About them doggone drones.

[RedCloud]

Red this might come as a great surprise to you but that has NOTHING to do with the comment I was replying to or the tanks shipped to Afghanistan.

"The wars of the 21st century will be very different from the past...The days of Tank Brigades and Generals leading battalions of troops...are over..."

Don't think so, BRU. Afghanistan is not fighting a "modern" war. These tanks will probably be used to put down internal insurgency.

 

[Queen Titania]

When Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Bush kilt 100's of thousands without extending each and every one a "fair trial", they were generally (no pun) hailed as heroes. When Obama kills a handful, some go apopletic. It's odd.

It is NOW.

 

[Saladin2]

Wrong.....Most Americans have No desire for War....But if it comes to that ...It will be won and fought with the Technology of the present and not the past...Drones are the present and have been highly effective in their use

 

[Queen Titania]

Well, it was the terrorists who chose the hit-and-run tactics for fighting war, not us. Conventional war is one thing, this is quite another. So, instead of we being the ones lying awake nights wondering where they'll hit next we have adopted their style of warfare to keep them awake wondering where we will strike next. But they have an edge yet. We don't indiscriminately destroy targets such a the twin towers where thousands are merely trying to earn their daily bread.

It's a sad state but they drew first blood.

Gramps

If we must go with the ridiculous Official Story of the Empire. I know that the purpose of War is to teach Americans geography but really you should have asked which turning it was to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabian Pilots even bin Laden was Saudi Arabian ...everything screamed Saudi Arabia ...........but nope the USA declares War on absolutely everybody BUT Saudi Arabians.

 

[Queen Titania]

youre at war? with what country?

Gabriel .really don't you know they look the same

It is Countryism

 

[Arkady]

Candidate Obama never disputed the legitimacy of George W. Bush's drone attacks on terrorists who could not be apprehended. If you say he did, could you provide some evidence of that?

If you're waiting for me to attack the straw man you just propped up, keep on waiting. I'm not claiming he had a problem with drone attacks. I'm saying he had a problem with the legal black hole that Bush created, wherein there were no standards for counter-terrorism, other than whatever standards Bush felt like observing. That's exactly what President Obama has continued. That has involved breaking his promise on closing GITMO, reversing himself on the indispensability of habeas corpus, breaking his promise about filibustering the FISA changes, reversing himself on the question of whether the president has the Constitutional power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation (see: Libya), reversing himself on whether it's OK to ignore laws when they're inconvenient, reversing himself on his pledge to run a more transparent administration (in fact, he's used the espionage act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined, and he's been at least as aggressive as Bush in abusing the state secrets doctrine). Did Candidate Obama ever come out and say that it was wrong for Bush to target American citizens far from any battlefield for extrajudicial killing, based on secret evidence and secret legal reasoning? No, I'll admit he didn't.... but that's only because Obama is the first president to engage in that conduct, as far as we know. Bush never stooped so low as to give him the opportunity to criticize that. However, President Obama's behavior is certainly a dramatic contrast to Candidate Obama's rhetoric, under which even having a president order eavesdropping on an American citizen without a warrant was a huge offense. It's bizarre to think that the same man now thinks it's perfectly fine for the president to order the killing of the same person without a warrant. I suppose as long as you plug your ears while you kill him, so you don't accidentally overhear anything while he's dying, without a warrant, it's fine.

This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the days of compromising our values are over.

Major General Paul Eaton had a long and distinguished career serving this country. It included training the Iraqi Army. After Abu Ghraib, his senior Iraqi advisor came into his office and said: “You have no idea how this will play out on the streets of Baghdad and the rest of the Arab world. How can this be?” This was not the America he had looked up to.

As the counter-insurgency manual reminds us, we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side. But because the Administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies. Because the Administration cast aside international norms that reflect American values, we are less able to promote our values. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception.America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again.

I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America’s courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution

works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.

 

[Zam-Zam]

How many times have we been attacked by North Korea?

How many times have we been attacked by Al Qaeda?

How many times have we been attacked by children? We've killed a lot of them with drones.

 

[Arkady]

There is a world of distance between being a candidate running for office and being the elected official who won the contest. I recall a Burt Reynolds role where he was out to sea swimming to make shore which was a good distance away and he implored of the Lord to help him make it and he could have everything he owned, then after he got closer to shore he revised his prayer to half of what he had, then 10%. Get the idea? If Obama had run a loser's campaign he'd have lost. And tallking soft when we're at war wouldve cost him the election. However unfortunate it was for Mitt that his secret weapon (bullet-proof underwear) didn't sell as an innovative conception of modern war goods. (Couldn't pass that opportunity up).

Gramps

I would love it if there were a magic button I could push to force liberal posters here, just for one day, to post the way they would if all the same policies were being carried out, only by the Bush/Cheney administration. I can proudly say that there would be very little difference in what I was posting, because I support ideas, not parties. But I'm absolutely certain that nearly all the other liberals here would be singing very different tunes (as would nearly all the conservatives).

 

[Queen Titania]

They declared war on the US. Fighting the war using drones, air power, tomahawk missiles....doesn't matter. We clearly have attempted to limit how many people are killed as we persue those who started this war. Have there been people killed who were innocent? Yes. Were they the target? No. Were they living in close proximity to someone who was the enemy and was the target? Yes.

When you are at war there is the possibility that non-combatants may be killed. If the leadership of Al Qaeda or the Taliban valued their neighbors and loved ones....they'd stay away from them or announce that they were ending their participation in the conflict. There are no other alternatives for them or us.

What you prove in post after post after post in your insistence of all those innocents, murdered by your country since 9/11, being Al Qaeda is a how deep rooted Racism is in the American psyche. They all look the same .countries, people .........all the bug splats ............

 

[Zam-Zam]

I would love it if there were a magic button I could push to force liberal posters here, just for one day, to post the way they would if all the same policies were being carried out, only by the Bush/Cheney administration. I can proudly say that there would be very little difference in what I was posting, because I support ideas, not parties. But I'm absolutely certain that nearly all the other liberals here would be singing very different tunes (as would nearly all the conservatives).

It seems there is a divide among the liberal posters here. There is the group that retains what is generally considered to be liberal values, and the group that believes the Obama administration can do no wrong. It's revealing to see who's who.

 

[Queen Titania]

Wrong.....Most Americans have No desire for War....But if it comes to that ...It will be won and fought with the Technology of the present and not the past...Drones are the present and have been highly effective in their use

No American sees War without consent ....what a stupid thing to say.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

It seems there is a divide among the liberal posters here. There is the group that retains what is generally considered to be liberal values, and the group that believes the Obama administration can do no wrong. It's revealing to see who's who.

I am certainly not one of those who think that "the Obama administration can do no wrong". I am perfectly happy to criticize the Obama administration when their actions justify it. I do not approve of warrantless wiretapping, for instance, and will say that regardless of whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration. I do not approve of the stepped-up prosecutions of whistle-blowers. I attach great value to habeus corpus, and don't like seeing it revoked, even in wartime, though the Constitution clearly specifies that it MAY be suspended in wartime.

But, on the other hand, I am still waiting for either you or Arkady to spell out, in a precise way, exactly HOW we were supposed to 'apprehend' Anwar Al-Awlaki, and bring him to trial. It would clearly have been preferable, if we could have done that, but we could NOT. We could NOT 'apprehend' Awlaki. Try to get that through your head, and then get back with me.

 

[fairsheet]

yeah, you keep tellin urself the drones have only hit the guilty, pal. it makes it so much easier to pretend you live in an honourable country!! hahahahahahaahahhaha

I never said they've only hit the guilty. I've said that no one's made any effort to prove they've targetted an innocent.. That's somewhat dispositive in that it's reasonable to assume that if they had such evidence, they'd present it.

 

[RedCloud]

Apart from the fact that no planes flew into the Towers

They are indigenous people who have not, nor ever have had any interest in the USA or anything outside their terrain .........you of all people should realise what is happening here. US Corperate want to eun pipe lines through their Land ...where ever there are Drones murdering and making mad indigenous peoples, Corperate is never far behind.

24/7 humming over the villages. When parent kiss their children goodnight they never know if they will see them in the morning for 7 years this has been going on ..........

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf[/QUOT

Queenie, normally I wouldn't read past the, "Apart from the fact that no planes flew into the tower," but in this case I want to say that the parent kissing the child good night is probably raising him/her to the age where he/she can strap an explosive charge around his/her waist and detonate it in a supermarket or other crowded area.

Queenie, when one is in a street fight one doesn't go by the Queensberry Rules--unless one wants the s--t beat out of one.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I am certainly not one of those who think that "the Obama administration can do no wrong". I am perfectly happy to criticize the Obama administration when their actions justify it. I do not approve of warrantless wiretapping, for instance, and will say that regardless of whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration. I do not approve of the stepped-up prosecutions of whistle-blowers. I attach great value to habeus corpus, and don't like seeing it revoked, even in wartime, though the Constitution clearly specifies that it MAY be suspended in wartime.

But, on the other hand, I am still waiting for either you or Arkady to spell out, in a precise way, exactly HOW we were supposed to 'apprehend' Anwar Al-Awlaki, and bring him to trial. It would clearly have been preferable, if we could have done that, but we could NOT. We could NOT 'apprehend' Awlaki. Try to get that through your head, and then get back with me.

It seems to me we apprehended Saddam Hussein, and then turned him over to his countrymen for trial. I guess it can be done after all.


Of course, killing bad guys with drones is easier, even if a few kids get blown up in the process. That is the argument here, right?

 

[RedCloud]

Dictator? Who would that be? By definition, winning an election eliminates dicator as an appropriate description.
If you know where the leadership of an armed insurgency is, I'd guess you think we should issue warrants for their arrest? Is that right? And what if they happen to be hiding in areas with no real government or law enforcement? Do we have to wait until they can be taken into custody? Are you thinking we should have sent US marshalls to aprehend them? Would you volunteer for the assignment?

Middleview, you and I are on the same track. You be the engineer and I will shovel in the coal! We can let Fairsheet substitute for either one of us if we get tired!

 

[Queen Titania]

Don't think so, BRU. Afghanistan is not fighting a "modern" war. These tanks will probably be used to put down internal insurgency.

[video=youtube_share;ObKRVQDKMwU]http://youtu.be/ObKRVQDKMwU[/video]

 

[fairsheet]

I would love it if there were a magic button I could push to force liberal posters here, just for one day, to post the way they would if all the same policies were being carried out, only by the Bush/Cheney administration. I can proudly say that there would be very little difference in what I was posting, because I support ideas, not parties. But I'm absolutely certain that nearly all the other liberals here would be singing very different tunes (as would nearly all the conservatives).

I don't buy the argument that in order for me to claim "principle" and be consistent, whatever complaint I may've registered as to Li'l Georgiean acts, I MUST level the same complaint in the case of a similar Obaman act.

The legislature makes law. The courts interpret law, and the executive enforces law. The fact that the presidency is an elected position, suggests that "enforcement" is a matter of perspective or opinion, not an absolute.

Let's take "warrantless wiretaps" as an example. We know that the 4th Amendment is by no means, absolute. Over the centuries, the courts have carved out all manner of exceptions, allowances, and workarounds. Whether or not any specific one of these rulings is righteous, is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, the rulings ARE the rulings, until a court rules otherwise.

The courts have ruled that the warrantless wiretaps in question, are Constitutional. That's not to suggest that people shouldn't question their ruling or that they shouldn't prevail upon a specific president to pass on warrantless wiretaps even as they may be constitutional.

As to my opening then.....IF I expressed discomfort with Pres. L'il George's use of the warrantless wiretaps in question, am I bound to express the same discomfort in presumptive case of Pres. Obama's using them? I think not. Li'l George and Obama are very different. While I may not trust Li'l George to excercise this power in good faith, I MAY trust Obama to do so. And..that's why we have a presidential election every four years.

 

[Queen Titania]

Apart from the fact that no planes flew into the Towers

They are indigenous people who have not, nor ever have had any interest in the USA or anything outside their terrain .........you of all people should realise what is happening here. US Corperate want to eun pipe lines through their Land ...where ever there are Drones murdering and making mad indigenous peoples, Corperate is never far behind.

24/7 humming over the villages. When parent kiss their children goodnight they never know if they will see them in the morning for 7 years this has been going on ..........

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf[/QUOT

Queenie, normally I wouldn't read past the, "Apart from the fact that no planes flew into the tower," but in this case I want to say that the parent kissing the child good night is probably raising him/her to the age where he/she can strap an explosive charge around his/her waist and detonate it in a supermarket or other crowded area.

Queenie, when one is in a street fight one doesn't go by the Queensberry Rules--unless one wants the s--t beat out of one.

The Tribal peoples are NOT suicide bombers, even to you all 'wogs' are the same eh ?

[video=youtube_share;jzh_jlN_6qg]http://youtu.be/jzh_jlN_6qg[/video]


[video=youtube_share;GzilsSfiTsY]http://youtu.be/GzilsSfiTsY[/video]

 

[fairsheet]

It seems to me we apprehended Saddam Hussein, and then turned him over to his countrymen for trial. I guess it can be done after all.


Of course, killing bad guys with drones is easier, even if a few kids get blown up in the process. That is the argument here, right?

Bad analogy. The number of Iraqi children who died in the context of our apprhendeing Saddam. is many orders of magnitude greater then the number of droned children.