similarities, can you? If you truly know that little about tribal Pakistan then you should go read up for a long time before rejoining the conversation.

Arizona citizens pay taxes to America, cast votes for American elections and have American funded schools, roads and police. Importantly, the police in Arizona enforce the laws of the American government. Same goes for Texas. The same DOES NOT go for North Waziristan. Pakistani police don't even try to enter most of North Waziristan because the TTP would kill them.

Militants from Arizona and Texas aren't sending weekly attacks against schools and civilians throughout the rest of America, killing hundreds of people every month. Meanwhile, that is exactly what militants from North Waziristan are doing throughout Pakistan today and for a very long time now.

In the even that militants in Arizona and Texas DID commit even one such act, the American police would go in and make arrests. In North Waziristan, the police can not as stated before. More significantly though, not even the Pakistani military is willing to go in and get the militants for the casualties they would take.

You can't just willy nilly decare those situations comparable if you expect your argument to be taken seriously. Given that ground situation, it doesn't take a brilliant leap in deduction to see the very high percentage of top TTP officials hit by drones and reach the conclusion that the Pakistani military isn't entirely unhappy about the strikes.

I again repeat that dropping bombs on another nation is an act of war. You have a good point about that not being something America should be able to do lightly. You are wrong though about why Pakistan isn't declaring war back on America. It isn't fear of America, it is convenience of America JOINING their side in a civil war they are unwilling to call by name.

Sorry, I missed the part where you "declared tribal Pakistan as being ... a separate state from Pakistan". I didn't realise we could do that.

In that case, I declare tribal USA (aka Arizona or Texas, take your pick) in every meaningful way, a separate and independent state from the USA. They're insane right wing christian nations who pretty much share the goals of fundamentalist Islam. They just have better weapons.

When do the rest of us get to drone strike the Arizona State Legislature or the Texas Board of Education?

As for Pakistan or Yemen, what do you think would happen if they declared war on the US? It would be an open invitation to be curb stomped and have haliburton run their country. The fact is, the US are drone striking their citizens and there isn't a god damn thing they can do about it.

I have no doubt that some of the people killed were evil scumbags who the world won't miss. But the video on this very page shows how often civilians were killed.

Besides aren't there laws around declaring war in the US? I'm pretty sure this is not something that should be done away with lightly.