Drone strikes

Colin, you would need to be of really limited intelligence to think these are a good thing.

They have killed over 4000 civilians. Forgetting for one moment how they are flouting international law and the immorality of the civilian deaths, do they really believe this is an effective way to continue their so-called 'War on Terror'?

There are no around 4000 families who have a very good reason to hate the US state.
 
Last edited:
I know! I meant that not even Clive could take the pro-US, anti-Guardian position on this one.
 
Heyns comments are total bollocks. Since when was AQ going to stop terrorism after 9/11? What a prat

Some seem to somewhat mourn the lack of AQ's capability it would seem. You would have to be of very limited intelligence to think that simply sitting on ones hands and hand wringing whilst letting AQ organise and run riot would be a "good thing". Unless of course you are one of those lefties with a sneaking admiration for the extreme bigoted authoritarian genocidal world of the hardline islamists

The Pakistan ambassadors figure seems to be a rather conveneint 1000, but then we can always trust that country cant we?

Drone attacks are far from ideal but when AQ signs up to UN charters then perhaps we can look again eh?

Now that AQ is significantly on the backfoot (largely because of these attacks) it is perhaps time that the tactic was pulled back

China and Russia lecturing on human rights? Fcking hell
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Now that AQ is significantly on the backfoot (largely because of these attacks) it is perhaps time that the tactic was pulled back
Click to expand...

Apart from setting a dangerous precedent, it's very hard to assess the strategic value impact of drone attacks, and if they are actually putting Al Qaeda on the back foot, surely they should be ramped up if anything?

Two other points on the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy on the issue of drones:

- The use of drones to go after 'rogue elements' may offer Obama political cover against Republican attacks that he is 'soft' on terrorism in an election year.

- Electoral politics aside, this looks a prime example of a President who came into office perceived as a 'dove' taking advantage, in part at least, of the domestic political leeway granted by his perceived reputation. In many ways it is the reverse of the 'Nixon goes to China' effect, when a perceived 'hawk' managed to broker something that a 'dove' would have been politically incapable of doing. Incidentally, this was the subject of a celebrated dissertation a few years back.*

*That dissertation was both written, and subsequently celebrated in the UCD Bar for weeks afterwards, by myself.
 
Last edited:
it's very hard to assess the strategic value impact of drone attacks
Click to expand...

Its very easy to assess. Keep cutting off the head of the organisation and it will fade and die. Isnt that classic warfare ?

For all the talk of AQ being this or that, they still need leadership.

And its not "if" AQ are being put on the backfoot is it?

I dont buy the supposed electioneering angle.
 
Back
Top