A few reminders for those upset about Obama striking within Pakistan

[jenmito]

Wed Aug 1, 2007ー"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.　http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801


Tue, 22 Jul 2008ー"... what I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, then we should," the Democrat, who aspires to be the first black-American president, noted. 　http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=64440§ionid=351020401


WASHINGTON, Sept 27ー“If the United States has Al Qaeda, (Osama) bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act, then we should take them out,” said Senator Obama.　http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/28/top6.htm


October 7, 2008ー“If We Have Actionable Intelligence About High-Value Terrorist Targets And President Musharraf Won’t Act, We Will.”　http://therecord.barackobama.com/?p=1898

[polichick]

1. I hope the actionable intelligence was about Osama. Now that his buddy GW is gone...

...it's time we try to get him.

[jenmito]

5. So do I. At least we know Obama won't be starting wars under false pretenses. n/t

[EFerrari]

2. Killing civilians is wrong, no matter what policy positions the president held

or holds today.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jenmito]

7. I'm sure he's not TRYING to kill civilians. He's trying to get bin Laden and his buddies.

They attacked us, unlike Iraq, so we gotta do what we gotta do even though, unfortunately, some civilians will get killed.

[EFerrari]

9. Pakistan did not attack the United States. And if it were YOUR family being murdered

I'm sure you wouldn't say it was "unfortunate". Good grief.

[MADem]

12. He wasn't attacking Pakistanis. He was likely attacking Egyptians and Saudis

hanging out in Pakistan. You know, those "poor misunderstood" guys who planned and executed 911. Regrettably, a few local tribal folks, from the unincorporated areas, who don't identify themselves as Pakistanis, were "in the way." That's what happens when murderous assholes use people as human shields.

Good grief, indeed. It helps to know who he was after.

Are you actually defending al Qaeda? That's pretty....er, special.

...Eight people died when missiles hit a compound near Mir Ali, an al-Qaeda hub in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. Seven more died when hours later two missiles hit a house in Wana, in South Waziristan. Local officials said the target in Wana was a guest house owned by a pro-Taleban tribesman. One said that as well as three children, the tribesman's relatives were killed in the blast.

[EFerrari]

13. So, now objecting to the slaughter of civilians is support for al Qaida?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Life Long Dem]

104. I don't know the difference.

[jenmito]

21. "Targeted strikes against high value targets" is what he promised and what he's doing.

The people who attacked us were in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[EFerrari]

22. So, who were those "high value targets" that got killed in that strike?

I can't wait to hear.

[jenmito]

25. So far all I heard was that they killed some-I think I heard "five." We'll have to wait to hear,

but if you believe Obama's admin. would target civilians, I don't know what to tell you. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

27. This isn't about what I would believe. It's about a strike that happened.

The death toll from two suspected US missile attacks on al-Qaeda bases in northwest Pakistan has risen to 22, officials and residents said on Saturday. Eight suspected foreign militants were among the dead.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5280117/toll-from-us-missile-strikes-hits-22/

Do YOU believe that killing 8 suspected terrorists justifies the deaths of 14 others? We don't even know who those 8 suspects were, do we?

[jenmito]

28. But you said he was "retaliating against civilians" which is a very damning

comment aimed at Obama. Do you think he targeted civilians? Your comment suggests so.

Sadly, targeting and killing suspected terrorists will almost always include killing innocent civilians. This is war against people who attacked us-not a preemptive strike on a country that had nothing to DO with the attack on us. I don't like it as I'm sure Obama doesn't like it. But it's what's necessary.

[EFerrari]

31. Retaliating against civilians is a war crime. And justifying the killing of civilians

is reprehensible.

When did killing civilians become necessary and how do you know it is?

[jenmito]

34. Do you think Obama is retaliating against (targeting) civilians???

You still haven't answered.

[EFerrari]

36. Of the 22 people who were killed, 8 were "suspected" insurgents.

What do you think?

I think Obama signed off on a terrible action that will hurt us more than it can possibly help us. And, I think that as a result of his order, innocent people died.

ETA: If of the 22 people who got killed, twice as many were civilians, it could well be argued that the target was civilians. And they don't even know for sure who those other 8 people are. Don't you see a problem here? This will not make us safer and I for one will keep speaking up until our government stops this practice, no matter who is in power.

[jenmito]

38. So your answer is yes, he's TARGETING civilians. Unbelievable.

He's targeting al Qaeda, the network that attacked us. They declared war on us. We have to go after them and unfortunately, innocent people will get killed.

[EFerrari]

41. Believe it because that's what the facts say.

That anyone could possibly spin this is what is unbelievable. Those peasants in Pakistan never declared war on us. And, they're dead anyway. God bless America!

[jenmito]

44. If he targeted civilians, which you're claiming he did, he could've gotten NO

suspected terrorists and a lot more than 14 civilians. But he got 8 of them. Your claim makes you sound out of touch with reality.

[EFerrari]

46. You don't know who those 8 people were.

I'm not the one that's out of touch in any way.

[jenmito]

50. Neither do you. But I'd put money on the notion that he didn't target innocent people.

If you seriously think he did, you ARE out of touch. Seriously.

[EFerrari]

54. You've just signed onto the idea that people are guilty until they are proven innocent.

Well done.

[jenmito]

123. YOU signed onto the idea that President Obama is a war criminal.

Well done.

[Binka]

118. I Do Not Know How You Got Off Ignore

But shit howdy you are on it now.

[roody]

52. When did the Congress declare war against

Afghanistan or Pakistan? "Suspected terrorists"? Whatever happened to a fair trial?

[jenmito]

124. Bin Laden declared war against US.

Yes-suspected terrorists.

[totodeinhere]

43. Targeting civilians is a war crime. Accidentally killing civilians while firing at legitimate...

military targets is not. As long as they do not aim at civilians and they do all they can to protect civilians, they are not war criminals.

[EFerrari]

51. So, what was done to protect the civilians now dead?

And remember, the other eight were only suspected militants. I only hope they were more guilty than the "worst of the worst" Rumsfeld caged at Gitmo -- 8 of 10 of those people were innocent.

You sure are generous with the lives of other people.

[polmaven]

53. You and I may not know

who those "suspects" were, but then I wasn't invited to the intelligence briefings, were you?

[EFerrari]

56. When did we have to rely on intelligence briefings to determine innocence?

Is this America or is this some other place?

[polmaven]

69. OMG!!!

Do you have any idea haw you are rambling?

You asked: We don't even know who those 8 suspects were, do we?

OF COURSE we don't know who those suspects were. The PRESIDENT knows...you can bet on THAT!

Yes, when it comes to actionable intelligence, we absolutely DO need intelligence briefings to know who the suspects were, and if they were or were not innocent.

It is very sad that innocent people were killed. Just as it was very sad on 9/11/01. President Obama is not, I'm quite sure, celebrating their deaths. He did not simply say..."Oh, sure...go drop some bombs now..anywhere, it doesn't matter, just kill some people for me to show everyone how macho I am." If you think he did, then you seriously need some help.

[EFerrari]

84. The President knows? Are you kidding?

When did the President become a court?

OMG, indeed.

[Zhade]

89. Um, when did these suspected terrorists have a trial?

NT!

[EFerrari]

93. I can't believe all the posters here who are fine with just killing people

because they are suspects.

Cr@p. As if that same assumption of guilt wasn't what Bush pushed for the last 8 years.

[pecwae]

143. Looks like it depends

on who's doing the killing. I find it reprehensible that some here are now defending the killing of innocents. For the few years I've been around this is one of the saddest turns this board has taken.

[damonm]

160. I know I'm coming in late here, but...

Let me make ABSOULTELY CERTAIN that I understand you clearly. I am NOT attacking, I'm making sure I understand you - there seems to be a lot of presumptions going around.

You appear to be saying that if any civilian is killed in a strike, that strike is a war crime, regardless of whether or not those civilians were targeted. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please clarify.

[jenmito]

125. Can you BELIEVE these people?

They actually believe Obama, who was against the invasion of Iraq, has committed WAR CRIMES, killing innocent civilians just for the heck of it. :eyes:

[Sheltiemama]

24. And wouldn't it be something ...

... if bin Laden is captured or killed on his watch instead of Bush's? Freepers' heads would explode in unison.

[jenmito]

26. Yes, it would...

that would be GREAT. And watch Bush somehow take credit for it, too.

[Sultana]

55. Pakistan harbors terrorists

If they would have stepped up and ridded the terrorists from their country this shit won't be happening. It's sad that civilians get killed in situations like this.

Obama isn't Bush you seem to forget that.

[EFerrari]

58. We harbor terrorists, too. If Venezuela bombed Miami

would you sign off on that, too?

There used to be something in this country called the rule of law. You seem to forget that.

[roody]

47. I don't know who attacked us. There was no investigation of the crime,

no arrests, no trial. I do know that Bush expects me to believe it was bin Laden.

[Butch350]

57. Civilians have died in all wars. Is it right? No!

[Zynx]

159. If they were killed unintentionally, it is unfortunate, but should not end a policy.

We killed millions of civilians in WWII, but toward a greater end. Granted, this is not WWII by any stretch of the imagination, but civilians always die in war. 6.8 million died in WWI. No one brings it up, but that is very significant.

[damonm]

161. Then the question becomes, as I ask you downthread,

is it a war crime to kill civilians even it they were not your intended target?

If they WERE, then we agree - war crime. Plain, pure & simple.

[Freddie Stubbs]

162. Do you really beleive that the President has directed our military to kill civilians?

:shrug:

[Maat]

164. Thank you, Ma'am (sfexpat2000).

That's certainly the way I feel - if there's a chance that one innocent child will be killed, it's not worth it, and it's morally reprehensible carrying out the attack.

Plus, we all know that illegally assasinating someone (invading a sovereign nation, without their permission, and carrying out a crime) is illegal AND morally reprehensible. It's just that American officials think that they are ABOVE THE LAW.

No matter what crime you commit, you should be taken into custody and given a trial - period; it's what separates one from what one condemns.

Hug to Sfexpat2000 for standing up for humanity! :hug: :hi:

[Parche]

3. I think that was a Bush action

sounds like Bush ordered it, before he was out of office...:hi:

[jenmito]

8. But Obama was briefed on it...

so the reports say.

[MADem]

10. Oh, don't even GO there. Obama is in charge. Shit does NOT carry over unless

the sitting President authorizes it. You can't say Obama is the President and then blame Bush for an action taken while he sits in the Oval Office.

Remember the Bay of Pigs? Eisenhower planned it, but Kennedy took the hit when it got fucked up due to withdrawal of key support features.

That was an OBAMA action. Not a Bush action. Obama's a big boy, and he owns the decisions he makes.

:hi:

[Parche]

148. not unless the previous president took the action

he signed for it, maybe Obama was briefed on it, but it was probably already in the works at that time

[MADem]

149. Obama had to sign. NOT Bush. That stuff doesn't "carry over." If the action takes place under

the current President's watch, he HAD TO sign an Executive Order authorizing it.

As I said, don't even go there. It insults the Commander in Chief. Obama is IN CHARGE. He's not a helpless puppet, or a defenseless and clueless innocent, beset by the slings and arrows of BushCo fortune.

Obama WAS briefed on it. Thoroughly. Obviously, this sort of surveillance is continuous. Are you trying to suggest to me that these wanted criminals spend close to a week at a single location? Of course they do NOT. They move constantly, precisely to avoid getting hit from on high by one of our drone assets. In this instance, an opportunity presented itself, and likely Obama had less than a day to make a decision. Obama had a choice: Thumbs up, we go in. Thumbs down, we let the opportunity pass.

Obama made the decision, signed the order, and off they went.

And as I said, he probably watched it LIVE and in living color, in the basement.

Before, during, and after.

Bush had nothing to do with this.

An added element was this--Obama may be a "friend to the Muslim world" but he's no friend to AQ. He was making that quite clear, early on, just in case there was any confusion about that issue. He promised to take it to them in Afghanistan and beyond, and he's making good on his promise.

[MADem]

4. If people are of the impression that Obama doesn't mean what he says, perhaps this will disabuse

them of that misapprehension.

He was quite clear, over and over again, that he meant that. The first time he said it, he was challenged, and he said it again.

Of course, he did excercise caution and used drones instead of piloted aircraft, not unlike what Clinton did (though Clinton had fewer drone assets at his disposal, and ones that couldn't do what the drones do now).

The death toll is up to 22 now, but here is some coverage of the event: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.

Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.

Dozens of similar strikes since August on northwest Pakistan, a hotbed of Taleban and al-Qaeda militancy, have sparked angry government criticism of the US, which is targeting the area with missiles launched from unmanned CIA aircraft controlled from operation rooms inside the US.

The operations were stepped up last year after frustration inside the Bush administration over a perceived failure by Islamabad to stem the flow of Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters from the tribal regions into Afghanistan. Mr Obama has made Afghanistan his top foreign policy priority and said during his presidential campaign that he would consider military action inside Pakistan if the government there was unable or unwilling to take on the militants. ....

[friedgreentomatoes]

19. I believe..

it is not about "meaning what he says". Obama campaigned during the primaries with "I voted against the war". Some people liked it, believed in it (I am not saying he wasn't being truthful) and got stuck there and never paid attention to what he specifically said, even during the primaries. I guess it is a big disappointment for such folks.

[leftstreet]

20. Right you are!

"I voted against the war" was also a powerful statement during the primaries.

[MADem]

45. UH....

He meant the war in IRAQ.

I can't believe how many people here didn't LISTEN to the guy when he talked. He never said he was opposed to war in Afghanistan.

Waziristan is nowhere near Iraq. It's a stone's throw from Afghanistan, though.

If you thought Obama was going to fold up his tent, dismantle the military and send everyone home, dream on. It's not going to happen. He's simply going to fight the war that should have been fought seven years ago.

[leftstreet]

63. You're right. Americans voted for Obama because they WANT MORE WAR

:eyes:

[MADem]

67. No, they voted for him because the ones who paid attention to what he said agreed with him

He said he would go after AQ and even go into Pakistan if the government there wouldn't do their duty.

Seems to me he's a man of his word.

Don't cry now, or even pull out the little eye rolling icon, because you, yes, you, didn't pay attention back then. He said it MANY times. The OP gave you just a few examples of the many occasions he said it. It was written into his stump speech at one point.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, here, except for the "Black Must Equal Ultra Liberal" stereotypers--and they do exist.

Between "He doesn't mean it" when he says something people don't like, and "Other people are responsible for this" when he does something people don't like, he's almost got as much teflon as Reagan. It's fascinating to watch the agita here.

I heard him the first time he said it. I believed him, too.

If AQ can be eradicated, that's a good thing, IMO. The people of Afghanistan deserve to have their country back, and not have to put up with a bunch of backward, fundy, women-hating Saudi and Egyptian assholes who have been flung like dogshit out of their own countries taking over entire provinces and bullying their tribal leaders into submission.

I wish Obama success in doing that. I hope he can do it quickly.

[leftstreet]

72. Strange attempt to redirect this to race

uh...whatever

Apparently you weren't on DU when many people voiced opposition to his Afghanistan 'stump' speeches. Had you been, you'd have read the hue and cry of 'well he has to say that to get elected.'

Yes, many people DID hear his statements and respond.
So none of this opposition now should come as a surprise.

[MADem]

98. No redirection.

Simply a valid comment.

What, the obvious is suddenly verboten? How PC of you. It's part and parcel of this discussion. First, he doesn't mean it--it wasn't his idea, why, it was BUSH's!!! A leftover!! He must have cluelessly signed the Executive Order! Second, "other people" are "making him" do this. Yeah--someone's holding a gun to his head.

Why are people in such abject denial? Because he's a LIBERAL LEFTY!! He HAS to be! Why does he HAVE to be? Well, er... just LOOK at him! That's how it rolls. How dare I say such a thing? I've HEARD it. From the mouths of people who call themselves liberals. The truth is that there are people who want to believe that Obama is a lefty, and they hold that belief to a large degree because he is of black ancestry. It's a racist thing to do, but there are people who are doing it. It's why some of the very left wing of the party got behind him early, because there were people who "ass-umed" that he was more left than he actually was, based on some odd and old comments he made on social issues as a young state legislator. Some people tend to get less liberal in middle age, and more liberal in old age--Obama seems to fit that paradigm. We'll see if he loosens up in two decades.

He's not a lefty. He's a centrist, who leans right in some respects, and left in others. That's just the truth. But it's a truth that some refuse to believe, which is why my comment is valid.

I've been here for many years. You'll always find people to disagree about any subject, so comments about his Afghanistan policy didn't particularly resonate with me. And as for Obama, when he made declarative statements, I believed him. I continue to--if he says he is going to do something, I'm going to believe that he intends to do what he says. So far, anyway, until he starts waffling, and he hasn't done much of that yet.

I've lived long enough to know a waffle when I hear one, and there was no wiggle room in any of his remarks on Afghanistan. Ever. The quotes the OP provided are pretty straightforward. Why would anyone be so stupid as to think he didn't mean those comments? And yes, you'd have to be stupid to find any way to misinterpret those straightforward remarks.

I mean, come on--that's gotta be digging for a pony, to pretend that "I will hunt them down and kill them" means something more like "I'll look them up and give them a candy bar."

People engaged in a shitload of projection when it came to Obama. As a consequence, they have UNREALISTIC expectations. Some of these expectations are being dashed, and the hue and cry is loudest amongst those who might be characterized as Left of Dean. We are seeing a lot of huffing and puffing and whining and crying, here, to say nothing of blaming others, simply because the guy is doing just what he said he would do.

Of course, where are the disaffected going to go? There's no future candidate to the left of Obama, and there won't be, either. Unless people want to back that assclown Nader again, that is. Obama has no intention of dancing exclusively with each one of the interest groups who insist that THEY, and only THEY, are the ones what brung him. People had better get a handle on that, too. He'll try to dole out a little here, and a bit there, but he's not going to satisfy every person who wants their big fat piece of pie. It's more likely that everyone, if they're lucky and don't gripe too vociferously, will get a bite, or maybe two.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[MADem]

30. Good grief. When he said "the war" he meant IRAQ. This has NOTHING to do with Iraq.

Your argument is as bad and as uninformed as saying "Saddam caused Nahn Wun Wun."

Obama never said he's against all war. And he pledged to shift assets from Iraq to Afghanistan as quick as he could. He's always LIKED the war in Afghanistan, as much as anyone can like war. He's interested in taking it to AQ, just like Kerry and Clinton and a host of Dems were. Their beef was that war in IRAQ taking away assets and energy from The 'Stan.

That appears to be what he's doing--ramping it up in southwest Asia.

Apparently, when he says something, he actually MEANS it. How refreshing!

Again, why are so many people surprised? He's not, and never was, Captain Groovy No War Peacenik--he's a moderate centrist who believes in a robust defense. People cherrypicked his statements, and they sure as hell "believed" in bullshit based on their own desires. But Obama never lied--he's doing precisely what he said he'd do, and he's behaving just as he said he would.

He's a tad more left when it comes to social/safety net programs, but he's not going to beat swords into plowshares. Don't ever think we elected someone on those lines, because we didn't.

And I'll bet GENERAL DYNAMICS assets came into play during these drone attacks, too!

All politics is local!

[friedgreentomatoes]

163. I know he meant IRAQ...

that is not my point.
My point is many here (and other democrats not on DU) made the choice b/w Obama and Hillary based on their support/opposition of the war in iraq. There were many such single issue voters. A few sitting on the fence jumped after Hillary's "Obliterate Iran" comment. Given this scenario, many believed Obama's stance against Iraq war was a more general "anti-war" stance. All war will be no-no under him. Kind of like Ron Paul speak, whose idea of foreign policy is an isolationist USA. I might be stretching it a bit but not much.

They obviously were not paying attention. Also, comes to my mind the question that if the President says "we have intelligence information about terrorists hiding in Pakistan", how reliable the info is. Half the country did not believe Bush when he said Iraq has WMD, and rightly so. So, should the people just be fed "we have intelligence" and not raise their voices just because we have a Democrat in the White House?

Those who trush him will continue to do so and say "he is doing what he said will do". For them, maybe, the POTUS saying "we have reason to believe a country is a threat" is enough. Hell, there were even people here who tried to spin this on Bush. They are the folks who listened to what he promised and still support him. Others, who did not pay attention now will be disappointed and sulk.

[MADem]

171. They (our government) aren't going to show us the footage.

As I've said elsewhere, they KNOW who's in the houses they bomb, because they have video of them going in those houses, taken from drones well above the locations. They likely watched the bombs go off live and in color. But it's not just "we have intelligence"--it's "we've seen it with our own eyes."

The capability of our drones has grown by leaps and bounds over the last ten years. It used to be we only had a few of 'em, now we have lots--and they don't just "looky loo" they can put ordnance on target. Who needs pilots? Some guy in a trailer in front of a computer thousands of miles away can control those things without any issue.

As for Bush, it'll be years before we know what kind of intel he (didn't) have. We have an idea that the intel was "shaped" to conform with his desires, but we don't know everything, certainly.

I do agree that people heard what they wanted to hear during this last election, and frankly, that's on them. They can't continue to suggest that Bush had a hand in this Waziristan incursion, or that Obama was bamboozled by military meanies, or he was somehow unaware of this. They are experiencing cognitive dissonance because they didn't check the product before they bought the package, and that's their fault. As for me, he wasn't my first choice, but I think he's doing a good job making it clear to the "Muslim world" that America is not their enemy (Al Arabiya interview) while at the same time also making it clear that if our enemy happens to be Muslim, we're not going to be pussyfooting around. He gets full marks for his handling of this business.

[LWolf]

33. Many of his supporters

have been trying to convince me that he is some sort of closet liberal who doesn't mean all the center-right things he says for more than a year now.

I took him at his word. Which is why I adamantly opposed his nomination.

[Sultana]

71. Good for you,

....NOT!

Then you should've voted for someone else

:eyes:

[LWolf]

79. When?

I certainly did not vote for him in the primary.

Are you suggesting I should have voted for McCain/Palin in the GE?

[Sultana]

83. 3rd party?

Stop bitching about the primaries.

[LWolf]

90. I notice you didn't answer the question.

When are you suggesting that I shouldn't have voted for him?

Since I hold Democratic voters responsible for nominating a candidate with unacceptably hawkish and center-right policies, I think I'll still mention that culpability now and then.

Especially every time Obama does something that flies in the face of the hopes and goals for change his supporters keep telling me to expect.

Consider it an in-your-face I TOLD YOU SO.

Happily, you don't have the authority, here or anywhere else, to tell me to stop bitching about anything, or to tell me to do, or not do, or say, or not say, anything at all. Nice try. :D

[MADem]

99. You might want to read the DU rules. Members here suck it up and vote for the winner of the nom.

That's in there, plainly articulated.

If you want to play the third party game, you're invited to do it using someone else's bandwidth. That's in there, too.

[SpartanDem]

110. delete

[Pike]

11. Hmmm...Will the Presidents supporters start turning on him...

now that he has had to make a tough decision?

[EFerrari]

14. You don't have to "turn" on Obama to disagree with this action

unless you're under twelve physically or mentally.

[MADem]

15. Tough decision? How many times does he have to say "I mean it" before idiots start

realizing that, wow, gee.... HE MEANS IT?


Incredible, how people are pissed at Obama for doing what he said, time and time again, that he would do--pursue Al Qaeda into Pakistan if the Pakistani government didn't get off their asses and do it themselves.

I call what he did closer to delivering on a promise than anything else. He said it enough times so that people might figure, gee, he meant it.

He's been taking briefs on this issue since November, too--it's not like he hasn't been aware of the scope of the intel on this matter and what's been happening on the diplomatic levels as well.

If people "turn on" him, they're fucking idiots who didn't listen to what he had to say (and repeated again and again) in the first place. The only ones they have to blame is themselves, for making assumptions about him that were manufactured and untrue.

Why people think Obama is somehow a Peace-Love-Flowers Captain Peacenik Sunshine I have no idea--he's a centrist, and he favors a very robust defense (look at who he asked to stay on at Defense, and try telling me he's not SERIOUS about DOD and NSA issues, after all). He's not going to play the conciliatory wuss, because he knows that those AQ jerks aren't having any of that. They won't be happy until every last one of us is dead, or choking to death on our own blood--it's just how they feel about us. And no amount of Hope-Change-Believe will change their minds on that score.

[leftstreet]

16. How is it 'turning on him' to disagree with him?

That's kinda, uh...an authoritarian mindset.

:shrug:

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

18. To equate 'disagreeing' with 'turning on'

is the same bullshit we all heard when 'disagreeing' with Bush meant you were 'un-American'.

I trust this administration will be better than that. I hope Democrats in general will be too.

[jenmito]

23. Are you one of the President's supporters?

President Obama? Just wondering due to the way you worded the question...

[Pike]

169. I always support

the POTUS, but that doesn't mean I will agree with every decision that they make, no matter who it is.

[EstimatedProphet]

173. Yes, of course you do.

[jenmito]

178. Judging by your posts, such as you saying there's nothing wrong with listening to

Rush Limbaugh (to listen to "all sides") along with you using the term "the Presidents supporters," I really doubt you're an Obama supporter.

[EstimatedProphet]

172. Apparently so. You clearly have.

[MadHound]

29. Yes, he did say that all along. Doesn't mean that it is the right path to take

Or the moral or correct thing to do. In fact this is much the same thinking that got this country bogged down in Vietnam and then allowed Nixon to expand that war to Laos and Cambodia.

Nor does the fact that Obama made these statements mean that we have to support them. Sorry, but this war in Afghanistan is just as wrong as the war in Iraq is. All that will happen is that our military will continue to break itself upon the mountains of southern Asia rather than the Middle East.

Nor should we blindly support this move just because it comes from a Democratic president. War isn't a partisan affair, wrong because the 'Pugs are conducting it, right because the Dems are conducting it. This is just one more in a long line of wars that are simply wrong.

[jenmito]

37. I don't know ANYONE who's "blindly supporting" this move. I was FOR Bush going after al Qaeda

in Afghanistan and Pakistan as was the vast majority of Americans. Obama was for the war there and said so many times. I'm not supporting the strikes in Pakistan because it's a Dem. president since I supported the same under Bush. I was against the war in IRAQ.

[MadHound]

42. Great, so you were for Bush blowing up wedding parties

Before Obama started blowing up innocents:crazy:

I realize that Obama was for the Afghan war, thanks for the reminder. That still doesn't make it morally right.

Have you ever stopped to think that opening up a full scale war in Afghanistan, simply to capture a relatively small group of people is like using a sledgehammer to swat at flies.

I would also suggest that you go out and read up on some history, specifically Vietnam, and political works(the last book put out by Fukiyama is a good place to start). Then perhaps you'll see where we're headed with this mess, and just how wrong it is.

Oh, and I suggest that you look upthread for your blind political supporter. The person I'm talking with upthread is the prime example that I'm talking about when it comes to blind support.

[jenmito]

48. Stop being so obtuse...

of course I don't support blowing up innocent people, but I DO support the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Sadly, innocent people get killed.

Thanks for the suggestions, but I don't need your advice. There are no blind supporters on this thread.

[MadHound]

60. So what are you going to do when we're involved in this quagmire four years from now

Will that be OK with you? Will the death toll of innocents mean anything to you? Do you understand how badly we're playing our hands in this one, both militarily and politically? Do you think that having the Afghans driving the Russians out was a fluke?

Jesus Christ, read your history, read your political science and political history and fucking educate yourself. You're like a goddamn cheerleader at the start of the 'Nam conflict, mindlessly cheering the death and destruction because it's our boy doing it:eyes:

Yes, Osama should be brought to justice, but using the military in this fashion is the wrong way of going about it. Yes, Al Qaeda needs to be dealt with, but launching a military war is not the way to win friends and convert enemies. More than a war of bullets, we're involved in a war of ideas, and the more people we kill, the greater our loss is in that war of ideas. And frankly, losing that war of ideas is going to lead to losing the military battle. If you don't understand that, then you really need to educate yourself. Until then, yes, you are indeed nothing more than a blind supporter, cheering on death and destruction as the body count continues to climb. For shame.

[jenmito]

126. You have an undeserved inflated ego. If you think ANYONE is cheerleading ANY

killing, you are delusional. We were attacked on 9/11. I was FOR Bush going into Afghanistan and wish he would've STAYED there to get bin Laden when he was right there. Instead, he used the 9/11 attacks to invade Iraq, a war I was against (as was Obama). You seem to be stuck in Vietnam. Maybe you should get therapy. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

131. No, it OUR American Empire who has the Over-Inflated Ego as the world looks on in HORROR.

:thumbsdown:

[MadHound]

142. You seem to have absolutely zero knowledge of military history

Or military strategy. Instead you want to extract revenge for 911 from thousands of innocent Afghani's and Pakistani's. Again, using a hammer, which is what we're doing with our military right now, to capture or kill a fly, bin Ladin, is overkill. Furthermore, we are trying to win hearts and minds in the area, you know, rebuild a failed state and all that. Do you honestly think that these heavy handed tactics are going to win friends and convert enemies? No, instead all we're doing is creating more people who hate us, more people who are willing to sacrifice themselves in a terrorist attack to kill us.

And frankly this war is unwinnable. As I said before, it's a quagmire, much like Vietnam was. We can stay there for years and decades, yet all we'll wind up doing is sacrificing lives and treasure on the altar of war. We won't win, we won't stop Al Qaeda, we'll just kill people and destroy things. Read your goddamn history, see how this worked out for the Russians twenty years ago. Read your history and learn from it.

Here's somebody who gets it, read and learn <http://www.newsweek.com/id/160439>

Your boy Bush fucked this one up too, and sadly, Obama seems to be following his model.

[jenmito]

147. My "boy Bush"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Obama is reaching out to the Muslim world UNLIKE Bush, wants to talk to our enemies, and build up good will around the world. He IS winning friends and avoiding creating more enemies. He KNOWS you can't kill every terrorist (as do I) which is why he's trying to appeal to the vast, vast majority of Muslims while trying to keep his promise of going after the tiny group of people who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks and others. Get your head out of 'Nam and try to realize what Obama is doing. He's keeping his word on ALL fronts, and that includes an aspect you don't like-going after people who attacked us.

[MADem]

153. The guy he is citing so authoritatively actually supports the Afghan effort.

He has a plan for success, too. It is facilitated by more boots on the ground as well as expansion of outreach programs to rural areas and an emphasis on working with individual tribal leaders. It appears Obama is following this guy's advice, too, by shifting assets out of Iraq to Afghanistan.

I happen to know the guy he's citing. He works at Naval Postgraduate School and is a "country expert" on Afghanistan. If anyone needs to learn from history, or at least read the crap he throws around, it's the fellow who's tossing insults at you and talking out his wazoo.

He's giving you an interview with a guy who has been in favor of our efforts in Afghanistan, but who took issue with the "centralization" strategy and the "megabase" concept (to say nothing of the benign neglect that Bush bestowed on the nation, in terms of the big picture). He wants to go to an outpost method of smaller, more local groupings, where we work closely with the Afghan military and the tribal leaders--he says, in a riff on Tip O'Neill, that "All Counterinsurgency is Local."

I provided a link to an article the guy wrote just below (here it is again http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200810/afghan --it's a great read, and is a one eighty out from what this insulting guy is falsely claiming that the intrepid Prof. Johnson thinks.

When they insult you, instead of exchanging ideas on the merits, they've lost the argument. MadHound blew his credibility by citing a guy who strongly supports the effort in Afghanistan, and believes that with the right strategy, it can be a rousing success.

[jenmito]

156. Thanks...

I saw you calling him on that. Thanks for pointing that out! I wonder what his response will be-if anything.

Yeah-once the personal insults start flying you know they lost the argument. :hi:

[MADem]

157. What can he say, really?

The guy rolled it out and stepped on it, hard. His only option is more sophmoric retort. He has no interest in hearing opposing or even tangential views, he just wants to cram his badly-formulated, simplistic opinions down everyone's throat.

I don't mind a good debate at all (we can't always agree on every issue, we're the Big Tent bunch, after all), but he doesn't offer a good debate.

[jenmito]

158. If he was honest, he could say he was WRONG...

but it seems he's now avoiding this thread like the plague. He's been robo-posting that link along with the insults.

Yup. The fact that he won't come back here shows his lack of intelligence or at least integrity.

[MADem]

170. I wouldn't hold my breath on that score!

As they say on the internet, the guy seems a bit "hubris laden."

He spent half of his time insulting people, trying to make personal fun of them, instead of engaging them on the merits of the issues. He took Prof. Johnson's words completely out of context and made an ass of himself as a consequence. I have to say, that part was a real delight, an "Emperor has no clothes" moment.

It's pretty funny, actually. The term "hoisted on his own petard" comes to mind!

Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippee yay!

[jenmito]

175. I'm not...

and I did a search of his posts-ALL negative towards Obama. I hope to catch him on another thread and "remind" him of this "episode" I'm sure he'd like to forget. :D

[MADem]

180. Ah, your research might hold the key! nt

[MADem]

150. Look who's talking--you cite a guy who SUPPORTS the war in Afghanistan as "proof"

Here, read from the guy "who gets it"--a fellow I happen to KNOW, and a fellow who's attitude and viewpoints you are blatantly misrepresenting--no, not misrepresenting, you're not telling the truth about how he feels about this war at all. This guy works at NPGS, one of those places where they teach "National Security"--and not online, either.

He wrote this article AFTER that NEWSWEEK interview.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200810/afghan

He isn't saying we can't do this thing, he's saying we need to change the way we are doing business to make it happen. Obama is apparently following this guy's advice, and shifting assets from Iraq to the Stan.

[LanternWaste]

152. Then if you yourself have a firm grip on both reality and history...

Then if (as you indirectly imply) you yourself have a firm grip on both reality and history, what are the precise and relevant means of vanquishing AQ in SW Asia? What is the answer based on? How long will it take? How much will it cost (direct and indirect costs)?

You can of course assure that zero civilians will get killed if we stick to your form, yes? You can of course cite historical parallels in which your method was both successful and caused zero deaths, yes?

(Being a thirty year student of history has taught me three absolutes-- one of which is, "criticism of an current and ongoing action is much easier than presenting a viable, valid solution to that same ongoing action").

[MADem]

154. "criticism of an current and ongoing action is much easier than presenting a viable, valid solution

to that same ongoing action...."
:thumbsup:

So true! It's way easier to gripe than to fix! The gentleman he is citing actually is not a complainer, though, he has a plan to fix the situation (it looks like Obama is implementing his plan, too). The guy's attitude is being misrepresented. Johnson is not opposed to the effort in Afghanistan at all, he believes it can be made to work with strategic changes in how we do business over there.

[ShortnFiery]

130. "Will the death toll of innocents mean anything to you?"

Excellent question.

Those dead babies and children could be OURs had we not won "the genetic lottery" to be born American Citizens.



Can we feel THAT? Are we still humane, or does some LIVES (nationalities) have more value than others?

[BzaDem]

140. You know what really makes someone sound uneducated?

Logic that could easily be applied to our involvement in World War II, or hell, even the civil war. Maybe slavery was just part of the "war of ideas" to you, that needed to be dealt with through more diplomacy with the confederacy.

For all your talk of education, political science, and political history, you sound pretty ignorant to me. If your definition of being educated is saying that "war is never the answer," then our education system would be a disaster. But luckily, your absolute pacifism (regardless of how many more innocents would die under an execution of that worldview) is sufficiently rejected by the majority of people, academics, Democrats, liberals, and basically every other group that I don't need to make sweeping judgments about our educational system.

[MadHound]

144. Oh yip fucking ee, another hawk

One who thinks that by extracting torturous comparisons to WWII and the Civil War, they can actually win an argument. Got a question for you, how much military history have you studied? How many military people have you talked with? The answer in your case seems to be 0, absolutely nothing.

Go read up on your Russian/Afghan military history, study where the hell Russia went wrong. While you're at it, study up on Vietnam, a real similar case. Go read Fukuyama's book(first, you probably need to figure out who Fukuyama is, go look him up) America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. Then get back to me about ignorance and strategy. Until then, all you're doing is sounding like another neo-con idiot, blindly cheering on death and destruction.

Hell, here's a good place to start <http://www.newsweek.com/id/160439>

Oh, and if you honestly think that the Afghan war is supported by the majority of people worldwide, I suggest that you look again. Hell, it's not terribly popular here in the US. Besides, since when if popularity the measure of success in a war. Hell, six years ago the Iraq war was a winner with the American people and we've seen how well that worked out.

But hey, keep up that mindless cheerleading, RAH RAH RAH.

Sad how so many people are turning into Democratic versions of freepers, mindlessly cheering on death and destruction just because it is sanctioned by "their guy":puke:

[BzaDem]

151. I'm just thankful that no one with your views will ever be elected President of the United States.

You can whine about popularity of this and that and pretend you are educated about such matters. I could argue back and forth about educational qualifications. But it doesn't really matter to me. The important thing is that no absolute pacifist (who thinks war is never the answer, even if it saves lives) will ever be elected President to execute his or her views. Not now, and not ever. Have a nice day. :hi:

[MADem]

155. Stop quoting that article--that guy you cite SUPPORTS the Afghan effort.

You're looking more and more foolish because you aren't reading your sources in context. You are citing a guy who works at a place that teaches NATIONAL SECURITY to military personnel. This guy is a country expert, and he's one of the people who crafts military strategy on behalf of the Department of Defense. Obama appears to be implementing his strategic vision.

You read a few quick sentences from a NEWSWEEK article, make some erroneous ASSumptions, and you completely, totally misunderstood the man (that seems to be a pattern with you, frankly). Now, you look even more uninformed than you did before you dragged him out in "support" of your views.

You might want to start calling Prof. Johnson a "Bush lover" or some other silly insult, because he's not on your team at all. I know the guy, and he's diametrically opposed to your viewpoint.

Oooops. Keep on bellowing, though--and keep on calling people names, too. It is very revealing, your method of discussing a subject.

"Sad how many people are turning into Democratic versions of freepers," indeed. You know, those people who don't research their subject matter before they shoot off their mouths? People who act on incomplete information, and toss insults rather than doing their homework? Yeah...people like that....

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

62. Wow. It's "sad" innocent people were killed.

That makes it all better.

[jenmito]

128. You should leave the Dem. party and should've worked AGAINST Obama.

I did NOT say innocent people being killed in war is sad so it "makes it all better." If you think Obama is TARGETING innocent people, you're delusional. Period.

[ShortnFiery]

133. Obama is not "the alpha and omega" = he must listen to the American People

Pakistan has NUKES ... I say again NUKES!!! :nuke:

We can't go tear assing around the ME blowing up shit left and right THEN act dumb-founded if we are hit on our own soil again.

We need more POLICY/POLITICAL efforts in those destitute areas.

Do you think "tribal people" who barely have a pot to piss in are going to be convinced of anything other than INCREASING HATE toward the USA if we continue to kill innocents? ... even if we don't TARGET innocents, that doesn't make them any less dead.

Part of my wonders if the ruling political classes within the world community are NOT just trying to serve us up another World War in order to "thin the herd."

Think about the foregoing ... then think about WHY we have to "execute" terrorists suspects with drones AND NO TRIAL?

DRONE driven EXECUTIONS are just a cheap ass way to forgo rendition and/or GITMO type bases. Then, the killing of innocents foments MORE young terrorist wannabes. That's no surprise, but HUMAN NATURE.

[MADem]

49. Blind political supporter?

You don't know me--why pretend you do? If anyone's blind, it's someone who doesn't understand how Presidential decisions of the highest order are taken and carried out.

Were you good at gossip in junior high?

You suck at logic on the internet.

[MadHound]

61. Hey, just going by the words that you're writing.

Don't like what I'm saying, don't like how you're being characterized? Then don't be such a fan boy. Educate yourself, I've given you and others several places to start with that education, take advantage of them.

[MADem]

64. Ah, your use of the phrase "fan boy" gives me a clue as to your age.

I have an education in National Security among other disciplines. You, though, do not. And that's obvious by your commentary.

Nice talking to you.

[MadHound]

76. Yes, that age would be in my late forties

Sometimes modern slang is just soooo apt. This is one of those times.

Am I supposed to be impressed by your education in National Security? Big whoop, where did you get that education, because the only degrees I'm seeing for "National Security" are coming from those online degree mills.

Meanwhile, I've got multiple degrees in history, poli sci and working on an education degree. I'd stack my education up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[EFerrari]

100. MADem's National Security education is so profound,

I've been identified as an Al Qaida supporter.

lol

[MADem]

106. By your words we shall know you.

But then, your words have been deleted, I see--so we aren't privy to all the "good stuff."

You must have been a barrel of laughs in Junior High. "Lol."

[EFerrari]

108. My objection to the killing of civilians obviously makes me a terrorist collaborator.

lol

[MADem]

113. You keep saying that. NT

[EFerrari]

114. LOL!

[MADem]

105. Uncle Sam paid for it. He was very generous to me in my postgraduate educational process.

So Harvard and Princeton NDU and NPS and others of that ilk are online degree mills?

That's amazing! I completed my degrees well before the internet was available to anyone outside government.

But hey, you're the one who knows about these "online degree" places.

Another case of "whoever smelt it, dealt it?"

See ya. :hi:

[LWolf]

32. I don't need reminding.

It's one of the reasons I didn't want him nominated. One of the reasons I've opposed him all along.

The fact that not enough people agreed with me, and not enough people took this seriously, doesn't make a strike within Pakistan any better, or any more okay, with me.

[jenmito]

39. Then my OP doesn't apply to you. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

35. You tell 'em Jen! NT

[jenmito]

40. Thanks, Clio. :) n/t

[EFerrari]

59. Right! Defend the killing of innocent people! Go!

That'll make Obama look good and make us safer!

:woohoo:

[Clio the Leo]

65. Woohoo!!!! Misplaced Hyperbole is Superawesome!!! NT

[EFerrari]

66. It's not hyperbole when it happened, is it?

Amazing. Just amazing.

[Clio the Leo]

68. You know, my friend Jakki was sitting at her office one day....

.... minding her own FUCKING business when someone flew a jet plane into her desk and burned her alive.

You want to take to me about the loss of innocent life? Go ahead.

I have no desire for revenge, but Al Qaeda needs to be neutralized. I stand firm in support of our President's notion that MORE can be done by promoting human welfare than by aggressive attack. But he and I both know it cannot be done without ANY loss of life.

If you have any thoughts on the matter, go for it.

Like Barack, I'm all ears.

[MADem]

78. Well said.

Gee, I guess handing them daisies and telling them to be nice won't work....

And speaking of work, those AQ clowns are the assholes that let women without husbands starve to death, leaving their kids orphaned, destitute and targets for abuse, because in their fundy-fucked up world, women shouldn't be seen. They should be hidden in beekeeper outfits, behind walls, child rearing, cooking and cleaning, and only "accessed" for purposes of procreation.

I can't fathom defense of these bastards. The same people who call Falwell and Warren all sorts of names somehow manage to find all sorts of Kumbayah Love for these AQ fuckers who make Falwell and Warren look like Mandela and Mother Theresa in comparison.

I can't relate to the thought process that comes to that conclusion. It's got to be willful ignorance, there's no other explanation that makes any sense to me.

[Clio the Leo]

91. Well, with respect to the OP....

... I dont think anyone here is DEFENDING Al Qaeda. I DO however think they're oversimplifying what is a VERY complex issue. When it comes right down to I dont think anyone on this forum WANTS bloodshed. We are just at a loss of how to go about accomplishing what we need to accomplish without doing so.

And what *I* am afraid of is what's getting lost in this debate is that Barack is, WITHOUT QUESTION, more interested in promoting human welfare in the region than any Western leader we've seen in our lifetime.

I'm troubled by our using the same hyperbole against a man who truly WANTS to improve the lives of the innocent civilians as we do, quite accurately, the cold hearted bastards who came before.

[EFerrari]

94. Pointing out that of a group of 22 KILLED people, 8 were "suspected militants"

and the rest were civilians is not hyperbole.

Maybe that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Clio the Leo]

101. "INCONCEIVABLE!!!"

;)

IF it is your belief that ANYONE here is "happy" or "content" with the loss of ANY life, then yes .... Inigo ... that is hyperbole. You KNOW we're not. Come on now .... admit it ... I wont tell anyone. (elbowing you gently)


Unfortunately, things get a little mirky when you get involved in a land war in Asia. :)

[EFerrari]

107. If your solution to the problem of randomly killing civilians is to

kid me, I'm sorry about that. You probably deserve better than that.

[Binka]

121. Mirky Isn't A Fucking Word It Is MURKY.

Elbowing you not so gently for being a fucking know it all. Even though you can't spell. You are full of crap. Ignore. Bye.

[MADem]

111. Concur.

Of course, it's much easier to call someone a bloodthirsty murderer when they're going after a bloodthirsty murderer who isn't going to accept a hug and a candy bar as a peace offering, who is unrepentant about his killing of our fellow citizens, and who wants all of us either dead or submitting to his crazed fundamentalist view of the world. Beekeeper suits for all the ladies in the house! Yee haw!

I wouldn't worry overmuch about the debate on this forum--it's not reflective of the larger view of the situation, at all. The people who are griping are fringe of the fringe. Overall, most people are pleased that Obama isn't sitting on his hands, but is acting on actionable intel. I'd love to get a look at the footage, particularly the stuff BEFORE the strike. They've gotten to the point where they can get very good pictures from overhead, and I'm sure they didn't take this decision lightly.

[EFerrari]

117. One, DU is mostly a community of white middle aged suburban white women

who are well within the mainstream.

And, two, when it turns out that we just killed a bunch of civilians who have nothing to do with this, I hope you go somewhere else to vent your guilt because I for one don't want to hear it again.

[MADem]

129. Get over yourself. Why do you insist upon injecting yourself in every conversation I have on this

thread? A bit obsessive, that. What, no "LOL?"

I'd say your childish behavior is a bit outside the mainstream, whatever "the mainstream" is--be it white middle class women, southwest Asian hybrid males, or French Polynesians of any gender. I do know I'd look askance at your definition of what is and isn't "mainstream."

Of course, if it turns out that we killed Osama, you'll probably still be squawking. That seems to be your MO. Whatever floats your boat.

See ya.

[EFerrari]

80. So, this is about revenge for you.

You want to cheer lead strikes that kill more civilians than suspected militants, Clio, that's your prerogative. You're not closer to the justice you want when innocent people die.

Dropping bombs on goat herders is not only horribly wrong, it's also stupid. We should be in the business of making more allies than enemies. Richard Clarke famously said that Bush policies were al Qaida's best recruitment tools and Obama would be wise to listen to that counsel and to discontinue these strikes that not only kill innocents but that also become de facto recruiting tools.

[Clio the Leo]

82. I'm glad you read my post.

:sarcasm:

And again, I wait patiently for your response on how to neutralize what is perhaps our greatest enemy with NO loss of life. (if, indeed, that is what you're saying.)

I got all night. I'd love to hear your strategy.

(and that's NOT sarcasm)

[EFerrari]

86. Yea, I did read your post through several edits.

There is no excuse for the United States to kill civilians.

It won't bring your friend back.

It won't make us safer.

It won't resolve the problem of al Qaida or any of the other radical groups.

It will radicalize young people who we will have to deal with down the road.

[Clio the Leo]

87. So then how do we resolve the problem? NT

[EFerrari]

88. We offer the people something better. It's not rocket science

And the plan has been put forward over and over again, based on the observation, study and expertise of experts who've followed insurgencies. Go read the transcripts of the Out of Iraq Caucus. We offer the people something better than being tools in proxy wars.

Or, we can keep shooting at them at random, help al Qaida recruit more teenagers and hang onto our anger.

[Clio the Leo]

95. You do realize that's his plan, right?

Again, quoting from a December appearance on Meet the Press..

"We've got to really ramp up our development approach to Afghanistan. Part of the problem that we've had is that the average Afghan farmer hasn't seen any improvement in HIS life. We haven't seen the kinds of infrastructure improvements. We haven't seen the security improvements. We haven't seen the reduction in narco-trafficking. We haven't seen a reliance on rule of law in Afghanistan that would make people feel confident that the central government can deliver on its promises. If we combine effective development, more effective military work as well as more effective diplomacy then I think we can stabilize the situation. Our number one goal has to be that it cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States."

To say that we are "shooting them at random" is a bit disingenuous. But you know that dont you. ;)

[EFerrari]

97. Are you claiming that our president intentionally killed those civilians?

You can't have it both ways, can you?

[Clio the Leo]

102. Huh? NT

[EFerrari]

112. "To say that we are "shooting them at random" is a bit disingenuous."

Have fun with your puzzle.

[Zhade]

92. Sounds like a desire for revenge to me, and to hell with the innocents who die.

NT!

[MADem]

74. !!!

Thank you for that!!!

That was my laugh of the day! You hit the target, too!

[Clio the Leo]

77. Trust me, I am the Queen of Hyperbole....

... so I can spot it from a thousand paces.

But I like to save it for the wingnuts. Number one, their foolish enough to fall for it and number two .... well .... I do not enjoy yelling across the family dinner table. Ya know?

[MADem]

115. I know what you mean.

Sometimes, it's sadly necessary...oh, pass the potatoes! Please!!

:hi:

[EraOfResponsibility]

70. **munches popcorn**

this is a good debate. :popcorn:

[Sultana]

85. Indeed!

:popcorn:

[tekisui]

73. I remember all of that.

I thought he was wrong then. I think it is wrong now. It doesn't mean that I don't support Obama. I have this one major criticism. I think he is wrong on his approach in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I have always been aware of that.

I still believe he will he the best president in my life time, and he has exceeded my expectations, so far. President Obama is one fine president. However, I have never agreed 100% with anyone 100% of the time. And, I will call attention to the things I feel are wrong.

[rug]

75. What did he say about Pakistani civilians?

[Clio the Leo]

81. Here's what he's said about Afghani civilians....

..... I would imagine his philosophy on Pakistan is very similar.

"We've got to really ramp up our development approach to Afghanistan. Part of the problem that we've had is that the average Afghan farmer hasn't seen any improvement in HIS life. We haven't seen the kinds of infrastructure improvements. We haven't seen the security improvements. We haven't seen the reduction in narco-trafficking. We haven't seen a reliance on rule of law in Afghanistan that would make people feel confident that the central government can deliver on its promises. If we combine effective development, more effective military work as well as more effective diplomacy then I think we can stabilize the situation. Our number one goal has to be that it cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7962764

[EFerrari]

96. So, he said we have to ramp up development, not random fire. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

103. And he also said "more effective military work"...

... now, you and I may disagree on the merits of "more effective military work" and even the trivialization of the loss of life (which I am not down for be it innocent or not) as "more effective military work" but that's what he said.

And with that, I'm leavin' it with ya kid. Got some leftover chicken parm waiting for me in the fridge.

[EFerrari]

109. I object to any metaphor that softens the killing of innocent people

No matter what you have for dinner. And I am not a kid, thanks.

[Clio the Leo]

134. "kid" is a term of affection ....

..... I use for all members of my social circle. And since you are a member here, I consider you a part of that group. ;)

[truebrit71]

116. Pakistan is about as useful as a kickstand on a jackass when it comes to the "war on terror"...

We simply don't have time to go through the political niceties of playing "Mother May I?" when asking the Pakistani government and/or Pakistani military to act on our intelligence....the Pakistani Military was fired upon US military personnel regularly, and the ISI are in bed with the Taliban. I think we need to go wherever we have to go to kill the bad guys and if it puts a few noses out of joint, well that's just too damned bad...

It's been 7 years and over $10 billion into the coffers of the Pakistani government and military and we have precisely bugger-all to show for it...

Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way..

I agree with the President.

[SpartanDem]

119. how about some solutions?

Anyone noticed those opposed to this action haven't offered one single solution?. What are we supposed to do leave Afghanistan and let Taliban restart their repressive regime?

The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan pales in compassion to when we were bombing Berlin and Tokyo? We're FDR and Truman wrong for that? No, becuase it had a greater purpose. We're at war with the Taliban and AQ which are very real threats to the security to this country ,unlike Saddam, and to think they can be defeated without some military means is just naive. To willingly hand this country back to these monsters and to let go back to committing their atrocites would be even more tragic than the loss of civilian life fighting to getting rid of these people.

[Vattel]

120. Except in rare cases, killing innocent people is unjustified.

Obama's killing innocent people in Pakistan is not one of the rare cases. You should never kill the innocent for speculative benefits, and anyone who thinks that behind the walls of the Pentagon some military expert has a cost-benefit analysis of the recent bombings proving net benefits in terms of innocent lives saved to innocent lives taken is deluded. Besides I don't want my President murdering children to make me more secure from terrorists anyway. He could save more lives without killing anyone if we devoted more resources to improving highway safety. Trying to make the world better by killing innocent people is almost always a stupid approach. But this country is so fucking militaristic that there's little chance of ever electing a President who takes murder seriously.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

122. I know. I don't understand why people are upset. Musharaf is harboring bin Laden...

or has some information on the Taliban and where bin Laden is. He should be held accountable. I have a problem with civilians being killed, but I don't have a problem with terrorist-harborers being killed. I believe that bin Laden and al-Qaeda ought to be brought to justice.

[truebrit71]

127. Musharaf is no longer in power...

...and his replacements are even weaker and just as ineffective...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

132. Yes, they are weaker because he's pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

He is NOT our ally and we need to get that through our thick heads. He is harboring al-Qaeda and the government knows where bin Laden and his associates are. I don't trust them. They need to be held accountable.

[ShortnFiery]

135. The HEART of the matter is that these people are living in abject poverty without any hope.

You can blow them up till "the cows come home" like we KILLED 2 million Vietnamese ... they will still be there HATING the USA.

We need to not repair a Socio-Economic and Political Problem through our GOD ALMIGHTY BOMBS.

[ShortnFiery]

136. P.S. Don't even get me started about the $ for arms from a NARCO State Nation that is Afghanistan.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

145. NO! The HEART of the matter is that over 3,000 Americans were killed by

15 Saudi's directed by bin Laden and his associates. If Pakistan is harboring them, then they are complicit in that murder. Of course no one agrees with killing civilians, and I'm hoping that this destruction will cease. But bin Laden and all of those responsible for 911 need to be brought to justice. If it is wrong that Bush didn't do anything about bin Laden, then it is equally wrong if Obama doesn't bring these people to justice. If we don't, it will get tougher; they will continue to terrorize their own people and kill American troops over there until they are stopped. That's how I feel.

[ShortnFiery]

165. We've killed over 100,000 Iraqis ... don't you think that we've set KARMA in a negative

direction? There's no reset button to restore the innocent lives within a country we IMMORALLY and ILLEGALLY INVADED.

The people who killed us ARE DEAD. The remnants live in those tribal areas. If you wish to INCREASE the number of terrorists, continue to bomb the shit out of those areas killing an EQUAL number of civilians.

It's like fishing with dynamite. Unsound. :puke:

[ShortnFiery]

137. "I don't have a problem with terrorist-harborers being killed."

Are you suggesting that we should BOMB OURSELVES?!? :evilgrin:

[SpartanDem]

138. reality check

We need to not repair a Socio-Economic and Political Problem through our GOD ALMIGHTY BOMBS.

Great insight. How exactly you do plan on achieving this with the Talbiban blowing up co-eds schools in order to maintain their repressive control? Hugs and kisses? No one is saying that the military is the only solution, but you can't start to rebuild the economic and political situation without driving out the Taliban and that's going take some of our GOD ALMIGHTY BOMBS.

Again I see a lot of moralizing,but no solutions.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

146. Yes, I don't any solutions put forth by those who have a problem with our approach.

Should we allow the Taliban to go free? Should we not pursue bin Laden? Ought we not held responsible as more attacks on innocent civilians and our troops aren't thwarted? You're right that no one is putting forth workable solutions.

[ShortnFiery]

166. It's a SOVEREIGN Country. It's time to stop being the world's Bad-Ass = Terrorist.

It's their country. As long as they are kept in check, leave the NATIVES the hell alone.

[Every Man A King]

139. He also said that we are overusing airpower

which will always hit civilians. We need to get ground troops in there to capture Bin-Laden reguardless of what Pakistan says, then get out of the whole region.

[MADem]

141. I think he said that before he got down in the secret room in the basement

....and got a chance to see the kind of "airpower" that puts HIM in the cockpit.

Those drones fly high and quiet, and can read your license plate...and the registration tag in the corner of the plate. They give you a better view of the entire field of operation than any twenty guys can get on the ground. They can turn and target the outhouse between two houses, and hit it, cleanly.

I doubt he'd put boots on the ground, even in Waziristan, unless it was an "In And Out" plan a la DESERT ONE of Carter infamy, only without the fuckups. And given DESERT ONE, I imagine he'll think REAL hard before he embarks on anything of that nature. Waziristan isn't the tropical nation of Grenada, after all. Those guys fight back.

[ObamaFan19]

167. Safe

I'm cool with whatever Obama has to do to keep us safe and sound in our own homes.

[Solon]

168. "high value al-Qaeda targets" seems to me to be a misnomer, you would think...

by now, that we killed or captured all of their number 2 and number 3 guys. The fact is that al-Qaeda is not some centralized organization you can defeat with military power, its a decentralized organization that, if we are lucky, we can possibly make ourselves feel good by attacking some of their higher profile targets. But, like the hydra, there are more than enough people to take those people's places, the irony is that our very actions lead to conditions for people to join al-Qaeda.

Not to mention the fact that this does absolutely jack shit to actually protect us from a future terrorist attack, all it takes is a few people with the will to do it to cause devastation in this country, as 9/11 proved.

[jenmito]

174. But Obama is not Bush. He is doing way more than trying to kill "high value targets." He's

reaching out to the Muslim world as can be seen by his giving his first interview as President to al-Arabiya TV which he did yesterday. He's trying his best to change the attitudes of Muslims. He's the first president to not only give an interview to a Muslim outlet, but he's the first to mention Muslims in an inaugural speech, and he'll be the first to give a speech in a Muslim country, too.

[Solon]

177. I know he's not Bush, however, I think more than words are going to be necessary...

to be able to distinguish himself from Bush, pulling out of Iraq would be a good first step, but trying to come up with a working solution in Afghanistan and Pakistan without killing civilians would also be necessary.

[jenmito]

179. Words are powerful. He has already done a lot to reach out to the Muslim world...

unlike Bush who did nothing but stoke hatred with HIS words. Obama IS planning to get our troops out of Iraq. And he's TALKING to the PEOPLE in Afghanistan and Pakistan to let them know he's a friend to the people. If they turn against the tiny minority of people who want to try to kill us, it will make the killing of ALL innocent people unnecessary as they would turn them in, stop wanting to become terrorists themselves, etc.

[harun]

176. How about the link to the story on the "High-value Target" that got hit?

All I ever see is a bunch of stories on wedding parties and goats getting shot to hell.