Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

[JayHawk]

The cause of US success was distance and a lack of fighting on its shores. The US has never had its infrastructure destroyed. It never has had to rebuild an entire country.

That will change, bro. More powerful weapons are becoming available to both nations and sub-national groups.

This has nothing to do with ruthlessness. The US is just in a position no where it can murder without any negative consequences. Americans love killing because they feel that they will never know it. That is probably not true.

No not really gonna change Bro while we spend ten times more than all of our allies and our top enemies on development and implementation of weapons of war and tactics. Live in that world if it makes ya feel good but it aint coming anytime soon. Consider that ONE set of planes used as missiles resulted in the mass destruction of millions of people throughout multiple countries.

I agree eventually all empires decline. As much as it appears it would give you some glee for it to happen, the U.S. empire will not decline in your lifetime. Even if you were born yesterday. We dumped the entire worlds economy on bankers gambling with sexy investments products and lies... yet where is the world investing today? We designed it and built it.

Oh and as far as rebuilding nations, have you ever been to Germany or Japan? If areas were destroyed with something other than nucs we will rebound and the thing put in its place will be the most modern infrastructure that has ever existed. Might be good to have a bit of destruction. But I wouldn't wish that on people just to improve.

If your thinking matrix like electronic warfare (which will be the next frontier) i would point you to the American mid-west (safe from climate change location) to the KNOWN computing facility that has more power than the world combined times a billion. I think we may be ahead in that game as well... but I could be wrong.

[tigerfan482]

Yeah, war crimes. Obama and company are killing people who are not a threat to the US in nations at which the US is not at war. Some of these people are US citizens who have constitutional protections. At least one of those US citizens was a 16 year old with no links to any terrorist organization. though, according to Obama's campaign advisor, his father was not "responsible" enough, so he had to die.

In countries like Pakistan, the US is at war with many of the people there. Despite the fact you obviously support it, it's not reasonable to expect the US to not pursue an enemy who runs from the battlefield into another country just to hop right back on over to start fighting again. These are people who are involved in battle and just choose to run away after their attack.

As far as countries like Yemen go, the US is working with the government of that country to fight terrorism. Terrorists (including the supposed innocent American citizen and his son) get killed under the tacit authority of the government there. Constitutional protections do not extend to people who are an active threat to others. I've stated time and time again here - an example is police officers are legally allowed to shoot people who are pointing guns at them.

And by the way, I find it hard to believe that a 16 year old was in Yemen with his terrorist father studying international business at University of Sana'a. You don't get killed in a drone strike that killed known terrorists if you have "no links to any terrorist organization." His father was a terrorist and he died with other terrorists. I'd say he had some pretty strong links to terrorism and wasn't your average 16 year old hanging out at the mall when a drone killed him. He wasn't even the intended target. The target was another terrorist and he just happened to be with him and 6 of his friends.

There are international laws dealing with war. There are specific requirements. Killing people who are not fighting against your country is not exactly legal. And that is what the US is doing now. It is not only fighting groups that have attacked the US. It is killing people who are fighting the governments of their own countries. The UN would like to investigate, but America is not playing that game. If this program is legal, what is there to hide?

They are targeting and killing people who attacked our country - either through planning and participating in terrorist attacks on our homeland or by fighting us on the battlefield. We're not just going in and randomly bombing places in random countries. These are targeted terrorists. If they surround themselves with children and civilians, that's their fault for being too cowardly to fight and instead shoot some mortars at troops and then run back into Pakistan.

Obama did not kill any children? Well, if you mean he was not the coward who launched the missile, then you are right. However, it is his program. And children are dying. Some are known; others are not (http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/li...tan-and-yemen/). The use of drones has increased dramatically under Obama. The guy who claimed that the US does not torture is now killing people who are not charged with any crime or even known to be dangerous.

Again, see above. In armed conflict, innocent people will die. It is unfortunate but it is the real world. Yes, the use of drones has increased under Obama because it is much more effective at targeting and eliminating the enemy than sending in thousands of ground troops, which people have said before, results in many more deaths. Also, you're not required to charge everyone on the battlefield with a crime before targeting them. That's not even a rational proposition.

However, it is a waste of time trying to make any argument with you. You are obviously one of those fringe people who just hate everything but have no good ideas about what to do or who to be like. What would your response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 been? What country would you like the United States to be like since you're anti-US and anti-western nations? How would you go about addressing the threats the United States and her citizens face? Let's hear some ideas and not just a litany of complaints.

[JayHawk]

Very well put Tiger. I believe those as well but they have been stated so many times it is impossible to believe anyone but a child hasnt seen them... and since children cant be here.... meh

[chance1]

I love the hypocrisy exhibited here - it's just ....... priceless

Personally I trust the President and his band of taxers to pick just the right people and places to zap

technology is awesome and powerful and the alternative is much worse for us and frankly for "them"

and Better them than us

But the flailing of those who crucified Bush and clearly would be doing so now is just more evidence just how fucked CE+P is

making excuses for Obama when none were or would've been

perhaps additional drone strikes - laser target - are in order

to save lives or minds

[tigerfan482]

I love the hypocrisy exhibited here - it's just ....... priceless

Personally I trust the President and his band of taxers to pick just the right people and places to zap

technology is awesome and powerful and the alternative is much worse for us and frankly for "them"

and Better them than us

But the flailing of those who crucified Bush and clearly would be doing so now is just more evidence just how fucked CE+P is

making excuses for Obama when none were or would've been

perhaps additional drone strikes - laser target - are in order

to save lives or minds

Ignoring your lack of punctuation, complete sentences, or any discernable point, I see that you mentioned Bush, so I will say that I would not have had a problem with GWB using drones to target terrorists. They're cowards who run and hide and if we have an effective means of taking them out without losing our soldiers' lives, then I'm for it regardless of who is President.

However, I am not in favor of torture and I wouldn't be in favor of torture if Obama did it. Getting killed is an inherent and understood risk of battle. Surrendering and/or being captured and then tortured is not. Treaties like the Geneva Conventions serve to protect those that are either not part of the battle or have removed themselves from battle, either through surrender or capture. These treaties specifically disallow the INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians and non-combatants. However, knowing that unintended civilian casualties are inevitable in a conflict, they don't provide punishment for those. Since the US doesn't target civilians and those that are killed are because they were in the vicinity of the target, no crime has been committed. In the few cases where civilians were intentionally targeted, the perpetrator(s) have been brought to justice. The torture of anyone who has been removed from battle is NEVER unintentional and is ALWAYS a crime, so there is a huge difference between what I blame Bush for and what I support Obama in.

[JayHawk]

Yay Chance is back.....

When you're low down and dirty
From walkin' the street
With your old hurdy gurdy
No one to meet
Said love ain't the same
On the south side of town
You could look
But you ain't gonna find it around

It's the same old story
Same Old Song And Dance, my friend
It's the same old story
Same old story
Same Old Song And Dance

maybe JUB drones missed him this time... send in JUB team six.....

[Lefty]

Jayhawk,

You are my impartial but sometimes disputatious friend.

Can an infrastructure be considered as a Country within
its borders?

Does killing of people, razing properties and abusing the
environment to do so qualify as destruction?

If so, what moron would say, even if he wasn't asked,
about silly skirmishes like starting out as America was
being BUILT, that silly 32 month dust up called the War
of 1812? The Great Indian Wars? The Civil War? (and so on),

Did they not count? Did my family members on all sides
that died, they didn't count. on and on ad nauseum...

You try to reason with him if you desire,
{sarcasm ahead}
I'll go research
mini drones and if they can be programmed for people/even
places that declare to be anti American or anti West.

[chance1]

Yay Chance is back.....




maybe JUB drones missed him this time... send in JUB team six.....

back and better than ever cappy

how could i miss the next morph of jayhawk ?

who knows what's next ????

no one knows

we just know it'll be as if it was always so right ?

as for drones, read somewhere that these drone attacks may have created the fervor for the benghazi attack

that these drone attacks are stirring the hornets nest

personally i love the drones and all that they do in lieu of putting american men (and women) in harm's way

killing bad guys is good

love when the weak knees cry for terrorists

sorta fucked up

as for me and drones, i'm too fleet a foot for no stinkin drone

[JayHawk]

Lefty I agree with you on all points. Yet another aspect that I didn't have the endurance to put down into prose. For someone who doesn't care about America the burning of our capitol would neither make sense nor be a realistic justification they would embrace. SO I chose instead to point out how less than likely his prediction of America's fate would be given the current situation.

I personally think our model will transform the earth into almost continental regions through the power of resource control alone. And a few bullets here and there.

[JayHawk]

Chance my position remains the same... perhaps you will join me in loving America some day!

As far as fleet footed? All us fairies have wings for evasion as well.................

[xbuzzerx]

I love the hypocrisy exhibited here - it's just ....... priceless

Personally I trust the President and his band of taxers to pick just the right people and places to zap

technology is awesome and powerful and the alternative is much worse for us and frankly for "them"

and Better them than us

But the flailing of those who crucified Bush and clearly would be doing so now is just more evidence just how fucked CE+P is

making excuses for Obama when none were or would've been

perhaps additional drone strikes - laser target - are in order

to save lives or minds

You had absolutely 0.0 problem with this, nor did ANY Republican, when tens of thousands were dying in the Iraq War, which was wholly unnecessary, and was not surgically targetting terrorist cells.

[chance1]

Chance my position remains the same... perhaps you will join me in loving America some day!

As far as fleet footed? All us fairies have wings for evasion as well.................

don't get narrow on me now JH - i was not referencing your "the military is amazing - how could it not be - i was in it" position

rather your evolution on so many other issues

i love the u.s. - unlike rareboy and others who dump on it

obama's stewardship is regrettable - his failings obvious

but we will endure and perhaps thrive during his reign (of error)

on this he is right - and ironically he is un-progressive on it

cause it's the best country in the world

yep

[chance1]

You had absolutely 0.0 problem with this, nor did ANY Republican, when tens of thousands were dying in the Iraq War, which was wholly unnecessary, and was not surgically targetting terrorist cells.

i fear ur massively confused

[JayHawk]

don't get narrow on me now JH - i was not referencing your "the military is amazing - how could it not be - i was in it" position

rather your evolution on so many other issues

i love the u.s. - unlike rareboy and others who dump on it

obama's stewardship is regrettable - his failings obvious

but we will endure and perhaps thrive during his reign (of error)

on this he is right - and ironically he is un-progressive on it

cause it's the best country in the world

yep

But ya see just like drones or any other thing Obama has done better than Bush... i like America and see the net effect... everything you see is hazed over by a Glen Beck-ian kind of hysteria over Obama.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

don't get narrow on me now JH - i was not referencing your "the military is amazing - how could it not be - i was in it" position

rather your evolution on so many other issues

i love the u.s. - unlike rareboy and others who dump on it

obama's stewardship is regrettable - his failings obvious

but we will endure and perhaps thrive during his reign (of error)

on this he is right - and ironically he is un-progressive on it

cause it's the best country in the world

yep

How exactly are we "dumping on America"? I don't recall seeing anyone on here saying "AMERICA SUX!". And no, we're not "The best country in the world". Quit regurgitating that stupid Nationalist propaganda that Glen Beck likes to spoon-feed his listeners. I love America, but i'm not blind to it's faults. We are lagging behind many countries when it comes to health care, education and gun violence.

*cue chance saying: "And it's all Obama's fault!".*

To which I reply, "Yes, but he's trying to do something about them. You didn't win the Showcase Showdown, but you do get the home game. Thanks for playing!"

[chance1]

But ya see just like drones or any other thing Obama has done better than Bush... i like America and see the net effect... everything you see is hazed over by a Glen Beck-ian kind of hysteria over Obama.

that's just dumb sweetie

dropping glenn beck

its cheap and stupid

don't do that to u and ur "brand"

which is so tarnished already by the stevens bullshit

[chance1]

How exactly are we "dumping on America"? I don't recall seeing anyone on here saying "AMERICA SUX!". And no, we're not "The best country in the world". Quit regurgitating that stupid Nationalist propaganda that Glen Beck likes to spoon-feed his listeners. I love America, but i'm not blind to it's faults. We are lagging behind many countries when it comes to health care, education and gun violence.

*cue chance saying: "And it's all Obama's fault!".*

To which I reply, "Yes, but he's trying to do something about them. You didn't win the Showcase Showdown, but you do get the home game. Thanks for playing!"

more reason for drones

massive confusion and misrepresentation

whatever gets u thru the moment

on drones obama is A+

on other stuff not so much

ask the un and under employed

oh i forgot jobs is not a gay issue

LOL

[FuryOfFirestorm]

more reason for drones

massive confusion and misrepresentation

whatever gets u thru the moment

on drones obama is A+

on other stuff not so much

ask the un and under employed

oh i forgot jobs is not a gay issue

LOL

Do you ever actually read what you type before you post it? What "massive confusion and misrepresentation"? What the fuck do jobs have to do with the subject of drones?

Also, i'd rather have Obama using drones to make precision strikes to kill terrorists rather than wasting millions of dollars bombing and invading villages only to end up getting dozens of troops and civilians killed and no dead Al-Qaeda members to show for it.

[chance1]

Do you ever actually read what you type before you post it? What "massive confusion and misrepresentation"? What the fuck do jobs have to do with the subject of drones?

Also, i'd rather have Obama using drones to make precision strikes to kill terrorists rather than wasting millions of dollars bombing and invading villages only to end up getting dozens of troops and civilians killed and no dead Al-Qaeda members to show for it.

go back to YOUR initial post - which was misrepresentation and confusion

as my comment was directed at JH who accused me of not loving america

so the entire context of your nonsense was nonsense

simply put

as for the umpteeth time i love me some obama on drones

so attacking me for it is sorta dumb

[FuryOfFirestorm]

go back to YOUR initial post - which was misrepresentation and confusion

as my comment was directed at JH who accused me of not loving america

so the entire context of your nonsense was nonsense

simply put

as for the umpteeth time i love me some obama on drones

so attacking me for it is sorta dumb

I would have thought that you would love drones, chancey. After all, all you do on here is drone on and on and on....

And without drones, who would listen Glen Beck or watch Sean Hannity?

[rareboy]

I love the hypocrisy exhibited here - it's just ....... priceless

Personally I trust the President and his band of taxers to pick just the right people and places to zap

technology is awesome and powerful and the alternative is much worse for us and frankly for "them"

and Better them than us

But the flailing of those who crucified Bush and clearly would be doing so now is just more evidence just how fucked CE+P is

making excuses for Obama when none were or would've been

perhaps additional drone strikes - laser target - are in order

to save lives or minds

oh good,

you're back.....

although one sees that you return with the same quiver of blunt arrows.....

But let us first look at the hilariously unintended irony in your post. Yes the hypocrisy is priceless. Because the same person villifying Obama would have been glorifying Bush. You know it. We know it. We know you know it.

Good to see though that you don't have any problem with the drome program at all.

But you only make yourself continue to look small and ridiculous when you have to throw in silly epithets like 'taxers'. I do understand though, that you must have tons of pent up frustration and anger from your brief stay away.

[JayHawk]

But you only make yourself continue to look small and ridiculous when you have to throw in silly epithets like 'taxers'. I do understand though, that you must have tons of pent up frustration and anger from your brief stay away.

What kills me is only someone who make a shit ton of money would actually give a shit and MOST of those folks desire to pay their share of the bill. Those that don't are like that loser casino mogul who threw billions at losing horse races. What I dont understand equally are the republicans wanting to cut spending more while keeping the military we have.... currently the service chiefs are spinning up their messages of woe and defeat. Soon the republicans will take up the mantra. SO they will be preaching a message of spending uncontrollably while not wanting to pay their bills....

It defies the mind that they consider themselves the grown up party..... so bitter and divided. The republican party will have a message after the SoTU. So will the Tea Party. Oh and the Republican party is doing a speech in Spanish. Which is nice and all but (For Espanole Numero DOS) language selection does not a successful Hispanic enterprise make.

And Chance once again I am for America... not for some partisan bullshit. I always will be so if the leader of my America changes occasionally don't be surprised that my party support does as well. Remember America and her people first, whining bitch ass parties unwilling to take responsibility and pay their bills can get in the back of the bus and shut the fuck up. The republican party if finally starting to get it on capitol hill.... perhaps you ought to take a lesson or two? Just don't do it from Lyndsey Graham or John "Loser" McCain... both of them are watching the ability for them to accomplish anything with their name on it disappear into the ether. SO they are bitter. Kinda like a embattled gay haiku poet.

[CowboyBob]

Only been back a few hours and already the personal jabs start. He will never learn.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

OH SNAP, JayHawk!



Two snaps in a z-Formation!

[Lefty]

Good Morning,

I have American Blood relatives over there fighting someone elses war at their request and
hopefully to prevent a similar anathema growing and further attacking the United States.
The current situation is not an X-box game doodoo heads. Real people die. Real innocent
people die from all age groups. There is no place for namby-pamby excrement...

**********************************************
{You hit me to hard. I couldn't see the whites of your eyes. I'll see your assault and raise
you two of my terrorist attacks and throw in two roadside bombings. I know something you
don't know. You bastards, hurting me to get information that might end killing of bystanders
and oppressed. NATO, XXXX isn't playing fair,
***********************************************

I'm striving for good manners here...I have/had close family involved intimately, some terminally,
all my life...60 plus years.None of them asked to go kill anybody. They were sent and in WAR,
sadly, everybody loses

On Topic, I am for The Drones or whatever thing else that will lessen the odds of Americans
being decimated in someone elses piss-ups. All concerned can make up in the afterlife. If more Drones now means saving more lives now and or late...
Drone on Mr. POTUS, drone on and away

[xbuzzerx]

How exactly are we "dumping on America"? I don't recall seeing anyone on here saying "AMERICA SUX!".

I consider the dumping on America view to be the one that says we shouldn't take any clean strikes at Al Qaeda surgically when we have the capacity to do so, and that if we do, the President is an evil war criminal because I don't like his party affiliation.

Where was all this outrage for civilian casualties throughout years of occupying a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11?

This situation wouldn't even be close to analagous because the Iraq War resulted in about 100,000 deaths directly and indirectly. But even if it were comparable Obama would still need to say something like "Al Qaeda is planning terrorist attacks against the U.S................................... so we're going to use drones on Iceland" for this situation to be anywhere near analagous enough for this kind of disproportionate surreal reaction we're seeing from the Republicans here.

[Lefty]

- - - Updated - - -

another violation on top of another violation of the O/P's thread.

Trying again.

IMO, the drones are actually saving hundreds of lives every
time ONE is used.

I don't have the statistics at hand, but experience and
common sense prods at me....
Why waste man power when a little brain power and some
technically savvy equipment can do a better job in a faster,
more humane manner. Kill a bit nicer.

Go Drones


Platitude with Attitude... Dead men tell no tales
(add on for reality purposes)
and really no longer care how they died,

They are Dead JMHO

[Lefty]

Loki,

In an ideal world, we are all civilians of the world. The drones (as I understand it) are not deployed against
countries, we have NUKES and better for that. They are being (hopefully) against splinters that continue to
threaten peoples that don't want to live under their rule as sheep to a shepherd. They are one more example
of refusing to be the lamb to the slaughter (yes they have, do and will continue to do so if allowed)

[Centexfarmer]

Believe it or not, much to the chagrin of my friends out here in the real world, I'd rather find the things that we can agree upon rather than focus on those things which most divide us.

The general consensus from a lot of posts (152 posts in) from those usually divided on politics, seem to agree (for the most part) that drones are good.

It has been pointed out in this discussion, that Americans need to be having this talk.

When and where do we say the use of drones is "too much?"

I've been watching a lot of shows on NPR, The Discovery Channel, and reading a broad range of articles on this topic; everything from the Radio Shack geeks who want to take video of their neighborhood, to some kick as photographers in Baltimore, Maryland who like taking aerial shots from their "drone" from angles, heights and perspective not seen from land based angles.

I saw a piece on CBS Sunday Morning, where it was mentioned that most of the U.S. Military 'seem to know, but won't admit' that drones are the future of "war."

But all of that is really just the "technical on the surface" discussions.

The implications of the use of drone technology are much more onerous, and we should be having this discussion.

As a Yellow Dog Democrat, my biggest disappointment in Obama is that as much as he campaigned against Bush43's "war on terrorism," he's not only bought into, but opened up whole new dimensions in ways that I find are justifiable from his critics.

So let's not let those doing the bitching and complaining be silenced, regardless of how hypocritical their voices may sound now.

We need to stop all of that shit, and as Americans collectively express our voices and opinions about how we are represented in the world, and whether or not we can humanly justify NOT sending one of our own to personally defend our "freedoms."

I support the use of Drones.

There I said it!

But at some point I believe that all of us are going to find ourselves in a position where "Whoa! That's too far!"

Some (many?) are already saying that.

But if we don't have this discussion NOW and ponder all of the "what ifs" then when?

When there's a little hummingbird size drone hovering outside of your window taking pictures, and video taping you through your window like a voyeur?

Ethically my biggest bitch with Obama right now, is that there really don't seem to be any constraints on the use of drones.

Why hire an assassin, or a mercenary/government subcontractor when you can send over a drone to do all of our dirty work, and so what if it gets shot down? It accomplished it's mission, and who gives a damn of there aren't any "laws" saying we shouldn't?

I think/feel as Americans that's where we're at.

[Jack Springer]

^^
When a drone drops the first dirty bomb on a USA city or one is used to assassinate a world leader - I wonder if your opinion will change.

Drones were cute when they first came out, I liked them -- but then after thinking about the possibilities, I realized that they are the biggest escalation of war since the creation of the nuclear bomb ... or is it the invention of gun powder or invention of the wheel.

War needs to be personal.

[Lefty]

Yeah,

What he 'centex farmer' said

But it was more funner my way.

BTW JACK, check around

Disputes are usually personal.
Wars are usually not...I know
you are a champion disputer,
were you ever a warrior...
just asking.

[Jack Springer]

Nothing like using a drone to kill a 16 yo boy.

[xbuzzerx]

I feel like there's a disconnect... most people don't have issues with drones as a matter of technology. being able to make targeted strikes against terrorists without having to put soldiers in danger is great.

but there's a lot to question when it comes to the process (no oversight, evidence, or due process required to deploy them against US citizens, the fact that they're managed by the CIA and not the military, deploying them against countries we're not at war with, etc). there's also the question of whether they're creating more terrorists than they're actually killing, especially when they kill civilians.

Loki my question is, why is this reaction coming up now specific to the use of drones when these issues were all completely ignored during airstrikes and shock and awe campaigns for a decade?

Every single time you heard a story about a terrorist cell being bombed, blown up or whatever else, do you think the U.S. military was checking the passports and birth certificates of everyone suspected to be in the cell and consulting with the courts of each respective country to get some kind of warrant?

I just don't get why this suddenly bothers people NOW, under Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing like using a drone to kill a 16 yo boy.

I'm sure it really mattered to the boy if a drone or ground troops killed him. Except the drone is killing a lot less 16 year old boys.

[Jack Springer]

Yeah,

What he 'centex farmer' said

But it was more funner my way.

BTW JACK, check around

Disputes are usually personal.
Wars are usually not...I know
you are a champion disputer,
were you ever a warrior...
just asking.

Nope, I was never in the military.

I just can't understand why liberals are celebrating war now.

If you have no 'skin' in the game -- what's the purpose of a war? Drones are objects not human beings.

[Jack Springer]

Loki my question is, why is this reaction coming up now specific to the use of drones when these issues were all completely ignored during airstrikes and shock and awe campaigns for a decade?

Every single time you heard a story about a terrorist cell being bombed, blown up or whatever else, do you think the U.S. military was checking the passports and birth certificates of everyone suspected to be in the cell and consulting with the courts of each respective country to get some kind of warrant?

I just don't get why this suddenly bothers people NOW, under Obama.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm sure it really mattered to the boy if a drone or ground troops killed him. Except the drone is killing a lot less 16 year old boys.

OK, just 16 yo boys that Obama selectively wants to kill. Makes perfect sense now.

[JayHawk]

I agree Centex but as I said before I do give Obama credit for 'leaking' this memo to start the fire under the conversation. I believe he wants the fight of setting limits now because HE knows from his perspective how easy it could be abused with no congressional or judicial oversight. Think about his selection of Brennan which should have driven the conversation since he is the god father of automated death in America..... but it didnt... so he then leaked this memo.... Obama is stoking this fire so the public will demand some boundaries.

I also think we need to set boundaries so we can help lead the effort to set a new chapter in the Law of Armed Conflict. That all countries will sign onto in agreement.

[xbuzzerx]

OK, just 16 yo boys that Obama selectively wants to kill. Makes perfect sense now.

This isn't worth responding to Jack. You have no evidence for that kind of a claim.

[JayHawk]

Nope, I was never in the military.

I just can't understand why liberals are celebrating war now.

If you have no 'skin' in the game -- what's the purpose of a war? Drones are objects not human beings.

What I dont understand is how you developed a love for mankind after a democrat took office but before hand was a war monger supporting Bush. Have you no core sense of values?

[xbuzzerx]

Nope, I was never in the military.

I just can't understand why liberals are celebrating war now.

If you have no 'skin' in the game -- what's the purpose of a war? Drones are objects not human beings.

(Requoting)

You believe there is a double standard when there isn't one.

I don't want innocent people to die at all, but even liberals all supported that we had to do something about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11. What I didn't support was full scale ground invasions of countries that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I don't want innocent people to die, but if the choice with a target we must strike (such as a terrorist training camp affiliated with a group that HAS carried out successful terrorist attacks against the U.S.) is either to invade the entire country resulting in tens or hundreds of thousands killed directly or indirectly, and surgically striking at the cells themselves, I take the latter.

I don't suffer under any delusion that any method of war can reduce innocent casualties to 0%. That's why I believe we should only do anything at all in cases of actual necessity and not cases of political and economic expediency, as with the Iraq War.

So no... simply saying that any method of war kills innocent people doesn't surprise me, but saying a method that kills far fewer is somehow something we should all be as outraged about as a completely needless ground invasion that resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 people and should be called a war crime by comparison is at best a stretch. At worst it's pure partisanship.

If you want anyone to take seriously this notion that the U.S. is just willy-nilly calling anyone it doesn't like a threat and sending a drone after them then show us some instance of that instead of strikes on Al Qaeda cells that may have people of many different national backgrounds involved and telling us that's an inhumane war crime because some tiny percentage of them may be American by birth.

Also, skin in the game Jack? Really? When we invade countries that have no military seriously capable of even attempting to stop us and the primary way they fight us are IED's and terrorist or suicide bombings? A lot of people wind up dying uselessly because we're on the ground in huge numbers when all we're really after are a few hundred people hiding out in caves out in the desert or up in the mountains.

The two wars we were involved in weren't wars as much as incredibly costly occupations so that we could get at a small group of terrorist cells but resulted in tons of innocent casualties. This position you're taking that somehow surgically striking at the terrorists themselves rather than invading the entire country is far more unethical is pretty brain numbingly stupid, and shows the legitimacy of your concern for human life when you'd prefer a method that gets tens of thousands of civilians slain just for getting in the way of a fight that is really only between us and terrorist cells, not the entire countries in which those cells may be located.

[Lefty]

Somebody want to draw a picture for Jack...

And/or get him into the big picture. .

The thread asks about using drones instead of
troops to terminate terrorist groups...

Or did I misunderstand from the gitgo here?
If so, sorry, I'mma gone...
ouchouch

[Rolyo85]

pretty brain numbingly stupid

That pretty much sums up the whole anti-drone "argument" in this forum.

[Centexfarmer]

^^
When a drone drops the first dirty bomb on a USA city or one is used to assassinate a world leader - I wonder if your opinion will change.

Who needs a drone?

You can do that in a rented panel van in Times Square, or in the parking lot under the St. Louis Gateway Arch.

Or in a piece of luggage on an Amtrak train, NYC Subway, the Boston T, the DC Metro, or Bay Area Rapid Transit.

Seriously!

If a group of retarded American Born "jihadists" are cobbling together parts from Radio Shack, eBay, and Craig's List, to "drop a dirty bomb" somewhere, then we're clearly thinking that "duct tape" and the Department of Homeland Security (the largest build up/consolidation of Government Power Since FDR, except under a "conservative republican"/Bush43, and kept off the GBO books), then it's clear that you and I are afeared of completely different things.

Drones were cute when they first came out, I liked them -- but then after thinking about the possibilities, I realized that they are the biggest escalation of war since the creation of the nuclear bomb ... or is it the invention of gun powder or invention of the wheel.

Shit!

Jack they're WORSE THAN THAT!

That's the point that I was trying to make in my post here in your thread.

War needs to be personal.

How personal?

I promise not to cum in your mouth personal?

This will only hurt for a little while personal?

My son or daughter signed up for the National Guard, but was sent to die outside of our Nation personal?

How personal are we talking here?

While the "Corporate Whores" known as at least two of our three branches of Government (1. POTUS, 2. Congress...who are also responsible for the 3rd; SCOTUS), send our youngest, best and brightest off to do a war that a DRONE can do?

How quaint.

But why?

Does it make war less lethal?

I'm going to tell you something that all of our "sources" won't tell you:

As Americans we're not meant to agree. What we once believed were the power houses of information and journalism, what we once believed were the laws and governing powers of legislation balancing that influence (the FCC for example) haven't existed since Reagan/Bush41. That's earlier than most of the posters of this forum have been alive!

There are far more opinions in this country regarding Honey Boo Boo, and how much the Kardashians spent on their last wedding, then who KNOW who their elected representatives are, or what they do!

Frankly, that scares the shit out of me more than Drones, or dirty bombs being "dropped" somewhere.

Because it's all coming.

How do I know?

Add up the number of innocent Americans that have been killed at American Universities, Shopping Malls, Movie Theaters, and Elementary Schools in the past four years, and how Americans have been convinced that any attempt to legislate that means that we all have to give up our guns.

You can thank the National fucking Rifle Association for that.

Do you somehow think that Halliburton, Raytheon, General Electric, Time Warner Cable, or Comcast might have any less interest?

Following your logic, it's only a matter of time where we should all have DRONES of our own.

Without ANY thought to the consequences.

We'll be flooded on our Facebook pages by ads to buy our own, and which "sponsor" has the best prices!

Pissing and moaning about which partisan President did what, or executive orders that were signed, or which party allow it to happen is nothing more than scenery.

As Americans we need to engage...NOW!

[JayHawk]

You know Tex I hear tell that if you hide your head in the sand and dont develop drone technology then no one else will do it.... maybe that was Jack's point... we should revert to pre-WWI mindset of ignoring the world and maybe it will go away.

[Centexfarmer]

You know Tex I hear tell that if you hide your head in the sand and dont develop drone technology then no one else will do it.... maybe that was Jack's point... we should revert to pre-WWI mindset of ignoring the world and maybe it will go away.

I have to apologize, but I won't sign off on that.

Seriously how "secret" could Obama's "drone war" be if we're all talking about it?

[xbuzzerx]

it bothered a lot of people under GWB too, myself included.

the reason it's coming to the fore now, this week specifically, is because of the John Brennan confirmation hearing. he was part of the GWB team that decided it's cool to waterboard terrorists, and he's been a huge proponent of using drones to kill anyone the US government decides to label as a terrorist, with no requirement of evidence or oversight.

Loki even assuming that treating terrorist cells as a legal apprehension problem or interpol issue, which largely is not remotely feasible or practical, what is it that you would like to see happen if we found a terrorist cell, stopped, and requested extradition rights from Saudi Arabia for its nationals that may be operating as terrorists in the cell, and they say no?

If you say "then do it anyway", then so much for the due process argument.

I honestly see fighting terrorists abroad in situations where you can't just send local police to arrest them is possible under the constraints you would like to see it done. And I also think the fact that we would only really care about whatever marginal percentage of overseas terrorists are American by birth, and don't really care at all if we're surgically striking at a base with Saudi Nationals or whatever other-nationals in it in a third party country, is a bit disingenuous.

The oath of allegiance to the United States involves the phrase "enemies foreign and domestic." I don't know that an American national operating as part of an international terrorist group overseas qualifies as a domestic enemy, but he is certainly whatever the categorization, an enemy.

Yes, if your sole concern is that people are not being added willy-nilly to a kill list (something I have zero reason to believe has happened) and want to see criteria drawn up upon which someone can be qualified in this manner while in a terrorist cell overseas, fine. Let's wrangle over the language and it looks like that's where this is headed politically anyway. But I don't buy this concept sans any evidence that Obama is just personally adding people he doesn't like to the list, nor do I buy the feasibility of a picture where we just send cops and customs inspectors to terrorist cells and request information about their identities and nationalities prior to acting against terrorist threats. Which is what it sounds like is all you'd be satisfied with.

[chance1]

Hawkish progressives

who knew

"bandwagon" at it again

we don't like that

oh obama did it ? never mind

lots of rubbing going on

[xbuzzerx]

Hawkish progressives

who knew

"bandwagon" at it again

we don't like that

oh obama did it ? never mind

lots of rubbing going on

No progressive ever disagreed we had to do something about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11. Not a single one. Equating the left's opposition to the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan as part of some moronic "regime change/install Democracy operating system" ideology with "progressives were never for striking terrorist cells" is either your lack of comprehension or your lack of intellectual honesty.

[chance1]

No progressive ever disagreed we had to do something about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11. Not a single one. Equating the left's opposition to the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan as part of some moronic "regime change/install Democracy operating system" ideology with "progressives were never for striking terrorist cells" is either your lack of comprehension or your lack of intellectual honesty.

the point is this: and please understand it

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

[Centexfarmer]

the point is this: and please understand it

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

That's BULLSHIT and you know it.

You seem to be perfectly fine when the "right wing head bobbles" come along posting their in-corruptible Peggy Noonan Op-Ed pieces, while completely forgetting that she's nothing more than a writer with an opinion.

Hell, I don't even mind when you come along and call the so called "liberal head bobbles" who post in this forum on their hypocrisy!

But God Help Us All if you can't stand on a single argument without support of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post.



Then it somehow becomes personal for you:

i think this thread sucks

oh look another giant circle jerk from the obama-ball-lickers-club

i can tell where the moderators loyalty lies....i'm part of the 15 and the 85 are a bunch of progressive assholes....

blah, blah, blah.

When truth be told you really don't give a shit one way or another.

You just enjoy being the "Contrary Mary."

It sells better.

Am I wrong?

[Rolyo85]

the point is this: and please understand it

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

Two points:

1. The "you'd be doing it too if the roles were reversed" is:
a) An indefensible argument, unless supported with citations from a time when roles WERE reversed, and as such - absolutely pointless.
b) An admission that you guys aren't doing it because you care, but because it's not your party that's in charge, and as such - absolutely reprehensible.

2. I can't speak about that argument, because the roles HAVEN'T been reversed - drones are too new - but even if that were the case, a measure of explanation would come from the fact that personally, I would not trust GWB or Romney to even remotely have the interest of the country or the people, but rather some personal gain in mind. Say what you will, but GWB and Romney (as well as the Clintons, to be frank) come from a very different place than Obama does - a much more privileged and tied to many more financial interests.