or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Do Not Kill" List - The formal whitehouse.gov petition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Do Not Kill" List - The formal whitehouse.gov petition - Page 2

post #51 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

Because the deaths caused by the Iraq war were not deliberate acts of murder designed to kill as many innocent people as possible. Unlike 9/11.
The war was a huge blunder but it's not comparable to 9/11.

 

Do you have the same cool attitude towards the use of atomic weapons? Or the fire bombing of dresden? I'm honestly curious.

post #52 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Dahlia View Post

 

 

Um, don't you mean "former"?


ooops....yeah.

where's that edit button...

post #53 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

Please give me an example of when a presidential administration has specifically targeted a sixteen year old American Citizen (or an even an appropriate equivalent) on a "kill list" and then claimed that his murder was totally justified without any kind of due process of law. This argument of "The US does terrible shit all the time, what's one more thing" is so faulty, I don't know where to begin, and it's telling that it's the one that I hear more than any other.

 

In any case, it's more the fact that they've done this while saying that it's perfectly legal (it's not), it sets a terrible precedent and nobody seems to care. Reactions like this drive me crazy because it's part of the problem. "Eh, it sucks, but what are you gonna do?"If that's really how people feel, then we're fucked. Everybody keeps saying "well at least Obama is in charge of it all," as if somehow that makes it okay. Even if you think that's the case, one way or another, he's not going to be President forever. I feel like too many people are just shrugging their shoulders over this. It's a big fucking deal.

 

You all realize that under the Obama administration, a presidential administration now has the precedent to kill US Citizens without a trial and have it be legal and detail US citizens indefinitely without a trial and have it be legal, yes? If we're not going to freak out about this, what will we freak out about? 


I apologize for that lateness in responding to this but I'm not justifying what's been done or will be done. I'm telling you how it is: The United States Government has and will do everything it can to preserve its economic and political power in the end. No different than any other nation. Just because they put it in writing doesn't mean anything to me nor should it to you. Perhaps it is a good thing. Maybe it will motivate more people to go "Hmmm...maybe I should stop being such a jingoistic, Lee Greenwood singing patriot and be a human being first".

 

I don't believe in this country's government anymore or any other currently operating really. I believe we've stalled out, become cruel, incestuous and almost barbaric in our utter lack of concern for human life and the race to see who can step on the most people on the way to the top of the mountain. I think maybe it's time to start over from scratch but that's just me. The only thing I personally can affect is my immediate circle: my family, my friends, my community. So I devote my time to those things, those causes, and hope I make a difference.

 

post #54 of 203

Unfortunately it looks like this petition died in committee (not that I could find a way to sign any existing petitions on that website—I guess you have to scroll past the TENS OF THOUSANDS of load-on-demand signature to see the form) and we are all still potential targets.

 

I promise you the day is not far away at all when a wanted man who shows his face in public will be rapidly targeted with whatever measures the government deems necessary;  if we're "lucky" there will be Judge Dredd-type human beings that will have to click "OK" before any order is executed.

post #55 of 203

Lawsuit incoming:

 

 

 

Quote:
 
“The government has killed three Americans. It should account for its actions. This case gives us an opportunity to do that,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a press call.

The suit, (.pdf) being litigated by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, seeks unspecified damages and highlights the government’s so-called unmanned drone “targeted killing” program that the ACLU and the center maintain have killed thousands, including hundreds of innocent bystanders overseas.

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/drone-attacks-lawsuit/

post #56 of 203

I don't expect it go far, but I'm glad a government agency is trying to make some noise about it.

post #57 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

Do you have the same cool attitude towards the use of atomic weapons? Or the fire bombing of dresden? I'm honestly curious.

No.  There's a reason nobody has used an atomic weapon since 1945.  Interestingly, at least some of the people who built it didn't know it would be dropped on Japan.  They thought it would be dropped somewhere remote as a demonstration.

 

Dresden was horrible and it's military value debatable but it was during wartime.  I don't see the connection to the Iraq war.

post #58 of 203

Hello,

 

It is to my great displeasure that i have to tell you that i have been placed on the kill list for conspiracy to serial murder three individuals.  I maintain my innocence.  However, my mother did kill three individuals to avenge me, despite my pleas for her to not do so.  I am a first year law student and i have reviewed the legislature and come to the conclusion that i am not guilty, but i have been informed that they do not believe me.  Contact and communication comes from passing contact with random individuals.  

The way the kill list in america has been working is, the government kid-naps you and interrogates you using any means necessary to get you to talk.  You are then killed and replaced with a double.  This agent will assume your everyday life.  This is what happened to me and my entire family (Rob, Lee, Lauren, mom and dad Levine), although i was released in exchange for voluntarily providing them with highly valuable information.  The three missing victims were left as missing as far as the public knows, others are released to the press as accidental deaths.  They say "Jesse Cale wasn't pushed into the Hudson, he fell"  Even though they have a confession off of the books.  I am not sure how long the doubles are here to stay after I'm gone. Perhaps for life or maybe they will begin to "die" over the next decade by various faked deaths as they resume their regular identities.

Either way, i have until June first of 2013 to live.  At which point i will be tortured (for making this post) to death and dumped into the Atlantic ocean, according to passing comments.

My only hope is to find political asylum in a foreign country, but you would be surprised how many nations know of the kill list and refuse to intervene.  I went to Mexico already and was told that Mexico was not interested in America's problems.  Nevertheless, my only hope is to tour the world in the hopes of attaining political asylum and safety from torture and death in the name of "justice" by the American government.  

 

Sincerely,

 

John Levine

Former Emory Law Student

post #59 of 203

Can you help me with something?

You know in the 1990s when Ultimate Warrior disappeared and then he came back and everyone was all "oh that's a different Ultimate Warrior" but the WWF were all like "no dudes he's totally the same look at the facepaint"?

Do you think he was put on the kill list? I think he was put on the kill list but I am not sure.

post #60 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

Can you help me with something?

You know in the 1990s when Ultimate Warrior disappeared and then he came back and everyone was all "oh that's a different Ultimate Warrior" but the WWF were all like "no dudes he's totally the same look at the facepaint"?

Do you think he was put on the kill list? I think he was put on the kill list but I am not sure.

 

Andrew, I believe Vincent Kennedy McMahon placed the Ultimate Warrior on the "Kil-Career" list. He escaped to Atlanta, but unfortunately the New World Order resolved the situation.

post #61 of 203

My account was just banned.  I want to make it clear that i am not a troll and this is not a joke.  I have never been more sure of anything in my life.  I have pictures of my family and their doubles and you can see the difference.  I have my word, and i am 100% sure that i am on the kill list.  I am currently working with the Georgia Asylum and Immigration Network, wish me luck an god bless us all.

post #62 of 203
My first inclination was to ban, but... ei yi yi. Guys, if everyone promises to play nice with the new kid I might let this slide a while longer.

John, keep all your posts confined to this thread and if you start spamming you're gone for good. Also, I respectfully reccommend getting in touch with a close family member or nearby crisis center that can assist you in this predicament.
post #63 of 203

Thank you Romo, i would go to a crisis center but i would doubt there ability to undermine the NSA, they could instead sign me into a mental ward against my wishes.  This would be a terrible risk of a huge waste of time.  

post #64 of 203

Here is the story of when i went to mexico:

 

 

 

My mother killed three people to avenge my rape even though I told her not to.  We were put on the kill list.  I ran and made it into Mexico; all the way to the first stop where you need a passport.  I asked for political asylum and was refused after they contacted the US embassy.  On my way back towards the American border I was pulled over because they said I was going to fast even though I was not speeding and they did not have a radar gun.  They took me out at gun point and searched my car.  They made me call some child and talk to him; I apologized for having killed his brother who I assume my mother killed and he said ok.  Some other kid asked me when I was going to start crying, in Texas or Atlanta.  They decided to let me go and told me not to stop until they passed me.  After three large convoy trucks filled with soldiers passed me I stopped to return because I wanted my license back and my phone which they kept.  After I had just pulled over an SUV pulled up and asked me why I stopped.  He searched me and told me to keep going.  I soon reached the river and was told to get out and swim.  I made it to Texas and after wondering for some time with no money some woman pulled up and gave me shoes and some food.  I soon realized that I had no choice but to go back to my car in Mexico.  I swam back without trouble.  My car was there but things were stolen.  That night as I drove around I was being followed and I had no money so I decided to go back to America.  I got across and slept for the night and realized that I must return to Mexico, there is no other hope.  I returned and that night in Mexico as I slept in my car a convoy truck with soldiers tapped on my window and searched me for no reason.  They then simply drove off.  10 minutes later another convoy pulled up, searches me, and arrests me for no reason.  My car is impounded and I am brought to an abandoned prison.  In the morning I am brought to a room and at a table there is the same guy who asked me when I was going to start crying the day before.  They said to each other, I can’t believe he came back.  They let me go but kept my car.  I apologized to the guy who had gave the speech again for what my family must have done to someone he may know.  He called me chilly and walked away.  I received no ticket or explanation.  I get my car out which has been robbed and I drive to the US and get a wire to drive home.    


Edited by lawstudentjohn - 10/31/12 at 6:16am
post #65 of 203

 I honestly can't get past the idea that your mother killed three people to avenge you, and yet there doesn't seem to be a single news story about it. Let alone all the other overtly crazy stuff in your story. Plus the kill or capture list doesn't apply to domestic crimes like murder (not even serial murder).

post #66 of 203
Woah, this thread went crazy. Anyway, back on topic, here is an interview with the Pentago'ns top lawyer, Jeh Johnson. Direct link to the mp3:

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?source=reader&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.bbc.co.uk%2Fpodcasts%2Fworldservice%2Fht%2Fht_20121130-0200a.mp
post #67 of 203
post #68 of 203

So the Wall Street Journal is reporting that something called the National Counterterrorism Center has just been given authority to obtain and keep all kinds of data on US  citizens, everything from flight records, casino employee lists (!), even the names of Americans hosting Foreign Exchange students. The intent is to run analysis on the data to look for "possible criminal activity". Note the word "criminal" not "terrorist".

 

They can also share this data with other countries' intel services.

 

This is shit that I'd expect from George W Bush, not Barack Obama. Scary.

post #69 of 203

Glenn Greenwald's been writing about it for a while, as well as the liberal hypocrisy about it. Here's a good article.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/27-2

 

Obama's not making the country safer by killing suspected terrorists, and anyone associated with them (he targets rescuers and funerals as well, under the assumption that all military aged men in an extremist area are enemy combatants). He's making a choice, and people should be outraged over it.

post #70 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

So the Wall Street Journal is reporting that something called the National Counterterrorism Center has just been given authority to obtain and keep all kinds of data on US  citizens, everything from flight records, casino employee lists (!), even the names of Americans hosting Foreign Exchange students. The intent is to run analysis on the data to look for "possible criminal activity". Note the word "criminal" not "terrorist".

 

They can also share this data with other countries' intel services.

 

This is shit that I'd expect from George W Bush, not Barack Obama. Scary.

 

Now that he's been reelected, I wonder if the scrutiny will ramp up?

post #71 of 203
Judging from media coverage I've seen, I would say it already has. I've also read the Obama administration has been attempting to lay down rules and guidelines for future presidents (and to cover their own asses I imagine).
post #72 of 203

I was thinking it would slip by due to atrocity fatigue, and get left for another administration.

post #73 of 203

Greenwald has a good article on the death of children caused by drone strikes, along with criticizing Obama and his crocodile tears for the dead kids in the Sandy Hook shooting.

 

A few prescient quotes from the article-

 

Meanwhile, University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, at the peak of mourning over Newtown, simply urged: "Let's also Remember the 178 children Killed by US Drones".

 

Finally, the Yemeni blogger Noon Arabia posted a moving plea on Monday: "Our children's blood is not cheaper than American blood and the pain of loosing [sic] them is just as devastating. Our children matter too, Mr. President! These tragedies 'also' must end and to end them 'YOU' must change!"

 

Consider this irony: Monday was the three-year anniversary of President Obama's cruise missile and cluster-bomb attack on al-Majala in Southern Yemen that ended the lives of 14 women and 21 children: one more child than was killed by the Newtown gunman. In the US, that mass slaughter received not even a small fraction of the attention commanded by Newtown, and prompted almost no objections (in predominantly Muslim nations, by contrast, it received ample attention and anger).

post #74 of 203

I think the pain of losing our children might be just a wee bit more devastating, as we do not strap bombs to their chests and use them as weapons.

post #75 of 203
Right, that makes it totally okay for us to be blowing up civilians for the sake of convenience.
post #76 of 203

How does what I said translate as advocating killing?

post #77 of 203
Okay, fair point, you weren't directly advocating killing; you were just saying that the deaths of many women and children for the sake of letting the US government avoid risking the lives of its soldiers in actual soldiering is quantifiably less sad than the killing of 28 American innocents by a mentally ill man because hey, those foreign kids were probably just gonna be suicide bombers anyway.

Which is still a pretty fucking blasé attitude toward it.
post #78 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Dahlia View Post

I think the pain of losing our children might be just a wee bit more devastating, as we do not strap bombs to their chests and use them as weapons.

Of all the rationales the Obama administration has given for drone bombings, none has been that they're killing children who are going to be suicide bombers. Even they're not that calloused/crazy to think that such a theory would fly.

 

Even if you personally believe these killings are unjustified, there's still no justification for dehumanizing their parents by saying that they were going to blow up their kids, anyways when there's been no evidence presented, no due process of trial, representation in court, and a conviction that any of them would have done that. The much more likely story is that we're killing innocents, and that most Arabs are not terrorists. The Obama administration is merely killing suspected terrorists, and hiding their rationale by citing national security.

post #79 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Okay, fair point, you weren't directly advocating killing; you were just saying that the deaths of many women and children for the sake of letting the US government avoid risking the lives of its soldiers in actual soldiering is quantifiably less sad than the killing of 28 American innocents by a mentally ill man because hey, those foreign kids were probably just gonna be suicide bombers anyway.

Which is still a pretty fucking blasé attitude toward it.


Well, they do look like terrorists. How do you know civilians and children we've bombed weren't planning on blowing themselves up at some point? You don't, so case closed. How else are we supposed to fight terrorists, use harsh language? Aliens settled that debate years ago.

post #80 of 203

What does a terrorist look like? Did Timothy McVeigh "look like" a terrorist? Should we blow up everyone who looks like Timothy McVeigh? After all, they could blow up a building when they get over, so best to take precautions, right? 

 

post #81 of 203

That was sarcasm from Mr. Poop, no?

post #82 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

What does a terrorist look like? Did Timothy McVeigh "look like" a terrorist? Should we blow up everyone who looks like Timothy McVeigh? After all, they could blow up a building when they get over, so best to take precautions, right? 

 

I don't know if you're directing this at me, but I'm with you on this and was also merely using tortured logic to show how unjustified US bombing is.

post #83 of 203

No, I'm sorry I wasn't attacking Mr. Poop (although it does obviously look like that, which I should have been clearer about). I'm just appalled at the distance people apply to the "other" that we're mass slaughtering in order to feel good at night and I hear the type of arguments Stunt Poop was sarcastically making all the time. It's incredibly galling and frankly disgusting. 

post #84 of 203

No worries.

 

And I challenge anyone to read this article about 35 women and children being killed by a US bomb in Yemen and explain how you'd figure that these people were going to send their kids to blow themselves up. The only takeaway I can gather from that argument is that they're Muslims and they live in Yemen, so they were probably going to commit suicide attacks.

post #85 of 203
post #86 of 203

Thanks Congress except that this is a year too late!

 

Jeez I really wonder what is even the difference between Obama and Bush on foreign policy, or actually almost anything to be totally honest! So glad I didn't vote for him either election. He didn't deserve my vote!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/drone-strike-congress_n_2627556.html

post #87 of 203
post #88 of 203
post #89 of 203
Oh, I'm so relieved that now we might have slightly more information about the extrajudicial killing of American citizens! That clears up all my objections!

Seriously: shit on Bush all you want, by all means; I just want to know by what logic that makes what the Obama administration is doing somehow less terrible.
post #90 of 203

Its almost worse with Obama because he is pretty intelligent and obviously think a lot about the actions he takes. Bush was a patsy and was easily strong armed into terrible policies. Obama is doing this on purpose, and actually going further than the Bush Administration would even go. Also another thing is he is far less funny.

post #91 of 203

I have admitted it before, I am conflicted about this issue.

 

One one hand, I don't care if you are an US citizen; if you go to a foreign country, embrace and become accepted within a known terrorist group, proceed to publicly denounce said country and plot violence against 'foreigners', perhaps at this point you should no longer be afforded the civil liberties offered up to other US citizens.

 

One the other hand, for over a decade the GOP has attempted to convince the American public that they are the only legitimate political group capable of wielding  military power in a satisfactory manner..."the Dems are weak and are hate the military"  is something that I recall reading on more than one occasion.

 

Well, they can no longer use this meme to try and garner public support.. It was one of their biggest 'selling points' and now that Obama has removed this card from their deck, deep down you know that this to seriously piss the Republicans off, which is OK by me.

 

Finally, Obama never painted himself as a pacifist so I am not surprised by these actions. I much prefer a smart, pragmatic use of military force compared to the overt, incredibly expensive and ultimately  unnecessary invasion of a country like, let's say Iraq?

 

I am somewhat troubled by the secrecy aspects present in this administration but if I had to choose between President Obama and a possible GOP president to wield POTUS power, it's not even a close call.

post #92 of 203

I dont mind them doing drone strikes, as long as they have no other choice. I just think they should get something like a FISA warrant to do it. Just having the executive branch decide weighty issues like this unilaterally is rather scary. There needs to be some over sight! I dont see how stuff like Nixon and Reagan were doing was illegal and yet this isnt somehow. This is probably a bigger breach of the constitution and adds a very bad precedent.

post #93 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

 This is probably a bigger breach of the constitution and adds a very bad precedent.

The executive was granted an unprecedented amount of power to act against terrorists in the 2001 AUMF, and the courts pretty consistently said 'Yup, this is okay' throughout Bush's presidency. The Obama administration has just continued to exercise those powers. 

post #94 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

The executive was granted an unprecedented amount of power to act against terrorists in the 2001 AUMF, and the courts pretty consistently said 'Yup, this is okay' throughout Bush's presidency. The Obama administration has just continued to exercise those powers. 

Obama's policies only look like he has "just continued to exercise those powers" if you're unwilling to examine his conduct of warfare except in the broadest terms. Because by most measures, he's expanded on Bush's powers of spying, punishing whistleblowers, shielding torturers from prosecution, and citing state secrets to avoid giving any information about how he conducts the war on terror. And his expansive use of drone bombings, and his desire to stay in Iraq beyond the end date Bush had called for. We only ended up withdrawing from Iraq when he couldn't get immunity for US soldiers who commit crimes there from the Iraqi government.

 

And what's worse is he's been able to get bipartisan support for this. Liberals at least protested Bush and criticized him for the Patriot Act, torture, and the Iraq war. They've largely been silent with Obama. Republicans who don't support Obama's foreign policy largely do so because they don't believe he's hawkish enough, such as on the already punishing sanctions on Iran, which prevent medicine from getting there.

Here's some of CNN's stats on Obama's use of drone bombings, which exceed what Bush has done in both terms. Obama isn't even as cautious in deciding who to bomb as Bush was. Obama's administration frequently bombs people whose names we don't know, who are merely suspected of being terrorists. And of them, all military aged males are retroactively assigned the label of enemy combatant if they die in bombings, so you know that of the official numbers of deaths, many were innocents. So while the CNN article cites a New America Foundation inquiry which says that the number of civilian deaths in these bombings has dropped significantly since 2008, the numbers are inherently suspect because of how civilians can be retroactively labelled as terrorists.

 

Here's a report on New America Foundation's analysis, which says that they under report civilian deaths: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/10/15/counting-the-bodies-in-the-pakistani-drone-campaign/

 

Ultimately, we don't know the real number because of how secretive the Obama administration is.
 

(CNN) -- Covert drone strikes are one of President Obama's key national security policies. He has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush's eight years in office.

 

As a result, the number of estimated deaths from the Obama administration's drone strikes is more than four times what it was during the Bush administration -- somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618.

 

Under Obama, the drone campaign, which during the Bush administration had put emphasis on killing significant members of al Qaeda, has undergone a quiet and unheralded shift to focus increasingly on killing Taliban foot soldiers.

 

To the extent that the targets of drone attacks can be ascertained, under Bush, al Qaeda members accounted for 25% of all drone targets compared to 40% for Taliban targets. Under Obama, only 8% of targets were al Qaeda compared to just over 50% for Taliban targets.

 

And while under Bush, about a third of all drone strikes killed a militant leader, compared to less than 13% since President Obama took office, according to an analysis of thousands of credible media reports about the strikes undertaken by the New America Foundation.

 

While Bush sought to decapitate the leadership ranks of al Qaeda, Obama seems to be aiming also to collapse the entire network of allied groups, such as the Pakistani Taliban.

 

As a result, so-called "signature strikes" have become a hallmark of Obama's drone war. These are drone attacks based on patterns of merely suspicious activity by a group of men, rather than the identification of a particular individual militant.

 

These have decimated the ranks of low-level combatants, killing somewhere between 1,332 to 2,326 reported militants. In April 2010, a militant told a New York Times reporter, "It seems they really want to kill everyone, not just the leaders."

post #95 of 203

Yes, Obama stepped up drone strikes. He also significantly reduced invading other countries. What are the total deaths due to US Military action (drone strikes included) under Bush's two terms versus Obama's one and a bit terms? That's the number people should be looking at, not saying that targeted drone strikes are somehow worse because drones.

post #96 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

not saying that targeted drone strikes are somehow worse because drones.
Actually, if you were paying any attention, people are saying that targeted drone strikes are worse because killing American citizens by executive fiat without the due process that they are afforded BY LAW because somehow the president is above petty concerns like whether something is actually in any way legal or constitutional. If we want a fucking monarchy we should vote to adopt one.

Of course, that whole "getting a bunch of civilians killed because they were in the neighborhood of some guys who looked like maybe they were terrorists" thing isn't exactly helping the case either, but hey, one gross atrocity at a time, right?
post #97 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

Yes, Obama stepped up drone strikes. He also significantly reduced invading other countries. What are the total deaths due to US Military action (drone strikes included) under Bush's two terms versus Obama's one and a bit terms? That's the number people should be looking at, not saying that targeted drone strikes are somehow worse because drones.

You said that Obama was merely continuing to use Bush's powers. That's incorrect on several fronts. Obama has increased prosecutions of whistleblowers, including those who expose torture policies while shielding Bush's torturers from prosecution and threatening journalists who report on state secrets; he has massively expanded warrantless surveillance of internet communication (email surveillance has gone up, as of this article's 2012 publication, 361% since 2009. See also Greenwald for how Obama called for expanding warrantless surveillance here); he's used the Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers; he's escalated drone bombings, which is worse than Bush's use of drones not just because of the increase in bombings, but the awful methods for targeting people, sometimes whose names we don't even know, merely for being suspected of belonging to terrorist organizations, as well as doing "double taps", the policy of bombing rescuers, journalists, and mourners who gather at newly bombed sites, as well as bombing funerals; signing the NDAA, which gives him the power to indefinitely imprison Americans; and pressuring Yemen to keep imprisoned a journalist for investigating American bombings; and harassing and intimidating other journalists who investigate the war on terror.

 

You've changed the issue by saying that you were arguing that he hasn't invaded other countries (though that's a nebulous term considering his bombing of Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya). He has killed less people than Bush, but that's not nearly the same as saying he's "just" continued Bush's policies. Though he did attempt to keep the war in Iraq going longer, and ultimately withdrew soldiers because he couldn't get the Iraqi government to meet his terms, including immunity from prosecution against US soldiers.

 

Thankfully, Obama hasn't had an attack like 9/11 which he can use to justify another full scale invasion, though he's creating support for Al Qaeda faster than he can kill them because of his killing of civilians. He hasn't invaded Iran, though he's enforced punishing (and pointless) sanctions on them, which are causing food and medicine shortages there. This affects regular Iranians, and doesn't affect the regime. Like Cuba, or North Korea, or post WWI Germany, crippling sanctions are used by the country's leaders to rally their country against foreign aggression. They can blame other countries both for the sanctions and for their own bad policies they do in response, such as manipulating the money supply, which is causing the purchasing power of regular Iranians to go down. Taken to its worst depths it results in hyper inflation that Germany had after WWI, destroying their currency and creating a climate in which a strong willed patriot can promise to fight back for his people.


This despite the fact that there's no credible evidence Iran is a threat. Lacking any domestic attack like on 9/11, Obama has still ramped up many of Bush's war powers. Given one, I'm sure he'd do a lot more damage.

 

To say that Obama has "just continued to exercise those powers" of Bush is wrong. To say that he has killed less people than Bush is true, but doesn't say nearly enough about his policies. He hasn't been worse than Bush when it comes to full scale ground invasions, but that's to say nothing of the many, many ways in which he has been worse than Bush.


Edited by stunt poop - 2/6/13 at 11:47pm
post #98 of 203

Double post.


Edited by stunt poop - 2/6/13 at 11:52pm
post #99 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

I have admitted it before, I am conflicted about this issue.

 

One one hand, I don't care if you are an US citizen; if you go to a foreign country, embrace and become accepted within a known terrorist group, proceed to publicly denounce said country and plot violence against 'foreigners', perhaps at this point you should no longer be afforded the civil liberties offered up to other US citizens.

The Obama administration is not providing any evidence that they're killing people who are plotting to attack the US. From what they have revealed, they're willing to label as enemy combatants people whose names they do not know, whose activity and proximity to other suspected terrorists makes them guilty. All done in secret, because the evidence is apparently so good that it doesn't need to go through a court system in which the defense has a chance to present evidence, make a case, and are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

And what we do know about people killed by American bombings is that many of them are civilians, including hundreds of children. Many of the men killed are only retroactively labeled enemy combatants if they are of military age and male, which skews the number of civilians killed in official reports down. So we don't even know how many civilians are really killed, but we know it's more than the government is willing to say, and probably much more given how thin their link is between evidence of terror plotting and their willingness to kill. That's in addition to their policy of bombing the same sites twice, killing rescuers, mourners, and journalists. And bombing funerals, which is also a tactic of terrorist organizations.

Quote:
One the other hand, for over a decade the GOP has attempted to convince the American public that they are the only legitimate political group capable of wielding  military power in a satisfactory manner..."the Dems are weak and are hate the military"  is something that I recall reading on more than one occasion.
 
Well, they can no longer use this meme to try and garner public support.. It was one of their biggest 'selling points' and now that Obama has removed this card from their deck, deep down you know that this to seriously piss the Republicans off, which is OK by me.

So if Obama can kill thousands of innocent civilians, it gets a point in the "Pro" column because it sticks it to Republicans? How petty can you be, and how trivial can the lives of innocent people be?

If Obama was willing to simply not bomb civilians and mere suspected terrorists and was willing to take flak from Republicans for it, I would think, "There goes a better man."

 

He, and you, would show more integrity by saying that you'd rather confront Republicans with the truth that aggressive warfare doesn't work, creates enemies, and kills innocent people than saying that you're so petty that at least bombing innocent civilians doesn't afford Republicans the opportunity to say that they'd be quicker to bomb foreigners than a Democrat. Excuse yourselves from politics for a moment and show some decency.

 

It would show much more intellectual courage and honesty to take a position that, in effect, says, "I know this will paint me or my party as weak, but when lives are at stake, I will take a political hit if it means not killing innocents." That's to say nothing of how Republicans have supported Obama's policies and his hawkishness on Iran.

 

And the odds are the Republican party isn't going away, and will get a president at some point, who will inherit all of Obama's powers.

Quote:
Finally, Obama never painted himself as a pacifist so I am not surprised by these actions. I much prefer a smart, pragmatic use of military force compared to the overt, incredibly expensive and ultimately  unnecessary invasion of a country like, let's say Iraq?

To believe this means assuming away all the anger and resentment that Obama's bombings are causing and all the loss of life of innocents, and the fact that someone bent on revenge because of US war policy may carry out another attack on us.

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/12/what_might_cause_another_911/

 

Here's a list of several dozen children, with their names and ages, killed by drone bombings (and it's got a picture of one of the dead kids. Here's a link without the picture).

 

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1540

 

And an article about civilians killed in Pakistan by drones.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/killing-civilians-obamas-drone-war-in-pakistan/5315661

 

This is supposed to be a smarter war on terror policy? Better we fight the enemy over there than here, right? Exactly what threat did these children pose?

 

Now, to hear talk about how this at least sticks it to Republicans, or is a smarter, more intelligent policy than Bush's is the kind of shit I'd expect to hear in some dystopian scifi story where we see people who are villains but clearly do not believe they are villains. They'd juxtapose footage of an affluent society talking about whether drone bombings are better than all out war by the opposition party with footage of families and friends of victims, grieving and terrified to go out at night because they don't know when another bomb will explode in their neighborhood.


Edited by stunt poop - 2/7/13 at 2:03am
post #100 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stunt poop View Post

Now, to hear talk about how this at least sticks it to Republicans, or is a smarter, more intelligent policy than Bush's is the kind of shit I'd expect to hear in some dystopian scifi story where we see people who are villains but clearly do not believe they are villains.
You know what it reminds me most of? "A Taste of Armageddon," a.k.a. The One With The Computer War. Wherein the whole point is that making war safe, quick, and easy removes the most important incentives we have for not doing it when we don't need to. Only this time around someone forgot to tell the other side that they're supposed to be conducting their war with robots piloted remotely over their globe-spanning satellite network and using international political muscle to get everybody else to pretend that this is an acceptable way to do things. Oh wait, right, they don't have any of that. Good job, government, for almost making me feel sorry for Al-Qaeda. (Certainly I pity all the poor bastards whose crime was living next door to a suspected terrorist.)

You know what? I honestly prefer the full-scale invasions. At least those are things that people can work up an active dislike of and want to be done with as soon as possible, as opposed to this perpetual game of international Galaxian.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Do Not Kill" List - The formal whitehouse.gov petition