So Obama eliminates the Drone Program....and months later there is a vicious attack on

[busterbrown]

americans, here or abroad......Obama would immediately be put in a Lame duck situation, Republicans would probably have huge success in the next elections, followed by a republican presidency. Based on what we have experience with this type of role out, how many more kids and civilians around the world would end up dead? Im not willing to take that chance..

[Kolesar]

1. The sensors are not good enough

The drone operators should be more discriminating so that they don't hit bystanders. That is the problem. They bomb the target although the video does not provide them with a perfect identification of the person they are trying to kill.

[thesquanderer]

12. So your only issue is target accuracy?

You don't care about how it is determined that the people should be targeted in the first place, and if they are American citizens, whether they deserve a trial before being sentenced to death?

[Vincardog]

2. So Obama cuts the Defense budget in half and uses the money for infrastructure and education.

The Drone program is eliminated and all aggression abroad is halted.

Obama also reschedules Marijuana and his policies are so popular that the House turns Democratic in 2014.

The Democratic government passes a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, declaring that Corporations are not people, requiring public financing of elections and outlawing corporate interference in elections.

The people elect a Congress that breaks up all the "Too big to fail or jail" corporations.
The Congress eliminates the cap on SS wages and requires all income to be subject to SS taxes.
The Congress institutes a .05% tax in financial transactions. (Stock, bonds, futures and derivatives). That tax raises so much money that the IRS only has to enforce a flat 10% tax on all income.l

A permanent Liberal Democratic majority is guaranteed forever and kids and civilians all around the world look up to and respect the USA again.

I am willing to take that chance.

[busterbrown]

4. What about the question I raised.....?

You are going to bet that what you listed is possible on top of an attack...? Not me.
Everything in my world tells me to fear a fascist type govt. waiting to pounce..

[Vincardog]

5. You are afraid of a collusion between Corporations and Government and you support Drones?

What do you think will build and fly those drones?
I bet it would be a Fascist outfit.

[busterbrown]

7. I don’t support drones......................................

Just think the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.

[graham4anything]

26. This is a major bogus argument in that you forget one thing-

you say-stop all agression abroad?

Will someone tell that to the rest of the world.

Your equation doesn't work, when you have an OBL come in and in one hour, was able
to bankrupt the entire world for a decade. (Which was his goal to begin with.)

Do you think this highly political man did 9-11 to just childlike blow a toy building up and that was the reason?

Until he was taken out, he had accomplished his goal. to bankrupt the world.

All the other things you mention are small wedge issues compared to that.
Because in what idealized world, are 100% of the people of the universe, all of a sudden
wanting exactly the same thing someone in America wants?

The world is a big place.
America is just a part of that.
and no, we don't control the world.

nor snap our fingers and say everyone be good

however, we can protect ourselves from future OBLs so as to not happen what did

(and btw-everything bad came about because of a bad president
answer is, don't elect that bad president

but any law is meaningless to a bad president, but helps a good president

It is the exact opposite of the gun argument.(ironically enough).

[daleanime]

36. If you think this is the best way to protect ourselves .....

you are gravely mistaken. We are creating a larger generation of terrorists. Is that what we want?

[Enrique]

3. so Obama keeps the drone program

and so when there is a vicious attack on Americans, the GOP will rally around Obama. Like they did with Benghazi.

[NOVA_Dem]

38. His first concern was for Obama's POLITICAL well-being. n/t

[Floyd_Gondolli]

6. But the DUers who hate him would still have their ideological purity.

[busterbrown]

8. as their kids are forcibly drafted....

[TheMadMonk]

9. All the response your strawman needs.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

33. No more of a strawman than others I've seen on DU

IN the last 48 hours, it's been wall-to-wall hysteria and a lot of folks playing the Jump to Conclusions game, only without the funny dude from Office Space and the floor mat.

How exactly is this any more of a straw man than those who argue the American govt. will be killing Americans in the streets of American cities within a few months or so?

Actually, you're probably right, that's not a straw man. It's just good old fashioned batshit craziness.

[TheMadMonk]

41. The difference is: Those people are arguing that the govt...

...is ignoring the law to make it possible to carry the WOT as it is currently being waged in the Middle East onto AMERICAN SOIL.

You're arguing that it's necessary because just in case.


And as a matter of fact I happen to agree with you that some of the speculation is pretty damned batshit crazy.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that US citizens (and the rest of us) shouldn't be shit scared of a Government which has decreed that it has the authority to (and will) kill anyone it pleases (including US citizens) as it deems necessary without reference to constitution or common law. A government which in serial collusion with the preceding administration has marginalised or special cased out of existence virtually the entire Constitution.

So what if you can cuss a blue streak in front of police officers, or even directly show your displeasure at them with a gesture. Good ole American rugged individualism. But if a dozen (or more) of you get together to collectively make a point, those same cops will drop you with a flashbang between the eyes. AND THEY NOW HAVE ABSOLUTE DOUBLE SECRET AUTHORITY TO DO IT.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

43. In the real world I do not believe that will happen

Or will ever come close to happening. Basically what some are saying is the govt. would have used drones to slaughter the Occupy folks just because they could. I don't see that transpiring now, or any other time soon (or ever). Frankly it's ludicrous.

It's a huge, huge leap. I'm not wild about the 16-year-old getting killed, but his father was fair game IMO. And clearly he was fair game in the opinion of those pulling the trigger.

[Mutatis Mutandis]

10. yes, bombing the shit out of people in a gutless manner always makes the bombers safer

The actual result is a quaint little thing called BLOWBACK. I strongly suggest you study up on it.

http://www.iwallerstein.com/blowback-impossible-dilemmas-declining-powers/

Immanuel Wallerstein » Commentaries » Blowback, or Impossible Dilemmas of Declining Powers

Blowback is a term coined by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that originally meant the unintended negative consequences to a country of its own espionage operations. For example, if a secret CIA operation led to a revenge attack on U.S. individuals who were unaware of the CIA’s operation, this was considered “blowback.” But these days, many of the operations are not all that secret (for example, the U.S. use of drones in Pakistan or Yemen). And the “revenge” attacks are often publicly avowed. Nevertheless, countries don’t seem to cease engaging in such operations.

We need a more useful definition of blowback to explain how and why it’s occurring all over the place. I think the first element is that the countries engaging in such operations today are powerful, yes, but less powerful than they used to be. When they were at the acme of their power, they could ignore blowback as minor unintended consequences. But when they are less powerful than before, the consequences are not so minor, yet they seem to feel the need to pursue the operations even more vigorously and even more openly.

Let us look at two famous instances of blowback. One concerns the United States. In the 1980s, the United States wished to push the Soviet Union’s military forces out of Afghanistan. They therefore supported the mujahidin. One of the most famous leaders of the groups they supported was Osama bin Laden. Once the Soviet troops withdrew, Osama bin Laden created Al-Qaeda and began to attack the United States.

A second famous instance concerns Israel. In the 1970s, Israel regarded Yasser Arafat and the PLO as its principal opponent. Seeking to weaken the strength of the PLO among Palestinians, they gave financial aid to the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, known as Hamas. As Hamas grew, it did weaken the PLO somewhat. But at a certain point, Hamas became an even more vehement and effective opponent of the Israeli state than had been the PLO. Today, everyone knows these instances. Others involving Great Britain and France could be cited as well. Nor does this end the list of blowback countries. Why then do they continue to behave in ways that seem to undermine their own objectives? They do this precisely because their power is declining.

We need to look at it as a matter of temporalities in state policy. Blowback occurs when the declining power engages in behavior that, in the short run, achieves some immediate objective but, in the middle run, makes their power decline even more and even faster, and therefore in the longer run is self-defeating. The obvious thing to do is not to go down this road any more. The covert operations no longer really work in terms of the long-run objectives of the country. To stick with my examples: Don’t President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu understand this? And if they do, why are they continuing the operations, even boasting about them? Actually, I think that both these men do understand the ineffectiveness of these operations, and so do their intelligence agencies. But they face immediate dilemmas.

snip

------------------------------------------------------

Blowback

Chalmers Johnson

September 27, 2001

http://www.thenation.com/article/blowback#

For Americans who can bear to think about it, those tragic pictures from New York of women holding up photos of their husbands, sons and daughters and asking if anyone knows anything about them look familiar. They are similar to scenes we have seen from Buenos Aires and Santiago. There, too, starting in the 1970s, women held up photos of their loved ones, asking for information. Since it was far too dangerous then to say aloud what they thought had happened to them--that they had been tortured and murdered by US-backed military juntas--the women coined a new word for them, los desaparecidos--"the disappeareds." Our government has never been honest about its own role in the 1973 overthrow of the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile or its backing, through "Operation Condor," of what the State Department has recently called "extrajudicial killings" in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America. But we now have several thousand of our own disappeareds, and we are badly mistaken if we think that we in the United States are entirely blameless for what happened to them.

The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated.

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy.

The pattern has become all too familiar. Osama bin Laden, the leading suspect as mastermind behind the carnage of September 11, is no more (or less) "evil" than his fellow creations of our CIA: Manuel Noriega, former commander of the Panama Defense Forces until George Bush père in late 1989 invaded his country and kidnapped him, or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, whom we armed and backed so long as he was at war with Khomeini's Iran and whose people we have bombed and starved for a decade in an incompetent effort to get rid of him. These men were once listed as "assets" of our clandestine services organization.

snip

[Floyd_Gondolli]

34. As opposed to bombing them in a heroic manner

Is there really a difference?

[Mutatis Mutandis]

42. no

[busterbrown]

11. I suggest that you answer my question...

What do you think will happen if there is a 911 attack on American soil....?

Yea, I know what blowback is.

We are way beyond blowback stage after what we have done to Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestinians..
There are millions of people in this world who are seeking revenge either through their own beings or by supporting terrorist groups by funding and other means.

I wish all drone missions were immediately terminated. If they were High level military personnel would go bat shit crazy. Follow that up with an attack on our shores and you can rest assure that you would see a Republican President following 4 years of lame duck Obama presidency.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. My Senator has many questions.

What answers do you have for the following?
"Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them. The Justice Department memo that was made public yesterday touches on a number of important issues, but it leaves many of the most important questions about the President’s lethal authorities unanswered. Questions like ‘how much evidence does the President need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?’, ‘does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender?’ and ‘can the President order intelligence agencies or the military to kill an American who is inside the United States?’ need to be asked and answered in a way that is consistent with American laws and American values." Ron Wyden


No mention of eliminating the program or potential use in an actual actionable defense of the nation. So your straw pony don't run.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Thx 4 UR concern, buster.

[blkmusclmachine]

15. Constitution?! Don't need no stinkin' Constitution!

I trust the next (R) president to do the right thing. Don't you???

[erpowers]

16. Other Ways to Capture Terrorists

There are other ways, aside from drone strikes, to capture terrorists. We could send in special forces soldiers or CIA/intelligence agents to capture terrorists. Drone strikes were not used to go after Osama Bin Laden. The same that was done for Osama Bin Laden can be done for other terrorists.

Beyond that how many non-demostic terriorist attacks have occured in the United States since September 11th. There have been zero. It has been pointed out that President Obama has ordered more drone strikes in four years than President Bush ordered in eight years. If President Bush ordered far less drone strikes than President Obama and there still were not any additional foreign terrorist attacks in the United States I do not think either ending or reducing drone strikes will bring about another terrorist strike.

Finally, the way to prevent further terrorist attacks in the United States is to continue to be aware and listen to intelligence officials within reason. If intelligence officials claim a terrorist attack is likely, be on the alert and do something (arrest people and ask police and others to be more aware) to prevent the terrorist attack.

[busterbrown]

17. I will reiterate what I am not getting through..

I hate our govt’s use of drones. And I despise the fact that they are not willing to be forthright.
If there just happens to be some kind of terrorist attack on our country after the POTUS grounded this program, it would absolutely secure the presidency in republican hands in 2016 and turn Obama’s presidency into a lame duck affair... And it would be the 5 Star Generals leading the attack..

You know that 90% of these Generals dismissed Obama when he first entered office. He has probably gradually gained their respect. But man would there be a lot of “I told you so” if an event happens..

Republicans controlling our country from top to bottom is the worst of all possible scenarios..

[erpowers]

31. My Point

I did not miss your point. My point was that there were other ways to prevent terrorist attacks aside from using drone strikes.

I understand that you are saying if another terrorist attack occurs during the presidency of Barack Obama he will be blamed. This would lead to President Obama being unable to push his agenda through Congress, a Republican president being elected, and maybe Republicans taking control of the Senate.

My point is that ending drone strikes would not necessarily lead to another terrorist attack. Another terrorist attack could be prevented by capturing terrorists. Drones are not the only option.

[busterbrown]

32. Drone attacks send a horrible message to the world about who we are and what we stand for.

No doubt.........I fear however, that the Military Industrial Complex has become way to strong over the past years and might actually intimidate the POTUS into agreeing to their drone attacks.. Since 911, no one dares to stand down our god like military leaders. This also trickles down to our local police forces who I feel intimidate, city managers and mayors.. People in this country are now guided by fear, and those who protect us are heros 24/7.....Thats bad...

[treestar]

22. special forces could get killed

the whole point of the drones is no doubt to cut American casualties.

What did Bush do instead? May have killed more people.

As to prevention of attacks, who knows how many were prevented. The OP point would be that if there were so much as one, guess who would be blamed for it?

[rug]

18. January 21, 2017. The first order by the new republican president is an escalation of drone attacks.

Your response?

[busterbrown]

19. No, his first order will be an all out economic embargo on Iran. Then North Korea.....

After that our military will be called into action....

[rug]

20. And then when the drones are escalated?

How will you answer when he relies on the precedent of his immediate predecessor?

[treestar]

21. And the same posters would be wailing about him

and his "failure." It's the same posters who find him always at fault - that's what makes the whole thing suspicious to start. It smells like their latest outrage.

[Cha]

23. Oh yes.. they "voted for him twice

but regret it now".. "he's not progressive.. he's not even a democrat" Or bragging about they "didn't vote him".. "I voted for Jill Stein"

treestar

[great white snark]

29. "I voted for Jill Stein"=I don't want to make a difference so I'll selfishly enable Republicans.

And to think some of these same people claim to be the base.

Aloha kakahiaka Cha.

[Cha]

39. Yeah, the fictional "base" they're

always claiming.

PBO's Base are the ones who are giving him his high popularity in the polls NOW. Not the ones who incessantly whine and never give him credit for anything.

Aloha great white

[TroyD]

24. All Presidents after JFK have been afraid to stand up to the military-industrial complex

And until that changes, the out of control and illegal activities of the CIA and the Pentagon will continue. This is something both Democratic and Republican Presidents are guilty of.

I understand why they are afraid to take on the military-industrial complex, but we need another President who will be like JFK on this issue and take a stand - even if it is risky to do so.

[busterbrown]

25. I agree, the Pentagon holds the POTUS hostage just like the police captain of small cities and towns

think the mayor and city manager work for him....
Any moves against military or law enforcement agencies in our country is treated by those two groups as
weakening our security at our borders or within our cities. I’m sick of it..

[dtom67]

27. that isn't the issue...

Its about potential mistakes. Its about the fact that your "sacred cow" will not be president forever. President Todd Akin might decide to drone your daughter because she wanted to get raped by the man that God wanted to impregnate her. Abortionist terrorist harlot!
Really itss just about wether you are on the side of Evil or Good.

Or maybe its just fucking wrong...

[Demo_Chris]

28. Okay, let's consider this from your perspective then...

So Obama eliminates the Drone Program....and months later there is a vicious attack on americans, here or abroad......Obama would immediately be put in a Lame duck situation, Republicans would probably have huge success in the next elections, followed by a republican presidency. Based on what we have experience with this type of role out, how many more kids and civilians around the world would end up dead? Im not willing to take that chance..

There are a few problems with this idea.

The first is the assumption that these drone strikes have any impact on the number of terrorist attacks. We can play any kind of let's pretend you like, but the reality is that we do not know. There might be more, less, or no change at all. What we DO know is that we are doing this now and we still have attacks.

Second, you seem to be reaching an unsupported conclusion when you say that the American people would blame Obama for any attacks which take place. This is something of a stretch. For the most part the American people really don't much care. They aren't paying attention most of the time, and even during the last election when they were paying attention, the attack at that time -- the first to kill an ambassador in a long time -- had no negative impact on the election. Quite a few were seriously turned off by the GOPs efforts to politicize the attack.

Third, you seem to be arguing that we should accept this clear, unprecedented, and positively bone chilling assault upon our Constitution on the off chance that it might help us in the next election. I would suggest you reconsider your priorities. But let's set that aside and consider the potentially negative impact this policy has on democratic voter support. It's not guaranteed that the attacks you predict will actually happen, it's not guaranteed that if they do they will have any effect on the election, but it IS guaranteed that if Obama continues with this insanity there will be negative consequences.

It might not matter to YOU, but there are a good number of others who are not just unhappy, they are horrified. They will not vote for a guy who claims the authority to murder Americans at his whim, with no oversight. They did not vote for Obama or anyone else so that they could take the Bush policies that disgusted them, and expand those policies to some 1984 nightmare reality. If even one in ten democrats say "Fuck these evil bastards" we will not only lose the midterms, we will lose the Presidential elections as well.

So with all that in mind, do you still think this is something to play political games with?

And more important, is this REALLY something you should so casually dismiss as unimportant?

[rusty fender]

30. +1

Excellent reply!

[busterbrown]

37. Political games, My ass....

You certainly have a way of minimizing what would happen if there was another attack on our soil.
“American people really don’t care much”. You lost me there.....Safety is the first thing people are concerned with. This country is driven by fear.

And read what I say more carefully before responding. I hate drone attacks, I never said they were effective which you implied... I think they are a form of aggression which actually helps our enemies unite.

“Political Games”? I think a govt, with the three branches held by right wing morons and war mongers is a recipe for world wide disaster.

Does this sound like I’m casually dismissing this issue? Stop ranting on my dime..Find someone else.
You think I don’t give a shit about the hundred of thousands of innocent civilians we have murdered over
the last 10 years. You don’t think my heart weeps every time a see a child wounded in a pool of blood?
You my friend are a little too involved with yourself. Start reading before posting..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. What Demo_Chris said

If a policy was wrong under Bush, it's wrong under Obama, too.

[Sunlei]

35. our american police departments/states get to keep the drug money,real estate,cars jewelry.

Some of these States and local police are flush with cash from those drug busts. That's why they have the money to buy drones and other military gear.

That policy of getting to keep all the money, real estate, jewelry, everything besides making some police very corrupt (think all the police don't steal some of what they see in a home they bust?)

That policy should be changed to all drug bust wealth goes to a National account and is doled out equally to all Americans.

It's crazy that Dade county Florida has armored personal cars, drones and police decked out like Nazi stormtroopers..and other small towns lack even a single police officer.