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

Jesus! When you go on a crusade you don't pull any punches with your headlines, do you, Robert? That's a bit over the top, don'cha think?

Obama decided to increase the killings done in your name. This is a fact, even if it's an uncomfortable one to you. I don't see any reason to beat around the bush about it. Why not just state things plainly? Obama escalated the American killings and if that truth hurts perhaps it should.

I stated long ago that I no longer support him. I will vote third party, if at all, since neither major party wants to nominate somebody with my values.

Ron Paul is still someone in the running who shares our values on this issue. The only one, unfortunately.

I know about Paul. Too bad he isn't more to my way of thinking in other ways.

but, other than this one issue, Ron Paul is only marginally less insane than that half-wit governor of Texas.

I'd give him a bit more credit than that. His ideas are about 50% spot-on, and 50% from far out there somewhere.

There are times I almost like him. But would not vote for him.

I understand. I have said the same thing for a long time, but I'm fed up with the status quo. I'm fine with the risk of Paul now, at the very least some very important things would get better and I can't say that about anyone else right now.

Out of curiosity, how would you rank the import of the issues? Because for me, the whole not killing people thing makes everything else pale in comparison. I'd find myself incredibly self-indulgent if I put, say, the economy over the whole not killing people thing. If my wallet were a bit thinner but we killed fewer people I'd be fine with that tradeoff. I can't think of any other issue out there that matters more than this right now.

I see your point, which you made well on the other thread.

I had a discussion a week or so ago with a old lib friend thinking about voting for Ron Paul, and I went on about my old theory about watching for the company someone keeps. That's from my hematology days, when if you find a blast cell in a peripheral smear, it was very likely a progenitor of the cells around it, thus helping identify the leukemia. (Long ago, don't know what they do on that now.) Thus, I might like a Republican, but would worry about the administration that came along with him or her. I ended with saying I'm not all so happy about the "company Obama keeps" either. I convinced her, but my conviction on this is shallow. She and I are both in despair about Obama for reasons already well discussed on a2k re his get along mode. I'm not sure she is as troubled by U.S. actions around the world as I am, but I think so.

I'm interested in third party mavericks, but have trouble envisioning how that would work out even if I approved of the candidate.
Could Gary Johnson work out? Huntsman as an independent? Or, get elected in the first place?

Given a Republican in office, one of those in the present batch of candidates, I have more trouble not seeing things get worse in some ugly ways re the economy and how life would work for the struggling with little income. I've despaired with presidents before, though. So, lets say a Republican is elected - I can imagine increasing polarization in the citizenry as an outcome. It might result in real change - but in just what ways?

You sound like you'd rather see that than put up with Dem mediocrity any further. On that, I both see your point and am not there yet myself. Why, I'll say I fear things being worse (to me) for a while might spiral out of control.

Given the financial situation I'm in right now, there is nothig more important to me than improving the economy, Robert. But that's me; that's a selfish viewpoint.

I simply disagree with your analysis that Obama has made a "decision to start killing more people." I realize that you meant it mainly to be an attention-getter and conversation-starter. But it's grossly unfair to the canidate. I don't see that Obama has much of a choice in this matter. He's pulling the troops out of Iraq; good. But do you seriously see any chance of him -- or any incumbent -- simply closing up shop in Afghanistan? Given the situation in Pakistan, there's no way we can simply pull all American troops out of Afghanistant and expect anything but immediate and absolute disaster. The Taliban, with Pakistani backing, would be back in power instantly. How long before another 9/11?

Ask yourself this: do you really believe that Ron Paul, once elected, would be able to keep that campaign promise of withdrawing the troops? I think he'd find himself in the same situation that Obama is in, viz., facing a siuation that has no other solution other than to be stabilized before scheduling a graual withdrawal.

The media downplays Paul in every way possible. The establishment certainly fears him, I suspect.

Fair enough, you can't care about everything and have to pick your spots. But it's weird that the diffusion of responsibility allows this for most people (the economy is a bigger issue for most Americans) when nobody I know would ever accept this on an individual level.

If we had a friend who had a financial problem, a marital problem, a gambling problem, a drug addiction and a bit of a killing people problem, we would not even consider the prioritization of the problems a subject worth discussing.



No, I meant it as self-evident fact. It is a simple fact that Obama has escalated the killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. These were strategic choices he approved. In the case of Pakistan he does not approve each individual strike but each and every one in Yemen must be approved by him personally.



Well then you simply aren't paying any attention. He stated it as far back as his election campaign that he advocated an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and of course he has a choice.

It's not like the laws of nature dictate that we must keep killing people in Afghanistan a decade after 9/11. Americans keep doing it merely because they don't have any idea what their exit strategy is and nobody is willing to be bold enough to withdraw without some symbol of victory to point at. It's not coming, the sane thing was to start drawing this down immediately. Instead, Obama chose to increase the attacks. And whether you like the sound of it or not that means exactly what I said: Obama made a decision for our country to start killing more people.



No, he isn't. He hasn't lifted a finger to get us out of Iraq one minute earlier than we are legally obligated to under an agreement Bush reached before he took office. The US is being kicked out of Iraq because Iraq refuses to grant US soldiers immunity from prosecution. The US is leaving on the last possible day and the Obama administration has been trying to negotiate an extension of this agreement.

So how exactly is that pulling out of Iraq? He did not make us leave Iraq one minute earlier than we were forced to by law and has been trying to get an extension. Iraq's winding down happened on its own, the reason you can't point at a single decision he took to make this happen any differently is because he didn't take any such decisions.



Of course. There is no point at all to be killing hundreds of young men in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we stopped doing it what do you think would happen?

We would not be in any more danger, I posit that we would be in less danger (because they tend to frown on us killing them).

But this isn't even what I'm criticizing Obama for. He never considered an abrupt exit, he escalated the killing. Do you support increasing the killing over there too? Why? Hundreds of people were killed with your tax money, in your name, this year. At the rate its going the CIA is days away from killing someone with a drone across the globe. Do you support the




The biggest thing that limits whether or not a 9/11 happens is the limiting resource of people willing and able to give their lives in order to kill others. What is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan is only making America new generations of enemies.

Do you really think that dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs on other unrelated people is going to make another attack less likely? Do you even bother to explain to yourself, in the privacy of your own head, how that works? Do you think we are reducing the number of enemies by these killings (i.e. do you think we can kill them all)?

9/11 didn't happen because they "hate our freedom" it happens because they hate America killing people they sympathize with. If you want to be safer the best thing you can get your country to do is to stop killing Muslims. America has killed orders of magnitude more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans.

If you don't want Muslims to kill Americans then you should consider the benefits of Americans ceasing to kill Muslims.



I know that he wouldn't try to escalate the extrajudicial killings and I can see that Obama has chosen to. That gives him enormous moral high ground over Obama in my book (if you can't tell, I'm just not a big fan of warmongers).

One would think you would be ecstatic that Obama is reducing the drone attacks and killings this year Robert.

It hasn't escaped my attention that they are down by about 25-30% but it's still double what Bush was doing at his peak. And the backlash also seems to be cresting and Pakistan and Afghanistan's leaders are having a hard time staying on top with their tacit approval of America's killing of their citizenry.

If Pakistan sticks by their guns this time and really does kick the CIA out of their airspace then it may go down even further. Here's to hoping we don't manage to pay off their leaders again and get them to keep lying to their own people about letting a foreign government covertly bomb its own citizens.

I guess somebody's got to be the bad guy around here.

Okay, in the most simplified story, you've got someone aiming a rocket launcher at you, or driving a truck load of explosives with a detonator pinned to his lapel. Okay to kill him, right? You've also got someone ordering and planning the operation. Not okay to kill him. Right again? The distinction is somewhat blurred in my mind.

If there is a legitimate threat you are defending yourself against I do not think it is immoral to kill. However I do not view the killing happening now as being remotely related to self-defense.

That is, I think that if Obama stopped killing hundreds of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan each year, that Americans would actually be safer. I allege that Americans are targets of attacks precisely because of this killing habit it has, and not in spite of it.

Costa Rica doesn't even have a military, and is not being attacked by these people. The US military is not keeping Americans safe from attacks. It is motivating them by being one of the biggest killing machines of your lifetime.

That may be your viewpoint but international law sees it differently.