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.
Agreed, Casper, any POTUS who does not choose drones over boots whenever possible, now or in the future, should be impeached IMO.
And you can bet that should a Republican ever get back into the White House, the right will be lauding him/her for not putting boots on the ground and using drones instead. And they will pretend that he/she is the first to ever do so. You just know that's coming.
Rand Paul is defending Obama on this one. It's an awkward moment for Paul supporters who have been attacking Obama over the strike.
Because many Paul supporters believe Rand is an Isolationist like his father, they are at a lose that he is a different man and that leaves them with no one this time around.
Obama has kind of been president the past 6+ years.
Obama has greatly expanded the drone program.
Obama has started bombing more countries with drones.
Obama has created more drone bases over seas.
Obama has increased drone strikes overall.
Obama dramatically reduced drone strikes in Iraq his 1st year in office by about 90% while dramatically increasing drone strikes in to other non-combat areas.
He owns the current policies.
How would you handle combating terrorists? Would you declare certain countries as places where you would never hit them?
Because many Paul supporters believe Rand is an Isolationist like his father, they are at a lose that he is a different man and that leaves them with no one this time around.
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.
How would you handle combating terrorists? Would you declare certain countries as places where you would never hit them?
I do think drones have a place.
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.
So we should have not invaded Afghanistan? I assume when someone smacks down members of your family you turn your other cheek. Yeah right
We should have gone after Bin Laden and been done with it, there is no need to occupy or remain Afghanistan.
Of course you assume, its all you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Rand Paul is defending Obama on this one. It's an awkward moment for Paul supporters who have been attacking Obama over the strike.
People are finding out Rand Paul is a run of the mill GOP'er and right now he is making comments defending drone usage in order to pander to the jew$ and neocon$ within the party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
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.
We should have gone after Bin Laden and been done with it, there is no need to occupy or remain Afghanistan.
Of course you assume, its all you have.
You do know that we got OBL in Pakistan, Not Afghanistan.
You do know that we did not invade Afghanistan to simply get OBL, don't you
Why is it Libertarians rarely understand the facts, do they ignore them or are they simply ignorant of them
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.
