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

That's because your presidents make it mean and tough, under that fatuous cover that it's being done to help the oppressed of the world. The US has since its inception been murdering people so it can grab their wealth. Read a history book, Frank.

Read one yourself, JTT. And then point out to me when the strongest nation of any time was gentle and loving with the rest of the world.

My point is that very strong nations just like to push others around. We are a primitive species...just recently come down from the trees. It is a dog-eat-dog world...a mean and tough world.

I agree with you in part. We Americans do throw our weight around more than we should...certainly more than I would like to see us doing. But you seem to think that the conduct of the United States is somehow out of the norm for strong nations.

It is not.

So read a history book. And you might finally realize why it is so absurd to suggest doing so would somehow shine a different light on what is happening.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12070068-nbc-news-deputy-al-qaida-leader-al-libi-killed-in-drone-strike?lite

Goodie.

Joe(yeah, I know. some pacifist me.)Nation

Good news indeed! Thanks for sharing it.

Every time I click on that link (twice now), it not only doesn't open but I get knocked off line and have to start all over again. I ain't tryin' a third time. What's it link to?

Here's the headline.

By Jim Miklaszewski
and Robert Windrem
NBC News
The White House on Tuesday confirmed the death of deputy al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan, calling his death a “major blow” to the terrorist group.

White House spokesman Jay Carney would not confirm al-Libi’s death occurred as a result of a U.S. drone strike in North Waziristan, part of Pakistan’s northwestern tribal area, though Pakistani security sources said he died in a pre-dawn attack there that killed 15 insurgents, the last in a series of three U.S. drone attacks over the weekend.
“I can’t get into details about how his death was brought about, but I can tell you that he served as al-Qaida’s general manger, responsible for overseeing the group’s day-to-day operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan and he managed the outreach to al-Qaida’s regional affiliates,” Carney said.



“We believe al-Libi’s death is a major blow to core al-Qaida, removing the No. 2 leader for the second time in last than a year and further damaging the group’s morale and cohesion and bringing it closer to its ultimate demise than ever before.”
While al-Libi had previously been reported killed in 2009, an Internet post on a jihadist website on Tuesday suggested that he did not escape death this time.
A senior moderator on Al-Qaida's top-ranked, password-protected Shamukh web forum early in the day urged other users to "pray for our brothers in Waziristan, as the situation does not please the believers."
"One of the beloved brothers from the mujahideen in Waziristan corresponded privately with me and asked me to open a thread in which we can ask for prayers for our mujahideen brothers,” the author wrote. “The situation is bad there ... and he told me some news and asked me not to reveal it to anyone now.”
The post was quickly removed from the forum a short time later.
Al-Libi, or "the Libyan" in Arabic, believed to be 39 years old, was one of the most influential propagandists in al-Qaida and one of its best known leaders. U.S. officials, speaking with NBC News on condition of anonymity, characterized him as irreplaceable in his expertise, ability and influence.

Al-Libi drew much of his credibility from having escaped a U.S. military prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan on the night of July 10, 2005. He subsequently appeared in more than 30 videos produced by al Shahab, the al-Qaida media wing, and other militant sites. In December 2009, Pakistani officials erroneously reported he had been killed in a Predator strike, further enhancing his image.
U.S. officials say unlike many al-Qaida propagandists, he also was a seasoned fighter.
In May 2011, shortly after bin Laden was killed, U.S. officials identified Abu Yahya as one of five potential successors to the slain al-Qaida leaders. The leading candidate, Ayman al Zawahiri, ultimately did succeed bin Laden. The other four potential successors now have all been killed in drone strikes.
Ilyas Kashmiri, al-Qaida’s director of external operations, was killed on June 3. Abdul Rahman Atiya, bin Laden’s chief of staff, was killed Aug. 22. Both of those attacks took place in northwestern Pakistan. Anwar al Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and an American citizen, was killed in Yemen, also in a drone strike, on Sept. 30.
With the leadership of the core al-Qaida group in Pakistan now decimated, U.S. officials have increasingly used drone attacks against the Yemen-based al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, and master bomb-maker, Ibrahim al-Nasiri.
The U.S. also is openly helping the new Yemeni government in counterinsurgency efforts against an AQAP-affiliated group, Ansar al-Sharia, in the south of the country. The assistance includes “a small contingent” of military trainers and intelligence officers assisting the Yemeni forces.



Jim Miklaszewski is chief Pentagon correspondent for NBC News; Robert Windrem is a senior investigative producer. Shawna Thomas, an NBC News producer at the White House, and Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News terrorism analyst, also contributed to this report..


Joe(here you go)Nation

Thank you, Joe

I hate drones, from us or anyone else, as I've said for years. Counterproductive at the least. Horrifying, routinely.
You all like this?
Who are you, that you like this?
Drones are hatred generators in multiples.
This will bring up more people we have to drone.
It is a fool loop.
You think we possess the specs for them forever?

This is war. If drones are used to kill and dismantle the planet's terrorist organizations like al Quida, I'm all for it. In wars, there are collateral damage, because wars are never clean. However, I would hope that all precautions are taken to minimize the killing of innocents. Carpet bombing is no longer used, because it destroys and kills indiscriminately. We can still improve on it, and I'm sure almost everything is done towards that end.

On the same token, I'm of the position that wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan were never necessary. Certainly not in Vietnam and some other places where our government involved our country.

We foster it. Children will hate us for what is manufactured war.
The al qaeda that exists now is a bunch of brought alongs.
People will always be angry when their space is messed with.
We are the ones who pumped the mujahadeen to stop the domino-ing Russia..
Boys in the parking lot, for trillions.

Really, CI, do you want a drone futzing near you?

Also, this is not war.
It is spending lives, and a great deal of money with building, that is not going into our own country while toying with others.

My own view is that using a drone is preferable to risking the life of a young boy assigned as a fighter pilot. That's all a drone is -- a destroyer plane without a human pilot in the cockpit.

lots of pros and cons re drone use

a couple of samples

http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_US_History_108/Drone-pilots-killing-people-during-tea-time_printer.shtml

http://hpronline.org/united-states/america-drones-and-the-future-of-combat/

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137055338/the-nation-if-drones-had-feelings-theyd-be-hurt


I'm on the no side.

I rarely disagree with you, but do strongly here. I cannot imagine sending a drone.

We know this. So do they.

You wrote,

That's why a strong defense is needed. The reason we can minimize attacks on our country is that most sane people understand that attacking us can mean their own country's destruction. When I worked with nuclear weapons in the USAF back in the late fifties, we had enough weapons to not only wipe Russia off the map, but they knew they didn't have a chance. Their country was surrounded by our bombers, and they knew it was impossible to stop any mass attack on Russia. That strategy worked. Any nut case leader that wants to sacrifice their own country's destruction can and will do so without any guilt. That's what makes the world so dangerous today.

You also made the claim that their children will hate us. There's nothing in history that backs up that thesis. The Vietnamese people treats Americans very well today, and you know what our country did to theirs.

I work with a number of people of Vietnamese descent. There tell me that there is not universal love of America or Americans in Vietnam. The younger generations (age 30 and younger) sound angrier than their parents and grandparents.

But isn't this kind of like being on no side on the red pyjama / blue pyjama question? You can't argue things either unless you accept the premise that Americans are out there doing combat of some kind in Arabia. Or, to state the same point from a different perspective: If Yemenis and Pakistani were up and about here, running drone strikes around Washington and new York City, American's emphatically would not be taking the lots-of-pros, lots-of-cons view.

That is all a big balloon of money on all sides forever.
My father had a friend high in Sac in the late fifties.
Me, I can understand them, but they are not me.

A lot have wasted lives and money for much of a century.