Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag

[SPC]

I find it strange that the only people I'm agreeing with entirely in this thread are both I-NY.

Amusing how the Democrats have absorbed neocon "logic" now that their man is on the throne.

[SPC]

Did the Taliban made a fair trial of all people in the WTC and in the planes before launching planes into the twin towers?

This is a war and a perfectly justifiable way of protecting ourselves, which is the first duty of the state, protecting its citizen from attacks by foreign entities.

Again, it's amusing how neocons try to justify their actions by holding themselves to their enemies' standards, despite all the nonsense about how their enemies are simply evil.

Aside from that, even your facts are incorrect. The Taliban did not launch any terrorist attacks against the United States prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, that would be al-Qaeda, the organization whose leader the Taliban offered to extradite before Clinton "convinced" them otherwise and again after the United States failed to provide evidence of his guilt.

[SPC]

There's not really a debate over whether drone strikes impede the short-term operational capabilities of terrorist organizations, no? I wouldn't dispute that point, at least. As to whether drone strikes have actually made a significant difference in improving the safety of Americans - especially over the long term - that's less obvious, and I'm not sure why some posters here are beginning with this assumption.

What is clear is that 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 there's an incentive for the administration to use drones often, exaggerating the actual 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.

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

[SPC]

There's not really a debate over whether drone strikes impede the short-term operational capabilities of terrorist organizations, no? I wouldn't dispute that point, at least. As to whether drone strikes have actually made a significant difference in improving the safety of Americans - especially over the long term - that's less obvious, and I'm not sure why some posters here are beginning with this assumption.

What is clear is that 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 there's an incentive for the administration to use drones often, exaggerating the actual 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.

Some of what you say me be very true, but the question is what is your alternative?

Avoiding hornets' nests? While ending drone strikes would stop killing potential terrorists (and civilians,) it would also stop creating them.

[SPC]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

[SPC]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

If the President of the Unites States picked out at random two perfectly innocent people a year and had them executed that would have zero impact on the general populace.  Fact.

Now the one US citizen that I know about who was executed was not a "perfectly innocent" person.  We can quibble about the process but that guy getting his ticket punched was not the beginning of a slide down a mythical slippery slope.  Honestly.  The president whether it is Bush or Obama is busy enough they don't have the time or inclination to just randomly pick a name out of a hat and kill the person.  Why would anyone in the Oval office want to do that?

Where do you draw the line on how many innocent civilians are okay to execute? Is James Holmes all right in your book since he only had 12 victims? Also where do you get the idea that only 2 civilians have died from drone attacks? You realize the number is more like 10 for each militant killed?

[SPC]

For those opposed to drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen (as opposed to large scale invasions of counties that didn't attack us), do you also oppose the war in Afghqnistan? If it was a targeted campaign as opposed to nation building, would you still oppose it?

I oppose the War in Afghanistan. The supposed casus belli was to go after the perpetrators of 9/11. Now that that has been accomplished, there is no point in staying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive. However, given that I believe in the rule of law, extrajudicial killings are out of the question for me. If you insist on going after foreigners for thought crimes, at least capture them and let them have their day in a court.

[SPC]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

If the President of the Unites States picked out at random two perfectly innocent people a year and had them executed that would have zero impact on the general populace.  Fact.

Now the one US citizen that I know about who was executed was not a "perfectly innocent" person.  We can quibble about the process but that guy getting his ticket punched was not the beginning of a slide down a mythical slippery slope.  Honestly.  The president whether it is Bush or Obama is busy enough they don't have the time or inclination to just randomly pick a name out of a hat and kill the person.  Why would anyone in the Oval office want to do that?

Where do you draw the line on how many innocent civilians are okay to execute? Is James Holmes all right in your book since he only had 12 victims? Also where do you get the idea that only 2 civilians have died from drone attacks? You realize the number is more like 10 for each militant killed?

If this was McCain instead of Obama, a whole lot more Democrats would be flipping their lid.  Party loyalty is destructive to justice.

Of course the behavior of partisan hacks is key to understanding the "differences" between the two parties. Democratic hacks have no ideological principles and thus can oppose perpetual war under Republicans and support it under Democrats. Republican hacks are consistently supportive of perpetual war and thus have to conjure an alternate reality where Obama isn't a hawk in order to justify their opposition.

[SPC]

the major problem is the general framework you're buying into.  that the president has the authority to designate what and what isn't a 'terrorist group', that the president has the right to kill members of those 'groups', that the US with its hundreds of military bases half a world a way is acting on 'defense' when it bombs the world into submission.

[SPC]

Nader's been a douchebag all his life. Look at his history:

-Buys stock in competing auto companies to General Motors.
-Writes a bunch of lies and slander about the Corvair, one of the best cars ever produced in the US, in that pile of sh!t Unsafe at any Speed.
-Gets rich off hordes of "activism" designed to fatten his wallet and feed his gigantic ego.
-Lie about Al Gore and be a general douchebag.
-Say more lies about John Kerry and start attacking people like Michael Moore and the Greens for abandoning.
-Attention whore to keep his face in the news despite no one caring about his any more.

A truly despicable individual.

Your caricatures of Nader make me like him even more. Furthermore, I'm surprised that a music fan such as yourself would care so much about the reputation of the man who helped bring about the PMRC.

[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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[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.