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

Typically understated pap from Frank, JW.



Typical propaganda from you, Mr Goebbels.

In your little history lesson, Joe, you forgot to mention that the CIA funded the action that handed the Russians their asses and that it was done at the expense of the Afghan people, which made no nevermind whatsoever to the US. They simply wanted to give one to Russia and a couple of million Afghans or so didn't even figure in.

One other thing you forgot to mention was that you've lied about it being a war. It was in no way a war. What Bush started as the ultimate war crime, Obama has continued to this day.

All one has to do to get the US out is deny a SOFA and they go running for the hills. Why? Because then their war crimes don't have a cover.

I expect that you are now donning your lightest pair of sneakers to head for those same hills.

I agree, CI. That's rarely mentioned.

Y'all are always focused on the horrendous damage you have done to millions of innocents around the globe.

You see that in spades just in this thread.

Merry, just once, once, try to actually address anything that I have stated. You know you can't and yet you are still stupid enough to show your face, confirming yet again, your incredible hypocrisy.

It matters not at all which country you choose, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Indonesia, East Timor, Laos, Cambodia, ... , the US knows that its hideous war crimes will be hidden from an all too willing to look away American public.

You only have to look at this thread to see the Merry Andrews, the JW Wandels, the Frank Apisas, the Cycloptichorns, the Revelettes, the Joe Nations, not to mention all the absentee folk silently cheering in the grandstand.

We don't have to imagine what would happen if this was happening/happened in the US. We've seen what will happen, time after time after time. Innocents die and are maimed for life, their lives ruined, their countries destroyed.

And what helps it all along; the gang all joins hands, swallows deeply and trumpets the same stream of propaganda, the same lies.

Does it make it any difference to any of Obama's supporters that, as has been recently revealed, he chooses the targets?

I'm undecided on this point.

I'm feel pretty sure that this information was leaked to the NYT , intentionally, by the White House to help in his campaign, and I find this, at the very least, unseemly, because it's tough to see it as anything other than another attempt to cast him as Obama, Al Qaeda Killer.

It reminds me of his "I" laden explanation of the Bin Laden killing.

On the other hand, the process whereby he makes the deadly selections during regular session wherein he is presented with baseball cards on the various possible targets, could be an effort on his part to recognize and accept the personal responsibility of his general order of increased drone attacks. If that were the case, I would have to give him credit.

Clearly, he's not a pacifist and I wonder if the Norwegians who awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize are having second thoughts?

I've posted before that I think assassination is tool of war which, rather than finding repugnant, we should use more and perhaps, in this, Obama and I agree.

Even though each of these predator attacks amost always results in the deaths of other than the prime target (often times the target's family members), the number of innocents killed is greatly less than would result from a US invasion of Yemen or Pakistan, intended to root out the terrorists. As well, the cost in US lives of this approach is non-existent.

It's a cold logic and one that doesn't contemplate martial honor (something which gets too much contemplation), but in terms of cost vs benefit, it makes a lot of sense.

The only downside I see in this approach is the fact that in not capturing any of these people, we are missing the opportunity to reap important intelligence. I think this is an actual concern but one which his opponents tend to exaggerate because they have to find something to criticize him about for a policy with which they overall agree.

Nevertheless, Robert has demonstrated rather nicely with this thread that liberals have two sets of rules when it comes to killing in the name of our country. One for the leader of their tribe, and one for the leader of the enemy tribe.

This not to say that conservatives don't evidence a similar duplicity when confronted by the inconvenient truths about the politicians they have endorsed. It just happens to be that it's rarely found with issues of war, and, instead, generally surfaces with issues of economics.

I'd say that he has demonstrated rather nicely that these folks who made a pretense of being moral, upstanding and law abiding are really no different than you, Finn.

I'd say that he has demonstrated rather nicely that these folks who made a pretense of being honest and interested in the truth are, in reality, simply, more Finns.

That's why you can comfort yourself with the idea that many have swung to your side.

You were the last one I expected to see come anywhere close to this thread. But I know how easily you can set aside whatever tiny sense of morality you possess when it comes to your country.

Oh hum

See what I mean. The truth confounds what senses you have.

See what I mean, you think you personify The Truth.

Most people understand truth, but most also understand nauseous exuberance.

That's a lie, Finn. And you know it. Your attempts to shift this towards me illustrate your cowardice.

Occasionally you will engage in a little bit of bantering, but you are deathly afraid to engage in anything substantive.

No, it's not a lie JTT.

I engaged you in something you would define as substantive but your snarky reply indicated it is more about substance for you than your self-image as Terrible Truth Teller.

You, I'm afraid are the coward.

And you know it.

You had your chance to prove that you are really only concerned about the issues that you feel are important and you allowed ego to divert you.

You truly are a troll, and you're screwing up this forum. On one thread there are two pages of only your posts.

That's fighting the good fight against the things you deplore?

I came late to that thread, Finn. There were so many lies. It's like coming upon the two hundred years of lies that are the US. And you know that's the truth because you are deathly afraid to address anything real about the war crimes that the US has committed.

These are not from me. These are cataloged by Congressional committees, by former CIA agents, by the UN, by scholars, many of them from the US, but you will engage on none of that.

But you certainly will engage on useless, diversionary banter. In fact, you are damn good at it.

I gave you a chance to debate an issue at the core which you declare is where you reside and you responded with nonsense.

You're all about the Truth, how about applying it to yourself.

Point that up, if you will, Finn.



If you're right, I most assuredly will. Carry on.

My guess is they were having "second thoughts" while listening to his acceptance speech. He didn't pull any punches. Sometimes being a "pacifist" requires using the big stick!

New Nobel category: Drone Warrior!!!

Make no mistake, Irish...I think Barack Obama has handled the "war" problems about as reasonably as possible. Ending wars is quite different from not starting wars...and different approaches are necessary to deal with wars already in progress from the kind used to start one.

Life on planet Earth is mean...and tough. The strongest nations have always flexed their muscles more than necessary, and no leader of the strongest nation would continue to be a leader without some posturing.

But only when the pacifist is a Democrat. When a Republican president wields a big stick in an effort to secure peace, he's a war-monger.

A pacifist doesn't send drones to rain hell-fire missles down on passenger cars, no matter who is in them.

Don't get me wrong, I support his use of drones to target terrorists, but only his most desperate supporters will make a case that he's a pacifist; the same ones who want to try Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for war crimes.