General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhile the President dances, innocents mourn their dead, dead at the President's hand.
"These latest strikes in Yemen continue a noted escalation of US attacks that began near the end of 2012.
As Agence France-Presse reports, "Monday's raid brings to at least 25 the number of people killed in US drone strikes since such assaults were intensified on December 24."
As experts and human rights organizations continue to warn the Obama administration that such attacks are counterproductive—increasing, not lessening, al Qaeda's position in Yemen or elsewhere—the Washington Post's weekend report that the White House was "institutionalizing" the practice of assassination by drone with a new "playbook" was met with deep criticism."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/21-3
And we wonder why people around the world hate us and want to attack us. Hell, if my loved ones were dying while the President danced, I'd be looking for revenge myself. These drone attacks, this endless War on Terra is counterproductive in establishing good relations with people around the world.
Hopefully this administration will come to its senses. Sadly, I don't think it will, which means sooner or later this will come back to bite us. Perhaps then we will finally learn this lesson that we've been learning and relearning for decades now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)I'm afraid that we are fucked, because he is a damned fine dancer.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Has nothing to do with his dancing, just his death dealing.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I miss unrec
krawhitham
(4,641 posts)I miss unrec
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)With all due respect to the feelings of the OP, still I love to see them dancing. I do not believe Obama would kill a single innocent for evil reasons. So what is the answer? I don't know it.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Start waging some law enforcement. We have the ability (and laws) to arrest these people and bring them either here, or the Hauge, for trial. We ought to try it some time.
randome
(34,845 posts)If police are requested to take down a gunfight and someone innocent gets killed, does that mean we never send police into armed conflicts again? Just wait and see who survives?
Granted, America should not be the world's police, but we are often requested to help where we can. And sometimes innocents get killed. Just as they did in Algeria.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)When they start firing rockets from drones into your city, and it kill innocents, we'll see if you think this is justified.
MLK tried to teach us that the answer to violence is not greater violence, but less. We really ought to try arresting folks, instead of just killing them from the sky.
randome
(34,845 posts)If a President truly wanted to bomb U.S. cities, he or she can do so now. No drones are needed for that.
In general, I agree that less violence is the answer. But you cannot convince the likes of hardened terrorists to stop killing people and to stop maiming and killing their own women and children.
America is neither perfect nor consistent. But sometimes we do some good. Drone killings are not 'good' but in the long run, they stop even more people from being killed. It's a horrible calculation that only a Command-In-Chief must make.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it is "tin foil hat territory".
This nation, and other nations, have "arrested" these types of individuals before, and brought them to trial. We have/had an entire unit within the FBI that was tasked with finding them, and arranging for their arrest (occasionally without cooperation of the countries in which they were located). Bush abandonded any attempt at that and took the "war time" approach to avoid the US courts. Obama has doubled down on that.
And yes, it is his decision "alone", no one is forcing him to do this.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't believe you are an expert at law enforcement nor can you explain how the FBI might make their way into Yemen or Somalia to 'arrest' someone. Actually, the idea sounds ridiculous. These are places where arresting agents would get killed before they got more than a mile into the country, let alone reach some hidden, well-guarded fortress.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)As someone pointed out, in many of these countries, we are being INVITED in. The Mossad went into many unfriendly countries to arrest people.
But of course, if you presume that an FBI team, formed to do exactly this, is incapable of doing it, then your only conclusion is that it is impossible. However, if you consider for a moment, that it is possible, then you are left with the problem that Obama is choosing not to do it.
That'd reallly rock your world wouldn't it. So you are forced to presume it is impossible.
randome
(34,845 posts)...it's fun? My world does not get rocked by facts, no matter where they originate. Offer some facts instead of imaginary fears and I'll listen.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I think they do it because it is easier, and politically expedient to appear "strong". The previous administration chose war over law enforcement and the Obama administration has been afraid to deviate from this tactic for fear of appearing "weak". The meager efforts they made with the Gitmo detainees left them feeling "once burnt, twice shy". They've given up and just keep perpetuating the war mentality. Which is why the military is still in Afghanistan, and will be after this administration is over.
The world put the Lockerbee terrorist on trial. How's that fact?
And from 1989:
IV. Conclusion
This Office concludes that at the direction of the President or the Attorney General the FBI may
use its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 533(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3052 to investigate and
arrest individuals for violations of applicable United States law, even if those actions depart from
customary international law or unexecuted treaties. Moreover, we conclude that the President,
acting through the Attorney General, has inherent constitutional authority to deploy the FBI to
investigate and arrest individuals for violations of United States law, even if those actions
contravene international law. Finally, we conclude that an arrest that is inconsistent with
international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
WILLIAM P. BARR
Assistant Attorney General
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)because I don't believe if it were up to Obama alone it
would continue.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There are other methods. Obama has chosen to not choose them.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)EVER for droning death upon anyone.
I will never believe Obama's heart is at peace with
it either. He is a man with a conscience, & vision.
So why is it allowed?
What power does he hold, in fact, and what does
he know, and who is advising him, and what don't
we know, and why is it happening, and how does
he sleep, and how, in fact, can it all be stopped?
What is in the way of him ending it all?
He certainly isn't a warmonger, or imo a slave to
the military-industrial complex &/or financial
wheelydealies, ego fame and power. I don't see
him that way. He doesn't hate brown skinned
children or believe their lives are worthless.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Well, if you are entering the discussion on the assumption that he is flawless, then yes, he had no other choice. There is no other conclusion.
Of course the other possibility is that he had choices, and chose to kill instead of arrest. Kind of like he chose to defend the torturers, and continue to detain the tortured.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)We don't know what horrible 'bloody' (or not) BS is printed in there, do we?
So The Bubble may or may not be what we speculate it *could* be, IMHO.
We don't know.
But we know this President must be aging ten fold having to make 'choices' he can't really have any 'control' over.
It's either that choice or another, and what do we know about any of these choices?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)We all seemed to know pretty well when we discussed Bush's choices. He lied us into war remember?
I'm not sure how one doesn't have control over their own choices.
He's choosing war over law enforcement.
He went to the Nobel committee and defended wars of choice.
That's who he is.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)The President's first job is to keep us safe.
Remember the color coded danger signs? Obama didn't start this danger but he needs to deal with it.
I'd rather drones than boots on the ground.
I trust this President and that means he has to be good, not perfect.
And he's more that just "good" to me.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Continued killing of innocents is just creating more and more radicalized people who hate the US and want revenge on us. That is not keeping us safe, that is just setting us up for another 911 event.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's a sad fact of war or whatever the hell we call this.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)No drone strikes, no boots on the ground. If we wanted to go after bin Laden, a surgical strike would have be much more preferable.
But with drone strikes radicalizing thousands in the area, sooner or later we're going to suffer from the blowback of our follies, and thus put boots on the ground in Yemen and elsewhere.
This is a moral lesson that we've been failing to learn for years. I suggest that you read The Ugly American in order to see just how long it has been going on, and the solution to the problem.
randome
(34,845 posts)Ready. Aim. Fire. Leave the area.
I don't want anyone killed. There or here. But sitting on the sidelines while Al-Queda and other organizations and governments kill and maim their own citizens is not a good choice, either, IMO.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Drone strikes and our own meddling are what is creating these radicals who are now turning to al Qaeda, namely because it is the biggest, baddest organization on the block currently who is fighting back against the US.
As far as surgical strikes, blowing up an area that has a four or five block radius is not surgical. Surgical is sending in Seal Team 6 to take out one or two individuals, something that Obama finally, thankfully did, something that Bush should have done, but chose to rain down war instead. Now that we've got bin Laden, why are we still in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda is wiped from the area, OBL is dead, why are we there?
randome
(34,845 posts)We are nearly out of Afghanistan. It wasn't Obama's decision to be there but pulling out without making the country secure would be a bad option, also.
The solution is to let Al-Qaeda grow strong enough to terrorize more countries? It's a bad situation all around but Obama doesn't seem to be invading countries to try to impress his father or to solidify his political party. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.
Raising questions is important but Obama seems to me to be handling matters fine.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)We've basically signed up to have ten thousand troops or more in country in Afghanistan until 2024.
Oh, and why is al Qaeda growing in Yemen? Because we're killing innocents with drone strikes. Nothing like having a friend or relative killed for no good reason to radicalize a person in order to take revenge.
randome
(34,845 posts)Do you really want to sit and do nothing?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Are you suggesting, by your logic, that we should be launching drones strikes on every single continent around the world?
randome
(34,845 posts)But do you see anything 'wrong' with trying to put a stop to these atrocities? I don't. At least we're doing SOMETHING.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,729 posts)
Response to SidDithers (Reply #103)
Post removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I travel often.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And with more and more drone strikes, the number is getting larger.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....you "instruct" on how wrong they are, huh?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)he asks you to challenge him.
He reminds people of something good and real.
"yes I can even when it's hard" and this is no small thing.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It doesn't matter one bit what we do or don't do.
What we need to do is what is best for our country and our allies and innocent people killed and maimed by lunatic terrorists. What exactly we need to do is up for discussion and for more informed minds than mine, though.
The drones must be effective, or they wouldn't still be done. It is a problem, though, and I suspect we'll look back on these days and realize it was too much. The idea was supposed to be laser like precision, but it's getting to be less and less of that, it seems.
But we don't know the whole story of Yemen. We don't know who they were after. It may be a difference of opinion, too. When a terrorist hides behind a woman's skirts, and the terrorist is one bad dude who you know will kill innocent women and children for his supposed cause, do you kill the woman to kill the terrorist, thereby saving many more? People differ on that opinion.
One solution: Yemen can get those terrorists the heck out of their country. Problem solved. AQ is there with the approval of the govt, I believe.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I know. I grew up abroad.
But if you're part of a group who has vowed to kill Americans and has actually done so, you should expect to be killed. And if you want to compare collateral damage done by Drones to the massacres carried out by Bush's wars go ahead.
What would you do? Seriously. What would you do?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)are important.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)It doesn't even mean the majority of the world. Growing up, I often heard that the Soviet Union had influence around the world. Even as a child I grasped that it did not have influence over the majority of the world.
The characterization is correct, there are people in countries around the world that hate us.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)untrue? The post is there for all to read. Post #3
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And we wonder why people around the world hate us and want to attack us. Hell, if my loved ones were dying while the President danced, I'd be looking for revenge myself. These drone attacks, this endless War on Terra is counterproductive in establishing good relations with people around the world.
Which, of course, is accurate.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I think we can all agree on that piece of info.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/20/a-time-comes-when-silence-is-betrayal/
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Quoting: The world hates us. No, it doesn't and in resorting to hyperbole, he/she lost any credibility on the subject.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Do you have any high capacity magazines? How many and how many rounds do they hold? Do any gunsmithing? What kind? Reloading? What about assault weapons like the Tec-9? Ever had one of those? That's the worst damn weapon ever made as far as I'm concerned. Cheap damn piece of shit that'll go full auto just from wear and tear. And surprise the fucking hell out of the dipshit firing it when it does. And kill people.
Now, I read your post saying you won't register your weapons. I am sick of the violence right here in the United States. Clean up your own house.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But the President has killed hundreds and thousands of innocents with drone strikes. Didn't you condemn those self same drone strikes when Bush was ordering them into the air? As I recall, you and a lot of other people around here did. So what changed?
Oh, yeah, that letter behind the President's name, from an R to a D.
Hypocrisy much?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)You claim you're a peace-loving guy (who just happens to be armed to the teeth). I see a contradiction there. Your long post about not registering your weapons did not fit with the rest of the stuff you spout. Not at all. It didn't sound like it belonged on DU at all. Even the gungeon folks say they'll obey the law on guns. You? Not so much. So, I made my mind up about you. It was pretty easy. The fact that you're here, trying to spoil inauguration night only makes it clearer. Have fun with your guns. Better keep an eye out, just in case the gubmint tries to take 'em from you.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It did a double back flip right over your head, and a lot of others. You just didn't get the point I was trying to make at all, light did not dawn over Rock Mountain. A few people got it, like Nutmeg Yankee, but not many. Oh well.
But the real funny thing is, here you are, trying to conflate a post that you absolutely have no clue about with the issue of drone strikes. Talk about something not fitting, there it is.
But hey, what ever eases your conscience, makes you forget your hypocrisy.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Amazing how one bit of information makes everything make sense.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts) ShadesOfBlue
(40 posts)how you are absolutely certain that "innocents" were killed...as if you were there in person to verify it. Is that you, Glen Glenwald?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)"A UN investigator has called on the Obama administration to justify its policy of assassinating rather than capturing al-Qaeda or Taliban suspects, increasingly with the use of unmanned drone aircraft that also take civilian lives."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0619/breaking17.html
It is a well know fact around the world that our drone strikes are killing hundreds and thousands of innocents, sometimes as collateral damage, sometimes due to mistargeting. But they are being killed all the same. The only place that this "secret" isn't widely known is right here in the US.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Links to this "well known fact", please.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)That doesn't count the drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, just those in Pakistan. Oh, and it only goes through last August, there have been approximately 40 more strikes since then.
There are some estimates that put the ratio of civilians killed to terrorists killed at 50:1. I let you do the math for that one.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Maybe not a thousand. Could even be dozens.
Your hundreds of thousands seriously diminishes your argument, if you want to try and get people to wake up to what it is you are so upset about.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)My statement was "hundreds and thousands", not "hundreds of thousands".
Given that my link showed over 2,100 dead innocents in Pakistan alone, I would say that my statement is accurate.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Your link goes to a questionable source. Got anything more objective?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Hundreds and thousands is correct statement, especially since I consider it to be using rhetorical license.
As far as my source goes, it is based off a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a very well known and respected source, just like the International Tribune is itself well known and well respected. I don't see what your complaint is with it.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)thank you for clarifying
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Some people, sure, but if you think you're speaking for even a majority, you couldn't be more wrong. And frankly, I think you could have waited one day before posting this. One day where we get to enjoy the fact the Romney's weren't the ones dancing.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)From the 911 Commission report of 2003.
"The United States is heavily engaged in the Muslim world and will be for many years to come. This American engagement is resented. Polls in 2002 found that among America's friends, like Egypt-the recipient of more U.S. aid for the past 20 years than any other Muslim country-only 15 percent of the population had a favorable opinion of the United States. In Saudi Arabia the number was 12 percent. And two-thirds of those surveyed in 2003 in countries from Indonesia to Turkey (a NATO ally) were very or somewhat fearful that the United States may attack them.23
Support for the United States has plummeted. Polls taken in Islamic countries after 9/11 suggested that many or most people thought the United States was doing the right thing in its fight against terrorism; few people saw popular support for al Qaeda; half of those surveyed said that ordinary people had a favorable view of the United States. By 2003, polls showed that "the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread.. . . Since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch12.htm
And that is from over eight years ago, well before drones and horror of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan took hold. Since then, things have gotten much worse.
As far as posting it on the evening of inaugural day, sorry to disturb your beautiful mind. How much more disturbed are the minds of relatives of those innocent victims, the people who have to bury their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and who, once their mourning is done, will turn their rage and anger against us.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)ONE part of the world has some that hate us. And they hated us long before drone strikes. That's why your hyperbolic headline is such a joke. That your timing is also repellent is another story. Or perhaps you would have preferred to see the Romney's dancing.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Here,
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/03/does_the_world_.html
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/03/does_the_world_.html
And if you notice, their opinion of us is getting worse.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What can you tell me about it. Looks like someone's blog. Yours?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)You get all the attention needed yet?
LOL
My biggest bitch about the inaguration is they didn't dance to Club Villian -
randome
(34,845 posts)That's She-Hulk and Doctor Doom. Where do the Martians come into it? 
snooper2
(30,151 posts)&list=PL64EC6401B56A36B7&index=3
randome
(34,845 posts)
shenmue
(38,506 posts)I can't take the OP's hysterical language seriously.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Can you at least take the deaths of innocents seriously?
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)And drones are being used for summary executions in at least four more countries.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Just like fucking Bush would do, damn fascist!1!
Seriously dude?
Julie--who wonders why you punish yourself by coming to DU where there tend to be a lot of Democrats
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But he is killing innocents abroad, just like Bush did.
Sad, I remember a time when members of DU, and Democrats in general, condemned such executions. Now with a president in office who has a D behind his name, not so much. Why is that? Why does that D make such a big difference?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)They'll make rationalization for atrocities that a few years ago they would openly condemn.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Lots of Dems are unhappy about the drone program. We just don't harp on it all the time at there are, believe it or not, lots of other things going on in the world.
Personally I've written letters on the issue and joined a local protest. And yet, here I am able to celebrate Obama getting 4 more years. The good far outweighs the bad and we can work together to try and stop the bad.
Of course for some ""working" on anything political simply means harping endlessly on anything and everything you don't like.
So again I ask you (will we see an answer this time??), why do you punish yourself by being so very, very active on a discussion board for Democrats?
Julie
On edit: Look! A pic of some of those rec'ing this dreck! 
Turborama
(22,109 posts)What percent of 200,000 is 16?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I suppose you were upset with all those people who "harped" about ending the war in Vietnam as well. How dare they protest at the Democratic convention, the LBJ inaugural, or for that matter, the genesis of this very board, the inaugural of Bush.
And it's really classy of you to accuse well known DUer's of being sock puppets. I won't alert on this post of yours, because I believe a poster should have their foolishness left for everybody to see, but don't be surprised if somebody does alert on it sooner or later, since it does violate the TOS.
BumRushDaShow
(128,521 posts)krawhitham
(4,641 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)
RC
(25,592 posts)Hekate
(90,564 posts)
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)We couldn't even have one morning really 
MadHound
(34,179 posts)At least not for this administration.
Sorry to disturb your beautiful mind with unwelcome thoughts like innocents dead today at the hands of this administration.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Barbara Bush is the way to go here? I think the fact you couldn't wait one freeking day before posting this shows everyone what they need to know about you. And it's not that you care oh so much about the dead (while implying the rest of us dont).
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Then everybody could have had a nice day. As it is, dozens of friends and relatives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, are mourning the deaths of innocents while the man who ordered the strikes danced at his inaugural ball.
Yeah, death is a big fucking deal. Don't like hearing about, then join me in trying to get the drone policy stopped.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for the implication that only you, the oh so brave anonymous poster on DU, is the only thing standing between us and our souls dying.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)No skin off my nose if you want to keep the purity of your beautiful mind intact.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)with assholes. Ta ta.
easttexaslefty
(1,554 posts)Ironic.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Always. Every single time.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)As long as MadHound keeps it clean and brings up legitimate ideas which make others think I don't see any problems or issues with it.
If MH calls the POTUS a Kenyan then that would be just silly, but if MH points to a policy where innocents die at the hands of the USA then we should all feel hurt for the dead.
If it disrupts some from enjoying a dance then perhaps they will have to think about the why and not so much the deliverer of such news.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)if that were to be enacted. Yet holier than thou on this night. Very strange if you ask me.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The perfect candidate for such folks was Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Most of the Freepers are going Libertarian, Hedges and Taibbi are already.
Their hostility to Democrats and Obama is worse than teabaggers but the energy is exactly the same. They are the left wing baggers. Yes, there are plenty of them.
Tim Wise did a piece on the anti-Obama anti-war crowd. It fits. Ever see these kind of threads go into traditional Democratic issues, civil rights for people here? Ever see anything but criticism and calling names, painting the worst visions and never a solution offered, just the almost apocalyptical, jump off the cliff and kill yourself now hysteria?
I don't care for this kind of stuff.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)It fits perfectly. I'm gonna spend some time with your post later. It reminded me of a few threads where I couldn't believe some people didn't get feminist issues. Like they had a complete lack of understanding. But they were supposedly so fricking "Liberal" on other things. I think they fit in your scenario.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)That'd be too normal.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
aandegoons
(473 posts)Probably not.
jpak
(41,757 posts)Yup
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts) 
Number23
(24,544 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
backscatter712
(26,355 posts) The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)He should have sung, instead. He's really good at it.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)That's all I care about, he can sing and dance or do whatever the hell he wants to at his inaugural ball, just so long as he stops the killing.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)He is, after all, the Commander in Chief, and don't forget, he has his own personal kill list, updated weekly.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)when he was texting during the parade. There's an app for that.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
aandegoons
(473 posts)He is the one pulling the trigger.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children. War is terrorism, magnified a hundred times.
-Howard Zinn
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And while NRA thanks itself for the increase in sales are dying at the hands of irresponsible gun owners. We are losing more to gunshot wounds than the drones are killing.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Oh, and it isn't just terrorists he is killing, most of them are simply people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like that sixteen year old American citizen, among many, many others.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)They was shot down without compassion. Gabby Giffords was meeting with her constituents and innocent people was killed and injured and this means nothing to you. The coward terrorist try to hide in crowds thinking this is their protection from drone hits, it is in their plan of protection. We have had loss of lives in Algiers and it does nit mean anything. Yes I will continue to compare the attacks on American citizens just as you have.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)One is domestic policy, one is foreign policy. Please, stay on topic.
Oh, and where was that "cowardly terrorist" in the house full of kids that was blown sky high? Where was that "cowardly terrorist" in those wedding parties that were blown to hell?
Spare me your speeches, you're staring to sound like Bush.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The terrorist targeted in the drone strikes wants to attack American citizens. So staying on subject means looking the whole picture. One of the duties of a president is protecting American citizens. We have had too many citizens attacked and this must stop. You complain about one 16 year old American citizen killed, you think the mass killings in the past few months is any easier on the families than the family of the 16 year old? If killing is your subject I am on subject. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . then why not, the next time there is a known mass murderer on the loose, unleash domestic drone strikes? Conflating acts of crime, how ever horrific, with acts of terrorism can lead to some really bad unintended consequences.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)... I merely pointed out a flaw in your argument. Look, I voted, and worked for, the Obama campaign. But I think this entire issue of drones represents a serious moral blind spot for many Democrats, and I, for one, refuse to participate in a whitewash.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You're a troll, I'm a troll, anybody who dares to criticize the president's policies, even if they were policies that were once criticized under Bush, is a troll.
But hey, if you stay consistent in your beliefs and principles, the next time a 'Pug is in office, advocating the very same policies, you will no longer be a troll.
Funny what a difference a little letter behind the president's name makes to some folks.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)being attacked and killed by American terrorists. How much different is the loss of life? None. One of the presidents responsibility is to protect the citizens. Terrorists are interested in killing and attacking Americans, if information is available to prevent these events then we must take action. There has been some 4000 American troops have died in Iraq and 3100 American troops have died in Afghanistan
and all I hear from you is one 16 year old American. Again trolls
choie
(4,107 posts)It never fucking fails - Bush was condemned vociferously by DUers for these crimes, but now that it's Obama committing them, many here either excuse his actions or deny that they are even occurring. The hypocrisy is mindboggling.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)When one of our drones kills children, family members, innocents are we not all then representative of terror?
We grieve over the Sandy Brook or Aurora shootings, but we lend a cold eye to those that get caught in our cross-hairs?
This is not a game where we count ours more dear, those who fall in gun-related tragedies, than those that die by our military.
aandegoons
(473 posts)And apparently there are a lot of them under four foot tall.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
ETA:
Sid
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"While the President dances, innocents mourn their dead, dead at the President's hand."
...eleventh dimension chess?
I give it a 10 for shock value.
I give it an F for fucking ridiculous.
Seriously?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I remember there was a time when even you condemned such murder, but of course that was back when the president had an R behind his name. Now that the president has a D behind his name, you just laugh.
Sad, truly sad.
elleng
(130,758 posts)Sad and preposterous.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The blood is on his hands. Just like it is on the hands of Bush when he was doing the very same thing.
elleng
(130,758 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.
"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.
Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.
They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?
How many Sandy Brooks is that?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html
Now you could have a valid point that the rhetoric of the op is overblown and the timing was intended to put a turd in the inaugural punchbowl, all fair points. But the substantive complaint of the op, that this deliberate policy is well known to cause a large number of civilian casualties, that is not debatable. Obama ordered these strikes. The consequences were understood when those orders were issued and are now publicly known as the policies continue. You could make a valid argument that the civilian casualties are acceptable, I would disagree, but that would be an honest response. Claiming ignorance, asserting no responsibility, not credible, not honest.
elleng
(130,758 posts)Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
The language is deliberately provocative, and unfortunately moves the discussion from where it should be, for example to Stanford, NYU's, and your suggestions, to a foolish flame war at DU.
Civilian casualties are never 'acceptable,' but are unfortunately a consequence of war, drone or not. War and Peace, that we should be able to discuss with civility here at DU.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)Two US drone strikes targeting a vehicle killed two suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen on Monday, tribal sources said, in the second such assault on the jihadist network in three days.
The attack was carried out northeast of Sanaa on a vehicle carrying five members of the group, the sources said, adding that three had managed to flee.
"Two Al-Qaeda militants were killed in two drone strikes that targeted their vehicle" in Nakhla, a town 140 kilometres (87 miles) northeast of Sanaa, one source said.
The militants were travelling between the provinces of Marib, an Al-Qaeda stronghold, and Al-Jawf, when their vehicle was hit. Those killed were identified as Qasem Naser Tuaiman and Ali Saleh Tuaiman.
The two had been in a prison a year ago for joining Al-Qaeda but on their release headed to the southern province of Abyan where they joined jihadists fighting the army, the sources added.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130121-us-drone-strikes-qaeda-yemen-kill-two
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I'm not being sucked in by this bullshit today.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Hypocrisy much?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Sorry, not happening.
Gee, didn't you condemn Bush when he was killing innocents with drones? What changed your mind? That little letter behind the president's name?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Hasta manana
creeksneakers2
(7,472 posts)Terrorists kill people. If we can get them first, we save lives. I blame the terrorists for those innocents dying, not Obama, or Bush, who were protecting us.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)countingbluecars
(4,766 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)In our name.
countingbluecars
(4,766 posts)to look at the good that this President has done?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)So, no, they won't. Bad day for them today.
easttexaslefty
(1,554 posts)loves his precious guns...
Hekate
(90,564 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and those not so innocent.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/20/a-time-comes-when-silence-is-betrayal/
They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one “Vietcong”-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them — mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only non-Communist revolutionary political force — the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators?
Now there is little left to build on — save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.
Perhaps the more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front — that strangely anonymous group we call VC or Communists? What must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the south? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of “aggression from the north” as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent Communist and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will have no part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them — the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence?
jillan
(39,451 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Then we wouldn't have the need for drones or troops.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)you're not interested in it.
President Obama puts his stamp on global development (foreign policy isn't war)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223604
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And that's just in Pakistan, not counting the dead innocents in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223604
Again, you appear uninterested.
Your response is to post an article from 2011?
Silliness.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Just 'being nice' now isn't going to fix what we screwed up 60 years ago.
What are you talking about with the Shah? Never mind, don't need to go there, far too confusing.
In answer, I hope, to your question, we can stop the drone strikes for one thing. That is radicalizing thousands of people who would otherwise not consider us hostile.
Oh, and stop firing up wars against an entire country simply to revenge on a relative handful of people who did us harm.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and it's the original cause that started terrorists hating the US. Putting the Shah back in power resulted in a lot of other activities by us which then caused their own reasons for hatred.
Stopping drone attacks won't make that hatred go away.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)and their "neo-liberal" (isn't everyone) President.
Stakes for France Are High as Hollande Continues an Intervention in Mali
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/world/europe/hollandes-intervention-in-mali-raises-concerns.html
rollin74
(1,973 posts) darkangel218
(13,985 posts)How would you have felt if Rmoney and Ryan were dancing tonight??
Get a reality check!
Grrrrrr
emulatorloo
(44,071 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)...."I'm not saying don't vote for the president, but don't vote for the president" doublespeak.
They play the game, hopefully they slip up.
emulatorloo
(44,071 posts)"They play the game, hopefully they slip up."
From your lips to Skinner's ears.
Hekate
(90,564 posts)Thank you
think
(11,641 posts)but words will never hurt me.......
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They are wondering how soon you can bring it back
- Thanks
Number23
(24,544 posts)Second thread today I've seen bemoaning... something. And wasn't surprised in the least by the author of either OP as they are 100% consistent in ALWAYS making sure that everyone here knows how never-endingly, incessantly, non-stopingly DISAPPOINTED they are in this man. Like any of us care.
And when people call them Obama haters, we'll get their tired "feet to the fire," "he TOLD me to make him do it" BS that they always give as if no one has ever read their posts.
littlemissmartypants
(22,593 posts)14 OET definitions
Office of Engineering and Technology
Office of Educational Technology
Office of Emergency Transportation
Office of Employment Training
Octachloro Endomethylene Tetrahydroindan
Office of Economic Transition
Office of Environmental Technology
open epicutaneous test
operational employment test
oral endotracheal tube
oral esophageal tube
Orbiter Engineering and Test
Orbiter Engineering Team
ovarian epithelial tumors
Which one?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)who got banned for not playing nice with the rest of us. There are a few who post on both sites. It's hard to characterise them exactly - mainly more left wing than the average DUer, I suppose, but the main distinguishing mark is "oh, they're starting some shit - again".
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The only thing missing from that god awful screed is the obligatory "Barry" reference.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)The militants were travelling between the provinces of Marib, an Al-Qaeda stronghold, and Al-Jawf, when their vehicle was hit. Those killed were identified as Qasem Naser Tuaiman and Ali Saleh Tuaiman.
The two had been in a prison a year ago for joining Al-Qaeda but on their release headed to the southern province of Abyan where they joined jihadists fighting the army, the sources added.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130121-us-drone-strikes-qaeda-yemen-kill-two
patrice
(47,992 posts)hands of people who USE others for their own political or economic agendas:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022193033
Does Rand/Ron Paul, Chris Hedges, and Glenn Greenwald KNOW enough to arm just anyone who says they oppose the U.N. and/or PO, assuming that these new Bushmaster owners have the best interests of the people you claim to be concerned about at heart? Whatever's right or wrong in these countries, none of it is made any better by arming anyone and everyone Fast-and-Furious style.
People who bitch about drones are, possibly, not only johnny-come-latelies to war resistance (something that they likely suddenly found somekind of commitment to that just so happened to co-incide with a relatively successful racist candidate known as Ron Paul) but also opponents to 3rd world countries controlling the flow of AMERICAN arms into their countries by means of treaties with the U.N.
Even if there is a point to UN financial corruption (which could also just be competition with Libertarians for foreign markets of certain types) do you think that UN corruption matters to children of newly created Bushmaster owners? One person's "liberator", as we saw in Libya, can be a bunch of other people's terrorists, drone targets, or only part of a longer more collaborative process like that which rose to the surface in Egypt on 9/11/12. Do the Pauls/Hedges/Greenwald know enough to predict the outcomes of supporting the NRA's BUSHMASTER markets anywhere and everywhere?
When you fertilize the ground with Bushmasters, drones are the next step, so anyone who is bitching about drones needs to find out if they are working with others, Libertarians usually, who oppose US participation in UN Arms Control Treaties that interfere with the NRA's markets south of our border and around the world.
Jarhead1775
(43 posts)Dude, or dudette.....
I wouldn't go that far.
As Bob Ueker(sp?) would say: 'Juuuust a bit outside!'
patrice
(47,992 posts)seat and I received a petition to support it from a Libertarian around our Occupy.
Would you tell me what so "outside" about that?
Jarhead1775
(43 posts)The dramatics in "fertilize the ground"
Street cred is lost with the drama.
Going back to Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am"
Harry Potter would be cool too at this time.....but I'll leave it at that.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Money and ideology
Sustained by money to push your ideology on others. (Control)
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)And that's saying something.
What's even weirder is that you're the second person in this thread trying to falsely conflate drone strikes and gun control.
Let me make it clear for you as well. Drone strikes are a foreign policy issue, gun control is a domestic issue. If you are trying, somehow, some way, to say that part of the problem is that the US exports a lot of guns to other countries, well, yes, that's been true for over a century now, but it too is a separate issue as well and has no bearing on drone strikes.
patrice
(47,992 posts)countries in which drone strikes occur. You think those governments are just simply letting the USA come into their countries to kill whomever for no reason having anything to do with the country in which that is occurring at all. You think the drone strikes are purely for the USA and not for anything to do with security issues, e.g. Libya, in the countries in which they occur.
That's a very naive idea of how this stuff works. Why would a government allow a foreign power to come into their country and just kill anyone for anything. You don't think that the people of whatever country would find that kind of activity worthy of revolt, UNLESS they in majority or a significant minority approved of the drone strikes for reasons of their own?
MadHound you are doing your usual job of not thinking about things nor asking any questions, such as, "Why?"
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The Pakistan government has condemned the drone strikes again and again, this is but the latest.
http://www.newspakistan.pk/2013/01/04/pakistan-condemns-u-s-drone-strikes/
Yemen human rights groups condemn the strikes, and their own government for letting the US do them.
http://www.alsahwa-yemen.net/arabic/subjects/5/2012/9/5/22148.htm
Let's not forget that the Yemen government is a pretty brutal dictatorship, though they prefer the label "unitary presidential republic"
sound familiar?)
Even the UN condemns our drone strikes
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0619/breaking17.html
The US is quickly becoming an international pariah state due to drone strikes. Now why do you think that small countries like Pakistan(with the US army on its doorstep), Yemen and others don't fight back against drone strikes? Because they know quite well that if they resisted, we could very well bring the full might of our military to bear. That should answer your question about why.
think
(11,641 posts)By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, January 23, 2012 9:46 EST
Yemen’s embattled dictator said in a televised address this week that he was on his way to the United States for medical treatment, adding that he would not be returning to the country as its leader, but as the president of the General People’s Congress party as part of a series of democratic reforms.
Ali Abdullah Saleh has been under siege by his own people, who’ve revolted against his brutal, autocratic rule over the last three decades. He’s also been targeted by demonstrators for his support of U.S. policies, and especially over a U.S. drone bombing campaign that has killed scores of his own people.
Even after repeated, brutal crackdowns on protesters, Saleh has been granted immunity from prosecution by the nation’s government as part of a peace deal brokered by neighboring nations. His long time vice president, Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi, is also the odds-on favorite candidate to succeed him....
Full article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/23/u-s-to-welcome-yemen-dictator-for-medical-treatment/
And the spanking new democracy of Yemen is run by the US backed "vice president" of the old dictator WINK WINK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Rabbuh_Mansur_Hadi
Ain't those some hunky dory meatballs...
patrice
(47,992 posts)that, but you take them at their word.
Why?
patrice
(47,992 posts)lies.
stklurker
(180 posts)And you are so concerned about it that you will post to an internet board during the inauguration and MLK day, well that is action! well done!! and I am sure its just coincidence that this became issue number 1 at this particular moment today...
And do you think the Presidents orders are .. 'Kill innocents'.. is that what he did?
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Mail Message
At Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
While the President dances, innocents mourn their dead, dead at the President's hand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022235939
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Fuck this. I'm sick and tired of anti-Obama bullshit from this supposedly "liberal Democratic" poster.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:22 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not today.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm getting tired of all the Obama bashing here, too.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Agree with the alerter, but this isn't hide worthy. It doesn't break any rules. It sucks and you'd think they would take the fucking day off, but whatever. Sorry can't hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This isn't an Obama personality cult. Get over it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)without the likes of me shitting all over the place.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)during election season. I remember. And I wish we had a way to reward that. And tonight. These things matter, especially in comparison. Thank you. It's the best I can do.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I try to be respectful and kind, but I still make mistakes.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I think we all can use a break from the unrelenting and grave issues we are faced with.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)
Oh. Wait. No. I don't.
Just the opposite in fact. Dance on, my President. Dance on.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Beautiful.
Very sad the OP can't put away their hatred of our President for even a moment.
denbot
(9,898 posts)Same old crap from you.
patrice
(47,992 posts)markets.
Do you consider indiscriminate access to American made assault weapons in the world's trouble spots politically destabilizing?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Seriously, you are the second person trying to conflate US arms sales abroad with drone strikes, and it just doesn't work.
But to answer your questions, I would love to see an effective ban on assault weapons, I've mentioned that on this board more than once.
As far as the US being the number one arms dealer in the world, I'd like to see that change as well. But you know, the funny thing is, the US government government is the once who approves these things, including the Obama administration, in sales to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Libya and Egypt, among many others. Doesn't that seem rather foolish and counterproductive to you?
patrice
(47,992 posts)in a country, with a government different from our own, something more royal or dictatorial, and this group either completely through their own efforts, or with somekind of external assistance, got the idea that the solution to their troubles was armed violence, even though just simply on the numbers alone there is absolutely no way armed violence was going to get them what they want and most likely would result in all of their deaths, if there were such a group, established at least for a few generations, becoming a better and better market for assault weapons, but never achieving a numeric size that would result in success for them and yet promoting themselves in their own regions and elsewhere by potential or actual violence and if you were the government of this country in which this is going on, a government of not only this one minority but also several other different ones beside, some with more, some with less affinity for our troublesome group, what would you as the government do?
Don't give me an answer as a citizen of a constitutional republic with more or less democratic processes in place and functioning, give me an answer in the contexts to which we refer (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya elsewhere . . . ). One thing I would do if I were a government in this kind of situation, I'd be going to the country that is selling arms to my trouble group and try to make them stop. Another thing I would do if I were a government in such a situation, I would try to figure out if some of the leaders of my trouble group are people who exploit anyone and everyone for their own agendas. I might be an exploiter myself, but I'd certainly want to know if I'm up against an authentic social movement or some people being lead by another exploiter.
There's still the problem of no matter what the group is and no matter how they are getting their arms and who their leadership is, whether that leadership is authentic or exploitative, in some situations our trouble group can and will be genocided if a certain kind of government chose to do that. Can you see that these kinds of situations can almost be like hostage situations and in many cases, the trouble group/hostages could be a problem, they have become problematic hostages with the threat of genocide hanging over their heads, BECAUSE of American produced and NRA promoted arms flowing into their situation.
If you were the government in charge of this situation, would you just go ahead and genocide the trouble group, pleasing some of your other countrymen, but also making about the same amount of others angry and eventually perhaps even problematic also? Or would you "call the Policemen of the World/the USA", who has longstanding treaties at least in your region if not with your actual country, and are those whom, incidentally, are also responsible for your country's troubles because they may have been selling arms to that trouble group of people who NEVER had a chance of anything but impending genocide anyway.
I don't like that this is the way that things are, MadHound, but it IS the way things are and summarily pretending otherwise, no matter how right that trouble group may be about their issues, does not result in anything but the worst of two more bad things, not only for the trouble group, but for a whole lot of other people who choose more or less directly not to participate in the struggle over those issues in the first place. Could something else happen? Yes, but not by just pretending that certain things are so. People have to be responsible for how change occurs and violence, from Bushmasters and their consequence, drones, interferes with bringing those kinds of change about.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Please, consolidate, paraphrase, something, anything to make the point(s) you're trying to get across a bit clearer than mud. Thanks.
patrice
(47,992 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)It is the sheer amount of nonsensical verbage that you're putting out there. Seriously, I'm not trying to be an ass about this, I would love to continue our conversation, but that last post of yours simply made no sense whatsoever.
patrice
(47,992 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Like I said earlier, consolidate, paraphrase, and use more than one or two sentences to make up a paragraph. It makes for much easier reading and understanding.
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)truth & Obama always lies. Is that simple enough for you?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Please, go back and look at that post. Your entire first paragraph is one long sentence. The rest of your paragraphs are broken into two sentences at most. It makes for a confusing, bewildering word mash that I simply can't wade through.
As far as your question goes, where have I said that dictators are telling the truth and Obama is lying? Your original post to me in this subthread concerned weapons sales, and I was pointing out that yes, I thought it was a problem, especially since this administration was following in the footsteps of previous administrations by selling arms to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere.
You seem to be taking a scattershot approach to your replies, throwing everything out there trying to find out what sticks, please, stay on topic. And please, construct your replies so they're not just a word salad. Thanks.
patrice
(47,992 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Or anything else relevant to our discussion? Again, I've never said that dictators always tell the truth or that Obama always lies.
Please, try to have a discussion without having to resort to hyperactive hyperbole.
patrice
(47,992 posts)that of course they would say such things for political reasons and yet you believe them fully.
While everything PO has said about this is apparently a lie to you and it appears that you think PO orders drones because he's a murderer or something only with bad or evil intent.
People like you never admit that PO does in fact know a great deal more about the whole situation than you do and yet you're willing to characterize that as evil and anyone who corroborates your point of view for whatever reason as heroic.
Why do you think that, as in the countries you listed above, all of these dictators and kings and such always tell us the truth about what is going on with drones and whatever and President Obama always lies and orders drones for no useful or good reason whatsoever?
HOW do you think any of this is even remotely possible without at least the indirect complicity of the countries that we are talking about, themselves, or of their allies and such who withhold their own responses, or pressure the country being droned to let it go, because we are assisting them somehow?
Again, is this the way that I would do it? No! But it is the way that it is done and Ron/Rand Paul, Chris Hedges, and Glenn Greenwald don't have what it takes to change any of it. All of their activity on this issue is political opportunism at the expense of people who are under threat of genocide from their own governments if someone, in this case the Policemen of the World/the USA, doesn't get them under somekind of threat of control from a lesser force (drones) than full on genocide, which is the usual solution if you may have noticed.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Yet it condemned our drone strikes.
Pakistan is, at least nominally, our ally in a war, yet it condemns our drone strikes. Oh, and the Pakistani government is a dictatorship.
The Yemen group that I linked to isn't part of the government, it is a human rights group, one that deals with protecting children. It condemned not only the US for our drone strikes, but its own government for allowing the US to launch the strikes within their country. It isn't a dictatorship, or some radical group, but a well known and respected NGO in the area.
Perhaps you need to start reading more closely, including the links I post. Then perhaps you won't go off half-cocked on a rant that has absolutely no bearing to what I was saying.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Created by bankers for bankers and agent of the new world order and it's black helicopters.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I don't hang with such people, why do you?
patrice
(47,992 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Why don't you explain it instead, since you seem to know so much about the topic.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)That bastard!
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)while American citizens of Japanese descent were living in concentration camps, put there by his orders.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)You really undercut the argument you're trying to make with language like that you know. You're going for shock value over substance, deliberately timed to get the biggest rise out of people.
It doesn't make you righteous, it doesn't make you an activist. It makes you a troll.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Who has his own personal kill list?
That's right, you can say it, President Obama. The Commander in Chief.
Not his subordinates, not somebody else, the president.
What's funny is these same drone strikes were condemned when Bush was doing them, and I and a lot of other people around here vorciferously condemned Bush for them at the time. But now, when it is a president with a D behind his name, most of those voices have fallen silent. That isn't being a troll, that is being consistent in the condemnation of an outrageous practice that takes the lives of hundreds and thousands of innocents.
I guess the UN is a troll as well, at least in your eyes.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Unlike you, they used responsible language to address the issue, and refrained from timing their statements to get the ugliest emotional reaction possible to what they had to say.
Unlike you. Troll.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Hey, I guess that the timing of those drone strikes in Yemen wasn't real spectacular either, not for the innocents that died. And they didn't get to have an emotional reaction, they just got to have their blood and guts blown to hell in a hand basket.
Excuse the fuck out me for not being polite and diplomatic when it comes to innocents dying in our name. Excuse the fuck out of me for having the poor timing when pointing out that our insane, condemned drone policy is going to come back and bite us in the ass. Frankly, I don't want to see anybody here, not you, not me, become the victim of another 911 terrorist who is pissed off because we blew the fuck out of his baby sister when we really didn't need to.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Is that I haven't disagreed with the point you're trying to make. I'm telling you that the way you're trying to make it undermines your credibility.
Clearly you could do this all night, and you'll defend your efforts 'till the end, but all you're doing is making yourself look rabid when you could be attempting a more civil debate.
I'm guessing your response will be something along the lines of "there is nothing civil about what the President is doing!", but sinking to shock value to make your point still only makes you one thing: a troll.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And inconvenient timing, then I'm guess I'm in good company, for many people, much admired, like Ghandi, MLK, Malcolm X and so many others have done the same thing.
The real ironic thing is you scolding me over language, while every reply you've written to me has called me a troll. Now just how conducive is that to civil discourse?
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)That's quite a justification to put yourself among such company. I'll let you think on whether or not such grandiose self-congratulations are truly in order.
And yes, I've called a spade a spade. You're sitting back watching the replies roll in, quick to engage every person you can. It would be almost admirable if your presentation wasn't so completely and transparently for your own satisfaction. The points you're trying to make in this thread are being consistently undermined by your own rhetoric. And yes, it's trolling.
But sure, you're the new MLK. Sure.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)We all put things up here for our own satisfaction. It is what we do in the real world that counts, like protesting the war, fighting for civil liberties, working to make this world a better place. I do all of those, do you?
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)But with dignity, and the knowledge that the way I make my argument has as much effect on whether people will take me seriously or not as the message itself.
You see how much good Alex Jones did for the gun debate for right wingers. And no, I'm not comparing you to that lunatic. But opposing the Presidents policies and calling him a murderer on a historic evening such as this are very different things.
Tonight is a rare night in which many people want to celebrate the fact that we get Obama for another 4 years, flaws and all, over the devastating consequences that would have come to pass if tonight were Mitt Romney's night. Even you ought to be able to celebrate that.
To be effective, you need to learn how to pick your battles, and how to frame them. Otherwise... You're trolling.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)If you hadn't opened up with calling me a troll, and continue to call me a troll with every single post you make. But since that seems to be your thing, despite your calls for moderation of language and civility in conversation, I feel under no obligation to follow your advice. Have a good evening, and perhaps we can meet under more pleasant circumstances in the future. If not, oh well.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)I choose to work towards my goals respectfully and not marginalize people I'm trying to persuade by using bombastic language or raining on people's parades. It's folks like you who make what I'm trying to do harder. I do my work within the boundaries of reasonable discourse.
You can (and obviously will) argue it your way until you're blue in the face, but I keep calling you a troll because I'm trying to get through to you. To help you understand that threads like these, especially on a night like tonight, do more harm than good. It pushes you to the fringe. This thread doesn't make you a crusader for justice. It makes you "that ass who said that nasty thing that night I was feeling good about America."
You see, like it or not, tonight was a great night for most of us. Even the ones who are some of the toughest critics. But yes, do have a good evening. It's a shame you can't find any satisfaction in what happened today, because it was monumental.
patrice
(47,992 posts)will turn away from the demagogues and whatever truth was mixed in with so much dross will be lost as those who live in the real world do the work to figure out how to make something better, and then something else better, and after that another thing better . . . .
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)"I choose to work towards my goals respectfully and not marginalize people I'm trying to persuade by using bombastic language"
So I suppose that calling somebody a troll every time you address them is somehow respectful, eh? Calling me a troll doesn't push you to the fringe in my opinion?
How would you like it if I called you a troll every time I spoke to you. Perhaps I should try that and see how you like that.
You certainly have a funny way of trying to show people how one should be respectful.
easttexaslefty
(1,554 posts)and talks like a troll, it's usually a troll.
aandegoons
(473 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)so I won't say anything.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)I expect my post will be voted to be hidden, but I simply cannot accept Obama's assertion that he can lawfully order the killing of any person, including any American citizen, anywhere in the world simply because he believes that person guilty of "terrorism."
Such a usurpation of power by the executive branch exceeds even the unconstitutional, un-American, and indefensible actions of his predecessor.
Unfortunately, earlier this year a federal judge basically upheld the president's claimed license to kill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/judge-rules-memo-on-targeted-killing-can-remain-secret.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&
treestar
(82,383 posts)You are as responsible as anyone else. We elect the CIC and Congress. We can't pretend to blame the President for what our country does. We do have a right to defend ourselves from terrorists. How we go about that is another issue. If you don't like that, speak up, but quit acting like the President alone is responsible. Who demands that the government defend them from future harm? Who is it that claims the President must protect us?
DerekG
(2,935 posts)He didn't stand for Johnson's warmongering; I highly doubt he'd stand for Obama's.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)object to LBJ dancing during the Vietnam War?
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/inauguration/index.shtm
Martin Luther King wasn't a petty man with hate in his heart.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)thank you very much! 
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,593 posts)And the Earth still spins while we ride it round and type. The only sense some ever come to is the easiest to go to, pain. I deeply hope your days improve with your outlook. Willing it so, is something I would do if I could, but only you can do that. I will tell you, 21 January, 2013 was a very good day for a great many people and sadly good days are rarer than the painful days the Earth rolls out for most of its riders. I don't know when I will have another day as great as it was but I know I wish you a very good day soon.
Peace. lmsp
MadHound
(34,179 posts)However I learned long ago never to tie my well being or state of mind to whomever is going into or getting out of most political offices. I tie my well being to much more personal matters, friends, family, etc. Politicians, not so much.
I've been around far too long to make that mistake.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)drone strikes appear to be our least-bad alternative.
It would be great if we hadn't fucked over the middle east decades ago. But we did. That greatly limits our options today to bad, terrible and awful.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)They are radicalizing thousands, making more and more enemies that will now come back and try to do us harm. Try thinking ahead while learning from the past.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I doubt that.
"They are radicalizing thousands, making more and more enemies that will now come back and try to do us harm. Try thinking ahead while learning from the past. "
By "enemies," do you mean "innocents"?
What exactly is your point?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Let me ask you this, say, oh, Russia wanted to get back at some capitalist terrorists that had bombed the Kremlin, and they were living next door to you. Russia launches a drone strike into your neighborhood that blows up not just the terrorist, but everything in a four or five house radius, including your beloved spouse or child.
Wouldn't you want to get back at the Russians, any way you could? Wouldn't you be out for revenge?
Now, multiply that by thousands, and that's where our problems becomes major. While you may want revenge against those Russians, you may not have the means to do so. But if that scene were repeated hundreds of times, pretty soon the number of those friends and relatives who wanted revenge would grow large enough that you could find a group who had the means and will to carry out an attack on the Kremlin all on their very own.
That is what we're looking at, and if you don't get the problem now, then perhaps you will in a few years or so when we have another 911 here. Because that is exactly what is going to happen. You can't kill innocents again and again and expect to escape the consequences.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)This is your fantasy.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)What sort of weaponry are you in possession of?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)What does that have to do with blowback coming from people whose friends and relatives have been killed in drone attacks? You're not making sense.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Yes or no?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Broadly speaking, we've got three options:
1) Drone Strikes - which have the problems you mention
2) Invasion - the downsides of this should be obvious
3) Back off - the problem with this is our drone strikes are disrupting the ability of terrorist groups to plan large-scale attacks. Backing off on drone strikes aren't going to make these groups stop hating the US. So backing off will lead to them planning and then carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks in the US. The aftermath of such an attack is likely to be #2 above. Meaning we not only get the downsides of invasion, but we get another pile of dead in the US and attacks on civil liberties. Even if the president at the time doesn't invade, political pressure will replace him with a warmonger.
So yes, drone strikes are bad. The alternatives are worse. The way out of this current situation will require resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine and other regional irritants before stopping the strikes would be effective.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)When another 911 type event occurs, get back to me and tell me just how better the option of drones strikes were.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Already did. Perhaps you could bother to respond to what I wrote instead of mindlessly repeating your talking points.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)aandegoons
(473 posts)While our president has done a great job overall. On this he is wrong and it is not about his dancing it his utter lack of moral choice on this issue.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Dancing at the Inaugural Ball: Lady Bird Johnson, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Muriel Humphrey, President Lyndon B. Johnson
• The Inaugural parade consisted of 30 floats, 15,000 marchers, 54 bands, and 54 military units. There were supposed to be 31 floats but Maryland’s float was missing as parade officials deemed that the position of the flag on the float, meant to depict the flag that inspired “The Star-Spangled Banner” and parallel to the street ,was not according to protocol.
<...>
• The Inaugural Balls were held in five locations: The Mayflower, the Shoreham, the National Guard Armory, the Sheraton Park, and the Statler-Hilton; tickets were $25 with the exception of the Gala with performances at the National Guard Armory. Tickets for that event were $100. Approximately 28,000 persons attended the five balls.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/inauguration/index.shtm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Lyndon_B._Johnson.27s_escalation.2C_1963.E2.80.931969
judesedit
(4,437 posts)judesedit
(4,437 posts)of a civil war. Spare me.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)or spending billions to expand domestic spying and drone attacks. That's all Republican stuff, right? The President was forced into that stuff, right?
When you want to talk about a REAL progressive agenda...get back to me. Until then, just enjoy the champagne and hor'dourves while partying all night with the rich. The rest of the country has to go to work tomorrow.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Yeah...just like Obama didnt sign NDAA or renew the Patriot Act or continue policy of torture"
...get your facts straight.
- 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.
"When you want to talk about a REAL progressive agenda...get back to me. Until then, just enjoy the champagne and hor'dourves while partying all night with the rich. The rest of the country has to go to work tomorrow."
Really self-righteous, aren't you?
patrice
(47,992 posts)If you were President, what would you have done if the means by which our military pays their bills, provides for troops in war, and pays their people's paychecks became embroiled in another long congressional fight, because you vetoed it and your veto didn't even survive anyway, and since congress knows your veto is going to lose you can't get any changes into the NDAA during the over-ride fight, so your veto was for what . . . . ?
Please, please, I honestly AM curious about how you see this sort of thing. I don't understand and would like to know what it is that I am missing here. What do you think about the fact that NDAAs are almost always veto proof.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It has been done before, why not now? Why attach your name in approval of a bill that continues to destroy our civil liberties?
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....weapons in each of those attacks like cruise missiles, or bombs from either a B-2 or a B-52, or an artillery strike? Ever think about how much worse the casualties would be if we didn't use missiles fired from a drone?
Have you ever given much thought to what those Al Qaeda operatives might still be planning in terms of killing US troops and/or civilians had the drones not taken them out?
Instead of the constant attacks on the President, tell me what you would do if you were the President. What's your plan?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)If we hadn't radicalized thousands and thousands of people by blowing the hell out of their friends and relatives with drones. Many experts seem to think so, what about you?
You want to know what I would do? I certainly wouldn't use the blunt weapon of a drone strike when a more surgical, precise method is called for.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....of killing or incapacitating an enemy operative other than using a drone strike. Be precise, please. We've already ruled out cruise missiles, bombs, and artillery strikes because of the potential for high civilian casualties. Are you going to risk US military personnel in operations that may have to take place deep in hostile territory against highly mobile enemy operatives, operations that may require weeks or months of planning? What "surgical, more precise method" do you think we have at our disposal?
With all due respect to the "many experts" noted in your post, one could also argue that had it not been for a series of Al Qaeda attacks on US installations culminating in the events of 9-11 we would not be discussing this subject at all. Additionally, I would argue that millions of Americans became radicalized by watching the 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. I would also argue that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would never have taken place had 9-11 not occurred.
xxxsdesdexxx
(213 posts)The headline is a bit over the top. So you think that the president enjoys killing people or having people killed? Really? Drop the hyperbolic headline with that crap about Obama dancing around while killing people and your cause would be much more likely to receive its much do attention.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Obama orders drone strikes in the morning, dances that night. I don't know whether the president enjoys that or not, but that is exactly what is happening. If that disturbs you, perhaps you have more of problem with our drone policy than with headlines.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)OP making a point about innocents dying, and people post some fluff picture with Obama dancing.
I'd be willing to bet if it were your families, you might take it more seriously.
Never mind that, though, let's go back to playing with our Obama Barbies and pretending that killing Yemenis will keep us safe. If this were Connecticut and a Bushmaster was involved HOLD THE FUCK ON, WE GOT A PROBLEM HERE... oh wait, they're poor, brown and don't speak English? And it's one of Obama's drones? Pfff, get outta here nobody cares.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)OP making a point about innocents dying, and people post some fluff picture with Obama dancing.
Did you miss the title of the OP:
"While the President dances, innocents mourn their dead, dead at the President's hand. "
Never mind that, though, let's go back to playing with our Obama Barbies and pretending that killing Yemenis will keep us safe. If this were Connecticut and a Bushmaster was involved HOLD THE FUCK ON, WE GOT A PROBLEM HERE... oh wait, they're poor, brown and don't speak English? And it's one of Obama's drones? Pfff, get outta here nobody cares.
The President is trying to kill "poor, brown" who "don't speak English" so fuck Connecticut?
cali
(114,904 posts)and over.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I'm protesting the indiscriminate killing of innocents.
Oh, and I'm protesting a policy that is guaranteeing that another tragedy like 911 will happen on our soil. Is that what you want to see?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the 3rd party ites are finished in american Presidential election.
history
ta ta
good bye
caio
farewell
don't let the door hit you on the way out
finished.
done.
over.
Naderinanity in 2000 was the last time a democratic person will ever fall for the bullshit line
both parties are the same
so long
farewell
auf weidershein
goodbye
as Richard Clarke said (and as Richard Clarke was one Democrats cited in 2001 as someone Bush should have followed) Drones are the most humane method of warfare.
If 25 have died from drones, having armed man to man combat would have killed 10,000
therefore 9,975 were saved from having a drone
PLUS
the inane raw number statistic is, those 25 most likely would ALSO have died from man to man ground combat, meaning instead of 10,000, there would have been 10,025 plus all the deaths from the hands of the terrorists that they kill in other countries themselves
Meanwhile, guns kill 34 people a day in America, and yet well, guess who wants those guns to overthrow the government that has saved 10,025 people for every 25 killed by a drone.
Mr. Spock would laugh at the illogical logic in the article in the OP and all articles like that.
Naderites, at least they are as popular as other now laughed at, spit at groups.
Nader himself, like Ron Paul, laughing and propped up by the republican party, financed by the republican party and making millions while continuing to do so.
And then Nader still goes on about corporate personhood, becuase, yeah, sure, Al Gore would have put Alito and Roberts on the court.
Yeah, sure.
Take it to the bank, because Nader and Paul both take baths in all the money their lies have made them over the years.
I no longer even can remember that far back, did Nader actually do any good at any time?
Or was he on the books even back then and it was just that no one was looking into it?
Were his pronouncements way back also financed by the rightwing?
Who know, who cares.
because he and any other 3rd party chaotic maker is rendered by Ralph Nader himself, forever OBSOLETE OBSOLETE OBSOLETE. He is the OBSOLETE MAN.
and does Ralph Nader realize- it is ALL HIS FAULT for anything/everything that happened
2001-2009?
hey Bart, write on the blackboard, IT IS ALL RALPH NADER'S fault, one million times
because, well, it is.
RALPH NADER IS THE SPOILER. HE SINGLE HANDLEDLY SPOILED ANYTHING GOOD IN AMERICA.
Ralph Nader danced over the democracy he singlehandedly spoiled.
imho of course.
and of course, he is also LAZY. Too lazy to actually run for win an office more suited to winning. And having of course to take a big pay check downsize himself, as public office pays far less than the $$$$$$ he windfalls in.
Why do grunt work, when whining is so much more profitable, hey Ralphie?
[img]
[/img]
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Umm, Nader happened over twelve years ago, stop trying to blame him for everything.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)conflating two issues would be the OP article anyhow
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Really, are you going that far out there?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)without nader, no war on terror as Gore would have won with the 10 million voters that did not vote from Nader saying why bother to vote, stay home, both are the same yada yada yada
it was only after the 2012 election, and seeing the total votes cast
in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 that it was so stark clear how many did not bother to come out,
most likely a great majority of those not coming to vote being that at the time they believed Nader's both are the same, stay home, your vote not needed.
(but the voters did not know that Nader was financed by the repubs to do just what he did).
of course, had Nader run for Senate, and 100 other greens ran to win in the house, then maybe those voices could have spoken loud and clear from the inside
Instead of whining without realizing they brought this upon themselves.
yes, I will go there.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I'll just let you continue to do your thing. Apparently you wish to believe that everything bad in this world is somehow linked to Nader.
I suggest that you stop living in the past, it makes dealing with the present much more difficult.
Oh, and in the January 23 issue of Blueprint magazine, Al From, head of the DLC, clearly stated that Bush would have done much better without Nader in the race, that if he hadn't run, voters would have broke 2:1 for Bush.
But again, neither that, nor any of what you're going on about has anything to do with what is going on now. If you want to play that sort of game we can go all the way back to Iran Contra and the fact that if the Dems had pursued that to the full extent of the law, the Bush family would have been banished to the political wilderness forever, and we wouldn't have had either Bush I or II.
But that sort of thinking is just as foolish as your blaming Nader, just saying.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)so go and vote for Jeb in 2016 if you wish
wihtout the ACLU getting the shredder and others off on technicalities...
and as 41 pardoned everyone anyhow
of course, had the protesters not tossed LBJ into the river in 1968, he would have beaten Nixon and democratic candidates would have been president since then
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)much like elvis in his later years.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I condemn these illegal, immoral wars under Bush and Obama. I condemn these drone strikes under Bush and Obama. I condemn the shredding of our Constitution and civil liberties under Bush and Obama.
I would say that is being consistent with my values.
But you're right, I have put on a little extra weight over the past ten years, but nowhere the amount that Elvis put on.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)trying to cover for the lack of new material with an insincere enthusiasm.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I would much rather not having to post on these deaths at all, but those drones do keep on flying, and innocents keep on dying.
ecstatic
(32,653 posts)Do paid trolls get vacation time?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And the revocation of our civil liberties, it would make my life much easier.
Funny though how you use the term "it" when referring to me. The only other times I see that is cruising through Freeper boards, where they think the term is a cute way of dehumanizing Democrats and liberals. Is that what you're trying to do to me, and if so, why?
ecstatic
(32,653 posts)but there's a right way and a wrong way to talk about things in a way that's respectful of others. Time and time again, you choose the wrong way, opting for a flamefest rather than real dialogue. Why wouldn't people think that's trolling?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Besides, when Bush was president, did we take a break from criticizing him on his inauguration days? No, in fact this very board was born of a protest by the Admins on his inauguration day. So, why is it a legit protest to criticize and protest Bush on his inauguration, but not on Obama's?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Once again, you fail to address the facts of the post.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Some sour grapes ...
And then some bitter herbs, which are useful for heartburn.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)might be of interest.
Obama's Inaugural: A New Foreign Policy?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237368
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Perhaps that is one of the reasons that the UN has condemned them, along with other nations.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)Please.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And ends the illegal, immoral war, fully and completely.
Gee, didn't you condemn drones strikes at one time, for the very reasons that I mentioned. Of course that was when Bush was launching them. So what's changed? Oh, yeah, that single letter behind the president's name.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)feature, but in the old-fashioned way. Your single-minded hatred of government simply is not worth my attention any longer. It has no balance, nor does it have any sense. It is based on an imagined world that does not, and cannot, exist. You write a great deal, but say little.
I am done with wasting my time reading your posts. They are unrealistic, describe things impossible to realize, and serve only to divide and demoralize.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And becoming a much less imperial superpower is unrealistic and impossible? If that is the case, I feel sorry for you, unable to conceive of such possibilities.
But wait, you did consider drone strikes, the war, and stripping of our civil liberties to be heinous offenses under Bush, you posted upon those very same topics. What's changed?
Oh, yeah, that little letter behind the president's name, from an R to a D.
Let me guess, when there is a 'Pug in the White House again(and there will be, sooner or later), you will once again find imperial wars, drone strikes and the stripping of our civil liberties to be heinous crimes again.
And that makes you a hypocrite.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And ends the illegal, immoral war, fully and completely."
...Kucinich and all but one member of Congress voted for the Afghanistan war (about eight years before Obama became President)?
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)That's a complex process, and it's underway, even as we speak. However, there are always hostilities somewhere, so it's very likely that our military will be called on in the future, as well. War sucks. It always has and always will. However, few if any periods of human history have been free of warfare and hostilities between nations.
That is extremely unlikely to change anytime soon.
It is always better to bring a war to an end that to start one. President Obama is doing that.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)bighart
(1,565 posts)Will you support these same actions by the next republican president? Now that drone use is common they will be used by every president who follows with exactly the same lack of transparency for the who and the why behind decisions regarding targets.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)No one supports killing civilians.
The impugning of other people's morals by those who can't stand Obama is repulsive.
It's bullshit, but the steaming pile of self-righteous dung is the only way to justify the hate.
rug
(82,333 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)food of anti-Obama diners.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're brillant.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Give me a moment to get some dramamine before you begin.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)
Bad evil Obama, intentionally targeting kids.
Why the fuck did you just vote for that monster?
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll need more dramamine. The spinning is worse than I thought.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's not even good hyperbole."
How does it rank with: "While the President dances, innocents mourn their dead, dead at the President's hand."
rug
(82,333 posts)The logical outcome of a rigid mind.
"You argue that people who oppose drone warfare must not vote for the Democratic candidate."
...my argument is that claiming the President is intentionally targetting innocents/kids is completely absurd.
rug
(82,333 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)You are not only defending, but advocating for, a national policy of targetting civilians that kills at least as many non "terrorists" as "terrorists" and is sowing the seeds for an armed conflict that will far outlast a 2014 deadline.
Good work.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Try doing that with the bullshit logic.
rug
(82,333 posts)You have consistently demostrated an affinity for deciding the value of something by determining who is proposing it. There is a word for that and it is certainly not logic.
Alternatively, you could have taken the opportunity to point out the bullshit in the logc. Unsurprisingly, you didn't.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Perhaps if you would stop spewing it, the logic would be more apparent."
the logic is "apparent":
Naturally, targetting civilians for death is anti-Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2237864
It's bullshit.
rug
(82,333 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)290. Drone, it's the new
food of anti-Obama diners.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Naturally, targetting civilians for death is anti-Obama. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2237864
rug
(82,333 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Who do you think it's targetting?"
...you can't keep your illogical arguement straight. You declared that you were simply agreeing with me, and now you're back to making the illogical argument that the President is intentionally targeting civilians.
G_j
(40,366 posts)Then you support it. But I suppose there are special days when these things are not to be mentioned.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I really don't think the anti-Obama arguments are well-thought out.
Ridiculous logic: The President is intentionally targeting civilians and anyone who doesn't equate drone strikes with intentionally targeting civilians supports killing civilians.
G_j
(40,366 posts)Not intentional, In fact I am sure that they steadfastly try to avoid civilian casualties but they know it must be factored in as a possibility. So they do know that by carrying out drone strikes that some civilians will be killed. Nobody has said they support specifically killing civilians.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Of course we are talking a bout collateral damage"
...you are, but the points being made aren't about "collateral damage." The notion is that the President is intentionally killing civilians, and those who object to the characterization support killing civlians.
"While the President dances, innocents mourn their dead, dead at the President's hand."
Question for those who support unfettered use of drones to kill civilians:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2237714
Naturally, targetting civilians for death is anti-Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2237864
He is the CinC, he does have his own personal kill list, he does give the orders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2236253
G_j
(40,366 posts)It still does not say that the president is deliberately killing civilians.
"It still does not say that the president is deliberately killing civilians."
...which statement:
Question for those who support unfettered use of drones to kill civilians:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2237714
Naturally, targetting civilians for death is anti-Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2237864
He is the CinC, he does have his own personal kill list, he does give the orders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2236253
I mean, the arguments fall apart if the point is "collateral damage."
The vitriol, the statements that the President doesn't care, the claim that the kills list is of "innocents" and the rest become absurd.
Collateral damage is a tragic consequence of any type of warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#Civilian_losses).
Presidents who care try to minimize the lost of life. The case can be made for drone strikes over all out war, ground troops.
That doesn't make it right, and one can oppose the policy without the hyperbole, without shitting on the inaugural, and without impugning other people's morals.
G_j
(40,366 posts)Does anyone really think the policy will change.
It appears that slope is just too slippery and steep to get back up to any moral High-ground.
randome
(34,845 posts)In the context of the Inaugural, though, it won't get much traction.
bighart
(1,565 posts)only that the current policy of using drones is killing civilians. I don't believe that civilians are intentionally targeted but to say or believe that civilians are not being killed by these strikes is a head in the sand, fingers in the ears tactic that does not change anything.
It is a FACT that innocent civilians are being killed and I believe it is making things worse not better.
The definition of a "suspect" has been redefined to include any male of certain age who happens to be around when a strike takes place.
I don't like this policy and will oppose it regardless of who is calling the shots. I think it is bad POLICY and only makes the problem that it is intend to solve worse. I understand others don't see it the same way I do but my question still stands:
Will you give the same level of support for this POLICY to the next republican president, whenever that happens to be?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)They're almost as dangerous as the Grenadian army that tried to invade us.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... to make friends in far away places, eh?
Arkana
(24,347 posts)He should clothe himself in sackcloth and ashes and rend his garments while weeping bloody tears and wearing a crown of thorns.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
mike_c
(36,270 posts)Seriously, U.S. foreign policy is badly fucked up.
randome
(34,845 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Seems counterproductive, don't you think?
randome
(34,845 posts)And with boots on the ground, both American lives and innocent lives will be lost. Seems to me a drone strike minimizes the loss of death. I'm not sure why you can't understand that.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)No drone strikes, no boots on the ground. Try a more peaceful approach that puts us in good graces with the people we're dealing with instead of antagonizing them. At worse, just leave them alone.
randome
(34,845 posts)Tell them nicely to start behaving better towards women and children.
Sure. That will work. So what if it takes a few decades for them to come around? The loss of innocent women and children will be worth it in the long run, right?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Places like India and Japan. Do you propose sending in the drones, or troops, in order to police their society? Should we police every society whom we disagree with on these sort of issues? Of course if we do we will bankrupt ourselves far much quicker than the rate at which we're currently going.
Look, we cannot be the world's policeman, all it does is get people royally pissed off at us, and eat up our time, energy and money. Besides, we have plenty here at home that needs changing for the better. Don't you think we should be putting our own house in order first?
randome
(34,845 posts)And yes, if a government asked us to 'clean up' their terrorist cells and we also saw the opportunity to stop the deaths of innocent women and children, then I would have no problem using our military resources to help wherever in the world they may be needed.
That is NOT saying that our military might is ALWAYS deployed correctly or ethically but there are still some corners in the world that can't be talked into the light. I trust our current President more than I have ever trusted a Republican President.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)In Pakistan, in Somalia, even the UN condemns our drone use. But we keep sending them in. If a country doesn't want them in there, isn't that, at the very least, a violation of the sovereignty, a violation of international law?
I'm not talking about using the military at home, I'm asking if we should use it against our allies like Japan and India, because their treatment of women is just as bad, if not worse, than places like Yemen.
randome
(34,845 posts)They publicly condemn the use of drones but give us intelligence so we know where to deploy them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Only sane country is a country that wants drones operating within its border, is that it?
randome
(34,845 posts)I steadfastly maintain that America is never 100% correct in what we do. But your assertion, that everything involving drones is wrong, is too broad a brush to paint with.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)As do Russia, Jimmy Carter, the ACLU, Code Pink, all of whom condemn our drone policy. But I suppose that you'll find some way to try and discount their opinion as well.
randome
(34,845 posts)ecstatic
(32,653 posts)with gun control/reform efforts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096787
GTFOHT
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Did a double back flip right over your head, light did not dawn over Rock mountain. One of the few who got it was Nutmeg Yankee. I suggest that you go reread it and see if you get it now, or do I have to explain it to you like you're a two year old?
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
We don't like war, but the entire approach of the OP is beneath contempt.
What are you talking about?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Fortunately, the discussion is recorded.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You're right, it is recorded, all two posts to each other. If you think that is tying me up in knots, well, your standard for that is quite low. Besides, as I remember correctly, last night when I started to get into this subject with you, you simply ran away and didn't want to be bothered with it.
Why's that?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Your opening post is an obvious ploy to draw a ridiculous parallel between Obama's inaugural celebration and tragedies around the world. As if we must stop all aspects of our normal lives until all the tragedies have been resolved.
Have you stopped eating in response to starvation? Will you ever eat again?
The world does not work that way.
But, you have been having a great time.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Nor what I was trying to do with it. But as I said, when I tried getting into the nuts and bolts of it last night with you, poof, you were gone.
Tell you what, why don't you let VO explain what's going on in their post, and leave the cheering for others, this isn't some sort of football game, it is a discussion, a debate, something that you apparently either can't grasp, or simply aren't good at.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)To keep at it the way you do.
You have my undying gratitude and sympathy.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The tough job is reserved for those who change their minds from drones being bad policy when Bush does it to drones being good policy when Obama does it. Such hypocrisy would make my head spin.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)because THAT would have been really offensive.
Now watch this drive...
MadHound
(34,179 posts)He ordered the drone strikes that resulted in the deaths of innocents. More of the same sort of drone strikes that even the UN has condemned
I find that kind of juxtaposition rather jarring, to say the least.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I find it interesting that when * exhibited relatively the same behavior, no one here defended it. People like to say it's not about politics or political party it's "a matter of principle" or it's about "right and wrong"... but a lot of times, it's just about politics.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Like most folks on this board, even some of the my most vociferous critics in this thread, I was against imperial war, drone strikes and the cessation of our civil liberties under Bush, and I'm still against them under Obama. Sadly, for many people on this board, once a president with a D behind his name came in, all those policies were golden. Hypocrisy became the rule.
So let me ask you, were you against those policies under Bush? Are you against them now? Or has that little letter change made them all golden for you as well?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)The best part about this thread is the way it's exposing some people's blind loyalty. I can't believe people are saying don't talk about the war on inauguration day because we're trying to have a party or something. Now that I would actually call Obama Derangement.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The fact is that if Obama bombed Iran tomorrow, many here would call you a traitor for opposing it. But if it were a Republican president doing it, we'd ALL be protesting on the White House lawn.
Im not trying to insult anyone. But some people take the party loyalty too far. Im a progressive first before a Democrat. When the Democrats do something I disagree with, im calling them out on it. And I have a right to do that. It doesn't mean I favor the Republicans. Sometimes the Democrats need a reminder of what they are supposed to represent.
Response to MadHound (Original post)
Post removed
Ian Iam
(386 posts)Where were you during Bush-Cheney?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Criticizing the illegal, immoral wars that Bush got us into. Criticizing Bush's drone policy. Criticizing Bush's assault on our civil liberties. The same things that I am criticizing about Obama's policies. Don't believe me, go search the archives. I'm actually pretty consistent in my criticism, that's what happens when you care more about your core beliefs and principles that the letter that is behind the President's name.
Furthermore, I was out in the streets protesting the war, as I still do today. I was working with various groups to get the drone policy reversed and roll back the assault on our civil liberties, as I still do today.
Where were you? What were you doing about those issues under the Bushboy? What are you doing about them now?
Apparently not here, since you just joined up a week ago
MadHound, member since 2002.
Way to make that first impression, you really know how to win friends and influence people
Ian Iam
(386 posts)And making a first or second or any impression on you, sir/madam, is the last thing I have on my mind. Good night.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Or a chest to pin it on?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)And since there are 400 replies I'll add mine. You are a gadfly.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Europe was stuck in it long before 911
President Obama receives Top Secret PDBs on a daily basis.
We don't know what effing 'bloody' mess is in there.
We don't know.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I seem to be able to find plenty of information concerning this endless war.
But I find your general attitude even more disturbing, ie, we don't know all that is going on, so we shouldn't criticize the president's actions. 'Scuse me, but down that road lies horrible abuse of power and tremendous loss of life. We've played that game before, we've gone down that road, and it ended up with millions of lives lost in SE Asia, for no good reason.
Do you really want to go there again?
