• 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!

Drone strikes counterproductive, says secret CIA report

b_dubz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this.

The issue I have is that the left were it's first critics UNTIL THEIR GUY GOT THE CONTROL of the drones.

I was still gullible enough to think the left was legitimate in the concern for people. As this all happened, it made me realize that the only real concern the left possesses is the concern for power.
 
BmanMcfly said:
I agree with most of this.

The issue I have is that the left were it's first critics UNTIL THEIR GUY GOT THE CONTROL of the drones.

I was still gullible enough to think the left was legitimate in the concern for people. As this all happened, it made me realize that the only real concern the left possesses is the concern for power.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. The left didn't care about drone attacks. The left just cared about castigating Bush. The fact that their "care" evaporated into thin air faster than a car park puddle in a heat wave when Obama was elected clears up any uncertainty about that.
 
Papa bull said:
EXACTLY. The left didn't care about drone attacks. The left just cared about castigating Bush. The fact that their "care" evaporated into thin air faster than a car park puddle in a heat wave when Obama was elected clears up any uncertainty about that.
Click to expand...

It is a high percentage prediction that ACTUALLY some good men on the right and some good men on the left oppose the drone attacks, even as the majority on both sides support the drone activity. But they are a distinct minority.

The point is there is precious little difference between the Right and the Left. The 2 party paradigm is a rhetorical and political tool to mislead the most unsophisticated electorate.
 
Henry David said:
The point is there is precious little difference between the Right and the Left. The 2 party paradigm is a rhetorical and political tool to mislead the most unsophisticated electorate.
Click to expand...

Right. Aside from the irreconcilable political differences between the right and left, which leaves them disagreeing vehemently on just about every political issue.... aside from that, they're exactly the same. They're both "parties". They're both "political". They're both "human". Only the great chasm between their nearly polar opposite political philosophies differentiates one from the other. It's a subtle difference but people who are paying close attention can see it.
 
Papa bull said:
Right. Aside from the irreconcilable political differences between the right and left, which leaves them disagreeing vehemently on just about every political issue.... aside from that, they're exactly the same. They're both "parties". They're both "political". They're both "human". Only the great chasm between their nearly polar opposite political philosophies differentiates one from the other. It's a subtle difference but people who are paying close attention can see it.
Click to expand...

Their "different philosophies" is very much an illusion, another tool to trick the voters.

Their actions while in office (proof is in the pudding) are the real indicator of their philosophies.
 
Henry David said:
Their "different philosophies" is very much an illusion, another tool to trick the voters.

Their actions while in office (proof is in the pudding) are the real indicator of their philosophies.
Click to expand...

I know you can count on them to vote directly opposite on virtually all political issues. These politicians are exactly the same in that they vote. They're exactly opposite (right and left) in that they virtually always oppose each other and usually land very predictably on the issues. Except that I can count on a democrat to vote in favor of more gun regulations and a republican to vote against more gun regulations, they're exactly the same. But that I can count on a democrat voting in favor of higher taxes on the rich and a republican against higher taxes on the rich, they're exactly the same. But that I can count on democrats voting for additional means-tested welfare programs and payments and republicans voting against that, they're exactly the same. They are damned near identical on everything except for all the things they oppose each other on.
 
Papa bull said:
If the left has been complaining about Obama, they've done it in the hushed whispers behind closed doors in soundproof rooms where no one else could hear them.
Click to expand...
Or a far more likely scenario is you don't read the paper. They didn't do it on TV, they certainly have in print. Or on YouTube news like tyt or the lip.
 
BmanMcfly said:
I agree with most of this.

The issue I have is that the left were it's first critics UNTIL THEIR GUY GOT THE CONTROL of the drones.

I was still gullible enough to think the left was legitimate in the concern for people. As this all happened, it made me realize that the only real concern the left possesses is the concern for power.
Click to expand...
That really depends on which part of the left. As I said earlier in the papers or on YouTube news channels people where criticizing Obama 6 months or less after he took office.

In the mm not so much...

But really those in the mass media are centrists on both sides, but especially on the left. Heck Obama himself is a HUGE centrist.

You thought anybody running for office did it for the people? I mean, maybe Bernie sanders but since he started supporting Israel and voted to support the military industrial complex a few times I have my doubts...

They do it for money and power. If people that cared about people ran then Noam Chomsky would have been president long ago. I would loveeee to see any politician debate him in a presidential debate. He would make them look like stammering morons...
 
Papa bull said:
EXACTLY. The left didn't care about drone attacks. The left just cared about castigating Bush. The fact that their "care" evaporated into thin air faster than a car park puddle in a heat wave when Obama was elected clears up any uncertainty about that.
Click to expand...
To bad that's not a fact.

Again in the mm your right, but in print and less main stream TV sources your wrong. They are the ones that brought Obamas drone strikes to lite in the first place!
 
Papa bull said:
I know you can count on them to vote directly opposite on virtually all political issues. These politicians are exactly the same in that they vote. They're exactly opposite (right and left) in that they virtually always oppose each other and usually land very predictably on the issues. Except that I can count on a democrat to vote in favor of more gun regulations and a republican to vote against more gun regulations, they're exactly the same. But that I can count on a democrat voting in favor of higher taxes on the rich and a republican against higher taxes on the rich, they're exactly the same. But that I can count on democrats voting for additional means-tested welfare programs and payments and republicans voting against that, they're exactly the same. They are damned near identical on everything except for all the things they oppose each other on.
Click to expand...
Actually every democratic president (and republican one) has lowered capital gains tax, a tax that pretty much exclusively effects the rich.

I believe Clinton actually lowered it more then bush sr.

And they both agree on war. They differ in what they want to spend, but they agree war is good.

You really can tell what any politician will do based on who gave them money. Bush had lots of money from oil and military, Obama banks, go figure...

Oh and there are plenty of politicians that go across party lines because of their constituency. Some dems are pro life and gun in the south, some republicans anti war, Romney enacted something very close to Obama care. Although the whole idea of the ACA was thought up in the 80s by a republican think tank.

Feinstein is a dem and for a massive security state, charlie dent is a republican and pro choice. Like I said it really depends on who gives em money, and what will help them get elected...
 
Last edited:
Henry David said:
Their "different philosophies" is very much an illusion, another tool to trick the voters.

Their actions while in office (proof is in the pudding) are the real indicator of their philosophies.
Click to expand...
This is very true.

Although I wouldn't say its even proof of their philosophy's, I would say its proof of who bought em.

People will do things against their personal philosophy if the moneys right...
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your obviously steeped in propaganda.

As I said before, in print, the left continued to complain about Obama. They also did on YouTube news channels. Do some research or better yet stop watching TV for the love of god.
 
Papa bull said:
I know you can count on them to vote directly opposite on virtually all political issues. These politicians are exactly the same in that they vote. They're exactly opposite (right and left) in that they virtually always oppose each other and usually land very predictably on the issues. Except that I can count on a democrat to vote in favor of more gun regulations and a republican to vote against more gun regulations, they're exactly the same. But that I can count on a democrat voting in favor of higher taxes on the rich and a republican against higher taxes on the rich, they're exactly the same. But that I can count on democrats voting for additional means-tested welfare programs and payments and republicans voting against that, they're exactly the same. They are damned near identical on everything except for all the things they oppose each other on.
Click to expand...

You mean like the way Dubya brought us prescription drug coverage in Medicare? ;) Or the assault on the Constitution that is the USA Patriot Act?

Or that Obama brought us the end of Habeas Corpus?
 
Henry David said:
You mean like the way Dubya brought us prescription drug coverage in Medicare? ;) Or the assault on the Constitution that is the USA Patriot Act?

Or that Obama brought us the end of Habeas Corpus?
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out that rules have exceptions. :)
 
I have always believed that this is so and have always opposed drone targeted assassinations as well as aerial bombings in most unconventional war situations. Was opposed to this when Bush did it and then Obama greatly escalated it.
 
Last edited:
b_dubz said:
Your obviously steeped in propaganda.

As I said before, in print, the left continued to complain about Obama. They also did on YouTube news channels. Do some research or better yet stop watching TV for the love of god.
Click to expand...

You are right about the logical fallacy of over generalizing. But then you commit the logical fallacy yourself by assuming Papa Bull was steeped in propaganda. I would tend to agree with Papa Bull that there seems to be less discussion about Obama war crimes versus Bush war crimes (despite the dramatic increase in drone targeted killings) but that is just a hunch and not "steeped in propaganda. It would be interesting to see a good study about this issue. I just googled "articles about bush war crimes written in 2009" and "articles about obama war crimes written in 2009" and Bush took the championship with 14,400,000 items versus 3,400,000.
But, yeah, not a scientific poll.
 
Eric7216 said:
You are right about the logical fallacy of over generalizing. But then you commit the logical fallacy yourself by assuming Papa Bull was steeped in propaganda. I would tend to agree with Papa Bull that there seems to be less discussion about Obama war crimes versus Bush war crimes (despite the dramatic increase in drone targeted killings) but that is just a hunch and not "steeped in propaganda. It would be interesting to see a good study about this issue. I just googled "articles about bush war crimes written in 2009" and "articles about obama war crimes written in 2009" and Bush took the championship with 14,400,000 items versus 3,400,000.
But, yeah, not a scientific poll.
Click to expand...
I didn't assume anything he demonstrated it here.

And in the mass media your right, but in print and other less syndicated news casts wrong. Democracy now for example always covered the fallacy's of the Obama doctrine.

Also that was 2009. People generally will give a president some leeway in the first six months or so to see what he changes, and that was at the end of the bush presidency so all his war crimes where known.

If you do bush 2008 and Obama 2010 you get 696,800,000 for bush and 10,800,000 for Obama.

This also excludes the word drone strikes, which allot of the Obama crimes articles where about.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
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]
Click to expand...

This is interesting. I recall a study by the RAND corporation stating that there was a negative correlation at best between drone strikes and terrorist attacks, but my guess is that the CIA has access to more/better information than RAND. Drone strikes do have their value, and I do think they are necessary, although (obviously) if we're not using it smartly they aren't going to be much help.
 
MadLib said:
This is interesting. I recall a study by the RAND corporation stating that there was a negative correlation at best between drone strikes and terrorist attacks, but my guess is that the CIA has access to more/better information than RAND. Drone strikes do have their value, and I do think they are necessary, although (obviously) if we're not using it smartly they aren't going to be much help.
Click to expand...
They have a value in real wars, not this... The only place the belong is in wars, not for executions abroad outside courts and law, and certainly not signature strikes...
 
CanadaJohn said:
Drones were developed as a tool of war and first used in the field under President Bush, but only in the theater of war...To deny that is partisanship and pointless.
Click to expand...

Actually denying what you said is realistic. It's your post that is partisan and delusional

bush* used drones to assassinate terrorists outside of war zones years before Obama became president, both with and without permission


Drone strikes in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since 2004, the United States government has attacked hundreds of targets in Northwest Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[21] Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Pakistan's Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, has repeatedly demanded an end to the strikes, stating: "The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country".[28] The Peshawar High Court has ruled that the attacks are illegal, inhumane, violate the UN charter on human rights and constitute a war crime
Click to expand...

On drones, Obama is Bush | Opinion | The Seattle Times

President Bush authorized about 50 non-battlefield drone strikes.
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
I agree - the mountainous border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, in my view, were part of the war zone and subject to the Congressional authorization to go to war with Afghanistan. As the Taliban and Al Qaeda scurried into the mountains, the US and coalition forces followed them, drones being necessary to find and weed them out. Pakistan, as a military ally of the US, was consulted and agreed to the US requests to follow the Taliban and Al Qaeda into these regions. Their opposition began when the strikes started taking out innocents, including women and children.

I stand by my statement that Bush began using drones as a military tool in the Afghanistan war and Obama expanded the program to make it a tool of assassination in sovereign nations not at war with the US.
Click to expand...

You are lying about what you said. You did not say "Bush began using drones as a military tool in the Afghanistan war"; What you actually said was
CanadaJohn said:
Drones were developed as a tool of war and first used in the field under President Bush, but only in the theater of war.
Click to expand...

Obama has not used drones in any nation that bush used drones in. If they were "theaters of war" under bush* then they are "theaters of war" under Obama
 
b_dubz said:
You mean the Pakistanis only started to vehemently object. They objected before, and where not heard. Furthermore that does not excuse striking a deal with a intelligence agency instead of the government. That's akin to the CIA making a deal to bomb Americans at home with no government approval.

Also he actually ramped up the targeted attack programs in Pakistan leading up until Obamas election, regardless of civilian casualties. That's simply untrue that he did not.

Bush also briefly put troops on the ground in somalia and Pakistan, and these accounts do not include anything still classified or that we did not find out through news sources/other governments.

In somalia bush used ac130 gunships, cruise missiles from boats,t and attack helicopters to kill a unknown amount of people including civilians. They also hired war lords to capture and sell people back to them, which actually strengthen AQ in that region.

According to the un the attack in Yemen was extrajudicial and illegal. we ignored them of course, and they did nothing. A year later rumsfeld issued the secret al quadea network executive order, which basically claimed the world as a battle zone for anti al quadea forces. This is obviously bs and a huge stretch of the imagination on their part. The world was a war zone in the eyes of the bush administration. So I guess your right, but its obvious baloney...

Again none of this includes anything still classified, and allot of this we know from foreign governments or was pieced together by news agency's. It would be silly not to assume their are more strikes that went undocumented and unreleased.
Click to expand...

CJ's position is that a "theater of war" is whatever he defines it as and "permission from the govt" is also "whatever he defines it as" and witih both terms, his definition depends on who was president at the time.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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]
Click to expand...
So lets see, Torture doesn't work. Detention centers like Gitmo don't work since they are supposedly recruiting tools. Ground troops are out of the question. And now drone strikes don't work either. Exactly what do liberals claim WILL work in the battle against radical muslims who wish to harm America and its interests?
 
Papa bull said:
EXACTLY. The left didn't care about drone attacks. The left just cared about castigating Bush. The fact that their "care" evaporated into thin air faster than a car park puddle in a heat wave when Obama was elected clears up any uncertainty about that.
Click to expand...

The left never stopped protesting drones. Here's something from just a few months after Obama became president

Concern Mounts Over US Predator Covert Killings | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
 
sangha said:
CJ's position is that a "theater of war" is whatever he defines it as and "permission from the govt" is also "whatever he defines it as" and witih both terms, his definition depends on who was president at the time.
Click to expand...
Yes I sorta realized that, I just like debunking such things...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom