Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Drones are on the “wrong side of history”

Per la verità Obama ha esordito nel suo primo mandato proponendosi due 
obiettivi qualificanti e originali in politica estera: il reset nei 
rapporti con la Russia e un nuovo inizio nei rapporti col mondo islamico.
 
Entrambi i propositi, come molti altri portati da Obama nel suo 
programma elettorale, sono stati vanificati dalla pressione delle 
lobbies, in particolare dalla lobby "sionista".
-------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, Feb 12, 2013 08:26 PM CET
Drones are on the “wrong side of history”
The deadly attacks subvert the rule of law -- and could come back to 
haunt U.S. foreign policy for decades to come
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
 
Last week, The New York Times published a chilling account of how 
indiscriminate killing in war remains bad policy even today. This time, 
it’s done not by young GIs in the field but by anonymous puppeteers 
guiding drones that hover and attack by remote control against targets 
thousands of miles away, often killing the innocent and driving their 
enraged and grieving families and friends straight into the arms of the 
very terrorists we’re trying to eradicate.
 
The Times told of a Muslim cleric in Yemen named Salem Ahmed bin Ali 
Jaber, standing in a village mosque denouncing al Qaeda. It was a brave 
thing to do — a respected tribal figure, arguing against terrorism. But 
two days later, when he and a police officer cousin agreed to meet with 
three al Qaeda members to continue the argument, all five men — friend 
and foe — were incinerated by an American drone attack. The killings 
infuriated the village and prompted rumors of an upwelling of support in 
the town for al Qaeda, because, the Times reported, “such a move is seen 
as the only way to retaliate against the United States.”
 
Our blind faith in technology combined with a false sense of infallible 
righteousness continues unabated. Reuters correspondent David Rohde 
recently wrote:
 
“The Obama administration’s covert drone program is on the wrong side of 
history. With each strike, Washington presents itself as an opponent of 
the rule of law, not a supporter. Not surprisingly, a foreign power 
killing people with no public discussion, or review of who died and why, 
promotes anger among Pakistanis, Yemenis and many others.”
 
Rohde has firsthand knowledge of what a drone strike can do. He was 
kidnapped by the Taliban in 2008 and held for seven months. During his 
captivity, a drone struck nearby. “It was so close that shrapnel and mud 
showered down into the courtyard,” he told the BBC last year. “Just the 
force and size of the explosion amazed me. It comes with no warning and 
tremendous force… There’s sense that your sovereignty is being violated… 
It’s a serious military action. It is not this light precise pinprick 
that many Americans believe.”
 
A special report from the Council on Foreign Relations last month, 
“Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies,” quotes “a former senior military 
official” saying, “Drone strikes are just a signal of arrogance that 
will boomerang against America.” The report notes that, “The current 
trajectory of U.S. drone strike policies is unsustainable… without any 
meaningful checks — imposed by domestic or international political 
pressure — or sustained oversight from other branches of government, 
U.S. drone strikes create a moral hazard because of the negligible risks 
from such strikes and the unprecedented disconnect between American 
officials and personnel and the actual effects on the ground.”
 
Negligible? Such hubris brought us to grief in Vietnam and Iraq and may 
do so again with President Obama’s cold-blooded use of drones and his 
indifference to so-called “collateral damage,” grossly referred to by 
some in the military as “bug splat,” and otherwise known as innocent 
bystanders.
 
Yet the ease with which drones are employed and the lower risk to our 
own forces makes the unmanned aircraft increasingly appealing to the 
military and the CIA. We’re using drones more and more; some 350 strikes 
since President Obama took office, seven times the number that were 
authorized by George W. Bush. And there’s a whole new generation of the 
weapons on the way — deadlier and with greater endurance.
 
According to the CFR report, “Of the estimated three thousand people 
killed by drones… the vast majority were neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban 
leaders. Instead, most were low-level, anonymous suspected militants who 
were predominantly engaged in insurgent or terrorist operations against 
their governments, rather than in active international terrorist plots.”
 
By the standards of slaughter in Vietnam, the deaths caused by drones 
are hardly a bleep on the consciousness of official Washington. But we 
have to wonder if each innocent killed — a young boy gathering wood at 
dawn, unsuspecting of his imminent annihilation; a student who picked up 
the wrong hitchhikers; that tribal elder arguing against fanatics — 
doesn’t give rise to second thoughts by those judges who prematurely 
handed our president the Nobel Prize for Peace. Better they had kept it 
on the shelf in hopeful waiting, untarnished.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/12/drones_are_on_the_wrong_side_of_history_partner/
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO: 
http://rete-eco.it/2012/sostienici.html
 
 

 “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies,” quotes “aformer senior military 

Non si potrebbe riavere Bombacci?
 
 
-- 
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of  freedom, must, like men,
undergo the  fatigues of supporting it.”  - North Idaho 21st Batallion of
Light Foot

 Non si potrebbe riavere Bombacci?
 
No.  L'avete messo in mezzo, avete fatto in modo che se ne andasse, e 
ora non vuole più tornare.
 
Ma ci sono qui io a tenervi allegri, no?  Ti piacciono sempre i 
pistoloni, bagarò?


 No.  L'avete messo in mezzo,
 
io non credo che Bombacci sia cosi' stupido da seguire le indicazioni
di un pirla (anche se, chissa', magari)
 

 No.  
 
Sei il tutore di Bombacci?
Conoscendolo, effettivamente, non mi stupirebbe che ne avesse scelto uno
così pirla...


 Sei il tutore di Bombacci?
 
No, saltuariamente comunichiamo.  Penso abbia bisogno di 
disintossicarsi, di darsi una ripulita, una disinfettata.
Poi, forse, chissà: magari torna.


 No
 
Ok, sei solo un pirla
 
 
 
-- 
Tranquillo gni trombonno la moglie

 Ok, sei solo un pirla
 
Parola di bagarozzo...
