To drone or not to drone and why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDErbA_rsgM&feature=player_embedded

To me this whole topic reads like a latter day Federico Fellini version of Machiavelli's 'The Prince' gone wrong.

It is clear to see why Obama has taken this line ....simply put it stops or slows the secret pictures of returning US military coffins. So unpopular with Joe and Joan Average and let's not forget it robs the rabid peace-niks from their effective focal point. The USA is between a rock and a hard place largely of its own making

National Pride is based on a palpable lie. That of the 1940's mentality, to be the biggest power in the world all they need is the biggest military to back expansionist grab of world resources. Which in turn makes them the largest economy which allows them the best living standard and the biggest military. With being the biggest the corporatist golden rule applies i.e. "he who has the gold rules!" and that means making the rules to suit that end, political expedience, obfuscation, hair spitting , deception, if all else fails claim exceptionalism. After all who is going to object to the largest military force?

A truism of power nothing bring a disparate group together better than a common enemy. First it was communism now ....well terrorism. Pity about morality, equity and democracy that must be curbed for Security . This of course ignores the wise words " those who sacrifice freedoms for security invariably end's up with neither". Sadly 911 and the ensuing quicksand wars clearly illustrate that.

The problem is that the US military war machine is designed to fight massed battle field wars (so 1940's) . the only thing they learned from Vietnam was the 1933+ Nazi propaganda conditioning of it's public.

As they say 'after a common enemy nothing else motivates better than self interest'.

The USA has enjoyed the fruits of their hegemonic empire and been conditioned by its media which is little short of but marginally more sophisticated than Herr Goebels.

It should be of no surprise that this propaganda conditioning is a consequence of Corporate MSM desire for the profit and its invariable route pandering to the emotions and comfort of the masses rather than objectively showing the public an accurate reflection of it's self rather than deliberate conspiratorial intent. That came with the political system that has been bought by those with the most to lose at the hands of change.

The public now believe beyond almost any level of serious doubt that the health of their depends on the success of their corporation influenced government ergo their 'lifestyle' (to me an [dis]honorary four letter word). As the FIRST, most important, 'exceptional' nation.

Under this conditioning they are Right (justified) in all they do to protect that status. It is so entrenched into the average American psyche arguing with them by presenting reality the facts simply makes one an undesirable and if severely enough believed the dissenter becomes a target for the myriad of Alphabet soup of 'security organisations' and maybe on some matrix. Ergo drone attacks.

The nearest analogy is a version of the way the Japanese are (not) dealing with their WW2 atrocities in as much the core of the USA citizens never really hear objective reporting nor will they accept their compliance if not culpability for the list of atrocities done in their names.

What isn't discussed in this video is that because of USA's exceptionism (i.e. it have veto in the UN it doesn't accept the international court and it is the biggest military) who at the end of the day is going to enforce any adverse findings?

One should never forget “world pressure ?” is unlikely to achieve the significant changes in the core of the US voters to make any realistic changes in their foreign policy or the protectionism of their perceived rights to that exceptionalism. Objectively one only needs to consider the USSR (the only other mega power).

Contrary to US dogma it wasn't the skill of Reagan that caused its demise ...in reality it collapsed under its own weight of military expenditure and administrative sclerosis.

I detect the same sclerotic cracks forming in the US monolith. One only needs to look at its budget, its mounting military related cost cracks ( the drones are the other reason for their escalated deployment and proliferation) . Mankind being the perverse inventive entity it is one can or should sensibly ask how soon before there is anti drone technology …. (anti drone drones?) Micro electronic technology being what what it is, all those qualified computer/technologists that are un or under- employed in “the non US GOVERNMENT friendly nations” and with Moore's law firmly in mind, not that long. Of course how long before crude versions are cobbled together by the disaffected are brought into play?

The question is how many unnecessary deaths will there be before the crash or some conditioned terrified set of nut bags cause the unthinkable ...keep also in mind many's the wars that have been started by simply ramping up the tension to the point a seemingly unimportant spark sets off a set of catastrophic consequences. And no I'm not going all escalogical ….just emphasising the the point that unnecessary mass deaths are a catastrophic for many someones, beyond the actually killed ...i.e. if one of your children is caught in the cross fire how sure are you that you'd be all that philosophic. Based on the response to 911 I'd have to say the statistical probabilities are very low. Now imagine if tens of thousands/ hundreds of thousands are killed consider the exponential effects. The west has already killed hundreds of thousands it is naïve to think that 'the others' are all going to say “oh well the wars over so lets kiss and make up” without the afore mentioned motivator self interest.

The video told us that stopping this back lash is too hard. What it is is ego deflating nothing more. The problems are solvable but thus far the US shows no interest in wanting to do That.

I have many  pragmatic concerns with the 'one state' solution every being anything other than the formalisation of Israel's  ethnic cleansing of greater Palestine/Israel.

Three  key musings come to mind.

1. Israel's continued existence in 'its current form' (read bulwark against Arab (sic) regionalism) is almost exclusively, by the USA in that it 'suits' * Their perceived* national interests i.e. a non dominated Muslim state in the Middle East. If this weren't so they wouldn't insist on being a party (3rd wheel) to any peace plan etc. As opposed letting Israel and Palestine (2 parties) as equal partners say with a Non aligned moderator.

The US fears a 'Muslim' Cuba so to speak, that is a Muslim influenced state( read a platform for Arab regionalism ) that might jeopardise their control (Commercial ?) over Middle Eastern OIL.

One should note here that the US has a long standing record of supporting Tyrannical regimes regardless of their religion so long as they can control the Tyrants that control the population. You pick the country from Central America, as much of Europe they can get away with, Asia generally (including Indonesia... west Papua), Middle East and even Africa. The common factor in all of these countries is their ( largely Commercial) interests. [ Specifics by request].

One should not forget three important points

1. Not all of which are 'Arab' states e.g. Iran is Persian and has a different underpinning culture and drives. Not all Muslims march to the same drum either religiously or in interests. The same as not not all “Christian” countries are the same.
2. That there is external non US forces playing Proxy games with Palestine, It is *these forces * that concern the US . This is by all regards a faux fear in that even if Iran had Nuclear bomb capability it doesn't really represent any existential threat as any aggressive attack would mean the total annihilation of Iran while the US would survive largely in tact. What it does mean is that the US simply won't be able to attack it at will.
3. It seems self evident that what Israel may want to do is largely irrelevant. The US will be the ultimate Authority to which Israel will ultimately accede. It has no choice, If it doesn't, one only needs to look at what happened to NZ when it insisted on knowing if US visiting naval ships visiting their ports  were Nuke armed. It's interesting to note that the US ignored the ANZUS treaty and refused to share 'intelligence', a clear misnomer (spin) read spying details. One can reasonably argue that the US doesn't display too much of that with regards to Non Americans. 
   Israel would not survive without US support and the US both knows this and WILL use that against them. As one of the US founding fathers aptly put it "any one who relinquishes freedom for security invariably gets neither'.
1. Subsequently, the 'one state' debate is largely both a distraction to the *main * stumbling block to a permanent solution ( changing the US' hard opposition to a Non Christian  aligned state.), one that gives hope for self determination and some modicum of Justice .
2. From a negotiating point this whole debate puts the Palestinians in a weaker negotiating position. Effectively made the first part of the Zionist/US for the elimination of the Palestinian as a self determined identity. The option (right or left) they will choose would be . And once it becomes official then the matter is an internal one and will be orders of magnitude harder to change. (they'll argue “ they (the Palestinians) negotiated this conclusion and we Israel (right wing version) have the right to seek out and deal with “internal dissenters”... any guesses what will constitute an “internal dissenter?

Rule 1. of negotiation Don't make a concession without getting an equivalent concession in return. Frankly the elimination of the two state option is a 'Huge' bargaining chip to give it away/ taken away before the negotiation begins.

Israel ..".one state" a solution .... really ?

The pro  Israel  'one staters' don't seem to understand the reality of your solution.

What exists now is two things and it's wider implications to the *Individual *

1. An apartheid state that has institutionalised this fact. i.e. even those Palestinians (aka Arab Israelis) who live in the state of Israel are second class citizens. NB the Cultural extinguishable of the title, Arab is a generic term like 'black' but based on the Language ... And the Israeli (Jew). It's Like calling an Aussie, English. Good luck with that. It's interesting to note that Aussies (whites) are doing the same thing with the term 'Aboriginal', the reality is that Australia wasn't one singular nation but Something like 200 each with their own ancestral land history myths(religions) . Just a test name just 3 of these clan nations...my money is on 98% whites not having a clue. Now tell me our current policies aren't that of acculturation. Israel by name and definition is a secular(?) state for JEWS a Jewish homeland... a contradiction in terms . If it's a Jewish homeland it can't be a Palestinian homeland especial if they have to give up their identity.
2. It's currently a de-facto one state they have annexed the rightfully Palestinian land and systematically forced them into 'reservations' albeit illegally (by the USA's dominance in the UN (veto)) .It's systematically and deliberately disenfranchised the Palestinians via acculturation.

That is the pragmatic reality. What the one state will do is set this into accepted international law.

The reality beyond that the Palestinians will still become entrenched second rate citizens. The entrenched religious prejudice by the Jews will continue. In the minds of the Zionists they will have won and they will be emboldened to further persecute the Palestinians more, in all practical ways with almost impunity. The Palestinians will become the systemic underclass.

The Palestinian youth is already suffering from functional deprivation, via lack of opportunity. Their one remaining salve is the hope their identity and religion. In short their strength is in their shared suffering/sense of being the aggrieved, shared goal i.e. .. one “day they'll have a homeland and it will get better all we have to do is rid ourselves of the 'Jewish' over class”. (wasn't that the Jewish dream?). This is not dissimilar to that of the black Africans pre the fall of apartheid in their countries. Keep in mind too,5 that the Palestinians AREN'T tribal Africans with a culture rooting them to the earth in the same way. They are Socially, religiously and Culturally poles apart. Seems to me the 'one staters' are actually 'zionists (lite)' hiding behind 'pragmatism' (sic) .

Putting aside the inherent this hypocrisy we should look at the historic record of ...Successful (?) integrations they are VERY thin on the ground.

What the 'one staters' are naively (at best) selectively ignoring (at worst) is the sociological consequences for the Palestinians as individuals.

The bare truth is that there isn't enough opportunities for a growth (over night) to preclude the entrenching of sociological problems that will occur with an instant 3 million Palestinians (citizens). The vast majority of which live in appalling conditions compared to the average Israelis this inequity and given that 25% isn't a majority ergo a large portion of (hobs choice) citizens. Of them there is a high proportion of unemployed or under educated. Look around the world then ask your self what happens when you have the following.

• Ghettoised disadvantaged?
• A * LARGE * disadvantaged minority?
• A large portion of first generation migrants who suffer prejudice and lack of personal identity?

Think fundamentalist religion/ race in lieu of an personal identity, racial/ religious prejudice, violence gangs. Rampant crime. are the short answer and the bigger that minority the greater the problems are.. Imagine if Anders Brevik was to happen in say the UK and the victims were not white ? Well that is more likely in a one state Israel... After all the current Zionist government is voted in by a substantial minority of more than average right wingers (30% ish) ? Imagine what they will think when 40% more non Jews are incorporated in the state? Gerrymander comes to mind and with that unfair legislation etc.

My view is we're targeting the wrong cause ….not the current Israeli regime but rather the USA. After all they are the primary obstacle to UN forcing the abandonment of illegal settlements