Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If money is tight, shut down one of those extra-constitutional departments like Education and use it for actual constitutional duty like the military.
So instead of cutting back on our military, which spends more than how many of our allies combined, we should cut back the Dept of Education.....
There are reasons why the last invasion that occurred in the continental US was 1818, yet look at how much we spend on defense. Talk about overkill.
Quote:
We will never know because no court ever found any of them guilty of any offence. Certainly not the 16 year old teenager who was eating lunch when he was murdered.
I'm sure we have a better idea of their allegiance that not. It's amusing to hear someone who doesn't mind shutting down the Dept of Education to fund more military spending which results in loss of life somewhere on the planet.
Quote:
We care about defeating ISIS and keeping the gains we made at great cost of life because history shows you can not ignore problems like them. They just get bigger and worse. We ignored the Taliban in Afghanistan and they used it as a base/safe haven from which to attack America.
We also armed and trained the Taliban when it was beneficial for us.
The West royally screwed up the Middle East after the World Wars. We created Israel and redrew Middle East based on geographic boundaries instead of cultural. Now the Middle East is undergoing a civil war, similar to the Protestants and Catholics in Europe after the Reformation.
We don't need their oil and gas anymore so why do we need to keep meddling in the region? Seems it would be more effective to focus on cybersecurity and domestic defense instead of having a vast, global army.
Quote:
Penny wise and pound foolish both in dollars and lives. How many billions of dollars and thousands of lives did 9-11 cost?
Compared to the destruction of property and death in the 9/11 attacks..... Well I would imagine the total life lose (civilian and military) of everyone on both sides post 9/11 to not even be close.
Quote:
I think there are millions and millions of people who think the U.S. has used its military to help free them and keep them safe.
And how many millions feel the opposite? How would Americans feel if other countries put military bases on our soil? I guess better them than us huh?
Yes; it eliminates casualties from not having pilots. that is really the only difference is one less person in danger; the pilot. War is hell as has been said repeatedly.
Yes; it eliminates casualties from not having pilots. that is really the only difference is one less person in danger; the pilot. War is hell as has been said repeatedly.
Sure.
What about Obama's policy of greatly reducing drone strikes inside of Iraq in his 1st and subsequent years in office?
What about Obama's policy of greatly increasing drone strikes in countries where there is no combat zone?
What is an acceptable ratio of civilian deaths to get one terrorist? There has to be some ratio we don't want to go above - otherwise we would be carpet bombing regions.
3 lessons from the article above:
(1) The Obama administration often has no idea who they are killing.
(2) Whisteblowers are vital for transparency and accountability, which is precisely why the Obama administration is waging a war on them.
(3) Secrecy ensures both government lies and abuses of power.
I realize that Obama lies very often. However, aren't you bothered by the fact that he lies on his drone policy in such a way?
However, Obama has:
1) Greatly expanded the program.
2) Greatly diminished drone strikes in Iraq in his 1st and subsequent years.
3) Greatly expanded drone strikes in areas that are non-war zones.
4) Killed more and more civilians.
I think we need to be reflective of these policies as some liberals pointed out under Bush.
Drone strikes killing civilians:
1) Create new terrorists.
2) Serve as propaganda for terrorist.
3) Sets a precedent for new countries that acquire these to fly them above unwilling countries.
4) Fuels anti-US resentment.
5) The ability for people to pretend that drone strikes aren't a form of warfare, even as it expands over new countries...to further their political hero.
Yes, he expanded the program, and so will the next president. The drones are getting more sophisticated and we will see more of them in the future.
Let me ask for the 5th, and final time: How would you handle combating terrorists given your anti-drone attitude?
If money is tight, shut down one of those extra-constitutional departments like Education and use it for actual constitutional duty like the military.
We will never know because no court ever found any of them guilty of any offence. Certainly not the 16 year old teenager who was eating lunch when he was murdered.
We care about defeating ISIS and keeping the gains we made at great cost of life because history shows you can not ignore problems like them. They just get bigger and worse. We ignored the Taliban in Afghanistan and they used it as a base/safe haven from which to attack America.
Penny wise and pound foolish both in dollars and lives. How many billions of dollars and thousands of lives did 9-11 cost?
I think there are millions and millions of people who think the U.S. has used its military to help free them and keep them safe.
The date was Oct. 16, 2002. That vote was not to fund the action, but to authorize it. I know you'd like to pretend that because they didn't all vote on "next Tuesday at 8:34AM" that somehow diminishes the fact that the majority of the Democrats did authorize it. Here they are:
Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
You are misusing the term as to what Eisenhower was speaking about. Lefties always stop one sentence too soon. Eisenhower's next sentence was this:
The democratic process hasn't been subverted, neither have our liberties. There hasn't been a junta by GM and the military or anyone else.
The MQ-1 Predator has been in use since 1995 and made its first kill in 2002. The MQ-5A Hunter was first used for kills in 2007, but the UAV itself dated back to 1995. Drones were a part of the strategy that was used under Bush, not the entire strategy,
The bottom line is that Obama uses them because it is a low risk strategy politically, not because they are the most efficacious.
Bush obviously had no moral compunction about killing terrorists, but he preferred to capture them alive when possible and get more information. Obama is directly opposed to more prisoners, even if they would benefit the U.S. strategically because it would hurt him politically. That is why Bush was a much better leader.
To be fair that is disingenuous at best both VADM Wilson VADM Jacoby believed Iraq to have some level of WMD and that they were actively working to acquire more, but were hampered by international sanctions. But neither doubted Iraq had them and that they posed a danger. "Stockpiles" was not the standard, but was Iraq complying with the inspection and destruction of their WMD facilities. They were not and Saddam picked a bad time to play chicken.
Leftie? You don't know my political leanings.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Eisenhower warned about the influence of the military industrial complex, one influence that is using the lobbying system to exert influence in Washington. This is what Eisenhower warned about.
Yes, he expanded the program, and so will the next president. The drones are getting more sophisticated and we will see more of them in the future.
Let me ask for the 5th, and final time: How would you handle combating terrorists given your anti-drone attitude?
Part of this discussion is to find out what we should do?
Will the next president expand the use of drone strikes in to countries not in combat while claiming to be reducing war?
Are you comfortable with Obama lying about his drone program? Pretend he doesn't have a D after his name and isn't as hot as you think he is before answering.
If everything is fine with our drone program, why does Obama have to lie about it to the American public?
Why does Obama need to lie about who is getting targeted in strikes, success rates, civilian causalities?
What is an appropriate amount of civilian deaths for every terrorist we kill? If you callously answer it doesn't matter, then would you advocate carpet bombing regions with high terrorist activity?
Does killing so many civilians lead to more terrorists?
Rand is trying to find a way to be like his father, without losing votes over issues his father supported, like isolationism. I don't think it will work, so in the end he will have to come up with a way to appease enough groups to get enough votes. It won't be anything like his father, who never negotiated away his principles in order to get more votes. Ron Paul was a "take it or leave it" kind of guy, which is why people liked him.
Did you ever watch the debates with Ron Paul talking about foreign policy? He repeatedly said he wanted to lead the U.S. to a non-interventionist foreign policy, not isolationism. There is a big difference between non-interventionism and isolationism.
Part of this discussion is to find out what we should do?
Will the next president expand the use of drone strikes in to countries not in combat while claiming to be reducing war?
Are you comfortable with Obama lying about his drone program? Pretend he doesn't have a D after his name and isn't as hot as you think he is before answering.
If everything is fine with our drone program, why does Obama have to lie about it to the American public?
Why does Obama need to lie about who is getting targeted in strikes, success rates, civilian causalities?
What is an appropriate amount of civilian deaths for every terrorist we kill? If you callously answer it doesn't matter, then would you advocate carpet bombing regions with high terrorist activity?
Does killing so many civilians lead to more terrorists?
It sounds like your real heartburn is not what Obama does, but what Obama says.
I get the feeling you yourself don't have a better idea of what the president should be doing with his current capabilities or how the next president should do anything different.
You just don't like Obama getting credit as a "peace" president while actually carrying out a quite furious war.
Did you ever watch the debates with Ron Paul talking about foreign policy? He repeatedly said he wanted to lead the U.S. to a non-interventionist foreign policy, not isolationism. There is a big difference between non-interventionism and isolationism.
Not only did I watch him, I voted for him. When it comes to use of military force, there isn't that much difference between non-interventionism and isolationism, but feel free to use either word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
