Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Dec 9, 2012.
Who better to write rules for killing people than a Chicago politician (thug).
"and by logical extention, in the United States"...umm, no.
The logical fallacy employed is hasty generalization. A school boy (well, maybe not one from a public school) could point out why the rules employed OCONUS and beyond the reach of civil courts don't apply in the US where the courts have jurisdiction and the ability to enforce rulings.
An interesting Op Ed piece. Worth the read.
Well wait a minute now. What difference does it make if you kill a terrorist with a gun or a bomb or a drone?
Don't fall for this anti-American, anti-war drivel that is designed to use our own constitution as a weapon against the United States.
Anti-American and pro-Muslim groups have a vested interest in protecting their friends that wage war against the United States.
Drone attacks are effective and they terrify the al-Qaeda leadership. That's why our enemies want them stopped.
The target of these drone attacks has always been, and always will be "enemy combatants" of the United States found on the battlefield.
Don't wage war against the United States and you have nothing to worry about.
In reality, none.
But to some, drones are one of the tools of choice for when the evil government starts to assassinate American citizens and herd the rest into FEMA camps. Drones are spying on us daily you know.
Yeah, no big deal. It only affects terrorists as labeled by the POTUS and the television. That's just like due process, only better.
That is a silly question. Any fool knows that if you are about to kill a terrorist with a gun you can ask him first whether he is a terrorist. If he says "No", you don't shoot unless he shoots you first. You can't do this with a bomb or a drone unless you drop leaflets asking the terrorists to wave red flags and the non terrorists to wave white flags but by the tme the leaflets have fallen from 4 miles up the suspects would have gone away.
The real truth s that the people who are against drones don't understand the difference between games and war. They want war to be fair with an equal chance for terrorists to kill americans as for amercans to kill terrorists. I see it differently. Terrorists are much cheaper than trained american soldiers and so for every soldier killed they need to kill at least 100 terrorists. Anything less and they are going to lose. Likewise the idea that the war can be won by killing the leaders selectively won't work either. There will always be more ready to take over! This is a war that cannot be won but it can be brought to a stop by massive degradation of their fighting strength repeated from time to time.
Everyone likes to consider themselves "tough enough", especially on a gun board. But what continually gets overlooked isn't the use of drones, but their use indiscriminately by one branch if government, at least once on an American citizen, with no checks and balances.
When we begin to wholly trust what Google says or what the POTUS says as gospel, and each play judge and jury based upon facts as presented without the benefit of any cross examination, we subject ourselves to precisely what the founders set up to avoid.
Be careful placing too much faith in what you read. Propaganda and spin exist, even in sources you trust. Stories are written to catch your interest and entertain more than to inform, in many cases.
You're very quickly turning into a one-trick pony, shark. Thanks for contributing your usual amount of intellect to the conversation.
Perhaps this is Obama way of putting his Nobel Peace Prize to work....
Make no mistake... I have NO PROBLEM with drones on foreign nationals who are deemed terrorists on-the-fly by the CIC, the Joint Chiefs, or GI Joe himself.
I draw the line, however, when American citizens are targeted while outside the theater of war without the founding fathers checks and balances being utilized as intended. Even if they really really deserve it (according to the MSM, the CIC or Rachel Maddow).
Back when I was actually researching this sort of thing, they were saying the ratio of innocent to Taliban/AQ killed was something like 50:1. With a ratio that high, you're abandoning every concept of COIN for a poor CT strategy that largely yields little results.
Yeah, we should have just caught UBL and given him a "fair" trial in front of a civilian judge with a civilian jury from another country, so that it could be truly fair and impartial.
*cough* In theory Congress is supposed to monitor this shenanigans.
You mean this scumbag? Go ahead and weep for him. He is a traitor POS that is now a good traitor POS.
I'm sorry - when did UBL get his citizenship again?
I have no doubt he's a scumbag. However, the COTUS applies even to scumbags, as long as they're citizens.
Have a judge try him in absentia, under the rules of the court or of a JAG court. Allowing the POTUS and/or the media and/or our feelings for how an individual is portrayed or perceived is dangerous waters. It's no longer a "slippery slope" - we're now swimming in the shark tank with blood on our clothes.
BS. Allowing that scumbag to keep on recruiting and outfitting other scumbags like Umar Farouk Abdullmutallab with various devices until they got it right and took down an airplane would be idiotic in the extreme. Fortunately your Pollyanna outlook didn't prevail in Awlaki's case. Jimmy Carter was timid about recognizing and dealing with enemies too.