[Peace-discuss] Fw: drones and the human cost of war

Tue Jan 8 13:05:48 UTC 2013

and why is it that your e-mail gets returned undeliverable - are you
unwilling to stand accountable for your tirades - I just got undeliverable
message on message to you from microsoft.com because you probably use a
forged e-mail address.  Don't ever call me out by name - and 70% of America
does not support your position - you tell me how to take out people who are
sworn to kill you, me and our families and then I might agree with you on
drones - but until you can find a workable solution, I prefer one that
works on getting those who make it their life's work to recruit and train
others to kill us!
*mail.microsoft.com rejected your message to the following email addresses:*

David Johnson (dlj725 at microsoft.com) <dlj725 at microsoft.com>
**

*mail.microsoft.com gave this error:
User unknown *

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:57 AM, David Johnson <dlj725 at microsoft.com> wrote:

> **
>
> "The hard left’s position is ultimately simple: America is bad, our troops
> are monsters and attacks on our known enemies are criminal. And drones are
> hateful because they not only make our military more effective, but also
> because they spare the innocent: For leftists, it’s better if we kill more
> civilians, since that reinforces their dogma."
>
> *Typical corporate fascist bullshit !*
>
> *America is not bad, it is the 1% muderous ruling class that is evil and
> destroying our country , and idiots like you who believe their propoganda
> are part of the problem as well. *
>
> *You are a minority Helbig, close to 70 % of the American people oppose
> these continued wars, so basicly you are saying that 70 % of the American
> people " hate America ".*
>
> *If that is the case, you are an even bigger idiot than I thought !*
>
> *I am and every decent citizen world-wide are judges in an international
> court of law, and I hope i live to see the day when all who have caused the
> needless deaths and suffering for the last 12 years of innocent civilians
> and the unnecessary ; death, dismemberment, and psychological trauma of all
> American soldiers who were sent to fight a war OF terror based on LIES, are
> brought in chains to an international Nurenberg like tribunal !*
>
> David Johnson
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
> *To:* Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:06 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] drones and the human cost of war
>
> just saw this - he writes better than me - sorry that he works for Fox,
> but he still makes sense despite my strong bias against Fox thanks to my
> watching (paid admission both times) Outfoxed twice!
>
>
> *16) Drone Cold Truth--LTC Ralph Peters, USA (Ret.) *****
>
> ****
>
> New York Post****
>
> January 7, 2013 ****
>
> Pg. 19****
>
> ****
>
> Drone Cold Truth****
>
> ****
>
> Sparing innocents, not terrorists****
>
> ****
>
> By Ralph Peters****
>
> The inexhaustible America-haters on our domestic left are absolutely
> correct that drones — unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs — are morally
> ambiguous weapons. All weapons of war are morally ambiguous, as are even
> “just wars” waged for purely defensive purposes. All wars violate a
> universal commandment: Thou shalt not kill.****
>
> ****
>
> But in this imperfect world, we sometimes must kill if we are to survive.
> In developed societies (such as our own) that strive toward moral behavior,
> killing enemies in a conflict is regulated by laws, conventions and ethics.
> At times, as in the city bombings of World War II, we cast our strictures
> aside in a desperate hour. But we really do our best to spare the innocent.
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Warfare is imprecise, though, shaped by confusion and emotion as much as
> by plans. It’s unlikely that humans will ever eliminate war or find a way
> to wage it so “cleanly” that every noncombatant will be safe.****
>
> ****
>
> But — contrary to the reflexive claims of the left — UAVs mark a
> significant in sparing the innocent: morally ambiguous still, but less so
> than an artillery shell or a cruise missile.****
>
> ****
>
> Never before has a state been able to target its deadly enemies with such
> precision. And contrary to one of the countless myths of the left, we’re
> trigger-happy. Under rules adopted in the Bush years and broadly retained
> now, targets must be screened and approved at multiple levels in a process
> so rigorous that, frequently, our enemies escape. It’s hard to see how we
> could fight more ethically.****
>
> ****
>
> Instead of bombing a city or invading yet another country where terrorists
> have found refuge, pinpoint strikes kill terrorist chieftains and their
> immediate adherents (or, at worst, their willing hosts) while sparing the
> family next door. But our critics, foreign and domestic, hold us to an
> impossible standard, questioning whether we have the right to kill enemies
> proud of their resolve to murder us. Those same critics revel in the rare
> drone strikes that go awry as evidence of our alleged savagery.****
>
> ****
>
> But there will always be mistakes in war, because war is waged by human
> beings, even if they command brilliant machines (which themselves may err).
> What should be deemed remarkable is how few innocents have become
> casualties in proportion to the number of confirmed terrorists eliminated.
> That ratio is without precedent in warfare.****
>
> ****
>
> What should trouble all of us — especially those of genuine conscience on
> the left — is the hard left’s willful blindness to the atrocities of the
> terrorists we hunt.****
>
> ****
>
> These men slaughter teachers, doctors and aid workers, anonymous shoppers
> in the marketplace and elementary-school students, especially girls. (In
> Islamist terror’s homelands, Newtown is everywhere.)****
>
> ****
>
> Yet leftists romanticize America’s enemies, excusing their sins while
> exaggerating our missteps. And when other accusations fall short, they trot
> out the N-word of security affairs, “assassination,” equating terrorist
> chieftains with JFK.****
>
> ****
>
> The hard left’s position is ultimately simple: America is bad, our troops
> are monsters and attacks on our known enemies are criminal. And drones are
> hateful because they not only make our military more effective, but also
> because they spare the innocent: For leftists, it’s better if we kill more
> civilians, since that reinforces their dogma.****
>
> ****
>
> It’s also interesting that, while the left personalized every action of
> President George W. Bush, President Obama largely gets a pass, as if he’s
> being duped by bloodthirsty generals. But Obama has learned to stop
> worrying and love that drone: For him, UAVs are effective, politically
> convenient, diplomatically defensible and (given the cost of ground
> interventions) cheap.****
>
> ****
>
> Yes, there are moral questions. There always will be in warfare. Practical
> issues arise, as well, such as the limits of sovereignty in a world of
> porous borders. And, yes, there are legal and ethical matters that remain
> unresolved.****
>
> ****
>
> But there’s one more point that the left and its fellow travelers in the
> commentariat get wrong: their claim that drone strikes only create more
> terrorists.****
>
> ****
>
> Well, no. Drone attacks deprive terror organizations of experienced
> leaders and fanatical executors. And a village kid mad that his goat ran
> away from the blast doesn’t automatically turn into a suicide bomber.****
>
> ****
>
> Do drone strikes excite anger? You bet: not least, among the terrorists
> and their supporters (including sympathizers here at home). For the rest of
> us, terrorists slain by UAVs mean soldiers and Marines come home alive —
> and a safer world.****
>
> ****
>
> Ralph Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst and a retired US Army officer.
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> since when are you a judge in an international court of law - maybe if we
>> had had armed drones in 2000, Bin Laden would have been taken out and 9/11
>> would not have happened.  You and most of the so-called peace establishment
>> believe the propagandists and ignore reality.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > But the US has no right to wage war in the first place.
>>>
>>> That is, of course, very true. But it is the hard to convince enough
>>> people of this.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130108/58d81305/attachment-0001.html>