Obama orders cruise missile strikes on Yemen

[Bluebear]

On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned."

The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration's campaign against al Qaeda...

Until tonight, American officials had hedged about any U.S. role in the strikes against Yemen and news reports from Yemen attributed the attacks to the Yemen Air Force.

President Obama placed a call after the strikes to "congratulate" the President of Yemen, Ali Abdallah Salih, on his efforts against al Qaeda, according to White House officials.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

[wtmusic]

1. Great, another war criminal president.

Don't know why I bothered to vote.

[jonnyblitz]

3. I believe this is why he never intended on holding the Bush

administration to account for possible war crimes. He probably plans on committing them himself and it would look kind of silly to be prosecuting for behavior he also is engaged in.

[kayakjohnny]

7. Put on your gear, mate....

incoming.

[wtmusic]

42. Not worried.

Assassination is a war crime.

[Chan790]

102. Only against foreign heads of state and their representatives...

anybody else is actually fair-game except in so far as their murder itself is a crime. Murder is not a war-crime though.

[Chan790]

101. What precisely is a war crime about this?

The Yemeni government authorized and assisted this attack against terrorist elements within their nation by US forces as a joint-strike. That's pretty cut and dried not a war crime. In fact, that's pretty-much how these things are supposed to go down within international law. Of course, I don't expect a filthy peacenik who thinks that any use of military force is illegitimate to understand that.

If you're not sure why you bother to vote, this in spite of larger US problems...you're part of those problem. Don't vote in the future, you'll be doing America a favor to remove yourself from the process.

[ima_sinnic]

111. "a filthy peacenik"? what are you, a 1967 holdover?

welcome to Ignore. You obviously are someone whose idiotic, disgusting, foolish, unelightened crap I do NOT want to read.
Take your jingoistic, chest-thumping, war-mongering, big rambo he-man bullshit and shove it.

[Chan790]

113. Yay!

I'm a hawk. I've made better pacifists than you cringe before.

[moodforaday]

115. Ah, so when a government asks another government

to help them kill a number of their own people, without so much as putting them in front of a judge, then it's OK, is it?

Remind me why premeditated murder is a crime. Remind me why communist regimes were supposed to be evil - they practiced that all the time.

And when you said "attack against terrorist element", I think you missed the sarcasm tag.

[wtmusic]

123. You have no idea what you're talking about.

"That's pretty cut and dried not a war crime." Wrong. Targeted assassination is a war crime (Fourth Geneva Convention):

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

Your assessment of me as a "filthy peacenik who thinks that any use of military force is illegitimate" is equally ignorant and ill-founded, and it's with great pleasure I welcome you to my ignore list. You'll be in the company of many other ignoramuses, although most are more clever than you :hi:

[Obamanaut]

105. It was an outing into the fresh air, an opportunity to interact socially

with complete strangers. Otherwise, it looks like business as usual.

No (or very little) change to see here.

Edited to add this - Seems like only a few short months ago I was all excited and caught up with the 'audacity of hope', 'change I could believe in,' etc., but now - not so much. That was back when we had amnesty for screen name changes.

[rug]

2. "many of the dead were innnocent civilians."

"Along with the two U.S. cruise missile attacks, Yemen security forces carried out raids in three separate locations. As many as 120 people were killed in the three raids, according to reports from Yemen, and opposition leaders said many of the dead were innocent civilians."

Congratulations.

[Zodiak]

21. In fairness, right now it is "fog of war"

Opposition leaders are not authorities and have motivations of their own. He could be right, he could be wrong.

In a few weeks, we will know better what exactly happened.

I read the article...it doesn't sound like we did this unilaterally, but with the blessing and permission of the Yemeni government. We even let them take credit for it.

I do not often say this, but it would be prudent to reserve judgment until the fog of war clears a bit.

I hate this war crap, though....dead people should always engender an investigation because LYING about dead people is much, much worse.

[timeforpeace]

49. Are you suggesting this is a "wag the dog" scenario to deflect from the HCR fight or to appear

all-powerful on the world stage?

[Zodiak]

66. Not at all....that's too much logical leaping for me

I am simply stating that the earliest story from the ground is often no accurate, and so it is best to reserve judgment until then. That should be a couple of weeks.

Then we will know if anyone is lying about what happened, and can place blame/condemn/support with a clearer eye.

In war, truth is the first casualty.

[virgogal]

4. Doesn't mention casualties.

[stevedeshazer]

5. Uh-oh.

:(

[ProSense]

6. Wow. Dis-information sure spreads fast.

Yemen Opposition Says Govt Attacks Killed Civilians

Yemen said on Thursday that security forces and warplanes had foiled a planned series of suicide bombings by attacking targets including an al Qaeda training center in the southern province of Abyan and sites in Arhab district.

The troops killed 30 al Qaeda militants and arrested 17 in Abyan and in Arhab, northeast of the capital Sanaa, it said.

U.S. President Barack Obama called Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, saying the operation "confirms Yemen's resolve in confronting the danger of terrorism represented by al Qaeda for Yemen and the world," Yemen's state media said.

Earlier, the Yemeni security forces had conducted a successful attack on a number of al Qaeda members in various areas of Yemen,34 of Al-Qaeda member were killed. Yemeni security sources said that A-Qaeda had intended to undertake a number of terrorist operations in Yemen.

link

Source: Yemen airstrike kills al Qaeda deputy

[Bluebear]

8. Wow. You say ABC is lying about this? Or the administration officials?

[rug]

14. She'd rather ignore that the Yeneni government AND the U.S. attacked.

[Bluebear]

16. I see. Meanwhile, back to sexay sexay Barack in a swimsuit.

[timeforpeace]

50. And if anyone would know about the use of disinformation...

[cali]

13. yeah, we all know airstrikes NEVER kill civilians. n/t

[Enrique]

17. what's the disinformation? n/t

[ProSense]

20. The strike were by Yemen, not U.S. forces.

But hey, eat it up.

[Bluebear]

24. ***the U.S. military launched cruise missiles***....the Yemenis did ground raids.

But hey, cultivate your wool.

[ProSense]

28. The media is always looking for gullible suckers

and it's easy to find them among the so-called left.

I can only wonder about the of the disinformation campaign.

[Bluebear]

32. "the so-called left" hahahaha. Also: "I can only wonder about the of the disinformation" ???

[rug]

36. Gullible. I bet if I told you it wasn't in the dictionary you'd look it up.

[ProSense]

48. If bogus makes you feel better, eat it up.

Or try weighing the OP against all the other reports.

[rug]

51. Like msnbc?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34485336/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

[Bluebear]

67. :crickets:

[WyldRogue]

81. I find it odd...

... that ProSense did not come back with a quick retort this time. Usually very quick witted when defending...

Might be back to rebuffs MSNBC's report tho...

[dflprincess]

93. Perhaps she finally got dizzy from all that spinning n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

91. During Charlie Gibson's LAST broadcast at ABC, he made it clear that the order

"came from the Oval Office".

[Enrique]

61. is that the way the media works?

they make up attacks by the U.S. on other countries? For what reason?

[Luminous Animal]

53. There's that number 30, again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7203962

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/airstrikes-kill-30-enemies

Blogger: US air strikes kill ‘exactly 30' enemies every time

By Daniel Tencer
Friday, December 11th, 2009 -- 12:24 pm

When it comes to air strikes against the Taliban, there's something about the number 30, says the Security Crank blog.

The unnamed military affairs blogger has published a list of recent air strikes against militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and an amazing pattern has emerged: It seems that just about every time an air strike is reported in the news, the Taliban casualty figure cited is 30.

Citing the Moon of Alabama blog, which made a similar argument this spring, Security Crank linked to 12 news reports of separate air strike incidents since the start of the year in which the number of Taliban or insurgent casualties was reported to be 30, in most cases citing US military officials.

Not 29, not 31. Thirty.

What does this mean? For the Security Crank, it means we just shouldn't believe the numbers.

How could we possibly have any idea how the war is going, here or anywhere else, when the bad guys seem only to die in groups of 30? The sheer ubiquity of that number in fatality and casualty counts is astounding, to the point where I don’t even pay attention to a story anymore when they use that magic number 30. It is an indicator either of ignorance or deliberate spin … but no matter the case, whenever you see the number 30 used in reference to the Taliban, you should probably close the tab and move onto something else, because you just won’t get a good sense of what happened there.

Megan Carpentier, writing at Air America, believes there's more to this than just fudged numbers. Carpentier points to a story in the Los Angeles Times this past summer that reports that the US has, or at least had, during the Bush administration, a policy of requiring the secretary of defense to sign off on any air strike that was likely to kill more than 30 civilians.

[mddem9850]

9. more war. fantastic

[Bluebear]

11. PS welcome to DU

:hi:

[ixion]

10. thanks a pantload, Obama

very frustrating watching this happen and knowing that I voted for him. :argh:

[cowcommander]

12. Anyone who believed Obama was going to be anti-war should look at the money trail

He's just fulfilling his obligations to them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. I haven't so outraged since he order those poor pirates to be shot.

[grantcart]

68. lol perfect pitch

[stray cat]

18. If you wanted a pacifist you were a fool to vote for Obama

He never said he was against fighting just against stupid fights. He also never said he wanted a public option or that he would immediately pull out of Afghanistan.

Those who claim to not know that were not listening to anything Obama said while campaigning.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohheckyeah]

40. Maybe, just maybe,

he was talking about voting for him in the primary.

[timeforpeace]

47. I don't know. Maybe McCain has it in for Yemen too. We dodged a bullet there!

[Jamastiene]

37. You said: "He also never said he wanted a public option" Yes hell he did.

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002156/

Wrong.

[earth mom]

41. That's NO fucking excuse for what Obama's doing now. Obama was slickly sold as the hope & change

candidate.

What we're seeing now is a classic bait and switch.

People have a right to be pissed off to the max by his warmongering even though they themselves naively bought into the faux package Obama sold himself to be.


FYI, I wasn't fooled and saw the lie for what it was a long time ago. :puke:

[Bluenorthwest]

He said he opposed mandated purchase of private insurance

specifically, in the positive, and also in the negative with harsh attacks on Clinton for her support of mandates. And he did say any bill he signed would have to include a public option, and he said so over and over. No mandates. Choice. No mandates.
His words are meaningless things, so what he said about war, or mandates, or whatever is of no value as a talking point. He's Mr Mandate. And Clinton was a monster for thinking that you could 'end homelessness by passing a law to make people buy houses'.
So I guess I was a fool to vote for Obama because I oppose mandates and he painted specific and detailed pictures of why he also opposed them and rejected them? I knew he was war happy. Many others did not. I listen. I heard, NO mandates. Phrased in so many, many eloquent ways, which won my vote.
It seems to me you are trying to simply say 'you were a fool to vote for Obama' to anyone who voted for him at all. Why is that exactly?

[upi402]

19. Jon Stewart bit: India to preemptively attack US due to terrorist caught there

The Indian guy made a case parallel to the US justification for actions like this. True, Scary, and oddly funny too.

Jon Stewart is a hero of mine, his whole staff is.:patriot:

[Zodiak]

25. That was a great segment n/t

[Jamastiene]

22. Every time a US president lobs another missle, another demon gets their horns.

I'm so fucking sick of endless wars.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Not only endless wars but irrevocable BLOWBACK.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy.

/snip

On the day after the September 11 attack, Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia declared, "I say, bomb the hell out of them. If there's collateral damage, so be it." "Collateral damage" is another of those hateful euphemisms invented by our military to prettify its killing of the defenseless. It is the term Pentagon spokesmen use to refer to the Serb and Iraqi civilians who were killed or maimed by bombs from high-flying American warplanes in our campaigns against Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. It is the kind of word our new ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, might have used in the 1980s to explain the slaughter of peasants, Indians and church workers by American-backed right-wing death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua while he was ambassador to Honduras. These activities made the Reagan years the worst decade for Central America since the Spanish conquest.

[Bluebear]

43. 'If there's collateral damage, so be it.' - USA! USA! What we have become :(

[treestar]

23. So you're saying an Al Qaeda training camp should just be left alone?

I know we're supposed to disagree with everything Obama does or we're blind cheerleaders, but an Al Qaeda training camp?

[Bluebear]

26. Yes, that's exactly what I "said" when I posted the story verbatim.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. So then you support this mission?

Cool.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. When do we get the "Mission Accomplised" banner?

[goldcanyonaz]

106. Late October 2012.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Yes, we build them up so we can knock them down. We're ALL-POWERFUL!

:puke:

[glitch]

30. Because there are no actions between air strikes and doing nothing.

:crazy:

[Posteritatis]

59. None that'd be acceptable around here, anyway. (nt)

[earth mom]

45. There are about 400 Al Quada left, but 100K U.S. troops deployed to kill them.

That's what you call overkill-literally.


FYI-From DUer Yurbud: "The Washington Post reported that there are 100 members of al Qaeda left in Afghanistan and about 300 in Pakistan. With Obama's troop increase to about 100,000, that will be 1,000 troops per terrorist in Afghanistan or 250 per terrorist in all of the ''AfPak'' theater.

I don't think Obama is stupid enough to believe Fox News that these guys are supermen who could punch through the concrete walls or eat the steel bars of a supermax prison like licorice or take over an airplane while handcuffed so they have to be blindfolded, stripped naked and sodomized during flights to keep them under control.

Does someone want to tell me with a straight face that we are occupying Afghanistan to prevent or punish terrorism? The Taliban are a bunch of illiterate hillbillies that have no capability to harm our troops if we don't go to them, and the rump of al Qaeda would probably need at most special forces and some predator drones to clean up--or simply tell the Saudis to stop giving them money and it won't matter how many are left. They wouldn't be able to buy a bus ticket, let alone a plane ticket to get over here.

Wouldn't it be nice if Obama told us the truth?"

more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7096814

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111019644.html

[moodforaday]

116. And you know it was an "Al Qaeda training camp" how?

The Huthi "rebels" are Shia. Al Qaeda are Sunnis, just like the Yemeni rulers and their Saudi pals. If anything, the Huthi would be enemy to Al Qaeda.

But I guess Al Qaeda is who the president says they are.

[femrap]

33. Right now the Saudis

are attacking Yemen as well....a group called Houthis (I'm not spelling this correctly) have been doing raids in Saudi Arabia.

Yemen has no oil and is the poorest nation of the Middle East.

Are these Houthis and al Qauda the same?

So many wars...so many people to hate. I need a scorecard!

[JCMach1]

97. Houthis are NOT Al Quaeda... they are a Shiite resistance group... one of many fighting the dictator

Al Saleh

[femrap]

117. I know. nt

[WT Fuheck]

34. dude's got a war hardon

We need to convince him that the senate is an al qaeda training camp. Then the C Street Family brothel. This could work!

[amborin]

38. we'll have to put ground troops there; also Somalia, Frankfurt, etc.....

[Jamastiene]

39. There is ALWAYS enough money for war. n/t

[timo]

44. so weird

Navy seals get a court marshall for giving a terrorist a fat lip while capturing him, who gets a time out in the penalty box for the innocents who died in this cluster fuck?

[G_j]

46. this sort of thing really is against international law,

not that anyone pays attention to that any more.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Did he put on a cowboy hat and smirk when giving the "smoke 'em out" orders?

I'm ever so glad we have "change" and "hope" now.

[phasma ex machina]

84. Cynics say America got genuine change by virtue of the cowboy hat itself becoming unfashionable. nt

[TheWatcher]

86. If only our War Machine would follw suit.

[FrenchieCat]

55. It appears that the US was working in cooperation with the Yemen government, no?

If so, why are folks posting as though the US has just attacked Yemen?
Is it to have an excuse to call this President more names?
Y'all like Al Qaeda or something?
I don't quite get this.

[cornermouse]

56. Iraq asks Iran to withdraw troops from oil field

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8421971.stm

Iraq has demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iranian troops who it says have crossed into Iraqi territory and taken control of an oil well.

An Iraqi government spokesman condemned the alleged incursion but said Baghdad was committed to resolving the issue by diplomatic means.

The Iraqis say 11 Iranian soldiers were involved and that they had raised the Iranian flag over the Fakkah oil field.

[IndianaGreen]

57. If Bush does it, it is bad. If Obama does it, it is good. Civilians will die no matter who is Prez

Here is some background on the human tragedy in Yemen:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 4, 2009
1:46 PM

Saudi Arabia/Yemen: Protect Civilians in Conflict with Rebels

Aerial Bombings Reportedly Cause Civilian Casualties, Displacement

NEW YORK - December 4 - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Huthi rebel forces involved in the armed conflict in northern Yemen should take all necessary measures to spare civilians from the fighting and ensure that they receive humanitarian assistance, Human Rights Watch said today.

Since early November 2009, Saudi warplanes have bombed Yemeni villages in areas controlled by Huthi rebels. Yemeni armed forces and Huthi rebels have been involved in renewed fighting since August, which has resulted in civilian casualties and displaced thousands of people.

"The escalating conflict in northern Yemen risks escalating civilian casualties," said James Ross, legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch. "All sides must avoid harming civilians and ensure that aid reaches them quickly."

On November 3, a cross-border raid by Huthi rebels, who have been fighting the Yemeni government intermittently since 2004, set off Saudi aerial bombing raids on November 5 that continue to the present. The Saudi deputy defense minister, Prince Khalid bin Sultan, said on November 10 that Saudi forces were seeking to establish a 10-kilometer corridor inside Yemeni territory free of Huthi rebel positions.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the parties to the conflict take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population from attack as is required by the laws of war. A recently displaced person told London's Guardian newspaper that Saudi loudspeakers warned residents to evacuate their homes but may have conducted attacks without regard to whether civilians remained in the village.

"We heard the sounds of planes and heavy shelling," the person was quoted as saying. "The Saudis were bombarding the Huthi positions and our village was hit."

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/04-10

This is another civil war!

[doc03]

58. Perhaps you all would rather wait for an attack

like the one on the USS Cole? Never mind you wouldn't even respond to that either. Unbelievable!

[IndianaGreen]

60. Our government is lying to us. This is a civil war in which we are backing the Saudi side

The same Saudis that are financing the Taliban.

[doc03]

63. Didn't the attack on the USS Cole originate from Yemen?

Seventeen American sailors died from that attack, it's disgusting to think any American would just let something like that happen again.

[IndianaGreen]

65. but this is a civil war between Shia rebels and the Wahhabi governments in Yemen

and Saudi Arabia.

It was the Wahhabi Al-Qaeda which attacked the Cole, bombed our embassy in Nairobi, and struck the WTC and Pentagon on 9-11.

It is the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia that finances the Taliban and a global network of religious schools in which children are taught to hate Jews and Israel.

[Major Hogwash]

72. We've become mercenaries for the oil sheiks of the Middle East.

They can't be bothered to fight their own battles, they've got better things to do, like counting the daily proceeds from their oil sales.

[JCMach1]

98. not government, DICTATORSHIP... That's what we are supporting here

[moodforaday]

110. Don't want it to happen again?

Then don't STATION your warships in Yemen, how about that? How many Yemeni warships are anchored in New York Harbor?

[Myhrejl]

62. LOL

I know, lets just send them a fruit basket and say we are sorry for making their organization bomb the New York.

[Lorien]

94. There is no "organization". Stop buying the propaganda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

[OhioChick]

64. WTF??? n/t

[Major Hogwash]

69. Does the President have the Constitutional right to launch missiles on ANY country?

I mean, what if they are told there are some kids throwing rocks at windows in Iran?

[Poll_Blind]

70. For quite a while now there's been a sort of attack on the checks and balances and...

...congressional oversight of the president. It is not necessarily just a Republican thing. Daniel Ellsberg and John Dean did a great panel for...NPR?...about whistleblowers and one of the things they discussed was this.

Anyway, if you remember back to Gulf War I, back in '91, Congress basically gave Bush Sr. a free hand to start shit with Iraq when and if he decided he wanted to. Fast-forward to Congressional actions post September 11th. A similar sort of "blanket" for action was given the President. In this case, though, it was much, much broader than just targeting Iraq, effectively allowing the President a boundless playing field in which to "combat terra".

Good or Bad, that's the way things have gone and Democrat or Republican President (they've both done this sort of thing in their own ways), expect to see quite a bit more of this sort of thing.

The whole "Imperial Presidency" thing is not dead yet- not by a long shot. If the person with these sort of Imperial war-making powers chooses not to exercise them, or exercise them in less-showy ways, it doesn't really change the fact that these (new) "tools" are available to Presidents.

So, if a Republican gets in office in 2012, don't be surprised when they go right back to Bushin' it. Nothing has changed in that arena, AFAIK.

PB

[Major Hogwash]

76. Yeah, we write the checks, and they keep the balance.

Not only is the military industrial complex all lathered up just waiting for the signal to go into Iran, but half of the Democrats will run next year on the party platform that they are keeping America safer than Bush did by bombing more countries than Bush did when he was in office.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. Cambodia anyone?

[bvar22]

73. Woo-Hoo.

Get the WAR ON!!!
Its about time.
We got plenty of BOMBS,
And there are plenty of Brown People to KILL.
GOD is on OUR side,
AND he doesn't mind if we kill a bunch innocents,
especially if they are just Brown or Black inferiors.
Its in the American CHRISTIAN Bible somewhere.
Woo-Hoo.
My Tax dollars at WORK.
Finally, something to SHOW for my Democratic vote.
All HAIL Barack!...OUR own Imperial WARLORD!
Making the World safer for Exxon and Monsanto!
Take THAT, George BUSH!
USA!...USA!...USA!

We're #1 because we got the BIGGEST BOMBS.
Makes me soooo Proud I'm crying!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
:woohoo: :party:

[Myhrejl]

75. If you think it's about "killing brown people"

then you are either ignorant or racist yourself.

[bvar22]

89. No.

But the "collateral damage" is just poor brown people, so it doesn't matter.

Do you think "collateral damage" could be so easily dismissed if they were innocent white Europeans?
....or 30 blonde California Surfer Kids accidentally killed during a police assault on a "terrorist HQ hideout" in Ventura?

[Usrename]

100. It certainly isn't about killing white people, that would be wrong.

I guess if you create a legally separate sub-species that is non-human, referred to as "terrorists" or "illegal combatants" then you don't have to acknowledge that they have any human rights at all, and I also guess you can quit referring to them as "people."

So, yes, you are probably right, in that sense this is not about killing brown "people."

[Poll_Blind]

74. With the state of our intel, shades of the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant debacle could...

...be on the horizon.

PB

[Myhrejl]

77. just wiki-ed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory sounds inconclusive. I have enough faith in Obama to believe that he didn't do the most recent strike just to "kill brown people".

[Poll_Blind]

80. I don't know what the wiki says but we were given intel by "another country" that there...

...was traces of a precursor chemical used in the making of VX nerve gas. Emphasis on another country and precursor. Anyway, it was flat-out bullshit and the U.S. government wound up paying the dude somewhere around $50M. Everything....EVERY single allegation the U.S. government'd made was entirely baseless.

He even got the U.S. government to admit it, which was obviously important to him along with replacing all the material that'd been destroyed.

Anyway, I'm not saying this definitely some kind of debacle but the way Obama has kept around so many Bush advisors (Roberts comes to mind but he doesn't worry me as much as the Bush nameless appointees all down the line) I would not be surprised if they're still (mostly) doing intel Bush-style.

PB

[ProSense]

78. The evolution of spin. The story is already changing

The officials insisted that the American support, approved by President Obama, came at the request of the Yemeni government. The American contributions were designed to help Yemen in preventing Al Qaeda from mounting attacks against American and other foreign targets inside its borders. Officials declined to say whether those intended targets were embassies, businesses, schools or other sites.

Yemeni officials said that their security forces had killed at least 34 militants in the broadest attack on the terrorist group in years.

A range of Pentagon, military and intelligence officials declined to provide any details on the reported attacks, which ABC News said included American missiles. But officials in Washington did offer words of support for the government of Yemen in tackling international terrorism.

“Yemen should be commended for actions against Al Qaeda,” said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. “Al Qaeda poses a serious threat to Yemeni, U.S. and regional interests. The U.S. cooperates with Yemen, as well as with other countries in the region, to combat terrorism.”

Reluctance among administration officials to comment on whether American forces launched missiles into Yemen appeared to reflect a desire to make clear that the Yemeni government was in the lead in counterterrorism operations within its borders, and that any American contributions came at the request of the local government.

link

Obama ordered! Oh wait, Yemen requested! Then again, maybe it was intelligence.

[WyldRogue]

83. Changed indeed...

:wtf:

...several replies upthread you denied that the US with Obama's permission did NOT attack. So color me confused because you said we didn't and Obama didn't but now it is ok because Obama had justification because the strike was requested?? I thought for sure Obama did not order the attack because you stated quite boldly in your posted responses: #20, #28 and #48 essentially that he didn't. So who is spinning what?
This is what is truly amazing that while there are plenty of positives about Obama, there are negatives too but it seems that there are those that refuse to consider that thought and go out of their way to come up with excuses and * :wow: * SPIN?

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. So you're saying that the US military makes moves based on nothing more than the "request" of other

countries and NOT the order of the Commander in Chief?

[Selatius]

104. US forces obey no other commander than the president.

If there were cruise missiles involved, they only came because the president ordered their use.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

82. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[TheWatcher]

85. But He's OUR War President!!!!!!!11111

Light Up Those Terrists!

Bring On The CHANGE!

:crazy:

[Myhrejl]

88. Come on

there is no time table or evidence this was unjustified. Don't assume the worst here. I honestly believe that Obama wouldn't unnecessarily kill anyone, so unless you have some proof to the contrary I doubt I will.

[Bluebear]

90. Gee, welcome to DU!

[Lorien]

95. The Right said the exact thing about their "war President".

Or were you also just as enamored of BushCo?

[Usrename]

108. Of course it was unjustified. These people were never convicted.

The presumption of innocence is a BASIC tenet of the American way of life. The president cannot just decide that people are guilty by fiat, without any kind of adjudication (even worse still, at the behest of a foreign state) and then just execute them, kill them, without a trial.

WTF are you thinking?

Don't you think the presumtion of innocence is an important legal concept? Don't you think folks have basic rights, like having some kind of legal process take place with some crime being committed and proven in some kind of judicial proceeding, before they are executed? Or, do you think the president should have the power to just order that people be killed, without the nicety of any legal process being followed and without facing any legal repurcussions for such actions?

When a president asserts that a person is a terrorist, is that ALL that is neccessary to provide a legal basis for killing that person?

Or, perhaps the argument might be that people are no longer human beings once a president says that they are "terrorists" or "illegal combatants."

[MilesColtrane]

114. "When a president asserts that a person is a terrorist, is that...

ALL that is neccessary to provide a legal basis for killing that person? "

Unfortunately, yes, until someone legally challenges and the Supreme Court overturns the Congressional authorization for use of military force passed in September of 2001.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. Now he can get another peace prize! Oh goodie!!!!!

[JCMach1]

96. We won't know until years later that this was coordinated to help out the Al Saleh dicatatorship

:wtf: is going on in Washington? Amateur hour?

[autorank]

99. They were preparing to attack which part of our nation?

What a bunch of narcissists in the White House. They think that they can "send troops" (i.e., invade) or bomb at will whenever they want. They don't wait for an invitation or ask permission, they just fire away. It's really getting old. The peace prize, as a motivator, has clearly failed.

[SIMPLYB1980]

103. Good some cooperation.

I don't get why anyone would be upset about this.

[rug]

107. Why should the parents of the 28 dead children be upset?

It's for a just cause.

[SIMPLYB1980]

109. Meh.

[ima_sinnic]

112. oh boy!! THE ECONOMY IS SAVED!!!!1!!1

phew, I thought the wars were drying up and we were going to go bankrupt or something.

[zorahopkins]

118. Oh. My. God.

Escalation of War.

Just what LBJ did in the mid-1960's.

This is just awful.

[BurtWorm]

119. That oughta keep us distracted.

Not.

[leveymg]

120. Wow! Four wars at once - going for a post Vietnam era record?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, now Yemen. Which will make it six - Sudan or Somalia?

[lonestarnot]

121. woopsie mo wo.

[Betty Karlson]

122. God help us!

Does such an attack not require the express permission of the sovereign nation on who's ground the missiles will land?