The distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one...

Certainly it is easier for you to just allege that my response is emotional than it is to face the indisputable fact that the Bush administration orchestarted a rush to war based on alleged intelligence which they knew to be false.

I believe this small article supports and amplifies on your point about Presidential constitutional war powers:

Article by Michael Boldin

"In reading the Constitution, we can plainly see that Congress possesses the power regulate commerce with foreign nations, to raise and support armies, to grant letters of marque and reprisal, to provide for the common defense, and even declare war. Congress shares, with the President, the power to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors. As for the Executive, the President is assigned only two powers relating to foreign affairs; commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the power to receive ambassadors.

The United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the President. What that means is that only the Congress, as representatives of the People and of the States, can determine whether or not the nation goes to war. If the People, through Congress, decide that the nation shall go to war, the President then, and only then, has the authority to wage it."

It is hardly likely that a body of 535 worthy citizens, sufficiently endowed with natural superiority to get elected by the most sophisticated electorate ever known, could collectively go mad.

...Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.

... I would rather a hundred radicals and their families be vaporized than a single US soldier step foot on foreign soil.

..Pakistan’s tribal area has been home to the most sustained drone campaign of anywhere in the world. The attacks started in 2004 and have been stepped up under President Obama. The main defence of drone war is that it results in less “collateral damage” than airstrikes – another impersonal euphemism, this time for civilian deaths. But investigations and anecdotal evidence show that this is not the case. Collating exact figures is difficult, but local activists say that of around 3,000 casualties in Waziristan, just 185 were named al-Qaeda operatives. The Brookings Institution estimates that ten civilians die for every militant killed.

“The problem we have with Obama is this notion that if they have a beard and they are the right age then they are presumed to be terrorists,” says Clive Stafford Smith, head of the legal aid charity Reprieve. “I would estimate that the majority of people being killed are not the people who should be killed under anyone's definition.”

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

More than half of the House is as about as crazy as box of bessiebugs right now.

Joe(maybe crazier)Nation

Yet we allowed the tragedy to continue until both sides fell over from the exhaustion of the struggle and the Six Counties are still not free to be Irish.

Quite necessary when the Japanese were ready to fight to the last person. We saved American lives and Japanese lives. ....

When General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then the Supreme Allied Commander, was informed by the Secretary of War that the atomic bomb was going to be used, he later recalled saying it was unnecessary because Japan was already largely defeated. Eisenhower said the bomb was "no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." At one point after the war he said bluntly, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Quite necessary when the Japanese were ready to fight to the last person. We saved American lives and Japanese lives. We also prevented Americans in the European Theater from being sent to the Pacific Theater for eventual storming of the Japanese Islands. Now that showed a concern for the families back home too. Sorry, if military decisions showed concern for Americans, and not just Brits.

Quote:

Quite necessary when the Japanese were ready to fight to the last person. We saved American lives and Japanese lives. ....

Quote:

When General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then the Supreme Allied Commander, was informed by the Secretary of War that the atomic bomb was going to be used, he later recalled saying it was unnecessary because Japan was already largely defeated. Eisenhower said the bomb was "no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." At one point after the war he said bluntly, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=0514

The Pentagon is considering awarding a Distinguished Warfare Medal to drone pilots who work on military bases often far removed from the battlefield. . . .

Army Institute of Heraldry chief Charles] Mugno said most combat decorations require “boots on the ground” in a combat zone, but he noted that “emerging technologies” such as drones and cyber combat missions are now handled by troops far removed from combat.

The Pentagon has not formally endorsed the medal, but Mugno’s institute has completed six alternate designs for commission approval. . . .

The proposed medal would rank between the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Soldier’s Medal for exceptional conduct outside a combat zone.

So medals would be awarded for sitting safely ensconced in a bunker on U.S. soil and launching bombs with a video joystick at human beings thousands of miles away. Justifying drone warfare requires pretending that the act entails some sort of bravery, so the U.S. military is increasingly taking steps to create the facade of warrior courage for drone pilots:

The Air Force has been working to bridge the divide between these two groups of fliers. First off, drone operators are called pilots, and they wear the same green flight suits as fighter pilots, even though they never get in a plane. Their operating stations look like dashboards in a cockpit.

To my way of thinking, Foofie, there was no justification - whatever the perceived gains argued - for bombing Japanese civilians.
I feel much the same about the drone attacks now.

Yet we allowed the tragedy to continue until both sides fell over from the exhaustion of the struggle and the Six Counties are still not free to be Irish.