Another criticism of Obama: excesses with drones

[Budmantom]

A genius move on Obama's re-election team.

You don't need Gitmo if you just blow the fuck out of enemies and their families. No one can complain about torture and whatnot.

Fixed

 

[tweaker2]

From a purely practical and logical point of view, drone attacks by far outweigh any other alternative method toward killing our known terrorist enemies.

Those critics who want to disparage this method of taking out terrorists for the most part just want to exploit this program to take a crap on Obama's shiny shoes.

 

[NeoV]

and if we were using fewer drone strikes, people would be bitching about that too..

 

[Incorruptible]

The US wouldn't have to use these drones if they would just mind there own business

 

[EagleKeeper]

The US wouldn't have to use these drones if they would just mind there own business

Isolationism does not work in a global arena :thumbsdown:

All one needs is a single interaction with the world and someone in the world will get upset.

 

[Incorruptible]

Isolationism does not work in a global arena :thumbsdown:

All one needs is a single interaction with the world and someone in the world will get upset.

The US started all these problems and only continues to make them worse. I never said anything about isolationism but good job putting words into my mouth

 

[Kadarin]

If obama can do it to Al-awlaki then he can do it to other Americans yet the idiots will still vote for the clown

Do you honestly think that Romney would not do it, based on principle? LOL

 

[EagleKeeper]

The US wouldn't have to use these drones if they would just mind there own business

Isolationism does not work in a global arena :thumbsdown:

All one needs is a single interaction with the world and someone in the world will get upset.

The US started all these problems and only continues to make them worse. I never said anything about isolationism but good job putting words into my mouth

How far back into history should we go to where the US stopped minding their own business.


Even with natural disasters; people still complain about not enough or slowness.

If we do not do anything, someone in the world complains.
If we attempt to straighten out a mess; someone will complain that is is not cleaned up properly; it was done wrong; to expensive; should not have been there, etc.

So the US is dammed if we help; dammed if we ignore.

What is your solutions then based on your initial post.

 

[Lemon law]

Pakistan for one is not amused and have cut the Pakistani supply line into Afghanistan. The US alternate supply line is a rail road to the North of Afghanistan. And rail roads, like pipe lines are very easy to blow up. And if that happens or any of the Northern stans says nyet to that railroad, then the only way for the USA to supply Afghanistan will be by super expensive air freight.

Meanwhile everyone in the tribal areas of Pakistan now is hopping mad at Nato and the Pakistani government. Its simply too risky to put human assets on the ground in the tribal areas, and the drones make it even worse.

As it also send a chilling message to every country in the world, never let the USA have a footprint in your country by leasing them a base. Or you will end up like Pakistan.

 

[SirStev0]

Military's job to make this decision.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I applaud the increased use of drone strikes. It took Al Qaeda's asymmetrical model of warfare and shoved it right back up their asses. Al Qaeda is dead and continued vigilance is necessary to ensure that they don't re-emerge. If Pakistan is too chicken to take care of international criminals within their borders, we can do it with drones.

 

[werepossum]

Do you honestly think that Romney would not do it, based on principle? LOL

Perhaps not. Most of the criticism of the Al-awlaki hit and similar action is from the left, and a great deal of that is muted or suppressed because Obama is a progressive Democrat. Romney will face much more strident opposition and consequently will need more intestinal fortitude, and will need to spend more political capital, to maintain the same aggressive level of drone strikes. It's quite possible (at least in my opinion) that a President Romney will be unwilling or unable to maintain the same aggression in the War Against Islamic Terrorists as has Obama. I certainly hope that, should we have a President Romney, he will prosecute this war in Obama's image, but I can recognize the factors arguing against it.

Pakistan for one is not amused and have cut the Pakistani supply line into Afghanistan. The US alternate supply line is a rail road to the North of Afghanistan. And rail roads, like pipe lines are very easy to blow up. And if that happens or any of the Northern stans says nyet to that railroad, then the only way for the USA to supply Afghanistan will be by super expensive air freight.

Meanwhile everyone in the tribal areas of Pakistan now is hopping mad at Nato and the Pakistani government. Its simply too risky to put human assets on the ground in the tribal areas, and the drones make it even worse.

As it also send a chilling message to every country in the world, never let the USA have a footprint in your country by leasing them a base. Or you will end up like Pakistan.

This didn't make any sense until I realized that "everyone in the tribal areas of Pakistan now is hopping mad at Nato and the Pakistani government" actually means "everyone in the tribal areas of Pakistan has been hopping mad at everyone and everything outside of the tribal areas of Pakistan for at least the last 1,400 years" and that "you will end up like Pakistan" actually means "you will be richer but still a hopeless cesspool of buffoonish ass hattery awaiting the nozzle when G-d decides to give the world an enema." Good post, just initially confusing.

I applaud the increased use of drone strikes. It took Al Qaeda's asymmetrical model of warfare and shoved it right back up their asses. Al Qaeda is dead and continued vigilance is necessary to ensure that they don't re-emerge. If Pakistan is too chicken to take care of international criminals within their borders, we can do it with drones.

Well said.

 

[Incorruptible]

Do you honestly think that Romney would not do it, based on principle? LOL

Romney would do it as well but that doesn't excuse oboma

 

[Incorruptible]

How far back into history should we go to where the US stopped minding their own business.


Even with natural disasters; people still complain about not enough or slowness.

If we do not do anything, someone in the world complains.
If we attempt to straighten out a mess; someone will complain that is is not cleaned up properly; it was done wrong; to expensive; should not have been there, etc.

So the US is dammed if we help; dammed if we ignore.

What is your solutions then based on your initial post.

They should have stopped going into these wars. They should have went after bin laden but not nation building though and they shouldn't have went into Iraq or Libya, Iran, Syria

They could have prevented the 9/11 attacks as well

 

[IndyColtsFan]

They should have stopped going into these wars. They should have went after bin laden but not nation building though and they shouldn't have went into Iraq or Libya, Iran, Syria

I agree -- Iraq was a huge mistake on multiple counts and should NEVER have been done. Fortunately we eventually turned the corner there and at least in Afghanistan, we've pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda and achieved our goal there so IMO, we should leave as soon as possible and rely on cruise missiles and further drone strikes to mop up any trouble.

 

[Incorruptible]

I agree -- Iraq was a huge mistake on multiple counts and should NEVER have been done. Fortunately we eventually turned the corner there and at least in Afghanistan, we've pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda and achieved our goal there so IMO, we should leave as soon as possible and rely on cruise missiles and further drone strikes to mop up any trouble.

The only reason we left Iraq was for Iran though, so it doesn't change much

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The only reason we left Iraq was for Iran though, so it doesn't change much

That remains to be seen.

 

[Incorruptible]

That remains to be seen.

It will happen later, they lied about Iraq just like there doing with Iran. They have to keep the Military Industrial Complex busy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It will happen later, they lied about Iraq just like there doing with Iran. They have to keep the Military Industrial Complex busy

And how precisely do you envision us getting Iran? A land based war isn't practical, there isn't a strong sentiment for raising a army of two million fighting men. If we did we could defeat their military and then what? Iran can't be ruled, civil unrest would make taking resources impossible. Trillions of dollars and nothing to show for it. Even Bush wasn't that stupid.

 

[Nebor]

And how precisely do you envision us getting Iran? A land based war isn't practical, there isn't a strong sentiment for raising a army of two million fighting men. If we did we could defeat their military and then what? Iran can't be ruled, civil unrest would make taking resources impossible. Trillions of dollars and nothing to show for it. Even Bush wasn't that stupid.

We wouldn't need a 2 million man Army to defeat Iran. We would establish air superiority immediately (no real resistance other than SAMs) and wreck all their tanks. Then we could massacre them like the Syrians are massacring the insurgents in their country.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Well, here is one way to cut down the collateral damage....just declare all adult males to me militants by default, so they aren't collateral damage anymore! Brilliant!

Link

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

So basically all adult males are presumed militants and guilty. Of course the government reserves the right to admit that the so-called "militants" are actually innocent after they are dead, like that really means anything at that point.

That is some serious WTF logic right there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We wouldn't need a 2 million man Army to defeat Iran. We would establish air superiority immediately (no real resistance other than SAMs) and wreck all their tanks. Then we could massacre them like the Syrians are massacring the insurgents in their country.

You can defeat their army but to occupy it is an entirely different story. That was one of the many mistakes made by GWB as it was assumed that we'd be loved and people would throw flowers at us. That was curiously lacking. We might be able to get away with half that but if one is going to engage in such a war it's best to expect the best but prepare for the worst.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree -- Iraq was a huge mistake on multiple counts and should NEVER have been done. Fortunately we eventually turned the corner there and at least in Afghanistan, we've pretty much destroyed Al Qaeda and achieved our goal there so IMO, we should leave as soon as possible and rely on cruise missiles and further drone strikes to mop up any trouble.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The question is and remains, has Iraq turned any corners? As Iraqi stability is far wider than it is deep. And given the fact that the current Iraqi Maliki government is facing a series of no confidence votes, that plus the the fact Iraq still does not have a stable functioning government, simply means its premature to conclude Iraq has turned any corners.

Its still likely, IMHO, that Iraq could descend into a full fledged civil war that may spill past Iraqi borders. And now that US combat troops have no footprint inside Iraq, the USA can only watch and hope. As various Iraqi sectarian militias still retain their caches of arms.

 

[werepossum]

Well, here is one way to cut down the collateral damage....just declare all adult males to me militants by default, so they aren't collateral damage anymore! Brilliant!

Link



So basically all adult males are presumed militants and guilty. Of course the government reserves the right to admit that the so-called "militants" are actually innocent after they are dead, like that really means anything at that point.

That is some serious WTF logic right there.

Agreed, but probably not unique to Obama. In any case, the civilian deaths are the same either way, regardless of the attempt to deflect criticism for them, so while this is indeed some WTF logic, I can't see that it really changes anything.

By the way, even though I disagree with you I give you kudos for maintaining a principled position even when it's a lefty in charge.

You can defeat their army but to occupy it is an entirely different story. That was one of the many mistakes made by GWB as it was assumed that we'd be loved and people would throw flowers at us. That was curiously lacking. We might be able to get away with half that but if one is going to engage in such a war it's best to expect the best but prepare for the worst.

We were loved in Iraq when we first came in, once people really believed that Saddam was overthrown. Then people realized that their lives still sucked. We had a great war plan (thanks, Tommy Franks!) but virtually no sensible planning for the occupation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The question is and remains, has Iraq turned any corners? As Iraqi stability is far wider than it is deep. And given the fact that the current Iraqi Maliki government is facing a series of no confidence votes, that plus the the fact Iraq still does not have a stable functioning government, simply means its premature to conclude Iraq has turned any corners.

Its still likely, IMHO, that Iraq could descend into a full fledged civil war that may spill past Iraqi borders. And now that US combat troops have no footprint inside Iraq, the USA can only watch and hope. As various Iraqi sectarian militias still retain their caches of arms.

In my opinion, a moderately stable or even unstable non-evil Iraq is far superior to a stable evil Iraq.

 

[fskimospy]

We wouldn't need a 2 million man Army to defeat Iran. We would establish air superiority immediately (no real resistance other than SAMs) and wreck all their tanks. Then we could massacre them like the Syrians are massacring the insurgents in their country.

You're right, Syria looks super stable. We should definitely emulate that.