• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

iguanaman said:
Bush sent 200,000 troops on a wild goose chase in hell. Over 4000 of them died, more than in 911.
And over 150,000 Iraqis died also. What exactly was their crime again?
That why Bush can't travel to many countries. They want to try him for "bloody murder".
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that since Bush did these things it's OK for Obama to do the same sort of thing? If so, then I agree. But let us please try to be consistent.
 
Grant said:
It certainly allows the President to use all force as he feels is necessary.
Click to expand...
The contention has to do with International law.
 
LowDown said:
I'll bite. What's your explanation?
Click to expand...

There's nothing to bite on. Drone strikes are the alternative to raids, which would result in more deaths on both sides. They have nothing to do with rendition.
 
Diogenes said:
It is true that we are not engaged in a war against a recognized government, which would require a declaration of war. We are employing our military forces to find and kill those who have committed heinous crimes against our people. I suggest you read The Savage Wars Of Peace by Max Boot to improve your historical perspective on this type of action.
Click to expand...

The Global War On Terror is based upon a huge and magnificent deception. For some number of years I too was deceived, but no more.

You are still deceived, 11 years later. I would be embarrassed if that were the case for me. :doh
 
Grant said:
Isn't the War on terror already a war on Al Qaeda? And of course George Bush said in his New York speech much of the war would be done surreptitiously.

It seems that the US, under this administration anyway, is not doing much to win the hearts and minds of terrorists. The Taliban will naturally re-assume power in Afghanistan, the Islamists are taking over the Middle East, and major parts of Asia and Africa. Under Obama the US is only on the retreat.
Click to expand...

The war on terrorism is a catch phrase. And once one is a terrorist, its not their mind we need to win, but those who have not yet decided to be our enemies. And groups like the Taliban, who are locally orientated, are not our problem. We interfere without just cause all too often in the affairs of other countries. The point is, invading Afghanistan and nation building accomplished nothing. There was really never a chance it would. Pakistan is our Ally, and they are more of a threat. We can't win this by invading countries.
 
Grant said:
No. the objectives were completely different, as was the culture, religion, history and geography.

You actually have no idea, do you?
Click to expand...

I have a very good idea. Yes, the religion is different, but both functioned around religion (or more used religion to address more secular problems). Yes, the geography is different, but geography plays no real role. Not for our part. The point is they stopped building up the opposition, giving them PR, helping them create the impression they were the evil doers. They worked behind the scenes, making deals, gathering allies. There is nothing preventing us from doing the same type of thing.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
There's nothing to bite on. Drone strikes are the alternative to raids, which would result in more deaths on both sides. They have nothing to do with rendition.
Click to expand...

I am sensitive to the fact that the use of drones saves American lives, but raids don't necessarily result in a lot of people being killed. How many were killed in the raid on Bin Laden, for example. And you have the potential of having someone to interrogate, but they'd have to go to rendition, as I understand it, since they aren't accepting new guests at Gitmo.
 
Boo Radley said:
The war on terrorism is a catch phrase. And once one is a terrorist, its not their mind we need to win, but those who have not yet decided to be our enemies. And groups like the Taliban, who are locally orientated, are not our problem. We interfere without just cause all too often in the affairs of other countries. The point is, invading Afghanistan and nation building accomplished nothing. There was really never a chance it would. Pakistan is our Ally, and they are more of a threat. We can't win this by invading countries.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But US interference is not limitted to using our military force; propping up moronic regimes as we now do in Pakistan and Egypt simply based on using "it could get worse", as an excuse, is insane. This is precisely why Iran seeks to get nukes, then they will get foreign aid instead of sanctions. Paying folks to "make nice" (only to us) is what makes many overseas hate the USA. They see their thug run, corrupt gov't getting rich via US foreign aid while they get nothing but grief from that gov't. You can often get a good clue as to the true character of another based upon the company that they keep. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly. But US interference is not limitted to using our military force; propping up moronic regimes as we now do in Pakistan and Egypt simply based on using "it could get worse", as an excuse, is insane. This is precisely why Iran seeks to get nukes, then they will get foreign aid instead of sanctions. Paying folks to "make nice" (only to us) is what makes many overseas hate the USA. They see their thug run, corrupt gov't getting rich via US foreign aid while they get nothing but grief from that gov't. You can often get a good clue as to the true character of another based upon the company that they keep. ;)
Click to expand...

You know, we may have agreement. ;)
 
Grant said:
It seems that the US, under this administration anyway, is not doing much to win the hearts and minds of terrorists.
Click to expand...
That is a huge, fatal misconception. It is not about winning the hearts and minds of terrorists, it is about the people that might support or even join with them and their means. On that count Al Qaeda has been steadily losing for a number of years. Refusing to back, and even standing against dictators in areas where Al Qaeda might otherwise find ground is another shovel of dirt for Al Qaeda’s grave.
 
LowDown said:
Do you mean to say that since Bush did these things it's OK for Obama to do the same sort of thing? If so, then I agree. But let us please try to be consistent.
Click to expand...

No I would not be OK for any President to invade a country with 200,000 of our troops for no reason. No other President but Bush has ever done anything like it. It was shameful and wrong.
 
Henry David said:
The Global War On Terror is based upon a huge and magnificent deception. For some number of years I too was deceived, but no more.

You are still deceived, 11 years later. I would be embarrassed if that were the case for me. :doh
Click to expand...

You have my sympathy.
 
iguanaman said:
No I would not be OK for any President to invade a country with 200,000 of our troops for no reason. No other President but Bush has ever done anything like it. It was shameful and wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, there was a reason, more than one reason, in fact, and Congress went along with that twice, in fact.

What about Libya? Do you think that was done for no reason, too?
 
Dwight said:
The contention has to do with International law.
Click to expand...

International law?

The US is one of the very few countries in the world which acknowledges international law but of course, when there is a conflict, the sovereignty of the US government must take precedence over any international laws. And these conflicts only arise with those countries who tend to be a blister on the backside of humanity. Dictatorial hosts to terrorists would be a good example of this.
 
Dwight said:
That is a huge, fatal misconception. It is not about winning the hearts and minds of terrorists, it is about the people that might support or even join with them and their means. On that count Al Qaeda has been steadily losing for a number of years. Refusing to back, and even standing against dictators in areas where Al Qaeda might otherwise find ground is another shovel of dirt for Al Qaeda’s grave.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda has been losing? How do you figure that?

The US, under Obama, is fleeing Afghanistan, has abandoned Iraq, and has given up on their reliable leaders in the ME to open the door for Islamism. Why do you think that the Islamists can feel safe attacking an American 'safe house', murder an Ambassador with impunity, and put out bounties on others? They know that the American leadership will respond with confusion and finger-pointing, just as they did.

Meanwhile, in response to terrorism, the American government introduces more body scanners at airports or sends out another drone to pretend they are doing something serious. This is typical third world stuff. Know your enemy, it's wisely stated, but the goofy leftists won't even admit they have an enemy.

Osama bin Laden: Strategic genius | Zero Dark Thirty | National Post
 
Grant said:
Al Qaeda has been losing? How do you figure that?
Click to expand...
In large part because their name has steadily become dirt among the public in the arab world. The people yearn to be free, what Al Qaeda is seen for is blowing them up. *shrug*

The other part of your post is a whole lot densely packed hackneyed nonsense. So easiest I just make a list:
1) Iraq needs, and wants, to stand [nominally] on its own. Getting out of the way to let them operate as a country was the goal, right? It sure as hell is not abandonment.
2) Fleeing Afghanistan? Not exactly and not fast or soon enough IMO.
3) Which “reliable leaders” would that be? Or I should say which dictators?
4) Islamist attacking and murdering Americans and putting out bounties isn’t something new, been going on for decades now.
5) Islam, in various flavors, is the prominent religion in the area. Just like it is hellva tough to get elected in this country without at least giving plausible lip service as a Christian (outside of local elections in a few areas) it is going to be such in the arab world. In arab politics it makes absolutely no sense to expect to be able to cluster bomb :3oops: without hitting a fairly strident Muslim who is remotely popularly electable.
6) Body scanners? Well yeah, gotta keep alarmists [like you] placated somehow. Not everyone shares your theater tastes, there are other theater and CYA flavors dontchaknow. :D
 
Dwight said:
In large part because their name has steadily become dirt among the public in the arab world. The people yearn to be free, what Al Qaeda is seen for is blowing them up. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support your theory? Certainly the "Arab Spring" was thought by the naive to bring in peace and democracy to the Middle East but we can see that is not happening.

The other part of your post is a whole lot densely packed hackneyed nonsense. So easiest I just make a list:
1) Iraq needs, and wants, to stand [nominally] on its own. Getting out of the way to let them operate as a country was the goal, right? It sure as hell is not abandonment.
Click to expand...

Iraq is not stable enough to stand on its own. It will fall to Islamism also.

2) Fleeing Afghanistan? Not exactly and not fast or soon enough IMO.
Click to expand...

Thats right. they should have bombed the hell out of it and left. Repeat as necessary.
3) Which “reliable leaders” would that be? Or I should say which dictators?
Click to expand...

Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya. While not ideal from a western point of view they were manageable and know quantities. Nowboth these countries will become Islamic.
4) Islamist attacking and murdering Americans and putting out bounties isn’t something new, been going on for decades now.
Click to expand...

Then this WOT isn't being too effective, is it? But perhaps you can outline some of the history of these bounties on American Ambassadors.

6) Body scanners? Well yeah, gotta keep alarmists [like you] placated somehow. Not everyone shares your theater tastes, there are other theater and CYA flavors dontchaknow. :D
Click to expand...

Im an alarmist? You're not making sense.
 
Grant said:
Do you have any evidence to support your theory? Certainly the “Arab Spring” was thought by the naive to bring in peace and democracy to the Middle East but we can see that is not happening.
Click to expand...
A sampling, although the wider picture entails a lot more:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...-after-bin-laden-killed-us-officials-say.html

Al Qaeda popularity as been waining for some time, even pre-Obama. Still problem areas, backwoods of Pakistan for example still is of some concern (although they are not really globally concerned). Yemen has been an up-and-comer for a while, it was especially serious concern when that southern province had effectively broken independent. Some places in Africa. It’ll take time but we are doing OK.
Iraq is not stable enough to stand on its own. It will fall to Islamism also.
Click to expand...
Then we had absolutely NO business going in there. Which may be the case. But it sure as hell was never the [publicly stated] plan to stay, and Iraq people/government want us out. So what do you propose? Invasion and subjugation of the government we help get in place???? :confused:
Thats right. they should have bombed the hell out of it and left. Repeat as necessary.
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean “bombed the hell out of it and fled”? :roll:
Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya. While not ideal from a western point of view they were manageable and know quantities. Nowboth these countries will become Islamic.
Click to expand...
Mubarak that had lost any semblance of popular support and Gaddafi the guy with the history of blowing up passenger airlines were not ‘ideal’? They were not our government, we had little to no business putting the effort to propping them up. Although Mubarak we had been helping with aid, even during the Obama years.
Oh and news flash! They have been Islamic countries for centuries.
Then this WOT isn't being too effective, is it?
Click to expand...
A data point is not a trend, especially when they are not a direct measure of what you suppose it measures. In short, your metrics are simplistic suck.
Im an alarmist?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Likely even a blind bigot.

Islamist does NOT equal terrorist. Even if they have that wrong tint of skin and a 5 o’clock shadow. :cool:
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
I am sensitive to the fact that the use of drones saves American lives, but raids don't necessarily result in a lot of people being killed. How many were killed in the raid on Bin Laden, for example.
Click to expand...

In general, though, raids result in more casualties on both sides as compared to drone strikes. Which is the biggest part of why the US engages in them.

And you have the potential of having someone to interrogate, but they'd have to go to rendition, as I understand it, since they aren't accepting new guests at Gitmo.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, and the assumption isn't bad, but it's incorrect. The reason why Guantanamo was even a thing was because after NATO deposed the Taliban, there was no Afghan government. Once the next government was put in place, though, that stopped being an issue. Dozens of Afghans (the people) are interrogated or debriefed every day and no rendition or Guantanamo is required. Because they're not American prisoners at all, they're Afghan (the nation) prisoners.
 
Egads, why do I feel like I'm reading the posts of John Yoo? :confused:
 
Perhaps because you are confused?
 
I think it's because I'm reading so much rhetoric that sounds so much like Yoo's "reasoning."

Or maybe Nixon, as in 'if the President does it, it's not illegal'? :confused:
 
Boo Radley said:
Just a note: that is not a declaration of war. Nor equal to one.
Click to expand...


Just a note back at ya....:

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution."

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Grant said:
Al Qaeda has been losing? How do you figure that?

The US, under Obama, is fleeing Afghanistan, has abandoned Iraq, and has given up on their reliable leaders in the ME to open the door for Islamism. Why do you think that the Islamists can feel safe attacking an American 'safe house', murder an Ambassador with impunity, and put out bounties on others? They know that the American leadership will respond with confusion and finger-pointing, just as they did.

Meanwhile, in response to terrorism, the American government introduces more body scanners at airports or sends out another drone to pretend they are doing something serious. This is typical third world stuff. Know your enemy, it's wisely stated, but the goofy leftists won't even admit they have an enemy.

Osama bin Laden: Strategic genius | Zero Dark Thirty | National Post
Click to expand...

I thought we were fighting terrorists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom