Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 1,595 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Thiago Cardozo wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Maybe you don't quite understand a simple basic fact. This nation has been on a war footing since Bush declared the War on Terror following Sept 11th. If you're around a high profile war target, you're a potential casualty. We are at war with Al Qaeda, so yes we are looking to KILL them. That's the nature of war. I definitely think that a targeted list of known enemies is a lot better than simply carpet bombing a location that a conventional war would be.

Also lets keep this in mind. This young man wasn't delivering papers next door. He'd enlisted as a soldier of the enemy, a group of people dedicated to killing American soldiers and civilians. If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would...

Hmmm...no, Abdulrahman was not doing anything of the sort. No one has provided any information regarding his involvement in anything near this. You must be confusing him with his father. He was just a 16 year boy killed with death-by-flying-killer-robot as far as anyone knows.

And there's at least some evidence that he wasn't on the kill list and that the actual target of the attack was someone else.

Does that make it better or worse? I don't know.


Caineach wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I only say American citizen so I don't have to deal with people who do believe others should be treated differently. If anything, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

As for whether or not it is war, I'd say that either way it looks like murder to the people being killed.

If we can unilaterally decide that we're at war, and then use that as the justification for killing whomever we chose, then I repeat: If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.

They can't use it for justification for killing whomever they chose. They can use it for justification for killing people who take up arms against the US, which this citizen did.

Nope this citizen did not, as far as we know it. No one in the government has made the affirmation, nor offered any proof that he "took arms against the US". In fact, there have been some statements from the WH implying that the boy was not the intended target. Your government is killing people in your name and you are ASSUMING they are up to know good. I say you assume this because you cannot possibly know, since the criteria for entering the kill list is secret. Hell, the interpretation of the law used to justify the killings is being kept secret. Just look up for the WH spokesman squirming when Jake Tapper questioned him aout this.

Sovereign Court

The other thing that makes you wonder is how stringently is the intelligence that gets people on this kill list vetted? For all we know there could be US intelligence officers phoning up the Karzai household and asking them who they'd like to killed today. This isn't a likely scenario but the US and British governments did go to war with Iraq partly based on intelligence from a taxi driver.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So what's the answer? Do we just withdraw all our troops from everywhere? Concentrate on strictly defensive intelligence work, trying to stop attacks from reaching us? Hope the terrorist groups don't succeed at overthrowing any of our allies? Is there any way we can legitimately get at terrorists planning to attack us from Yemen or elsewhere?

I wouldn't withdraw troops, they're making big inroads in some of those communities, but we need to stop looking at maps. Just because the area you're in is called Afghanistan doesn't mean the people you're fighting see themselves as Afghans. This is a tribal society and what we've been doing for the most part is go in and take sides, try to unify a country that maybe doesn't want to be unified, and blow up anyone that opposes that idea.

On the home front I absolutely believe that we should focus on "strictly defensive intelligence work, trying to stop attacks from reaching us". After the fact every single one of these terrorist attacks (successful or otherwise) had tons of credible intelligence that should have caused red flags. This airport security is a sham, not a single terrorist attack has been prevented by airport security.

As for terrorist groups overthrowing allies . . . quite honestly the US needs to start picking better allies. Granted it's pretty slim pickings in the middle east, but of the three dictators to be violently overthrown in the last ten years in Africa and the middle east all three were one time allies of the US government. I don't think any of us are sad to see them gone.

And lastly, no, there's no way to stop people from planning terrorist attacks. Blowing people up with drones doesn't prevent anything. It might actually cause the opposite effect as revenge and honor are big things over there.

Working from bottom to top:

Actually there's some evidence that targeting the leadership has had the effect of disrupting their plans. Even just the measures they have to take to remain hidden make planning and coordination much harder. Just to be clear, you believe we cannot and should not go after terrorists in other countries, except through normal extradition channels?

Yes, we do need to start picking better allies. Blowback is perhaps our biggest problem. But it's a long-term solution at best.

I agree partly, though by strictly defensive I was more getting at only trying to stop attacks in progress, not going after the people planning them and setting them up.

When we stop looking at maps, do we also stop looking at the borders on them and strike across them when our enemies do? Cause I thought that was part of what you were complaining about. Or is it just the drones? Should we invade Pakistan with ground troops?

I'm still not really seeing what your overall plan is.


A recent report I had already posted before has presented data strongly suggesting that the drones are severely crippling any support for the US in regions where they occur, and are actually helping in AQ recruiting efforts.

The drone strikes are not being used to take out specific people. They have been called by the government "signature strikes" and they are directed towards targets which "fit a pattern consistent with a militant", whatever that means. Someone who is in a death list does not know and cannot present evidence of his innocence. The US has also been known to use the "double tap" procedure, where a second strike is made when people come to help those who were hurt or killed. Oh, and attacking funerals of targets as well. Put yourself in the position of the guys living in this place. Obama is like Zeus to them, who can rain death on them from the skies and there is nothing they can do about it. Do you guys really think this is going to help, in any way, improving security in the US?


Thiago Cardozo wrote:

A recent report I had already posted before has presented data strongly suggesting that the drones are severely crippling any support for the US in regions where they occur, and are actually helping in AQ recruiting efforts.

The drone strikes are not being used to take out specific people. They have been called by the government "signature strikes" and they are directed towards targets which "fit a pattern consistent with a militant", whatever that means. Someone who is in a death list does not know and cannot present evidence of his innocence. The US has also been known to use the "double tap" procedure, where a second strike is made when people come to help those who were hurt or killed. Oh, and attacking funerals of targets as well. Put yourself in the position of the guys living in this place. Obama is like Zeus to them, who can rain death on them from the skies and there is nothing they can do about it. Do you guys really think this is going to help, in any way, improving security in the US?

No. I don't. I think they are in general a bad idea. Like I generally think war is a bad idea. Not that I think drones are especially bad. It wouldn't be better if the same people were being killed by more conventional airstrikes.

Though the more targeted ones, like the ones targeting American citizens that are always brought up, can have value. I'd much rather kill terrorist leaders than any random militant. It has far more effect.

I get irritated in these discussions by two related things. One is the confusion between civilian and military process. "present(ing) evidence of his innocence" is a civilian peacetime thing. It has no place in wartime. That's because war sucks. That's why we should avoid it.
But talking about people killed in the war effort as not having due process or whatever is pointless. Of course they don't.

The other is the "Oh my God! He's targeting American citizens!!!! You could be next!!" hysteria.


As for surveillance in the US, the illegal wiretapping which started with Bush has been expanded and protected under Obama. The infiltration of OWS and Muslim communities in NY is shameful. Whistleblowers are persecuted for exposing incompetence and illegal acts. And nothing concerning this stuff is a topic on the election raceas apparently it is all bipartisan consensus now. It's really sad.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

Working from bottom to top:

Actually there's some evidence that targeting the leadership has had the effect of disrupting their plans. Even just the measures they have to take to remain hidden make planning and coordination much harder. Just to be clear, you believe we cannot and should not go after terrorists in other countries, except through normal extradition channels?

Treat them like any other criminal and murderer. There's something we created in western civilization called the rule of law. Kings are not above the people. What we're doing is not only legitimizing these groups but also making them into heroes. Sure it makes it tougher to operate and organize but it doesn't prevent similar organizations to take root elsewhere.

thejeff wrote:
Yes, we do need to start picking better allies. Blowback is perhaps our biggest problem. But it's a long-term solution at best.

democracies rarely declare war on each other and as far as I know never actually fight. I think England declared war on Finland during WWII but not a single shot was fired. We can't force democracy on anyone but when countries form democracies you can't try to overthrow them because they vote in someone we don't like. Yes the Muslim brotherhood guy won in Egypt but most people in Egypt weren't happy with the choices they had either.

thejeff wrote:
I agree partly, though by strictly defensive I was more getting at only trying to stop attacks in progress, not going after the people planning them and setting them up.

It's really hard to stop a bank robbery before the criminals start planning and setting it up.

thejeff wrote:
When we stop looking at maps, do we also stop looking at the borders on them and strike across them when our enemies do? Cause I thought that was part of what you were complaining about. Or is it just the drones? Should we invade Pakistan with ground troops?

Maybe we shouldn't be in a tribal war to begin with. Why are we on Karzai's side in the first place? It would be great to bring peace to that region but Afghanistan is a mess. There are parts of the country we can stabilize but by helping one side we've made enemies of the other.

Pakistan is a mess as well. As is India. As is Iraq. But the thing is less then one hundred years ago we didn't even let women vote in our countries.

thejeff wrote:
I'm still not really seeing what your overall plan is.

My over all plan is to let these people sort things out for themselves. We can be a source of inspiration for them, maybe we can offer support like we did in Libya, but I absolutely believe that we can't bring democracy to other countries. I don't have a short term plan, though satisfying as it may be to blow up Taliban troops with drone fighters.


thejeff wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:

A recent report I had already posted before has presented data strongly suggesting that the drones are severely crippling any support for the US in regions where they occur, and are actually helping in AQ recruiting efforts.

The drone strikes are not being used to take out specific people. They have been called by the government "signature strikes" and they are directed towards targets which "fit a pattern consistent with a militant", whatever that means. Someone who is in a death list does not know and cannot present evidence of his innocence. The US has also been known to use the "double tap" procedure, where a second strike is made when people come to help those who were hurt or killed. Oh, and attacking funerals of targets as well. Put yourself in the position of the guys living in this place. Obama is like Zeus to them, who can rain death on them from the skies and there is nothing they can do about it. Do you guys really think this is going to help, in any way, improving security in the US?

No. I don't. I think they are in general a bad idea. Like I generally think war is a bad idea. Not that I think drones are especially bad. It wouldn't be better if the same people were being killed by more conventional airstrikes.

Though the more targeted ones, like the ones targeting American citizens that are always brought up, can have value. I'd much rather kill terrorist leaders than any random militant. It has far more effect.

I get irritated in these discussions by two related things. One is the confusion between civilian and military process. "present(ing) evidence of his innocence" is a civilian peacetime thing. It has no place in wartime. That's because war sucks. That's why we should avoid it.
But talking about people killed in the war effort as not having due process or...

Concerning the second reason you get irritated, I have to say that irritates me as well. It sounds like an american life is worth more than another. But I get why people use it. It's because people expect that their country has an extra care with their own citizens, and that it will take every care not to bring an end to one of its citizens without great restrain and accountability.

As for the civilian and military process. The confusion is here because the US chose to redefine what it means by war. So, of course these confusions will arise. The problem is the civilians in a country which is not at war with another country have an expectation that they'll not be bombed to death for no reason. The US unilaterally decides who is engaged in this "war" and kills them.

For instance, imagine that China decided that there is a "dangerous terrorist" in a city in the US. Let us pretend China has declared "War on Terror", this nonsensical thing, but let us pretend, nonetheless. Do you think the US would be A-OK if China decided to blow-up some dude in the streets with a drone, killing people around (collateral damage)? Would the US congratulate China on its successful "War on Terror" and its "casualty minimization"? In other words, would the US accept the argument that this is not a declaration of war on them but on "terror"? The reason this works for the US is because the militay might of the US is overpowering, not because it is right.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Working from bottom to top:

Actually there's some evidence that targeting the leadership has had the effect of disrupting their plans. Even just the measures they have to take to remain hidden make planning and coordination much harder. Just to be clear, you believe we cannot and should not go after terrorists in other countries, except through normal extradition channels?
Treat them like any other criminal and murderer. There's something we created in western civilization called the rule of law. Kings are not above the people. What we're doing is not only legitimizing these groups but also making them into heroes. Sure it makes it tougher to operate and organize but it doesn't prevent similar organizations to take root elsewhere.

In other words, ignore them except when they operate in our country. Allow the leaders to continue to plan attacks and send their followers to attack us with no fear of retaliation.

thejeff wrote:
I agree partly, though by strictly defensive I was more getting at only trying to stop attacks in progress, not going after the people planning them and setting them up.
It's really hard to stop a bank robbery before the criminals start planning and setting it up.

Except the planning and setting up take place in countries without extradition treaties or in regions not under the control of their countries rulers. So it's not that we wouldn't be stopping them until they start planning the robbery, but that we wouldn't do anything until they entered the bank or after they left.

thejeff wrote:
When we stop looking at maps, do we also stop looking at the borders on them and strike across them when our enemies do? Cause I thought that was part of what you were complaining about. Or is it just the drones? Should we invade Pakistan with ground troops?
Maybe we shouldn't be in a tribal war to begin with. Why are we on Karzai's side in the first place? It would be great to bring peace to that region but Afghanistan is a mess. There are parts of the country we can stabilize but by helping one side we've made enemies of the other.

Because we engineered the fall of the Taliban and set Karzai up as our puppet? Remember?

So the plan for Afghanistan is, since we kicked out the Taliban and started (well, restarted) their civil war, we walk away and wash our hands of the matter, saying they're just a mess.
Some inspiration.
Sadly it may be the best we can do.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

Every time I try to get back on-topic, some Obamabot objects.

As if things that happen "under Obama's presidency" must all be things that Obama personally signed off on.

It's what you've been implying, to be fair.

Actually, it isn't.

Yes, I could just post these links in Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread, but then, like, only the same 5 people will look at it. Unlike this new, hopping thread, that gets 22 new posts before noon!

It really warms my heart to see that we can disagree without being monsters towards each other - - tour goblin-ness aside, that is.

Vive Le Galt!


Thiago Cardozo wrote:

As for the civilian and military process. The confusion is here because the US chose to redefine what it means by war. So, of course these confusions will arise. The problem is the civilians in a country which is not at war with another country have an expectation that they'll not be bombed to death for no reason. The US unilaterally decides who is engaged in this "war" and kills them.

For instance, imagine that China decided that there is a "dangerous terrorist" in a city in the US. Let us pretend China has declared "War on Terror", this nonsensical thing, but let us pretend, nonetheless. Do you think the US would be A-OK if China decided to blow-up some dude in the streets with a drone, killing people around (collateral damage)? Would the US congratulate China on its successful "War on Terror" and its "casualty minimization"? In other words, would the US accept the argument that this is not a declaration of war on them but on "terror"? The reason this works for the US is because the militay might of the US is overpowering, not because it is right.

There is a good deal of truth in that. It is very definitely the US's military might that let's us get away with it.

OTOH, the analogy does break down a bit. The overwhelming majority of these drone strikes, especially the less targeted ones, have been in Pakistan and Yemen and particularly in the tribal areas of Pakistan and in rebellious areas of Yemen. They've been in areas not well under the control of the local governments and against groups who generally oppose the local governments.
I'm not sure how to extend that part of the analogy. There would have to be a group operating in the US that had carried out terrorist attacks on China, that was also not friendly to the US government and that the US government could not handle itself. Hard to imagine, since we are so militarily powerful, but given that situation, not quite so unbelievable that we might protest, but not care particularly.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Working from bottom to top:

Actually there's some evidence that targeting the leadership has had the effect of disrupting their plans. Even just the measures they have to take to remain hidden make planning and coordination much harder. Just to be clear, you believe we cannot and should not go after terrorists in other countries, except through normal extradition channels?
Treat them like any other criminal and murderer. There's something we created in western civilization called the rule of law. Kings are not above the people. What we're doing is not only legitimizing these groups but also making them into heroes. Sure it makes it tougher to operate and organize but it doesn't prevent similar organizations to take root elsewhere.
In other words, ignore them except when they operate in our country. Allow the leaders to continue to plan attacks and send their followers to attack us with no fear of retaliation.

There is a fair amount of space between ignore and drone strikes. Maybe we should be looking to pressure governments to apprehend criminals that are planning to murder people. undoubtedly some of these countries wouldn't comply but then again if we weren't murdering their citizens on their soil these governments might be more favorable to negotiation.

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I agree partly, though by strictly defensive I was more getting at only trying to stop attacks in progress, not going after the people planning them and setting them up.
It's really hard to stop a bank robbery before the criminals start planning and setting it up.
Except the planning and setting up take place in countries without extradition treaties or in regions not under the control of their countries rulers. So it's not that we wouldn't be stopping them until they start planning the robbery, but that we wouldn't do anything until they entered the bank or after they left.

And stopping them as they entered would be unacceptable? Could we push the analogy to suggest we stop them on the car ride over? If we capture enough of these criminals and cause them to flip it would make pressuring governments to turn over the leaders much easier.

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
When we stop looking at maps, do we also stop looking at the borders on them and strike across them when our enemies do? Cause I thought that was part of what you were complaining about. Or is it just the drones? Should we invade Pakistan with ground troops?
Maybe we shouldn't be in a tribal war to begin with. Why are we on Karzai's side in the first place? It would be great to bring peace to that region but Afghanistan is a mess. There are parts of the country we can stabilize but by helping one side we've made enemies of the other.

Sadly it may be the best we can do.Because we engineered the fall of the Taliban and set Karzai up as our puppet? Remember?

So the plan for Afghanistan is, since we kicked out the Taliban and started (well, restarted) their civil war, we walk away and wash our hands of the matter, saying they're just a mess.
Some inspiration.
Sadly it may be the best we can do.

Agreed. I don't like it either. I'd love it if we could walk into a place like Afghanistan and say "The murder and death stops now. Everyone is now equal. No more raping children. No more oppressing women. Everyone gets a vote. You're now a democracy" but sadly, in the real world, that doesn't seem to work. I don't want to abandon the villages we've helped but that old adage about teaching a man to fish does hold true. We can't defend them forever and I don't doubt the moment we leave Afghanistan there will be a civil war, all I can hope is that everything we've done won't have been in vain.


Guy Humual wrote:
There is a fair amount of space between ignore and drone strikes. Maybe we should be looking to pressure governments to apprehend criminals that are planning to murder people. undoubtedly some of these countries wouldn't comply but then again if we weren't murdering their citizens on their soil these governments might be more favorable to negotiation.

The overwhelming majority of our drone strikes have been in the NW territories of Pakistan, in Yemen and in Somalia. It's not so much a matter of those countries being willing to apprehend the criminals. They're not capable. They don't have full control over the areas the militants are in. That's why the militants are there. Often the militants are as much or more of a threat to the governments than to us.

Guy Humual wrote:
And stopping them as they entered would be unacceptable? Could we push the analogy to suggest we stop them on the car ride over? If we capture enough of these criminals and cause them to flip it would make pressuring governments to turn over the leaders much easier.

See above. And not if the plan is to blow up the car. Yes, you can continue to try to foil attacks as they come to you, but at some point you need to deal with the source.

I'm playing something of a devil's advocate role here, because I don't like this approach any better than the rest of you. I just don't see a better choice.
Maybe what we really need to do is sit back, adopt a strict peaceful support of democracy and human rights foreign policy, give up our hegemony and accept the serious economic problems that'll cause in the short term, take our lumps and don't retaliate for any one attacking the former great power. Maybe in thirty or forty years it'll pay off in goodwill and peace. I doubt it. There are worse bastards out there. We're just the biggest. How do you step down without letting someone else step up?

Sovereign Court

Devil's advocate is one of my favorite games.

I want to see these creeps put on trial though. The thing is that they don't operate in a vacuum in these countries. They need money, they need supplies, and someone is doing the leg work for them. killing the head disrupts them for a while but as long as they have money and recruits rolling in I don't think this is a winnable battle.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
And stopping them as they entered would be unacceptable? Could we push the analogy to suggest we stop them on the car ride over? If we capture enough of these criminals and cause them to flip it would make pressuring governments to turn over the leaders much easier.
See above. And not if the plan is to blow up the car. Yes, you can continue to try to foil attacks as they come to you, but at some point you need to deal with the source.

But again the problem is that the US are blowing up cars and saying "Don't worry folks, those were bank robbers. Take our word for it."

If women and children are in the car they're collateral damage. Bank robbers shouldn't have had women and children in the car with them if they were on their way to rob a bank. If no women or children are in the car they were all definitely bank robbers.

This analogy is fun.


I couldn't agree more that drone strikes need some form of judicial oversight, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of being extrajudicial killings, which I don't consider them to be.

I think drones are here to stay, though, and frankly I'm happy about it. Not wanting to use drone strikes is like wanting surgery to continue to be done with a hacksaw when we have lasers.

Sovereign Court

meatrace wrote:

I couldn't agree more that drone strikes need some form of judicial oversight, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of being extrajudicial killings, which I don't consider them to be.

I think drones are here to stay, though, and frankly I'm happy about it. Not wanting to use drone strikes is like wanting surgery to continue to be done with a hacksaw when we have lasers.

I agree completely. I'd prefer to see them used on military targets though.


Guy Humual wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I couldn't agree more that drone strikes need some form of judicial oversight, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of being extrajudicial killings, which I don't consider them to be.

I think drones are here to stay, though, and frankly I'm happy about it. Not wanting to use drone strikes is like wanting surgery to continue to be done with a hacksaw when we have lasers.

I agree completely. I'd prefer to see them used on military targets though.

agreed.


thejeff wrote:
So the plan for Afghanistan is, since we kicked out the Taliban and started (well, restarted) their civil war, we walk away and wash our hands of the matter, saying they're just a mess.

But, but, who's going to guard the TAP?!?

Maybe those 5,000 armed mercenaries still serving in Iraq?


thejeff wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:


For instance, imagine that China decided that there is a "dangerous terrorist" in a city in the US. Let us pretend China has declared "War on Terror", this nonsensical thing, but let us pretend, nonetheless. Do you think the US would be A-OK if China decided to blow-up some dude in the streets with a drone, killing people around (collateral damage)? Would the US congratulate China on its successful "War on Terror" and its "casualty minimization"? In other words, would the US accept the argument that this is not a declaration of war on them but on "terror"? The reason this works for the US is because the militay might of the US is overpowering, not because it is right.

There is a good deal of truth in that. It is very definitely the US's military might that let's us get away with it.

OTOH, the analogy does break down a bit. The overwhelming majority of these drone strikes, especially the less targeted ones, have been in Pakistan and Yemen and particularly in the tribal areas of Pakistan and in rebellious areas of Yemen. They've been in areas not well under the control of the local governments and against groups who generally oppose the local governments.
I'm not sure how to extend that part of the analogy. There would have to be a group operating in the US that had carried out terrorist attacks on China, that was also not friendly to the US government and that the US government could not handle itself. Hard to imagine, since we are so militarily powerful, but given that situation, not quite so unbelievable that we might protest, but not care particularly.

Cubana Flight 455

Luis Posada Carriles

Jose Basulto

y

The Cuban Five

Not exactly the same, no, but a good indicator that the US wouldn't take kindly to Chinese drone strikes.


Guy Humual wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I couldn't agree more that drone strikes need some form of judicial oversight, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of being extrajudicial killings, which I don't consider them to be.

I think drones are here to stay, though, and frankly I'm happy about it. Not wanting to use drone strikes is like wanting surgery to continue to be done with a hacksaw when we have lasers.

I agree completely. I'd prefer to see them used on military targets though.

Well, they largely are. Despite the high profile assassinations, almost all of the use in Pakistan, for example, is attempts to target militants based in Pakistan and attacking into Afghanistan. Not on high value, kill list targets.

Now the intelligence they're operating on might be bad and civilian targets do get hit. Which sucks and is why you should avoid wars. The intent is military targets.

But assuming we're not going to just leave Afghanistan, what's the alternative? Allow the Taliban and other groups a safe haven if they cross the border? Invade Pakistan? Conventional bombing?

If you think Afghanistan is a lost cause, the answer is easy. The other easy answer is don't go there in the first place, but that's a little hard to do now.

Unless by "military targets" you only mean conventional uniformed forces, in which case it's kind of pointless, since no one can stand up to us in conventional warfare long enough for drones to matter. If they're smart, they'll take off the uniforms and try asymmetric warfare because it works.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:


For instance, imagine that China decided that there is a "dangerous terrorist" in a city in the US. Let us pretend China has declared "War on Terror", this nonsensical thing, but let us pretend, nonetheless. Do you think the US would be A-OK if China decided to blow-up some dude in the streets with a drone, killing people around (collateral damage)? Would the US congratulate China on its successful "War on Terror" and its "casualty minimization"? In other words, would the US accept the argument that this is not a declaration of war on them but on "terror"? The reason this works for the US is because the militay might of the US is overpowering, not because it is right.

There is a good deal of truth in that. It is very definitely the US's military might that let's us get away with it.

OTOH, the analogy does break down a bit. The overwhelming majority of these drone strikes, especially the less targeted ones, have been in Pakistan and Yemen and particularly in the tribal areas of Pakistan and in rebellious areas of Yemen. They've been in areas not well under the control of the local governments and against groups who generally oppose the local governments.
I'm not sure how to extend that part of the analogy. There would have to be a group operating in the US that had carried out terrorist attacks on China, that was also not friendly to the US government and that the US government could not handle itself. Hard to imagine, since we are so militarily powerful, but given that situation, not quite so unbelievable that we might protest, but not care particularly.

Cubana Flight 455

Luis Posada Carriles

Jose Basulto

y

The Cuban Five

Not exactly the same, no, but a good indicator that the US wouldn't take kindly to...

No, probably not. But that's as much because it was a friendly terrorist attacking an enemy country as anything else.

As another not very good analogous case consider Letelier
Not a terrorist or a drone strike, but the US didn't seem too upset about an assassination in it's capital. Sure there were some prosecutions, but it didn't affect relations between the two countries.


Yeah, I left out Orlando Bosch at the last minute.


thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I couldn't agree more that drone strikes need some form of judicial oversight, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of being extrajudicial killings, which I don't consider them to be.

I think drones are here to stay, though, and frankly I'm happy about it. Not wanting to use drone strikes is like wanting surgery to continue to be done with a hacksaw when we have lasers.

I agree completely. I'd prefer to see them used on military targets though.

Well, they largely are. Despite the high profile assassinations, almost all of the use in Pakistan, for example, is attempts to target militants based in Pakistan and attacking into Afghanistan. Not on high value, kill list targets.

Now the intelligence they're operating on might be bad and civilian targets do get hit. Which sucks and is why you should avoid wars. The intent is military targets.

But assuming we're not going to just leave Afghanistan, what's the alternative? Allow the Taliban and other groups a safe haven if they cross the border? Invade Pakistan? Conventional bombing?

If you think Afghanistan is a lost cause, the answer is easy. The other easy answer is don't go there in the first place, but that's a little hard to do now.

Unless by "military targets" you only mean conventional uniformed forces, in which case it's kind of pointless, since no one can stand up to us in conventional warfare long enough for drones to matter. If they're smart, they'll take off the uniforms and try asymmetric warfare because it works.

But the fact is we don't know that, because there is no access to any information concerning the strikes. It is all deemed secret due to "security reasons".

Just an example, one of the few bits of information that the government has revealed concerning the strikes has to do with how they count civilian losses. It is like this: if you're male and young and you're in a "strike zone", you're a militant. I'm not making this up. It was the explanation offered by the government in a NYT article. Since this is not a "conventional war", the attacks are made when the president declares that someone is a militant, an accusation against which there is no defense, no review and no oversight.

I agree that using drones is expedient and cheap, if killing is your objective. Real war is much worse than a few drone strikes, that's for sure, but there's a thing: entering a real war carries huge political and economical costs with it, in such a way that they can sometimes be avoided because of it. The practically of drones creates an incentive for its banalization. Their use in civilians is just the first manifestation of it.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I couldn't agree more that drone strikes need some form of judicial oversight, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of being extrajudicial killings, which I don't consider them to be.

I think drones are here to stay, though, and frankly I'm happy about it. Not wanting to use drone strikes is like wanting surgery to continue to be done with a hacksaw when we have lasers.

I agree completely. I'd prefer to see them used on military targets though.

Well, they largely are. Despite the high profile assassinations, almost all of the use in Pakistan, for example, is attempts to target militants based in Pakistan and attacking into Afghanistan. Not on high value, kill list targets.

Now the intelligence they're operating on might be bad and civilian targets do get hit. Which sucks and is why you should avoid wars. The intent is military targets.

But assuming we're not going to just leave Afghanistan, what's the alternative? Allow the Taliban and other groups a safe haven if they cross the border? Invade Pakistan? Conventional bombing?

If you think Afghanistan is a lost cause, the answer is easy. The other easy answer is don't go there in the first place, but that's a little hard to do now.

Unless by "military targets" you only mean conventional uniformed forces, in which case it's kind of pointless, since no one can stand up to us in conventional warfare long enough for drones to matter. If they're smart, they'll take off the uniforms and try asymmetric warfare because it works.

But the fact is we don't know that, because there is no access to any information concerning the strikes. It is all deemed secret due to "security reasons".

Just an example, one of the few bits of information that the government has revealed concerning the strikes has to do with how they count civilian losses. It is like this: if you're male and young and you're in a "strike zone", you're a militant. I'm not making this up. It was the explanation offered by the government in a NYT article. Since this is not a "conventional war", the attacks are made when the president declares that someone is a militant, an accusation against which there is no defense, no review and no oversight.

I agree that using drones is expedient and cheap, if killing is your objective. Real war is much worse than a few drone strikes, that's for sure, but there's a thing: entering a real war carries huge political and economical costs with it, in such a way that they can sometimes be avoided because of it. The practically of drones creates an incentive for its banalization. Their use in civilians is just the first manifestation of it.

We don't know what? That they're mostly used on military targets?

Are you suggesting the US is deliberately targeting Pakistani villages they know have no connections to the Taliban or other militia groups?

Yes, they get it wrong. Probably far too often. Yes, they cover it up by claiming anyone who possibly could have been was a militant. They've done that for years, whether the attack was by drone, air strike or ground forces.

My point is, the drone strikes in Pakistan are part of a "real war". The one in Afghanistan. It's spilled over the border into the tribal areas, as wars do. Are you arguing we should allow a safe haven in Pakistan? I've asked that several times and gotten no answer. Tactically, strategically, that's a horrible idea. Politically, maybe it would be worth it.

And, of course, civilians bear the brunt of it. Because that's what happens in wars. Especially asymmetric ones.


As much as I hate the Taliban, I think they should be allowed a safe haven in...Afghanistan. And I think that "we", or rather, blood-drenched U.S. imperialism, should get the f~%* out, now.


thejeff wrote:

We don't know what? That they're mostly used on military targets?

Are you suggesting the US is deliberately targeting Pakistani villages they know have no connections to the Taliban or other militia groups?

I'm suggesting that they just don't care, that the flimsiest evidence can be a reason for a strike. I'm saying that I believe that the mentality of "it is cheap, so, just to be sure..." is dominating the decisions here. The number of AQ heads severed is, apparently, big, but the number of strikes has increased instead of decreasing. Why?

Quote:

Yes, they get it wrong. Probably far too often. Yes, they cover it up by claiming anyone who possibly could have been was a militant. They've done that for years, whether the attack was by drone, air strike or ground forces.

My point is, the drone strikes in Pakistan are part of a "real war". The one in Afghanistan. It's spilled over the border into the tribal areas, as wars do. Are you arguing we should allow a safe haven in Pakistan? I've asked that several times and gotten no answer. Tactically, strategically, that's a horrible idea. Politically, maybe it would be worth it.

And, of course, civilians bear the brunt of it. Because that's what happens in wars. Especially asymmetric ones.

I'd say leave the place, bear the brunt for a while, defend the homeland without looking like a scary warmonger in the process. No one is going to go after the US just because. It might take sometime, but it probably would be for the best.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As much as I hate the Taliban, I think they should be allowed a safe haven in...Afghanistan. And I think that "we", or rather, blood-drenched U.S. imperialism, should get the f~%$ out, now.

A couple years ago I would have agreed with you. We were barely paying attention to Afghanistan and things were getting worse.

I would have said the same about Iraq as well, maybe a little earlier. That we were only delaying the collapse that would come whenever we left. Iraq's now doing much better than I thought it could. Not out of danger, by any means, but not in full-fledged civil war either.

I think there's a chance we can actually stabilize Afghanistan enough to leave without a complete collapse but I don't think we're there yet. I think things will get a lot worse if we leave now.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
No one is going to go after the US just because.

Exactly.

Terrorists attack us because we think nothing of occupying foreign lands and taking innocent lives, purposely or not. Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Anwar al-Aliki have all been quoted to that effect. Killing more and occupying more will not stop the attacks, in fact it will only serve to increase them. I dont like any of these men, so to defeat them, we shouldn't be in the business of proving them right! We should be reaching out to the peoples of the Middle East through fair and open trade, both of goods and of ideas, not missles and assassinations. Its why I can only shake my head as we try to starve the Iranians while simultaneously assassinating their scientists. This is only going to turn Irans youth towards extremism. If we truly wanted to end terrorism, we should stop participating in it!


On topic: persecution of American filmmaker by DHS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As much as I hate the Taliban, I think they should be allowed a safe haven in...Afghanistan. And I think that "we", or rather, blood-drenched U.S. imperialism, should get the f~%$ out, now.

A couple years ago I would have agreed with you. We were barely paying attention to Afghanistan and things were getting worse.

I would have said the same about Iraq as well, maybe a little earlier. That we were only delaying the collapse that would come whenever we left. Iraq's now doing much better than I thought it could. Not out of danger, by any means, but not in full-fledged civil war either.

I think there's a chance we can actually stabilize Afghanistan enough to leave without a complete collapse but I don't think we're there yet. I think things will get a lot worse if we leave now.

Today's news:

Link 1

Link 2

American soldiers getting bumped off by Afghan policemen and NATO paying blood money for dead children. I don't see how it could get any worse.

But, then again, I don't think U.S. imperialism can play any good role and that, in fact, from Khe Sanh to Kandahar, from Hiroshima to Haditha, the U.S. ruling class are the world's biggest terrorists.


I'd like to take the time here to thank thejeff for disagreeing with parts of my argument and worries in a completely civil way, and actually engaging in the discussion. A rare thing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I'd like to take the time here to thank thejeff for disagreeing with parts of my argument and worries in a completely civil way, and actually engaging in the discussion. A rare thing.

Yeah, I've sent him a ton of PMs about how you're supposed to act on the interwebz, but the dude just keeps acting like a human being.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I usually stay out of political threads, but I wanted to mention this here:

A CNN op-ed from July was titled Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes. Written by Peter Bergen (CNN's National Security Analyst) and Jennifer Rowland (who works at the nonpartisan New America Foundation) the article talks about how recent data found that in the last year or so, drone strikes have killed very few civilians.

Another such piece, from September (where Megaun Braun, a Rhodes Scholar at St. John's College, replaces Jennifer Rowland) titled Drone is Obama's Weapon of Choice, follows up on this.


Alzrius wrote:

I usually stay out of political threads, but I wanted to mention this here:

A CNN op-ed from July was titled Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes. Written by Peter Bergen (CNN's National Security Analyst) and Jennifer Rowland (who works at the nonpartisan New America Foundation) the article talks about how recent data found that in the last year or so, drone strikes have killed very few civilians.

Another such piece, from September (where Megaun Braun, a Rhodes Scholar at St. John's College, replaces Jennifer Rowland) titled Drone is Obama's Weapon of Choice, follows up on this.

Hi Alzrius, welcome to the discussion! The New American Foundation reports differ greatly from those of other sources, like, for example. those from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, although most see a drop in casualties. A more recent investigation, conducted by The Stanford University and the NYU puts this data in scrutiny, and concludes that it is unreliable and is partly based on the government criteria for counting "militants".

As the US government has consistently undercounted casualties in its other war efforts, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is actually expected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I'd like to take the time here to thank thejeff for disagreeing with parts of my argument and worries in a completely civil way, and actually engaging in the discussion. A rare thing.
Yeah, I've sent him a ton of PMs about how you're supposed to act on the interwebz, but the dude just keeps acting like a human being.

Don't have time to play, but just wanted to say:

Comrade Jeff is pretty much the shiznit and I apologize for maybe calling him an Obamabot.

Dark Archive

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I don't think it's the grand jury system, Comrade Hawkshaw, it's the state repression, surveillance and harassment of leftist activists.

I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.

Well, the left may portray themselves as "tolerant", but they are, in fact, only tolerant if you agree with their views completely. Don't like same sex marriage, and state it publicly. Be prepared for the left to vandalize your stores, have leftist mayors threaten to keep your business out of their cities, and have liberals threaten to charge you with violating "hate speech" laws. That's exaclty what happened when the president of Chik-Fil-A voiced his opinion. Obama's administration has been harassing tea party groups with IRS audits for years now. You can't tell me that isn't politically motivated. I am not saying the right is perfect, but I see much less repression of human rights from them than from the left. Let's not forget that the NAZI's started as leftists. They were a socialist party.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I'd like to take the time here to thank thejeff for disagreeing with parts of my argument and worries in a completely civil way, and actually engaging in the discussion. A rare thing.
Yeah, I've sent him a ton of PMs about how you're supposed to act on the interwebz, but the dude just keeps acting like a human being.

Don't have time to play, but just wanted to say:

Comrade Jeff is pretty much the shiznit and I apologize for maybe calling him an Obamabot.

I concur. I too would would like to take a time-out and applaud thejeff for his steadfast and stalwart approach to internet civility.

Perhaps we politrolls could pool some money together and get some trophies made and hand out a yearly award? Call them the civvies or something? Im sure Ricky Gervais would host, not like hes busy or anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I don't think it's the grand jury system, Comrade Hawkshaw, it's the state repression, surveillance and harassment of leftist activists.

I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.

Well, the left may portray themselves as "tolerant", but they are, in fact, only tolerant if you agree with their views completely. Don't like same sex marriage, and state it publicly. Be prepared for the left to vandalize your stores, have leftist mayors threaten to keep your business out of their cities, and have liberals threaten to charge you with violating "hate speech" laws. That's exaclty what happened when the president of Chik-Fil-A voiced his opinion. Obama's administration has been harassing tea party groups with IRS audits for years now. You can't tell me that isn't politically motivated. I am not saying the right is perfect, but I see much less repression of human rights from them than from the left. Let's not forget that the NAZI's started as leftists. They were a socialist party.

And just when we were being all so chummy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


A couple years ago I would have agreed with you. We were barely paying attention to Afghanistan and things were getting worse.

Had we really wanted to do right by Afghanistan, and especially by the most vulnerable people there, we'd have let the Soviets keep it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
democracies rarely declare war on each other and as far as I know never actually fight. I think England declared war on Finland during WWII but not a single shot was fired.

Actually Finland's war was with the Soviet Union. Secret negotiations between Berlin and Moscow had designated Finland as dibbed by the Soviets prior to the actual start of the war. Russia had conquered Finland from Swedon in 1809 and Finland had broken away during the 1917 revolution. The Soviets negotiated a non aggression pact with Finland and then shelled one of their own villages to fake a Finnish attack on Russian soil. This act led to the Soviet's expulsion from the League of Nations.

Most of Finland's activity consisted on resisting Soviet aggression. They wound up trading a chunk of their territory in exchange for a cease fire. Seeking aid they teamed up with Nazi Germany launching raids on Russian soil. At this point England declared war on Finland conducting several raids on Finnish soil so shots were indeed fired.

Eventually the Russians and the allies forced Finland to renounce it's alliance with Nazi Germany and German troops were expelled from Finland. This would lead to the Lapland War when Germany attacked in retaliation.

Finland took very light casulaties in the Lapland War, but the Germans essentially scorched earth more than half of the remaining country causing severe infrastructure damage. In addition the Soviets took more chunks out of the country as reparations and leaned rather heavily on the Finnish government for decades afterwards. They were however, able to pretty much sit out the Cold War. The summary below is from Wikipedia...

Finland and World War II overall

During World War II, Finland was in many ways a unique case. It was the only European country bordering the Soviet Union in 1939 which was still unoccupied by 1945. Of all the European countries fighting, only three European capitals were never occupied: Moscow, London and Helsinki. It was a country which sided with Germany, but in which native Jews and almost all refugees were safe from persecution.[22] It was the only co-belligerent of Nazi Germany which maintained democracy throughout the war. It was also the only belligerent in mainland Europe to do so.

Although Finland was never de jure member of Axis powers, as it never signed the Tripartite Pact, it was a companion of Germany from the beginning of Operation Barbarossa 1941 to separate peace with the Soviet Union in 1944. Finland, however, was never a strong supporter of Nazi Germany and felt that an alliance with Hitler would help ensure that the country would remain independent.[23] Finland was led by its elected President and parliament during the whole 1939-1945 period. As a result, some political scientists name it as one of the few instances where a democratic country was engaged in a war against one or more other democratic countries, namely the democracies in the Allied forces.[24] However, it is worth pointing out that nearly all Finnish military engagements in World War II were fought solely against an autocratic power, the Soviet Union, and the lack of direct conflicts specifically with other democratic countries leads others to exclude Finnish involvement in World War II as an example of a war between two or more democracies.[25]


Because their track record protecting minority rights was really good.

Afghanistan was going to be messed up no matter what. I do think our involvement there and in Saudia Arabia indirectly set in motion the attack on New York. The causal chain isn't that hard to follow.

I think we responded appropriately. At the time I didn't think so, and oddly enough at the time I was directly involved in the American response (I was a few miles off the coast of Pakistan), but that was also when I was still enamoured with Chomsky.

I'm still not convinced we can leave Afghanistan in an enduring and stable condition. Both Iran and Pakistan have a vested interest in the chaos and violence happening there. We're getting better, but it would take another 10 years of hand holding to even begin to really change their culture to something resembling a nation state.

As for the war on terror, it's a horrible idea. While a lot of abuses are the same between Bush and Obama, Bush administration seemed to actively seek them out. Things have happened under Obama, but to me it feels a lot more like the evil that always happens during war, and less about people actively seeking to instill us with fear and then use that fear to gain more power.

US imperialism is definitely a problem. And then we do it half-assed and our empire crumbles and the burden gets put on the poor first.

Also, the entity that should be watching our backs, the Supreme Court is decidedly not doing so.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Alzrius wrote:

I usually stay out of political threads, but I wanted to mention this here:

A CNN op-ed from July was titled Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes. Written by Peter Bergen (CNN's National Security Analyst) and Jennifer Rowland (who works at the nonpartisan New America Foundation) the article talks about how recent data found that in the last year or so, drone strikes have killed very few civilians.

Another such piece, from September (where Megaun Braun, a Rhodes Scholar at St. John's College, replaces Jennifer Rowland) titled Drone is Obama's Weapon of Choice, follows up on this.

Hi Alzrius, welcome to the discussion! The New American Foundation reports differ greatly from those of other sources, like, for example. those from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, although most see a drop in casualties. A more recent investigation, conducted by The Stanford University and the NYU puts this data in scrutiny, and concludes that it is unreliable and is partly based on the government criteria for counting "militants".

As the US government has consistently undercounted casualties in its other war efforts, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is actually expected.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the link!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Well, the left may portray themselves as "tolerant", but they are, in fact, only tolerant if you agree with their views completely.

If by this you mean that we are hostile to viewpoints that threaten to move the country and our lives backwards, then yes, you'd be absolutely correct.

We're tolerant of people. We're not tolerant of poorly-formed opinions.

Quote:
Don't like same sex marriage, and state it publicly. Be prepared for the left to vandalize your stores, have leftist mayors threaten to keep your business out of their cities, and have liberals threaten to charge you with violating "hate speech" laws. That's exaclty what happened when the president of Chik-Fil-A voiced his opinion.

Yep. If you make a habit of actively trying to infringe upon the rights of others (for instance, by trying to restrict the rights of homosexuals to marry), we have absolutely no problem treating you like dirt.

Quote:
Obama's administration has been harassing tea party groups with IRS audits for years now.

a) Good.

b) I think the Tea Party is probably a little hypersensitive to tax-related issues, don't you? Besides, if there's any group I wouldn't be surprised to hear had been evading taxes, it would be the Tea Party.

Quote:
You can't tell me that isn't politically motivated.

You can't tell me it is.

Quote:
I am not saying the right is perfect, but I see much less repression of human rights from them than from the left.

Holy crap. That just happened. You actually said that conservatives repress human rights less than liberals.

Quote:
Let's not forget that the NAZI's started as leftists. They were a socialist party.
Wikipedia wrote:
The party was founded out of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.

The Nazi party held an ideology that mixed elements of leftist and rightist thinking. It's laughable that you would try and pin Naziism to liberals. This is one of the most egregious examples of Godwin's Law I've ever seen.

I encourage you to keep talking.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Well, the left may portray themselves as "tolerant", but they are, in fact, only tolerant if you agree with their views completely. Don't like same sex marriage, and state it publicly. Be prepared for the left to vandalize your stores, have leftist mayors threaten to keep your business out of their cities, and have liberals threaten to charge you with violating "hate speech" laws. That's exaclty what happened when the president of Chik-Fil-A voiced his opinion. Obama's administration has been harassing tea party groups with IRS audits for years now. You can't tell me that isn't politically motivated. I am not saying the right is perfect, but I see much less repression of human rights from them than from the left. Let's not forget that the NAZI's started as leftists. They were a socialist party.

Godwin! :P

Now where did I leave my official Nazi Party Registration Card..? Oh right, I lost it on my last Hetero-bashing run. Darn.


What is it with people confusing lack of special treatment as intolerance? No, we don't want your religion enshrined in government buildings. This is not repression. It is not intolerance. It is simply holding you to the same standard as we hold everyone else. Oh noes!

On the other hand, if you're apt to confuse mockery for intolerance, I suppose you might get confused. Of course, mockery is comes from both sides. Take, for example, calling a college student who admits to using birth control a quim-slinging harlot. :P

And for the record, neither myself of any of my "leftist" friends in any way support vandals or abuse of Mayoral authority. We aren't responsible for those things any more than you are -- but by all means, continue dividing the world into "us" (good) and "them" (bad). That is always so productive.


bugleyman wrote:


And for the record, neither myself of any of my "leftist" friends in any way support vandals or abuse of Mayoral authority. We aren't responsible for those things any more than you are -- but by all means, continue dividing the world into "us" (good) and "them" (bad). That is always so productive.

I just don't care about mayors telling Chick-fil-a they're not welcome. Politicians do that all the time for all manner of businesses they find unsavory, from coal-burning power plants to strip clubs and adult novelty emporiums. Talk about non-news.

Silver Crusade

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Well, the left may portray themselves as "tolerant", but they are, in fact, only tolerant if you agree with their views completely. Don't like same sex marriage, and state it publicly. Be prepared for the left to vandalize your stores, have leftist mayors threaten to keep your business out of their cities, and have liberals threaten to charge you with violating "hate speech" laws. That's exaclty what happened when the president of Chik-Fil-A voiced his opinion. Obama's administration has been harassing tea party groups with IRS audits for years now. You can't tell me that isn't politically motivated. I am not saying the right is perfect, but I see much less repression of human rights from them than from the left. Let's not forget that the NAZI's started as leftists. They were a socialist party.

Emphases mine.

There is a dissonance here.

Thanks for the threadcrap, by the way.

Sovereign Court

Sadly many Republicans are getting their news from one source these days. It's not leading to a well informed electorate, opinionated yes, but terribly misinformed. But then again journalism in general is lazy and cheep these days, nobody wants to take the time to check sources, do a little research, get their hands dirty. It's just so much easier to get a camera somewhere and/or talk to pundits.

351 to 400 of 1,595 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards