Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag

[Link]

it's just what liberals do.  when it's "their guy" they're more than willing to excuse the most magnificent crimes.

And that's what irritates me about the left in this country.  Wiretapping under Bush?  Everyone wigs out.  Practical evisceration of the 4th Amendment via the NDAA under Obama?  Weak justifications, or they look over it.

I seriously just don't get it.

Define "everyone?"  I definitely thought Bush was a war mongering imbecile but I certainly didn't care about the wire taps.  If Cheney wants to listen to my boring conversations with my girlfriend that needs AT LEAST two phone calls a day even though nothing has happened let him.  Why should I suffer alone?

Obama's not a war criminal in my opinion but he has been aggressive and Dubya-like in many ways.  He's certainly not the kumbaya President libs wanted.

He's exactly the president I wanted and nothing like Bush Jr. Jrwas all about sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops in at great cost, both financial and human. Obama is like a surgeon, sending in high tech drones as needed and finally getting Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan, a place the GOP was too afraid to touch.

High tech drones which have killed tons of innocent individuals, including targets wrongly accused, also including at least one American citizen.

Who cares?

[Link]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

[Link]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  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?

[Link]

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 may be very true, but the question is what is your alternative?

[Link]

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?

[Link]

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.

I believe we are in the process of "avoiding hornets nests."  And we are striking people who have been threatening us.  We are not randomly launching full scale war on Iraq.  Trust me I would like nothing more than for us to extricate ourselves from the middle east.  But to somehow look at the Obama administration and say it is in any way the equivalent of the Bush administration tells me some people are not interested in progress.  This is a big country.  It cannot turn on a dime.  Progress takes time.

[Link]

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?

[Link]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  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 his options were either stay out there and possibly live or turn himself in and be handed over to the gentle hands of the Saudis? Anybody would take freedom and possible death over torture and possible death.

Errr... the Saudis are not "torturing and killing" people that are sent through their terrorist reform program.  It's a pretty relaxed deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

Which libertarian nut job gave you a car and a job?

[Link]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  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 his options were either stay out there and possibly live or turn himself in and be handed over to the gentle hands of the Saudis? Anybody would take freedom and possible death over torture and possible death.

Errr... the Saudis are not "torturing and killing" people that are sent through their terrorist reform program.  It's a pretty relaxed deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

Which libertarian nut job gave you a car and a job?

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm

Lol.  So you want to address the free jobs and cars getting handed out?  Sure people in this country have been beaten and killed by the police.  I doubt there is any medium to large size country on this planet that hasn't had someone's civil rights abused by a policeman.  That doesn't mean you should never turn yourself in.  Frankly turning yourself in is usually the best way to avoid a beating when the law finally catches up to you.

So I'll ask it again which Libertarian demagogue is handing out free cars and jobs?

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.

Hyperbole much?

To be honest, I'd be far more willing to accept the administration's use of drones if it were more open about acknowledging how many non-combatants have been killed.

Why?  Do you need the president of the United States to take time out of his day to explain to you setting off a bomb dropped from the sky in a place full of people might hurt them?  I mean if that kind of thing was totally benign they would end police chases with Hellfire missiles.  They don't.  I'll leave it up to your imagination why.




And to all the people saying all Dems dumped on Bush you all are smoking crack.  Plenty of Dems stood behind Bush until we found out Iraq was an awful lie.  And even after that I thought nothing of the wire taps or drone strikes.  Sure I'm going to give Obama more of a benefit of the doubt than Bush.  For f-ck sake Bush lied and started a war for no reason.  I would have to be retarded to give him the same benefit of the doubt as any other president in my lifetime.  How in the world does Bush's behavior not cost him the benefit of the doubt?  If that's the case we all should just get rid of our sense of discretion.

[Link]

To be honest, I'd be far more willing to accept the administration's use of drones if it were more open about acknowledging how many non-combatants have been killed.

Why?  Do you need the president of the United States to take time out of his day to explain to you setting off a bomb dropped from the sky in a place full of people might hurt them?  I mean if that kind of thing was totally benign they would end police chases with Hellfire missiles.  They don't.  I'll leave it up to your imagination why.

Yes, I do think that the president should take some time to explain this to me and other Americans. And he needs to explain not just that it happens, but that it matters to him and that it should matter to us, too. As to why, I'd say that I'd leave it to your imagination, but that would be condescending and pointless.

The things people need the president to do so they can get to sleep at night.

One of the biggest problems we have is the voting populace refuses to act like adults.  The man was a terrorist and we had no reasonable way to arrest him.  He got what he deserved.  Bombs are not sniper bullets.  Everyone above five knows that.  I voted for Obama.  I've been to his campaign rallies.  He seems sane to me.  I think it is a safe assumption that most sane presidents care when a bomb that is addressed to a terrorist also maims an innocent little girl who happens to be in the vicinity.  I don't need to listen to a bunch of carefully choreographed platitudes.

I have a question to Spanish Moss and the other libertarians/chomskyites. How would you stop terrorism. Lief is right. You've either got invasion, killing them, or nothing.

That is the question.  None of us like this drone business.  And we all want it to stop.  But these people are terrorists and we have no way to arrest them.  I want us to get out of the Middle East as much as possible to limit our contact with these crazies as much as possible.  But in the meantime we must deal with people who threaten us.

Sometimes life is messy.  If there is an alternative we would all love to hear it.

[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.