General Politics Thread

[Sub-stance1]

Why would it be to you? You'd probably be A-okay if Obama just started killing people that disagreed with him.

If they declared war on US or joined a terrorist group I wouldn't care......maybe take a couple of loonies as collateral damage wouldn't hurt either.

[Ixion]

If they declared war on US or joined a terrorist group I wouldn't care......maybe take a dozen of innocent civilians as collateral damage wouldn't hurt either.

Fixed.

[Sub-stance1]

Fixed.

It happens on both sides in war. Always have and always will whether it's by a drone or not. Civilians can be loonies too.

[Ixion]

It happens on both sides in war. Always have and always will whether it's by a drone or not. Civilians can be loonies too.

Except this isn't war. We're using drone strikes on countries we haven't declared war upon and there's no explanation or accountability for the drone strike process. Not to mention any military-age male is classified as a militant. We also commit war crimes by striking the same place twice in a row, which results in the deaths of innocent civilians who are just seeking to help those who were attacked.

[Yuuichi]

Except this isn't war. We're using drone strikes on countries we haven't declared war upon and there's no explanation or accountability for the drone strike process. Not to mention any military-age male is classified as a militant. We also commit war crimes by striking the same place twice in a row, which results in the deaths of innocent civilians who are just seeking to help those who were attacked.

It is not smart to just declare war on everyone seen as an enemy. This drone strikes are nothing more tham a modern dyay cold war pn countries. Instead of spys and espenoge( how ever you spell it) we have drone

[TwentyThree]

I think the biggest eyebrow raiser in this case is the complete disregard for the 14th constitutional amendment when it comes to dealing with US citizens who are potentially helping or are part of Al-Qaeda. The Feds would like you to think these attacks are only carried out when the country is in imminent danger, so no worries right? After all this is their definition of imminent danger "Does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interest will take place in the immediate future"

[Sub-stance1]

Except this isn't war. We're using drone strikes on countries we haven't declared war upon and there's no explanation or accountability for the drone strike process. Not to mention any military-age male is classified as a militant. We also commit war crimes by striking the same place twice in a row, which results in the deaths of innocent civilians who are just seeking to help those who were attacked.

This is war. It may not be against a country itself but we are well within our rights to do what we do with the drones. It may seem extreme but it's legal. Like I said before innocent civilians get killed on both sides which is unfortunate, and personally I don't see anything wrong with using drones. It helps keeps boots off the ground and Americans out of harms way. If a person decides to join a terrorist group like alqaeda, then they should be prepared for the consequences of that decision. Even if they are Americans. Your citizenship doesn't excuse the fact that you participated in efforts to kill innocent people. A drone is just another means of delivering the missile. It's no different than using other aircraft. You would still get the same results. So if you are against drones you might as well be against every other aircraft we use.

[Ixion]

This is war. It may not be against a country itself

Yeah, it's against 'terrorism', which is something that will never end and allows us to classify what is and is not terrorism. A U.S. citizen that has over seven days of food can be classified a terrorist, imprisoned, and killed, with no due process (thanks to a bill Obama passed). And it's even more ambiguous if you're not a citizen.

So if you are against drones you might as well be against every other aircraft we use.

The point is not that we've only begun doing fucked up shit with drones. The point is that we are STILL doing fucked up shit, and drones are the current method.

Bush's Iraq war was even worse, but Obama's drone war isn't nearly as clean as they want us to believe.

[Sub-stance1]

Yeah, it's against 'terrorism', which is something that will never end and allows us to classify what is and is not terrorism. A U.S. citizen that has over seven days of food can be classified a terrorist, imprisoned, and killed, with no due process (thanks to a bill Obama passed). And it's even more ambiguous if you're not a citizen.

But it's legal. There is no due process for collaborating with anyone engaged in hostilities against the U.S. You lose all your rights and I say it's fair because when you target innocent civilians you deserve what you get.

The point is not that we've only begun doing fucked up shit with drones. The point is that we are STILL doing fucked up shit, and drones are the current method.

Bush's Iraq war was even worse, but Obama's drone war isn't nearly as clean as they want us to believe.

I don't worry about how clean it is or isn't. I care about how effective they are. They get the job done cheaper without putting Americans in harms way. They wanted war and they are getting it. As far as I'm concerned it's fair.

[Blacksite]

War is never clean to begin with. I believe there was a video posted a while back on Youtube showing children in a hospital hit by drone attacks or I might be thinking of something else.

[Ixion]

But it's legal. There is no due process for collaborating with anyone engaged in hostilities against the U.S. You lose all your rights and I say it's fair because when you target innocent civilians you deserve what you get.

It's legal to kill almost anyone without due process now.

Over seven days of food? Terrorist. Own guns? Terrorist. Ron Paul supporter? Terrorist. Own night-vision goggles? Terrorist. Concealing your text messages from people in public? Terrorist. Tea-party activist? Terrorist. Occupy Wallstreet activist? Terrorist.

My point is that we're not just killing terrorists. We're just killing people within our classification of terrorism, which as you can see, can be almost anyone.

They get the job done cheaper without putting Americans in harms way. They wanted war and they are getting it. As far as I'm concerned it's fair.

Innocent Afghans deserve to live just as much as innocent Americans.

[Sub-stance1]

It's legal to kill almost anyone without due process now.

Over seven days of food? Terrorist. Own guns? Terrorist. Ron Paul supporter? Terrorist. Own night-vision goggles? Terrorist. Concealing your text messages from people in public? Terrorist. Tea-party activist? Terrorist. Occupy Wallstreet activist? Terrorist.

My point is that we're not just killing terrorists. We're just killing people within our classification of terrorism, which as you can see, can be almost anyone.

Not anyone but if there is reason to suspect what I described above then yes. If you engage in hostilities that result in harming Americans, then yes. Your citizenship doesn't excuse you.

Innocent Afghans deserve to live just as much as innocent Americans.

Just as well as those 3,000 innocent ones did on 9/11. If you care then you should also care when Afghans kill innocent children too.

[Morganator]

Not anyone but if there is reason to suspect what I described above then yes. If you engage in hostilities that result in harming Americans, then yes. Your citizenship doesn't excuse you.

Just as well as those 3,000 innocent ones did on 9/11. If you care then you should also care when Afghans kill innocent children too.

Just as the millions this country has killed in the name of Democracy, fighting terror, fighting communism etc..

[weskurtz81]

But it's legal. There is no due process for collaborating with anyone engaged in hostilities against the U.S. You lose all your rights and I say it's fair because when you target innocent civilians you deserve what you get.

What I find somewhat confusing is, Democrats were all about "due process" for terrorists when it came to Guantanamo. They wanted to shut it down and try those people in the US court system, hell that was part of Obama's platform! Now, we/he are/is saying no due process for ANY suspected terrorist, seems like a drastic change in position unless I am missing something.

[MATRIX 2]

They had a big hearing on it today with Brennan and I think over 75% of Americans agree with it. I don't think it will be a big issue politically.


http://nation.foxnews.com/john-brenn...-director-live

"When an individual has joined any group deemed undesirable that actively plots future attacks (of all kinds, even those that harm no individuals) against U.S. citizens, soldiers and interests around the world, the U.S. government has both the authority and the obligation to defend the country against that threat," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said in a statement.

Fixed it for you.

[Sub-stance1]

Fixed it for you.

Regardless if their plotted attack is successful or not, I still have no problem using drones to take them out. The intent is enough for me. It's not like we are just going around targeting innocent civilians.

[MATRIX 2]

Regardless if their plotted attack is successful or not, I still have no problem using drones to take them out. The intent is enough for me. It's not like we are just going around targeting innocent civilians.

Last I checked intent doesn't really matter, actions do. I'm sure their are many crazy individuals out there who intend to do a lot of bad things. We can't just arrest them and throw them in jail (after a trial) just because of their intent.

We haven't targeted innocent civilians yet. But what is stopping them from doing so in the future.

Hell we have LAPD officers doing mag dumps in the CA streets on "suspect" vehicles (which are nowhere close to the vehicle they are looking for) in their manhunt.

[Sub-stance1]

Last I checked intent doesn't really matter, actions do. I'm sure their are many crazy individuals out there who intend to do a lot of bad things. We can't just arrest them and throw them in jail (after a trial) just because of their intent.

We haven't targeted innocent civilians yet. But what is stopping them from doing so in the future.

Hell we have LAPD officers doing mag dumps in the CA streets on "suspect" vehicles (which are nowhere close to the vehicle they are looking for) in their manhunt.

Intent does matter. If the intent is to harm us here at home or abroad then we have every right to do it. Anyway it's apples and oranges man. The policy is about using drones overseas. No need to use them here at home. It's not that serious. So far the drones have taking out alqaeda/senior alqaeda members only. I doubt we will use them to target innocent civilians. That's something the terrorist would do.

[claud3]

?

[Ixion]

No need to use them here at home. It's not that serious. So far the drones have taking out alqaeda/senior alqaeda members only.

Incorrect

[weskurtz81]

I was reading an interesting article on this subject, it really does seem like too much power for a President to yield. I can't remember, what were people (Democrats/Liberals) saying about Bush when he was doing this exact same thing?

They are basically taking people out without even knowing their names (according to the article I read):

the Defense Department is currently killing suspects in Yemen without knowing their names, using criteria that have never been made public. The administration is counting all military-age males killed by drone fire as combatants without knowing that for certain, assuming they are up to no good if they are in the area. That has allowed Mr. Brennan to claim an extraordinarily low civilian death rate that smells more of expediency than morality.

[Sub-stance1]

Incorrect

Apple and oranges. Homeland security and DOD are two different things. And to be exact we have been using them long before that story in the link. That wasn't the point.This isn't about surveillance. We have already been using them for more than 20 years for that.

I doubt we will use them to target innocent civilians.

[MacP]

Drones are no different from any other aircraft missile or rocket attack innocent people still get killed. I'm against the war on terror, because we went into Iraq when Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. It was just Bush living up to his Dad's legacy oh and the fact that Iraq is an oil rich nation.

In my opinion both George W Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes on lack of evidence for their claim that Sadam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. I find the West very hypo critic of how we can be the world police yet we do not look after our own people.

[Sub-stance1]

Drones are no different from any other aircraft missile or rocket attack innocent people still get killed. I'm against the war on terror, because we went into Iraq when Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. It was just Bush living up to his Dad's legacy oh and the fact that Iraq is an oil rich nation.

In my opinion both George W Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes on lack of evidence for their claim that Sadam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. I find the West very hypo critic of how we can be the world police yet we do not look after our own people.

Correct. Drones are just a different means of delivering the goods.

[Vulgotha]

Drones are no different from any other aircraft missile or rocket attack innocent people still get killed. I'm against the war on terror, because we went into Iraq when Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. It was just Bush living up to his Dad's legacy oh and the fact that Iraq is an oil rich nation.

In my opinion both George W Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes on lack of evidence for their claim that Sadam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. I find the West very hypo critic of how we can be the world police yet we do not look after our own people.

Got it all wrong man. Hussein clearly had chemical weapons and he was massacring the Kurds. What most people don't realize, though,is that the majority of these weapons were given to him by us\UK\Israel when we wanted him to exterminate Iran decades ago.

The real threat out there? The one who financially and physically supported the extreme Wahabi Bin Laden and other salafists? Saudi Arabia.

A Wahabi monarchy that is replete with oil and is the premiere power in the middle east. Who benefits from Iran and Iraq being toppled? Israel and Saudi Arabia. Who dropped off Bin Laden to be safeguarded by the Pakistani's? Saudi Arabia.

1 + 1 = 2


It is difficult to hold any one nation responsible for this kind of terrorist activity, but a large chunk of the blame is with the Saudi's. Obviously, much of it is our own fault because what we have done in the past routinely bites us in the ass. Like our covert operations in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Being buddy buddy with Hussein in order for him to take care of Iran for us. and so on.