Interestingly now I googled it it turns out it was a navy ship originally that then became a coast guard vessel
In all honesty how much can we trust this information anyway? I remember reading that the US had something like 23,000 'advisors' in Vietnam, as well as all the other troops. Funnily enough I was reading this a while back which covers much of the same problems we had in Afghanistan... https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-combat-advisers-in-vietnam-knew-the-score-and-got-ignored-3 And this, today, in the grauniad which details the problem with our tone deafness to the problems we're creating for ourselves. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ces-after-911-boosted-support-for-the-taliban
Apparently, we droned an aidworker last week. But we don't need to worry: the potential terrorist threat represented by his children has been eliminated. In US Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No ISIS Bomb - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Experts who examined photos and videos pointed out that, although there was clear evidence of a missile strike and subsequent vehicle fire, there were no collapsed or blown-out walls, no destroyed vegetation, and only one dent in the entrance gate, indicating a single shock wave. “It seriously questions the credibility of the intelligence or technology utilized to determine this was a legitimate target,” said Chris Cobb-Smith, a British Army veteran and security consultant. While the U.S. military has so far acknowledged only three civilian casualties, Mr. Ahmadi’s relatives said that 10 members of their family, including seven children, were killed in the strike: Mr. Ahmadi and three of his children, Zamir, 20, Faisal, 16, and Farzad, 10; Mr. Ahmadi’s cousin Naser, 30; three of Romal’s children, Arwin, 7, Benyamin, 6, and Hayat, 2; and two 3-year-old girls, Malika and Somaya. Neighbors and an Afghan health official confirmed that bodies of children were removed from the site. They said the blast had shredded most of the victims; fragments of human remains were seen inside and around the compound the next day by a reporter, including blood and flesh splattered on interior walls and ceilings. Mr. Ahmadi’s relatives provided photographs of several badly burned bodies belonging to children. Family members questioned why Mr. Ahmadi would have a motivation to attack Americans when he had already applied for refugee resettlement in the United States. I don't have the stomach to quote General Milley on the "righteous" nature of this droning.
So far over the horizon that we can see in the future. What you don’t know is that the US doesn’t actually do drone strikes on innocent people. They are just people that a team of precogs have identified as being guilty of future crimes.
Head of CENTCOM acknowledges that they murdered a family of 10 after a military investigation. Sure would love to know more about that investigation like perhaps where the intelligence came from. It’s okay though, General McKenzie sincerely apologized and took full responsibility for the strike. How about a resignation? I have bitched about our drone policy on here for years and have been mocked. ******** you very much.
Regarding the Rand Paul thing, it is really a case of the boy who cried wolf. So disingenuous about so many things that one thing he claims is important but is nonsense is why we have no anti lynching bill but this anti MIC stance is a North star principle for him. How can you believe it? He doesn't have to be perfect but a history of authenticity on a fare few matters would make his stance more believable.
I'm about to engage in what's called "nuance," so many posters here might equate that with support for drones. That said, I'm also going to clearly state what I mean, so those same posters are likely to be outrageously confused by the clarity. IF the United States is going to engage in an armed conflict, and the choices in any particular scenario are drone strikes OR heavier ordnance options (bombers, artillery), I prefer the drones. So in one sense, yes, and on these grounds it would be hard to identify reasonable disagreement. But in the larger sense, drones permit the US to commit atrocities against civilians, so no, I don't.
Airpower with pilots not drones is pretty much the same thing, especially the way the us uses it (not close combat support, but strikes on targets away from the battlefield). I think the biggest thing out of the Chelsea Manning leaks was the helicopter that killed civilians without any repercussions. The issue is not whether the vehicle is manned directly or not. The issue is that they are killing people who are not immediate threats, often using faulty intelligence, instead of trying to arrest them. They see that there’s a risk in carrying out military operations, and very deliberately shift the risk from their own troops onto the civilian population. I am sure plenty of people here support the us strategy of killing people off the battlefield, whether it be drones, air strikes or night raids.
Dood... I live in Hamburg. I don't really need educating on the US policy of targeting civilians. We are still digging up the bombs today
Not pointed at you - just pointing out that being against “drones” but being totally fine with the way AirPower is used to try to assassinate people or unknown groups of people who look a bit suspicious to the pilot (rather than kill insurgents on an active battlefield) is a bit inconsistent.