24
   

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

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:05 pm
@Joe Nation,
That doesn't alter the fact that Obama acted either stupidly or criminally - both infinitely more serious than unlawfully. This is the concluding paragraph in Col. Davis's report (part 2) (link posted once more http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/291793/dereliction-of-duty-ii-january-15-2012.pdf )
Quote:
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
.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:06 pm
@High Seas,
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.

With respect, you're blowing up smoke. There are no "battlefield conditions" in Pakistan because there is no battlefield in Pakistan. There is no battlefield in Pakistan because the United States is not at war with Pakistan. And the United States is not at war in Pakistan because Pakistan has not committed any aggression against the United States. I needn't know the operational details when my point is that there is no legitimate cause for any military operation at all.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:07 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
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.

Dream on.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:09 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

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?


The public declaration came after the fact, but in private? They have likely been green-lighting our actions for some time.

Outside their own traitorous intelligence services, that is.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:10 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

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.

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.
revelette
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:12 pm
@Robert Gentel,
You seem to be arguing semantics with your own link.


Quote:
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.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/asia/07afghan.html

A pragmatic political alliance is still an alliance.

It is encouraging however that there seems to be a rift between the Taliban and AQ. Not completely though as they are even now talking with AQ during this lull in drone attacks.

In the end, it seems we agree on the main thing; so I am going to drop it.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:12 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
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?


I think you are incorrect about the after-the-fact part (maybe about admiting it to their public but the cooperation was both clear and public before the drones started). I agree that they had little choice to accept (it was a "with us or against us" moment right after 9/11 for them) but I really do think they choose to cooperate before-the-fact for several key reasons:

1) The CIA was flying the drones out of the Shamsi airbase within Pakistan most of the time. And there are other such examples of cooperation with the CIA (such as facilitating the Raymond Davis blood money pardon that was hugely unpopular domestically after he killed a man on the street and his backup killed another by running over him on the way to get Raymond).

2) They were paying Pakistan a lot of money in military aid with a public quid-pro-quo element to it (where Pakistan sent troops to the tribal areas and spilled a lot of their own blood fighting AQ there).

3) Musharraf publicly aligned himself with the US in 2001 immediately after the attacks (in exchange for lifting sanctions we had imposed on them for their nuclear program and in exchange for an immediate $600 million and much more to come) and granted access to airfields etc. This all predated the drone campaign and they cooperated in much more visible ways prior to its commencement.

Don't get me wrong, they had no choice but to make that choice, but they did so publicly with the US threatening them while also buying them off. It's why I say they were "corrupted" but the cooperation was clearly secured right after 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  5  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:13 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
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.

Or in other words, the US gets to create a war zone by starting a drone strike, and then it gets to wage a real war because Pakistan is a war zone. That's exactly like killing your parents, then pleading for mercy because you're an orphan. It's called chutzpah.
revelette
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:16 pm
@Thomas,
You were the one who said Pakistan gave permission after the fact. So it seems we are not invading Pakistan without Pakistan's permission even if the permission came after the fact. (I don't know one way or another, just going by your own words)

here
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:21 pm

Shocked

WTF?


Arab Spring aid: President Obama's budget asks for $800 million


Doesn't PrezBO know who these people are?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:26 pm
@Thomas,
You've heard of American exceptionalism - it's pretty much what Ovid wrote about his own people. Aeneid, again:
Quote:
Remember, Romans, these will be your arts
To teach the ways of peace to those you conquer,
To spare defeated peoples, tame the proud
.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:29 pm


I guess Obama's plan is to fund our enemies to help spread the misery around... he's a ******* idiot!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:36 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Whining that all I've done is point up your arrogance and hypocrisy does not make you less arrogant and hypocritical.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:40 pm

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


Hell no! Obama wants to kill people here and abroad.



Quote:
Then why do you support him?


I don't, I won't and I can't trust anyone that does.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:49 pm
@DrewDad,
All, righty, then. Have a good day.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:57 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Though I have been caustic here I don't recall any specific namecalling I engaged in though. I was wondering what you were referencing.


There is name-calling and there is name-calling, Robert. I guess I considered the "caustic" content of your remarks to be name-calling. Perhaps you are correct; perhaps I ought to modify my original comment from:

Quote:
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.


to:

Quote:
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.


Be that as it may...for those of you who want to help defeat Obama...I just think the victory of the Republican candidate in November will be a Pyrrhic victory of monumental proportions.

I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 in part because I thought Jimmy Carter to be incompetent...and in part to teach him a lesson. My side of that dispute prevailed...and I have regretted that move with every fiber of my being since. We are still paying the price for that bit of folly on the part of the anybody-but-Carter faction.

I think you are going to win in November, Robert.

You also are going to lose. All American is going to lose with you...and the rest of the world also.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 03:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 03:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
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.


I understand. Hard as it might be to accept, there have been times when people have actually suggested that I might be prone to that sort of thing.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 05:28 pm
I essentially agree with what Robert has been posting. Since we mostly are aware of Robert's threads that touch on Obama, I have not spent much time incorporating the same sort of information on my own Obama (Why I Am Not Voting Obama) thread. My focus there is mainly his domestic weakness. I am stopping here merely to voice my support for this thread, for now.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 05:45 pm
@revelette,
I'd like to learn what
Quote:
“It is not an ideology they share; it is more a pragmatic political alliance[/quote] is?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2021 at 12:21:44