Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Antiwar)   Obama administration commits act of terrorism just hours after being reelected   (antiwar.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Obama administration, Bush Jr., Sanaa, American Living, Yemen  
•       •       •

29010 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



293 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-08 02:39:38 PM  

BigNumber12: Biological Ali: This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.


I heard those guys in that house right there in Toronto are Al Qaeda. Better blow it up - it'll weaken Al Qaeda.


Since they're over here, you could just call the police and have them arrested. It's a little hard to do that in a country a few thousand miles away, unless you plan to gather all of our police forces together, send them over there, have them scour all the countries, and ship everyone they arrest back to America for trials.
 
2012-11-08 02:41:00 PM  

BigNumber12: I heard those guys in that house right there in Toronto are Al Qaeda. Better blow it up - it'll weaken Al Qaeda.


Actually we did have a small group doing some terror training in the bush near Toronto.

If a drone would have blown them up I would have been the first to write a strongly worded letter thanking you for saving us millions in court and incarceration costs.
 
2012-11-08 02:43:04 PM  

BigNumber12: Vectron: BigNumber12: Biological Ali: This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.


I heard those guys in that house right there in Toronto are Al Qaeda. Better blow it up - it'll weaken Al Qaeda.


Toronto? Isn't that a little extreme?


That's true, most people there are white.


Have you ever been to Toronto?
 
2012-11-08 02:43:30 PM  

BigNumber12: JDAT: Vectron: JDAT: Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.


I can't wait until the president unleashes this technology on DomesticTerrorists. The thought that tax cheats, speeders, preppers, gun hoarders will know they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

You equate tax cheats, speeders, preppers and gun hoarders with acts of Terror???


Which acts of terror did the people in that car commit?



Let's ask that about the people the government is killing overseas. What proof do we have that these people have harmed Americans or are planning too? They have created a "legal" (ironic quotes) definition for certain people they want to kill.

Why can't it happen here eventually?
 
2012-11-08 02:43:35 PM  

way south: imgod2u: This is a disturbing trend no matter how you think of it. I agree that drones are practical and that they often get legitimate targets that otherwise would have eluded capture but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

Less accountability and more secrecy makes for a successful war.

In this respect, Obama has proven far more capable than Bush, because he can keep up the attacks while taking few losses.
Since reporters get pulitzers for covering soldiers rather than robots, the process can continue with minimal criticism.

/I think most Americans agree with winning so long as they don't know how the hamburger is made.


I think that's more of a problem than anything else -- because there's no press coverage, this kind of shiat can just keep going on. At least an unpopular war will come to an end because the public has a sentiment against it.

Again, I understand the motivation here and it's a hell of a lot more effective than sending troops and occupying a country. But it's a slippery slope from precision targeting of known terrorist and "hey, that guy looks like a terrorist from 6000 ft in the air, take him out".

At least troops can capture a guy, question him and look at the evidence before executing him. It's morally disgusting to think about some dude just taking a stroll with his family and getting zapped before he knew wtf happened.
 
2012-11-08 02:43:39 PM  

BigNumber12: Toronto? Isn't that a little extreme?


That's true, most people there are white.


I take it you don't make it to Toronto very often. A very multi-cultural city ... folks of all colours and persuasions. And restaurants serving food from all corners of the planet.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:25 PM  

Cpl.D: skullkrusher: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: Cpl.D: Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.

yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.

I was channeling bush, instead of just an alternative? Uh, sure. Go with that. Have fun.

*handwaving to avoid asking yourself the hard questions!*

Sure I was. We've got an enemy we've got to deal with on foreign soil. We get them with a drone strike. Drone strike isn't popular. What's the most common alternative we've exercised in this situation? I'm way sure it wasn't giving them five dollar gift cards to Hot Topic.


Have you considered not bombing them as an option? That drone strikes have undoubtly killed civilians, and that creates even more Anti-Americanism that breeds terrorism?

Or is it because we have to bomb them, because we have "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?" I remember Fark hating the last guy who tried that.

Again, I'm still waiting for a real liberal to show up on Fark. That, or for someone to finally admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:35 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


You'd admit to applauding the invasion of Iraq?
 
2012-11-08 02:44:52 PM  

BigNumber12: Biological Ali: This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.


I heard those guys in that house right there in Toronto are Al Qaeda. Better blow it up - it'll weaken Al Qaeda.


Never attempt to be clever again.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:57 PM  

Vectron: We can leave tomorrow. Nothing will change. We can't afford these never ending wars with people that want us off their soil.

Channeling George Carlin: War is the only thing we're good at anymore.


The needs of Yemeni outweigh the needs of the Jew.
 
2012-11-08 02:45:09 PM  

Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.


Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people.
/nice tinfoil hat sir
/Obama 2012
 
2012-11-08 02:45:40 PM  

Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.


Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.
 
2012-11-08 02:45:51 PM  

Cpl.D: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cpl.D: The Dog Ate My Homework: I've never really understood the supposed "outrage" over the use of drones. The only difference between a drone and a regular aircraft is that the pilot for one is thousands of miles away sitting in an office while the pilot for the other is actually in the aircraft. Does it hurt less if you get blown up by a drone? Because I don't see the difference.

I've got a wingnut relative who's completely certain that the use of drones is somehow a war crime, and that within days 0bummer's going to go to trial for war crimes. I wish I were kidding. She's already saved up money for an expensive caterer for the party she intends to throw.

According to some, usually the older people, if you're not risking your life or the lives of others to fight, then it's evil and horrible and wrong and Satanic and blah blah. Apparently the idea of "minimize your own losses" is a foreign concept to these people.

Usually the same people who think there's some kind of honor in meeting your foe on open ground and killing them. The same knuckleheads who romanticize war and don't realize how completely freaking ugly it is.


Exactly. War isn't glamorous or awesome, it's a messy, terrible business that many prefer not to happen, and if it does to do it as quickly and cleanly as possible. If using remote-control drones keeps our people safe, by all means send an armada of the things up. Robot tanks? Make sure you give them the ability to say "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!" every time they fire. As long as our men and women are safe, who cares about the fact that drones and robots are doing the dirty work?
 
2012-11-08 02:45:56 PM  
ITT: a bunch of Republicans still butthurt over the election trying to soothe their anuses (anii?) by falsely equalizing Obama's efficient campaign against al-Qaeda with Bush's blundering and irrational occupation of Iraq.
 
2012-11-08 02:47:02 PM  

Farking Canuck: BigNumber12: Toronto? Isn't that a little extreme?


That's true, most people there are white.

I take it you don't make it to Toronto very often. A very multi-cultural city ... folks of all colours and persuasions. And restaurants serving food from all corners of the planet.



If they're brown, they must go down.

Johnny Cochran spins in grave
 
2012-11-08 02:47:11 PM  
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the bozos at Antiwar.com are the "violence never solved anything" type of bozo, and not the "it's okay when a Republican is Commander In Chief" type of bozo.

/bozo
 
2012-11-08 02:48:32 PM  

imgod2u: At least troops can capture a guy, question him and look at the evidence before executing him.


A couple of flaws with your plan:

- Troops are not supposed to be executing prisoners.

- Terrorists don't usually stop for interviews

So in the end you have put troops on the ground, in harms way, in a firefight, calling for air support to blow up the terrorists. How is this better?
 
2012-11-08 02:48:54 PM  

cleek: imgod2u: but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

wait, did Obama win the power to dissolve Congress and SCOTUS Tuesday night?
no?
then WTF are you talking about?


Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?
 
2012-11-08 02:48:55 PM  

piperTom: kriegsgeist: So vote republican?

I voted for Johnson; my conscience is clear.


I voted for John Jackson
2.bp.blogspot.com
Because he's against those things that everybody hates.
 
2012-11-08 02:49:55 PM  

Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.


Which previous troll are you that changed their name in shame?
 
2012-11-08 02:50:23 PM  

Baumli: Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.

Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people.
/nice tinfoil hat sir
/Obama 2012



I used to be like you.
 
2012-11-08 02:50:53 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.


The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.
 
2012-11-08 02:50:59 PM  

Raven Darke: The worst Bush did was declare war without a legitimate Cassus Belli.
Oh, and make us look like idiots in front of all the other nations.
But since stupidity is not a crime, he was never impeached.


Fark you and your cassus belli, if I frickin want to rule Pomerania from my seat in Poland you better believe I'm going to just hire the largest army I can to beat the ever loving crap out of you, you heathen bastards.

... Whew. Been playing way too much Crusader Kings II.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:02 PM  
Well on the bright side, there was a link to a couple of pics of Yingluck Shinawatra at TFA.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:08 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: I've never really understood the supposed "outrage" over the use of drones. The only difference between a drone and a regular aircraft is that the pilot for one is thousands of miles away sitting in an office while the pilot for the other is actually in the aircraft. Does it hurt less if you get blown up by a drone? Because I don't see the difference.


There's a fundamental concept, going back hundreds of years or more, that the other side deserves to be able to fight back. In the middle ages, it was concern about crossbowmen and archers being able to take out knights from a safe distance. When guns were first introduced to Japan, it was considered terrible that one man with a gun could shoot a samurai off his horse before he could close. During the early years of the American revolution, American tactics of hiding behind trees and using an early form of camouflage were thought of as despicable by the British, who were still marching in straight lines while wearing brightly-colored uniforms. (At least that's how the story goes; it appears to be more myth than fact).

At least with a manned aircraft you can hope to capture or kill the pilot by shooting down the plane. With an unmanned drone, even blowing it completely up doesn't incapacitate an enemy. You've just cost them money. It just seems unfair that you can't really fight back in any meaningful way to that particular attack.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about people's feelings. I'm not trying to argue the logic of the position.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:34 PM  

Giltric: The Bush administration tried to link Iraq and AQ but they were going in regardless due to the various UN resolutions Iraq violated....the AQ link if it materialized would have just been icing on the cake.


Yeah no, Kofi Annan said so.

But please, let's not go back there. It is a silly place.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:50 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


So what?
 
2012-11-08 02:52:31 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent

A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.

that's sort of the point. If we're gonna treat terrorism like a law enforcement issue, executing people without trial probably isn't how it should be done in the US.

When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"? 

This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.


You do know that drone strikes have been ordered specifically by Obama to kill American citizens in the past, right? That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process? That what Obama has done would give even Bush and Cheney raging boners? That you give liberals a bad name?
 
2012-11-08 02:54:00 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


They're just mad that a drone strike is a surgical strike that is relatively cheap in comparison to ramping up the war machine and all of it's related cronies in order to get a few dudes living in dirt hut.
 
2012-11-08 02:54:35 PM  
Don't know if this has been covered and I don't have time to read the whole thread but I'm wondering if anyone knows whether the activity of using the drone strikes as part of the war on terrorism isn't covered by the authorization of force by Congress back in the Bush administration. I would think it would be.
 
2012-11-08 02:55:06 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: Allow me to rephrase my statement in the manner to which you are accustomed.


"Drones BAD!"


"Drones bad, but other thing worse!"


"But drones BAD!"


"Best thing no fight at all. But if fight, drones better than other thing."

...And fighting of course being unquestionably nessecary. Because people aren't "grown up" enough and need to be killed until the are. You and the politicians you support naturally being wholly fit to make the call of who gets bombed or no.


Yeah, I had you the first time dude. Cool puppets though.


Evidently you STILL don't have him. He's arguing "IF drones, then war" and you're still arguing "But not war!" You're speaking at completely cross purposes.

And yes, sadly, breaking it down into sentences of no more than 4 words seems to be necessary. 

You can talk about the need for war or the role of drones IN war but please stop confusing the two.
 
2012-11-08 02:56:04 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


Well how is killing innocent civilians still a good thing?

If we're going to go to war we need to go full out. None of that hearts and minds, you have to completely destroy everything. We wouldn't be bogged down for a decade but we sure as hell would think awhile before going to war.

Just dropping bombs from drones in a sovereign nation is not the answer.
 
2012-11-08 02:56:40 PM  
Were they Americans?
 
2012-11-08 02:56:41 PM  

imgod2u: cleek: imgod2u: but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

wait, did Obama win the power to dissolve Congress and SCOTUS Tuesday night?
no?
then WTF are you talking about?

Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?


That's on the same level as "if we allow gays to marry, then we're gonna have people marrying turtles".

And you people do know we have intelligence over there? Spy drones? Informants? We're not shooting willy-nilly at random people because they look terroristy. We also have the permission and assistance of the Yemeni.
 
2012-11-08 02:57:03 PM  

imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?


Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

This is a new type of war and the rules are not well defined but I for one would argue it is a war. And I am one of those socialist Canadian lefties!!
 
2012-11-08 02:57:08 PM  
Also could all you hand wringers blabbering about the WARRIORS HONOR you imagine your opponents to idolize throw down some citations of people being against drones but not other tools of the trade?
 
2012-11-08 02:57:37 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, it's a joint Yemini-US operation, authorized by the Yemini, that took out several terrorists without injury or loss of life to any of our people. And Republicans are STILL trying the "unprovoked act of terror" card.

And I'm laughing at all of you idiots who are so farking terrified that Obama is going to start shooting missiles all over America. It's both sad and hilarious how you've convinced yourselves that Obama is some kind of Angel of Death just waiting for the right opportunity to declare war on us (is this because of the traitor that was taken out a couple of years ago over in the Middle East? Get over it, people who publicly denounce their citizenship, flee the country and join the group they support in active violence against their former home country are no longer citizens). Obama relaxed gun laws across the board and you're still pissing yourselves over the idea that he's gonna suddenly swoop down and carry off your precious boomsticks. Bush spent ten years, an obscene amount of money, and thousands of American lives attacking innocent countries with absolutely nothing to show for it. Obama authorized the successful takedown of bin Laden, helped remove Ghadaffi, and got our troops out of Iraq, all with minimal injury and death to our people, and our foreign relations have strengthened. Apparently that's unacceptable to you people, for whatever reason only you and God know.

You proved you were unhinged and psychotic the previous four years. Stop yourselves before you slip into complete insanity.

 
2012-11-08 02:59:23 PM  
Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?


Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time. 

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.
 
2012-11-08 02:59:27 PM  

Farking Canuck: imgod2u: At least troops can capture a guy, question him and look at the evidence before executing him.

A couple of flaws with your plan:

- Troops are not supposed to be executing prisoners.

- Terrorists don't usually stop for interviews

So in the end you have put troops on the ground, in harms way, in a firefight, calling for air support to blow up the terrorists. How is this better?


Erm, not in all cases? Soldiers in Afghanistan have taken in plenty Prisoners of War and either handed them off to a local government to be tried and executed (e.g. Saddam) or taken them out (e.g. bin Laden).

Yes, there are still cases where air strikes are called in and someone is just blown to bits; the worry I have is that drone strikes become so increasingly easy and cost effective that they are the go-to solution instead of a "we gotta stop these people now and there isn't time for soldiers to diligently capture them" last resort.

Again, I'm not saying that this isn't an elegant solution nor that in many cases, the best solution to counter-terrorism. My worry is that it is being used in cases where it shouldn't be due to just how easy a drone strike is and that there isn't any checks and balances to ensure it isn't over-used. I like Obama and think he's probably being as diligent as he can about this but that doesn't mean things don't slip through the crack and some over-zealous General didn't pull the "fark it, just take that brown dude out" line.

Machines doing the killing takes away the face-to-face aspect; which for an innocent dude can mean the difference between life and death.
 
2012-11-08 03:00:16 PM  

Fallout Boy: You do know that drone strikes have been ordered specifically by Obama to kill American citizens in the past, right? That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?


So in WW2 there were no soldiers fighting for the Axis that had American citizenship??

I am no historian, but I am pretty sure that if one of your own citizens takes up arms against you during wartime they are as legitimate target as any other enemy soldier.
 
2012-11-08 03:00:16 PM  

Fallout Boy: That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?


Maybe you missed it in the early 2000's when everybody was telling you that is exactly what the patriot would allow, but you all hopped on that bandwagon because of the terrorists. Sorry the horse is out of the barn now. If you are labeled a terrorist, like Alwaki, the constitutions no longer applies.
 
2012-11-08 03:01:14 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


(he's talking about Al Qaeda, not Bush; they also indiscriminately kill civilians of "the other side")
 
2012-11-08 03:01:14 PM  

naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.


Okay, I'll bite.

I worked in national defense and counter-terrorism for nearly a decade. You're talking utter nonsense when you equate domestic rhetoric and politics with a long-established campaign of terror.

Drone strikes suck; they suck less than leveling cities, which is what we did to put a stop to things in prior wars. They're an imperfect attempt to surgically target real terrorists, and intent DOES matter in this case. As long as using innocents as shields is a tool in the terrorist arsenal, we'll have to find a way to get past that with minimum bloodshed and human suffering.

I agree it would be best in the long run to get the hell out of there. It would be safer for us in the short run, too, but it what it emphatically would NOT be is smart policy, tactically sound, or morally right.

By and large, the US military responds, when using force, with a strong emphasis on avoiding collateral damage like mosques and innocent civilians. We generally use it carefully and with precision unmatched in the history of the world. We failed that standard under Bush; we've done better under Obama. Three-plus years of more sensible policy cannot instantly overcome 8+ years of misery, but our goals are clearer and the mission better defined than ever before.

We also make mistakes, and we have some real idiots and asshats that manage to make it into decision-making positions from time to time. For the most part, we fess up and apologize and try to make it right.

If we cut and run with no plan, which is what one set of our home-grown extremists want, we're saying that our word as a nation is worthless, that we won't honor obligations, and that our commitments to friends and allies amount to little more than air.

If we leave gradually, there's more chance of something stable existing there when we've gone -- and far LESS chance of terrorists regaining a foothold. We overstay our welcome, we create more terrorists. We're on track, for the first time in a decade, to leave war behind in the next two years.

We won't convert the true haters; we will annoy many people who live where we've intruded.

I'm certainly not pro-war, but once begun it needs to be managed carefully.
 
2012-11-08 03:01:39 PM  

ciberido: The Dog Ate My Homework: I've never really understood the supposed "outrage" over the use of drones. The only difference between a drone and a regular aircraft is that the pilot for one is thousands of miles away sitting in an office while the pilot for the other is actually in the aircraft. Does it hurt less if you get blown up by a drone? Because I don't see the difference.

There's a fundamental concept, going back hundreds of years or more, that the other side deserves to be able to fight back. In the middle ages, it was concern about crossbowmen and archers being able to take out knights from a safe distance. When guns were first introduced to Japan, it was considered terrible that one man with a gun could shoot a samurai off his horse before he could close. During the early years of the American revolution, American tactics of hiding behind trees and using an early form of camouflage were thought of as despicable by the British, who were still marching in straight lines while wearing brightly-colored uniforms. (At least that's how the story goes; it appears to be more myth than fact).

At least with a manned aircraft you can hope to capture or kill the pilot by shooting down the plane. With an unmanned drone, even blowing it completely up doesn't incapacitate an enemy. You've just cost them money. It just seems unfair that you can't really fight back in any meaningful way to that particular attack.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about people's feelings. I'm not trying to argue the logic of the position.


The ability of the other to strike back is part of it, however there is also the worry that the killing becomes too sanitized and "too easy". There are more than a few arguments that the shift to an all volunteer military made the USA more likely to adventuring all over the world. That fact that the troops sign up seems to make people case that much less, and since our press very rarely reports what is happening to the other side... well that's all the war we get. Killbots, well they just make this worse. yeah they hurt in that they eat up the treasury, at least the raw materials do, but for every one that goes down a replacement must be made, so it's nice job security, all at the minimal cost of some people no one here will ever know or see. Bonus? if there are no troops, there are also no embedded reporters, unless they are embedded on the other side, in which case... oops.

I'm not opposed to kilbots, I make killbots. However, since the political repercussions of using killbots appear to be damn near zero... I do worry about their abuse just a bit.
 
2012-11-08 03:02:03 PM  

Fallout Boy: Again, I'm still waiting for a real liberal to show up on Fark. That, or for someone to finally admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is.


I consider myself a liberal. I voted for Obama. I admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is. And I'm glad to have made your day.
 
2012-11-08 03:02:28 PM  

iheartscotch: I remember another president that did similar things; all of you guys say he should be tried as a war criminal; what makes this any different?

On a serious note; BOOM, headshot


Really? I don't. I remember one that invaded foreign countries and killed tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians, though. So there's that.
 
2012-11-08 03:03:01 PM  

imgod2u: Erm, not in all cases? Soldiers in Afghanistan have taken in plenty Prisoners of War and either handed them off to a local government to be tried and executed (e.g. Saddam) or taken them out (e.g. bin Laden).


If Bin Laden had been captured alive it would have been illegal for the soldiers to then execute him.

Not saying that everything is always done by the book but this is what the book says. And we are discussing the legalities of things here.
 
2012-11-08 03:03:20 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.

So what?


So it's like comparing a team of liscened demolitionists to a guy ramming a pickup against a building to knock it down. Bush attacked an innocent Iraq on flase premises while declaring bin Laden unimportant, then it spread to other countries, and it accomplished nothing. Under Obama we have bin Laden dead, Ghadaffi dead, our troops out of Iraq, and surgical strikes as opposed to troops in harm's way.

And as I said in a previous response, we're not shooting and bombing willy-nilly. We do have spy drones, informants, and other intelligence over there, along with the assistance of the Yemeni. Civilian casualties are bad, unfortunately they're expected in wartime, but we're not deliberately aiming ar random civilians like you people seem to think.
 
2012-11-08 03:04:26 PM  

ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time. 

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.


If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.
 
2012-11-08 03:04:46 PM  

Baumli: Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.

Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people.
/nice tinfoil hat sir
/Obama 2012


Patriotism?
Look, AIPAC runs congress and has a great deal of influence in foreign policy decisions. That organization wants to make sure that American actions benefit Israel. Then you have the military industry. Do you think those people want to see an end to wars? You are putting a lot of faith in little people when huge interests are at work.

We keep getting back to who sets the definition of people that pose a risk to America. I don't think those people over there pose a risk to me. And if they do, they would be a lot less likely to if American troops weren't over there.

Also the US has enough military power to act however it wants around the world. If there is blowback though someday don't be surprised.
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report