Con_Alma;1383319 wrote:...you want me to open my eyes to them being " animals and are beneath us as the superior human beings"???? As hard as I look I just don't see it that way.

It appears you missed my point.

justincredible;1383323 wrote:It appears you missed my point.

Maybe you can help me understand it.

While I was responding to a comment that "they" are beneath us as humans and that we should impose our way of government on them you told me to open my eyes because I don't see them in that regard.

justincredible;1382038 wrote:Seriously, though. I don't understand how anyone is cool with murdering (yes, it's murder) anyone abroad without an official declaration of war from Congress. The President alone should not be able to decide this shit. And we aren't at war with Pakistan. Why the fuck are we droning the shit out of people in their country? Murder someone's family and they are absolutely going to take up arms against the United States. All this shit does is breed more terrorism. It's complete bullshit and needs to stop.

Because drones are really cool toys that's why.

Kill 20 civilians in Pakistan and the statistics show one to be a terrorist. It's a win-win. Who the fuq cares about innocent people over there anyway?

Was there a declared war in Iraq? We killed hundreds of thousands of "those" people in the previous decade. In fact, we starved to death about 500,000 Iraqi children before we shocked and awed them. Democrat Madelein All Bright (sic) said that all the deaths "were well worth it" We are killing children in Iran by the same methods today. It's got to be well worth it. Don't you think?

We are just days away from mushroom clouds from the Pakistanis, or the Iranians , or the Afghans. Condi sold me on this years ago.

George W Obama doesn't give a shit about this...and neither should you.

Con_Alma;1382076 wrote:I disagree. The most significant point is the continued effort of keeping our finger on the pulse of the most volatile area of the world to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens and the stability of the world economy.

LOL. The safety of US citizens? SMFH from here to California. And you want stability in the world economy? How about getting the eff off their property...and quit spending hundreds of billions of tax dollar IOU's that nobody has and nobody will ever pay.

justincredible;1382045 wrote:Perhaps the government should try something radical. GTFO of the middle east (and every other country for that matter). They don't want us there. We shouldn't be there. We should mind our own fucking business and let them do their own thing.

LOL Wut? We are the US of A!!!! We don't do things like that. You don't get it. The more wars we make, the more peace we have.

John McCain, Lindsey Graham et al can explain.

Footwedge;1383846 wrote:LOL Wut? We are the US of A!!!! We don't do things like that. You don't get it. The more wars we make, the more peace we have.

John McCain, Lindsey Graham et al can explain.

Apparently so can Barry.

Footwedge;1383843 wrote:LOL. The safety of US citizens? SMFH from here to California. And you want stability in the world economy? How about getting the eff off their property...and quit spending hundreds of billions of tax dollar IOU's that nobody has and nobody will ever pay.

I don't have to want stability in the world economy because we have it....partly because of our presence in one of the most volatile areas of the world.

We can easily pay for the "hundreds of billions of tax dollars" it takes by cutting the social experiments we fund. If you think we will ever disband our presence around the world you are in for a lifetime of disappointment.

Con_Alma;1384013 wrote:I don't have to want stability in the world economy because we have it....partly because of our presence in one of the most volatile areas of the world.

We can easily pay for the "hundreds of billions of tax dollars" it takes by cutting the social experiments we fund. If you think we will ever disband our presence around the world you are in for a lifetime of disappointment.

And if people don't start demanding that we do it we are in for a lifetime of perpetual war. That is until the dollar collapses because we're spending so much fucking money on bullshit occupations.

Con_Alma;1384013 wrote:I don't have to want stability in the world economy because we have it....partly because of our presence in one of the most volatile areas of the world.

We can easily pay for the "hundreds of billions of tax dollars" it takes by cutting the social experiments we fund. If you think we will ever disband our presence around the world you are in for a lifetime of disappointment.

The social experiments that you cite have been approved and legislated for about 80 years now. So when are they no longer classified as experiments?

If you prefer guns over butter...that is your choice. A lot of Americans would like to see neither...or at least a reduction in both.

Our original framers of the constitution strongly preferred butter over guns. If you don't understand the guns/butter paradigm, let me know. Wouldn't surprise me if you didn't.

believer;1384010 wrote:Apparently so can Barry.

Apparently you missed my George W. Obama reference above.

Footwedge;1384112 wrote:The social experiments that you cite have been approved and legislated for about 80 years now. So when are they no longer classified as experiments?

If you prefer guns over butter...that is your choice. A lot of Americans would like to see neither...or at least a reduction in both.

Our original framers of the constitution strongly preferred butter over guns. If you don't understand the guns/butter paradigm, let me know. Wouldn't surprise me if you didn't.

They will always be experimental for the outcome is fluid based on current times and culture.

I appreciate you injecting the view of the framers but I certainyl hope we don't decide our military actions and social efforts based on their desires.

ThePatriot;1383194 wrote:**** yeah, they should risk casualties of soldiers over killing civilians! If you sign up to be a warrior then that's the risk you accept. Civilians have not accepted that risk so leave them out of it.

Or of course get the hell out of the Middle East and Asia...and Europe and Africa and everywhere else.

If only it was that easy to remove ourselves from the rest of the world.

Civilians, yes are hurt, but which is better, 1-2 dead, a cruise missile that destroys a whole building leading to 10-12 civilians, or our boys going in and perhaps getting killed or lead to more casualties?

This is amazing how much people have flipped on this in the last 5 years.
What are the options folks? Drone strikes take our high level and mid level terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen that our forces simply can't get to. Their elimination saves American lives and further action against our troops in Afghanistan is halted or slowed tremendously.
Plus, attacks against this country are slowed or stopped as a result of the strikes.

What is the alternative? Removing our forces from the rest of the world is a fantasy, it is not going to happen as the world economy depends on our force protection. That is just the way it. Trying to deny that is trying to deny reality.


So, since we have to project force in order to maintain stability, the most efficient way is to get our boys out of harms way and attack via drones.
If this was W, this would all be about protecting our troops and the homeland.

Again, we have been doing stuff like this since 1941, it is now with the modern media that it is all coming to light.
If we knew what we know now during the Cold War, I'm sure there would have been the same outrage. But, folks, it helped end of the Cold War.
International Affairs is dirty business. Sometimes you do not want to see how the sausage is made. It is power politics at its finest.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:...

Removing our forces from the rest of the world is a fantasy, it is not going to happen ...

This.

Alright. But our empire is going to crumble. It's inevitable.

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:Removing our forces from the rest of the world is a fantasy, it is not going to happen as the world economy depends on our force protection.

It will happen just like it did to the Soviets when their economy collapsed. I suppose at that point you will be cheering the troops that are marching the streets here keeping dissent in check.

jmog;1383322 wrote:This might be the most uninformed post I've seen in awhile, and that includes the likes of all the trolls we have in this forum.

Sorry, your vague post isn't vague enough.

Community Organizer with his hand on the trigger …

Gun control my ass Obama control is needed

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/07/obama-gives-himself-permission-to-kill/

ptown_trojans_1;1384204 wrote:If only it was that easy to remove ourselves from the rest of the world.

It wasn't easy leaving Vietnam either. You do it...the same way we entered those countries. One plane, one boat at a time. I would agree that we will never be able to completely leave. The damage we have done is irreparable in many instances. But to suggest that we have to "stay the course" is brutally false....and a testament to you, an apparent Pentagon sycophant, that can't critically think objectively on this subject.

Civilians, yes are hurt, but which is better, 1-2 dead, a cruise missile that destroys a whole building leading to 10-12 civilians, or our boys going in and perhaps getting killed or lead to more casualties?

Hypotheticals in poo-pooing the onlaught and brutal murder of people. 95% of these people have nothing to do with terrorism. Secondly, if we defend the country as our military is supposed to do, like the way Eisenhower wanted, Al Quada is absolutely no threat to our country and our citizens. None...Zero. In fact, there would be absolutely no motivation for Al Quada to attack us....after we quit violating the sovereignty of the ME countries. Do some research on the term blowback.

This is amazing how much people have flipped on this in the last 5 years.

No it is not amazing at all. Over the past 5 years, we have seen the greatest ecomic debacle since 1929. People who love this country and have brains have used them in re-evaluating the economic costs involved with galavanting around the globe. The actual costs of these wars are factored in and calculated. To say that the benefits of spending 1.1 trillion on this outweigh the risks have been exposed for what it is. Maybe you don't agree with it....but the majority of Americans do.

.

What are the options folks? Drone strikes take our high level and mid level terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen that our forces simply can't get to.

So what? See above. They are absolutely no threat to our interests, our country, nor our citizens. Quit lapping up the koolaid. We don't belong there...and we need not be there. Period.

Their elimination saves American lives and further action against our troops in Afghanistan is halted or slowed tremendously.

Absolutely false. The Bush doctrine lives in your head. You fall for the same crap..."the more we kill, the more lives we save" nonsense. It's completely false..ethically, morally and legally

Plus, attacks against this country are slowed or stopped as a result of the strikes.

Prove it. Because that is absolutely false. There would be no strikes against our country. They will have no motivation for doing so...and they are completely incapable of attacking us anyway. God Almighty PTown, use your head.

So, since we have to project force in order to maintain stability, the most efficient way is to get our boys out of harms way and attack via drones.
If this was W, this would all be about protecting our troops and the homeland.

Stunning statement to say the very least. A statement built off of lies, lies, and more lies.

Con_Alma;1384156 wrote:They will always be experimental for the outcome is fluid based on current times and culture.

You like that term "social expirament", dontcha? Again, the "expirament" has been approved and legislated for 80 years now. This "social expirament" is in operation in over 98% of countries globally...the only variances are the levels. Hitler's postive eugenics was indeed a social expirament. The feeding of starving children is hardly an expirament.

I appreciate you injecting the view of the framers but I certainyl hope we don't decide our military actions and social efforts based on their desires.

Well, to a large extent we still do. But let me remind you that one only has to go back 3 decades or so (not back to framer days) to see a country that used caution in bombing the shit out of people that are no threat to us.

Footwedge;1384392 wrote:It wasn't easy leaving Vietnam either. You do it...the same way we entered those countries. One plane, one boat at a time. I would agree that we will never be able to completely leave. The damage we have done is irreparable in many instances. But to suggest that we have to "stay the course" is brutally false....and a testament to you, an apparent Pentagon sycophant, that can't critically think objectively on this subject.



Hypotheticals in poo-pooing the onlaught and brutal murder of people. 95% of these people have nothing to do with terrorism. Secondly, if we defend the country as our military is supposed to do, like the way Eisenhower wanted, Al Quada is absolutely no threat to our country and our citizens. None...Zero. In fact, there would be absolutely no motivation for Al Quada to attack us....after we quit violating the sovereignty of the ME countries. Do some research on the term blowback.

No it is not amazing at all. Over the past 5 years, we have seen the greatest ecomic debacle since 1929. People who love this country and have brains have used them in re-evaluating the economic costs involved with galavanting around the globe. The actual costs of these wars are factored in and calculated. To say that the benefits of spending 1.1 trillion on this outweigh the risks have been exposed for what it is. Maybe you don't agree with it....but the majaority of Americans do.

. So what? See above. They are absolutely no threat to our interests, our country, nor our citizens. Quit lapping up the koolaid. We don't belong there...and we need not be there. Period. Absolutely false. The Bush doctrine lives in your head. You fall for the same crap..."the more we kill, the more lives we save" nonsense. It's completely false..ethically, morally and legally Prove it. Because that is absolutely false. There would be no strikes against our country. They will have no motivation for doing so...and they are completely incapable of attacking us anyway. God Almighty PTown, use your head.




Stunning statement to say the very least. A statement built off of lies, lies, and more lies.

Reps.

Footwedge;1384410 wrote:You like that term "social expirament", dontcha? Again, the "expirament" has been approved and legislated for 80 years now. This "social expirament" is in operation in over 98% of countries globally...the only variances are the levels. Hitler's postive eugenics was indeed a social expirament. The feeding of starving children is hardly an expirament....

I don't necessarily like it at all. It being legislated doesn't change the fluid nature of it's outcome along with it's projected impacts.

Footwedge;1384410 wrote:...Well, to a large extent we still do. But let me remind you that one only has to go back 3 decades or so (not back to framer days) to see a country that used caution in bombing the **** out of people that are no threat to us.

...and I continue to hope that we don't rely on framers opinions to make contemporary military decisions. What you deem as not being a threat is not the same as those who are stewards of making such decisions.

Very interested words from Leon Panetta.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/02/04/leon-panetta-reflects-on-u-s-drone-strikes/

In the end there are just some decisions that are not going to be made with transparency.

Con_Alma;1384482 wrote:Very interested words from Leon Panetta.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/02/04/leon-panetta-reflects-on-u-s-drone-strikes/

In the end there are just some decisions that are not going to be made with transparency.

Sounds like a Neocon psychopath to me.

Footwedge;1384392 wrote:It wasn't easy leaving Vietnam either. You do it...the same way we entered those countries. One plane, one boat at a time. I would agree that we will never be able to completely leave. The damage we have done is irreparable in many instances. But to suggest that we have to "stay the course" is brutally false....and a testament to you, an apparent Pentagon sycophant, that can't critically think objectively on this subject.



Hypotheticals in poo-pooing the onlaught and brutal murder of people. 95% of these people have nothing to do with terrorism. Secondly, if we defend the country as our military is supposed to do, like the way Eisenhower wanted, Al Quada is absolutely no threat to our country and our citizens. None...Zero. In fact, there would be absolutely no motivation for Al Quada to attack us....after we quit violating the sovereignty of the ME countries. Do some research on the term blowback.

No it is not amazing at all. Over the past 5 years, we have seen the greatest ecomic debacle since 1929. People who love this country and have brains have used them in re-evaluating the economic costs involved with galavanting around the globe. The actual costs of these wars are factored in and calculated. To say that the benefits of spending 1.1 trillion on this outweigh the risks have been exposed for what it is. Maybe you don't agree with it....but the majority of Americans do.

. So what? See above. They are absolutely no threat to our interests, our country, nor our citizens. Quit lapping up the koolaid. We don't belong there...and we need not be there. Period. Absolutely false. The Bush doctrine lives in your head. You fall for the same crap..."the more we kill, the more lives we save" nonsense. It's completely false..ethically, morally and legally Prove it. Because that is absolutely false. There would be no strikes against our country. They will have no motivation for doing so...and they are completely incapable of attacking us anyway. God Almighty PTown, use your head.




Stunning statement to say the very least. A statement built off of lies, lies, and more lies.

I can't argue with your point of view, so I will save my hands.
All I will say is drones strikes have:
1. Eliminated key al Qaeda members that had plans to target the U.S. It is easier to take them out over here, than rely on our massive infrastructure here to defend us.
2. It has saved our troops in Afghanistan, as it has taken our leaders in Pakistan where we cannot go. If we did not target them, they would have free range to attack and kill our own boys. And the counter argument is well, leave, well it took us 4 years from Nixon to leave Vietnam, it takes time.
3. We can simply agree to disagree. I have a realist point of view on the international system that focuses on targeted force in areas to ensure economic and geopolitical stability. I understand your point of view, I have several friends that have it, and we just agree to disagree.

Fwiw a lot of liberals/democrats are in quite an uproar over these drone memos...