U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby monster_gardener » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:25 pm

Thank You VERY MUCH for maintaining the Forum, Admins Typhoon & YMix

Per our Esteemed Founder Typhoon's request, this is a thread for posts about:

U.S. Foreign Policy

Please try to post US Foreign related issues here if at all possible especially if they are of a general nature.

Thanks in Advance.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
 
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy - General

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:32 pm

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Thank You for Your Post Azari

Postby monster_gardener » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:48 pm

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


FT Oil Price analysis

.


Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Azari.

Thank You VERY MUCH for heeding our Esteemed Founder Typhoon's request that we post in more organized threads to reduce the moderating workload.

GOOD Show!
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
 
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re: Thank You for Your Post Azari

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:05 pm

monster_gardener wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


FT Oil Price analysis

.


Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Azari.

Thank You VERY MUCH for heeding our Esteemed Founder Typhoon's request that we post in more organized threads to reduce the moderating workload.

GOOD Show !

.



I agree with Typhoon , too many threads , not good, one loses oversight

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy - General

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:19 pm

.


offer “embrace” with benefits


Mosche loooove BENEFITS :lol:


old story


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy - General

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:40 pm

.


The Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns story


.

Burns was tapped to lead the US diplomatic effort to establish a bilateral channel with Iran, which gained momentum after the exchange of letters between US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Rouhani in early August, US officials said.

Led by Burns, the US’s second highest ranking diplomat and a former lead US Iran nuclear negotiator, the US effort to form direct contacts with Iran also includes two officials from the Obama White House: Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, and Puneet Talwar, the National Security Staff senior director for Iran, Iraq, and Persian Gulf affairs, US officials confirmed.

..

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not know of Ambassador Burns’ bilateral channel with Iran until September 30 when he learned of it directly from President Barack Obama. After the story became public, the Israeli conservative newspaper The Times of Israel, reported how the news had reached Netanyahu:

In the confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on September 30, just after the Jewish high holidays, Obama revealed to Netanyahu that his administration had been engaged in secret, high-level diplomatic talks with the mortal enemy of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu’s immediate public reaction betrayed no surprise, but a day later he launched a full-frontal attack on Iran, delivering a blistering speech at the UN General Assembly in which he said the Islamic Republic was bent on Israel’s destruction and accused Rouhani of being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Netanyahu’s allies in the U.S. Israel Lobby, including members of Congress, led by New York Senator Charles Schumer and his Republican colleague from Illinois, Senator Mark Kirk, in concert with pro-Israel media, and conservative Jewish organizations, have all joined Israel’s side in an effort to scuttle the agreement with Iran.

.



:lol:


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:05 am

.


NSA 'collected details of online sexual activity' of Islamist radicals



NSA has been collecting a mountain of dirt on the online sexual activity of individuals, all of them Muslims, whom the agency seeks to discredit


Better use Chrome's anonymus browsing :lol: :lol:


.

WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency has been gathering records of online sexual activity and evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through incendiary speeches, according to a top-secret NSA document. The document, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, identifies six targets, all Muslims, as “exemplars” of how “personal vulnerabilities” can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target's credibility, reputation and authority.

The NSA document, dated Oct. 3, 2012, repeatedly refers to the power of charges of hypocrisy to undermine such a messenger. “A previous SIGINT" -- or signals intelligence, the interception of communications -- "assessment report on radicalization indicated that radicalizers appear to be particularly vulnerable in the area of authority when their private and public behaviors are not consistent,” the document argues.

Among the vulnerabilities listed by the NSA that can be effectively exploited are “viewing sexually explicit material online” and “using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.”

nsa

The Director of the National Security Agency -- described as "DIRNSA" -- is listed as the "originator" of the document. Beyond the NSA itself, the listed recipients include officials with the Departments of Justice and Commerce and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

"Without discussing specific individuals, it should not be surprising that the US Government uses all of the lawful tools at our disposal to impede the efforts of valid terrorist targets who seek to harm the nation and radicalize others to violence," Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for National Intelligence, told The Huffington Post in an email Tuesday.

Yet Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said these revelations give rise to serious concerns about abuse. "It's important to remember that the NSA’s surveillance activities are anything but narrowly focused -- the agency is collecting massive amounts of sensitive information about virtually everyone," he said.

"Wherever you are, the NSA's databases store information about your political views, your medical history, your intimate relationships and your activities online," he added. "The NSA says this personal information won't be abused, but these documents show that the NSA probably defines 'abuse' very narrowly."

None of the six individuals targeted by the NSA is accused in the document of being involved in terror plots. The agency believes they all currently reside outside the United States. It identifies one of them, however, as a "U.S. person," which means he is either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. A U.S. person is entitled to greater legal protections against NSA surveillance than foreigners are.

Stewart Baker, a one-time general counsel for the NSA and a top Homeland Security official in the Bush administration, said that the idea of using potentially embarrassing information to undermine targets is a sound one. "If people are engaged in trying to recruit folks to kill Americans and we can discredit them, we ought to," said Baker. "On the whole, it's fairer and maybe more humane" than bombing a target, he said, describing the tactic as "dropping the truth on them."

Any system can be abused, Baker allowed, but he said fears of the policy drifting to domestic political opponents don't justify rejecting it. "On that ground you could question almost any tactic we use in a war, and at some point you have to say we're counting on our officials to know the difference," he said.

In addition to analyzing the content of their internet activities, the NSA also examined the targets' contact lists. The NSA accuses two of the targets of promoting al Qaeda propaganda, but states that surveillance of the three English-speakers’ communications revealed that they have "minimal terrorist contacts."

In particular, “only seven (1 percent) of the contacts in the study of the three English-speaking radicalizers were characterized in SIGINT as affiliated with an extremist group or a Pakistani militant group. An earlier communications profile of [one of the targets] reveals that 3 of the 213 distinct individuals he was in contact with between 4 August and 2 November 2010 were known or suspected of being associated with terrorism," the document reads.

The document contends that the three Arabic-speaking targets have more contacts with affiliates of extremist groups, but does not suggest they themselves are involved in any terror plots.

Instead, the NSA believes the targeted individuals radicalize people through the expression of controversial ideas via YouTube, Facebook and other social media websites. Their audience, both English and Arabic speakers, "includes individuals who do not yet hold extremist views but who are susceptible to the extremist message,” the document states. The NSA says the speeches and writings of the six individuals resonate most in countries including the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Kenya, Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia.

The NSA possesses embarrassing sexually explicit information about at least two of the targets by virtue of electronic surveillance of their online activity. The report states that some of the data was gleaned through FBI surveillance programs carried out under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act. The document adds, "Information herein is based largely on Sunni extremist communications." It further states that "the SIGINT information is from primary sources with direct access and is generally considered reliable."

According to the document, the NSA believes that exploiting electronic surveillance to publicly reveal online sexual activities can make it harder for these “radicalizers” to maintain their credibility. "Focusing on access reveals potential vulnerabilities that could be even more effectively exploited when used in combination with vulnerabilities of character or credibility, or both, of the message in order to shape the perception of the messenger as well as that of his followers," the document argues.

An attached appendix lists the "argument" each surveillance target has made that the NSA says constitutes radicalism, as well the personal "vulnerabilities" the agency believes would leave the targets "open to credibility challenges" if exposed.

One target's offending argument is that "Non-Muslims are a threat to Islam," and a vulnerability listed against him is "online promiscuity." Another target, a foreign citizen the NSA describes as a "respected academic," holds the offending view that "offensive jihad is justified," and his vulnerabilities are listed as "online promiscuity" and "publishes articles without checking facts." A third targeted radical is described as a "well-known media celebrity" based in the Middle East who argues that "the U.S perpetrated the 9/11 attack." Under vulnerabilities, he is said to lead "a glamorous lifestyle." A fourth target, who argues that "the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself" is said to be vulnerable to accusations of “deceitful use of funds." The document expresses the hope that revealing damaging information about the individuals could undermine their perceived "devotion to the jihadist cause."

The Huffington Post is withholding the names and locations of the six targeted individuals; the allegations made by the NSA about their online activities in this document cannot be verified.

The document does not indicate whether the NSA carried out its plan to discredit these six individuals, either by communicating with them privately about the acquired information or leaking it publicly. There is also no discussion in the document of any legal or ethical constraints on exploiting electronic surveillance in this manner.

While Baker and others support using surveillance to tarnish the reputation of people the NSA considers "radicalizers," U.S. officials have in the past used similar tactics against civil rights leaders, labor movement activists and others.

Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI harassed activists and compiled secret files on political leaders, most notably Martin Luther King, Jr. The extent of the FBI's surveillance of political figures is still being revealed to this day, as the bureau releases the long dossiers it compiled on certain people in response to Freedom of Information Act requests following their deaths. The information collected by the FBI often centered on sex -- homosexuality was an ongoing obsession on Hoover's watch -- and information about extramarital affairs was reportedly used to blackmail politicians into fulfilling the bureau's needs.

Current FBI Director James Comey recently ordered new FBI agents to visit the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington to understand "the dangers in becoming untethered to oversight and accountability."

James Bamford, a journalist who has been covering the NSA since the early 1980s, said the use of surveillance to exploit embarrassing private behavior is precisely what led to past U.S. surveillance scandals. "The NSA's operation is eerily similar to the FBI's operations under J. Edgar Hoover in the 1960s where the bureau used wiretapping to discover vulnerabilities, such as sexual activity, to 'neutralize' their targets," he said. "Back then, the idea was developed by the longest serving FBI chief in U.S. history, today it was suggested by the longest serving NSA chief in U.S. history."

That controversy, Bamford said, also involved the NSA. "And back then, the NSA was also used to do the eavesdropping on King and others through its Operation Minaret. A later review declared the NSA’s program 'disreputable if not outright illegal,'" he said.

Baker said that until there is evidence the tactic is being abused, the NSA should be trusted to use its discretion. "The abuses that involved Martin Luther King occurred before Edward Snowden was born," he said. "I think we can describe them as historical rather than current scandals. Before I say, 'Yeah, we've gotta worry about that,' I'd like to see evidence of that happening, or is even contemplated today, and I don't see it."

Jaffer, however, warned that the lessons of history ought to compel serious concern that a "president will ask the NSA to use the fruits of surveillance to discredit a political opponent, journalist or human rights activist."

"The NSA has used its power that way in the past and it would be naïve to think it couldn't use its power that way in the future," he said.

.



.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:13 am

.


Gary Sick is a former captain in the U.S. Navy, who served as an Iran specialist on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan.
He currently teaches at Columbia University.
He blogs at
http://garysick.tumblr.com.



.

- Have you noticed how many of the people opposing the nuclear agreement are the same ones who thought invading Iraq was a nifty idea? War good; talk bad.

- Iran is so determined to build a nuclear weapon that it renounces them under any and all circumstances, reduces its production of enriched uranium, and invites the largest group of inspectors in history to monitor its activities. Hmmmm...

- Iran has been able to build a nuclear device for at least seven years and has not done so. In the eyes of some that is absolute proof of their deviousness.

.


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Ibrahim » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:24 am

Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html
Ibrahim
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:07 am

Ibrahim wrote:.

Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html

.




Bravo, Karzai, Bravo

they were saying, Karzai an Oil man, CIA man

maybe

but

Ossama and Ortega and Saddam too were CIA man

Karzai now an Afghan nationalist .. he must earn his wing

Otherwise, he would be considered as an American crony


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Ibrahim » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:05 am

Karzai is a joke. But then so is the whole tone of the article. "How are these local monkeys screwing up our regional strategy and international standing? Also, we pulped another small child."
Ibrahim
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby manolo » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:09 am

Ibrahim wrote:Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html


Ibrahim and folks,

The Neocons used to call it 'collateral damage'.

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Doc » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:09 pm

manolo wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html


Ibrahim and folks,

The Neocons used to call it 'collateral damage'.

Alex.


So what does Obama call it? But what you really mean is that Obama takes no prisoners

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi ... 044184.php
April 15, 2013 3:42 PM Obama’s Drones vs. Bush’s Extraordinary Renditions: By the Numbers

By Rhiannon M. Kirkland
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

The Obama administration’s drone policy has been compared to the CIA-led extraordinary rendition policy on several abstract policy levels, but number of victims is particularly striking. The CIA program had 136 known victims whereas the drone program has an estimated 3,105 victims in Pakistan alone.

Micah Zenko of Foreign Policy digs up important new information about the targeting of victims going far beyond the scope that the Obama administration has been willing to admit to. Zenko writes:

[It] plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides—that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent threat of attack on the U.S. homeland—is false.


According to Out of Sight, Out of Mind children make up 5.6 percent of victims (175 killed) and civilians make up 17.2 percent of victims (535 killed). “High-profile individuals” make up just 1.5 percent (47 killed) of those killed. In other words, claims by the likes of John Brennan about the “surgical” nature of drone strikes are dubious in the extreme. Zenko concludes by calling for “a comprehensive official history of U.S. targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, comparable in scope and transparency to the government reports about other controversial counterterrorism policies.” That would be a start.

Map of Pakistan drne strikes Bush vs Obama:

Image
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:07 pm

Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html


Ibrahim and folks,

The Neocons used to call it 'collateral damage'.

Alex.


So what does Obama call it? But what you really mean is that Obama takes no prisoners

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi ... 044184.php
April 15, 2013 3:42 PM Obama’s Drones vs. Bush’s Extraordinary Renditions: By the Numbers

By Rhiannon M. Kirkland
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

The Obama administration’s drone policy has been compared to the CIA-led extraordinary rendition policy on several abstract policy levels, but number of victims is particularly striking. The CIA program had 136 known victims whereas the drone program has an estimated 3,105 victims in Pakistan alone.

Micah Zenko of Foreign Policy digs up important new information about the targeting of victims going far beyond the scope that the Obama administration has been willing to admit to. Zenko writes:

[It] plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides—that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent threat of attack on the U.S. homeland—is false.


According to Out of Sight, Out of Mind children make up 5.6 percent of victims (175 killed) and civilians make up 17.2 percent of victims (535 killed). “High-profile individuals” make up just 1.5 percent (47 killed) of those killed. In other words, claims by the likes of John Brennan about the “surgical” nature of drone strikes are dubious in the extreme. Zenko concludes by calling for “a comprehensive official history of U.S. targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, comparable in scope and transparency to the government reports about other controversial counterterrorism policies.” That would be a start.

Map of Pakistan drne strikes Bush vs Obama:

Image

.



Back Bush time, it was in papers (and I posted here), there was a "presidential directive" saying when bombing a place to kill a terrorist, 30 civilian casualty was acceptable max , if more than 30 civilian casualty was expected, president had to approve it, if less, go ahead and bomb .. meaning if a terrorist was hiding in a school, it was OK to bomb the school (to kill that terrorist) as long as less than 30 children were attending class

Looks to me, Obama has lowered that 30 max civilian casualty directive .. new Presidential directive seems to be 5 max civilian casualty to kill a terrorist

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Doc » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:00 pm

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html


Ibrahim and folks,

The Neocons used to call it 'collateral damage'.

Alex.


So what does Obama call it? But what you really mean is that Obama takes no prisoners

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi ... 044184.php
April 15, 2013 3:42 PM Obama’s Drones vs. Bush’s Extraordinary Renditions: By the Numbers

By Rhiannon M. Kirkland
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

The Obama administration’s drone policy has been compared to the CIA-led extraordinary rendition policy on several abstract policy levels, but number of victims is particularly striking. The CIA program had 136 known victims whereas the drone program has an estimated 3,105 victims in Pakistan alone.

Micah Zenko of Foreign Policy digs up important new information about the targeting of victims going far beyond the scope that the Obama administration has been willing to admit to. Zenko writes:

[It] plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides—that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent threat of attack on the U.S. homeland—is false.


According to Out of Sight, Out of Mind children make up 5.6 percent of victims (175 killed) and civilians make up 17.2 percent of victims (535 killed). “High-profile individuals” make up just 1.5 percent (47 killed) of those killed. In other words, claims by the likes of John Brennan about the “surgical” nature of drone strikes are dubious in the extreme. Zenko concludes by calling for “a comprehensive official history of U.S. targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, comparable in scope and transparency to the government reports about other controversial counterterrorism policies.” That would be a start.

Map of Pakistan drne strikes Bush vs Obama:

Image

.



Back Bush time, it was in papers (and I posted here), there was a "presidential directive" saying when bombing a place to kill a terrorist, 30 civilian casualty was acceptable max , if more than 30 civilian casualty was expected, president had to approve it, if less, go ahead and bomb .. meaning if a terrorist was hiding in a school, it was OK to bomb the school (to kill that terrorist) as long as less than 30 children were attending class

Looks to me, Obama has lowered that 30 max civilian casualty directive .. new Presidential directive seems to be 5 max civilian casualty to kill a terrorist

.


I don't believe that for a second AZ.

https://www.google.com/#q=%22presidenti ... sualty+%22

Your search - "presidential directive" "30 civilian casualty " - did not match any documents.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:44 am

Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html


Ibrahim and folks,

The Neocons used to call it 'collateral damage'.

Alex.


So what does Obama call it? But what you really mean is that Obama takes no prisoners

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi ... 044184.php
April 15, 2013 3:42 PM Obama’s Drones vs. Bush’s Extraordinary Renditions: By the Numbers

By Rhiannon M. Kirkland
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

The Obama administration’s drone policy has been compared to the CIA-led extraordinary rendition policy on several abstract policy levels, but number of victims is particularly striking. The CIA program had 136 known victims whereas the drone program has an estimated 3,105 victims in Pakistan alone.

Micah Zenko of Foreign Policy digs up important new information about the targeting of victims going far beyond the scope that the Obama administration has been willing to admit to. Zenko writes:

[It] plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides—that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent threat of attack on the U.S. homeland—is false.


According to Out of Sight, Out of Mind children make up 5.6 percent of victims (175 killed) and civilians make up 17.2 percent of victims (535 killed). “High-profile individuals” make up just 1.5 percent (47 killed) of those killed. In other words, claims by the likes of John Brennan about the “surgical” nature of drone strikes are dubious in the extreme. Zenko concludes by calling for “a comprehensive official history of U.S. targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, comparable in scope and transparency to the government reports about other controversial counterterrorism policies.” That would be a start.

Map of Pakistan drne strikes Bush vs Obama:

Image

.



Back Bush time, it was in papers (and I posted here), there was a "presidential directive" saying when bombing a place to kill a terrorist, 30 civilian casualty was acceptable max , if more than 30 civilian casualty was expected, president had to approve it, if less, go ahead and bomb .. meaning if a terrorist was hiding in a school, it was OK to bomb the school (to kill that terrorist) as long as less than 30 children were attending class

Looks to me, Obama has lowered that 30 max civilian casualty directive .. new Presidential directive seems to be 5 max civilian casualty to kill a terrorist

.


I don't believe that for a second AZ.

https://www.google.com/#q=%22presidenti ... sualty+%22

Your search - "presidential directive" "30 civilian casualty " - did not match any documents.

.



Doc , what I post, usually comes with a "warranty"

A (dissident) US marine confirmed that on TV, that President (Bush) had to approve any civilian casualty more than xx numbers when bombing places in Afghanistan, he used school as sample .. I do not remember exact number, whether 30 or 25 or something to that effect .. but will try to find the report and video clip and post

And,

I only guessed that Obama has reduced that civilian casualty number .. am sure he did not eliminate it, as they still bomb schools and wedding and funerals and people sleeping in their bed

.



.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Doc » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:12 am

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Drones killed an Afghan toddler today. Happy Thanksgiving.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html


Ibrahim and folks,

The Neocons used to call it 'collateral damage'.

Alex.


So what does Obama call it? But what you really mean is that Obama takes no prisoners

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi ... 044184.php
April 15, 2013 3:42 PM Obama’s Drones vs. Bush’s Extraordinary Renditions: By the Numbers

By Rhiannon M. Kirkland
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

The Obama administration’s drone policy has been compared to the CIA-led extraordinary rendition policy on several abstract policy levels, but number of victims is particularly striking. The CIA program had 136 known victims whereas the drone program has an estimated 3,105 victims in Pakistan alone.

Micah Zenko of Foreign Policy digs up important new information about the targeting of victims going far beyond the scope that the Obama administration has been willing to admit to. Zenko writes:

[It] plainly demonstrates that the claim repeatedly made by President Obama and his senior aides—that targeted killings are limited only to officials, members, and affiliates of al Qaeda who pose an imminent threat of attack on the U.S. homeland—is false.


According to Out of Sight, Out of Mind children make up 5.6 percent of victims (175 killed) and civilians make up 17.2 percent of victims (535 killed). “High-profile individuals” make up just 1.5 percent (47 killed) of those killed. In other words, claims by the likes of John Brennan about the “surgical” nature of drone strikes are dubious in the extreme. Zenko concludes by calling for “a comprehensive official history of U.S. targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, comparable in scope and transparency to the government reports about other controversial counterterrorism policies.” That would be a start.

Map of Pakistan drne strikes Bush vs Obama:

Image

.



Back Bush time, it was in papers (and I posted here), there was a "presidential directive" saying when bombing a place to kill a terrorist, 30 civilian casualty was acceptable max , if more than 30 civilian casualty was expected, president had to approve it, if less, go ahead and bomb .. meaning if a terrorist was hiding in a school, it was OK to bomb the school (to kill that terrorist) as long as less than 30 children were attending class

Looks to me, Obama has lowered that 30 max civilian casualty directive .. new Presidential directive seems to be 5 max civilian casualty to kill a terrorist

.


I don't believe that for a second AZ.

https://www.google.com/#q=%22presidenti ... sualty+%22

Your search - "presidential directive" "30 civilian casualty " - did not match any documents.

.



Doc , what I post, usually comes with a "warranty"

A (dissident) US marine confirmed that on TV, that President (Bush) had to approve any civilian casualty more than xx numbers when bombing places in Afghanistan, he used school as sample .. I do not remember exact number, whether 30 or 25 or something to that effect .. but will try to find the report and video clip and post

And,

I only guessed that Obama has reduced that civilian casualty number .. am sure he did not eliminate it, as they still bomb schools and wedding and funerals and people sleeping in their bed
.


I still see nothing about it on Google AZ IF I can't find it on Google it likely does not exist. And even if you could find where a dissident Marine said it that is hardly proof of anything.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:22 am

Doc wrote:.

And even if you could find where a dissident Marine said it that is hardly proof of anything.

.




Doc , such a (presidential) directive, if on the record, would be a "war crime" .. not ifs and buts, but pure play "war crime" according to all international laws

In that sense, notion you would find that Presidential Directive posted on internet, naive

Only proof you will have, is when officers on the ground, pilots and others, confirm such a directive

I must look and find it

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby manolo » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:30 am

Folks,

There are some people who complain about Obama continuing a Bush foreign policy that they didn't complain about.

I wonder why?

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Doc » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:31 pm

manolo wrote:Folks,

There are some people who complain about Obama continuing a Bush foreign policy that they didn't complain about.

I wonder why?

Alex.


Obama has gone far beyond Bush, IE Obama takes no prisoners.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:06 pm

.


“ I found him someone with very polite and smart language ”


.

Mr Rouhani’s comments contrast with the views of many in the US Congress who believe that a final-stage deal would need to include the closure of the Fordow enrichment facility, built beneath a mountain, and the Arak heavy water reactor, which could be used to manufacture plutonium.

A US Senate aide said of the Iranian president’s remarks: “This is precisely the sort of comment that is going to make some people in Congress very nervous.”

..

“If you go through my programme, you will see that under the existing sanctions we have managed to lower the inflation. Under the existing sanctions we have predicted that our economic growth rate will be positive [in the next Iranian fiscal year],” he said. “But, at the same time, if sanctions are lifted or eased, we can naturally see its impact on the economy.”

.



Video : Hassan Rouhani, president of Iran, talks to Lionel Barber, the FT editor



.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:56 pm

.

Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:Folks,

There are some people who complain about Obama continuing a Bush foreign policy that they didn't complain about.

I wonder why?

Alex.


Obama has gone far beyond Bush, IE Obama takes no prisoners.

.




Foreign policy of any nation, Brits, America, Iran, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil and and and .. is a long term policy .. it does not change with changing Prime ministers, or presidents

American foreign policy same last 50 yrs, and, yes, true, Obama is an "extension" of Bush foreign policy .. Presidents just "implement" those long term policies, and, true again, each president has his/her own STYLE of that implementation .. but, the goal and policy itself remains long term and independent of the president of that time

Good sample is Vietnam War .. Johnson and Nixon .. Dem & Rep .. no difference regarding Vietnam war .. neither Johnson nor Nixon were concerned about the Vietnamese people, they both bombed and killed, and when the killing did not stop things and America was losing the war, on NIXON watch, a Republican president, Nixon cut and left in disgrace, same thing would have happened if a Dem president would have been in charge

Now, American foreign policy elite, decision makers, came to conclusion, things must change .. this decision was not made by Obama, but by American foreign policy making elite .. (American) Zionist know this and that is why you don't hear anybody saying anything in America, in contrary, WSJ & NYT & Friedman etc now on Obama side .. Israel's political elite sensed the shift and will make dramatic changes .. Europe was pushing for that change since long long time, now American foreign policy elite decided to make the jump .. Iran is one of an important players in all this .. Al Saud knows this and is preparing for a "soft" change of regime with all those Sheiks & Amirs


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Doc » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:30 pm

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.

Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:Folks,

There are some people who complain about Obama continuing a Bush foreign policy that they didn't complain about.

I wonder why?

Alex.


Obama has gone far beyond Bush, IE Obama takes no prisoners.

.




Foreign policy of any nation, Brits, America, Iran, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil and and and .. is a long term policy .. it does not change with changing Prime ministers, or presidents

American foreign policy same last 50 yrs, and, yes, true, Obama is an "extension" of Bush foreign policy .. Presidents just "implement" those long term policies, and, true again, each president has his/her own STYLE of that implementation .. but, the goal and policy itself remains long term and independent of the president of that time

Good sample is Vietnam War .. Johnson and Nixon .. Dem & Rep .. no difference regarding Vietnam war .. neither Johnson nor Nixon were concerned about the Vietnamese people, they both bombed and killed, and when the killing did not stop things and America was losing the war, on NIXON watch, a Republican president, Nixon cut and left in disgrace, same thing would have happened if a Dem president would have been in charge

Now, American foreign policy elite, decision makers, came to conclusion, things must change .. this decision was not made by Obama, but by American foreign policy making elite .. (American) Zionist know this and that is why you don't hear anybody saying anything in America, in contrary, WSJ & NYT & Friedman etc now on Obama side .. Israel's political elite sensed the shift and will make dramatic changes .. Europe was pushing for that change since long long time, now American foreign policy elite decided to make the jump .. Iran is one of an important players in all this .. Al Saud knows this and is preparing for a "soft" change of regime with all those Sheiks & Amirs
.


First you lost the 50 year argument. Bush changed American foreign policy with a huge knife thrust towards the Arab Despots. And in fact he even made overtures towards Iran that were rejected.

Secondly Obama's policies are half baked and half hearted. He is afraid of making decisions that might give him bad press. That is not a leader it is a disaster waiting to happen. That is why I find his drone policy o cowardly. You cannot accuse Bush of being afraid to make hard decisions.

Thridly pretend fr a moment that Iraq was not the first domino to fall of states with Arab despots. Imagine if the Arab spring had happened even without Saddam's fall. Imainge the kind of trouble that Saddam would have been all to willing to take advantage of.... I mean why did he decide to invade Iran when he did? Because Iran was stable at the time? I don't think so.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Heracleum Persicum » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:22 pm

Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.

Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:Folks,

There are some people who complain about Obama continuing a Bush foreign policy that they didn't complain about.

I wonder why?

Alex.


Obama has gone far beyond Bush, IE Obama takes no prisoners.

.




Foreign policy of any nation, Brits, America, Iran, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil and and and .. is a long term policy .. it does not change with changing Prime ministers, or presidents

American foreign policy same last 50 yrs, and, yes, true, Obama is an "extension" of Bush foreign policy .. Presidents just "implement" those long term policies, and, true again, each president has his/her own STYLE of that implementation .. but, the goal and policy itself remains long term and independent of the president of that time

Good sample is Vietnam War .. Johnson and Nixon .. Dem & Rep .. no difference regarding Vietnam war .. neither Johnson nor Nixon were concerned about the Vietnamese people, they both bombed and killed, and when the killing did not stop things and America was losing the war, on NIXON watch, a Republican president, Nixon cut and left in disgrace, same thing would have happened if a Dem president would have been in charge

Now, American foreign policy elite, decision makers, came to conclusion, things must change .. this decision was not made by Obama, but by American foreign policy making elite .. (American) Zionist know this and that is why you don't hear anybody saying anything in America, in contrary, WSJ & NYT & Friedman etc now on Obama side .. Israel's political elite sensed the shift and will make dramatic changes .. Europe was pushing for that change since long long time, now American foreign policy elite decided to make the jump .. Iran is one of an important players in all this .. Al Saud knows this and is preparing for a "soft" change of regime with all those Sheiks & Amirs
.


First you lost the 50 year argument. Bush changed American foreign policy with a huge knife thrust towards the Arab Despots. And in fact he even made overtures towards Iran that were rejected.

Secondly Obama's policies are half baked and half hearted. He is afraid of making decisions that might give him bad press. That is not a leader it is a disaster waiting to happen. That is why I find his drone policy o cowardly. You cannot accuse Bush of being afraid to make hard decisions.

Thridly pretend fr a moment that Iraq was not the first domino to fall of states with Arab despots. Imagine if the Arab spring had happened even without Saddam's fall. Imainge the kind of trouble that Saddam would have been all to willing to take advantage of.... I mean why did he decide to invade Iran when he did? Because Iran was stable at the time? I don't think so.

.



seems last sentences you mean Iraq and not Iran ..

To your post :


Doc, pls step back a few steps and look to all from a distance

What is now happening in all Middle East and Arab (speaking) nations, was planned, started in Carter time, 1970s (could even be Nixon time - many Iranian now believe Nixon after arming Shah to be the "gendarme of Persian Golf" came to conclusion it was a mistake because Iran becoming too powerful and Shah already thinking "Greater Persia" .. decision was made to take things down - that is what many Iranian elite think) .. Khomeini's and present Ayatollahs Iranian foreign policy is an "extension" of Shah policy, only difference was/is, Ayatollahs foreign policy is on "Islam platform", much more potent than Shah's "Iranism" .. goal same, different platform to get there .. West did not want to accept this, but now has accepted it .. recent agreement of nuclear rubbish in reality acceptance of Persian hegemony over that space, that is what Natanyahoo crying wolf

Idea was, holding to American hegemony of that space was becoming more and more difficult as the mass was rising dissatisfied .. All western powers were
in agreement with something had to be done

They started to destabilize Shah, forcing him to loosen up control, open floodgates .. later West actively worked against Shah, cooperating with Khomeini, neutralizing (fooling) Shah's generals (US General Heiser came to Iran and supervised Shah's Generals not hitting Khomeini, in reality destroying Iranian military) .. plan was to do same with all Arab states and and

Khomeini throw a monkey wrench into all this

Khomeini, Iran, only delayed western plan

After things stabilized with Iranian Ayatollahs, Bush continued with the plan .. all was prepared during Clinton time, military was equipped to that kind of warfare and positioned, pulling an inside Job 9/11 fell to W.Bush watch .. Bush had to supervise 9/11 inside job .. Iraq, Afghanistan followed .. Libya, Syria and and and .. Turkey participated in that game, Kemalist generals sitting in Jail now ( :lol: ) on phony charges (CIA delivered the info)

Guess what .. not Iran but Israel is the next place things will happen

Iran, Ayatollahs, know the game, they in tune with western plan

My guess is .. from Uighur to Bosporus to Tangier to Beirut, including Arabian space .. West will let Iran/Turkey handle all that space.

That is the big picture

Drones and bombings and and and, just background music, elevator music .. don't take it to heart

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
 
Posts: 8252
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Postby Doc » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:40 pm

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.

Doc wrote:
manolo wrote:Folks,

There are some people who complain about Obama continuing a Bush foreign policy that they didn't complain about.

I wonder why?

Alex.


Obama has gone far beyond Bush, IE Obama takes no prisoners.

.




Foreign policy of any nation, Brits, America, Iran, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil and and and .. is a long term policy .. it does not change with changing Prime ministers, or presidents

American foreign policy same last 50 yrs, and, yes, true, Obama is an "extension" of Bush foreign policy .. Presidents just "implement" those long term policies, and, true again, each president has his/her own STYLE of that implementation .. but, the goal and policy itself remains long term and independent of the president of that time

Good sample is Vietnam War .. Johnson and Nixon .. Dem & Rep .. no difference regarding Vietnam war .. neither Johnson nor Nixon were concerned about the Vietnamese people, they both bombed and killed, and when the killing did not stop things and America was losing the war, on NIXON watch, a Republican president, Nixon cut and left in disgrace, same thing would have happened if a Dem president would have been in charge

Now, American foreign policy elite, decision makers, came to conclusion, things must change .. this decision was not made by Obama, but by American foreign policy making elite .. (American) Zionist know this and that is why you don't hear anybody saying anything in America, in contrary, WSJ & NYT & Friedman etc now on Obama side .. Israel's political elite sensed the shift and will make dramatic changes .. Europe was pushing for that change since long long time, now American foreign policy elite decided to make the jump .. Iran is one of an important players in all this .. Al Saud knows this and is preparing for a "soft" change of regime with all those Sheiks & Amirs
.


First you lost the 50 year argument. Bush changed American foreign policy with a huge knife thrust towards the Arab Despots. And in fact he even made overtures towards Iran that were rejected.

Secondly Obama's policies are half baked and half hearted. He is afraid of making decisions that might give him bad press. That is not a leader it is a disaster waiting to happen. That is why I find his drone policy o cowardly. You cannot accuse Bush of being afraid to make hard decisions.

Thridly pretend fr a moment that Iraq was not the first domino to fall of states with Arab despots. Imagine if the Arab spring had happened even without Saddam's fall. Imainge the kind of trouble that Saddam would have been all to willing to take advantage of.... I mean why did he decide to invade Iran when he did? Because Iran was stable at the time? I don't think so.

.



I think last sentences you mean Iraq and not Iran ..
Nope I mean Iran that was still embroiled in revolution.

To your post :


Doc, pls step back a few steps and look to all from a distance

What is now happening in all Middle East and Arab (speaking) nations, was planned, started in Carter time, 1970s (could even be Nixon time)
It started right after teh first Gulf war when Bush I shamefully left Saddam in power.

Idea was, holding to American hegemony of that space was becoming more and more difficult as the mass was rising dissatisfied .. All western powers were
in agreement with something had to be done

They started to destabilize Shah, forcing him to loosen up control, open floodgates .. later West actively worked against Shah, cooperating with Khomeini, neutralizing (fooling) Shah's generals (US General Heiser came to Iran and supervised Shah's Generals not hitting Khomeini, in reality destroying Iranian military) .. plan was to do same with all Arab states and and


Don't attribute to a conspriacy what you can more simply attribute to one US admin. Carter was afraid to support the shah because he thought it would look bad to his base. Carter's supposed view was that most of the world's problems were caused by the US. That if he was only nice to people in other countries then every one in those countries would see what a good boy he was and they would be nice as well.

Khomeini throw a monkey wrench into all this


There is no way the US did not know what Khomeini was up too.

Khomeini, Iran, only delayed western plan

After things stabilized with Iranian Ayatollahs, Bush continued with the plan .. all was prepared during Clinton time, military was equipped to that kind of warfare and positioned, pulling an inside Job 9/11 fell to W.Bush watch .. Bush had to supervise 9/11 inside job .. Iraq, Afghanistan followed .. Libya, Syria and and and .. Turkey participated in that game, Kemalist generals sitting in Jail now ( :lol: ) on phony charges (CIA delivered the info)


AZ if this is going to turn into a idiotic conspiracy theory debate save the electronics I am not going to continue.

Guess what .. not Iran but Israel is the next place things will happen

Iran, Ayatollahs, know the game, they in tune with western plan

My guess is .. from Uighur to Bosporus to Tangier to Beirut, including Arabian space .. West will let Iran/Turkey handle all that space.

That is the big picture

Drones and bombings and and and, just background music, elevator music .. don't take it to heart

.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7591
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Next

Return to North America | Canada; USA; Mexico

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron