unless... non-voters don't bother you...
Obama 'drone-warfare rulebook' condemned by human rights groups
Started by
Joker
, Nov 25 2012 11:16 PM
354 replies to this topic
#302
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,887 posts
Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:37 PM
Seriously though. That was damned close to an apology and a way to move forward from here with better understanding. You should really try to harness those moments positively, Jack. Don't shut the guy down after he admitted (almost) his errors and offered his version of reconciliation.
#303
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,422 posts
Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:52 PM
I have no problem moving forward. Like I said give me shit for what I say and I can accept it, but if you accuse me of shit for what you "think" I might be trying to say or if you try to put words in my mouth, then it becomes a problem.
#308
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,684 posts
Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:43 AM
Seriously though. That was damned close to an apology and a way to move forward from here with better understanding. You should really try to harness those moments positively, Jack. Don't shut the guy down after he admitted (almost) his errors and offered his version of reconciliation.
Thank you. I tried.
#310
-
- VibeTribe
- 13,277 posts
Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:27 PM
I'm in my 40's, so I see no problem with scrapping child labor laws.
Don't eat meat, so if Tyson and Cargill want to mix human excrement in with their "product," it's no skin off my nose.
I'm beginning to regret the time I've put in in the past working on Amnesty International campaigns, and the Gulf Wars. And what a waste it was speaking out about the death squads in Central America.
And hell, while we're at it, I'm a white male. Let's repeal the 14th and 19th amendments.
Don't eat meat, so if Tyson and Cargill want to mix human excrement in with their "product," it's no skin off my nose.
I'm beginning to regret the time I've put in in the past working on Amnesty International campaigns, and the Gulf Wars. And what a waste it was speaking out about the death squads in Central America.
And hell, while we're at it, I'm a white male. Let's repeal the 14th and 19th amendments.
#312
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:35 PM
Innocent civilians get killed during war no matter if you use drones or not. The only difference with the drone is that our own people are out of harms way.
No, I don't agree with war, but this was was extremely popular at the time when it was started... did you forget all the 9/11 hype already? Obama says that he intends to get us out of there as soon as possible, and I believe he will do the best he can. He has a lot of people to please as the President -- not just the pacifists and concientious objectors.
What about the rapes that go on over there. Soldiers will rape women in a village... is that Obama's fault too?
I am absolutely not a fan of war, but right now I think the Obama administration has their hands tied regarding several issues -- the war being one of them.
No, I don't agree with war, but this was was extremely popular at the time when it was started... did you forget all the 9/11 hype already? Obama says that he intends to get us out of there as soon as possible, and I believe he will do the best he can. He has a lot of people to please as the President -- not just the pacifists and concientious objectors.
What about the rapes that go on over there. Soldiers will rape women in a village... is that Obama's fault too?
I am absolutely not a fan of war, but right now I think the Obama administration has their hands tied regarding several issues -- the war being one of them.
#328
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,684 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:32 PM
I was going to add the same...
Obama Score card:
Civilians account for 13.5% (290/2152) of people killed, and 3% (64/2152) of which were children.
Bush Score Card:
Civilians account for 41.55% (182/438) of people killed, and 25.5% (112/438) of which were children.
Joker, Are you still Outraged by the use of drones with these statistics?
Seems Obama is more efficient, just like his quote states.
Are the blind Obama supporters still wrong for not being outraged by the hypocrisies?
Obama Score card:
Civilians account for 13.5% (290/2152) of people killed, and 3% (64/2152) of which were children.
Bush Score Card:
Civilians account for 41.55% (182/438) of people killed, and 25.5% (112/438) of which were children.
Joker, Are you still Outraged by the use of drones with these statistics?
Seems Obama is more efficient, just like his quote states.
Are the blind Obama supporters still wrong for not being outraged by the hypocrisies?
#330
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,422 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:49 PM
Any deaths of innocents is wrong.
I wonder if Bush used the same tactic as Obama of labeling some citizens killed as enemy combatants in order to keep the death count of innocent victims down.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, it seems this story was pretty much ignored by the left after all.
I wonder if Bush used the same tactic as Obama of labeling some citizens killed as enemy combatants in order to keep the death count of innocent victims down.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, it seems this story was pretty much ignored by the left after all.
#331
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,887 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:51 PM
Actually, I was being an asshole. I don't think comparing and contrasting makes it any less dispicable. And I do mean the powest of the low. Efficiently ONLY KILLING 64 children is 64 children too many.
it was horrible when Bush did it, and it is equally as horrible now. The caveat being that only one of these men obtained a Nobel Peace prize. Delicious ironing.
it was horrible when Bush did it, and it is equally as horrible now. The caveat being that only one of these men obtained a Nobel Peace prize. Delicious ironing.
#332
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,684 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:55 PM
I agree any innocent death is wrong...
... but 3% is a very small number, compared to a quarter of killed. With the 3% having 4 times as many as bush used.
I agree there should be some outrage from the left (almost a week later, may be CLIFF is taking up this news time), but when compared to Bush, the Left will say he is doing a better job and being more efficient. This could be why there is no media coverage (or CLIFF)/
I did hedge myself with the "what we know" comment TASB made, for me to not come off like a complete arse.
... but 3% is a very small number, compared to a quarter of killed. With the 3% having 4 times as many as bush used.
I agree there should be some outrage from the left (almost a week later, may be CLIFF is taking up this news time), but when compared to Bush, the Left will say he is doing a better job and being more efficient. This could be why there is no media coverage (or CLIFF)/
I did hedge myself with the "what we know" comment TASB made, for me to not come off like a complete arse.
#335
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,684 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:40 PM
It was all over the news when Bush was in office. I wonder why the change of heart/mind....
My theory is stated above, because the statistics say Obama is more efficient in not hurting civilians like Bush did. 41% - 13%.
Bush was closer to ~2/5 killed, and Obama is at ~1/8 killed.
One is not more right or wrong, they are both wrong, just efficiency is different.
#336
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,887 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:57 PM
I think it's far more likely that this type of news does not fit the desired narrative. So it isn't discussed. Everyone got so worked up over Bush and his war party that they had to believe that it all ended when Obama was elected. And that's the narrative that the MSM pushes about this type of stuff. It's simply not good for laying down a perception of the world, the president and the country.
After that, I think it's team politics and there are millions of excuses for the Nobel Peace prize winner to be conducting assassinations abroad that collaterally kill children.
"It's bad for business."
After that, I think it's team politics and there are millions of excuses for the Nobel Peace prize winner to be conducting assassinations abroad that collaterally kill children.
"It's bad for business."
#337
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,684 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:05 PM
I think it's far more likely that this type of news does not fit the desired narrative. So it isn't discussed. Everyone got so worked up over Bush and his war party that they had to believe that it all ended when Obama was elected. And that's the narrative that the MSM pushes about this type of stuff. It's simply not good for laying down a perception of the world, the president and the country.
After that, I think it's team politics and there are millions of excuses for the Nobel Peace prize winner to be conducting assassinations abroad that collaterally kill children.
"It's bad for business."
While I agree with this for msnDc, but what about Fox News. Wouldn't this fit their narrative?
And be good for business. I thought bashing Obama (or Dems) was their specialty.
#338
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,887 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:10 PM
I don't watch Fox, so I can not say that they haven't reported any of it, but they seemed rather complacent when Bush was doing it. The general narrative being that war must be done, and we're the guys to do it. I would also think, and this is partially based on others I know that DO watch fox and discuss politics. Not reporting it, but reporting the incidents in different ways is set up to make the president look weak on the war on terror from the neocon side of "planet perception".
A lot of those types that watch Fox actually believe the Iraq war was a just war. So the play is on establishing this president as a weak one on terror and military adventurism.
I did used to watch Judge Nap on Fox Business until they cancelled him.
A lot of those types that watch Fox actually believe the Iraq war was a just war. So the play is on establishing this president as a weak one on terror and military adventurism.
I did used to watch Judge Nap on Fox Business until they cancelled him.
#339
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,684 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:16 PM
I don't watch Fox, so I can not say that they haven't reported any of it, but they seemed rather complacent when Bush was doing it. The general narrative being that war must be done, and we're the guys to do it. I would also think, and this is partially based on others I know that DO watch fox and discuss politics. Not reporting it, but reporting the incidents in different ways is set up to make the president look weak on the war on terror from the neocon side of "planet perception".
A lot of those types that watch Fox actually believe the Iraq war was a just war. So the play is on establishing this president as a weak one on terror and military adventurism.
I did used to watch Judge Nap on Fox Business until they cancelled him.
I do not watch either, but occasionally I will put it on to hear both sides. I do not even watch MSNBC anymore. I liked Kieth O when he first came to msnDc news, but after while his preachiness even got to me.
I guess the facts of Obama doing it better than Bush is reason for them to not talk about the story in whole, but to cherry pick parts of the story and make him look weak on Defense does make sense.
#340
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,422 posts
Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:22 PM
Hell we could even take out the left/right media.
There's barely a peep from the majority of the average left wing/Dems. who would have been up in arms if the right had pulled this exact same thing. It's like they just don't care as long as it's their team that's doing it.
There's barely a peep from the majority of the average left wing/Dems. who would have been up in arms if the right had pulled this exact same thing. It's like they just don't care as long as it's their team that's doing it.
