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 34
    More: Stupid, Americans, American Wedding, Hellfire missile, San Clemente  
•       •       •

2019 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2013 at 9:36 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-16 10:05:31 AM  
4 votes:
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 09:53:28 AM  
3 votes:
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 09:52:43 AM  
3 votes:
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 09:40:16 AM  
3 votes:
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 09:05:28 AM  
3 votes:

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 09:00:23 AM  
3 votes:
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 08:30:11 AM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-12-16 10:30:46 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:03:13 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:03:03 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:02:45 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:10:19 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:23:23 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:47:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:29:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:44:06 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:30:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:18:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:10:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:06:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:02:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:01:53 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:00:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:59:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:57:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:54:08 AM  
1 votes:
There are an awful lot of "wedding parties" which conveniently contain a large gathering of known terrorists.
2013-12-16 09:53:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:47:05 AM  
1 votes:
If they were males over the age of 15, as far as the Obama administration is concerned, they were combatants.
2013-12-16 09:46:36 AM  
1 votes:
Yes, but this was in Yemen so we really don't give a fark.
2013-12-16 09:44:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:42:12 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:04:34 AM  
1 votes:
ecx.images-amazon.com


No, I think we'd throw a f*cking parade.
2013-12-16 08:28:19 AM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report