RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It's only a good thing to kill terrorists when there is an R next to your name. Got it.

I'll take it over doing nothing. I don't understand the morality behind Guantanamo=evil/anti-American/must be closed, blowing up people (often many to get at a specific bad guy)=just fine.

I'm not sure how many people believe those two things simultaneously though. A whole lot of liberals believe that both are bad and are extremely disappointed in the Obama administration on the drone strike issue. There's been a lot of angry discussion on the internet over the past couple of years. It won't stop them from voting for Obama though, because it's not like Romney would be any better.

This is the sort of thing liberals mean when they say that there are no true liberal options out there. A guy like Obama is painted as a Communist, so he moves even further to the right than he already was in 2008 (which, let's face it, wasn't that far left of the middle in the first place) to get reelected.

The President of the United States is a prominent example

So her husband defended a guy who thought Mumia was innocent. THEY GOT HER!!

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It's only a good thing to kill terrorists when there is an R next to your name. Got it.

I'll take it over doing nothing. I don't understand the morality behind Guantanamo=evil/anti-American/must be closed, blowing up people (often many to get at a specific bad guy)=just fine.

I'm not sure how many people believe those two things simultaneously though. A whole lot of liberals believe that both are bad and are extremely disappointed in the Obama administration on the drone strike issue. There's been a lot of angry discussion on the internet over the past couple of years. It won't stop them from voting for Obama though, because it's not like Romney would be any better.

This is the sort of thing liberals mean when they say that there are no true liberal options out there. A guy like Obama is painted as a Communist, so he moves even further to the right than he already was in 2008 (which, let's face it, wasn't that far left of the middle in the first place) to get reelected.

The President of the United States is a prominent example

He's also wrong if he believes that.

i mentioned this before, but the drone strikes have killed the al qaeda #2 man seventeen times under President Obama.

i think you can have a moral objection to putting people through horrible torture for long periods of time and also be ok with what the drone strikes seem to be accomplishing (quick kills, despite the collateral damage).

It's the signature strikes and the double taps which are completely unnecessary and are what are making lots of people hate what we're doing.

I suppose one solution is to get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop our brave sons and daughters from getting killed and/or murdered.

traderdave wrote:I suppose one solution is to get the #$!&@ out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop our brave sons and daughters from getting killed and/or murdered.

This. I have a hard time sitting on the sidelines and then critiquing operational tactics when I'm not the one in the shit.

Two interesting and related statistical quirks in today's Monkey Cage--Republican men are less masculine looking than democratic men, and Republicans are more likely to drink light beer than Democrats. Also, another post reference I think JH's advisor--way back when I did a lot of work on that study. (Ever try to teach an octogenarian to use a computer mouse?)

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It's only a good thing to kill terrorists when there is an R next to your name. Got it.

I'll take it over doing nothing. I don't understand the morality behind Guantanamo=evil/anti-American/must be closed, blowing up people (often many to get at a specific bad guy)=just fine.

I'm not sure how many people believe those two things simultaneously though. A whole lot of liberals believe that both are bad and are extremely disappointed in the Obama administration on the drone strike issue. There's been a lot of angry discussion on the internet over the past couple of years. It won't stop them from voting for Obama though, because it's not like Romney would be any better.

This is the sort of thing liberals mean when they say that there are no true liberal options out there. A guy like Obama is painted as a Communist, so he moves even further to the right than he already was in 2008 (which, let's face it, wasn't that far left of the middle in the first place) to get reelected.

The President of the United States is a prominent example

Thanks for the snarky answer to my post. "Hey, you know that person that you cited in your post as being wrong or inconsistent on two issues is a prominent example of someone who is inconsistent on those two issues!"

"Hey guys, Mike Trout is a great young centerfielder. It's a shame there aren't too many of those nowadays. But you know who else is a great young centerfielder? Mike Trout."

Besides, I wasn't really including politicians in my statement. There are many obvious reasons that a politician might do something that doesn't necessarily coincide with their personal beliefs--whether that's good, bad, or indifferent is a whole other discussion.

traderdave wrote:I suppose one solution is to get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop our brave sons and daughters from getting killed and/or murdered.

Another solution is to get the fuck out of the middle east all together. We don't understand their culture and bombing the living fuck out of them isn't helping. Bring everyone home. Keep an open dialogue with them and fairly trade with those who will. In a couple of generations, the Islamist won't give two shits about America because we are minding our own business.

i just fail to see the net gain to drone strikes. in the rare case we seem to be using them properly, we knock out whoever was elected the #2 for the week. in the majority of hte cases where we kill 'military-aged males' and children and people coming to look for their dead, we break lots of laws since it's a completelly undeclared war strike. how many wars are we in now??? it has become easier, and will become even moreso, to simply carry these out since we will not have to hear about any Ameircan casualties, and we don't truly give a shit about people living in the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan, because aren't htey all at fault because they live where terrorists like to hide?

this is sort of tied to netanyahu's alarmist, ridiculous speech to the UN, basically trying to ensure a war with Iran, a nation of 70 million people (and not a terrorist organization with no central base of power). what was more laughable than his drawing was the idea that Palestine cannot ask the UN to recognize it, but they MUST recognize Israel before any discussions are held. So, Palestinians must give over everything first, and we can be hypocritical about not recognizing you, and then we can start chatting a bit about letting hte West Bank and Gaza Strip go...and in the meantime we also will be building lots of settlements illegally and demanding that these areas then be considered Israeli lands.

pacino wrote:i just fail to see the net gain to drone strikes. in the rare case we seem to be using them properly, we knock out whoever was elected the #2 for the week. in the majority of hte cases where we kill 'military-aged males' and children and people coming to look for their dead, we break lots of laws since it's a completelly undeclared war strike. how many wars are we in now??? it has become easier, and will become even moreso, to simply carry these out since we will not have to hear about any Ameircan casualties, and we don't truly give a shit about people living in the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan, because aren't htey all at fault because they live where terrorists like to hide?

You may find this interesting.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/09/2 ... e-too-low/

dont have access at work, but i will check it at home.

I've come around to the drone strikes simply because right now it's the lesser of so many other evil options. And they work.

Unfortunately, there are still innocent people dying but not even close to the amount of people who die by other means such as, well, invading a country.

thought this was a good summary of some expert opinions on the effectiveness of drone strikes

Ask the Experts: Do Targeted Killings Work

td11 wrote:i mentioned this before, but the drone strikes have killed the al qaeda #2 man seventeen times under President Obama.

Frikkin' zombie just won't stay dead!


You'd think guys would be turning down that promotion by now. It's like being the drummer for Spinal Tap.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Don't think West will get reelected, but this is one of my favorite ads of the cycle

allen west left the military for torturing an iraqi police officer by shooting a pistol next to his ear, after which the officer gave him false information. West is now one of the 535 elected congressmen in our great nation. and people applauded him for it.

HERO

Hey Pacino, ted kennedy sends his regards from beyond the grave.





I win.

Go Mitt!

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:i just fail to see the net gain to drone strikes. in the rare case we seem to be using them properly, we knock out whoever was elected the #2 for the week. in the majority of hte cases where we kill 'military-aged males' and children and people coming to look for their dead, we break lots of laws since it's a completelly undeclared war strike. how many wars are we in now??? it has become easier, and will become even moreso, to simply carry these out since we will not have to hear about any Ameircan casualties, and we don't truly give a #$!&@ about people living in the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan, because aren't htey all at fault because they live where terrorists like to hide?

You may find this interesting.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/09/2 ... e-too-low/

ok, about halfway through, but i still dont get how some just kind of brush aside that we dont actually know who we are killing when we do a signature strike??? from 74-76, they discuss how double-taps have dissuaded professional humanitarian help from coming in a timely manner to help the people targeted by the strike. i dont see how this is a good thing? this came from five different interviews with five different eyewitnesses in Islamabad.