- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I wasn't aware of that. Nobody tells me anything.
[]
Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.
I wasn't aware of that. Nobody tells me anything.
Whether they are unproductive depends on what the goals are. If the goal is maintaining an endless supply of enemies in order to justify endless war, huge defense and intelligence expenditures, keeping defense and intelligence contractors wealthy and continuing the constant erosion of our civil liberties, drones and related tactics are a big success. Not to be cynical or anything.
Absolutely not. Dont you know America needs to be in a endless war?
I was actually congratulating you two on your non-partisan criticism of Obama. It's another one of those mistakes that Obama is making that he doesn't seem interested in fixing and I'm glad that it's not just conservatives that see it and criticize him for it.
But I probably should also mention that nothing in the article actually supports the assertion that drone strikes ARE counterproductive. It merely CONTENDS that they MIGHT be and I think it's a weak contention. In order to make the case, there would have to be proof that droning creates more high ranking terrorists than it kills - or that the numbers of terrorist recruits gained JUST because high ranking terrorists get whacked are so high that the benefit to the terrorist groups is so great that it offsets the losses of high ranking officials whacked. Of course the article didn't come close to proving that. But I still applaud you and Hard Truth for your criticism of Obama's drone campaign. I'd have thought you two were too partisan to ever criticize "The Messiah" but I'm glad to see I'm wrong.
Bush struck Pakistan among other country's outside the theatre of war.Drones were developed as a tool of war and first used in the field under President Bush, but only in the theater of war. President Obama and his administration decided to use the drone program for state sponsored assassinations outside of war zones and in sovereign countries with or without those countries' approval. To deny that is partisanship and pointless.
The left where the first critics of the drone campaign, but what evs...
Actually the reason it raises terrorist is from killing innocents, not terrorists. When we drone strike peoples grandmas and children it makes people in the region flock to terrorists groups.
Ummmm how did the left do this? They condemn bush unjust for war, and condemn Obama for the same unjust war.It would also help if the left didn't become a group of hypocrites... hating on bush for everything he was doing, and then using bush's actions as justification for more of the same when Obama came on the scene.
(Not saying the right are not equally hypocrites for different reasons)
The war on terror was a sad political calculation as was the war on "communism" or drugs...Drone bombing Muslims gives people the impression that he's fighting the War on Terror (still popular among centrists and the right-wing) without sacrificing troops. Seems like a sad political calculation more than anything...
Most people condemn allot of what Obama does, we just don't for common sense policy like expanding healthcare.Seems the only defense Obamaphiles have is "but but but Bush". Between that and "you're racist" they have all bases covered.
What? The two years between 53 and 55?I certainly don't know that. If I look back on my life I would say Americans were happiest during the period between the Korean and Vietnam wars - a time of peace.
In media the left STARTED complaining about the drones, not the right.The left has been remarkably silent about Obama's drone campaign. Even in this thread, the lefties only seem to want to talk about Bush. Now go figure, huh?
Well, maybe you should be drumming up more outrage against Obama, then.
Read more @: Drone strikes counterproductive, says secret CIA report
Wait! Say it aint so? Drone strikes actually are counterproductive and lead to more terrorists and terrorist attacks? [/FONT][/COLOR]
The CIA study observes that the US-led coalition in Afghanistan made "a sustained effort since 2001 to target Taliban leaders", but "Afghan government corruption and lack of unity, insufficient strength of Afghan and NATO security forces, and the country's endemic lawlessness have constrained the effectiveness of these counter-insurgency elements".
"Senior Taliban leaders' use of sanctuary in Pakistan has also complicated the HVT effort," the CIA says. "Moreover, the Taliban has a high overall ability to replace lost leaders, a centralised but flexible command and control overlaid with egalitarian Pashtun structures, and good succession planning and bench strength, especially at the middle levels."
What? The two years between 53 and 55?
And seeing as Jim crow laws still existed then, I find that a highly dubious comment...
You said the time in between Korea and nam. Korea ended in 53 and nam started in 55.No, the decade between 53 and 63. Obviously you have no personal experience with that time period so I'll be on my way.
Bush struck Pakistan among other country's outside the theatre of war.
What about the bush strikes in Yemen that killed us citizens?As noted above, the areas of Pakistan targeted were with the consent of Pakistan and were to target Taliban and Al Qaeda who were fleeing Afghanistan. It was part of the war effort and thus within the theatre of war.
What about the bush strikes in Yemen that killed us citizens?
They got permission from Pakistani intelligence, not government. Big diff. Furthermore they have not released the specifications of the deal, so we have no idea if it was violated.
You said the time in between Korea and nam. Korea ended in 53 and nam started in 55.
Obviously you know nothing of history.
Love how your ignoring the fact that a large segment of america was unequal, and thus quite unhappy during that time...
One attack, in 2002, with the approval and cooperation of the Yemeni government, to take out the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 Americans. And nothing after that until 2009 under Obama.
The Pakistanis only started to object after civilians were killed and the Bush administration pulled back on the attacks when Pakistan started to object.
Hilarious.I was talking about the US involvement in Vietnam. In 1955 Americans had never heard of the place. Obviously you know nothing about history.
Beginning in 1950, American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina.[38][A 3] U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and again in 1962.
In media the left STARTED complaining about the drones, not the right.
Your just ignorant to the facts. The left continued complaining about all those things and more. (Like many broken campaign promises, single payer, pardoning those unfairly punished in the drug war, and many many other things...)Bullcrap. The left STARTED complaining about Bush and kept complaining until Obama took office, at which point, there were no more complaints about anything the president was doing, including drone strokes, Gitmo, Iraq, new wars, etc. etc. Hypocrisy just reeks from every pore of the left.
Your just ignorant to the facts. The left continued complaining about all those things and more. (Like many broken campaign promises, single payer, pardoning those unfairly punished in the drug war, and many many other things...)
Maybe they didn't do this on TV, but everyone on tv in the "left" is really a centrist or even right leaning now a days. In print they never stopped complaining... Really both the left and right on TV are corporatist shills. It just so happens the corporations like the right more because of war, taxes, and deregulation, although the left has done all these things as well, just not quite as much...