Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag

[So the Heroes Fall]

Basically saying "My problem isn't in the bombing of Pakistan but in how someone acts about it" seems pretty childish to me. I suppose those well to the left of Obama and libertarians might think he's some type of sociopath who just laughs hearing about non-combatants killed, but I doubt that's the reality. However there are plenty of political reasons why that can't be admitted, seriously can you imagine how the Republicans would act if Obama made such admissions or how terrorists would use it for propaganda?

Now the bombing of Pakistan is actually probably the most problematic thing about Obama's actions to me, certainly moreso than the killing of al-Aulaqi (seriously acting like that guy is more important than non-combatants in Pakistan is pretty disgusting.) However it's also pretty obvious that it would be happening under anyone who has a realistic chance of being President right now (this does not include Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.) Furthermore it's worth asking what would be happening if the US did not do so but rather successfully put pressure on Pakistan to militarily deal with the terrorist presence instead. There probably would not be less civilian casualties, ground forces have shown that not only are they often as indiscriminate as to who is a "combatant" or not as remote drones but that they can go on more of a rampage. See US in Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, all sorts of militaries in Central America, etc. Furthermore the incursion of the Pakistani military in a region like that would probably just result in more uprising against the government and rebellion thus resulting in more conflict and combatants.

Above all that, what is the purpose of the attacks? Pakistan doesn't have oil, and even if it did remote bombing it doesn't give access to it. Unlike Bush's little adventures you can't argue this is about some type of imperialism as opposed to actually trying to combat al-Qaeda. The intentions and motivations here are close to indisputably good.

[SPC]

Basically saying "My problem isn't in the bombing of Pakistan but in how someone acts about it" seems pretty childish to me. I suppose those well to the left of Obama and libertarians might think he's some type of sociopath who just laughs hearing about non-combatants killed, but I doubt that's the reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4

Now the bombing of Pakistan is actually probably the most problematic thing about Obama's actions to me, certainly moreso than the killing of al-Aulaqi (seriously acting like that guy is more important than non-combatants in Pakistan is pretty disgusting.)

Obviously I concur. However, there is no reason that opposition to killing innocent civilians of a foreign country and opposition to killing a citizen without trial must be mutually exclusive.

However it's also pretty obvious that it would be happening under anyone who has a realistic chance of being President right now (this does not include Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.)

That seems to be more an argument against everybody "who has a realisti chance of being President right now" than against us supporters of anti-imperialist candidates.

Furthermore it's worth asking what would be happening if the US did not do so but rather successfully put pressure on Pakistan to militarily deal with the terrorist presence instead. There probably would not be less civilian casualties, ground forces have shown that not only are they often as indiscriminate as to who is a "combatant" or not as remote drones but that they can go on more of a rampage. See US in Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, all sorts of militaries in Central America, etc. Furthermore the incursion of the Pakistani military in a region like that would probably just result in more uprising against the government and rebellion thus resulting in more conflict and combatants.

Again, you present a false dichotomy to legitimize your argument. We anti-interventionists don't believe the U.S. should be strongarming the Pakistanis into conducting our war either.

Above all that, what is the purpose of the attacks? Pakistan doesn't have oil, and even if it did remote bombing it doesn't give access to it. Unlike Bush's little adventures you can't argue this is about some type of imperialism as opposed to actually trying to combat al-Qaeda. The intentions and motivations here are close to indisputably good.

Intentions matter little in matters of policy. Consequences are the important aspect. Is killing innocents as revenge somehow morally superior to killing innocents out of greed?

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Basically saying "My problem isn't in the bombing of Pakistan but in how someone acts about it" seems pretty childish to me. I suppose those well to the left of Obama and libertarians might think he's some type of sociopath who just laughs hearing about non-combatants killed, but I doubt that's the reality. However there are plenty of political reasons why that can't be admitted, seriously can you imagine how the Republicans would act if Obama made such admissions or how terrorists would use it for propaganda?

Obama's not acting like a cartoonish super-villain. But there's a wide range of possibilities between that kind of behavior and approaching the situation with what I would regard as an appropriate level of empathy. Are my expectations politically realistic? Perhaps not. But does that make them "childish"? I don't understand why that would be the case. I've decided to vote for Obama despite the serious misgivings that I have described in this thread. But I'm not about to shut up about wanting the administration to own up to the less savory aspects of a morally objectionable policy just because talking about that would be politically disadvantageous to Obama and I can't expect anything better from his opponent.

(I'll also note that I only said that I'd find it "easier to accept" Obama's drone policy if the administration were transparent about its true cost; I never meant to imply that this was my only problem with the strikes.)

Above all that, what is the purpose of the attacks? Pakistan doesn't have oil, and even if it did remote bombing it doesn't give access to it. Unlike Bush's little adventures you can't argue this is about some type of imperialism as opposed to actually trying to combat al-Qaeda. The intentions and motivations here are close to indisputably good.

Regardless of whatever substantive justification the attacks might have, they're politically popular domestically. I'll quote my previous post:

Drone strikes are politically advantageous for the administration. They cost little, involve no American casualties, and create an appearance of toughness. They're enormously popular in the United States. So an incentive exists for the administration to use drones even when national security matters are probably not at stake - exaggerating the purported benefits of drone strikes while ignoring, minimizing, or papering over the collateral damage: hundreds of civilian casualties, a decline in the moral standing of our country, and the potential for blowback.

[Simfan34]

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.

A Google search suggests that you've invented this word. I assume that you're referring to autosarcophagy?

[Simfan34]

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.

A Google search suggests that you've invented this word. I assume that you're referring to autosarcophagy?

I am. autosarcophagic. autosarcogaphic. Are those spelled the same? I guess I did make it up. I find it a very useful word.

I've used it before:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156200.0

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.

A Google search suggests that you've invented this word. I assume that you're referring to autosarcophagy?

I am. autosarcophagic. autosarcogaphic. Are those spelled the same? I guess I did make it up. I find it a very useful word.

It's certainly vivid.

[Simfan34]

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.

A Google search suggests that you've invented this word. I assume that you're referring to autosarcophagy?

I am. autosarcophagic. autosarcogaphic. Are those spelled the same? I guess I did make it up. I find it a very useful word.

It's certainly vivid.

Very straight to the point. Of course I use it to mean "self-destructive/self-defeating/harmful" as opposed to the literal meaning.

[Јas]

That it needs to be stated that any strategy that one knows will result in innocent civilian fatalities is wrong - absolutely wrong - and should not be pursued, is more than a little disconcerting.

[Link]

That it needs to be stated that any strategy that one knows will result in innocent civilian fatalities is wrong - absolutely wrong - and should not be pursued, is more than a little disconcerting.

So the preliminary bombings that the Allied forces did to soften up Nazi defenses prior to D-day shouldn't have happened because some French civilians were killed in the process?!  I've never even heard the French complain.  This is new.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Personally, I dislike the use of drones due to the amount of collateral damage they've caused, but to call Obama a war criminal is a bit much.  It's not like he masturbates to the sound of civilians getting blown apart with missiles or anything.... 

[SPC]

That it needs to be stated that any strategy that one knows will result in innocent civilian fatalities is wrong - absolutely wrong - and should not be pursued, is more than a little disconcerting.

So the preliminary bombings that the Allied forces did to soften up Nazi defenses prior to D-day shouldn't have happened because some French civilians were killed in the process?!  I've never even heard the French complain.  This is new.

Because every war the United States has ever fought (and particularly the ones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia) are exactly like World War II in every way, shape, and form. 

Personally, I dislike the use of drones due to the amount of collateral damage they've caused, but to call Obama a war criminal is a bit much.  It's not like he masturbates to the sound of civilians getting blown apart with missiles or anything.... 

I'm pretty sure blowing civilians apart with missiles is the war crime. Masturbating to the sound of it would be a sadistic sexual fetish, not a war crime.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

That it needs to be stated that any strategy that one knows will result in innocent civilian fatalities is wrong - absolutely wrong - and should not be pursued, is more than a little disconcerting.

So the preliminary bombings that the Allied forces did to soften up Nazi defenses prior to D-day shouldn't have happened because some French civilians were killed in the process?!  I've never even heard the French complain.  This is new.

Because every war the United States has ever fought (and particularly the ones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia) are exactly like World War II in every way, shape, and form. 

Personally, I dislike the use of drones due to the amount of collateral damage they've caused, but to call Obama a war criminal is a bit much.  It's not like he masturbates to the sound of civilians getting blown apart with missiles or anything.... 

I'm pretty sure blowing civilians apart with missiles is the war crime. Masturbating to the sound of it would be a sadistic sexual fetish, not a war crime.

Well it's not his intention to kill civilians, which is what I meant.  If it was, there would be justification for calling him a war criminal, but it isn't.  Calling someone a war criminal is not a term that should be thrown around lightly (like calling anyone who's ever waged a war as a war criminal would be an incorrect statement). That terminology is more historically used for commanders who have evil intentions.  I really don't see how Obama is evil.  Incompetent or ignorant on this issue, perhaps,  but not actually a bad person.

[Peter the Lefty]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/ralph-nader-says-obama-is-war-criminal-worse-than-george-bush_n_1914154.html

how is this even controversial?

My thoughts exactly.  Though for praising Palin like that, I think he's really starting to loose it. 

[© Tweed the Younger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/ralph-nader-says-obama-is-war-criminal-worse-than-george-bush_n_1914154.html

how is this even controversial?

My thoughts exactly.  Though for praising Palin like that, I think he's really starting to loose it. 

Chomsky has also praised Sarah Palin for her mocking of Obama's hope/change shtick in 2008.

[Spanish Moss]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/ralph-nader-says-obama-is-war-criminal-worse-than-george-bush_n_1914154.html

how is this even controversial?

My thoughts exactly.  Though for praising Palin like that, I think he's really starting to loose it. 

Chomsky has also praised Sarah Palin for her mocking of Obama's hope/change shtick in 2008.

Well honestly, that's all it was.  A shtick.

[Mercenary]

Some people are so overly partisan they don't even have their own ideology.
So Nader was consistent in his view of opposing these interventionist tactics. So he defended someone who is right winger once because they made comments he agreed with.

Here's a tip, just because you generally disagree with someone politically, maybe even dislike them as a person, doesn't mean everything they ever say is automatically wrong. Heck I am sure there are times Obama and Bush have said things I agree with, despite my extreme opposition to their corporatist warmongering anti-privacy economically destructive political views.

[Spanish Moss]

Some people are so overly partisan they don't even have their own ideology.
So Nader was consistent in his view of opposing these interventionist tactics. So he defended someone who is right winger once because they made comments he agreed with.

Here's a tip, just because you generally disagree with someone politically, maybe even dislike them as a person, doesn't mean everything they ever say is automatically wrong. Heck I am sure there are times Obama and Bush have said things I agree with, despite my extreme opposition to their corporatist warmongering anti-privacy economically destructive political views.

Truth.

If anyone here were to comb through everything Sarah Palin or Vladimir Lenin has said on public record, I'm sure one could find something they agree with.

[CountryRoads]

I've seen people on my side of the aisle (and liberals too) criticize drone use, and they make   some valid points (civilians get killed). But, I do believe that at certain times they are vital to fighting terrorism.