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.

(The Atlantic)   "If a drone strike hit an American wedding, we would ground the fleet"   (theatlantic.com ) divider line 159
    More: Stupid, Americans, American Wedding, Hellfire missile, San Clemente  
•       •       •

2026 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2013 at 9:36 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-12-16 08:23:23 AM  
Depends on who got blown up. If we just wasted a bunch of hillbilly red necks or black people then odds are nobody would give a damn. If a rich, cute white girl had her wedding nuked from orbit tho, you can bet the country would be outraged.
 
2013-12-16 08:28:19 AM  
Good thing we have a congress that's able to provide effective oversight and...what? Benghazi again? Ok, ok, I'm sure they'll get right on it....really? Trying to repeal Obamacare? Goddammitsomuch.
 
2013-12-16 08:30:11 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-16 09:00:23 AM  
You never mix terror training camps with residential. That's just poor zoning, almost as bad as putting a strip club next to a church. Good zoning saves lives, Yemen.
 
2013-12-16 09:04:34 AM  
ecx.images-amazon.com


No, I think we'd throw a f*cking parade.
 
2013-12-16 09:05:28 AM  

Weaver95: Depends on who got blown up. If we just wasted a bunch of hillbilly red necks or black people then odds are nobody would give a damn. If a rich, cute white girl had her wedding nuked from orbit tho, you can bet the country would be outraged.


Wrong, with black people, Fox would blame them for acting suspicious and then post allegations of gang membership and drug use to defame them and imply they deserved it.
 
2013-12-16 09:10:19 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Weaver95: Depends on who got blown up. If we just wasted a bunch of hillbilly red necks or black people then odds are nobody would give a damn. If a rich, cute white girl had her wedding nuked from orbit tho, you can bet the country would be outraged.

Wrong, with black people, Fox would blame them for acting suspicious and then post allegations of gang membership and drug use to defame them and imply they deserved it.


Those drones were standing their sky.
 
2013-12-16 09:35:22 AM  

enry: Good thing we have a congress that's able to provide effective oversight



i1123.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-16 09:35:33 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: [i.imgur.com image 720x540]


Wow, he actually said that. I don't think the FDA has approved that much irony for consumption in a single day.
 
2013-12-16 09:40:16 AM  
So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.
 
2013-12-16 09:41:46 AM  
cdn.necolebitchie.com
I'm sure some of the people in the above picture are unmarried/about to be divorced (so you know another cash grab wedding is on the way), so... article is full of crap.
 
2013-12-16 09:42:12 AM  
IIRC, none of those deaths were non-combatants according to the US's definition of non-combatant. Therefore, there is no reason for outrage here.
 
2013-12-16 09:43:51 AM  
Serious question: is there not a culture in the area of Wedding convoys where they fire weapons out the windows, etc? This could be confusing. Not an excuse or anything, but I'm guessing we're not looking at a limo with cans on the back.

Irving Maimway: DammitIForgotMyLogin: [i.imgur.com image 720x540]

Wow, he actually said that. I don't think the FDA has approved that much irony for consumption in a single day.


It's a little bit different when the country in question specifically allows the strikes.
 
2013-12-16 09:44:27 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: [i.imgur.com image 720x540]


He did say from outside its borders.  Drones tend to be in the country's borders
 
2013-12-16 09:44:33 AM  

ikanreed: So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.


"Butt...butbutbutbutbut...It's patriotic when WE do it!!!!!"

/facepalm in the GOP's general direction.
 
2013-12-16 09:46:36 AM  
Yes, but this was in Yemen so we really don't give a fark.
 
2013-12-16 09:47:05 AM  
If they were males over the age of 15, as far as the Obama administration is concerned, they were combatants.
 
2013-12-16 09:51:25 AM  

LasersHurt: Serious question: is there not a culture in the area of Wedding convoys where they fire weapons out the windows, etc? This could be confusing. Not an excuse or anything, but I'm guessing we're not looking at a limo with cans on the back.

Irving Maimway: DammitIForgotMyLogin: [i.imgur.com image 720x540]

Wow, he actually said that. I don't think the FDA has approved that much irony for consumption in a single day.

It's a little bit different when the country in question specifically allows the strikes.


One night while I was on patrol in Iraq we kept seeing tracers fly through the air. So we drove all over south eastern Baghdad trying to find the shooting. Eventually it came over the radio that the national soccer team had won a match and it was celebratory fire.
 
2013-12-16 09:52:43 AM  
When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.

This thread was done in just 2, with several other efforts following soon thereafter. Keep up the good work, shills.
 
2013-12-16 09:53:28 AM  
But the drone attack was worth it, see.
They killed five people "suspected" of "involvement" with al Qaeda, and in the process convinced a few dozen more to either join al Qaeda or their support network real soon now, if they haven't already.

If the goal is to never run out of sworn enemies, that was ordinance well spent.
 
2013-12-16 09:53:54 AM  

The Numbers: When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.

This thread was done in just 2, with several other efforts following soon thereafter. Keep up the good work, shills.


Nothing mentions republicans until the 10th post.
 
2013-12-16 09:54:08 AM  
There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.
 
2013-12-16 09:57:59 AM  

A Cave Geek: ikanreed: So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.

"Butt...butbutbutbutbut...It's patriotic when WE do it!!!!!"

/facepalm in the GOP's general direction.


So we can mark you guys down as approving of this sort of thing?
 
2013-12-16 09:59:37 AM  

LasersHurt: The Numbers: When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.

This thread was done in just 2, with several other efforts following soon thereafter. Keep up the good work, shills.

Nothing mentions republicans until the 10th post.


I'm certainly impressed by the level of wilful ignorance required for that remark. Many Democrats campaigned for the repeal of Obamacare, have they?
 
2013-12-16 10:00:04 AM  

The Numbers: When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.

This thread was done in just 2, with several other efforts following soon thereafter. Keep up the good work, shills.


And I think more stones are being thrown at the President than the GOP. Nice try to play the victim card though.
 
2013-12-16 10:01:53 AM  
FTFA: Can you imagine the wall-to-wall press coverage, the outrage, and the empathy for the victims that would follow if an American wedding were attacked in this fashion? Or how you'd feel about a foreign power that attacked your wedding in this fashion?

Except that 1) Yemenis don't vote in U.S. Presidential elections, and 2) if anyone cared about blowing up innocent brown people we wouldn't have recently invaded and overthrown Iraq in the first place. So that ship has sailed a long-ass time ago.
 
2013-12-16 10:02:45 AM  

Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.


5 of the 17 people killed were suspected of ties to Al-Qaeda. Even if you're really gun ho about killing terrorists "Almost a third of the people we killed were bad guys" is ridiculous.
 
2013-12-16 10:02:52 AM  

The Numbers: LasersHurt: The Numbers: When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.

This thread was done in just 2, with several other efforts following soon thereafter. Keep up the good work, shills.

Nothing mentions republicans until the 10th post.

I'm certainly impressed by the level of wilful ignorance required for that remark. Many Democrats campaigned for the repeal of Obamacare, have they?


The post was about how Congress cannot provide oversight because they're shallow assholes. Just because that happens to be largely the whelhouse of Republicans, it's off-limits? I mean the post was ABOUT drone oversight, it sounds pretty on-topic to me.

There was an obvious deflecting post  later on; why it's important to you to glom onto the second one is beyond me.
 
2013-12-16 10:03:03 AM  

Weaver95: Depends on who got blown up. If we just wasted a bunch of hillbilly red necks or black people then odds are nobody would give a damn. If a rich, cute white girl had her wedding nuked from orbit tho, you can bet the country would be outraged.


Are you kidding? That would be the best episode of "Bridezilla" ever!
 
2013-12-16 10:03:13 AM  

Nabb1: A Cave Geek: ikanreed: So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.

"Butt...butbutbutbutbut...It's patriotic when WE do it!!!!!"

/facepalm in the GOP's general direction.

So we can mark you guys down as approving of this sort of thing?


Did you read my post?  Of course I don't approve, but I'm not likely to consider the attacks against something, by someone whose solution to it would be to amp it up.  There's a better approach to the drone/terrorism problem from the left, but at the national level, we have all of 2 or 3 people who are genuinely liberal.
 
2013-12-16 10:05:31 AM  
So, this is where people rage about drones again, despite them dramatically reducing civilian casualties over jet airstrikes, ground troops, and all other "conventional" warfare tactics.  W and Rumsfeld's "Light and Fast" military strategy killed double-digit civilians every single day of its use, and they often blew up entire apartment buildings to hit one guy.
 
2013-12-16 10:06:51 AM  

The Numbers: When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.


I personally would have expected more from the 'loyal opposition' myself, but Obamaghazigatecareghazi seems to still preoccupy them.
 
2013-12-16 10:09:44 AM  
If we gave small pox blankets to Americans, if we firebombed Cleveland, if we nuked San Fransisco, if we sent poison spray tan to John Boehner . . . I mean shiat now.  The list of things we've done is pretty damned inexhaustible
 
2013-12-16 10:10:13 AM  

Nabb1: A Cave Geek: ikanreed: So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.

"Butt...butbutbutbutbut...It's patriotic when WE do it!!!!!"

/facepalm in the GOP's general direction.

So we can mark you guys down as approving of this sort of thing?


Not at all, just not willing to tolerate any more hypocritical herp-a-doo from hypocritical republicans today.  Bad mood.  Sorry.
 
2013-12-16 10:11:21 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: [i.imgur.com image 720x540]


Technically, our drones' missiles are launched from  inside those countries' borders.
 
2013-12-16 10:11:47 AM  

Insaniteus: W and Rumsfeld's "Light and Fast" military strategy killed double-digit civilians every single day of its use, and they often blew up entire apartment buildings to hit one guy


i.imgur.com

Well if you assholes hadn't foiled Dr. Jerome Hathaway's 5 megawatt laser back in the 80's we'd have a much more efficient way of taking out the bad guys, wouldn't we?

Q.E.D. Libulardos.

Q.E.D.
 
2013-12-16 10:14:17 AM  

ikanreed: So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.


...RAND PAUL
 
2013-12-16 10:18:39 AM  

Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.


Think of it as the 50s, your in Chicago and these terrorist are Mob Gangsters.
 
2013-12-16 10:18:56 AM  

Insaniteus: So, this is where people rage about drones again, despite them dramatically reducing civilian casualties over jet airstrikes, ground troops, and all other "conventional" warfare tactics.  W and Rumsfeld's "Light and Fast" military strategy killed double-digit civilians every single day of its use, and they often blew up entire apartment buildings to hit one guy.


Dropping the bombs at all is just a fact of life. Can't be helped. We're America and America drops bombs. Its what's done.
 
2013-12-16 10:20:41 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Can you imagine the wall-to-wall press coverage, the outrage, and the empathy for the victims that would follow if an American wedding were attacked in this fashion? Or how you'd feel about a foreign power that attacked your wedding in this fashion?

Except that 1) Yemenis don't vote in U.S. Presidential elections, and 2) if anyone cared about blowing up innocent brown people we wouldn't have recently invaded and overthrown Iraq in the first place. So that ship has sailed a long-ass time ago.


I think the point was more that if another country did this to people at an American wedding (or anywhere in America for that matter) even on the justification that the target was an enemy of their nation who was actively engaged in military plots to cause their nation harm that people in the US would be pretty farking upset and demand some sort of retaliation.
 
2013-12-16 10:22:50 AM  

LasersHurt: The Numbers: LasersHurt: The Numbers: When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.

This thread was done in just 2, with several other efforts following soon thereafter. Keep up the good work, shills.

Nothing mentions republicans until the 10th post.

I'm certainly impressed by the level of wilful ignorance required for that remark. Many Democrats campaigned for the repeal of Obamacare, have they?

The post was about how Congress cannot provide oversight because they're shallow assholes. Just because that happens to be largely the whelhouse of Republicans, it's off-limits? I mean the post was ABOUT drone oversight, it sounds pretty on-topic to me.


It's a legitimate area for criticism sure, but basic common sense would tell you that when something farked up happens, the first port of call for scrutiny should be the people who actually did it. Immediately criticizing the guys doing the oversight instead smacks of deflecting attention to a more comfortable target.

There was an obvious deflecting post  later on; why it's important to you to glom onto the second one is beyond me.

This is the Politics tab, so there's always a rush of partisan 'deflection' posts. I'm simply amused by the speed at which it happens sometimes.
 
2013-12-16 10:22:54 AM  

A Cave Geek: Nabb1: A Cave Geek: ikanreed: So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.

"Butt...butbutbutbutbut...It's patriotic when WE do it!!!!!"

/facepalm in the GOP's general direction.

So we can mark you guys down as approving of this sort of thing?

Not at all, just not willing to tolerate any more hypocritical herp-a-doo from hypocritical republicans today.  Bad mood.  Sorry.


Also, everyone should know that this was Obama's declared foreign policy in 2008, when he was running for president.  It was just less shiatty than McCain literally engaged in joyous song about bombing Iran.
 
2013-12-16 10:26:00 AM  
I have no doubt there'd be an outcry to ground them... wouldn't happen though.  Gotta go to war against terrorism, after all.  Blink for a second and somewhere, someone will use terrorism.  It would just be brave Americans sacrificing their lives so that terrorism can be stopped.
 
2013-12-16 10:30:44 AM  

Irving Maimway: The Numbers: When you see a story like this on fark, it's really quite amusing to watch just how quickly the conversation will be shifted to the much more comfortable subject of how bad the republicans are.

This thread was done in just 2, with several other efforts following soon thereafter. Keep up the good work, shills.

And I think more stones are being thrown at the President than the GOP.


Well, we can both watch this thread and see if that bears out, can't we?

Nice try to play the victim card though.

No victim card here. I've no love for the GOP and they've no credibility on this issue (or pretty much anywhere else for that matter).
 
2013-12-16 10:30:46 AM  

Target Builder: I think the point was more that if another country did this to people at an American wedding (or anywhere in America for that matter)


theruleoffreedom.files.wordpress.com

Of course. Can you imagine how badly Americans would lose their shiat if Iran or China had military bases in Canada or Mexico? This is what progressives were talking about for decades during the Cold War. You couldn't expect the U.S. to put nuclear missiles in Europe and Turkey and then lose your shiat when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba. But that's how Americans roll. They expect to exercise their strategic superiority granted to them by two huge-ass Oceans on either side of them.

/American
 
2013-12-16 10:30:55 AM  

Weaver95: Depends on who got blown up. If we just wasted a bunch of hillbilly red necks or black people then odds are nobody would give a damn. If a rich, cute white girl had her wedding nuked from orbit tho, you can bet the country would be outraged.


Just ask the families from Ruby Ridge or Waco TX. They were written off as loons who deserved to die.
 
2013-12-16 10:34:41 AM  

ikanreed: Also, everyone should know that this was Obama's declared foreign policy in 2008, when he was running for president.  It was just less shiatty than McCain literally engaged in joyous song about bombing Iran.

i.imgur.com


A lot of people forget Obama's openly stated policy goals. Some of us voted for him because of his openly stated policy goals.
 
2013-12-16 10:36:12 AM  

ikanreed: Nabb1: A Cave Geek: ikanreed: So, republicans, if you run someone who promises a complete end to interventionism for "our protection", your critiques of "Obama's drones" would hold a lot more water.  I don't like it, but the biggest complainers seem like they'd not only continue it, but start a war in Iran too.

"Butt...butbutbutbutbut...It's patriotic when WE do it!!!!!"

/facepalm in the GOP's general direction.

So we can mark you guys down as approving of this sort of thing?

Did you read my post?  Of course I don't approve, but I'm not likely to consider the attacks against something, by someone whose solution to it would be to amp it up.  There's a better approach to the drone/terrorism problem from the left, but at the national level, we have all of 2 or 3 people who are genuinely liberal.


I'm trying to think of who the third is.
 
2013-12-16 10:37:31 AM  

MindStalker: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Think of it as the 50s, your in Chicago and these terrorist are Mob Gangsters.


We routinely killed the wives and children of Mob men and not a single tear was shed
 
2013-12-16 10:40:46 AM  
Yep. American foreign policy sucks rancid donkey balls - has for near 70 years.
Nice that so many people seem to finally be noticing it.
I wonder what it was that finally got it across to them?
 
2013-12-16 10:43:02 AM  

jso2897: Yep. American foreign policy sucks rancid donkey balls - has for near 70 years.
Nice that so many people seem to finally be noticing it.
I wonder what it was that finally got it across to them?


Probably the guy who should be impeached for Presidenting while Black.
 
2013-12-16 10:44:06 AM  
Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
 
2013-12-16 10:45:58 AM  

Weaver95: Depends on who got blown up. If we just wasted a bunch of hillbilly red necks or black people then odds are nobody would give a damn. If a rich, cute white girl had her wedding nuked from orbit tho, you can bet the country would be outraged.


Been awhile since I've agreed with you.  I'd add that if it was a Hollywood wedding, we'd be okay with it too.  Like if Alec Baldwin remarries.
 
2013-12-16 10:46:42 AM  
Somacandra
A lot of people forget Obama's openly stated policy goals. Some of us voted for him because of his openly stated policy goals.

The Obama campaign won the marketing industry award for 2008. Yes, you're right that "some" people voted for Obama because of what he actually stands for- the rest voted for him because of what it was suggested he stands for. Words are cheap. He could have, and, as you just said, actually did, come right out and said that he was going to keep up the drone strikes, in addition to other programs that a large swath of his base finds abhorrent like ACA without single-payer or even public option, letting the banksters off the hook for looting the economy, supporting Keystone XL and continuing the facilitation of other environmentally-destructive extraction, being open to cutting Social Security... but it doesn't matter because they had a psychologically-manipulative ad campaign that, like all good marketing, made people's higher cognitive functions shut down.
 
2013-12-16 10:47:18 AM  

Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.


Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration
 
2013-12-16 10:48:05 AM  
I imagine I would be so much happier if I had the ability to focus on one aspect of an issue, but be able to completely ignore any other facets of that issue.
Then I could be like the article writer, and everything would be rainbows and unicorns in my life.
 
2013-12-16 10:50:01 AM  

I_C_Weener: I'd add that if it was a Hollywood wedding, we'd be okay with it too.  Like if Alec Baldwin remarries.


i.imgur.com

"ALL OF THE BALDWINS ARE DEAD?"
 
2013-12-16 10:53:47 AM  

machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration


Anyone who runs is a militant. Anyone who stands still is a well-trained militant. GET SOME!
 
2013-12-16 10:54:04 AM  

machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration


So you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?
 
2013-12-16 10:55:22 AM  
If it were a B1 that dropped a smart bomb on the party, it'd be different, said nobody ever.

It's not like it was an accident.  They chose to attack that party and because of it they killed 5 terrorists and 9 innocent people.  The problem isn't the drones, it's the intelligence and decision making processes of the people giving the orders.
 
2013-12-16 10:55:46 AM  

jso2897: Yep. American foreign policy sucks rancid donkey balls - has for near 70 years.
Nice that so many people seem to finally be noticing it.
I wonder what it was that finally got it across to them?


The rest of the world has known for a very long time, some Americans are only waking up to it now.

Those nameless, faceless people massacred in drone strikes DO have names.  And families.  And communities.  And to their families and communities, they were not accidentally killed, they were murdered.  So any of those people who liked America before now blame America for murdering their friends or family.  Any who hated America now have their opinion vindicated.

You're aware that the USA uses a "doubletap" strategy where they hit the same area directly afterwards, to kill people trying to save the injured from the initial strike, right?  Adds more hatred.
 
2013-12-16 10:56:13 AM  

RanDomino: in addition to other programs that a large swath of his base finds abhorrent like ACA without single-payer or even public option


Do you really think "abhorrent" is the correct term to use there?

RanDomino: supporting Keystone XL


It seems like his "support" of Keystone XL amounts to "let the process continue". Additionally, I doubt most people would even know or care what Keystone XL was if the GOP hadn't brought it up in the first place.

RanDomino: letting the banksters off the hook for looting the economy


We're sorry the DOJ didn't prosecute and jail some of the richest and most powerful people in the country fast enough for something that largely wasn't illegal at the time.

RanDomino: being open to cutting Social Security


This one, yes. Putting Social Security cuts on the table was a massive mistake.
 
2013-12-16 10:56:24 AM  

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration

So you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?


I don't. I just think we give zero farks about collateral damage because there appear to be no repercussions for it. I mean, Amnesty International has labeled our drone strikes as "war crimes," but you have to pay attention to foreign media sources to find out about that.
 
2013-12-16 10:57:37 AM  

RanDomino: The Obama campaign won the marketing industry award for 2008. Yes, you're right that "some" people voted for Obama because of what he actually stands for- the rest voted for him because of what it was suggested he stands for.


As opposed to 2000, when everyone voted for nation-building and against more Star Wars.

Or 2010, when everyone voted for Representatives with a laser-like focus on jobs abortion, rape, "fark the libs", "screw the poor", and repealing Obamacare.
 
2013-12-16 11:01:58 AM  

seniorgato: It's not like it was an accident.  They chose to attack that party and because of it they killed 5 terrorists and 9 innocent people.  The problem isn't the drones, it's the intelligence and decision making processes of the people giving the orders.


SUSPECTED terrorists with no names, and the proof they're terrorists is Top Secret and will never be released.  That, to me, is the most salient fact.

Executed with no proof of wrongdoing, no actual trial or evidence presented before or after the execution.  Just killed and ignored.  Not a whiff of any due process.
 
2013-12-16 11:02:01 AM  
This is why I never RSVP 'yes' when Al Qaeda's #2 guy invites me to a wedding.
 
2013-12-16 11:03:14 AM  
If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.
 
2013-12-16 11:06:05 AM  

Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.


So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?
 
2013-12-16 11:07:58 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.
 
2013-12-16 11:10:28 AM  

jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.


I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.  They seem incapable of making that connection without my help.
 
2013-12-16 11:11:11 AM  

jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.


We are not at war with Yemen. This policy is to carry out extra-judicial executions of people determined to be terror threats by the Administration. Perhaps you should focus your concerns more on the policy being criticized than trying to make the critics the issue.
 
2013-12-16 11:11:22 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.


Liberals will continue to point out Obama isn't a liberal.
 
2013-12-16 11:11:38 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?



Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.
 
2013-12-16 11:13:51 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.



Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.
 
2013-12-16 11:14:05 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.


You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.
 
2013-12-16 11:16:01 AM  

Nabb1: We are not at war with Yemen Iraq. This policy is to carry out extra-judicial executions of people determined to be terror threats by the Administration. Perhaps you should focus your concerns more on the policy being criticized than trying to make the critics the issue.



Circa 2002. Don't worry. I remember you cheerleading the invasion/occupation even if you don't.
 
2013-12-16 11:16:03 AM  
Americans bombing random brown people, nothing to see here, move on people.
 
2013-12-16 11:16:34 AM  

Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.


Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.
 
2013-12-16 11:17:31 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.



And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.
 
2013-12-16 11:18:04 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.


Don't forget the Benghazi...
 
2013-12-16 11:19:07 AM  

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration

So you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?


Not at all, but it isn't unheard of that some Pakistani local doesn't like a rival tribe, so he informs the CIA that they got them there terrorists. Even though that tribe had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism, they still get missiled
 
2013-12-16 11:19:24 AM  
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-dead l y-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

More and more, while the overall frequency of strikes has fallen since a Nato attack in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained US-Pakistan relations, initial strikes are now followed up by further missiles in a tactic which lawyers and campaigners say is killing an even greater number of civilians. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that rescuers often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.


"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it.
 
2013-12-16 11:19:35 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.


And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.


Still don't want to discuss the issue, do you? That's fine. Not everyone has the capacity to discuss actual policy issues. These things can get complicated sometimes.
 
2013-12-16 11:20:37 AM  
qorkfiend
Do you really think "abhorrent" is the correct term to use there?

I could have gone with "atrocious" or "frankly, evil,".

fast enough

implying it happened at all?

mistake

"mistake"


Dr Dreidel
As opposed to 2000, when everyone voted for nation-building and against more Star Wars.

Or 2010, when everyone voted for Representatives with a laser-like focus on jobs abortion, rape, "fark the libs", "screw the poor", and repealing Obamacare.


I never mentioned them, but my point applies to them as well. People don't vote based on actual policy, but on image and feeling. In 2010 the Democrats appeared to be failures (they had just had total filibuster-proof legislative power for months and did essentially nothing with it) and the Republicans were riding a wave of appearing strong and ascendant; who wouldn't want to join the winning team? 2000 is a special case- it was so close because there seemed to be (and, likely, were) so few substantive and image differences, so it came down to flipping a coin a hundred million times.
 
2013-12-16 11:20:57 AM  

jakomo002: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-dead l y-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

More and more, while the overall frequency of strikes has fallen since a Nato attack in 2011 killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and strained US-Pakistan relations, initial strikes are now followed up by further missiles in a tactic which lawyers and campaigners say is killing an even greater number of civilians. The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that rescuers often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack.


"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it.


At least we know Obama watched Zombieland.
 
2013-12-16 11:21:25 AM  

monoski: bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.

Don't forget the Benghazi...


Is this the new math I've been hearing so much about? Glad we can simplify the complex machinery of international extrajudicial actions and mulit-state diplomacy down to "Obama=X." Really saves time.
 
2013-12-16 11:21:37 AM  

monoski: bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.

Don't forget the Benghazi...


If I knew what happened I could say if it was a problem or not.  I still do not know what happened and either do you.  Yes; however, whatever happened in Benghazi was the responsibility of the State department that reports directly to Obama.  So once again good or bad Benghazi = Obama.
 
2013-12-16 11:21:59 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Is this the new math I've been hearing so much about? Glad we can simplify the complex machinery of international extrajudicial actions and mulit-state diplomacy down to "Obama=X." Really saves time.


Yes we can

Thanks Obama
 
2013-12-16 11:23:34 AM  

RanDomino: qorkfiend
Do you really think "abhorrent" is the correct term to use there?

I could have gone with "atrocious" or "frankly, evil,".


You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option? To the point where you would use terms like "abhorrent", "atrocious", and "frankly, evil" to refer to the ACA?
 
2013-12-16 11:24:32 AM  
jakomo002
"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it.

A tactic pioneered by al-Qaeda-style terrorists themselves, who occasionally use two car bombs- one to kill a crowd, one to kill first responders.
 
2013-12-16 11:25:26 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: monoski: bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.

Don't forget the Benghazi...

Is this the new math I've been hearing so much about? Glad we can simplify the complex machinery of international extrajudicial actions and mulit-state diplomacy down to "Obama=X." Really saves time.


When you are in charge everything is on you.  He picked the department heads.  What they do is a result of that pick.  He is supposed to monitor them and guide them.  If he does not monitor effectivly then their actions are his fault.  You cant be in charge and not be responsible.
 
2013-12-16 11:27:54 AM  
Look, some of us really hate weddings, okay? DON'T JUDGE ME!
 
2013-12-16 11:28:51 AM  
qorkfiend
You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option?

If Obama had wanted it, there was support for public option at the very least. Not having it means millions of people without insurance, and thousands of them will die for it. Yes, I think the deaths of thousands counts as "atrocious".
 
2013-12-16 11:29:20 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.

I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.  They seem incapable of making that connection without my help.


Well, fine, but having achieved the education of liberals, perhaps we could move on to the issue of what is so fundamentally wrong with our foreign policy. Neither Obama nor any other President should get a pass for continuing these bad policies. But Obama is a lame duck no one will ever have another chance to vote against, and in 2017 he'll be replaced by some other guy (or gal) who will enact some version of the exact same policies - unless somebody (like us) demands that something change.
From the end of WWII to today, we have crafted a foreign policy that consists of interfering in the affairs of other nations in order to achieve our own policy ends. That has brought some good things to be (arguably, anyway), but it has had a terrible cost, and there will also be a point of sharply diminishing returns - one I think we are reaching now.
More paranoia, more expense, more risk - and less real; security seems to be what we're actually getting.
Nobody  (with any brains) expected Obama to change this - he's a Reagan Democrat, FFS.
If we want our foreign policy to change we need to elect some VERY different leaders.
 
2013-12-16 11:31:04 AM  

RanDomino: A tactic pioneered by al-Qaeda-style terrorists themselves, who occasionally use two car bombs- one to kill a crowd, one to kill first responders.


Bingo.  Making it hard to differentiate drone strikes from state-sponsored terrorism.  Just the sound of a drone could mean your house is about to get hit, and innocence doesn't stop you and your family from being blown to bits.

It's disgusting and Americans deserve better from their governments.
 
2013-12-16 11:32:17 AM  

RanDomino: qorkfiend
You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option?

If Obama had wanted it, there was support for public option at the very least. Not having it means millions of people without insurance, and thousands of them will die for it. Yes, I think the deaths of thousands counts as "atrocious".


Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and their health insurance company-lined vaults would beg to differ.
 
2013-12-16 11:34:01 AM  
Serious Black
Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and their health insurance company-lined vaults would beg to differ.

Right, I should have been clear that I meant public support.
 
2013-12-16 11:34:13 AM  
WE?Who is we? It's they. They run the drones, not we.
 
2013-12-16 11:34:45 AM  

jakomo002: RanDomino: A tactic pioneered by al-Qaeda-style terrorists themselves, who occasionally use two car bombs- one to kill a crowd, one to kill first responders.

Bingo.   Making it hard to differentiate drone strikes from state-sponsored terrorism. Just the sound of a drone could mean your house is about to get hit, and innocence doesn't stop you and your family from being blown to bits.

It's disgusting and Americans deserve better from their governments.


Duh, drones are more expensive and shinier.  It's like you have no experience at all being part of an evil empire.
 
2013-12-16 11:35:30 AM  

jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.

I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.  They seem incapable of making that connection without my help.

Well, fine, but having achieved the education of liberals, perhaps we could move on to the issue of what is so fundamentally wrong with our foreign policy. Neither Obama nor any other President should get a pass for continuing these bad policies. But Obama is a lame duck no one will ever have another chance to vote against, and in 2017 he'll be replaced by some other guy (or gal) who will enact some version of the exact same policies - unless somebody (like us) demands that something change.
From the end of WWII to today, we have crafted a foreign policy that consists of interfering in the affairs of other nations in order to achieve our own policy ends. That has brought some good things to be (arguably, anyway), but it has had a terrible cost, and there will also be a point of sharply diminishing returns - one I think we are reaching now.
More paranoia, more expense, more risk - and less real; security seems to be what we're actually getting.
Nobody  (with any brains) expected Obama to change this - he's a Reagan Democrat, FFS.
If we want our foreign policy to change we need to elect some VERY different leaders.


^^^^^^^^^^this.  This is indeed a rare find on Fark.  An ideology without partisan noise cluttering up the post.  Well done.  I agree with you mostly.  I am a fan of isolationist policies.  Our current policy is to defend corporate interests at the expense of American lives and reputation.
 
2013-12-16 11:37:01 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: Lord_Baull: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.


Credit for killing OBL, on the other hand, goes directly to Seal Team Six.

Nope.  Obama.  Good or bad he is my president and he is the commander in chief.  The buck stops with him.  NSA = Obama.  Killing OBL = Obama.



That's refreshing to hear.
 
2013-12-16 11:37:46 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: When you are in charge everything is on you.  He picked the department heads.  What they do is a result of that pick.  He is supposed to monitor them and guide them.  If he does not monitor effectivly then their actions are his fault.  You cant be in charge and not be responsible.


The President of the USA is a role, like James Bond.  You'll get different actors but they play the same basic role.  The key is consistency.

They just read the scripts, they take orders from the director and the producers.  If they can't do that, they're replaced by the next film.

Oh, and they can NEVER criticise the Bond actors who came before them.
 
2013-12-16 11:38:15 AM  

RanDomino: qorkfiend
You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option?

If Obama had wanted it, there was support for public option at the very least. Not having it means millions of people without insurance, and thousands of them will die for it. Yes, I think the deaths of thousands counts as "atrocious".


I think "atrocious" would be a word to describe the pre-ACA status quo, which had even more people without insurance, and more people dying because of it, and "frankly evil" to describe people who supported that system. Apparently, you would use the same words to describe both the ACA and pre-ACA, from which one might infer that you place them on the same level. Why is that?
 
2013-12-16 11:39:15 AM  
jso2897
If we want our foreign policy to change we need to elect some VERY different leaders.

"If voting changed anything, it would be made illegal."
 
2013-12-16 11:40:16 AM  

jakomo002: bigsteve3OOO: When you are in charge everything is on you.  He picked the department heads.  What they do is a result of that pick.  He is supposed to monitor them and guide them.  If he does not monitor effectivly then their actions are his fault.  You cant be in charge and not be responsible.

The President of the USA is a role, like James Bond.  You'll get different actors but they play the same basic role.  The key is consistency.

They just read the scripts, they take orders from the director and the producers.  If they can't do that, they're replaced by the next film.

Oh, and they can NEVER criticise the Bond actors who came before them.


I believe this is true.  It is also not how it is supposed to be..
 
2013-12-16 11:41:32 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.


And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.

Still don't want to discuss the issue, do you? That's fine. Not everyone has the capacity to discuss actual policy issues. These things can get complicated sometimes.


Is that why instead of you, Nabb1, discussing the issue you made such a trollingly disingenuous response?

Is there anywhere in the thread you discuss the issue? I'll admit I may have missed it.

/farking threadshiatters ruin this site.
 
2013-12-16 11:42:16 AM  

RanDomino: Somacandra
A lot of people forget Obama's openly stated policy goals. Some of us voted for him because of his openly stated policy goals.

The Obama campaign won the marketing industry award for 2008. Yes, you're right that "some" people voted for Obama because of what he actually stands for- the rest voted for him because of what it was suggested he stands for. Words are cheap. He could have, and, as you just said, actually did, come right out and said that he was going to keep up the drone strikes, in addition to other programs that a large swath of his base finds abhorrent like ACA without single-payer or even public option, letting the banksters off the hook for looting the economy, supporting Keystone XL and continuing the facilitation of other environmentally-destructive extraction, being open to cutting Social Security... but it doesn't matter because they had a psychologically-manipulative ad campaign that, like all good marketing, made people's higher cognitive functions shut down.


I think he's a product of his times. He's the first black president and followed one of the most unpopular presidents in the last 100 years.  Furthermore, he's well-timed to fill a void on the left.  People evolved to be religious, the so-called "God gene" that many people have.  We, especially on the left, have now identified religion as something we don't need, yet we still need something to focus those religious behaviors toward.  Some people go for brand loyalties, many go for political parties.  Obama gained quite the following by plugging into that need.  His marketing team is brilliant.  While the GOP throws out cringe-inducing rants that seem to be tailored for Homer Simpson's father, Obama's team is doing in-depth data analytics to craft the perfect message.
 
2013-12-16 11:42:20 AM  

odinsposse: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

5 of the 17 people killed were suspected of ties to Al-Qaeda. Even if you're really gun ho about killing terrorists "Almost a third of the people we killed were bad guys" is ridiculous.


Wouldn't it be almost a third of the people we killed were suspected bad guys?
 
2013-12-16 11:42:50 AM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.


And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.

Still don't want to discuss the issue, do you? That's fine. Not everyone has the capacity to discuss actual policy issues. These things can get complicated sometimes.



Fine. I think drone strikes against terrorists targets are a better, more efficient method than tens of thousands of troops on the ground for years at a time. I also believe that the killing of innocent civilians is a terrible, unnecessary waste and extremely regrettable. I also believe that a dozen innocent deaths is more acceptable to me than the 174,000 caused by Bush's invasion of Iraq. Happy?
 
2013-12-16 11:43:31 AM  

RanDomino: qorkfiend
You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option?

If Obama had wanted it, there was support for public option at the very least. Not having it means millions of people without insurance, and thousands of them will die for it. Yes, I think the deaths of thousands counts as "atrocious".


There was nowhere near enough support for a public option.
 
2013-12-16 11:46:31 AM  

jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: jso2897: bigsteve3OOO: Obama could stop drone attacks, he does not want to.  He increased them.  Right or wrong he is responsible for them.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Any President  in my lifetime since Truman could have stopped policies that kill and injure innocent civilians. None have.
I'm curious as to what has made you come to perceive this at this point in time.

I will continue to point out that Obama is in charge and responsible for things that liberals hate.  They seem incapable of making that connection without my help.

Well, fine, but having achieved the education of liberals, perhaps we could move on to the issue of what is so fundamentally wrong with our foreign policy. Neither Obama nor any other President should get a pass for continuing these bad policies. But Obama is a lame duck no one will ever have another chance to vote against, and in 2017 he'll be replaced by some other guy (or gal) who will enact some version of the exact same policies - unless somebody (like us) demands that something change.
From the end of WWII to today, we have crafted a foreign policy that consists of interfering in the affairs of other nations in order to achieve our own policy ends. That has brought some good things to be (arguably, anyway), but it has had a terrible cost, and there will also be a point of sharply diminishing returns - one I think we are reaching now.
More paranoia, more expense, more risk - and less real; security seems to be what we're actually getting.
Nobody  (with any brains) expected Obama to change this - he's a Reagan Democrat, FFS.
If we want our foreign policy to change we need to elect some VERY different leaders.


So Jeb Bush for president? Mabey Hillary Clinton instead?
 
2013-12-16 11:46:35 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: I believe this is true.  It is also not how it is supposed to be..


It's why I hope Elizabeth Warren never runs.  She can enact far more change in a lesser role, and the Presidency would inevitably quash that.

I had high hopes for Obama, but he's just the first black actor to play Bond, that's all.  And the movie has the same plot, same villains, and same setting.
 
2013-12-16 11:48:17 AM  
RanDomino: "If voting changed anything, it would be made illegal."  -Rand Paul

sorry, pet peeve
 
2013-12-16 11:49:09 AM  

qorkfiend: RanDomino: qorkfiend
You would prefer the pre-ACA status quo to an ACA without a public option?

If Obama had wanted it, there was support for public option at the very least. Not having it means millions of people without insurance, and thousands of them will die for it. Yes, I think the deaths of thousands counts as "atrocious".

I think "atrocious" would be a word to describe the pre-ACA status quo, which had even more people without insurance, and more people dying because of it, and "frankly evil" to describe people who supported that system. Apparently, you would use the same words to describe both the ACA and pre-ACA, from which one might infer that you place them on the same level. Why is that?


If people were starving and I fed half of them, RanDomino would call be a murderer.
 
2013-12-16 11:49:13 AM  
I don't think we'd ground them, that's kind of harsh.

Maybe a 5 minute time-out and a stern talking too.
 
2013-12-16 11:50:29 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.


And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.

Still don't want to discuss the issue, do you? That's fine. Not everyone has the capacity to discuss actual policy issues. These things can get complicated sometimes.


Fine. I think drone strikes against terrorists targets are a better, more efficient method than tens of thousands of troops on the ground for years at a time. I also believe that the killing of innocent civilians is a terrible, unnecessary waste and extremely regrettable. I also believe that a dozen innocent deaths is more acceptable to me than the 174,000 caused by Bush's invasion of Iraq. Happy?


So, you are okay with the President unilaterally executing people in countries with whom we are not at war, a determination made without oversight, due process or judicial review, and one that kills many innocent civilians and has drawn condemnation from human rights groups?
 
2013-12-16 11:51:14 AM  

Lord_Baull: Fine. I think drone strikes against terrorists targets are a better, more efficient method than tens of thousands of troops on the ground for years at a time.


SUSPECTED terrorists whose names and alleged crimes are rarely if ever released and whose execution is often unreported, ESPECIALLY by those who determine the guilt and the time and manner of execution.
 
2013-12-16 11:53:34 AM  
qorkfiend
I think "atrocious" would be a word to describe the pre-ACA status quo

You're attempting to say that the only choices were ACA or the previous situation, and I don't accept that.

Apparently, you would use the same words to describe both the ACA and pre-ACA, from which one might infer that you place them on the same level. Why is that?

Putting a band-aid on an arterial wound might be "better" but that doesn't make it sufficient.
Democrats keep trying to tell me that ACA somehow lays the groundwork for public option or single-payer, but never flesh out that argument or provide a road map, and the framing of ACA (such as calling people who use it "consumers" rather than something more like "citizens") doesn't seem to be leading into the New Deal/Great Society program I've been assured it is, rather than the product of a conservative think tank that it actually is.  It seems rather to be a proof-of-concept of integrating privatization into government programs in a way that could just as easily be applied to medicare, social security, and education ("If you like your school, you can keep it!").
 
2013-12-16 11:55:01 AM  

Nabb1: So, you are okay with the President unilaterally executing people in countries with whom we are not at war, a determination made without oversight, due process or judicial review, and one that kills many innocent civilians and has drawn condemnation from human rights groups?



Once again, I'm okay with it to the degree that you were okay with the President unilaterally executing people in countries with whom we are not at war, a determination made without oversight, due process or judicial review, and one that kills many innocent civilians and has drawn condemnation from human rights groups in Iraq.
 
2013-12-16 11:57:57 AM  

jakomo002: Lord_Baull: Fine. I think drone strikes against terrorists targets are a better, more efficient method than tens of thousands of troops on the ground for years at a time.

SUSPECTED terrorists whose names and alleged crimes are rarely if ever released and whose execution is often unreported, ESPECIALLY by those who determine the guilt and the time and manner of execution.



Like the suspected terrorists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCim6TgiPBo
 
2013-12-16 11:59:00 AM  
FLMountainMan
I think he's a product

x1000


Lord_Baull
sorry, pet peeve

You're a terrible person.


Smackledorfer
If people were starving and I fed half of them, RanDomino would call be a murderer.

If you're not asking why they have no food, you're not really solving the problem.
 
2013-12-16 12:02:20 PM  
Remember the good old days when we'd use bombs and cruise missiles.
 
2013-12-16 12:07:01 PM  

Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: Nabb1: Lord_Baull: If a democratic president rains missles on the enemy, it's wag the dog or war-mongering dictator.
If a republican president spends 1 trillion dollars and kills 4000 Americans, it's sound foreign policy and protecting our borders.

So we can mark you down as in favor of this as well?


Only if I can mark you down as both fiscally conservative and in favor of invading and occupying Iraq.

You can mark me down whatever you want if it helps you avoid actually discussing the policy being discussed in the article.


And you can mark me down for being continually amazed of your cognitive dissonance when the other team does it.

Still don't want to discuss the issue, do you? That's fine. Not everyone has the capacity to discuss actual policy issues. These things can get complicated sometimes.


Fine. I think drone strikes against terrorists targets are a better, more efficient method than tens of thousands of troops on the ground for years at a time. I also believe that the killing of innocent civilians is a terrible, unnecessary waste and extremely regrettable. I also believe that a dozen innocent deaths is more acceptable to me than the 174,000 caused by Bush's invasion of Iraq. Happy?

So, you are okay with the President unilaterally executing people in countries with whom we are not at war, a determination made without oversight, due process or judicial review, and one that kills many innocent civilians and has drawn condemnation from human rights groups?


Being at war with the country makes no difference. Killing innocent bystanders is bad either way, while killing 'bad guys' is generally considered acceptable either way. Those killings are always made unilaterally in wartime scenarios.

Further, expecting interpol to handle terrorism via international trials and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not an option. There is no functional way to do this.

It is kind of dishonest of you to focus on those aspects.

If you want to discuss reality, then discussing realistic alternatives is a good thing. Which means that for any one drone strike you can what-if a claim of 'we could maybe have gotten more proof and caught them elsewhere'. You cannot reasonably use that logic for all of Al Queda. If you want zero drone strikes that is fine. What do you want instead?

I think we use them too much. I admit I lack the intell to say exactly what that too much is.

Fwiw I wish no man ever had to kill another in the history of the world. But I would be a complete tool to go around proclaiming moral superiority to everyone around me who deals with reality. Well, if I did that from my comfy safety in America anyways. If ghandi avoided all conflict while preaching pacifism, nobody would remember him.
 
2013-12-16 12:08:44 PM  

Lord_Baull: Like the suspected terrorists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCim6TgiPBo


I saw the title but not the video (don't want to subject myself to any possible terrible things that can't be unseen).

Blackwater were less terrorists and more "hired mercenary murderers" who could do heinous things that were expressly forbidden by the Military Code, giving cover to the US military personnel who ordered them to do said acts.

A Plausible Deniability Division.
 
2013-12-16 12:10:22 PM  

RanDomino: FLMountainMan
I think he's a product

x1000


Lord_Baull
sorry, pet peeve

You're a terrible person.


Smackledorfer
If people were starving and I fed half of them, RanDomino would call be a murderer.

If you're not asking why they have no food, you're not really solving the problem.


I didn't claim to solve the problem. I implied that helping some, but not all, would be stupid to label as an atrocity. I guess that wasn't obvious enough. My apologies.
 
2013-12-16 12:16:46 PM  

Smackledorfer: Further, expecting interpol to handle terrorism via international trials and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not an option. There is no functional way to do this.


So you find one, instead of trying to justify ZERO trials, ZERO evidence and ZERO accountability followed by assassination.  The ICC exists for a reason.

Those killed are given NO CHANCE to even defend themselves whatsoever.  Anywhere.  Just eliminated.  That's frightening, no?
 
2013-12-16 12:19:04 PM  
I didn't read the entire thread, but frankly I doubt it. What happens if a police officer hits a car, injuring or killing its occupants, in pursuit of a a felon? I'm guessing the same, "sorry eggs, omelettes" argument gets thrown out. Wedding party family gets weak settlement. Most of the rest of the county tunes back in to American Idol.
 
2013-12-16 12:28:31 PM  

jakomo002: Lord_Baull: Like the suspected terrorists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCim6TgiPBo

I saw the title but not the video (don't want to subject myself to any possible terrible things that can't be unseen).

Blackwater were less terrorists and more "hired mercenary murderers" who could do heinous things that were expressly forbidden by the Military Code, giving cover to the US military personnel who ordered them to do said acts.

A Plausible Deniability Division.



That was my point.
 
2013-12-16 12:32:21 PM  

jakomo002: Smackledorfer: Further, expecting interpol to handle terrorism via international trials and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not an option. There is no functional way to do this.

So you find one, instead of trying to justify ZERO trials, ZERO evidence and ZERO accountability followed by assassination.  The ICC exists for a reason.

Those killed are given NO CHANCE to even defend themselves whatsoever.  Anywhere.  Just eliminated.  That's frightening, no?


I don't think there is any way to do it.

If you can find one, I will support it.

Telling me I am wrong about a way not existing while insisting I need to find that way is silly.


What kind of international CSI team do you think is going to keep a lid on Al Qaida? Can you walk me through the investigation process and the amount of evidence they should need to lock away/kill a terrorist?
 
2013-12-16 12:33:47 PM  
If a drone harms someone at an American wedding, I'm suing Jeff Bezos.
 
2013-12-16 12:34:39 PM  

Lord_Baull: jakomo002: Lord_Baull: Like the suspected terrorists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCim6TgiPBo

I saw the title but not the video (don't want to subject myself to any possible terrible things that can't be unseen).

Blackwater were less terrorists and more "hired mercenary murderers" who could do heinous things that were expressly forbidden by the Military Code, giving cover to the US military personnel who ordered them to do said acts.

A Plausible Deniability Division.


That was my point.


A point well made then.
 
2013-12-16 12:40:27 PM  

Lord_Baull: Nabb1: So, you are okay with the President unilaterally executing people in countries with whom we are not at war, a determination made without oversight, due process or judicial review, and one that kills many innocent civilians and has drawn condemnation from human rights groups?


Once again, I'm okay with it to the degree that you were okay with the President unilaterally executing people in countries with whom we are not at war, a determination made without oversight, due process or judicial review, and one that kills many innocent civilians and has drawn condemnation from human rights groups in Iraq.


My opinions on Iraq (which you misstate) are of no relevance to this policy. Why are you so fixated on that?
 
2013-12-16 12:40:51 PM  

jakomo002: Smackledorfer: Further, expecting interpol to handle terrorism via international trials and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not an option. There is no functional way to do this.

So you find one, instead of trying to justify ZERO trials, ZERO evidence and ZERO accountability followed by assassination.  The ICC exists for a reason.

Those killed are given NO CHANCE to even defend themselves whatsoever.  Anywhere.  Just eliminated.  That's frightening, no?


Only if you discount the fact that a random schmuck with the right chemicals, tools, a little stealth, planning and training can quite literally take out thousands of non-combatants with no warning, no chance to defend themselves....Just eliminated...

It's a difficult philosophical problem, and one that unfortunately really has no 'answer' in the classic sense.  It all boils down to what you value more highly and what you value more.  Would you save the life of a dying child at the expense of 10 old people?  Perhaps a hundred?

Would you agree to being at least passively monitored if it meant that the guy planning to blow up a building was being at least 'passively monitored' as well?  Some people would, others wouldn't.  Some value individual 'freedom' more highly than the safety and well being of others.  Some value the 'greater good' than a given individual's 'freedom'.

It's largely a value question, not a right/wrong one.
 
2013-12-16 12:47:04 PM  
Lord_Baull:
Fine. I think drone strikes against terrorists targets are a better, more efficient method than tens of thousands of troops on the ground for years at a time.

Efficient? Hardly. On the whole, drone strikes manage to create more enemies than they are taking out.
As surprising as this may sound, killing innocent people makes the survivors extremely pissed with you, and more likely to take arms against you or support those who do - and that's before bringing any of the sovereignty business into the equation.
The new president of Pakistan has said it publicly, but if you paid any attention to what was going on, that should have been painfully obvious a long time ago.
 
2013-12-16 12:47:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: I don't think there is any way to do it.

If you can find one, I will support it.

Telling me I am wrong about a way not existing while insisting I need to find that way is silly.


What kind of international CSI team do you think is going to keep a lid on Al Qaida? Can you walk me through the investigation process and the amount of evidence they should need to lock away/kill a terrorist?


There's some middle ground between full on CSI teams and summary executions.  The ICC is one, Interpol another.

If there is proof enough to execute someone for a crime, then there's AT LEAST some proof to submit to the ICC,no?

Putting terrorists in PRISON is far more effective than giving them their desired martyrdom.  Then you have leverage ("Tell us everything and you can have your favorite ice cream twice a week.  No?  I'll ask again in June.  Bye for now!").

People give better info when dealt with civilly then tortured and treated like dogs.
 
2013-12-16 12:50:23 PM  
HAHA OOPS!

People give better info when dealt with civilly then tortured and treated like dogs.

THAN tortured, not then.
 
2013-12-16 01:20:43 PM  

Ned Stark: Insaniteus: So, this is where people rage about drones again, despite them dramatically reducing civilian casualties over jet airstrikes, ground troops, and all other "conventional" warfare tactics.  W and Rumsfeld's "Light and Fast" military strategy killed double-digit civilians every single day of its use, and they often blew up entire apartment buildings to hit one guy.

Dropping the bombs at all is just a fact of life. Can't be helped. We're America and America drops bombs. Its what's done.


You go with what you do best.
 
2013-12-16 01:34:18 PM  
It's become SOP in US drone bombing--particularly in Yemen--to kill a man then go find his son and kill him too.  It sends a message to all those terrorists that not only will we kill you, old man, but we'll kill your beloved son, too.  We're becoming no better than high-tech Mongols.
 
2013-12-16 02:37:11 PM  

neaorin: Efficient? Hardly. On the whole, drone strikes manage to create more enemies than they are taking out.
As surprising as this may sound, killing innocent people makes the survivors extremely pissed with you, and more likely to take arms against you or support those who do - and that's before bringing any of the sovereignty business into the equation.


That's actually a myth, though a fairly persistent one. Relatives of people killed in drone strike don't just up and join the Taliban, just relatives of suicide bombing victims (which outnumber the civilian casualties of drone strikes by several orders of magnitude) don't just up and join the army.

There are a few reasons why this doesn't work the way a lot of people imagine it does. First of all, "joining the Taliban" isn't a particularly easy thing to do due to the nature of the organization (joining the army, for instance, would be a much easier and more straightforward prospect). But more importantly, the militant recruitment process exists primarily due to the sociopolitical and economic conditions of the tribal areas - conditions that existed well before drone strikes ever became a popular talking point.

This report summarizes the issue relatively well (see pages 23 onwards for their discussion on this specific topic).
 
2013-12-16 03:05:16 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: It's become SOP in US drone bombing--particularly in Yemen--to kill a man then go find his son and kill him too.  It sends a message to all those terrorists that not only will we kill you, old man, but we'll kill your beloved son, too.  We're becoming no better than high-tech Mongols.


Familial-based culture.

If your father fights the hated Americans, and then gets killed, it's a great insult to the clan, and you should go fight the hated Americans.   And the Americans are hated, less for anything we've done than for being the latest example of Western Crusaders, (Not to say we've been saints.  We haven't, not by a long shot).  However, if we kill the son, maybe the father doesn't fight the Americans in the name of protecting his family/clan, and either way, we know for a fact that the son(s) won't be fighting us.  It's the way their culture works.

In fact, we should be cheering this.  The USA is becoming multi-culturalist instead of enforcing its own racist cultural paradigms.  It's just that the multiculture is nasty and farked up in this particular case.
 
2013-12-16 03:18:12 PM  

Biological Ali: That's actually a myth, though a fairly persistent one. Relatives of people killed in drone strike don't just up and join the Taliban, just like relatives of suicide bombing victims (which outnumber the civilian casualties of drone strikes by several orders of magnitude) don't just up and join the army.


FTFM
 
2013-12-16 03:55:17 PM  

Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.



Just think of how much crime could have been prevented in "The Godfather" if there had been a drone strike on Michael Corleone's second wedding.
 
2013-12-16 04:13:35 PM  

Target Builder: Somacandra: FTFA: Can you imagine the wall-to-wall press coverage, the outrage, and the empathy for the victims that would follow if an American wedding were attacked in this fashion? Or how you'd feel about a foreign power that attacked your wedding in this fashion?

Except that 1) Yemenis don't vote in U.S. Presidential elections, and 2) if anyone cared about blowing up innocent brown people we wouldn't have recently invaded and overthrown Iraq in the first place. So that ship has sailed a long-ass time ago.

I think the point was more that if another country did this to people at an American wedding (or anywhere in America for that matter) even on the justification that the target was an enemy of their nation who was actively engaged in military plots to cause their nation harm that people in the US would be pretty farking upset and demand some sort of retaliation actively going to war.


FTFY.

Lost Thought 00: MindStalker: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Think of it as the 50s, your in Chicago and these terrorist are Mob Gangsters.

We routinely killed the wives and children of Mob men and not a single tear was shed


...wat. Jeebus f*ck our country's f*cked up.
 
2013-12-16 04:31:15 PM  

Biological Ali: neaorin: Efficient? Hardly. On the whole, drone strikes manage to create more enemies than they are taking out.
As surprising as this may sound, killing innocent people makes the survivors extremely pissed with you, and more likely to take arms against you or support those who do - and that's before bringing any of the sovereignty business into the equation.

That's actually a myth, though a fairly persistent one. Relatives of people killed in drone strike don't just up and join the Taliban, just relatives of suicide bombing victims (which outnumber the civilian casualties of drone strikes by several orders of magnitude) don't just up and join the army.

There are a few reasons why this doesn't work the way a lot of people imagine it does. First of all, "joining the Taliban" isn't a particularly easy thing to do due to the nature of the organization (joining the army, for instance, would be a much easier and more straightforward prospect). But more importantly, the militant recruitment process exists primarily due to the sociopolitical and economic conditions of the tribal areas - conditions that existed well before drone strikes ever became a popular talking point.

This report summarizes the issue relatively well (see pages 23 onwards for their discussion on this specific topic).


That report was actually discussed on Fark as I remember. It does make some good points but also misses some important ones, though its general conclusion is correct - that drone strikes in a lawless area don't help things much if at all.
For one thing it focuses too much on FATA while the Taliban have received critical support from other areas of Pakistan as well (covert support from the ISI is one example).
The report is correct in that more people actually join the "taliban" (whatever subgroup) because of domestic factors than drone strikes. But those same domestic factors also work to make sure that the drone program has very limited long-term impact on the Taliban. As the report itself states "These factors underscore the limitations of the drone program in degrading the long-term operational capabilities and ability of violent extremists to regroup, rearm and recruit.".

The report quotes a source claiming that the loss of Baitullah Mehsud (which the video I linked to also quotes indirectly) is much more damaging to the taliban than the recruitment of a few dozen foot soldiers. Well, Mehsud's been dead for four years now and the Taliban's overall position is even stronger. It could be because taking out the "leadership" of such a heavily fragmented group doesn't really have the positive impact we think it should. It could be because just as important as the dozen new recruits, are the dozens more who now give them material support - though they may not do it overtly because they are afraid of the army.

And then you have the urban population of Pakistan, and the higher-ups in Islamabad (army people, intelligence people, people with money) who for some reason aren't too thrilled about their country's sovereignty being so blatantly ignored, and civilians killed in the name of "fighting terror" (at least Obama had the common sense to commute this idiotic goal into the somewhat more palpable "figthing al-Qaeda and their allies" since 2009).

TL;DR:
1) you can't kill terror with drones
2) one doesn't need to pick up a weapon and shoot at you in order to become your enemy. In fact those who don't are sometimes more dangerous.

In the long run, drone attacks in Pakistan will show a net loss for the US.
 
2013-12-16 05:08:12 PM  

neaorin: In the long run, drone attacks in Pakistan will show a net loss for the US.


That doesn't look to be the case. The report's position (and my own, and that of most serious analysts) is that a policy that focused on drone strikes while ignoring the deep structural issues in the tribal areas (with the onus lying more on the Pakistani state than the US, at least in terms of direct action) will likely go nowhere in the long term. A similar policy that didn't include any drone strikes at all would also fail, for the same reasons. In other words, the drones themselves are a red herring.

The drones themselves, moreover, have been extremely useful and accurate as far as military tools go. The most recent numbers from Pakistan's Defence Ministry have placed the total civilian death toll over five years at 67, compared to several thousand suspected terrorists. The terrorists have been hit hard by this, especially when their leaders die - the recent death of Hakimullah Mehsud was a particularly big deal, and the Taliban haven't really done much since then, despite vowing revenge on basically the entire world. Eventually they'll be able to consolidate and five or ten years from now they may or may not be in a stronger position, but they've been hurt quite badly by drone strikes in the short term.

And with regards to those numbers - they were given in response to a query from the Pakistani legislature, and as far as I know, nobody has seriously challenged these numbers since they came out. The fact that militants and their propagandists will lie about civilian casualties and tell people stories about women and children being killed in attempt to brainwash and radicalize them is a separate issue, but again, this is something that will happen regardless of whether the US is conducting any military operations at all.
 
2013-12-16 05:47:45 PM  

Lost Thought 00: MindStalker: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Think of it as the 50s, your in Chicago and these terrorist are Mob Gangsters.

We routinely killed the wives and children of Mob men and not a single tear was shed


Really?

(And "we" didn't, btw.)
 
2013-12-16 05:55:47 PM  
Smackledorfer
I didn't claim to solve the problem. I implied that helping some, but not all, would be stupid to label as an atrocity. I guess that wasn't obvious enough. My apologies.

I could have been clearer. To match the analogy to reality better, yes, the message being pushed is that ACA is The Answer. Maybe not in those words, but it's being pushed as SO GREAT, OH MY GOSH YOU GUYS, THIS IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER FOR EVERYONE I CAN'T EVEN okay but what about the tens of millions of people who NEVER MIND THAT, IT'S SO GREAT, WE'RE DOING THIS AND IT'S AWESOME also the horrible crushing bureaucracy and acceptance of the commodification of healthca YAAAAY ACA YAAAAY but it's not perfect or even good enou WE'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING TO MAKE IT MORE PERFECT, WHICH BY THE WAY IT ALREADY IS but that doesn't LOOK JUST SHUT UP AND CHEER OKAY
Maybe it's not being called The Answer, but those cheerleading for it are critical of every position but that of agreeing that it's The Answer- it's saying such by omission and implication*.
So, yes, they're calling a half-solution a full solution, which impairs efforts for an actual full solution, which will result in the deaths of thousands, which is atrocious. What were we even talking about?


*Which is a lot of how the Democratic Party seems to communicate these days now that I think about it.
"Is the administration in favor of using drone strikes against American citizens?"
"The administration will use any means available to keep Americans safe while adhering to the Constitution."
"So... I'm just going to put that down as 'yes,' okay?"
"WOAH WOAH WOAH BUDDY, I never SAID that!"
 
2013-12-16 06:08:07 PM  
assets4.designsponge.com

Bridal Tip #17:
Don't invite known terrorists to your wedding
 
2013-12-16 06:35:25 PM  

RanDomino: Smackledorfer
I didn't claim to solve the problem. I implied that helping some, but not all, would be stupid to label as an atrocity. I guess that wasn't obvious enough. My apologies.

I could have been clearer. To match the analogy to reality better, yes, the message being pushed is that ACA is The Answer. Maybe not in those words, but it's being pushed as SO GREAT, OH MY GOSH YOU GUYS, THIS IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER FOR EVERYONE I CAN'T EVEN okay but what about the tens of millions of people who NEVER MIND THAT, IT'S SO GREAT, WE'RE DOING THIS AND IT'S AWESOME also the horrible crushing bureaucracy and acceptance of the commodification of healthca YAAAAY ACA YAAAAY but it's not perfect or even good enou WE'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING TO MAKE IT MORE PERFECT, WHICH BY THE WAY IT ALREADY IS but that doesn't LOOK JUST SHUT UP AND CHEER OKAY
Maybe it's not being called The Answer, but those cheerleading for it are critical of every position but that of agreeing that it's The Answer- it's saying such by omission and implication*.
So, yes, they're calling a half-solution a full solution, which impairs efforts for an actual full solution, which will result in the deaths of thousands, which is atrocious. What were we even talking about?


Yeah, this. The ACA might have been a step toward single-payer structurally, but it came at the expense of several steps back politically. To argue in favor of a move to single-payer essentially now requires arguing against the ACA, highlighting the reasons why it doesn't work and isn't good enough, and as we can clearly see, that's a position totally dominated by the people least likely to push for single-payer.

I think this reality will become clearer once the partisan shouting match starts to subside.
 
2013-12-16 06:55:48 PM  

Biological Ali: In other words, the drones themselves are a red herring.


Easy to say that when it's not your own country getting bombed.
Pakistan is a country of 180 million who are supposed to support a government return the rule of law to all its territories. And the US does their best to undermine its authority by carrying out extrajudicial killings inside their country while the government watches on.

The number of casualties varies depending on source, and even the ICG report underlines why the Pakistani Army might be inclined to count people as militants. Regardless, we went through this. The drone strikes have had some tactical impact but the strategic result just isn't there. If it were, then maybe whatever goodwill price the US had paid might have been worth it. But it's not.

My impression is that the current US administration doesn't know what to do to help Pakistan solve its terrorism problem, so they have resigned to doing what they do best. A game of whack-a-mole with the Taliban in which they are both assisted and opposed by the army.

When the US eventually gets out of Pakistan, it will leave behind an even more politically powerful Pakistani Army, a weaker government, a Taliban force that's still fighting, and a more negative view of the US inside Pakistan (and incidentally the world). Mission accomplished?
 
2013-12-16 07:13:49 PM  

trippdogg: [assets4.designsponge.com image 624x420]

Bridal Tip #17:
Don't invite known terrorists to your wedding


Based on the standards used to judge who is or isn't an enemy combatant, that could also end up written as:

Bridal Tip #17:
Don't invite any adult males aged over 15 to your wedding.
 
2013-12-16 07:22:36 PM  

neaorin: Easy to say that when it's not your own country getting bombed.


I'm a Pakistani citizen, so it is my "own country getting bombed" - I've been outside the country for a while, but most of my family's still there. But even if that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be relevant; appeals to emotion don't really contribute anything to the conversation.

neaorin: Pakistan is a country of 180 million who are supposed to support a government return the rule of law to all its territories. And the US does their best to undermine its authority by carrying out extrajudicial killings inside their country while the government watches on.


The Pakistani government never had any real authority over the areas in question, so "return the rule of law" isn't quite right - there never was any to begin with. There have been some US military actions in some of Pakistan's more settled areas (a few drone strikes, and of course the killing of bin Laden), but these are very rare exceptions. The bulk of the drone strikes are more analogous to that incident when a bunch of Somali pirates were shot dead by SEALs - it was an action necessitated by the fact that there simply was no other authority capable or willing to deal with them.

neaorin: My impression is that the current US administration doesn't know what to do to help Pakistan solve its terrorism problem, so they have resigned to doing what they do best. A game of whack-a-mole with the Taliban in which they are both assisted and opposed by the army.

When the US eventually gets out of Pakistan, it will leave behind an even more politically powerful Pakistani Army, a weaker government, a Taliban force that's still fighting, and a more negative view of the US inside Pakistan (and incidentally the world). Mission accomplished?


Actually, the opposite is true, at least in terms of the last paragraph. The Pakistani military has increasingly retreated from politics - this trend started with the previous Chief of Army Staff and is expected to continue with his successor. As for a negative view of the US, it's kind of like Americans who have a "negative view" of Congress - it perhaps speaks to the person's basic emotional state, but it's not clear what (if any) the tangible implications actually are. Keep in mind also that the US still gives Pakistan massive amounts of aid (including nonmilitary aid), and I can assure you that the Pakistani government's desire to keep that aid flowing is far greater than their feigned outrage over the US hitting military targets in regions that they don't even control.
 
2013-12-16 07:44:39 PM  
Well, if you insist upon describing terrorist attacks as "weddings" and the suicide bomber as the "groom" ('cause he's going to meet his seventy-two incompetent women), or tolerate people who do this crap, you can expect all sorts of big ba-da-boom in your neighborhood.

Duh.
 
2013-12-16 08:28:36 PM  
It's like dro-o-ones
On your wedding day...
 
2013-12-16 09:11:13 PM  

RanDomino: Smackledorfer
I didn't claim to solve the problem. I implied that helping some, but not all, would be stupid to label as an atrocity. I guess that wasn't obvious enough. My apologies.

I could have been clearer. To match the analogy to reality better, yes, the message being pushed is that ACA is The Answer. Maybe not in those words, but it's being pushed as SO GREAT, OH MY GOSH YOU GUYS, THIS IS GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER FOR EVERYONE I CAN'T EVEN okay but what about the tens of millions of people who NEVER MIND THAT, IT'S SO GREAT, WE'RE DOING THIS AND IT'S AWESOME also the horrible crushing bureaucracy and acceptance of the commodification of healthca YAAAAY ACA YAAAAY but it's not perfect or even good enou WE'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING TO MAKE IT MORE PERFECT, WHICH BY THE WAY IT ALREADY IS but that doesn't LOOK JUST SHUT UP AND CHEER OKAY
Maybe it's not being called The Answer, but those cheerleading for it are critical of every position but that of agreeing that it's The Answer- it's saying such by omission and implication*.
So, yes, they're calling a half-solution a full solution, which impairs efforts for an actual full solution, which will result in the deaths of thousands, which is atrocious. What were we even talking about?


*Which is a lot of how the Democratic Party seems to communicate these days now that I think about it.
"Is the administration in favor of using drone strikes against American citizens?"
"The administration will use any means available to keep Americans safe while adhering to the Constitution."
"So... I'm just going to put that down as 'yes,' okay?"
"WOAH WOAH WOAH BUDDY, I never SAID that!"


Strawman much?
 
2013-12-17 02:24:23 AM  

Biological Ali:  The bulk of the drone strikes are more analogous to that incident when a bunch of Somali pirates were shot dead by SEALs - it was an action necessitated by the fact that there simply was no other authority capable or willing to deal with them.

Your opinion regarding the use of drones in Pakistan seems to be in the minority. Actually the whole sections dealing with terrorism and US attitudes are an instructive read. 

Biological Ali: Actually, the opposite is true, at least in terms of the last paragraph. The Pakistani military has increasingly retreated from politics - this trend started with the previous Chief of Army Staff and is expected to continue with his successor. As for a negative view of the US, it's kind of like Americans who have a "negative view" of Congress - it perhaps speaks to the person's basic emotional state, but it's not clear what (if any) the tangible implications actually are. Keep in mind also that the US still gives Pakistan massive amounts of aid (including nonmilitary aid), and I can assure you that the Pakistani government's desire to keep that aid flowing is far greater than their feigned outrage over the US hitting military targets in regions that they don't even control.


I don't believe anyone raised an issue with the US giving aid to Pakistan - that's one of the few things the US can realistically do which may have positive long-term effects on the situation. But they should do it with the right goals in mind, not as a "blood price" of sorts for the US hunting down its enemies in Afghanistan without being bothered. As much as I'd like to believe that to be true, it's hard to argue with the evidence.

The "yeah they don't like us much so what they gonna do about it?" attitude seems to have served the US very poorly in the Middle East so far. I wonder how many people do remember a non-belligerent Iran for instance. At some point people grow tired of your shiat and look elsewhere.

Again - the price the US in particular is paying for carrying out drone attacks might have been worth it, if the attacks worked long term. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I'm sure they are preferable to sending kids out there to get killed, but that's about it.
 
2013-12-17 04:25:21 AM  
www.mtv.com
 
2013-12-17 07:56:14 AM  

Nabb1: Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Lost Thought 00: There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.

Considering after we launch a missile and kill people, any male aged 15 or older is automatically considered a militant, I wouldn't put too much stock into the claims of the administration

So you really believe that we just randomly launch missiles at large groups of civilians just because that's what the terrorists' press release says?

I don't. I just think we give zero farks about collateral damage because there appear to be no repercussions for it. I mean, Amnesty International has labeled our drone strikes as "war crimes," but you have to pay attention to foreign media sources to find out about that.


I'm willing to call them war crimes too.  As long as we all accept that every adminstration in the US for the last 40 - 50 years is guilty of war crimes and try to work together to fix it.

Instead, what I see, is a bunch of people calling for impeachment over *these* war crimes, but who get all defensive when you suggest we've been up to this since before 2009. -_-

/Hurray extended family...
 
2013-12-17 02:40:48 PM  

neaorin: Again - the price the US in particular is paying for carrying out drone attacks might have been worth it, if the attacks worked long term. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I'm sure they are preferable to sending kids out there to get killed, but that's about it.


I guess I'm just not clear about what this "price" is that you're talking about. Or are you just talking about the literal price - i.e. the cost of fuel, missiles and maintenance etc.? The argument I'm making is basically that the perception a lot of people have about the supposedly profound negative effects of drone strikes (i.e. that they kill a significant number of civilians, that they're a major recruiting tool for terrorists, etc.) is just outright false.

Beyond that, even the government doesn't really care about drone strikes that much - certainly not enough that it would actually affect diplomacy between the two countries. There are only two incidents in recent years that have strained US-Pakistan relationships - one was the killing of bin Laden; the other was an incident at the border where 20-odd Pakistani soldiers were killed by NATO forces after a miscommunication. Every single drone strike that's ever occurred, even taken together, hasn't come close.

There's just no credible evidence to suggest that things would be better off, for either Pakistan or the US, if drone strikes weren't occurring - and a good bit of evidence to suggest that they would in fact be worse.
 
Displayed 159 of 159 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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