What US's carpet bombings of Cambodia tells us about Obama's Drones of Terror

With more than 400 civilians dead upon the debut of Obama's maiden drone strikes, in the name of protecting the 'interests' of the US government, and Obama's response that drones make his much better at killing people, it's not even an assumption that thousands to millions more civilians will be wiped out given the increasingly indiscriminate nature of these mass killings from air.

Yet, this is not the first time. It happened already just some 40 years ago when USA's Pres Nixon *secretly* dropped 2,756,941 tons of US bombs upon Cambodia, killing roughly a million of the nation's population of 6 million at the time.

With today's vastly increased technology, US is poised to kill exponentially more civilians per country than it ever has and America's secret proliferation of drones (meanwhile it lies and says it has cut drone numbers) is the 2nd largest part of the biggest threat to world peace (US) with the 1st being its arsenal of nukes and other radiological and biological weapons it continues to amass & proliferate meanwhile targetting countries without them as threats.

www.theatlantic.com...

What the U.S. Bombing of Cambodia Tells Us About Obama's Drone Campaign

A look back at another instance in which the U.S. undertook a secretive and widespread bombing campaign.

Halfway through the Justice Department white paper defending the lawfulness of government-ordered assassinations of U.S. citizens, there is a curious reference to a dark chapter of American history.

The memo, making the legal case for covertly expanding military operations across international borders, directs readers to an address by State Department legal adviser John R. Stevenson, "United States Military Action in Cambodia: Questions of International Law," delivered to the New York Bar Association in 1970.

Like the current conflict, the military action in neutral Cambodia was so secretive that information about the first four years of bombing, from 1965 to 1969, was not made public until 2000.

The most important parallel, though, isn't legal or moral: it's strategic. As critics wonder what kind of backlash might ensue from drone attacks that kill civilians and terrorize communities, Cambodia provides a telling historical precedent.

I hate drones. I fear they will literally come back to haunt us. Certainly "blowback" will be exponentially multiplied by their use.

Indeed. How convenient it would be for multiple drones or heck, an entire fleet to one day, be 'hijacked' by 'terrorists' and used on the American people, 'instead'.

Afterall, they've been used in a similar matter already a decade ago

reply to post by gardener


Really op?

Really?

I know drone strike suck and have increased drastically with this present administration but trying *Poorly* to compare massive B-52 strikes to the piecemeal strikes by drones is a stretch to say the least and is a sad attempt at linkage between the two.

I'm sure some here will bite though.

Nope I didnt draw the comparison, but sure do see the analogy: progression from manned carpet bombings, to unmanned carpet bombings.


How can someone NOT see that progression from manned to unmanned? Even a kindergartener would, these days!


www.theatlantic.com...

What the U.S. Bombing of Cambodia Tells Us About Obama's Drone Campaign

A look back at another instance in which the U.S. undertook a secretive and widespread bombing campaign.

Again, I didnt draw the analogy, The Atlantic did.

Nixon didn't take office until January, 1969, yet he is blamed for bombing that started under either Kennedy or Lyndon B. Johnson, both Democrats.

Isn't that odd?

reply to post by gardener


Everybody I know is well aware of the drone strikes and most like myself are against it. How is this like the 'Secret bombing' of Cambodia?

In your own words please.

I think theres somthing very wrong with using drones at all.

Imagine what the warriors of history would say, im sure the word honor would not come up at all.

abecedarian
Nixon didn't take office until January, 1969, yet he is blamed for bombing that started under either Kennedy or Lyndon B. Johnson, both Democrats.

Isn't that odd?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2f8e22a44ab.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) to the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia.

There was no Big secret everybody and their brother knew what the North were doing in Cambodia and Laos.

Source

President Nixon points out the NVA sanctuaries along the Cambodian border in his speech to the American people announcing the Cambodian incursion.
Date

30 April 1970

reply to post by SLAYER69

I was simply pointing out the mention in the OP that it started in 1965, allegedly by Nixon, which is blatantly false. I do not claim he did not continue the incursions.

That is insane. The death toll for the 75 day tactical strike was around 12,000 NVA and VC and the campaign was mainly to destroy supply depots and cut the lines of resupply and movement through the border area. Tactically it was a major success as it finally got the Paris peace talks going again once the Republic realized that President Nixon was no longer going to promote a 'limited action' war and was determined to end the supply lines one way or the other.

President Johnson antagonized over the war and over his domestic agenda that he wanted to leave office as someone who helped the poor. President Nixon did not have that problem and the tactical strike convinced the Republic that Nixon wasn't going to sit around and worry about his 'destiny' or the number of solders killed. He was going to end the conflict one way or another. Plans were already set to go for an all out US invasion using Navy, marines, covert action and round the clock bombing raids. Tactical nuclear strikes were also on the menu as China and Russia would just have to understand.

I remember it and President Nixon was seen as a hero that could actually get things done-like finally ending the mess in Southeast Asia.
It's remembered as one of the boldest military moves in history as the Republic knew he was serious about ending the conflict-his way and he didn't give a damn what anyone else said-he was going to invade North Vietnam and burn it off the map if the peace process didn't resume.

They got the message.

en.wikipedia.org...

According to the data, the Air Force began bombing the rural regions of Cambodia along its South Vietnam border in 1965 under the Johnson administration. This was four years earlier than previously believed. The Menu bombings were an escalation of these air attacks. Nixon authorized the use of long-range B-52 bombers to carpet bomb the region.

Heck, it's Wiki, but is anyone disputing that it was Nixon who authorized the use of long range B-52 carpet bombings (analogous to Obama's recent authorization of over 300 drone strikes and counting over the vast area displayed as follows)

I think it is important to put the drones strike in perspective. First of all the idea or precision weapons and their creation limit civilians casualties is a very modern and Western idea. In the past civilians were not considered innocent because they were not actively resisting thus an accomplice to the enemy. Mass deaths of civilians to get at a military target be it through sieges, catapults, cannons, mines, bombings, etc. has been the common pratice for all miitaries through out history. Until now. The advent of TV is what began to change this idea so that civilians at home could see what was happening. In WW2 you did not sit down to the evening news and see the thousands of dead from the latetest USAAF or RAF bombing raid. In the Western democratic states the idea of killing civilians by the bucket load became unpopular so the thanks to the advances in tech we have the ability to greatly limit them. And while any civilian deaths can be considered a bad thing now, at least for the US, you can conduct a decade woth of strikes with drones a have less civilian casualties than a single siege, or artillery barrage, or bombing of years past. This is a very western idea and most of the world does not hold to the idea that civilians are not legit targets.

gardener
Heck, it's Wiki, but is anyone disputing that it was Nixon who authorized the use of long range B-52 carpet bombings

No, as a matter of fact I posted a pic of Nixon pointing out on live TV to the American public where the US was bombing Cambodia and why.

Linky

Cant seem to find the dialog between Kissinger & Nixon. Basicially, Kissinger said (in reference to Cambodians, not Vietnamese) we must destroy them all, every one of those $%#@&s! and Nixon replied Cambodians are expendable, worth the sacrifice to stop the Vietnamese.

That dialog seems to have conveniently disappeared off the internet.

reply to post by gardener


Kissinger was an ass.

gardener


With more than 400 civilians dead in the debut of Obama's maiden drone strikes, in the name of protecting the 'interests' of the US government, and Obama's response that drones make his much better at killing people, it's not even an assumption that thousands to millions more civilians will be wiped out given the indiscriminate nature of these mass killings from air.

Really OP? It's not even an ASSUMPTION that millions will die? First off, do you really think MILLIONS being smoked by drones would just go unnoticed? Or even furthermore, un-reprimanded? Give me a break! Ever hear of NATO?

Secondly the sheer logistics of it make absolutely zero sense. According to findings sourced by CNN updated this May, there's only 327 certificates of authorization of use for drones in existence. This means that at a maximum, there can only be 327 drones in operational status at a given point in time. Considering this is nearly a 1:1 ratio, I really can't see Obama manufacturing a "secret drone army" capable of murdering millions of people, or getting millions of approvals from legislation for murder-drones for that matter.

Well what if the drones perform multiple strikes you say? This actually works against your theory as well, because now the element of surprise has been taken out of the equation. Multiple mission hops = more time = more time for the rest of the world to step in and stop it before the figure would even shake a stick at the figures you're touting as near-fact.

Sorry, but I really just think this line of thinking is ludicrous. Do I condone the use of drones? Only when it'll actually save lives. Do I condone the use of drones on innocent civilians? Absolutely not, in fact I oppose it.

Do I think it's a rational thought to say that millions of people will be murdered by an impending super-drone strike?

Abso-freaking-lutely not.

Haven't confirmed the details but here's a bit from CoolStoryMan's new thread titled US Drone mistakes Wedding Convoy for Al Qaeda; 15 dead

UPDATE – 2:20 PM EST: It is now being reported by Reuters that a wedding convoy was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy in a drone attack that killed fifteen people.

Ten were killed in the initial attack, according to Yemen security officials. Five injured died at a hospital. Five more were injured. No details on what happened to the al Qaeda convoy that was supposed to be attacked but escaped a drone, which President Barack Obama has touted as being “very precise.”

If the CIA or Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) intended to hit an al Qaeda convoy but hit a wedding convoy instead—by mistake, where is the al Qaeda convoy now? Or, was a drone attack launched with bad intelligence that suggested the wedding convoy was the al Qaeda convoy?

dissenter.firedoglake.com...

In other news, Obama Takes Selfie with Hot MILF.

SLAYER69
reply to post by gardener

 

Really op?

Really?

I know drone strike suck and have increased drastically with this present administration but trying *Poorly* to compare massive B-52 strikes to the piecemeal strikes by drones is a stretch to say the least and is a sad attempt at linkage between the two.

I'm sure some here will bite though.

Exactly, and thousands to millions lol. Oh my gosh what the hell are you talking about lol. You are not living in the real world. The drones carry precise small missiles that are used to hit precise targets. If you traveling with a terrorist leader then yea you should be worry.

This is about most ludicrous thread i have seen on ATS and that is saying allot.

My friend Gut, maybe, but this program has served to severely curtail terrorist groups command and control. Most serious intel analyst know it has probably prevented several attacks toward the united states by keeping the leaders of these groups constantly turning over.

It is hard to mount an operation when you are constantly on the run or dead lol. It has been incredibly successful. Let's face it we are talking about cowards who kill women and children on purpose, they intentionally kill innocents.

I don't have a problem with you if you want to take on our military on the battlefield but when you blow up women and children, many of whom are your own people, you are just a coward.

To even compare a Vietnam era dumb munition with that of a smart missile as used on drones is asinine.

Idiotic my friend.

The Bot

reply to post by dlbott


Well put. +star