Drones

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yankenstein3. Show yankenstein3's posts

    Drones

    Seems like the message is spreading.

    Less than 2% of drone kills fit the bill
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: Drones

    Obama doesn't care if he kills kids and civilians....just can't use guns to do it.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Drones

    According to high ranking officials in country; the drone attacks are causing MORE hatred for American than killing bad guys!!

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Drones

    It's entirely possible to defend the goals of the drone strikes and yet denounce the excess civilian casualties they have unfortunately caused.  Drones don't have a family waiting at home.

    Calls for more transparency toward this program is entirely warranted, and I believe congress is getting some, not all, of what they've asked for.  We deserve more.

    However, the scope and magnitude of the drone strikes is nothing compared to the Iraq fiasco, which was faulty in both precept and execution and caused well over 100,000 civilian casualties during the war.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    It's entirely possible to defend the goals of the drone strikes and yet denounce the excess civilian casualties they have unfortunately caused.  Drones don't have a family waiting at home.

    Calls for more transparency toward this program is entirely warranted, and I believe congress is getting some, not all, of what they've asked for.  We deserve more.

    However, the scope and magnitude of the drone strikes is nothing compared to the Iraq fiasco, which was faulty in both precept and execution and caused well over 100,000 civilian casualties during the war.




    You were doing good until you had to say "But, you guy started it first and was much worse so, blaaaa!"

    The iraq conflict had almost FULL congressional approval from the onset btw!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: Drones

    Good to see you guys love Drones so much. Pretty soon they will be in your back yard!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    It's entirely possible to defend the goals of the drone strikes and yet denounce the excess civilian casualties they have unfortunately caused.  Drones don't have a family waiting at home.

    Calls for more transparency toward this program is entirely warranted, and I believe congress is getting some, not all, of what they've asked for.  We deserve more.

    However, the scope and magnitude of the drone strikes is nothing compared to the Iraq fiasco, which was faulty in both precept and execution and caused well over 100,000 civilian casualties during the war.

     




     

    You were doing good until you had to say "But, you guy started it first and was much worse so, blaaaa!"

    The iraq conflict had almost FULL congressional approval from the onset btw!



    That doesn't make it any better.

    Sad you think it does.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to bald-predictions' comment:

    Good to see you guys love Drones so much. Pretty soon they will be in your back yard!


    Whatevs.  I've got nothing to hide.  

    Do you?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to jackbu's comment:

    not even going to click on your link.  Drones have proven to a vital part of fighting terrorism.  And to baldy, the people we use the drones on did not care if kids were in the building and planes which fell on 911.  Yes, Obama does care.  That is why he pulled out of Iraq while McCain, Graham and other pubs wanted us to stay and not announce to the enemy when we were leaving.



    Obama was kicked out of Iraq.

    sorry, but that's the fact.  Obama wanted to stay, Malik said get out.  Nice spin on your part, though.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:



    That doesn't make it any better.

    Sad you think it does. 




    Not better just showing whats different about the iraq war and Obama's drone war

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to jackbu's comment:

     

    not even going to click on your link.  Drones have proven to a vital part of fighting terrorism.  And to baldy, the people we use the drones on did not care if kids were in the building and planes which fell on 911.  Yes, Obama does care.  That is why he pulled out of Iraq while McCain, Graham and other pubs wanted us to stay and not announce to the enemy when we were leaving.

     



    Obama was kicked out of Iraq.

     

    sorry, but that's the fact.  Obama wanted to stay, Malik said get out.  Nice spin on your part, though.



    An gross over-simplification on your part.  So, here's another:

    After the pi55-poor job of the previous administration, who could really blame them?

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Drones

    Hot Air:

    "...three things are clear. One: Obviously, [Dems] have no deep objection to Gitmo or drone strikes on the merits. If the president’s good faith is all that’s needed to sanitize the policies then there’s nothing terribly dirty about them in the abstract. Two: Equally obviously, they’re willing to tolerate the policies being expanded. Had Bush sent drones after a U.S. citizen, it would have given the left aneurysms, but here’s O doing it and everyone’s okay with that. Is that because they think the policy is an affirmatively good thing, or is it simply that Obama hasn’t exhausted his line of trust-credit with the left yet? Three: They’re repudiating their own core argument during the Bush years about the rule of law. Public officials can’t be trusted because even the well-intentioned ones are susceptible to being corrupted by power; only the rule of law, replete with oversight and checks and balances, can keep them honest. Turns out most of the left doesn’t really believe that, but apparently thinks it’s only the ill-intentioned ones — as the Bushitler was alleged to be — who need watching. Both sides are prone to this error when it’s their guy in charge, but go figure that liberals, who trust government to intervene benevolently in all sorts of policy areas, would tolerate Obama being a little more interventionist than they thought he’d be when it comes to killing and imprisoning terrorists.

    Ah well. The silver lining for Glen Greenwald and other principled opponents is that these will all become horrible perversions of democracy again if/when (a Republican is elected)...

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to bald-predictions' comment:

    Good to see you guys love Drones so much. Pretty soon they will be in your back yard!



    Whatevs.  I've got nothing to hide.  

     

    Do you?

     



    You are kidding I hope. Do you know they have drones the siz of mosquitos? Do you think it is right for government to spy on people without probable cause?

     



    No, I'm just not that paranoid (or a criminal) to worry about insect-i-bots.

    Kind of like the adage, "look, but don't touch".  They can look all they want, but acting on it is another matter.

    Have you seen any of these drones spying on americans?  

    I'm a little more concerned about the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy, which both exists and is more prescient.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Drones

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:



    No, I'm just not that paranoid (or a criminal) to worry about insect-i-bots.

    Kind of like the adage, "look, but don't touch".  They can look all they want, but acting on it is another matter.

    Have you seen any of these drones spying on americans?  

    I'm a little more concerned about the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy, which both exists and is more prescient. 



    I dontg recall you being so liberal about the govt keeping track of people when the POTUS had a R after his name!

    they are still doing those things to!

    you would never see a drone at 30,000 feet. duh!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share