60% of Americans approve of drone strikes, 47% even if Americans are killed

[bedstuy]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

What on earth are you talking about?

There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about drone strikes.

Here's a good example:

One of the American citizens killed by drone strikes was Anwar al-Awlaki.  He was actively making war on the US in a foreign war zone.  We couldn't have asked the government of Yemen to arrest him, which would have been appropriate if he lived in a country like the UK or France.  So, we had every right to kill al-Awlaki and other members of Al Qaeda as a self-defense measure. 

Where does the Constitution contradict that?

[bedstuy]

I'm not sure about drone strikes because they are quite indiscriminate and lead to war becoming a bit too ... easy.

However I fail to see why a person being a citizen should be taken into account. Who cares? Are Yemenis inherently less important than Americans?

Indiscriminate compared to what? 

[bedstuy]

Americans are reasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

It'd literally be comical to see how differently you'd spin it with a Republican President.

Blatantly rewriting history. 

Was Bill Clinton timid about trying to kill Al Qaeda terrorists after they became a threat?  No.  Were Democrats against the "War on Terror" during the Bush administration?  No.  Democrats were against the Iraq War.  Democrats actually criticized Bush for taking the focus off Al Qaeda to shift to Iraq.  And, in 2008 Obama wanted to shift towards killing Bin Laden, even if it meant crossing into Pakistan. 

Democrats support killing terrorists who attack this country because that's just a common sense position.  The people who have been inconsistent on this issue are Republicans.

[bedstuy]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

Huh? I can see why one can argue that we're too quick to use drones, because we are. However, just because a policy is pigheaded, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Does the due process clause of the 14th amendment not protect against the loss of life without due process?

No, not necessarily.  Imagine a situation like the police shooting someone who is on a shooting spree. 

[bedstuy]

We're never going to win the hearts and minds over there.  On the other hand, there is only a finite supply of people willing to endure drone strikes on behalf of the cause.  The romanticism of tribal warfare evaporates quickly under the irrepressible barrage of drone strikes.

That's right.  The huge fallacy of left wing and Ron Paul-ish foreign policy is that the rest of the world is primarily motivated by American foreign policy, for better or worse.  People in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Yemen mostly don't even think of the US.  We don't enter into their lives, so even if we were extreme munificent as a country, they wouldn't care.

On the other hand, the ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS is fundamentally opposed to a cosmopolitan, free, democratic society like America.  If we practiced super friendly, pacifist foreign policy, they would just view us as chumps.  And, this idea that people get pushed towards the ISIS worldview because of civilian casualties is totally overblown.  How many drone strikes are there in London?  Yet, people leave London to join ISIS.  How does slaughtering Yazidis get back at the US for drone strikes?  Yet, ISIS is way more focused on killing and enslaving them than getting revenge on the US. 

[bedstuy]

We're never going to win the hearts and minds over there.  On the other hand, there is only a finite supply of people willing to endure drone strikes on behalf of the cause.  The romanticism of tribal warfare evaporates quickly under the irrepressible barrage of drone strikes.

That's right.  The huge fallacy of left wing and Ron Paul-ish foreign policy is that the rest of the world is primarily motivated by American foreign policy, for better or worse.  People in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Yemen mostly don't even think of the US.  We don't enter into their lives, so even if we were extreme munificent as a country, they wouldn't care.

On the other hand, the ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS is fundamentally opposed to a cosmopolitan, free, democratic society like America.  If we practiced super friendly, pacifist foreign policy, they would just view us as chumps.  And, this idea that people get pushed towards the ISIS worldview because of civilian casualties is totally overblown.  How many drone strikes are there in London?  Yet, people leave London to join ISIS.  How does slaughtering Yazidis get back at the US for drone strikes?  Yet, ISIS is way more focused on killing and enslaving them than getting revenge on the US. 

Your strawmanning what you call the "true leftist foreign policy". You completely overlook the unintended consequences of western foreign policy such as funding Osama Bin Ladin and Saddham Hussein in the 1980's. Hell, for all we know Bin Ladin could've planned 9/11 with tactics the CIA taught him. ISIS only came in to being because of increased instability and radicalism from the fallout of the Iraq War. As for bombs pushing people towards radicalism I think despair pushes people to brutal organizations like ISIS, and civilian casualties certainly contribute to that. Don't forget that to people suffering from such casualties those bombs have the names of taxpayers from Dallas, Texas and other cities on them. I do imahine we'd that the oppressive regimes many in the Middle East live under contribute towards rises of terrorist activity.

1.  We didn't fund or train Osama Bin Laden at any point.  We funded the domestic Afghan insurgency, not the foreign Arab fighters who were funded by Saudi Arabia. 

2.  The Iraq War was a huge blunder, I agree.  But, I was talking about drones strikes, which I support, no the Iraq War, which I agree was a terrible mistake.

3.  How many ISIS fighters are from areas affected by drone strikes?  I would bet a tiny number.