24
   

Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?

 
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2012 08:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I'd like to learn what

“It is not an ideology they share; it is more a pragmatic political alliance
is?
[/quote]

I think what they mean is that the Taliban don't share the same ideological goals of wanting to destroy western interest and influence as does AQ, but having a pragmatic political alliance with AQ and other militants in the area would achieve their goal of regaining control of Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Feb, 2012 09:16 am
If Romney gets the nomination, he has already stated his stance on the question of negotiating with the Taliban, but his adviser staff has written books and articles on negotiating with the Taliban.

Quote:
“The right course for America is not to negotiate with the Taliban while the Taliban are killing our soldiers. The right course is to recognize they’re the enemy of the United States. It’s the vice president [Joe Biden] who said they’re not the enemy of the United States. The vice president’s wrong. They are the enemy. They’re killing American soldiers.”
Romney on SC debate

Quote:
“Negotiating With Evil: When to Talk to Terrorists,” Mitchell Reiss

“Afghan Peace Talks: A Primer,” co-authored with James Dobbins, a former State Department official.


source

Quote:
For the past year, Taliban representatives have been holding secret meetings with German and American officials in Europe and Qatar to engage in “talks about talks.” The discussions reportedly began in earnest when the Obama administration relaxed its prerequisites for any dialogue at the beginning of last year. U.S. officials had previously insisted that the Taliban end its ties with al-Qaida, renounce violence and accept Afghanistan’s constitution as a requirement to begin any talks. They now accept that these steps can be taken at the end of the negotiations as part of a formal peace agreement.


The administration has increasingly seen such a negotiated peace agreement as an essential complement to intensified NATO military operations in Afghanistan. Despite the surge in troops and other resources that have entered Afghanistan over the past two years, NATO forces and their Afghan allies acknowledge that they cannot plausibly hope to militarily defeat the Taliban insurgency. Although engaging in talks will enhance the movement’s legitimacy, this might be an acceptable concession if it accelerates actual negotiations and does not simply allow the Taliban to run out the clock until NATO withdraws most of its troops from Afghanistan in 2014, as planned.

U.S. officials hope to see an office for the Taliban’s negotiating team open in Qatar in a few weeks, with negotiations underway in time for the NATO summit in Chicago this May. Several Taliban leaders have already begun moving to Qatar in anticipation of the talks, and the fact that they are bringing their families with them suggests they believe the negotiating process could last a while.


More at the source
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 12:11 pm
I seemed to have run everybody off, sorry.

(I am not a subscriber)

Quote:
KABUL—The U.S. and Afghan governments have begun secret three-way talks with the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told The Wall Street Journal, disclosing an important breakthrough in efforts to end the 10-year war.

Mr. Karzai, whose government had protested being left out of recent talks between Washington and the insurgents, added he believes most Taliban are "definitively" interested in a peace settlement.

"There have been contacts between the U.S. government and the Taliban, there have been contacts between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and there have been some contacts that we have made, all of us together, including the ...


U.S., Afghans in Taliban Talks

fox news article without needing a subscription

Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 12:45 pm
@revelette,
I'm still here.

Frankly, I don't think foreign policy will change significantly no matter who is elected. The US will continue to be the bully in the schoolyard. I wish that would change, but what is...IS.

The question, however, is DO YOU AGREE WITH OBAMA'S DECISION TO START KILLING MORE PEOPLE? THEN WHY DO YOU SUPPORT HIM?

To the first, I say: I think Obama will probably end up killing (or ordering killed) no more than most previous presidents. In fact, if the Middle East does not flare up...he may go down in history as the least killing president ever.

To the second I say: Because the safety net programs now in place will probably be safer than with a Republican in the Oval Office...and any chance of improving the general safety net will be much, much better under Obama than under a Republican.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 01:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm still here.

Frankly, I don't think foreign policy will change significantly no matter who is elected. The US will continue to be the bully in the schoolyard. I wish that would change, but what is...IS.

The question, however, is DO YOU AGREE WITH OBAMA'S DECISION TO START KILLING MORE PEOPLE? THEN WHY DO YOU SUPPORT HIM?

To the first, I say: I think Obama will probably end up killing (or ordering killed) no more than most previous presidents. In fact, if the Middle East does not flare up...he may go down in history as the least killing president ever.

To the second I say: Because the safety net programs now in place will probably be safer than with a Republican in the Oval Office...and any chance of improving the general safety net will be much, much better under Obama than under a Republican.


Excellent Post!

I want to add that I was surprised that Robert Gentel would use such a blatantly skewed thread title.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 01:54 pm
@revelette,
Nah. I read your posts, which is certainly not true of everyone else's.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 02:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Yup.
You got it right, Frank.

I hope the folks who think Obama should be the next re-incarnation of the Dali Lama come down to earth soon.

Joe(life is good, but it's hard>)Nation
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 02:15 pm
@Joe Nation,
Another thing that upset me about Obama is when he expanded the war in Afghanistan with 50,000 more troops.
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 02:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CI: Obama is trying to catch up with seven and half years of under-staffing that war. He'd like to have some semblance of stability in place before we get out of there. I don't know if that's possible or has ever been possible.
The place has been a roiling mass of war-lords and petty chieftains since .....well, since the first folks walked into that area 100,000 years ago.
The Mongols couldn't sort it out, neither could the Imperial British.
The Russians got their asses handed to them.
Our numbers are coming down, about 5000 a month since mid-2011 with about 70,000 still left by election day. If I had my druthers I'd get enough aircraft and re-fuelers, load everybody up and tell the Saudis we were going to use some of those airstrips we build a few years ago to stopover on our way to Germany.
Joe(Be gone in 96 hours.)Nation


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 03:01 pm
@Joe Nation,
From my vantage point, both wars in the Middle East were always over-staffed; we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Europeans should be more worried about what happens in their neighborhood than the US. Pinpoint bombings is all we needed against the Taliban with no ground troops.

As you have opined, both Iraq and Afghanistan have been basket cases of unrest for thousands of years. There is no way the US is going to change that scenario with our ground troops. Look at what's happening in Iraq once we left? Suicide bombings continue; the tribes will never settle their differences.

That's been going on for over a thousand years.

I would have preferred that our government spend all that treasure at home to fix our infrastructure and educational system, and save our military from sacrificing their lives that doesn't affect US security.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 04:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I wish the military agreed with you. How will the officers advance if there isent wars for them to fight from their desks?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 05:30 pm
@RABEL222,
Here's another issue that's not spoken about often, but none-the-less, costly for our troops and country.

From USAToday.
Quote:
Special Ops commander vows better life for 66,000 troops


The commander of America's most elite fighting forces — responding to a groundswell of complaints raised by Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces and Marine and Air Force commandos — is promising to improve the quality of their personal lives, suffering in the wake of continuous fighting over 10 years.

Adm. William McRaven, head of Special Operations Command, said a key concern is how seasoned troops are leaving after about 10 years because of the all-consuming nature of their work.

"This pace has robbed you and your families of any sense of predictability and 'white space' (free time together)," Adm. William McRaven, the head of U.S.Special Operations Command, wrote to his 66,000 troops last month after an internal "sensing" study of the force last year uncovered quality-of-life concerns.

"I want you to know that I hear you! I am aware of the strain placed on you and I am personally committed to alleviating the pressure you and your families are dealing with in these difficult times," McRaven wrote in an e-mail obtained by USA TODAY.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:56 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
I want to add that I was surprised that Robert Gentel would use such a blatantly skewed thread title.


It should come as no surprise to you that I take a dim view of the over-aggressive foreign policy of the US. Calling it killing people is entirely accurate, if uncomfortable to spineless apologists. I have no problem with self-defense but we are about 5 years and a couple thousand lives past the point that any reasonable strategist would continue and I think that it's outrageous to waste that much blood for absolutely no gain.

I want Obama's presidency to be repudiated because partisan hacks who support him regardless of principle is exactly why foreign policy won't change. Because the partisan hacks will not withdraw their support despite him being a continuation of the policies they denounced when it was a different party doing it he gets a free pass and these issues have been relegated to the back burner.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 10:07 am
@Robert Gentel,
I agree with you 100%. It's needless killing, and we waste valuable assets of humans and treasure to fight these worthless, unlimited, wars.

Obama gets a D- for continuing this war, and an F for adding 50,000 more troops.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 10:42 am
@Robert Gentel,
Fat chance.

Partisan hacks on both side of the spectrum rarely focus on actual professed principle.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 10:48 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
That is exactly what is frustrating to me. The only way Obama gets away with this is by banking on Democrats still supporting him.

He gets to be a hawk to deny that criticism from the right and only needs to be a "lesser evil" in that regard for the left to ignore that principle and vote for him.

The only reason this never changes is because that political calculus never changes. It's always safe for him because American politics is predictably partisan. I can't imagine what he could possibly do to lose the support from most of the left, for example.

If he raped a midget, they'd be saying that they'd still vote for him because a Republican would surely rape multiple midgets.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 02:21 pm
CIA Seeks New Authority to Expand Yemen Drone Campaign

The CIA is seeking authority to expand its covert drone campaign in Yemen by launching strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed, U.S. officials said.

Securing permission to use these “signature strikes” would allow the agency to hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior, such as imagery showing militants gathering at known al-Qaeda compounds or unloading explosives.

The practice has been a core element of the CIA’s drone program in Pakistan for several years. CIA Director David H. Petraeus has requested permission to use the tactic against the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, which has emerged as the most pressing terrorism threat to the United States, officials said.

If approved, the change would probably accelerate a campaign of U.S. airstrikes in Yemen that is already on a record pace, with at least eight attacks in the past four months.

For President Obama, an endorsement of signature strikes would mean a significant, and potentially risky, policy shift. The administration has placed tight limits on drone operations in Yemen to avoid being drawn into an often murky regional conflict and risk turning militants with local agendas into al-Qaeda recruits.

A senior administration official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, declined to talk about what he described as U.S. “tactics” in Yemen, but he said that “there is still a very firm emphasis on being surgical and targeting only those who have a direct interest in attacking the United States.”

U.S. officials acknowledge that the standard has not always been upheld. Last year, a U.S. drone strike inadvertently killed the American son of al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. The teenager had never been accused of terrorist activity and was killed in a strike aimed at other militants.

Some U.S. officials have voiced concern that such incidents could become more frequent if the CIA is given the authority to use signature strikes.

“How discriminating can they be?” asked a senior U.S. official familiar with the proposal. Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen “is joined at the hip” with a local insurgency whose main goal is to oust the country’s government, the official said. “I think there is the potential that we would be perceived as taking sides in a civil war.”

U.S. officials said that the CIA proposal has been presented to the National Security Council and that no decision has been reached. Officials from the White House and the CIA declined to comment.

Proponents of the plan said improvements in U.S. intelligence collection in Yemen have made it possible to expand the drone campaign — and use signature strikes — while minimizing the risk of civilian casualties.

They also pointed to the CIA’s experience in Pakistan. U.S. officials said the agency killed more senior al-Qaeda operatives there with signature strikes than with those in which it had identified and located someone on its kill list.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 02:28 pm
@Irishk,
It's up to President Obama to stop this crapshoot of killing innocent people.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 08:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
I actually didn't think the president would approve it, but it seems he has.

White House Approves Broader Yemen Drone Campaign

Quote:
The United States has begun launching drone strikes against suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen under new authority approved by President Obama that allows the CIA and the military to fire even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known, U.S. officials said.

The policy shift marks a significant expansion of the clandestine drone war against an al-Qaeda affiliate that has seized large ­pieces of territory in Yemen and is linked to a series of terrorist plots against the United States.

U.S. officials said that Obama approved the use of “signature” strikes this month and that the killing of an al-Qaeda operative near the border of Yemen’s Marib province this week was among the first attacks carried out under the new authority.

The decision to give the CIA and the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) greater leeway is almost certain to escalate a drone campaign that has accelerated significantly this year, with at least nine strikes in under four months. The number is about equal to the sum of airstrikes all last year.

The expanded authority will allow the CIA and JSOC to fire on targets based solely on their intelligence “signatures” — patterns of behavior that are detected through signals intercepts, human sources and aerial surveillance, and that indicate the presence of an important operative or a plot against U.S. interests.

Until now, the administration had allowed strikes only against known terrorist leaders who appear on secret CIA and JSOC target lists and whose location can be confirmed.
0 Replies
 
sarahot2020
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 08:43 am
@Robert Gentel,
how r u ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/21/2014 at 09:56:27