21 3 mins 10 yrs

President Obama has announced that he will be offering membership (or dismembership) to Libya in the Drones Club.  I suppose this means that Pakistan won’t be the only place where we accidently blow up civilians instead of bad guys.  Now that Syria is gunning down their people, perhaps Syria will be inducted into the Club as well.  I mean, one can’t justify going into Libya to stop one government from shooting protesting crowds if you aren’t willing to  intervene militarily in other nations when it  happens elsewhere.

I myself would rather subject the offending nations to the warbling of Crosby Nash Stills and Young who managed to end protestor shootings following the Kent State Massacre with the annoying song “Ohio” .   Perhaps the lads could croon “Libya” or “Syria” instead, tin soldiers and Assad coming, etc.  Sure, aging rock star singing might not be pretty, but it is cheaper than war and generally involves less death.   You can’t count on Bob Dylan for protest anymore, he just sold out a lifetime membership in the we shall overcome hall of fame by playing in China and allowing the Commies to dictate his song selection.  Forgive the vulgarity but Blowing Mao in the Wind is not good for one’s protest legacy.

But I digress.  Libya will now experience the spectacle of Italian Military advisors (the first since Il Duce), French military advisors (pardon, use this white flag), and British military advisors (Lawrences of Libya).   There may be more advisors than rebels.  My advice to the advisors, locate bomb shelters, those drones sent by Obama don’t always distinguish friend from foe.  I would imagine that John McCain, oddly walking around Libya with his strange smile, will be happy we are bombing, but a little disconcerted that the President has stepped up attacks now that McCain is in Libya.    

In any event, it seems that the Drones Club membership will be on the rise.  Whether that is good news remains to be seen.  Or whether the remains to be seen will be good news.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

21 thoughts on “The Drones Club – Make Room at the Bar Bertie Wooster.

  1. Apparently for the same reason that we increase government spending, hand out tax cuts and not tackle our deficit – because we want to self-destruct.

  2. The April 14th London Times op-ed, authored by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy read:

    “our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians. ..It is not to remove Gadhaffi by force.”

    But drones don’t “protect civilians'” — in fact, drones often kill civilians.

    The dishonesty here is breathtaking. Do our leaders think we’re stupid? (rhetorical question)

  3. >>But drones don’t “protect civilians’” <<

    Patty, in many cases, and this is undoubtedly one, they do. Just as tanks, machine guns, bombing of cities etc. can also protect civilians.

    You supported a war that entailed mass bombings and that didn't even have protection of civilians as a goal, so your objection to this intervention – which will cost a fraction of the civilian deaths you supported – can be clearly seen for what it is.

    Mahons, the comparison with Syria looks good at first sight (and is the absence of Syria from these pages not remarkable: a major upheaval and anti-government movement, mass shootings, etc. and all in a front-line state and implacable enemy of Israel, and yet not a word of a post from those who have been known to give us up to 8 posts a day on Israel/Palestine?).

    But you will have heard what politics is supposed to be the art of. A responsible govt like the current one in the US will of course tread all the more carefully when big things can get broken. In this case, the political situation in Syria and environs is too raw and the security situation too volatile for the kind of US intervention that you can get away with in Libya.
    Another thing (and I'm getting a bit tired pointing out such an obvious fact here), in Libya there is a WAR going on and it has been going on for some time. The situation in Syria is not nearly as polarised or as territorial in a sense that could allow military intervention.

    Still, I'm sure the US govt is weighting its options and doing all it can to support the democratic movement there. Drones at any rate are in nobody's interest for the moment.

  4. Our leaders think we are really stupid. Other news headlines today read:

    “US Drones Kill 25 Civilians —

    A pilotless Predator operated by the CIA fired at least 10 missiles at a house in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region, The Wall Street Journal reported. The attack apparently killed 25 people, including suspected militants but also some women and children, according to the BBC. There has been no comment from U.S. officials…..

    …..But U.S. government officials have stated that drone operations will continue inside Pakistan because they are the primary way for the U.S. government to kill and disrupt terrorists, especially those who cross into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and NATO forces.”

    from: http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/u-s-drones-kill-25-civilians-20110422

  5. It would be one thing if our leaders stated that they were trying to kill and disrupt terrorists in Libya – and therefore have chosen drones.

    But that is not the case here. They are saying that they are “protecting civilians.” not removing Gahdaffi. not disrupting terrorists.

    Libya is pointless destruction.

  6. >>Our leaders think we are really stupid.<<

    (sigh!) Let's face it, Patty, a large part of the US electorate IS stupid.

  7. Noel: The bombings of WW II removed Hitler. The bombings of Iraq removed Saddam Hussein.

    I don’t think we should be in Afghanistan – but I think an honest case can be made that this is means to disrupting terrorists that waged war on us.

    But Libya?? WTF?

  8. >>It would be one thing if our leaders stated that they were trying to kill and disrupt terrorists in Libya<<

    Why on earth should they say that? Why on earth should they try to "kill and disrupt terrorists in Libya"?

  9. And those who support this war – including McCain, who apparently wants to go all in — are the most stupid.

  10. IMHO: America is investing in the Libyan War to help France and Europe safeguard the supply of oil to Europe.

    Probably for the same reason that America borrowed money to give to Brazil to help Brazil drill for oil.

    America has entered the Twilight Zone where national interest is avoided and The Big Altruistic Gesture is made without thought as to the consequences.

  11. Noel:

    1. Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron state that they want to “protect civilians.” (my comment at 19:41 cites the source)

    2. Obama authorizes drones.

    3. Drones do NOT protect civilians. This is a known and admitted fact. (see the article I cut and pasted above at 21:13. The administration rationlizes the use of drones in Afghanistan because drones ” kill and disrupt terrorists.”

    Why are we using drones in Libya???

  12. Why are we using drones in Libya???

    Hopefully to help take out the regime that plotted the Lockerbie atrocity. If a Palin administration (perish the thought) was doing this, the likes of Patty would be cheering from the sidelines. But it’s Obama, so it must be opposed, not least on the grounds that it’s part of his grand plan to aid AQ.

  13. Noel

    Yes, the silence on Syria is deafening. But I think Rightworld has a genuine dilemma here, and I (almost) sympathise. On the one hand the murdering, raping despotic Syrian regime is one of the most implacable enemies of Israel as well as being a sock puppet of Iran. But on the other hand, if they get the chance, the Syrians might vote for a government which Uncle Sam would like even less that the butcher boy of Damascus. So the best option is silence.

  14. >>3. Drones do NOT protect civilians. <<

    Patty, as I said before, they can do. Since man first picked up a stick or stone, all weapons can protect civilians or kill them, or protect or kill soldiers, or terrorists if you like.

    "This is a known and admitted fact. (see the article I cut and pasted above at 21:13."

    Nonsense. It is not known, admitted or a fact, and the article you posted neither admits it or pretends it's a fact.

    "Why are we using drones in Libya???"

    Well, obviously because it's hoped the drones will slow down the advance of G's troops and thus protect civilian lives and prevent the anti-govt movement being wiped out, without the need for ground troops. I think there's reason enough to justify this hope; certainly the rebel forces do too, and are delighted with the decision of the west to use drones.

    All of this is, as I said, obvious, and certainly much more plausible than any hair-brained story of the US govt wanting only to safeguard the supply of oil to Europe!

    And as for that thing about terrorists…..

  15. >>The bombings of WW II removed Hitler. The bombings of Iraq removed Saddam Hussein. <<

    The Allied bombings of WW II saved civilian lives (net). The bombings of Iraq didn't, and in fact killed several thousands of them.

    Don't remember you complaining about those civilian deaths, and for that reason, if nothing else, you attempts to open up yet another front in the war against Obama is laughable and doomed to failure.

  16. Why is Syria being given an easy time of it? Simple. You can’t have Vogue doing a brown-nose job on tasty Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert one month, and having us attack her charming hubby the next:

    “Syria is known as the safest country in the Middle East, possibly because, as the State Department’s Web site says, “the Syrian government conducts intense physical and electronic surveillance of both Syrian citizens and foreign visitors.” It’s a secular country where women earn as much as men and the Muslim veil is forbidden in universities, a place without bombings, unrest, or kidnappings, but its shadow zones are deep and dark. Asma’s husband, Bashar al-Assad, was elected president in 2000, after the death of his father, Hafez al-Assad, with a startling 97 percent of the vote. In Syria, power is hereditary.”

    Did you get that? “Hereditary”. It’s enough to make me want to change my name to Windsor 🙂

  17. And yet exactly what the West has accused Qaddafi of has and is occurring in Bahrain. But no move to use Nato against the ruling dynasty there. Obviously nothing to do with some folks who have their fifth fleet stationed there 🙂

Comments are closed.