217 replies to this topic

[Joker]

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?

I don't understand the reasoning of making it sound better somehow equaling making it somehow less wrong.


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.

Did Bush target Americans for assassination? And now that the precedent has been set that it's acceptable for the president to target and kill American children, should we just accept it when the next president does it more efficiently?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

If they don't volunteer to do it then they have nothing to worry about. The same isn't true for the innocent families over there that are being bombed
----------------------------------------------------------------------



All good questions that you dont know the answers either.

[concert andy]

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

I agree, they should all be called to task.

But IMO, doing or trying to do better, is still better in my book.

[TakeAStepBack]

I gotta say, and then I'm out, the idea of constructing cost effective ways to kill people in large numbers in our imperialist affairs abroad is disgusting. I dont care which team you play for in politics. It's gross and shows just how low we've sunk morally as a nation.

Alright, now off the box. I'll never see any of it change in my lifetime so it's a wash. Kill them all, I say. Fuck it.

[TakeAStepBack]

I agree, they should all be called to task.

But IMO, doing or trying to do better, is still better in my book.

You called me out earlier in the thread for "taking him to task" on it. Now it's ok again? I'm so confused.

[capt_morgan]

kill everyone...imma buy one of those remote controlled helicopters from 7/11 with a beebee gun mounted to it so i can perform strafing missions in my neighbors yard when his kids are out

[concert andy]

I don't understand the reasoning of making it sound better somehow equaling making it somehow less wrong.

I did not say it was not wrong.

I am saying the reason there is no uproar as you claimed back around thanksgiving. remember I said if after a week, it would be a travesty that they were not reporting.

Well it still is.

Just read these two completely made up headlines.

* 15 US troops killed in Afghanistan.

* 15 Taliban members, including the target of strike #3 Taliban leader.


The media sells what will keep people watching. It is a shame, I agree. But when there are two stories next two each other, people will tend to lean toward using drones, because of the loss of US troops, and the effects on their families. The media sees drones as saving good guy lives, and killing bad guys. Because of the efficiency.



My overall point and I may be wrong, and went down a few tangents.

Drones are bad, M kay. No arguing that point.

But when the efficiency of civilians is less than 5%, in theory that means it is an effective tool in the fight against terrorism.



On the flip side if we send in troops, who is to guarantee they do not kill civilians. Who can guarantee their safety.



The point is, drones may save US troop lives. May be they do not.


All loss of life is bad how ever it is done. But it will be done one way or the other.

[capt_morgan]

if yall have a problem with killing people then hand over the joystick...pussies

[concert andy]

You called me out earlier in the thread for "taking him to task" on it. Now it's ok again? I'm so confused.

They should all be taken to task.

I am just using a comparison or the last 40 years, and today.

[TakeAStepBack]

Even more confused.

[concert andy]

inherent risk is any military action, can we at least agree on that?

[concert andy]

Even more confused.

Not sure why, I read through the thread, I feel like I am being a clear as possible.

All politicians lie.

They all run on a premises that will not be followed up on.

Calling them to task is part of the job and scrutiny.

Not sure how this is confusing.


But, if I stated otherwise I must have been trying to make a point and slipped up in my logic.

[Joker]

We don't know what the true efficiency is because of the way the administration has chosen to doctor the casualties like labeling any "combat age" male as a terrorist without actually knowing if it's true or not. Then there's the whole targeting those they simply suspect of being terrorists without knowing if in fact they are terrorists.

And you still seem to be avoiding the fact Obama is using drones to target American citizens for death. Something Bush, nor any other president, has ever done.

While there are some who are trying to get answers, including the New York Times, many on the left seem to be doing the same thing you are which is simply ignoring it or trying to somehow justify it rather than standing up and saying it's wrong and unacceptable.

[concert andy]

We don't know what the true efficiency is because of the way the administration has chosen to doctor the casualties like labeling any "combat age" male as a terrorist without actually knowing if it's true or not. Then there's the whole targeting those they simply suspect of being terrorists without knowing if in fact they are terrorists.

And you still seem to be avoiding the fact Obama is using drones to target American citizens for death. Something Bush, nor any other president, has ever done.

While there are some who are trying to get answers, including the New York Times, many on the left seem to be doing the same thing you are which is simply ignoring it or trying to somehow justify it rather than standing up and saying it's wrong and unacceptable.

.

Your first sentence holds water and may or could skew the stats, but the statistics I posted mentioned dead period. Did not mention any age of victims.

I am not ignoring any facts.

This is the first time I can generally state that you are spewing your shit about me. (may not be the first time you did, but this is the first time I am calling you out on it).

Who said I am ignoring this? Didn't I post an article and start this discussion today? Didn't I post the statistics, and showed you that Obama was more efficient.

But that is ignoring the problem.

I have also stated on numerous occasions that drones are wrong and unacceptable. I play devils advocate, and and try to add logistics of any arguments


You seem to take my posts as defending Obama. I am trying to put it in context of a bigger picture, which may come across like that. I try and show the stats, and explain why the media is not foaming at the mouth with this story. But please, tell me more about how I am ignoring this.

[Joker]

Did I miss your response to the many times I mentioned him targeting American citizens in this thread other than when you excused it as cherry picking?

I keep mentioning it and you keep deflecting it to his use of drones in general.

He targeted and executed an American child and refuses to give any reason as to why he did it!

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.

[Java Time]

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

didn't even read it....that's B.S. who's talking about sending civillians and your little think tank group is using the total defense budget and using division to get the cost for troops...poo-poo I say...

[concert andy]

I state things all the time that you ignore. I saw the article, I saw the you tube video of this US mother. But again, keep spewing shit about how I am ignoring this.

And yes that is wrong, when I state it is wrong in general, it implies targeting anyone, including americans is wrong.

All I did in this article is try to explain why the media is not picking this up with the fervor you desire.

[concert andy]

didn't even read it....that's B.S. who's talking about sending civillians and your little think tank group is using the total defense budget and using division to get the cost for troops...poo-poo I say...

Wow.

The second article is titled:


The cost of a soldier deployed in Afghanistan


This article states that it costs almost 600K to deploy a soldier. Two sources.

But keep on doing no research and posting you opinions.


But here is an portion:

RICHTER: This one is in the context of all the budget debates and what costs money in the United States and for U.S. taxpayers. So my question for you today is this: How much does it cost per year to support one U.S. service member deployed in Afghanistan? Is it A) $67,000 a year; $132,000 a year; C) a staggering $685,000 per year; or D) an unbelievable $1.2 million a year?
HOBSON: Well, I am going to guess it is on the higher end of things. But I will just go with a staggering $600,000-some a year, not the unbelievable $1.2 million.

[Joker]

I state things all the time that you ignore. I saw the article, I saw the you tube video of this US mother. But again, keep spewing shit about how I am ignoring this.

And yes that is wrong, when I state it is wrong in general, it implies targeting anyone, including americans is wrong.

All I did in this article is try to explain why the media is not picking this up with the fervor you desire.

If you agree it's wrong why do you keep trying to justify it simply because it's "efficient"?

[Spidergawd]

[Spidergawd]

[Spidergawd]

[Spidergawd]

[Spidergawd]

[Spidergawd]

[Spidergawd]

[Spidergawd]

[concert andy]

If you agree it's wrong why do you keep trying to justify it simply because it's "efficient"?

Did you not read the last sentence of my previous response?

Because that would explain why the media is not on this story with the fervor you crave.

[Joker]

Some of us are trying to have a conversation here,any particular reason you choose to try to derail it?

[Spidergawd]

[MeOmYo]

being less of an asshole than a complete asshole, still makes you an asshole

[Joker]

Did you not read the last sentence of my previous response?

Because that would explain why the media is not on this story with the fervor you crave.

My problem was the lack of protest from those on the left not so much the lack of attention from the media. Either way I don't see the reason for the lack of attention to the fact the president is assassinating Americans as being because of how efficient Obama's use of drones are compared to Bush's

[concert andy]

My problem was the lack of protest from those on the left not so much the lack of attention from the media. Either way I don't see the reason for the lack of attention to the fact the president is assassinating Americans as being because of how efficient Obama's use of drones are compared to Bush's

Oh, I am aware. And I stated a while ago that it would be a travesty if this story was not picked up.

Now it is 5 or 6 weeks later, and a couple of fringe stories about drones. Not the lead.

I used the efficiency argument to justify the lack of media coverage, not to cheapen death in anyway. May be that is why they are not running with it.

But my example above of 15 troops vs 15 "terrorists" dead. In the media they sell stories.

Selling dead terrorists is an easier sell than dead US troops.

[concert andy]

I also tend to think conservatives secretly like this tactical war on terror. Which means the right will prolly not be the voice of reason on this issue.

Since the left will never call out their own.

(most things that go in the opposite direction apply the same).

[Joker]

I also tend to think conservatives secretly like this tactical war on terror. Which means the right will prolly not be the voice of reason on this issue.

Since the left will never call out their own.

(most things that go in the opposite direction apply the same).

I agree with this 100%

[concert andy]

I agree with this 100%

I think the efficiency argument is the logic of the Left.

With the "hey look, our guy is doing better than their guy" (that is where all my transparency non sense came from)

And if the right likes it.

Who is left to to make a big stink?


The crazy thing, is right now, the most fair and balanced media outlet, is not american.

It just might be the Al-Jazzera new network.

[Java Time]

Wow.

The second article is titled:


The cost of a soldier deployed in Afghanistan


This article states that it costs almost 600K to deploy a soldier. Two sources.

But keep on doing no research and posting you opinions.


But here is an portion:

wow....
again...I say bull shit...why don't you try and do real reserch and not just finding what fits your own personal agenda...

no one know wtf you say half the time anyway

[Java Time]

I think the efficiency argument is the logic of the Left.

With the "hey look, our guy is doing better than their guy" (that is where all my transparency non sense came from)

And if the right likes it.

Who is left to to make a big stink?


The crazy thing, is right now, the most fair and balanced media outlet, is not american.

It just might be the Al-Jazzera new network.

yeah...more of your most awesome research

[Joker]

Maybe the efficiency argument comes into play when you're talking the use of drones in general but what's the reason for the silence when it comes to assassinating Americans?

There's just no way in hell there would be this much silence if it was a Republican doing it, even if there was zero collateral deaths

[concert andy]

wow....
again...I say bull shit...why don't you try and do real reserch and not just finding what fits your own personal agenda...

no one know wtf you say half the time anyway

Really? Where is your research.


I say BULSHIT on you. I provided two clear sources.

Let me explain how my research goes.

I googled what I am discussing, and when I am wrong I admit it.

But today after reading your well thought out response, I decided to Google "cost of deploying a soldier". You seem to think it does not cost that much.

Why dont you do the same, and give me some information that shows otherwise. You know, a counter point.

Then we can have a discussion. Nothing here is to fit an agenda. What you are doing now is SPEWING SHIT. I am not here to do your research.

Don't you see now that Joker and I agree on something. So we must be having a discussion that someone else seems to be able to understand.

[concert andy]

yeah...more of your most awesome research

I do not see you posting any awesome research.

[concert andy]

Maybe the efficiency argument comes into play when you're talking the use of drones in general but what's the reason for the silence when it comes to assassinating Americans?

There's just no way in hell there would be this much silence if it was a Republican doing it, even if there was zero collateral deaths

That is all I was doing with efficiency argument, taking the general case, because getting into semantics of an argument get me in trouble.

I agree.

[PeaceFrog]

wow, it's almost as though some people never heard the term "friendly fire" before.



you know, friendly fire, like when Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face.

[Joker]

This hits on a lot of this thread


Liberals giving Obama a pass on his drone war

Remember when President Obama said four years ago that he would helm “the most transparent administration in history”? So much for that.

I’m amazed that so few Americans — most notably, so few liberals — have protested his secretive, remote-control assassination program. Drones have killed 3,000 people in Yemen and Pakistan, including collateral-damage civilians, but the actual numbers are secret. So is the process. We don’t know anything about the rules of engagement or how people wind up on Obama’s hit list.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that “No person shall be … deprived of life … without due process of law.” Drones are inimical to due process. It would be nice to know how the administration’s lawyers have addressed that conundrum in legal memos.

Back in May 2009, Obama vowed that his national-security actions would be transparent, so that Americans could “make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” But nearly four years and hundreds of drone strikes later, his actions bring to mind the remark Michael Corleone utters near the end of The Godfather Part II: “If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it’s that you can kill anybody.”

Granted, we’re waging a global shadow war against bad actors who don’t wear uniforms. Drones often kill known terrorists who might otherwise murder innocent Americans. No weapon is flawless. And in war, even the good guys inadvertently kill civilians; during the D-Day invasion, the Allies killed an estimated 12,000 French and Belgian civilians who lived close to Nazi-controlled railroads.

But if George W. Bush were whacking thousands of foreigners (plus a few American citizens) using a hit list shrouded in secrecy, in apparent violation of the Fifth Amendment and in blatant violation of transparency promises, rest assured that liberal Democrats would be holding hearings and denouncing him on MSNBC.

They don’t seem disturbed, however, that Obama has tripled down on Bush’s nascent drone program — on the fly and in secret. Their partisan instincts appear to be trumping adherence to principle. But all presidents, regardless of party, need to be held accountable.

Speaking of drones on The Daily Show in October, Obama said that “one of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place … to make sure that not only am I reined in, but any president is reined in.” It was a scary remark: It suggested that Obama has been waging unchecked war without that legal basis — with nothing to rein him in.

Obama said in September that the drones target known terrorists who pose “an imminent threat to the United States” (allowing us to invoke the doctrine of self-defense), but imminent appears to be a slippery term. Obama reportedly has authorized the use of drones in what the CIA calls “signature strikes” — those conducted against unidentified people who brandish guns in regions where militants are strong. In other words, drones are sometimes used preemptively, to kill those who might be a threat in the future. Obama is judge, jury, and executioner.

But who cares, right? This is all happening far away, to Muslims we will never know. Many liberals are fine with it because Obama is one of them, and many conservatives are mute because they know there’s no percentage in attacking a president for being too tough on terrorism. That also explains why Congress hasn’t lifted a finger to conduct any oversight. And most Americans probably would rather watch football than weigh the implications of drone warfare.

At least a few million Americans also have been watching the hot cable show Homeland, which is all about the unintended domestic consequences of a drone attack. The Showtime series features a hawkish vice president, in cahoots with the CIA, who authorizes a drone strike that destroys a Muslim school and kills the son of a known terrorist. The terrorist retaliates by plotting acts of revenge on American soil. Yeah, it’s just a TV show, but Homeland prompts the viewer to consider whether drones might inspire blowback and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

So, at a minimum, let’s ask: Is Obama authorized to kill anybody? Under what criteria? What checks and balances have been established to ensure that drones are not abused by this president and those to follow?

We don’t really know whether drones are the answer in the war against terrorism. But more of us should at least ask the questions.

http://www.dispatch....-drone-war.html

[PeaceFrog]

the dingbats on Fox News give this issue plenty enough attention. What reason is there for the rest of us to be so shocked and appalled when you've done quite an outstanding job of that already?

[TakeAStepBack]

the dingbats on Fox News give this issue plenty enough attention. What reason is there for the rest of us to be so shocked and appalled when you've done quite an outstanding job of that already?

Completely, and also unsurprisingly, misses the point of being appalled by about 4 million light years.

[TakeAStepBack]

Captain's log,

Star Date 2013.

[capt_morgan]

kill kill kill the white man

[JBetty]

[capt_morgan]

[PeaceFrog]

war is horrific.

the use of drones is no more shocking and appalling than the war itself.

How is it any less shocking and appalling for a pilot in an airplane to drop bombs over villages than a drone?

I can understand having a problem with the war itself. I have a problem with the war myself.

I don't have a problem with using newer and better technology that saves money and protects the lives of our soldiers.