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

Well, if he doesn't get re-elected, it'll be someone who is far more of a warmonger who is elected; so, is it really stupid for him to focus on the near-term necessity?

I don't think the guy's perfect on military issues but he's the best option available right now, and that's good enough for me. I can't see him starting a war with Iran or some other country unless he is absolutely forced into it by events outside our control; what more do we want? The US Gov't is firmly in the grasp on the Iron Triangle and that isn't going to change just b/c one president gets pissy about it and starts making all sorts of absolutist decisions; it takes a longer game than that to enact lasting change in our military stance and posture.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Get me in on that bet. Frank keeps getting an earful from the really far left about how imperfect Obama has been (The same people who sat on their asses in 2010 and did nothing to stop the counterinsurgency called the Tea Party.)

This thread is a bit of the same. I support Obama's ordering our military to remove threats to our mission in Afghanistan so we can get out of there. I hope the Taliban is not part of any Afghan government. I find them, in general, out of touch with modernity. They will not be helpful in making Afghanistan into a stable nation where the human rights of women are recognized and respected.

So, in short:

Joe(Go, O! Get us out of there!)Nation.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
I agree that the use of drones is one of the best ways to minimize loss of life while prosecuting this war but disagree about it being the best way to minimize social unrest.

Also, no reason justifies that America wage this war in the first place---at least no reason that international law would recognize. Military action by one country against another is a violation of international law except in response to military aggression by this other country. Pakistan has not committed military aggression against the US. US special forces, US drones, indeed US military of any kind, has no lawful basis for being in Pakistan at all. This confirms your thesis that president Obama is a warmonger---just as president Bush was and president Romney would be if elected.

Well, to be fair, Pakistan does seem to have been actively hiding the leadership of AQ from us for some time. Depending on your definition of 'military aggression,' I think that very well could qualify as an aggressive act; especially as there is every evidence that Bin Laden was present there during the time AQ was carrying out attacks in places like Spain and London.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, to be fair, Pakistan does seem to have been actively hiding the leadership of AQ from us for some time.

Hiding people America doesn't like does not constitute military aggression against the US. So how is the hiding relevant to international law? How does it waive the United States' obligation to obey it?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I'm gonna have to start asking you to place money on this!

Cannot think of any way to place a wager and insure a pay-off...so no bet.

I would be rooting against myself (which is the reason I never bet against the Football GIANTS)...so not bet.

Quote:

I say that, because polling shows him pulling farther and farther ahead of his hapless opponents as time goes along. That makes it tough for me to see the GOP candidate 'winning big.' I mean, what the heck are you basing any of this incessant pessimism on??

Lots of things...including:

Way too much optimism from liberals who are not in the lunatic liberal fringe.

The fact that conservative politicians BRAG about being conservatives...and liberal politicians try never to have the work "liberal" even uttered in their presence.

The fact that conservatives think Obama way, way too liberal--and many otherwise reliable liberals consider him way, way too conservative.

The fact that the liberals who do not consider him way, way too conservative...consider him a flip-flopper and a cowardly pragmatist much too willing to compromise (in what they consider to be) unnecessarily.

The fact that even among people who say they are going to vote for Obama, a significant number claim they will do so while holding their noses.

The fact that liberals and Democrats tend to want to eat their babies.

The fact that I expect, despite minor, temporary upticks, to see the economy tank even further during the next eight months...and despite minor, temporary upticks, to see unemployment rise.

The fact that even during times when unemployment seems to be going down...the wages of new jobs seems to be going down also.

The fact that the intensity of the Republican opposition to Obama is so extreme, they seem disposed to vote for the Republican candidate no matter what (even for Satan, should he get the nomination) in order to be rid of Obama.

The fact...well...cyclop...you get the idea. I could go on for pages.

Keep thinking good thoughts...and I am rooting for your side. I HOPE I AM WRONG AND THAT I HAVE TO EAT EVERY WORD I HAVE WRITTEN ON THE ISSUE.

But my guess is that on January 20th 2013, a Republican will be taking the presidential oath on the Capitol steps.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, to be fair, Pakistan does seem to have been actively hiding the leadership of AQ from us for some time.

Hiding people America doesn't like does not constitute military aggression against the US. So how is the hiding relevant to international law? How does it waive the United States' obligation to obey it?

I'm not sure your first sentence is a given. If I were to actively and knowingly shield international terrorists in my house, my guess is that I would successfully be prosecuted for doing so - especially if those terrorists were continuing to plan and carry out operations that killed people during that time, which I was fully aware of

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not sure your first sentence is a given.

Don't you think you should be sure before you endorse the killing of foreigners in foreign countries? To kill first and clear the legalities later is not a prudent course of action, let alone an ethically defensible one.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The fact that the intensity of the Republican opposition to Obama is so extreme, they seem disposed to vote for the Republican candidate no matter what (even for Satan, should he get the nomination) in order to be rid of Obama.

I can't agree this is true. Every single thing I read on the GOP side says that this is untrue. As I've said before - I read GOP blogs every single day and the depression over there is palpable, with MANY of their commentators specifically saying that they will NOT do what you say here - they will not vote for Mitt over Obama.

Polling has shown that GOP enthusiasm for the upcoming election is now significantly less than Dem enthusiasm. This isn't a sign of a team who is pumped up about their candidates.

The economy is a real worry, however; I agree that it is the biggest threat to Obama's re-election. Not much we or he can do about that, though.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
As I remember it, you didn’t resort to the name calling and petty insults that are the norm in the forum.

What particular namecalling are you complaining about?

Me complain??? Never, Robert! I merely mentioned it. No complaining.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
For what it is worth, I think your perspective is going to prevail. I think Obama will lose…and lose big. The nominee of the Republican Party, in my estimation, will prevail.

For what it's worth, no they won't. Obama will win by 3.6% (roughly) of the general vote.

Okay, we’ll see. All we’ve got to do is wait until November.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, to be fair, Pakistan does seem to have been actively hiding the leadership of AQ from us for some time.

The hawks who have made that accusation have admitted they do so without evidence to support it. I don't find it very persuasive, I think their intelligence services are quite compromised by people who would like to but the notion that Pakistan is sheltering AQ is usually just pressure from American to try to get concessions out of Pakistan, but they've spilled a lot of their own blood cooperating with us, and AQ has been attacking them for it. The notion that their government broadly harboring AQ is mostly political hot air.

If they are guilty of anything it is of having an intel service that is severely compromised by Islamic militants and that has occasionally undermined specific American missions.

Quote:

Depending on your definition of 'military aggression,' I think that very well could qualify as an aggressive act; especially as there is every evidence that Bin Laden was present there during the time AQ was carrying out attacks in places like Spain and London.

A better argument against Thomas' argument is that despite the Pakistani denials (aimed domestically) they did grant the CIA permission to do these attacks and as far as I can tell that gives the legal cover for these as domestic police actions.

We are there with Pakistani permission (even if they can't admit it, but then again Obama wasn't either till a couple of weeks ago), but without it I would agree with Thomas entirely.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

.......Therefore, US special forces, US drones, indeed US military of any kind, have no lawful basis for being in Pakistan at all. .....

Never mind the law - we're running an updated version of the Roman imperium, along the lines that Virgil wrote when Jupiter promised Rome perpetual domination:

Quote:

To this people I assign no boundaries in space or time. I have granted them power without limit.

Occasionally I wonder how close we are to a similar end - it's a momentary flicker of recognition, looking at their proud insignia with the eagles - and I always worry about national bankruptcy, but I don't particularly worry about the law.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Thank you for your response.

I said in one of my post that the Taliban and have AQ have merged and according to your article they do have an alliance based on pragmatic reasoning rather than ideological reasons.

Quote:

“It is not an ideology they share; it is more a pragmatic political alliance

An alliance which started before we ever invaded Afghanistan and still continues to this day however limited. They knew where he was and refused to hand him over unless there was convincing evidence and they could send him to a third country and tried by at least one Muslim.

Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over"

I agree that diplomacy should be used more than the drones and military might and probably will in the end. I also agree that the end should be sooner than the administration is saying it will end since the reason for the invasion has largely disappeared.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4895614)
Quote:
The fact that the intensity of the Republican opposition to Obama is so extreme, they seem disposed to vote for the Republican candidate no matter what (even for Satan, should he get the nomination) in order to be rid of Obama.

I can't agree this is true. Every single thing I read on the GOP side says that this is untrue. As I've said before - I read GOP blogs every single day and the depression over there is palpable, with MANY of their commentators specifically saying that they will NOT do what you say here - they will not vote for Mitt over Obama.

Polling has shown that GOP enthusiasm for the upcoming election is now significantly less than Dem enthusiasm. This isn't a sign of a team who is pumped up about their candidates.

The economy is a real worry, however; I agree that it is the biggest threat to Obama's re-election. Not much we or he can do about that, though.

We'll see in November.

As I said, I hope you (and Robert) are right and that I am absolutely wrong on the issue.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Me complain??? Never, Robert! I merely mentioned it. No complaining.

Though I have been caustic here I don't recall any specific namecalling I engaged in though. I was wondering what you were referencing.

Quote:

Okay, we’ll see. All we’ve got to do is wait until November.

Yep, but remember you heard it here. 3.6% victory, give or take 0.8%.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

hmmm. No borders...... I believe that international terrorists copped that idea a few years back.

Joe(but we, because we are nations, shall behave ourselves.)Nation

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Never mind the law - we're running an updated version of the Roman imperium, along the lines that Virgil wrote when Jupiter promised Rome perpetual domination:

If the US doesn't want to be bound by international law, it should withdraw from the international treaties enacting it. Until that happens, the US has no legitimate reason for being an outlaw. (Especially since it is a coauthor of the laws it's now breaking.)

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

A better argument against Thomas' argument is that despite the Pakistani denials (aimed domestically) they did grant the CIA permission to do these attacks and as far as I can tell that gives the legal cover for these as domestic police actions.

That declaration came after the fact. From the Pakistani government's perspective, it was either that, or admitting that they had failed to control their own territory. When someone slips on a banana peel, gets up, and says "I totally meant to do that", do you take that at face value too?

3 Replies

@Thomas,

That's true, but it presupposes we know a lot more about actual battlefield conditions than we really do - pls see link to Colonel Davis's report on previous page.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It does not matter what the reason is, the point is that they did, so we are covered. So we are not breaking any international laws.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

I said in one of my post that the Taliban and have AQ have merged....

No, they haven't. And I'm just gonna leave it at that. The information asymmetry is just too great for me to deal with pleasantly.

Quote:

An alliance which started before we ever invaded Afghanistan and still continues to this day however limited.

It's limited to the point of utter insignificance. Intel on AQ estimates in the region have been at 50-100 men for several years and interrogations of insurgents have leaked that indicate that they are no longer cooperating in any significant way. Read it for yourself.

NYTimes wrote:

One of the most startling elements in the report is the view by detainees that the Taliban have mostly rejected their old alliance with Al Qaeda and no longer give members of the terrorist network logistical or military support.

“In most regions of Afghanistan, Taliban leaders have no interest in associating with Al Qaeda,” the report said. “Working with Al Qaeda invites targeting and Al Qaeda personnel are no longer the adept and versatile fighters and commanders they once were.”

The report said the Haqqani network, a particularly lethal Pakistan-based faction of the insurgency that once had close ties with Al Qaeda, had not had any contacts with Al Qaeda in two years, according to detainees.

Quote:

They knew where he was and refused to hand him over unless there was convincing evidence and they could send him to a third country and tried by at least one Muslim.

Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over"

You are citing an event from over a decade ago (which is ingongruous in a discussion about what we should do now). Many of the people being killed now were kids then, and the relationship AQ had with the Taliban a decade ago has precious little to do with present-day reality.

Quote:

I agree that diplomacy should be used more than the drones and military might and probably will in the end. I also agree that the end should be sooner than the administration is saying it will end since the reason for the invasion has largely disappeared.

Then you can afford to stop pretending the Taliban and AQ are bosom buddies then and take note of the fact that there has been a split with them several years ago that is largely complete presently.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know