Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
Mind the sword, mind the people watch, mind the enemy...too many mind. No mind.
But it’s Nobel Peace Prize shrapnel, so it’s okay. Not like the horrible Bush shrapnel."
Do you think drones have killed people than "assault" rifles? or even rifle rifles. I bet it is close.
"Do you think drones have killed people than "assault" rifles? or even rifle rifles. I bet it is close."Not even close. Obama's drone strikes are credited with killing 178 children alone. That's about half the number of total people killed by rifles each year.The total death toll for drone strikes is probably in the thousands range.
Um, don't you mean "I wish I'd written that"?Hah. I crack me up.
Nice Post, Thanks For Sharing....
The administration has already murdered a 16 year old citizen for the crime of being the son of a terrorist."Asked about the strike that killed him(Abdulrahman al-Awlaki), a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've 'had a more responsible father.'" This isn't a slippery slope, it a fucking cliff.
The slope does look slippery. If the strikes were restricted to war zones I would be less worried. That would require action from Congress, which has shirked it's responsibility to define war zones, which would be part of it's responsibility for declaring war. I think it is the job of our representatives to set forth rules for the conduct of the executive branch. They mostly don't bother. That leaves the President free to accumulate unchecked power.
Tam;I’ve a rather long-winded observation to make about this, which I think makes the point pretty soundly that these drone strikes are making us LESS safe against terrorism, but I can’t really post it all here. Is it okay if I provide a link?
I was interested to notice in an article about the Georgia standoff that the HRT had deployed "several drones" as well as the rest of their military hardware. Didn't know the FBI had drones to deploy, makes me wonder how many do they have and what the rules of deployment are?
Hmm. Isn't there something in one of the Anti-Gun Bills trying to get through Congress that would make it Illegal to have something in .50 BMG because "ZOMG! It can shoot down Airplanes!"And depending how low a Drone comes down, I can conceive of a Reason why I "NEED" a Barret!Now if I can only convince the Missus....
You mean "I wish I'd done wrote that."
Gudis:And the US Army Air Corp killed a lot of 16 year old sons while bombing the snot out of Nazi Germany's railyards and factories.The kid's father publicly joined AQ, and declared war on the US. Dropping a bomb on his ass, unless he surrenders, is perfectly appropriate.If he wanted to keep his family safe he should not have kept them in his foxhole/safehouse while he was waging war.
The only real news here is Obama's astounding hypocrisy.He was leading the charge against Bush's use of drones during the war.
Kristophr: Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was allegedly targeted in a separate strike, meant specifically for him. Not that anyone will ever know the truth.
He was apparently having lunch at a cafe a couple weeks after his dad was killed. Most of these appear to be terror attacks themselves. If we wanted most of these people dead there are methods that don't kill as many people around the target. Hellfiring enemy combatants in their homes in residential neighborhoods, blowing up street side cafes, these aren't hits, they are examples.If we wanted these people dead without a mess I bet we could get half of them without any collateral damage. The collateral damage is the desired result.
Gudis: Wrong.The kid wasn't a target unless he picked up a gun and joined the enemy.He was stranding too damned close to an avowed enemy of the US during a war, and got killed in the process.If he HAD picked up the gun and joined his father, then he was a legit target.Either way, the Department of Defense acted appropriately.
Woodman: If the local government is letting people that are at war against the US operate without interning them, then bombing that cafe is, in my opinion, too cowardly a response.The US should formally declare war on that country, and start carpet bombing them until they surrender, and turn over the AQ pukes.
This kind of crap is what happens when you let Madisonians try to wage limited gentle wars.The correct response is to put the Jacksonian crowd in charge: "You side with our enemies? Fine. It's too bad about those cities of yours we will have to destroy. Maybe you should reconsider?"
Hypocrisy is dead, Barry killed it with his skeeter-gun. After playing skeeter-gun he goes to his Playstation II that's hooked up with Desert Alpha in Vegas and plays Drone-Warz, and a couple hands of Blackjack. Or is that raacist?
We all should remember that most of the drone strikes are occurring in Pakistan?Pakistan has a shaky government and a history of military coups, uprisings, etc. Pakistanis "hate" American Imperialism. (although most would immigrate here if offered the chance)Pakistan cannot even control its own NW frontier or tribal areas. Pakistan supports terror groups including the Taliban and Worse (remember Mumbai?). Pakistan has nukes.This does not give me a warm feeling.
Already over the cliff and free falling at this point... What happens when they come 'here'???
"I wish I'd'a done wrote that there."
Of course, the sad irony is that the Peace Prize is named after Mr. Alfred Nobel. And since Mr. Nobel's invention failed to provide the peace for which the award was invented and presented, maybe we should rename it to the "Oppenheimer Peace Prize". At least his created peace at the end.
Stolen from Hogewash:"Why is it that so many people are concerned about the government and drone strikes? I say that if the government drones want to go on strike, we should let them. It could even be beneficial by delaying the creation of more bureaucratic regulations. And besides …What?Oh …Never mind."
Old NFO:Which is why we really need to restore Posse Commitatus.If it is inside US territory, the DoD needs to keep it's hands off of it.Exceptions for drug interdiction and terrorism were a really bad idea.
"Woodman: If the local government is letting people that are at war against the US operate without interning them, then bombing that cafe is, in my opinion, too cowardly a response."Kristopher, I think the issue here is that he was killed in a separate strike where there were no other targets, and the US government can't come up with a better reason than he had an irresponsible father, the same government that so kindly took care of his bad father problem a couple weeks earlier.This was an attack directed at a young man, with no reason why offered.I doubt his enemy of the state status. And because of the blanket powers the white paper gives on drone strikes, no one really has a criteria for selecting targets anyway.
Obama should have had a more responsible father.
Gudis and Woodman:You are listening to the conspiracy loons too much.The 16 year old was killed during an airstrike against Ibrahim al-Banna, the senior AQ man on the SA peninsula. This begs the question of exactly what was he doing eating lunch with the top AQ operative in Yemen.Or maybe not. We know exactly what he was doing ... dying in the same explosion that killed Ibrahim al-Banna.So of course AQ is claiming this is a revenge attack against his son.
mariner:I blame his mother. She was a ditzy hippy communist chick who married a Kenyan, and then discovered the hard way that polygamy was considered normal by him.She divorced, and married an Indonesian, but then divorced him when he got promoted to an executive position at an oil company.Then she fled to Hawaii to her socialist parents, to find some communist friends to "properly" raise the child.
OK, I retract my accusations.Woodman and Gudis were apparently correct:http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/02/10/so-that-happened/
Post a Comment