Any Obama supporters who support drone strikes?

This is true. It's also really effective though.

 

Well sure... when I do what they did you can urinate on me too. I have no problem with that.... and I can urinate and defecate on you when you are dead after your support has promoted the death of many other honorable Americans.

Is that okay with you?

- - - Updated - - -

Well sure... when I do what they did you can urinate on me too. I have no problem with that.... and I can urinate and defecate on you when you are dead after your support has promoted the death of many other honorable Americans.

Is that okay with you?

 

There is no difference. Are you somehow more dead because someone pushed a button instead of pulling a trigger?

 

I was completely unaware that the government murdering innocent citizens without trial was considered "oversight".

LOL

 

Is the problem that you don't know what the word "oversight" means?

 

Look at my signature line. After going to war against the Taliban in 2001, the USA are now helping the Taliban establish political power in Afghanistan!! The whole point of the war was to get rid of the Taliban!

The argument was, helping the Taliban warrants being targeted by a drone, ergo Obama should be targeted by a drone.

 

The US did not go to war against the Taliban. It went to war against Al Qaeda.

 

And those who harbored them.

If the US weren't at war with the Taliban, why'd they attack the Taliban?

The idea that the Taliban were harboring OBL was the whole reason for the invasion of that country in the first place! They made that clear!

 

We you involved in the invasion of Iraq?

Did the US troops not drop notes saying that the city would be taken and to (*)(*)(*)(*)? Did they not send aid to the civilians? What more can an invading army DO?

What a pathetic joke. "incredible?" not even (*)(*)(*)(*)ing close.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/10/mil-011007-usia01.htm

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2001
Statement by the President​

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States
military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps
and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These
carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of
Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the
military capability of the Taliban regime.
We are joined in this operation by our staunch friend, Great Britain.
Other close friends, including Canada, Australia, Germany and France,
have pledged forces as the operation unfolds. More than 40 countries
in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and across Asia have granted air
transit or landing rights. Many more have shared intelligence. We are
supported by the collective will of the world.
More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and
specific demands: Close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of
the al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals, including
American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None of these
demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay a price. By destroying
camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult
for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil
plans.​

 

Really sick of the Bush/Obama whos the friendlier sociopath pandering. This is foolishness, we have maintained the same foreign policy since WW2 it kills innocent people by the truck load based on paranoid delusions, its full of cover ups and oops's and its not worthy of our technological prowess. Obama is a war criminal. Bush is a war criminal. Bill Clinton is also a war criminal. This Charles Manson is better than Buffalo Bill stuff is just stupid. Obama is the president RIGHT now, so his hawkish policies should be our concern RIGHT NOW. If your an Obama supporter and you justify his actions by "Bush did it!" you shouldn't support one and not the other.

 

The Taliban of 2013 is not the same Taliban of 2001.

 

It's a little more complicated than that.

We're attempting to enter negotiations with parts of the Taliban, but it's a somewhat fractured group. Also, there are multiple tribal groups that we're fighting at the moment.

Not all of our targets are Taliban.

This really isn't that unusual when looking at past conflicts. If an insurgency carries on for long enough, negotiations begin.

Look at the IRA vs. the British government, for example. The IRA has a better defined leadership structure, so negotiations were more feasible, but we're trying to do something similar in Afghanistan in the long run.

In short, we attack the people not interested in negotiations while communicating with those that are.

 

This is among the same excuse that Republican and Democratic apologists use all the time, the "lesser of two evils" excuse or "you have to elect someone"..

Look at the choices presented by the two parties in power.:

Obama/Romney
Obama/McCain
Bush/Kerry
Bush/Gore

...and we can go on. These people are substandard choices derived from Democratic and Republican pools of substandard candidates whose foremost interests are self, party and then their corporate sponsors who fund them all. We The People are not even the top three considerations and so a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," has indeed perished from the earth.

The only issue an election now settles is which party hold the larger of the 85/48 split of power (which is close to the same as the shift in donations from thier corporate sponsors). Do not get me wrong- business is not evil, and I believe in a strong, nearly unregulated free market. However, it all goes to heck in a hand basket once you allow business to lobby like a person and allow business and government to align against the interest of those governed.

 

So much for the "We don't negotiate with terrorists" bit!

If the Taliban are now our friends then why are we still there. We're not fighting a war there if the Taliban are now our friends. We leave our troops there, who are we supposed to be fighting there exactly?

Anyway, this doesn't even make sense. Either the guys we are letting be part of the government are Taliban, or they're not. IF they're Taliban, then simple as that. They will be able to help out those other Taliban, the bad apples of the Taliban, that you're still fighting.

Yeah their politicians will behave and negotiate and not blow up civilians. But that's so they can be in office ON BEHALF OF those Taliban who are!

Now if you meant Taliban defectors, it would be different. But they aren't defectors. They are members.

- - - Updated - - -

How so? Do you think they stopped attacking you or attacking civilians? Do they no longer do subversive infiltrations in the Afghan police and military, in order to kill them? Do they not set off car bombs anymore?

 

Maybe not carpet bomb a densely populated city!

The point is, what you did wind up doing, was killing that many people.

 

I think we both know that our government has negotiated with terrorists for a long time.

Then again, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's all relative.

Remnants of resistance. Again, asymmetrical war is very different from conventional war.

Exit strategies come in a variety of forms. You don't usually get a clean break from a conflict like this one.

Again, to use the IRA example, a ceasefire was eventually negotiated.

At best, that's what will result from the negotiations in Afghanistan. Some Taliban will likely have representation in the government or possibly even autonomy in certain areas, while the national government will still have ultimate authority in most matters.

There are other examples of this like the ARMM region of Mindanao, where local rule is predominant over the national rule of the Filipino government.

 

That many people should have got the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of Dodge. We sent written warnings for Christ's sake.

 

Whatever, that doesn't change what I said.

 

It just pisses me off when the federal government crack down on whistleblowers trying to do the right thing, humanitarian workers, peaceful protestors, activists, and anybody else who does what they don't like, ALWAYS by accusing them of working with terrorists!!! Patriots slandered under the guise of they help terrorists.

Meanwhile Obama helps support AQ and is negotiating on behalf of the Taliban to attain political power!

You see why that might be a bit disturbing? People who have hearts of solid gold and nothing to do with terrorists whatsoever get condemned because of that bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and yet the president can commit treason and help directly support terrorists!

See why that might make some people upset?

 

The Obama Administration conduction of drone strikes is a violation of human rights, unconstitutional, and if former President Bush had done the same thing, I would feel the same way. Nevertheless, in terms of tactical efficiency and practicality, the use of drone strikes is a viable counterterrorism measure. The issue is complex for me because I am a civil libertarian, a transnational civil society actor promoting non-violence and peace through dialogue rather than force, but also a student/scholar of international studies with a profound interest in security studies.

 

I agree with you there. It's why "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

Well, if you think that's bad, you should see some of the sketchy people we and Europe backed in Libya.

Indeed. Granted, that's why I'm not one of them.

I'm not interested in being a martyr. Life is short enough already.

The best I can do is vote for people in favor of less intervention, but lately, that just means voting third party.

 

Continuing drone strikes will bring retaliation against NYC and Washington, DC in the fullness of time. Doesn't that give you leftists pause?

 

Bush did do the drone strikes though. He started them. The difference is he didn't do them nearly as frequently. Then again that's moot when you still use regular planes and rockets. Whether or not there's a pilot doesn't make much difference when you get blown up.

But I don't think it's a practical approach. How are they even identifying all these people?

You ever hear about the scientific psychological. studies which show that boys without a father are more likely to go down a bad path?

Well imagine boys who had their fathers killed, and might want revenge. I doubt this is killing more terrorists than it is creating.

If this were such an effective policy, where's the results? Why does Obama have to keep INCREASING the attacks? When WILL we get anywhere?

Also, read my previous point. Stopping terrorists is NOT the agenda. That's why you know these drone strikes are wrong. The government aren't interested in stopping terrorists.

Why the drone strikes? I don't know but I'll guess they are contracted assassinations.

 

Most likely, but then again, I would argue that the retaliation is coming either way.

I'd like us to get out ASAP, but getting out today vs. 6 months from now isn't likely to change the odds of terrorists making attempts at attacking us.

There's a stronger argument for leaving now just simply from the perspective of costs and sparing the lives of our soldiers.