02-13-2013, 04:59 PM #81
02-13-2013, 08:08 PM #82
are you against drones in general, over seas involvement, or both?
02-13-2013, 11:03 PM #83
Please stay on topic and don't say nonsense that I've NEVER said.
I think the U.S does too much intervention and sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong.
Unless there is a real LEGITIMATE war (such as WWII)....the U.S should not be participating in anything.
We should NOT be the world police.
I feel like I'm living in bizaro world......some of you guys are perfectly fine with the U.S spending BILLIONS of dollars doing this nonsense than helping out it's citizens here at home.
Think about how many problems we can solve if we had that money for education, infrastructure, medicare, social security, etc.
But NO....we have to protect the freaking world!
We have to do all the dirty work!
We have to send thousands of young kids (18-21) to horrible deaths.
Last edited by JustAlex; 02-13-2013 at 11:06 PM."The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness..."
02-13-2013, 11:06 PM #84
alex, I can partially agree with you. Would you be against the use of drones on US soil, for terrorists, criminals on the run, and high speed pursuits?
02-14-2013, 11:54 AM #85
I'm sorry to say this, but when it comes to the country I live, I want to be SELFISH and say that we SHOULD NOT have to protect anyone except our citizens here at home....not the world.
All the money that is absorbed into the military could be used to have better infrastructure, better education, better social programs, more help where it really matters....the people of the United States.
I agree with most of the arguments you are making, my only question is what made you finally wake up and realize that President Obama is running the neocon playbook?Buying "Broder" unlicensed sets and singles.
02-14-2013, 01:00 PM #86
Here's some more on the neocons:
After four years of Barack Obama's diplomatic 'leadership' and billions of dollars in attempted friendship aid, a new public opinion poll reveals that 92% of Pakistanis now disapprove of the United States.
The results could have been worse. Not much. But a little. Fully four Pakistanis out of 100 do approve of the United States, President Obama and his policies. They, however, seem to keep kind of quiet about their views in that rowdy land. That's the lowest favorable rating Pakistan's citizens have ever given their ostensible North American ally.
The new Gallup Poll, out this morning, reports that the recent high point of Pakistani approval of the United States came in the spring of 2011 when 27% approved. But then public opinion went south on North America.
Something to do with U.S. Air Force planes over Afghanistan one night confounding Pakistani radar into thinking its skies were perfectly empty when, in fact, a pack of stealth aircraft were advancing toward the city of Abbottabad carrying a Kevlar-coated posse of heavily-armed SEALs in night-vision goggles.
Their assignment was to land, blow open the gate, kill a few people if necessary and bring back the body of one, Osama bin Laden -- along with his computers, correspondence and anything else of interest. It was a mission any president would order.
All without notice to Pakistan officials, elected or otherwise.
Since then, CIA drones have lingered inside Pakistan air space, watching and waiting until commanded to direct a large explosive device onto a car or two or some houses where residents were gathered. More than 350 times that's happened.
Often, some of the people vaporized in such raids were on a list of terrorist suspects targeted for extinction by the American president.
For some reason, Pakistanis seem to regard these serial acts of lethal interdiction as a violation of national sovereignty. Imagine how Americans might feel if Canada sent silent drones on southbound flights over U.S. cities to dispatch residents in ill favor up north.
To be fair, during the 2007-08 campaign for the Democratic nomination, then former state senator Obama did warn everyone listening to party debates that he would bomb even Pakistan if it did not fully cooperate in a campaign against terrorists.
At the time many were faux-shocked and Obama was roundly denounced for saying he'd attack an alleged ally in the endless Afghan war. His critics were many, including fellow Sen. Hillary Clinton, his future Secretary of State who would come to help Obama implement his foreign policies.
Buying "Broder" unlicensed sets and singles.
02-14-2013, 08:31 PM #87
The war on terror is now 12 years in and it most likely never really END. The first 10 years of the war we used traditional methods (like a full on invasion - TWICE!)
Many, Many, MANY more civilians died using those methods than what we do now. Over the past few years, we have switched to a series of more specialized, smaller scale tactics. (Seal missions, drone strikes)
Are they as effective as an all out war at stopping terror attacks? I have no idea. But they do keep thousands of those young american kids dying horrible deaths overseas.Needs: Brewers Pitcher Mark Rogers '04 pick
Red Sox - HOF & Current Players
Current Patriots Cards
Larry Bird, Carmelo/Lebron/Wade RC's
02-16-2013, 09:45 AM #88
This is a very well written analysis on the morality and constitutionality of drone strikes.
Rather than rushing to endorse a program surrounded by serious moral, constitutional, and practical doubts, Congress would do better to exercise its oversight function in the traditional way: with fact-finding hearings. In the wake of concern about targeted assassinations abroad and domestic surveillance at home, the Church Commission in the 1970s launched an extensive investigation of the government’s secret intelligence activities. After investigating CIA plots to kill foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republican, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam and Rene Schneider of Chile, the Church Commission offered moral and practical reasons for its conclusion that “the United States should not engage in assassination,” including the fact that “the assassination plots were not necessitated by imminent danger to the United States,” despite the government’s claims to the contrary.
The Church commission also concluded that targeted assassinations were counterproductive because “the damage to American foreign policy, to the good name and reputation of the United States abroad, to the American people’s faith and support of our government and its foreign policy is incalculable.” The Church Commission report led to the passage of the federal law prohibiting targeted assassinations, which Obama administration lawyers now claim doesn’t apply to drone strikes. The Church Commission was a high water mark for principled oversight of executive overreaching. Congress needs to begin a similarly exhaustive investigation today into whether targeted drone killings should be permanently banned rather than permanently enshrined into law.Buying "Broder" unlicensed sets and singles.