Sunday, April 7, 2013

Northrup-Grumman: Efficient, Reliable Killing for more than half a century



"What do ethics have to do with building machines that blow off the body parts of Afghan children with the push of a button (the push of a button being made by some guy sitting in an office on the other side of the planet?"

"What do Values have to do with laser-guided Predator Drones, which would be considered the preferred tools of terrorists if the people we label terrorists could afford them. (Of course, if terrorists could afford them, and did use them, we'd use that use as an example of why they are terrorists.) And if the USA didn't use them?"

"What does Integrity have to do with hiring lobbyists, contributing to congressional campaigns, and buying off ex-military to serve as spokesmen against even considering touching military spending when it comes to tackling the budget deficit?"

What does a company like Northrup-Grummond have to do with ethics, values and integrity?  Absolutely nothing.  What importance does it place on money, power and the ability to deliver quick death to anyone the White House deems an "enemy?"  Everything.

28 comments:

  1. They're terrorists because they attack innocents to get attention/money or further whatever the consider the noble way. We attack those who have attacked us to prevent loss of life (The same reason we use drones.) You can say what you want about Northrop/Gruman, but please don't call our military terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't call our military terrorists, put the straw man away please.

      "We attack those who have attacked us to prevent loss of life." Please tell me who in Afghanistan ever attacked the United States. I'll be right here, waiting.

      If using planes to bring down skyscrapers is terrorism, if exploding backpacks on buses is terrorism, then dropping bombs on villages is terrorism. You can embrace your Might Makes Right, The US Does It So It Can't Be Wrong bullshit all you want, Derek. You aren't entitled to your own facts, and the facts are, if our "enemies" used drones, we'd call them the weapons of cowardly terrorists. PERIOD.

      Delete
    2. "We attack those who have attacked us to prevent loss of life"

      And we've become very good at killing people in order to prevent the loss of life. How's that latest edition of Newspeak coming along?

      I guess the eventual goal is to just kill everyone who might possibly maybe hypothetically pose an imaginary threat to our interests somewhere, someday. If we manage that, think of all the lives we would have saved.

      Delete
    3. I'm really tired of dealing with short sighted people like Derek.

      I'm just finishing "The Generals" by Tom Ricks right now. I'm infuriated by generations of Army leaders and ignorant people in general who think that all we have to do is kill the gooks, chinks, slopes, towel heads, rag heads, camel jockeys, or whatever.

      They clearly don't understand things like counterinsurgency and diplomacy. What good does it do you to kill a terrorist or an insurgent, if you kill dozens of innocents in the bargain?

      As we found out in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam, but refuse to realize, all you do by "accidentally" killing innocents or accepting it as "collateral damage" is create more insurgents or terrorists. If they weren't mad at the U.S. before, they sure will be after attacks like that. And not just for a day or a week. Two hundred years from now, the descendants of today's victims will still be complaining, and still hating the U.S.

      I'm incensed that these idiots think simplistically and tactically and short term and won't consider the long term consequences of their actions.

      Only by understanding the nexus between military action and political objectives can we get past the notion that killing anyone who doesn't look like us at any time for any reason is an acceptable course of action.

      Delete
    4. "As we found out in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam, but refuse to realize, all you do by "accidentally" killing innocents or accepting it as "collateral damage" is create more insurgents or terrorists. If they weren't mad at the U.S. before"

      Right, they attacked our heavily populated areas and governmental centers out of complete indifference toward us. Same reason their governments call us "Satan", I guess.

      Tell me, what, besides giving him a boatload of money to fight the Soviets, did we do to bin Laden to make him so mad at us?

      Delete
    5. Wow, Derek- I just don't have time to educate you on this.

      The person you are snarking at is a 30-year veteran of Iraq who joined the military right out of High School, has a Master's in military history, and has forgotten more about the history of American diplomacy than you will ever learn.

      I really suggest that you devote some time to post-WWII American Diplomatic history. Focus on the USA's handling of democratic movements in the Middle East in the 1940s through the 1970s. Bin Laden didn't emerge from nowhere- neither did Saddam Hussein. You really are an uneducated idiot- which might explain that your own blog has so far consisted of A) your review of a soda machine at the movie theater, B) material lifted directly from my website, and C) an entire article written by someone else, cut and pasted into your blog.

      Seriously, turn off right wing radio and get yourself a clue. Your ignorance of your own country's history is really disturbing- what makes it even worse is, I know that you are not the only person out there who thinks that hatred of America in the Middle East and elsewhere rose purely out of "hatred of our freedoms" and irrational anger toward a country 99.9 percent of the people we are bombing couldn't find on a map and couldn't give a damn about- people who just want to live in peace and wonder why this country on the other side of the planet insists on blowing up their children with flying robots.

      I get paid to teach history. I'm not going to tutor you for free. Get an education.

      Delete
    6. That is, First Republic is a 30-year veteran of the Army who did a tour of duty in Irag.

      Delete
    7. We need to get out of Afghanistan. They don't want our culture, and it's not our job to give it to them. We just make them mad, what with our equality for women and such. As for the children who died, they did know terrorists: the cowards use them as human shields, hiding in their houses.

      I know who First Republic is (unless he's you, which I've sometimes suspected. But I don't think you'd actually invent a military career to get a point across) which is why I was surprised that he didn't recognize the same jihadist Islam that drove the Moors, a millennium before the US was even founded. We might have caused their specific hatred for us, but general hatred for "the infidel" has been part of various Muslim sects for centuries.

      Delete
    8. 1. I graduated from High School with First Republic. I went to college, he went into the military.

      2. If you actually believe that hatred of "the Infidel" is the driving factor in terrorism in the 21st century, I really don't have any more time for you. Turn off Sean Hannity and stop getting your "information" from other ignorant people. The Moors--- Jesus, that's relevant.

      It's not Religion, it's NATIONALISM.

      Delete
    9. I'm sorry, I suppose that the terrorists' own use of the word "Jihad" (holy war) to describe their actions made me think said actions might be religiously based.

      There is no difference between religion and nationalism in the Middle East. Iran is ruled by an Ayatollah, and Pakistan's capital is even named Islamabad. I guess you and First Republic's High School had a crummy history curriculum for you not to know that.

      Delete
    10. "Pakistan's capital is even named Islamabad.."

      Well, I guess that settles that. Really, your capacity for stupid continues to amaze me.

      Neither First Republic nor I rely on our High School courses (completed 30 years ago) for our knowledge. We both have Master's Degrees in History. We are also both literate and don't rely on talk show hosts for our information. Try it sometime.

      Delete
  2. Here's a case in point from today's news:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/07/nato-air-strike-kills-children-nato-afghanistan_n_3033407.html

    Afghanistan: NATO Air Strike Kills 11 Children

    ELEVEN children! ELEVEN!

    No number of insurgents or terrorists killed can justify this.

    Apologies and restitution can't fix this.

    All stupid actions like this do is engender ill will.

    Everyone in that province of Afghanistan will now be angry with the United States from now until the end of their days, and the United States has gained NOTHING from this event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, well, I'm sure those children attacked us once. Or planned to attack us in the future. Anyway, if they weren't terrorists I'm sure they knew of terrorists, and they didn't bother to call the CIA or their local NATO HQ to inform them, so they got what they deserved.

      And at least we know that THESE particular children won't ever attack Americans. USA! USA!

      Right, Derek?

      Delete
    2. The terrorists hide in population centers. The kids were human shields. We need to stop these air strikes, and send in commandos, who can be a little more, shall we say, surgical, if we insist on continuing to attack mindsets like this.

      Delete
    3. "The terrorists hide in population centers. The kids were human shields. We need to stop these air strikes, and send in commandos, who can be a little more, shall we say, surgical, if we insist on continuing to attack mindsets like this"

      So I guess you are heading down to the recruitment center right about now, right, Derek?

      Delete
  3. "I'm infuriated by generations of Army leaders and ignorant people in general who think that all we have to do is kill the gooks, chinks, slopes, towel heads, rag heads, camel jockeys, or whatever."

    When did I ever say any such thing? All I did was mistake Mr. Jamele's statement that the US Military fights using what would otherwise be called Terrorist tactics, for a statement calling US soldiers terrorists. Stop using me as a screen upon which you cast your hatred for clueless bigots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And please stop accusing me of calling US soldiers terrorists. You have an awful lot of indignation for slights against you, but seem desperately in need of a mirror.

      Delete
    2. I misread your post. I don't think you meant to call our soldiers terrorists.

      And yes, I do get quite indignant when people attribute a racist sentiment to me. I never said any of the things First Republic said I did; I never said anything close to what he said I did.

      Delete
    3. And if you don't think that Middle Eastern terrorists are drawing their beliefs from Islamic tradition, you're beyond help. Middle Eastern countries are about as secular as Vatican City.

      Delete
    4. What do you mean, I'm desperately in need of a mirror?

      Delete
    5. If the United States got our butts out of THEIR countries, stopped acting as if THEIR resources were OUR resources, and stopped propping up dictatorships which support our economies and knocking down Democratic movements which support THEIRS, all the religious fanatics in the world could not convince Muslims in the Middle East that they have any reason to attack the United States. Most people in the Middle East shouldn't even know what the United States IS (you know, like most Americans know jack shit about the Middle East) but they have no choice, because their governments are either supported by the US or being undermined by the US. America has a huge footprint, and it's mostly on the faces of people who just WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE.

      Delete
    6. I agree. It would be wonderful if everyone loved us and emulated us, but the earth's human population simply has more than one culture. We've become incredibly entangled in foreign affairs trying to westernize Iron Age theocracies when we should have just dealt with the 9/11 planners and been done with it. But no, we just had to free Iraq and support the "Arab Spring" and do whatever it is we're even doing in Afghanistan. People say it was a war for oil. I wish we had gotten some oil for our troubles, but all we got was debt, death, and, as Barney Fife would say, heartaches.

      Delete
    7. I don't care if people "love us" and I sure as hell don't think anyone should "emulate us." And considering how screwed up ours is, thank GOD the "Earth's human population has more than one culture." Yes, we should have just gone after the 9/11 planners instead of inflicting unjustified murder on more than a million innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no idea what the Arab Spring has to do with anything, and I suspect you don't either.

      When a person, or a nation, is digging a hole, the first step toward getting out of it is to stop digging. We aren't very good at taking that very good advice.

      Delete
    8. No, we aren't. Most of the time, the people who keep digging preach about 'credibility' when they want to say that ceasing to do something stupid and wrong isn't done because other idiots might look at us funny. Washing our hands of a counterproductive idea isn't 'manly', it seems.

      Delete
    9. The Arab Spring was a series of revolts (mostly in North Africa, not Arabia) that started when some guy in Tunisia lit himself on fire, and then spread to Libya and Egypt. The only impact it should have had on America is the certain absence of Tatooinne in the upcoming Sequel Trilogy, but we had to go and get all involved, not quite in the same way as in Central Asia, but still, I thought it was applicable.

      Delete
    10. I suppose that our disagreement over other nations emulating us is regional. I'm from the northern Midwest, which has its cultural problems, but I'd take them over the East Coast's any day of the week.

      Delete
    11. We keep digging because the one's saying to dig aren't in the hole.

      Delete
  4. Watching that commercial, all I could think of was the beginning of the first Iron Man movie and the current situation of unmanned drones killing civilians and, in one case I know of, a man who was speaking out against the Taliban. I noticed that, not once, in the ad, did they say anything about their ethics caring about protecting the innocent and non-combatants or limiting casualties. They said a lot about how they're concerned for themselves, but almost nothing about those who will be affected by what they build, and considering at least one of the aircraft they showed is built to be undetectable by radar, they give a lot of thought to how The Other is going to be thinking about and perceiving what they build. They just don't give a damn if entire villages of innocents are wiped out.

    ReplyDelete