Obama and the Targeted Killing Program: What Would the Godfather Say?

@izzythepush,

I beg to point out, izzy, that the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent war were none of Obama's doing. This was strictly George W. Bush's baby and there was plenty of opposition to it among the American people. There were even street demonstrations and marches. Not as vehement as the opposition to the Vietnam debacle but, still, it was not a popular move on Bush's part. If Obama is to be blamed for anything concerning the war in Iraq it's that, once elected, he didn't know how to end it and get out gracefully. Understandable for one with his limited experience in world politics.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I disagree that the war cannot be won.

then you are deluded, there will always be a new terrorist threat when the old is out the way, unless of course the U.S is prepared to completely overhaul its foreign policy, and keep its nose out of other peoples business.

Quote:

We're at war. He's our Commander in Chief.

doesnt give him the right to ignore due process....there is such a thing as international human rights, as (supposedly) overseen by the UN, to which the U.S. are signatories

Quote:

Aside from the Uyghurs who we are holding because China insists on it, I don't think we know of any innocents at Guantanamo.

that's because you're probably not told about them, or judging by your attitude, you haven't bothered checking. lawsuits have been brought against the U.S. already from three innocent british citizens, who were detained there for years without access to legal representation, suffered terrible humiliation, torture...yes waterboarding and stress positions are illegal under international law and on and on.

you really need to wake up to world events. all this is provable and can be referenced if you can be bothered to look.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

Except for the demise of Muammar Qadaffi of Lybia, in which we weren't even really involved

I distinctly remember quailing at reading that Hillary said she hoped Ghadaffi was found and killed, which he was shortly after. It seemed to me at the time a kind of royal authority permission, not mean British (what do I know) but our own sense of ownership. What ever happened to trials?

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

If your referring to the outset of the war you're wrong. Like most wars, it was popular in the beginning when there was talk of shock and awe and it was thought that we would waltz in, depose Saddam and then sit back and receive the grateful hugs and kisses of the liberated Iraqi people.

It wasn't until the looting began and it started to sink in that it would be a long slog that the approval ratings began to shake.

With Abu Graib and IED killings and mailings, the shine really started to fade.

It's also when Democrats who backed the invasion began to have second thoughts.

The protests were marches were, obviously, ineffective and short lived.

Americans like a war we can win very quickly and with few casualties. the first Gulf War was a rousing success with the public, because Bush Sr didn't try and build a democratic nation.

Iraq and Afghanistan, like Vietnam, appeared like they would never end.

No free or semi-free nation is going to tolerate a perpetual state of war without a continuous succession of triumphs and conquests.

The US, for the foreseeable future,is not going to embark on conquering the world,and so years stuck in one hell hole or another is going to inevitably wear down public support.

Hopefully, I'll be around when the war weariness caused by Iraq and Afghanistan fades away and the country is up for another ass-kicking expedition. Not because I want to see another war, but because I want to be around in another ten years.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Do you realize Gods gift to government, Bush started this in 2004. Now the conservatives are crying in their beer. Where were all you good christian conservative people in 2004?

They were content being hypocrites, just like those good secular liberal people in 2012 who criticized Bush for human rights abuses but who remain silent when Obama does the same things.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Spot on Berty!

His supporters want to counter any criticism of him with "Hey, Bush and the Republicans did it too."

Of course Bush and the Republicans didn't get elected condemning themselves. Obama got elected condemning them.

That he is doing what they did should in no way excuse him in the eyes of his supporters, it should infuriate them, but so enthralled are they, that nothing he does is going to cause them to break ranks.

Oh, they will issue a tut-tut here or there as "proof" that they are not enthralled, but anything he does, no matter how it collides with their professed values, will be excused.

He knows this too.

Look for him to make a big deal about some progressive beloved issue so that he can bring back any wandering cows to the collective herd.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

well said...can i add one thing though?

Quote:

Americans like a war we can win very quickly and with few casualties. the first Gulf War was a rousing success with the public, because Bush Sr didn't try and build a democratic nation.

probably his only real mistake, in/out job done, but saddam left in power when he was there for the taking.

1 Reply

There are few things more intellectually repulsive than when partisan concerns transcend ideological beliefs.

I'm not about to jump on any Conservative Band Wagon that want to flay Obama for his drone attack policy.

I think targeted killing of select enemies is a good and even moral thing, and, as I've written in this forum more than once, I believe assassination of political and military leaders is far preferable to general war.

I don't have a problem with American drones killing American citizens who not only have joined but lead America's enemies.

I do take issue with the Administration's tenuous guidelines and absolute lack of transparency (unless of course some degree of "transparency" advances Obama's electoral chances), and agree with the Democrat Senator from Oregon, who said something to the effect of "Americans have a right to know under what circumstances their government will kill them."

Shore up the guidelines, and permit congressional oversight, and I'm pretty much OK with Obama's drone attack policy.

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I disagree that the war cannot be won.

then you are deluded, there will always be a new terrorist threat when the old is out the way,

There are a finite number of people who want to go to war with us.

We can put most of those people inside a thermobaric fireball if we put our minds to it.

Berty McJock wrote:

unless of course the U.S is prepared to completely overhaul its foreign policy, and keep its nose out of other peoples business.

When troublemakers try to disrupt the world, that is very much our business.

Aside from ringing China in steel, there is not going to be much change in our foreign policy.

Berty McJock wrote:

oralloy wrote:
We're at war. He's our Commander in Chief.

doesnt give him the right to ignore due process....there is such a thing as international human rights, as (supposedly) overseen by the UN, to which the U.S. are signatories

The world is a battlefield, not a courtroom. There is no "due process" before our soldiers open fire on enemy soldiers.

Berty McJock wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Aside from the Uyghurs who we are holding because China insists on it, I don't think we know of any innocents at Guantanamo.

that's because you're probably not told about them, or judging by your attitude, you haven't bothered checking. lawsuits have been brought against the U.S. already from three innocent british citizens, who were detained there for years without access to legal representation, suffered terrible humiliation, torture...yes waterboarding and stress positions are illegal under international law and on and on.

you really need to wake up to world events. all this is provable and can be referenced if you can be bothered to look.

The waterboarding was not done at Guantanamo. That was done at a secret CIA base in Europe.

The lack of legal representation was probably because they were not charged with a crime. If they were merely being held as POWs, there would be no crime to defend against.

As for innocent, I doubt it. These are the sorts of "citizens" that the UK is desperately trying to deport if they can at all find a way to do it.

2 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Yes, but what would it have taken to take him?

Certainly a far more aggressive military action than was necessary to expel him from Kuwait. More aggressive military action, more casualties.

I don't think that, at the time, Americans saw Saddam as the horrible miscreant they did when W was president.

2 Replies

Similar to the metaphor about apples, I believe it might one day be possible to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say, "A drone a day kept a nuclear holocaust away."

Or, one can look at drones as the antibodies of civilized nations.

And, the difference between the Godfather and the government use of drones is that the Godfather had a goal of amassing personal wealth, I thought. There is no personal wealth from drone activity. It is strictly preventive medicine, so to speak.

In a world where there is no Old Testament God to strike anyone with lightening, a drone can be thought of as a good substitute. Amen.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

i'm sorry i dont know where to begin. erm. christ!

Quote:

We can put most of those people inside a thermobaric fireball if we put our minds to it.

that's just idiotic. you have made no provision there for where they might even be. yeah bomb home soil.

Quote:

When troublemakers try to disrupt the world, that is very much our business.

no it's not, it's none of your business. if they attack your land then yes ok, and something had to be done about 9/11. unfortunately invading iraq, and afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11, and carpet bo,mbing whole countries is NOT how you deal with individual terrorist cells.

Quote:

The world is a battlefield, not a courtroom. There is no "due process" before our soldiers open fire on enemy soldiers.

so you havent read that targetted killing can take place on U.S.soil, or where capture is possible?

Quote:

The waterboarding was not done at Guantanamo. That was done at a secret CIA base in Europe.

doesnt matter where it was done. the point is torture techniques were used. illegally. and stress positions were used at guantanamo, and before you say they weren't, there is lots of footage, and photos. sensory deprivation was another one, constant bombardment of loud music...all illegal

Quote:

The lack of legal representation was probably because they were not charged with a crime. If they were merely being held as POWs, there would be no crime to defend against.

pow's still have human rights...have you even heard of the geneva convention?

Quote:

As for innocent, I doubt it. These are the sorts of "citizens" that the UK is desperately trying to deport if they can at all find a way to do it.

oh believe me, they were innocent. why else would our government have campaigned for their release, and helped them seek litigation?

honestly i'm starting to think you are a complete idiot.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

oh i totally agree...that was my point...a quick war, but at a price.

hindsight eh?? a wonderful thing Razz

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Yes, but what would it have taken to take him?

Certainly a far more aggressive military action than was necessary to expel him from Kuwait. More aggressive military action, more casualties.

I don't think that, at the time, Americans saw Saddam as the horrible miscreant they did when W was president.

I don't think that's true. Anyone who took any interest, no matter how slight, in mid-east politics was aware that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator of the first water. I completely agree with Berty McJock that not continuing on to Baghdad once the Iraqi army had been driven from Kuwait was a major mistake of Pres. Bush Sr. I remember being shocked at the time. I kept shaking my head and imagining the USA ending World War II after success at the Battle of the Bulge and simply leaving Adolf Hitler in place. The analogy is valid, I think. I couldn't believe it. That the son tried to correct the mistakes of the father is understandable but, in this case, I believe the invasion of Iraq and deposition of Saddam Hussein was way too late to be meaningful.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

As for innocent, I doubt it. These are the sorts of "citizens" that the UK is desperately trying to deport if they can at all find a way to do it.

last point and i'll shut up.

you don't deport citizens. the uk government would like to deport illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants who are plotting against us. we would deal with citizens in our own courts thankyou very much. and why we would want to deport innocent men is beyond me...can you explain please? and do try to make sense!

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

i'm sorry i dont know where to begin. erm. christ!

oralloy wrote:
We can put most of those people inside a thermobaric fireball if we put our minds to it.

that's just idiotic. you have made no provision there for where they might even be. yeah bomb home soil.

If they are on home soil they will probably not be bombed.

If they are in an allied nation, they will probably not be bombed unless the government of that allied nation wishes it.

Berty McJock wrote:

oralloy wrote:
When troublemakers try to disrupt the world, that is very much our business.

no it's not, it's none of your business.

Yes it is.

Berty McJock wrote:

if they attack your land then yes ok, and something had to be done about 9/11. unfortunately invading iraq, and afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11,

Afghanistan had everything to do with 9/11.

Berty McJock wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The world is a battlefield, not a courtroom. There is no "due process" before our soldiers open fire on enemy soldiers.

so you havent read that targetted killing can take place on U.S.soil, or where capture is possible?

I doubt it would take place on US soil unless we were in the midst of a serious national emergency.

It is reasonable to kill even when capture is possible. People try to deny us our right to hold POWs. Killing people gets around this attempt to deny our lawful rights.

Berty McJock wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The lack of legal representation was probably because they were not charged with a crime. If they were merely being held as POWs, there would be no crime to defend against.

pow's still have human rights...have you even heard of the geneva convention?

Yes. I even know there are multiple Geneva Conventions.

Since you refer to a singular "Geneva Convention", you likely refer to the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

That does not apply to unlawful combatants (aside from Common Article Three of course).

1 Reply

@oralloy,

sorry i've lost interest

you're falling onto "would probably..." and "i doubt...". weak and lazy arguements.

Quote:

Berty McJock wrote:

oralloy wrote:

When troublemakers try to disrupt the world, that is very much our business.

no it's not, it's none of your business.

Yes it is.

and quoting out of context is lazy too...i did make the proviso of "unless your land is attacked"

i'm done.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

you don't deport citizens. the uk government would like to deport illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants who are plotting against us. we would deal with citizens in our own courts thankyou very much. and why we would want to deport innocent men is beyond me...can you explain please? and do try to make sense!

I was thinking of this case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19853903

The article uses "deport" and "extradite" interchangeably. When it was in the TV news, the BBC seemed to use the word "deport" a lot.

No idea which is the correct term. No idea if he is a citizen. But the UK's government sure was eager to get him out of their country.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

ok my last post as you seem genuinely interested.

abu hamza is a jordanian, with citizinship in the uk. he is wanted in jordan for plotting to bomb embassies. he also preached hate sermons openly in his mosque over here.

as a citizen of jordan he can be deported. deportation is simply repatriation, usually to face charges in their home country. extradition is kind of the same, but can be to any country (certain caveats prevailing, dependant on the country of extradition involved.)

we are struggling to deport/extradite hamza because the evidence the jordanian authorities want to use against him was aquired under torture, and under the human rights legislation we can't because of that.

we are trying to prosecute him over here for hate crimes, if we can't deport him.

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

you're falling onto "would probably..." and "i doubt...". weak and lazy arguements.

Nonsense. The only part where I used such qualifiers was when referring to future actions. Such use was entirely appropriate in that circumstance, and there was nothing weak or lazy about any of my statements.

Berty McJock wrote:

and quoting out of context is lazy too.

I did not quote anything out of context.

Berty McJock wrote:

i did make the proviso of "unless your land is attacked"

There is no requirement that we be attacked before we do war on the world's troublemakers.

2 Replies

Obama and the Targeted Killing Program: What Would the Godfather Say?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know