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

It strains credulity to suggest that in 2009 our senior military commander claimed our effort was in danger of failure based in part on the rising number of casualties, but then two years later – after suffering almost 10,000 more casualties than the same time frame – that we are succeeding. When one further factors in the fact that the loss of so much American blood did not bring about any observable progress in reducing Afghan Government corruption, achieved only marginal degradation of the Taliban and no more than sporadic improvement in the capability of the Afghan Security Forces, the gulf between what our senior leaders say and the truth of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan becomes very difficult to explain.

It’s time to accede to reality and call things what they are.

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.

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.

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?

High Seas wrote:

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.

There are no "battlefield conditions" in Pakistan because there is no battlefield in Pakistan.

The prevailing view in Washington, however, is “that the Taliban and Al Qaeda share the same ideology,” said Tom Gregg, a former United Nations official in Afghanistan and a fellow at the Center on International Cooperation at N.Y.U., which is publishing the report. “It is not an ideology they share; it is more a pragmatic political alliance. And therefore a political approach to the Taliban ultimately could deliver a more practical separation between the two groups.”

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?

In turn I must say "dream on"! All of Pakistan is an armed camp - with 200 nukes, btw - and even a single drone strike turns it into a war zone. By definition.

Remember, Romans, these will be your arts
To teach the ways of peace to those you conquer,
To spare defeated peoples, tame the proud.

Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people?

Then why do you support him?

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

Back in the day, even though we disagreed often, I always considered you a reasonable person with whom to discuss contentious issues. You normally presented coherent, levelheaded, respectful arguments. As I remember it, you didn’t resort to the name calling and petty insults that are the norm in the forum. Things seem to have changed--with you, not the forum.

Back in the day, even though we disagreed often, I always considered you a reasonable person with whom to discuss contentious issues. You normally presented coherent, levelheaded, respectful arguments. As I remember it, you didn’t resort to being quite so caustic and engaging in the kinds of petty insults that are the norm in the forum. Things seem to have changed--with you, not the forum.

I guess I considered the "caustic" content of your remarks to be name-calling.

Fair enough, I understand the spirit of your comments and agree with your general exhortation towards less causticity. And if I were a greater man and could control my increasingly acute bullshit allergy I would be able to live up to your expectations with greater regularity.

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