Originally Posted by RichieLion

We're not at war with the countries we are targeting people, in all cases.

It makes a bit of a difference in your defense of Obama's assassination drones.

Now, I already said I don't really have a problem with the air strikes of combatants in the sovereign nations we're not a war with.

I'm only pointing out the moral amnesia of the leftists like you who wailed about the "torture" of the same sort of people you're thrilled to have killed in a fiery reign of terror from pilotless drone assassination machines.

The war against terrorists is not against sovereign states but against groups of people who use violence and terror for a political end.



Torture is different from bombing. I am against torture of various kinds. Cannot really say that things like waterboarding are all that effective at getting people to tell what they know.

And I would not say that I am thrilled about the taking of any human life.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The war against terrorists is not against sovereign states but against groups of people who use violence and terror for a political end.



Torture is different from bombing. I am against torture of various kinds. Cannot really say that things like waterboarding are all that effective at getting people to tell what they know.

And I would not say that I am thrilled about the taking of any human life.

So are you for the assassination of suspected terrorists anywhere, and in every county in the world; or just in Muslim countries, be they allies or cooperating regimes notwithstanding?

To clarify, you still favor aerial death of suspected terrorist from above, including anyone unfortunate to be near them; and you would condemn the faux drowning "torture" of the same suspected terrorists.

I wonder which procedure the suspected terrorists would prefer.

how did we get from the killing of american citizens with no trial to the killing of terrorists all over the world? did i miss something?

Originally Posted by chachacha

how did we get from the killing of american citizens with no trial to the killing of terrorists all over the world? did i miss something?

What American citizen? Are we talking about that guy who was born in America, but serving as a Muslim cleric and organizing terrorist programs in Yemen? The guy we zapped from a drone?

It's arguable, I think, that the guy was an unlawful combatant, so killing him was completely within the authority of the Commander-In-Chief. He was deemed to be an unlawful combatant and as such was killed under the general law of war. An "unlawful combatant" doesn't have the any of the legal rights of a U.S. citizen. An unlawful combatant has an even lower status than an "enemy combatant" who has the protections of the Geneva Convention, but no rights to a civilian trial and can be punished under the authority of a military tribunal.

So, to answer the original question--I'm on board with the military (the Commander-In-Chief) ordering killing U.S. citizens deemed to be unlawful combatants and committing treason outside the borders of the U.S.

Don'tkid yourself, drone attacks allow Obama to continue with his agenda of leading from behind and to continue his plan to reduce our defense making us very vulnerable in the near future. he continues to demonstrate that he is weak, lacking strategy and commitment.

How can any Administration control collateral damage in war?

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

Originally Posted by notlongnow

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

Did you notice that also? It's amazing what war hawks these "Cindy Sheen protesters" have become since their immaculated one became the commander-in-chief.

Originally Posted by notlongnow

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

Relax, TZ is an advocate of hypocrisy, so long as it supports a leftist agenda.

Originally Posted by notlongnow

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

Have you studied any history at all?? How can you say that there has not been collateral damage in war? This has occurred in every war that the US has been involved in since before there was a United States. You will find killing of civilians-- either deliberately or accidentally-- from the French and Indian War up through now. No President or other kind of Commander-in-Chief can prevent this from happening because in war, terrible stuff happens. Why do we ignore the civilians killed in American wars? - The Washington Post

Take the Korean War for instance.

"The wars in Korea and Indochina were extremely deadly. While estimates of Korean War deaths are mainly guesswork, the three-year conflict is widely believed to have taken 3 million lives, about half of them civilians. The sizable civilian toll was partly due to the fact that the country’s population is among the world’s densest and the war’s front lines were often moving." this is from the above Washington Post linked article on civilian deaths is US wars.

There is also this which is horrifying. BBC - History - World Wars: Kill 'em All': The American Military in Korea



We are at war with terrorists not with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria or any other sovereign nation.

My condemnation of torture is that it violates human rights laws and is usually worthless with respect to actually getting good information.

I am also sure that Bush, Romney, or an other Republican President would also hunt anyone involved with 9/11 to the ends of the earth if he knew where this terrorist was.

No one that knows me would ever describe me as a war hawk in any way shape or form. Nor was I ever a supporter of Cindy Sheehan and her protests against the Iraq war. Cindy Sheehan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bumbling hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a march of folly though and I have taken issue with that war in Iraq.

Apples and oranges arguments. Hard to respond to a such things.

Comparing targeted aerial assassinations in sovereign countries to times this nation was at war is an interesting but flawed thought process.

It's too cruel to waterboard as suspect who won't talk; lets incinerate him instead. Liberals have sure changed in a few short years.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Apples and oranges arguments. Hard to respond to a such things.

Comparing targeted aerial assassinations in sovereign countries to times this nation was at war is an interesting but flawed thought process.

It's too cruel to waterboard as suspect who won't talk; lets incinerate him instead. Liberals have sure changed in a few short years.

You are trying to tell me that Romney will not do the exact same thing with the use of drones rather than sending in troops which would more than likely cost US lives???

It is probably the Pentagon which is behind the tactic of using drones in the first place. This same stance of using drones rather than sending in troops would show up in Romney Administration, too, if there is one. Pentagon Issues Drone War Talking Points | Pakalert Press A Drone-Eat-Drone World | Mother Jones

Have you studied any history at all?? How can you say that there has not been collateral damage in war?

Yes I have. I am not saying that there has been no collateral damage, as a matter of fact I think it it part of war. In this day and age of war it is almost a must because they don't wear uniforms and hide in the population to make sure it happens so people who believe like you do see it and make it hard on government to carry out war. Hell, now we arrest or soldiers when it happens.

My response was about how it is wrong when Bush did it or any GOP administration does it and when Obama does it we see statements like yours.

I think that the only two things that Obama has done right in this area IS, get Osama ( carried out plans set in place before he was Pres.) and Drones, (developed, perfected, used and deployed for a long time before him). It is about time we start using some of the same tactics that we have to fight against. I think if you demonstrate to someone that if you plan on assist in hiding the enemy, you are the enemy. Maybe then they will begin to NOT let the enemy live next door. I think your leftist Pres. thought one thing when he was a dope smoking college student and learned another once his head cleared and got into the oval office and sees the truth!

War is nothing like anything else and never will be. People die, and always will. The general public who have never served will never understand, thus will always be used as a political football for what I think is MORE insidious than drones or water boarding. Political gain! No different than what we are fighting against.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

You are trying to tell me that Romney will not do the exact same thing with the use of drones rather than sending in troops which would more than likely cost US lives???

It is probably the Pentagon which is behind the tactic of using drones in the first place. This same stance of using drones rather than sending in troops would show up in Romney Administration, too, if there is one.

I don't know what Romney would do. He hasn't spoken about "The Drone King's" uses of the pilotless aircraft in sovereign nations we're not at war with to kill those we suspect of being Islamic terrorists.

If you read the story in the liberal Washington Post, which commented on a story in the liberal New York Times, it describes a scene where Obama shuffled through his options on which terrorist suspect to target, and didn't mention him getting any word from the Pentagon in any part of this article. Of course, you know that because you commented on it previously when we talked about the "deck of cards"

I just like making liberals try to justify their new killer instincts against their simultaneous denunciation of the "faux drowning" of the same target.

Originally Posted by notlongnow

Yes I have. I am not saying that there has been no collateral damage, as a matter of fact I think it it part of war. In this day and age of war it is almost a must because they don't wear uniforms and hide in the population to make sure it happens so people who believe like you do see it and make it hard on government to carry out war. Hell, now we arrest or soldiers when it happens.

My response was about how it is wrong when Bush did it or any GOP administration does it and when Obama does it we see statements like yours.

I think that the only two things that Obama has done right in this area IS, get Osama ( carried out plans set in place before he was Pres.) and Drones, (developed, perfected, used and deployed for a long time before him). It is about time we start using some of the same tactics that we have to fight against. I think if you demonstrate to someone that if you plan on assist in hiding the enemy, you are the enemy. Maybe then they will begin to NOT let the enemy live next door. I think your leftist Pres. thought one thing when he was a dope smoking college student and learned another once his head cleared and got into the oval office and sees the truth!

War is nothing like anything else and never will be. People die, and always will. The general public who have never served will never understand, thus will always be used as a political football for what I think is MORE insidious than drones or water boarding. Political gain! No different than what we are fighting against.

What are you talking about with statements like mine? I have made no hypocritical statements. As Commander-in-Chief any President would have hard decisions to make about the war on terror. Many of those made by Bush with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were ill advised. I have taken issue with that war as have many liberals.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I don't know what Romney would do. He hasn't spoken about "The Drone King's" uses of the pilotless aircraft in sovereign nations we're not at war with to kill those we suspect of being Islamic terrorists.

If you read the story in the liberal Washington Post, which commented on a story in the liberal New York Times, it describes a scene where Obama shuffled through his options on which terrorist suspect to target, and didn't mention him getting any word from the Pentagon in any part of this article. Of course, you know that because you commented on it previously when we talked about the "deck of cards"

I just like making liberals try to justify their new killer instincts against their simultaneous denunciation of the "faux drowning" of the same target.

The use of torture is a different issue than the use of drones. It also looks like torture as a method for getting information was not effective and badly damaged our reputation. Did Waterboarding Prevent Terrorism Attacks? - TIME