General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor." Ouch.
"Boyle argues that the administration has been "successful in spinning the number of civilian casualties" because it has reportedly begun counting all military-age men in the strike zone as militants unless the administration has clear evidence to the contrary, the Guardian reports. As a result, the standards the US uses to select targets has been "gradual(ly) loosening."
He continues:
The consequences can be seen in the targeting of mosques or funeral processions that kill non-combatants and tear at the social fabric of the regions where they occur. No one really knows the number of deaths caused by drones in these distant, sometimes ungoverned, lands.
The use of drones by the US has increased dramatically during the Obama administration, with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimating that US forces have conducted 307 deadly drone strikes in Pakistan alone since Obama took office four years ago."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/07-5
It's not a good thing when a former adviser unfavorably compares you to Bush. But then again, given Obama's use of drones, drones and more drones the world over, I can see why he made the unfavorable comparison. Obama is killing innocents daily, in our name. If this was Bush carrying out these atrocities, we would have been screaming for his head long ago. But since it is a president with a D behind his name, the sound of silence is deafening.
When are you going to wake up? When are you going to speak up?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jsr
(7,712 posts)like against pot growers and reckless drivers in the U.S.
but they DO have the effect of not putting American soldiers in harms way; while, largely limiting the collateral damage of other military operations.
Question:
If not drones, what?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Killing innocents radicalize entire countries, entire regions, and they turn against the US. Individuals thus radicalized decide to take their rage and anger out on US soldiers and regular US citizens. Those people are killed.
The collateral damage is in a much broader sense, entire populations getting pissed off that we're killing innocents, and thus become radicalized and become our enemies, carrying out attacks against the US. See 9/11 for how well that turned out.
If not drones, how about this. We end this fruitless, pointless War on Terror, bring our troops home, and instead of trying to do nation building abroad, let's do some here at home.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)How about instead of trying to dominate the planet with our military might, we stopped creating enemies all around the world, and acted like responsible global citizens?
No Compromise
(373 posts)nt
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts) 1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the killing of innocents, and even active plotters, has a radicalizing effect (every plotter has a brother, a sister, a mother, a father and cousins) but ending the fruitless, pointless War on Terror, bringing our troops home and nation building abroad, won't stop those already radicalized from plotting to attack America, drones ... without going into the moral quagmire of extra-judicial killings, like it or not, do.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I suggest you do, it is quite enlightening.
We made the same mistake we're making now over fifty years ago in Vietnam. A shame that we didn't learn it.
Let me put this another way, fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, a contradiction in terms that only insures you continue to have your goal allude you. Continuing drone strikes against "radical" or "terrorists" or what ever else you want to call them is only going to result in more terrorists being created, which will then necessitate more drone strikes, which will radicalize more people, etc. etc., around and around we go.
If you want peace, if you want to end the war, then end it. Period. If you want to convince people you're the good guy, then start acting like it, rather than continuing to beat on them.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
MuseRider
(34,108 posts)Or as they say around here, +1,000,000,000 <--I have been waiting a long time for a post I approved of enough to actually do that. Whew. All done 
Good post MadHound, among thousands of others of yours. THIS is why I long to vote for someone who organizes around peace. It works, takes time and is actually harder to accomplish than waging war or just killing the people you are angry with, but in the long run it works.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)Not wage war? Inconceivable.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts) 
rtassi
(629 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but how does that stop the bad guys, that you must acknowledge really are out there, from plotting attacks against the U.S.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Peace is a long term proposition.
We have plenty of people who we've pissed off by our actions, and they are not going to be easily pacified. But, if we start being generous with our resources, if we start helping instead of hurting others, if we talk out our disputes rather than simply firing away, people in the world will start to like us, then love us, then find us indispensable, then we will be truly secure.
All we are doing right now is fighting a hydra. We kill one terrorist in a drone attack(along with a few, or few dozen surrounding innocents), those friends and family become radicalized against the US, and start fighting us. We kill them, and their friends and family start fighting us. Pretty soon a few dozen turns into millions, and then we've got real problems.
I'm not saying that following the path of peace is easy, it isn't. We're going to suffer blowback for our past sins for years to come. But if we are persistent in our path, it will pay off in the end, and our country, and the entire world, will be a better place.
If not, then this country is doomed to the same fate as other militaristic, imperialistic empires, death and destruction.
Liberal1975
(87 posts)Can only attack us because our armed forces are all over the world providing a target. How about treating terrorism like we should have all along? It's an international conspiracy of criminals, so the best move after 9-11 would have been to coordinate the FBI with Interpol and other intelligence agencies, tracking and monitoring these groups gathering evidence and bringing them to justice.
Going half cocked into the middle east so that Chaney and Bush's buddies could make money from a profiteering venture was not the way to go. It bankrupted us and if we are any safer now (which I would question) it is only because we have allowed the government extraordinary and unprecedented powers over us, the citizenry.
I agree we need to get the hell out, cut our military budget in half and spend that money on rebuilding our country and improving our security. That's my take on it anyway...
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)on a platter, they would stop attacking us.
I've read Islamic scholars to date the radicalization of Islam to our Adventures in Iran in 1953, when at the behest of the Brits we overthrew a democratically-elected socialist president and installed the Shah. In pursuit of cheaper oil of course. And because we could.
That's not the only time our protectors in the CIA have overthrown democratic socialist (horrors!) governments. They/we have ostensibly done it out of the fear of commies, but they really wanted to protect the profit margins of American (now multi-national) corporations (check out Kennecot Copper Company visavis Chile in 1973).
If we'd quit stomping on people, and trampling through their lives like a herd of stampeding elephants, they wouldn't attack us. (The Greatest Military Power the World has Ever Known? Why would they? For our freedomz?)
Sorry for the snark, but it seems painfully obvious to me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but also recognize that there are ideological extremists that wish to attack us for ideological reasons, regardless of how we treat them.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)We need to change our foreign aid structure as well as our aggressive military stance. The way things stand now our paltry largess is given with strings attached. We "give" money to other countries with the agreement that they spend it on buying weapons from us. Or we lend money for them to hire our construction companies to build a highway system--whether they need it or not. Or maybe we lend them money to buy seeds and fertilizer and pesticides from Monsanto, locking them into an unsustainable farming cycle that they cannot afford anyway (have you heard about the epidemic of farmer suicides in India?).
If we worked on being good global citizens instead of the meanest SOBs on the planet, and channeled our foreign aid toward helping other countries improve their own lives on their own terms, we could spend a fraction of our military budget on real border security and international police work, and IMHO be far safer than we are now. With the added bonus of building better lives for all of us, and many others as well.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. It is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Dwight David Eisenhower, 4/16/1953*
*I must in fairness add that Eisenhower said that 4 months before the CIA, with his blessing, overthrew the afore-mentioned president of Iran...<sigh> He should have taken his own advice. 
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Do you know anything about the reasons for these killings? No one seems to know since the 'kill program' is secret. If there are legitimate reasons, why is there no openness about these policies? And since when did the CIA get to operate wars in this country? Isn't that Congress' job?
How about we not kill people around the world, period? There is no need for American soldiers to be put in harm's way. I thought people on the left knew that when Bush put them in harm's way based on egregious lies. Did you support Bush/Cheney's wars? I can't recall anyone on the left supporting those illegal wars. What happened since then that all of a sudden the 'left' is now on board with these unexplained wars we are fighting in multiple countries?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....I learned decades ago that if I decide to criticize something I'd better have an alternative to suggest.
As you ask, if not drones, what? I doubt you'll get an answer to that question.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it wasn't a good question because everyone seems to think that if we just stop ... so will those that mean us harm.
And interestingly, many of these respondents, would never advocate dealing with a bully by just stop making them feel inferior because we're smart or witty or gay (and the bully just hates the gay). So it appears they, on the one hand recognize, disengagement has little to no effect on how others treat you; but on the other hand, disengage is how to get someone to stop someone from attacking you.
I don't claim an answer; but would far rather have a policy of dealing with those bad folks (that mean us harm) by drones, than with boots on the ground.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and then leave, I doubt if they would follow us.
From Afghanistan? Or Iraq? Or Iran? Why would they?--I ask that seriously. It's not like they would want us back. What or whose ideology would demand an attack on us? Absent other provocation?
Osama bin Laden warned us over and over during the 90s to get our bases out of the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. We ignored him, and deservedly or not, paid a heavy price. We used Saddam Hussein against Iran for years--he was "our" SoB in the region. Then he invaded Kuwait (arguably on mixed signals from us) and we kicked him out of there and put weapons inspections and sanctions in place to prevent further armament. Turns out that although he blustered and bluffed his neighbors on the subject, he didn't develop more after we left. And he let inspectors back in when we threatened war again. (They had to leave so Bush could invade.) Why did he do that? Because Saddam didn't want us back.
When they had the Christmas tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004, Indonesia did not initially want US warships to provide any aid. Earthquakes in Iran?--same response. Why? Because once we are in, we stay. Who are we protecting Germany from (now--not 20 years ago but now)? Or Italy? Or Scotland? Or Japan? Or South Korea? I read recently that the US was less popular and considered more dangerous than North Korea by that country. China is currently more popular than we are, worldwide.
It's the old saw about how, when you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For decades we have approached every problem as if force (overt or covert) could solve it. And instead all we do is create more problems, especially for ourselves. The CIA calls it "blowback" and that's exactly what 9/11 was.
We don't need to back down in the face of bullies. (I certainly wouldn't advocate that in the face of Republicans, or the NRA, or the Kochs.) And nobody is suggesting we disarm, or even decrease our military to parity with our closest competitor. But on the world stage WE are the bullies and yes, we should back off.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Think hard and it will come to you.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there are no/fewer children and innocents killed in other forms of military action, seeking to get those planning/acting against the U.S.?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
either way, killing children is evil, and the less ways we have of doing it the better.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)war has horrific results ... moreso, when innocents are harmed. But viewing this in a vaccuum, i.e., looking at only the innocents harmed, doesn't help matters.
The reality is there are people out there that really do want to bring harm to the U.S., through harming her peoples. And those people need to be dealt with, lest we experience another 9/11, on a lesser or greater scale.
The fact, remains that Drones are far more accurate than other forms of missile/bombing attacks. And while sending boots on the ground, can result in far less collateral damage than any form of missile/bomb attack, it is not without its risks of failed missions and human treasure.
The DU refrain, "If we would just stop doing what we are doing/Bring the troops home/etc.", IMO, is naive ... us stopping, will not stop those trying to hurt us, anymore than ignoring/making nice with a bully will stop the bully from picking on you.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)is not only a violation of international law, but it is exactly what brings us the kind of blow-back we experienced on 9-11.
We funded bin Laden, we created a Frankenstein, then he came back to get us.
Instead of doing solid police work and arresting bin Laden or sending in seal team six (the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international court and GWB refused, the moron), we bankrupted our country on wars that are not only pointless - they are achieving a negative result - ie, making Americans less safe and creating more enemies.
Because when you murder someones children, you create generations of blowback.... of course that's exactly what the war pigs love and foster - more war, more violence, more dead children and more profits.
The analogy you should be using is that your neighbor is beating his wife and kids, but when you go over there and tell him it's time for him to leave, he says, "God No! I'm the only one who can fix this problem", sadly he does not even realize, he is the problem.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
I have to agree. That's how blue dog democrats govern.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama = Bush
Obama lied us into an illegal war that killed nearly a million Iraqis?
I think the OP is silly tripe. Overwrought hyperbole is useless.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And the truth of the matter is that when it comes to prosecuting the War on Terror, yes, Obama has been just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as Bush was.
Don't like that statement of truth, don't take it up with me, take it up with Obama. He is the one who is prosecuting this illegal, immoral war.
Psst, did you read the entire article, or are you simply knee jerking?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)You can't, and you think that's rational?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)He justified Bush and that war in doing so.
And he continues the war on what apears to be most of the ME.
Off topic deflection anyway, we were talking about drone attacks and my post was correct, Obama lurves drone deaths far more than bush as evidenced by the very large expansion by him of said attacks.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)for that one I'd guess. Nothing to see here...move along.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)We KNOW there are differences.
You are denying that there are also areas of sameness.
Would you care to enlighten us on the difference between Bush & Obama on the implementation of the Patriot Act?
....or the power of the "Unitary Executive"?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but thanks for making it clear you can't dispute that
just because he has yet to launch a war like Bush did with Iraq doesn't alter anthing like you tried to do with the subject here.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)..is there any difference?
Are the children killed in an Obama Drone Strike any better off than if they had been killed by Bush-the-Lesser?
Is the PAIN any different?
Is the grief of the families any different?
Have they been killed in a kinder, gentler, Democratic Party way,
so its ALL GOOD except for the stupid whiners who can't tell the difference?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)getting killed here.
Maybe if the children killed by drones were killed by assault weapons and were a bit lighter you might have had a point.
You don't know anything sheesh, they are only brown people they don't hurt no matter who is killing them.
Also, if you didn't know this, all brown men of age killed by drones are automatically combatants by virtue of being male of age and having been killed by a drone strike, don't you even listen to Brennan from the CIA?
Not sure about the women killed, but I bet they are brown and talk funny too, as if such so called people even count.
Whiner!!!!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)JReed
(149 posts)Obama Appoints Dr. Drone to Head CIA
by Matthew Rothschild
Pres. Obama just made a hideous appointment.
He replaced the disgraced David Petraeus at the CIA with John Brennan, Dr. Drone.
This is a hideous appointment.
Brennan, as Obama’s counterterrorism czar, has overseen the massive proliferation of our drone warfare.
...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/08-1
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Bush, right?
- Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
government wide. - Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
- Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
- No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
- Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.
"Not a dimes worth of difference", right?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And wasn't it slapped down then? Oh, yeah, that's right, it was. Here, let me slap it down again for you.
He hasn't closed Gitmo, and while the public is still fixated on that installation, he continue the operations at Bagram.
"Although President Obama issued an executive order on his second day in office, in January 2009, requiring interrogations to conform to the Army Field Manual (PDF), which prohibits physical violence and “enhanced interrogation,” Ambinder reported that, in the “black jail,” prisoners are subjected to sleep deprivation and isolation based on the Field Manual’s Appendix M (which Jeff Kaye has been writing about since last January), and which, under controlled circumstances, allows a range of Bush-era “enhanced interrogation techniques” to be used, including sleep deprivation and isolation. Ambinder also explained that when Appendix M techniques are being used, the man responsible for overseeing them is Gen.James Clapper (Ret.), the undersecretary of defense for intelligence."
http://pubrecord.org/torture/7806/obama-doing-bagram-part-one-torture/
"However, attorney Tina Foster feels that the new initiative is just a cosmetic measure. “There is absolutely no difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration’s position with respect to Bagram detainees’ rights,” she said during an interview."
http://www.salon.com/2009/09/21/bagram_5/
"Two Afghan teenagers held in U.S. detention north of Kabul this year said they were beaten by American guards, photographed naked, deprived of sleep and held in solitary confinement in concrete cells for at least two weeks while undergoing daily interrogation about their alleged links to the Taliban...."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/28/808755/-NYT-WashPost-Torture-in-Obama-s-Bagram-Prison#
ProSense
(116,464 posts)have nothing to do with the President or his policies.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)They happened well into his watch, his first year in office. After he had promised to end such practices.
They have everything to do with the president and his policies, because they are about the president and his policies.
Reality, it is your friend.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Killing innocents and more to be bullshit.
Let me guess, no, in fact I know, you condemned Bush for those same actions when he was in office.
Why are you condoning those same actions under Obama?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Sad to see that you consider "enhanced interrogation", indefinite detention, Killing innocents and more to be bullshit."
You want your own version of reality. You dismissed the ACLU report as "nonsense," but are hyping these 2009 articles that don't have anything to do with the President or his policies to fit your narrative.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Claiming that actions approved by Obama, actions occurring on Obama's watch don't have anything to do with Obama.
I don't deal in reports, I deal in what actually happens, you know, reality. I suggest you try it sometime.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Where the hell does it say actions were approved by Obama?
Stop making up bullshit claims.
Response to ProSense (Reply #55)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Attrocities happen all the time in war and in the military.
You're claiming that since something happened in 2009 (in fact, some of the incidents were before), Obama approved of it and sanctioned it.
What utter bullshit, which is why I suspect you prefer to dismiss the ACLU report.
Facts, deal with 'em.
And once again it boils down to the same ol' story with you. If Obama does something good, he gets all the credit from you, but if he does something bad, something illegal, immoral, reprehensible(like killing innocents with drone attacks he ordered), then somehow, someway, it has to be somebody, anybody besides Obama's fault.
Hypocrisy much? Just nod your head to that one.
But since we've wound up at this old stand-off, I see no reason in continuing this discussion with you. But feel free to sputter in faux outrage some more, it is amusing.
"If Obama does something good, he gets all the credit from you, but if he does something bad, something illegal, immoral, reprehensible(like killing innocents with drone attacks he ordered), then somehow, someway, it has to be somebody, anybody besides Obama's fault."
You haven't shown where the President did anything "illegal."
George II
(67,782 posts)...I learned that if I am going to criticize and complain about something, I'd better have a better, sensible alternative to propose.
You?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)One that has been put forth many times on this board, and many times in this thread.
Stop involving the US in illegal, immoral, imperial wars.
Stop acting the part of the big bully on the block.
Help people in truly meaningful ways, not just lip service and weapons deals.
I know, I know, it is a long term solution, it doesn't have the flare of Shock and Awe. But in the long term, it make the world a much safer place, not just for the US, but for everybody.
George II
(67,782 posts).......but we are involved right now, and we're trying to eliminate people who are determined to attack us.
I would have preferred not getting into either of the bush wars, but we did, and we have an enemy not of our choosing. Turning around and walking away is not the solution.
Remember, we weren't involved in either of those wars when the worst attack on the US occurred.
PLEASE don't call me a bush-sympathiser or republican in hiding. I was very upset when he started those wars - they destroyed our economy, destroyed our reputation around the world, and resulted in thousands more people being killed.
JReed
(149 posts)Note the dates.
Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 07:00 AM EST
Obama’s plans for probing Bush torture
http://www.salon.com/2008/11/13/torture_commission/
Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe
A WikiLeaks cable shows that when Spain considered a criminal case against ex-Bush officials, the Obama White House and Republicans got really bipartisan.
—By David Corn
Wed Dec. 1, 2010 2:47 PM PST
...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Everyone knows there are substantial differences between Obama and Bush. On this issue, not so much.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Did you miss the OP title?
"'Just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor.' Ouch."
Bush broke many laws, launched an illegal war and sanctioned torture.
What law is President Obama "indifferent" to?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Really?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)happened long before Obama took office.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)If someone was killed by Joe Nobody, and the cop that responded said, "don't worry about it, I see no reason to charge you with anything", then the cop would be condoning the action, he may even be an accessory after the fact, but I am no lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It's a bit late for coulda', woulda' shoulda', don't you think?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Obama.
Here is what Leonardo DaVinici said:
"He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur."
Here is what Truman said about the role of the President"
"The buck stops here."
Discuss.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You just did. And of course, we get nothing but Republicans in charge of the military under"
...that's breaking the law?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)In case you haven't noticed, we're still fighting the dubious "war on terror" with much of the same methods, apparatus, and rationale as the Bush administration. The OP isn't as absurd as you'd like to believe.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)among others. You can't use the shifty "what law did he break?" question as a shield when you know our laws were recently crafted as CYA for endless war.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)The president is the "Christian".
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)NOT. Why soes Obama keep following the same template in the Middle East?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. been speaking, but just like their predecessors, this administration clearly doesn't give a shit what we say.
It seems that the need for any sort of conscience in Washington DC has about the same amount of value as honesty and integrity do.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If Clinton could have taken binLaden out on the compound in the 90s, 911 might possibly not have happened.
Clinton called the operation off due to women and children in the vicinity.
I see this as a good thing - get them more and more accurate so that fewer bystanders suffer.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)After they had won our proxy war against the Russians, it is almost certain that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. It was that lack of payback, that lack of caring for those who had done the dirty work that most infuriated bin Laden and his followers, not that silly nonsense about American boots on Saudi Arabian soil.
Instead, we encouraged, even demanded that the Afghans fight back, get their country blasted back to the stone age, and then we simply walked away, doing nothing about the suffering that we were, in part, responsible for.
If you don't want war, then don't fight one. Drone attacks that blow up innocents in places like Yemen or Sudan radicalize people to the point where they will attack the US. Instead of trying to beat down people we disagree with, instead why not try being generous with them.
I suggest you read the book the Ugly American. The lessons imparted by that book are just as true today as they were back then.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Your conclusion that 9/11 was about Afghanistan is too simplistic.
It was a factor, but there were other, far more important elements.
This is a good summary of the book, but the book includes a much deeper analysis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/books/01kaku.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
treestar
(82,383 posts)Of the kind generally used before drones were developed.
In fact sometimes the local government is OK with it. They don't like terrorists either, and it is worse for them when they have them right there in the country. Terrorist attacks take place on those countries, too, in fact, more often than they do here.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)"Acolytes, repeat after me; Drones are better than general war". <monotone chorus follows>
treestar
(82,383 posts)or have your whole town bombed? What's your point? Maybe that we should all just roll over for terrorism and do nothing to try to stop it? One does not have to be a follower of Bush/Cheney to realize there are still things we can do to get rid of them before they kill us.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He's got a very broad declaration of war from Congress, which covers drone strikes pretty much anywhere on the planet. There is no requirement to never hit civilians in war, just to minimize civilian casualties. Which drone strikes do compared to boots-on-the-ground invasion.
So what law is Obama breaking? Please be specific. And the fact that you wish it was not legal doesn't make it illegal.
JReed
(149 posts)...
The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.
Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.
In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The US is officially at war. The law says we can fight that war by killing people, we just have to try to not kill civilians.
While there's plenty of people who want these drone strikes to be illegal, they lack an actual law that makes it illegal.
ETA: My point is not to support the drone wars, but to say the people opposing them are going about this the wrong way. Claiming it's illegal falls flat because it's legal. They need a different tactic instead of shouting "war crime". Such as making it an actual war crime, or lobbying Congress to rescind the declaration of war.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Who gives us this right? You say our Congress did.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Who is a terrorist is not specified. Which means we can fight them pretty much anywhere.
We do, as well as the UN and international law - defensive declarations of war are legal. We've got the fig leaf of fighting back against people who attacked us.
The mechanism for the US to declare war is an act of Congress. International law doesn't so much care about the country's mechanism, just that the war is declared.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Our Constitution states we must abide by the world treaties we sign.
The Fourth Geneva Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
What is total war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
Obama assuming that all males are combatants, is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It means we're supposed to avoid killing civilians. It doesn't mean we can never kill civilians.
It means we can't carpet-bomb a city. But if we drop a bomb on a combatant and he's standing next to civilians, that's legal.
Authorized Use of Military Force...and the results of:
The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal.
The AUMF has also been cited as authority for engaging in electronic surveillance in ACLU v. NSA without obtaining a warrant of the special Court as required by the constitution.
The AUMF was also the basis of one of the principal arguments advanced by the Department of Justice in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, namely that the AUMF implicitly overrode the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
And it would appear that President Obama is still using the original AUMF that Congress gave to President Bush.
The US is technically not officially at war, this is about the same as Vietnam.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/14/letter-president-war-powers-resolution
The President is still reporting to Congress.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The war, officially called a war or not, was declared by Congress.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)If we had Mexican drones flying over the border killing narcoterrorists, some who are American citizens, some who are Mexican citizens, along with killing hundreds or thousands of innocents as "collateral" damage, would you consider that to be legal?
That is exactly what the US is doing in Yemen, Sudan, and elsewhere around the world.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It would be perfectly legal.
Our subsequent declaration of war on Mexico would also be perfectly legal, followed by a perfectly legal bombing campaign to destroy those drones.
Yes, we are being a bully because Yemen and Pakistan can't possibly fight back against the US. But it's still legal.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Violating the sovereignty of a nation by attacking its citizens, even if they are collateral damage, is illegal under international law as set forth in the UN charter of 1946, and subsequent rulings of the ICJ. I suggest that you look up the case of Nicaragua vs. United States.
The US has managed to skirt this law simply because the World Court has no teeth, and the US is the biggest bully on the block.
Under your example, it was perfectly legal for Iraq to invade Kuwait, or Russia to invade Afghanistan. Of course, that notion is patently absurd, just as it is patently absurd to argue for the legality of the US to violate the sovereignty of other nations with drone strikes.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You describe the law without a declaration of war.
We have one. It's overly-broad - we can attack "terrorists" wherever they are located - but it exists.
No, the difference is offensive war is banned. Iraq was conquering Kuwait in order to seize it. Same with the Soviets and Afghanistan.
Our declaration of war is technically defensive - we are at war with people who attacked us first. Defensive declarations of war are legal.
loose wheel
(112 posts)If some persons or organization within a country attacks across international boarders, the country they attacked from or are living in has a requirement, under international law to surrender those persons or those associated with that organization to the attacked country. Ordinarily, the country that attacked would approach the harboring countries and demand the surrender of those persons, and even demand compensation from the country of citizenship.
In practice, people who do the sort of thing that terrorists do aren't hiding in a country that is particularly friendly to their target. If the country they are in will not or can not capture and extradict the attackers, then that country can, under international law, be invaded. It has happened before.
After Pancho Villa raided Mexico, President Wilson determined that Mexico would not be able to capture and extradict Pancho Villa so he launched the expedition into Mexico.
Britain hung a Captain of a warship that attacked a French ship after the treaty of Paris ending the Seven Year's War because it was either that or renewed conflict.
Uruguay required that the Graf Spree leave port in twenty-four hours, the max international law would allow, because any longer than that, the British could have attacked the port, and it would have been perfectly legal.
Hitler used a false flag operation against Poland to claim that cross boarder attacks had occured to justify his invasion.
International law only requires that efforts to prevent civilian casualties be made, not that no civilian can be killed. A hospital, for example, is not a legal target. However if a sniper is using a room in the hospital then the whole building can be destroyed and that would be legal. A religous building is not a legal target, but if intelligence determines that it is being used to store weapons it becomes a legal target. The Geneva convention is no more a suicide pact than the US constitution.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Mostly we are killing "combatants" and "insurgents" anyway, you know folks with no activity or intent of activity until we showed up.
These folks don't even have the same concept of a central government as we understand it, we are invaders.
The Yemen situation may well be even more messy. It appears that we are in the middle of a civil war and taking the government's side to have a partner in our own efforts.
How many Al Quedas are we trying to seed? The destruction of Hiroshima would be easier to grasp to a survivor than one of this mess. Your husband and babies or your mother and father or your new bride or your best friend are in pieces from death from above and you've done nothing, your country is not at war nor did your nationals participate in the attack said to justify the assaults. In fact there has not been a single bullet fired at the country the attackers came from.
What the hell is the expected outcome? How are these folks going to feel?
Naturally, they become "insurgents", what would we do? No better what would are we SUPPOSED to do? Wouldn't you be pretty much a traitor or an accomplice if you weren't?
Don't want to be attacked by insurgents? Leave.
Shit, a motherfucker becomes a "combatant" for being between 16-45 and being born male and getting killed.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)In that war has to be authorized by Congress. AUMF is Congress authorizing war while not calling it war, but they are still the ones giving approval.
Other than the name, it follows the procedure required by the constitution.
spanone
(135,831 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Not all.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)for all the "hold you nose" and vote, and then pretend they didn't enable the guy they claim is "just as" bad as Bush.
How does it feel to enable someone you consider a war criminal?
What utter bullshit.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)That's how it makes me feel to know that Obama is continuing in Bush's footsteps after holding war criminals above the law, and I enabled it with my vote.
I think I need a shower just thinking about what you posted.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It feels bad, dirty even, I wonder if it was a mistake...That's how it makes me feel to know that Obama is continuing in Bush's footsteps after holding war criminals above the law, and I enabled it with my vote."
...you're just figuring this out? The election was two months ago, and you had four years to decide.
Sounds like a bullshit cop out. Own your vote.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I do own my part as an enabler, I am dirty, hence the way I feel.
What I find remarkable is that you are proud of what we did, you show no remorse for your part in this as I do; no empathy for the many MANY innocents that we are killing to kill a handful of suspects that are called combatants simply for being an adult male in many cases.
You are very cold in your insistence on personality worship, or so it would appear, perhaps I am wrong and you simply believe your own BS.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Not really, supporting death is not as clever as you think it is"
My vote wasn't "supporting death," but clearly you believe your vote was. Is that what you consider "clever"?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)but continue your deflections and one-liners, I realize you need to keep your post count up, I imagine it gets you points at the office.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)"We will fight terror with terror. Now, the hostiles believe that this mountain stronghold of theirs is well protected by their – their deity. And when we destroy it, we will blast a crater in their racial memory so deep that they won't come within a thousand klicks of this place ever again." - Colonel Quaritch
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)That's why Koch's & Rove and GOPInc. spent so much to defeat him, cause he's one of 'em.
Sure does get deep in here.
Julie
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)tell me what I (as a Dem) think, or how I (as a Dem) would behave, in some alternative situation.
And its extra special when they chastise me (as a Dem) for (in their mind), committing the bad act they claim I (as a Dem) would have performed, or not have performed.
It must be nice to have such omniscience.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Guess what, this post wasn't all about you. It was about the hundreds and thousands of innocents being killed by this administration's drone policy.
Geez, get over yourself already.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Which makes me wonder how its possible for the author to know what Dems (including me, as a Dem) think, or how we would act, or react.
And aren't you the one making demands?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I think the article makes a very good point, one that points out the hypocrisy of Dems, in that they are giving Obama a pass in this area.
Are you pissed about these illegal, immoral drone strikes? If so, are you doing anything about it? If not, why not?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)from the start. Bush let our troops languish in Afghanistan when he became distracted by Iraq.
Generally speaking, I'd prefer fewer of our troops be on the ground and in harms way when we do take Military action.
As such, I'm generally supportive of using drones to move more of our troops out of harms way, regardless of which party holds the White House. And so, my issue with Bush was never about drones, but about his shift of focus to the wrong country.
So, the author seems to think he has a monopoly on knowing how "pissed" Dems and liberals were (interesting you used both terms), and what made them pissed.
There were many much better reasons to be pissed at Bush than drones.
Death by drone is not that much different than death by tank, or death by cruise missile fired from a warship hundreds of miles away. Early man fought with sticks ... then stones, then spears, arrows, cannons, guns, mortars, planes, ships, missiles, tanks. The general idea is to be able to kill your enemy from a safer and safer distance. Was the use mortars during WWII illegal or immoral?
You ask if I'm pissed now about drones ... no.
Was I pissed then about drones ... also no.
I suspect I'm not alone, as a Dem, in this regard. In fact, outside DU, I suspect my position in the majority position on this point. Which would also make the author's claim that Dems are acting differently now, false.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)it's more a shameful admission.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)shame me over the years.
And it didn't work for them either.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The pacifist posters five years ago are pretty much 100% still posting pacifist posts today. Put a gun (or flower) to my head, and I couldn't name a single former pacifist at DU who stopped being a pacifist at DU once Obama was elected to save my life (or stop me sneezing).
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Or, if you are going to generalize, make sure you are very up front about having done so.
I think back to debates I had with right wingers after the Patriot Act passed. They didn't seem to grasp the reality that Bush had just given the next Democratic President a power that he could use to spy on THEM.
They were running around screaming ... "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem??" To which I responded ... "well, you may have nothing to hide from Bush, but given you are sure that the Democrats are allied with the terrorists, won't the next Dem President simply turn those powers against YOU?"
They were sure that no Democrat would ever be President again. And I told them that the next Democratic President wasn't going to give up those powers, in part because of how crazy and paranoid the right wing had become.
So in that case, I thought those powers were a bad idea, and that once given, they were probably not going away for a very long time, if ever.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)if its really "just about dead people"?
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)It's part of the discussion of the dead people
When people are running around getting themselves dead, eventually someone asks how it's happening.
If Obama and the Democrats don't want to be 'called out' they should stop making people be dead
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The OP is not about Dems "making people dead" ... its about how hypocritical those Dems are in not being as pissed as the author, and the OP, has decided they need to be, given how pissed they were under Bush.
I'd suggest that the OP is using "the dead" to make a very different point. Thus the "ouch", and the title describing Obama as "ruthless".
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Would you identify yourself with George Wallace as well? After all, he was a Dem as well.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)As for your question ... not all Dems agree on everything.
And as such, they don't all get equally pissed, or not get pissed, at the same time, for the same reasons.
Which ironically, is what the article you posted actually suggests ... that we all hated Bush's use of drones, and then we all stopped hating the use of drones when Obama became President.
rtassi
(629 posts)This President received the "Peace Price" for all love ...
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)after 100's of drone missions".
It was later that we found out Brennan was deceiving us with skewed numbers based on the "all males were terrorists" theory of civilian body count.
Brennan was the cause of much of this disinformation. He also supported torture, since Obama chose this lying moraly challenged hack to head CIA, we can pretty well guess that more drone deaths, not less, will be a part of CIA policy in future.
Also
If we ever stopped torturing (well, we only outsource it now but..) we will have a CIA head that liked the "program" and will likely advocate for it's return, only so classified we will never hear of it this time around.
Still like this pick people?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that's why the military industrial complex and our war economy http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-08-18/finance/30798603_1_casualties-love-war-war-president still thrive
that's what makes us so "exceptional"
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)If I get what I want on that front, they can keep their drones.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It's all good if I get mine, who cares that thousands of innocents are dying, that's essentially what you're saying.
Pretty damn heartless if you ask me.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Pretty damn conservative, if you ask me.
I've come to expect that from that poster. Don't know why I haven't added him to the ignore list yet.
2on2u
(1,843 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)President Obama is none of these things, therefore, most of us, who are Democrats, give him the benefit of the doubt on troubling issues like this.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You will know them by their actions.
That is how I judge people, by what they do, not by what they say, or how their press clippings read.
I recognize that LBJ made great progress in the issue of civil rights, but I still think he was a murdering SOB who has blood on his hands because of his over the top escalation of Vietnam. Obama may have the Nobel Peace Prize, but he is indeed killing innocents. That is beyond troubling, that is criminal, and worse, it is setting up the US for more 9/11 type attacks in the future.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)There is no comparison.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)One with his own extrajudicial kill list.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Don't believe me, ask the families of the thousands of innocents that Obama has killed via drones.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Don't believe me, ask the families of the thousands of innocents that Obama has killed via drones."
You just make up shit as you go along.
CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004–2013
Civilians reported killed: 473-889
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/obama-2013-pakistan-drone-strikes/
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I see, you are one of the one's like Brennan that likes to say things like,
"On June 29, President Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan became the first senior, named official in the administration to add his voice to the ‘no civilian deaths’ claim.
He was more precise: ‘In fact I can say that the types of operations… that the US has been involved in, in the counter-terrorism realm, that nearly for the past year there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.’"
That is a well debunked lie that I should straighten out for you, from the same site you linked too, read the article, even using the meme that if they are male and not children then they are "combatants" not civilians (the rationale Brennan came up with for his decietfull claim), there have still been hundreds of civilian deaths under Obama and his favorite CIA man is a proven liar.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/07/18/washingtons-untrue-claims-no-civilian-deaths-in-pakistan-drone-strikes/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Showered yet?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I was simply sharing some truth with you regarding CIA lies and their affects on civilian death numbers.
How many hundreds of civilian deaths are OK as long as the guy ordering them is an idol to some?
Even using the BS numbers there have been several hundred already and the true number IS most likely in the thousands.
500 dead innocents is cool and fills you with pride in Obama?
600?
700?
there must be a number that you will not callously ignore unless you have problems with sociopathy, which I doubt, even if I do disagree with you on what the number is that turns say, my stomach verses yours.
share with me the appropriate
number of children
of women
of men who just happened to be where they would be classified as combatants simply for being killed by a drone (that is the CIA rationalization, you of course must know that, according to them all males killed by drones are classified as combatants, even an innocent guy going to work)
No sidestep or misdirection please, share with me the number.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bush lied about many things ... but I don't recall him lying about his use of drones.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)disappointments to me 
great white snark
(2,646 posts)The only "ouch" is from the sheer amount of hateful rhetoric pulled out your &%$.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)will be far more efficient at killing people that threaten us. The charge of "killing innocents" will ring completely hallow with advanced Drones because the target and what is around him or her and what their role is will be certain and the strike zone will be reduced to mere centimeters for each target.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)ugly "truths" about POTUS that his starry-eyed acolytes cannot see are painful when brought into the cold light of DU.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)but now, because Obama uses drones, you're ok with it ... you hypocrite!!!
And WHY are you ok with it??
You think its OK because Obama is your "Messiah" ... OOOPPPS, sorry I used the Right Wing framing there ... I mean ... You are ok with it because you are Obama's "stary-eyed acolyte".
I bet it stings now doesn't it!!!
Now WAKE UP ... and ... and ... umm ... ummm. 
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)exactly the same way about drones now as I did then. People are acting like drones are somehow worse than sending in soldiers or pilots to do the bombing. No, they're not. And they're not better either. I think we should be doing less bombing whether with drones or planes with pilots. I felt that way under Bush and I still feel the same way.
It's like the common kneejerk response here when someone criticizes Hugo Chavez: "But Bush/Obama/the US does it too!" as if people here aren't also criticizing our own leaders.
No I don't "like" drone attacks any more than I "like" sending in live pilots to do bombings. But drones are no worse, nor are they better.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Since men started to kill each other, they have sought weapons that allow ME to kill YOU from a distance at which, YOU can not kill ME.
From sticks to spears, to stones, to arrows, to muskets, to canyons, to mortars, tanks, cruise missiles, and drones. If I can kill you from far away, I win.
The question is the when and the why we use the weapon.
Killed by a tank, or cruise missile, or drone. You are just as dead.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)or the reasons for them. But people throw around the word "drone" as though it's supposed to be so much worse than sending in a pilot to do the bombing. It's not. A drone simply removes the pilot from the equation. That has no bearing on the merits of the bombing itself, but drones are not worse in and of themselves.
The drone itself is simply a different delivery mechanism, the difference between a drone and a rgular plane being akin to launching a missile from the air as opposed to launching it from the ground. It is not the difference between a convention bomb and a nuclear warhead.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If I acknowledge what you said ... where do I put my Obama outrage???
George II
(67,782 posts)triplepoint
(431 posts)If not, how can we legally and repeatedly violate their Sovereignty with these drone strikes?
Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Zaheerul Islam, who visited America in August, 2012, emphatically told the then-CIA Director David Petraeus that predator strikes are a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty that must be stopped. He pointed out that these strikes are proving counterproductive, giving a greater incentive to fundamentalist and extremist elements in Pakistan and are increasing anti-U.S. sentiments among the people. during his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged to reverse the excesses of the Bush era in relation to terrorism. He also promised to reformulate a counterterrorism policy in accordance with the legal and moral values of the U.S. Contrary to his assertions, Obama followed Bush’s approach to counterterrorism in its worst form by expanding and accelerating the Predator strikes.
In this respect, The New York Time on May 26, 2011, in an article which was written with the assistance of several counterterrorism advisers of the administration, revealed, “President Obama has become personally involved in the process” and “has normalised extrajudicial killings from the Oval Office, taking advantage of America’s temporary advantage in drone technology. Without the scrutiny of the legislature and the courts, and outside the public eye, Obama is authorising murder on a weekly basis.” Notably, the American constitution explicitly grants the right to declare war to the Congress so as to restrain the president from chasing enemies around the world, based solely on his authority as commander-in-chief, by waging a secret war. Instead of capturing militants alive and to avoid giving the right of due process of law to them in a court, President Obama has openly been acting upon a ruthless policy of targeted killings by supervising the CIA-controlled drone warfare. Notably, President Obama has broken all the records for human rights violations by extrajudicial killings of innocent people through CIA-operated unmanned aircraft, which are part of his so-called counterterrorism operations in Somalia, Yemen, etc. in general and Pakistan in particular, while the U.S. claims to be the protector of human rights not only inside the country but all over the world. On the one hand, top U.S. officials, particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have repeatedly said that America needs Pakistan’s help not only for the peace process with the militants, but also for stability in Afghanistan in the post-2014 scenario; but on the other, U.S. spy planes in Pakistan’s tribal regions are undermining international efforts for stability both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including a peace dialogue with the Afghan militants. Meanwhile, Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, said on August 16 of this year that it was time for “the U.S. to open itself up to scrutiny as to the legality of such attacks…each strike is visually recorded and videos could be passed to independent assessors.” Recently, former U.S. presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have also opposed Obama’s faulty strategy of drone strikes. Nonetheless, these strikes are illegal, unethical and a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty as well as the UN Charter. But U.S. warrior President Obama remains intransigent in continuing his secret war through drone attacks.
Reference Link:
https://sreaves32.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/killing-civilians-obamas-drone-war-in-pakistan/
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Right after Congress declares war on Yemen, North Waziristan, Somalia, etc.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)countries will fight terrorism from now on. More advanced Drones are being developed as I speak. Within the next five years, if not within the next two years, small Drones will exist that can fly in to a target area, land, mask itself, move around and do on the ground surveillance as well as provide strike coordinates for Drones that kill the target(s). And the surveillance Drone will pack up, fly back to it's base to get prepared for it's next mission. I am not writing about fantasy, I am writing about what will soon be.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)fewer people, like liquor.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, the innocent civilians being murdered are not as innocent as the innocent civilians murdered by Bush.
At least that's what the apologists for murder tell us.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Unless evidence after the fact proves otherwise.
Oops! Sorry!
I thought the Bush administration was bad for considering people who dressed in green, wore cheap Casio watches, and ran away when being bombed to be suspected militants.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Let me know when you have something different to say.
FSogol
(45,484 posts) 
babylonsister
(171,065 posts)
Same here. grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)school in America, but are so willing to blindly overlook it when we do the sand thing with a drone.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Never mind that this administration has continued and frequently expanded all of the the worst precedents of the previous administration. Never mind that it is taking longer to get out of Iraq (Oh wait, we are out according to them, silly Iraqis) and Afghanistan that it took to fight WWII. And never mind that we are leaving in such a way that hatred and chaos will be our legacy.
None of that matters, it's being done by the guys in the blue jackets.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The posts from the defenders in this thread have left me feeling sick in my stomach, literally. I can't believe this perspective is so prevalent on DU.
Drone killings would be acceptable to me in an actual theater of war, against uniformed soldiers whose country we are formally at war against.
The war on terror is not an actual war, it never was. It's an out of control police action, with no geographical or even ideological limits placed on who can be targeted.
These drone killings are murder. No trial, no charges, nothing. No defense of this is possible.
