Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

U.S. drone strike kill 15, including a Taliban leader


  • Please log in to reply
217 replies to this topic

#1 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:45 PM

Pakistani officials: Suspected U.S. drone strikes kill 15, including a Taliban leader




slamabad (CNN) -- Two suspected U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan's volatile tribal region left 15 people dead --- including a Taliban commander -- on Thursday, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

Among the 11 killed in one strike in the province of South Waziristan was a Taliban commander named Mullah Nazir, also known as Maulvi Nazir Wazir, the officials said.

The drone fired two missiles in the Sarkanda area of Birmil, killing Nazir, the officials said.

Nazir was at odds with the Pakistani Taliban over a peace agreement he signed with the Pakistani government in 2007. As part of the deal, he refused to attack Pakistani government or military targets, though he was believed to be behind a number of attacks that targeted the U.S. military.

Nazir narrowly escaped a suicide bomb attack in early December. After the attack, he warned the Mehsud tribe, which includes Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, to vacate South Waziristan or face consequences.

Also killed in the strike were two of Nazir's deputies, the officials said.

The second drone strike targeted a vehicle in the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan, killing four, the officials said.

The drone fired a missile that struck the vehicle. It then fired two more missiles as people rushed to try to rescue the occupants, the officials said.

In recent years, the U.S. government has sharply stepped up the use of drone attacks in Pakistan's mostly ungoverned tribal region, widely believed to be a safe haven for militant groups fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan. U.S. officials say the drone strikes are an effective strategy against militant groups and insist civilian casualties are rare.

#2 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:03 PM

"Suspected"? :rolleyes:

This is how our criminal government skirts legality. By word games. They refuse to recognize that the drones program even exists. But then boast about how well it works....except the innocent children and civilians they kill.

#3 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,054 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

All this drone stuff is really creepy and disgustingly immoral.

#4 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:50 PM

Unfortunately it looks like it's going to remain clouded in secrecy for awhile longer.



New York Times Loses Lawsuit To Uncover Drone Strikes Information


A federal judge on Wednesday rejected The New York Times' bid to force the U.S. government to disclose more information about its targeted killing of people it believes have ties to terrorism, including American citizens.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan said the Obama administration did not violate the law by refusing the Times' request for the legal justifications for targeted killings, a strategy the Times said was first contemplated by the Bush administration soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

McMahon appeared reluctant to rule as she did, noting in her decision that disclosure could help the public understand the "vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we have been engaged for well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure, and (at least in the minds of some) personal liberty."

Nonetheless, she said the government was not obligated to turn over materials the Times had sought under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), even though it had such materials in its possession.

"The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me," McMahon said in her 68-page decision.

The newspaper and two reporters, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, had sued the government for details about the government's drone program, including the late 2011 killings of U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman in separate strikes in Yemen.

Civil liberties groups have attacked the drone program, which deploys pilotless aircraft, as in effect a green light for the government to kill Americans without constitutionally required due process. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has rejected that contention.

More

http://www.huffingto..._n_2398393.html




I wonder if the rules/policy they were working on in case Romney was elected are going to be put on hold now so that Obama can continue to do as he pleases.

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:56 PM

Most transparent administration EVAH!

:lmao:



YES WE CAN!!!!!

#6 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:00 PM

Most transparent administration EVAH!

:lmao:



YES WE CAN!!!!!


While I understand your point, what other administration had more transparency?

Every president has top secret stuff that does not get let out.

Not picking side, playing devil's advocate to your comment above.

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

Yes we can, Andy. Yes we can.

What other administration since the empire replaced the republic, or going all the way back to the founding?

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:04 PM

Posted Image

#9 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

Yes we can, Andy. Yes we can.

What other administration since the empire replaced the republic, or going all the way back to the founding?


Well, I am talking more present day.

I guess back to Kennedy.

#10 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,054 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:15 PM

I wonder if the rules/policy they were working on in case Romney was elected are going to be put on hold now so that Obama can continue to do as he pleases.




Who are the "they" you refer to?

#11 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:21 PM

I wonder if the rules/policy they were working on in case Romney was elected are going to be put on hold now so that Obama can continue to do as he pleases.


Joker, I know you are not a fan of drones, and like to pick on Obama for this reason. I have one simple question


What do you advise as a better course of action to take out Terrorist - Taliban threats than the use of drones?

Again, not picking sides, just playing devils advocate.

Send in troops is the only other alternative that I can see as realistic. Meaning, that we are putting our own soldiers and there families at risk.

#12 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

Well, I am talking more present day.

I guess back to Kennedy.


It really makes no difference then. The Empire dates back to around 1913. From there it has been one solid incline of federal empire usurpation. They are secretive. And no matter who comes along and says otherwise, they will continue to be secretive, above the law and oppressive.

#13 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

It really makes no difference then. The Empire dates back to around 1913. From there it has been one solid incline of federal empire usurpation. They are secretive. And no matter who comes along and says otherwise, they will continue to be secretive, above the law and oppressive.


But then why throw Obama under the bus by saying most transparent administration ever, when in fact they probably are, in comparison to previous presidents.

#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

Because he campaigned on being so. He threw himself under the bus for being a liar. :wink:

#15 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:37 PM

Because he campaigned on being so. He threw himself under the bus for being a liar. :wink:


But, if he is actually the most transparent in comparison, how is he throwing himself under the bus?

Connecting the logical dots as always.

#16 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:44 PM

Who are the "they" you refer to?

Obama and those in his administration

#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:48 PM



The transparency promised by this president, was not based on "compare adn contrast".
His broken promises on the subject of transparency speak for themself.

And some that aren't in the video.

Protectionn for whistleblowers for instance. Obama has persecuted more whistleblowers than any president in history. But he promised to protect them. That's good protection!

#18 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:56 PM

Ah, so we are cherry picking. That makes sense.

My point is every president hides something. I have even stated this before the election, that every second term president has stuff that will come out that they did in their first term.

Lets pick on subjects that we can prove where he lied (just like every predecessor).

I get it now. No matter who is in power there will be things like this, and until we can accept this fact like I have, then please continue to pick on whatever person who is office.

#19 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:01 PM

Joker, I know you are not a fan of drones, and like to pick on Obama for this reason. I have one simple question


What do you advise as a better course of action to take out Terrorist - Taliban threats than the use of drones?

Again, not picking sides, just playing devils advocate.

Send in troops is the only other alternative that I can see as realistic. Meaning, that we are putting our own soldiers and there families at risk.

That's just it, they're not taking out just terrorists. They're killing innocent people as well as targeting people that they simply suspect of being terrorists. Hell, Obama targeted a 16 year old American kid for assassination.

We're bombing countries that are supposed to be our allies. What happens if/when other countries start using drones in the US to take out people they simply suspect of wrongdoing?

If we know where the terrorists are we should go in and get them just like we did with Bin Laden rather than acting like terrorists ourselves and dropping bombs into civilian populations. We're basically creating more terrorists than we're killing.

#20 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,774 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

we need to go into these countries and wipe out the oppressors...not waste tax payer $$$ using a drone to shoot missles at a car!!! :joker:

#21 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:10 PM

Ah, so we are cherry picking. That makes sense.

My point is every president hides something. I have even stated this before the election, that every second term president has stuff that will come out that they did in their first term.

Lets pick on subjects that we can prove where he lied (just like every predecessor).

I get it now. No matter who is in power there will be things like this, and until we can accept this fact like I have, then please continue to pick on whatever person who is office.


Yes, every president hides something. Many hide MANY things. Few publically boast and campaign about changing that. Only to turn around and do the opposite.

#22 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:11 PM

I posted this in another thread I'll repost it here as the other thread turned into a litterbox.


Obama administration needs to explain drone strikes



The Obama administration, having killed a 16-year-old American boy, refuses to explain why in court.

The boy, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, was born in Denver and lived there until he was 7, when his family moved to Yemen. Like many American kids, he had a Facebook page and a love of the “Simpsons.” No one ever accused him of any wrongdoing. Yet on Oct. 14, 2011, a U.S. drone missile killed him and his teenage cousin while they were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant.

On Dec. 14, 2012, the Justice Department asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit in which Abdulrahman’s grandfather, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, is asking for an official explanation about why the boy died.
Until now, only unofficial explanations have been offered.

One anonymous government official told the media Abdulrahman’s death was a mistake. Indefensibly, former White House press secretary and Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs said this October, “You should have a far more responsible father” if you don’t want to be killed. (Abdulrahman’s father, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was suspected by the United States of terrorism and was killed by a drone two weeks before his son.) But surely no one would suggest that children are fair game simply because their parents are suspected of wrongdoing.

And if the government made a mistake, it should explain why.

In court, government officials provided no explanation at all. Their response boiled down to an assertion that the government has the authority to kill Americans without having to account to any court for its actions.

But the U.S. Constitution requires due process when life is at stake. The government cannot be permitted to deprive an American child of his life without any judicial review, even after the fact. More broadly, thousands of people have been killed by U.S. drones in a program that began in 2002 and has expanded dramatically under the Obama administration. Part of the problem with the targeted killing program is the government’s vague and shifting legal standards.

The program has gone from targeting specific individuals on so-called kill lists to targeting groups of unidentified individuals who fit a secret profile. According to administration officials, the government even classifies any male who appears to be of military age as a “militant” when it tallies a strike’s casualties.

In the face of the government’s official silence about the death of his grandson, Nasser al-Aulaqi went to court to seek answers. At issue in the lawsuit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, is the government’s obligation to account for its actions in killing Abdulrahman, his father and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan.

If this case is dismissed, as the government asks, a grieving grandfather will be left without any explanation or accountability for the death of his 16-year-old grandson. And Americans will be left with a government that insists it has the unilateral and unreviewable power to kill people, including Americans, that it deems to present a threat to the nation’s security — even when, like Abdulrahman, they present no such threat.

That would be a terrifying precedent to set.

Hina Shamsi is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, and Vincent Warren is the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. The two groups have worked together on this lawsuit. Shamsi and Warren wrote this for Progressive Media Project, a source of liberal commentary on domestic and international issues; it is affiliated with The Progressive magazine.

#23 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

That's just it, they're not taking out just terrorists. They're killing innocent people as well as targeting people that they simply suspect of being terrorists. Hell, Obama targeted a 16 year old American kid for assassination.

We're bombing countries that are supposed to be our allies. What happens if/when other countries start using drones in the US to take out people they simply suspect of wrongdoing?

If we know where the terrorists are we should go in and get them just like we did with Bin Laden rather than acting like terrorists ourselves and dropping bombs into civilian populations. We're basically creating more terrorists than we're killing.



Again, this seem to be as cherry picking.

What about the statistics I posted here previously that showed Obama killing or injuring civilians at less than 3%, while Bush was almost 10 times as worse (but do not remember exact number (I am think 25% ish).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since you are for sending in troops and risking their lives the families they may leave behind. What about their families? This is why we went to a drone system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your point that if that happens here we would be up in arms. If someone does that to us, we are going to war, again. :(

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about this thread, and the title that we killed a Taliban leader? This could also be seen as cherry picking. But really all I was trying to point out with this article/thread is that Obama has been efficient enough, and that is why their is no Media uproar like you originally complained around Thanksgiving.

#24 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:16 PM

Yes, every president hides something. Many hide MANY things. Few publically boast and campaign about changing that. Only to turn around and do the opposite.


Every politician runs on something that they will never do.

Are we really going down this road?

I mean H Bush said "No new taxes", and then raised taxes. They all lie, but lets pick on the guy in office now.

I just do not understand. When he may actually be the most "transparent president evah", we still find thing to pick on.

#25 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

we need to go into these countries and wipe out the oppressors...not waste tax payer $$$ using a drone to shoot missles at a car!!! :joker:


Going to war?

Look where that got us in the 2000's.

Wipe out Oppressors? Isn't that the point of drones?

That sounds like a good idea. More debt, and more Troops dead.

I tend to believe that a drone is a lot cheaper than sending troops anywhere. But I could be wrong on this point. Just the logistics of getting troops anywhere seems like a pretty big expense.

#26 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,671 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:20 PM

Joker, I know you are not a fan of drones, and like to pick on Obama for this reason. I have one simple question


What do you advise as a better course of action to take out Terrorist.


stop creating them?

#27 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,671 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:22 PM

oh and


https://www.youtube....h?v=72g7qmeP1dE

#28 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:29 PM

What about the statistics? Does killing a smaller percentage of innocent people somehow make killing innocent people acceptable?

How many American citizens did Bush specifically target for death? Never mind the cherry picking, one is one to many. If it's allowed to happen once what's to stop it from happening again and again?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What about their families? Those that would be sent in signed up knowing what the job was about and knowing what could happen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How many of the 15 killed were terrorist? How many were innocent but deemed terrorists because they were of "military age?" How many did they simply "believe might be behind" attacks against us?

#29 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:30 PM

If we know where the terrorists are we should go in and get them just like we did with Bin Laden rather than acting like terrorists ourselves and dropping bombs into civilian populations. We're basically creating more terrorists than we're killing.


oh, right... because nothing could go wrong with a solid plan like that.


Afghanistan Village Massacre: Army Will Seek Death Penalty For Soldier Accused Of Killing 16 Villagers



SEATTLE — The U.S. Army said Wednesday it will seek the death penalty against the soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan villagers in a predawn rampage in March, a decision his lawyer called "totally irresponsible."

The announcement followed a pretrial hearing last month for Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, 39, who faces premeditated murder and other charges in the attack on two villages in southern Afghanistan.
The slayings drew such angry protests that the U.S. temporarily halted combat operations in Afghanistan, and it was three weeks before American investigators could reach the crime scenes.

Prosecutors said Bales left his remote southern Afghanistan base early on March 11, attacked one village and returned to the base, then slipped away again to attack another nearby compound. Of the 16 people killed, nine were children.

No date has been set for Bales' court martial, which will be held at Joint Base Lewis-McChord south of Seattle.

His civilian lawyer, John Henry Browne, told The Associated Press he met with Army officials last week to argue his client shouldn't face the possibility of the death penalty, given that Bales was serving his fourth deployment in a war zone when the killings occurred.

"The Army is not taking responsibility for Sgt. Bales and other soldiers that the Army knowingly sends into combat situations with diagnosed PTSD, concussive head injuries and other injuries," Browne said. "The Army is trying to take the focus off the failure of its decisions, and the failure of the war itself, and making Sgt. Bales out to be a rogue soldier."

Bales' wife, Kari Bales, said in a statement Wednesday that she and their children have been enjoying their weekend visits with Bales at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and she hopes he receives an impartial trial.

"I no longer know if a fair trial for Bob is possible, but it very much is my hope, and I will have faith," she said.

Bales' defense team has said the government's case is incomplete, and outside experts have said a key issue going forward will be to determine if Bales suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Bales grew up in the Cincinnati suburb of Norwood, Ohio, and served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During last month's preliminary hearing, prosecutors built a strong eyewitness case against the veteran soldier, with troops recounting how they saw Bales return to the base alone, covered in blood. One soldier testified that Bales woke him up in the middle of the night, saying he had just shot people at one village and that he was heading out again to attack another. The soldier said he didn't believe Bales and went back to sleep.

Afghan witnesses questioned via a video link from a forward operating base near Kandahar City described the horror of that night. A teenage boy recalled how the gunman kept firing as children scrambled, yelling: "We are children! We are children!" A young girl in a bright headscarf recalled hiding behind her father as he was shot to death.

An Army criminal investigations command special agent testified earlier that Bales tested positive for steroids three days after the killings, and other soldiers testified that Bales had been drinking the evening of the massacre.

Prosecutors, in asking for a court-martial trial, have pointed to statements Bales made after he was apprehended, saying his comments demonstrated a "clear memory of what he had done, and consciousness of wrongdoing."

Several soldiers testified at a hearing that Bales returned to the base alone just before dawn, covered in blood, and that he made incriminating statements such as, "I thought I was doing the right thing."

The U.S. military has not executed anyone since 1961. There are five men currently facing military death sentences, but none for killings committed in war zones, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Nidal Hasan, charged in the 2009 rampage that killed 13 and wounded more than two dozen others at Fort Hood in Texas, also could face the death penalty if convicted; no date has been set for his court martial.

Elizabeth Hillman, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said Bales' mental health and its impact on culpability will undoubtedly play a central role in his court-martial.

In an email to the AP, she said that on one hand, the Army's decision to seek the death penalty is surprising, given that the killings took place in a war zone.

"But on the other hand, it's not surprising that the Army wants to make a statement about the critical need to protect against unnecessary civilian deaths in wartime," she wrote.

For Bales to face execution, the court martial jury must unanimously find him guilty of premeditated murder. They also must determine that at least one aggravating factor applies, such as multiple or child victims, and that the aggravating factor substantially outweighs any extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

#30 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:30 PM

as long as there is profit to be made off war, there will be war.

#31 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:40 PM

Every politician runs on something that they will never do.

Are we really going down this road?

I mean H Bush said "No new taxes", and then raised taxes. They all lie, but lets pick on the guy in office now.

I just do not understand. When he may actually be the most "transparent president evah", we still find thing to pick on.


So we should give the current liar in chief a free pass? Maybe just stay current and keep bitching about Bush. Fuck, man.

No, he is definitely NOT the most transparent administration evah. Seriously. Only on some arbitrarily created time table. Like say, back to Kennedy.

#32 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,673 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:43 PM

I just do not understand. When he may actually be the most "transparent president evah", we still find thing to pick on.


Get ready for a little hyperbole, but it's to make a point...

According to one source, Ted Bundy is known to have killed 35 people before he was executed.

Jeffrey Dahmer murdered 17 before he was incarcerated and killed in prison.

Do we cut Dahmer slack because he only killed 17?

No.

#33 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

What about the statistics? Does killing a smaller percentage of innocent people somehow make killing innocent people acceptable?


No, but it makes it sound better to the american public. Look we killed 20 innocents, but killed 200 bad guys and not one troop was killed.

Does that make sense?


How many American citizens did Bush specifically target for death? Never mind the cherry picking, one is one to many. If it's allowed to happen once what's to stop it from happening again and again?


Bush killed significantly more civilians than Obama

I agree, but the precedent was set by the previous president. The current president is far more efficient.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

What about their families? Those that would be sent in signed up knowing what the job was about and knowing what could happen.


Volunteer or not, Still makes their loss of life, or coming home with PTSD no different. Their families have to deal with the fall out, not anyone else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How many of the 15 killed were terrorist? How many were innocent but deemed terrorists because they were of "military age?" How many did they simply "believe might be behind" attacks against us?



All good questions that you dont know the answers either.

#34 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,671 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

What about the statistics? Does killing a smaller percentage of innocent people somehow make killing innocent people acceptable?


This

I posed this question to a friend: If we knew there was a terrorist cell in Manhattan, would we accept the bombing Manhattan knowing hundreds and eventually thousands of innocent New Yorkers were going to die in the process, and, that everyone else would live their lives in fear of the next strike... If it's not acceptable here, then it's not acceptable anywhere. If it is acceptable, I wonder if your daughter lived there, if you'd still think so

I don't know what the answer is, but I know it's not this.

#35 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:48 PM

Get ready for a little hyperbole, but it's to make a point...

According to one source, Ted Bundy is known to have killed 35 people before he was executed.

Jeffrey Dahmer murdered 17 before he was incarcerated and killed in prison.

Do we cut Dahmer slack because he only killed 17?

No.


HUH? I do not get that at all.

I did not say cut anyone a break, I said all presidents all presidents run on something that they never plan on following through on.

And while Obama seems to be doing just that, how can you say he is not transparent, especially considering his predecessors.

#36 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

Which predecessor? Back to the arbitrary timetable?

#37 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,322 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

transparency is not a relative thing. either you are or you are not. selective transparency is non-transparency and playing the, "well, he's more transparent than his predecessors" is meaningless

#38 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

Which predecessor? Back to the arbitrary timetable?


Wow. Follow along. I said since 1960 ish, but you said it does not matter.

You are using an arbitrary timetable.

I use where media plays an actual role in forming your opinion. So since TV has been around.

Jees.

#39 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:53 PM

transparency is not a relative thing. either you are or you are not. selective transparency is non-transparency and playing the, "well, he's more transparent than his predecessors" is meaningless


I completely disagree. Giving some info is better than hiding all of it.

That is your opinion.

#40 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,671 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:53 PM

HUH? I do not get that at all.

I did not say cut anyone a break, I said all presidents all presidents run on something that they never plan on following through on.

And while Obama seems to be doing just that, how can you say he is not transparent, especially considering his predecessors.


because he's not transparent.

#41 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,673 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:53 PM

HUH? I do not get that at all.

I did not say cut anyone a break, I said all presidents all presidents run on something that they never plan on following through on.

And while Obama seems to be doing just that, how can you say he is not transparent, especially considering his predecessors.


You said we still find things to pick on regarding Obama.

And "transparent" he ain't. Maybe a little less opaque than some of his predecessors...maybe...but far from transparent.

And, as has been mentioned above, since he made a point of saying he was going to be transparent, he invites scrutiny.

#42 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:56 PM

You said we still find things to pick on regarding Obama.

And "transparent" he ain't. Maybe a little less opaque than some of his predecessors...maybe...but far from transparent.

And, as has been mentioned above, since he made a point of saying he was going to be transparent, he invites scrutiny.


Being a politician invites scrutiny.

#43 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,322 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:56 PM

I completely disagree. Giving some info is better than hiding all of it.

That is your opinion.


well, everyone gave SOME info. So, I guess he's as bad as the rest?

#44 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:58 PM

well, everyone gave SOME info. So, I guess he's as bad as the rest?


Exactly.

#45 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:58 PM

You said we still find things to pick on regarding Obama.

And "transparent" he ain't. Maybe a little less opaque than some of his predecessors...maybe...but far from transparent.

And, as has been mentioned above, since he made a point of saying he was going to be transparent, he invites scrutiny.


I can go along with that.

But he has better than his predecessors, period.

#46 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,774 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:59 PM

Going to war?

Look where that got us in the 2000's.

Wipe out Oppressors? Isn't that the point of drones?

That sounds like a good idea. More debt, and more Troops dead.

I tend to believe that a drone is a lot cheaper than sending troops anywhere. But I could be wrong on this point. Just the logistics of getting troops anywhere seems like a pretty big expense.


we did not wipe them all out in the 2000's...we sent flyers and knocked door-to-door telling folks we were going to attack their village...

we already have Naval and U.S. Army ships to deploy troops anywhere in the world...the ships traverse the world in times of war and peace time...it is already alloted into the budget so no extra cost to deploy troops. (which I'm not saying to deploy troops...I'm saying level those countries and start anew...it's cheaper and from what I gather most countries that get leveled by us tend to do OK for themselves after we help rebuild them...)

my thinking is that a country that has to strike a peace accord with a terrorist faction inside their own country rather then erase that faction isn't exactly a stable country and is a risk to the world's freedom...not to mention that more than lkely our gov't is acting like the bad guy in this situation to keep Pakistan at least friendly with it's neighbors by being able to say "It wasn't us...it was those U.S. infidels!!!

#47 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,374 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:59 PM

Wow. Follow along. I said since 1960 ish, but you said it does not matter.

You are using an arbitrary timetable.

I use where media plays an actual role in forming your opinion. So since TV has been around.

Jees.


No, i used no timetable. The term ever does not delineate bracket timing.

#48 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:00 PM

Exactly.


I do not really care enough about him being transparent or not.

I am using a comparison of presidents since 1960 ish.

Yeah they all give info, but usually it was the media finding info, now we actually really on the white house to provide the spin of the actual news/data/whatever.

#49 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,673 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:02 PM

I can go along with that.

But he has better than his predecessors, period.


Doesn't mean he shouldn't be called to task...better is still bad in this case, IMO.

#50 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,324 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:04 PM

we did not wipe them all out in the 2000's...we sent flyers and knocked door-to-door telling folks we were going to attack their village...

we already have Naval and U.S. Army ships to deploy troops anywhere in the world...the ships traverse the world in times of war and peace time...it is already alloted into the budget so no extra cost to deploy troops. (which I'm not saying to deploy troops...I'm saying level those countries and start anew...it's cheaper and from what I gather most countries that get leveled by us tend to do OK for themselves after we help rebuild them...)

my thinking is that a country that has to strike a peace accord with a terrorist faction inside their own country rather then erase that faction isn't exactly a stable country and is a risk to the world's freedom...not to mention that more than lkely our gov't is acting like the bad guy in this situation to keep Pakistan at least friendly with it's neighbors by being able to say "It wasn't us...it was those U.S. infidels!!!


Really? Because did you know? (providing two sources)


Cost Of Deploying One Civilian To Afghanistan: Up To $570,000 Per Year


http://www.marketpla...yed-afghanistan