Obama sends out robots that murder children in Pakistan

[jpgray]

True, isn't it? What about this one: Obama wants to keep the ability to spy on, detain and then outsource for torture anyone he likes. Also true. Now a few questions:

Are these evil policies?
Are those who support them evil people?
Are their motives for supporting them evil?

Think about those three questions.

Great! Now, who wants to have a reasonable debate on Democratic foreign policy?

I'm sure no one shut down on reading the thread title, or alerted, or hit ignore, or hit unrec. After all, we DUers have no difficulty in speaking truth to power and framing the contradictions of our leaders in the bluntest language. Only GOP voters get uncomfortable with that shit. Therefore, I am sure everyone will treat this as the opening to a calm and magnanimous debate on the issue.

:patriot:

[Angry Dragon]

1. Good questions

:popcorn: :beer:

[ProSense]

2. Actually, you're wrong

I'm sure no one shut down on reading the thread title, or alerted, or hit ignore, or hit unrec. After all, we DUers have no difficulty in speaking truth to power and framing the contradictions of our leaders in the bluntest language. Only GOP voters get uncomfortable with that shit. Therefore, I am sure everyone will treat this as the opening to a calm and magnanimous debate on the issue.

It's mostly GOPers who post shit like this:

"Clinton is a war criminal"

"Kucinich is a war criminal"

"Hillary is a war criminal"

Uncomfortable or magnanimously stupid?

[jpgray]

3. Oh they love to point such things out, but not with their own leaders

The GOP response to Kosovo and missile strikes on Bin Laden are perhaps the preeminent recent examples. Yet all the harsh rhetoric and search for contradiction seemed to evaporate when their side held the wheel. It's a good thing we are so different, and nobody feels reflexive defensiveness when a contentious issue is framed in a hostile, over-the-top and controversial way.

We just sit down and chat calmly about it. That's DU.

[ProSense]

7. "It's a good thing we are so different"

Look at the other Democratic candidates in 2008: Do you consider John Edwards and Hillary responsible for US war crimes in Iraq?

Do you consider Hillary as SOS an accomplice in the "murder" of "children in Pakistan"?

Is she evil for supporting U.S. foreign policy?

Hillary isn't Bush.

I think it's a tad self-righteous and disingenuous to equate attitudes on the left to RW complicity and denial.

[jpgray]

9. The only equivalence I'm pointing out is a disinclination to bluntly criticize our leaders

We share that. We get more tribal and defensive when it comes to our own party. Are we as bad as the GOP? Nope. But nobody who desperately worked for the Democrats for the past ten years is going to discuss an issue reasonably with someone yelling that Obama is murdering children. That's my point. To start with that is not to seek discussion, but to shock someone.

Note JVS below thinks I am arguing for censoring the truth in service of mealy-mouthed niceness toward Democrats. You think I'm arguing an exact equivalence between the GOP and Democrats.

Do you two generally agree with each other, by the way?

[ProSense]

11. This is the problem:

"But nobody who desperately worked for the Democrats for the past ten years is going to discuss an issue reasonably with someone yelling that Obama is murdering children. That's my point. To start with that is not to seek discussion, but to shock someone."

There is a difference between a statement designed purely for shock value and facts.

"Obama is murdering children" is not a fact. Bush committed war crimes, he admitted that he personally sanctioned torture. Before his confession, there were victims, circumstantial evidence and admissions by others.

Screaming outrageous accusations for shock value is one thing, but claiming any accusation, regardless of how shocking, is in and of itself designed for shock value is flawed logic. The RW relies heavily on the former.

[jpgray]

25. Notice how many people have misread the OP title

You are included in that group, since it doesn't say "Obama is murdering children" at all, but merely that the drone attacks he orders kill children. The point is that it is -designed- to be misread; though technically accurate, people will read it as something further, that Obama -wants- children to die, or that -he- is murdering them. When you say something that can be misread in that way, people are going to shut down. They aren't going to say "Wow, you've really opened my eyes by describing this in such brutal language," they are going to get hostile and brutal right back.

That's a fine attitude when dealing with some implacable foe that hates everything you stand for irrevocably, but that group is infinitesimally small. It's a horrible attitude when attempting to understand why people in good faith draw different conclusions than you do, and that group is huge and very necessary to a progressive majority.

[MrScorpio]

15. Basically, any politician who votes to approve a defense or intelligence appropriation...

Is a war criminal.

The troops who service the robots? War criminals too.

The people pulling the trigger... War criminals.

The officers ordering the triggers? You guessed it, war criminals.

The troops in the field who may have shot civilians in crossfires? Yep, criminals too... The war kind.

The lawyers working to convict the detainees... Well... Shoot, why not? War criminals.

Civilan contractors. Facilitating war crimes.

And our tax dollars, doesn't that make us all culpable? OMG!

I guess there's no reason to stop with just the Commander in Chief... AS the OP suggests, right?

What about the people who voted for him? And the Electoral College? Or the Press that enthusiastically announced the election results? Of the pilots that flew the troops into the theater of operations? Or...

[jpgray]

17. Well, this OP was about how barriers go up on both sides depending on how we use language

Which is fine if you're just looking to shock people, but not so much if you want to understand where people are coming from.

A legitimate question in all this is whether civilians, contractors or the CIA, have authority to pilot drones and hit targets where the use of force has not been authorized by Congress.

[MrScorpio]

18. The point being is that everything that's done is done in our names

Our taxes funds these things, our allies support our actions and there are many actors who are in the mix.

War has been like this for all of human existence and it will always cause to death of innocents whenever it is engaged in.

If we want to stop these atrocities, there's only one way to do that: Abolish War.

Otherwise, pointing fingers now seems very pointless indeed.

[jpgray]

26. It is all done in our names, but we don't all decide equally that such should be done

Pointing fingers at those who have the most power to make such decisions is at least reasonable, no? You and I can decide to not pay taxes, but we can't decide to stop drone attacks. Our choice in the first case would mean breaking the law, and would have little impact. We had no choice in the second case--there was no anti-war option for president in 2008. Since Obama was vastly superior to McCain on the issue of our war decisions, he was the best choice, but at no point are we asked to decide to escalate in Afghanistan--that is a decision reserved for our leaders, and our only avenue for input is to choose and influence those leaders.

So "We are all to blame" is correct with regard to the acts of war, but in deciding when and how to engage in war, some have more power than others.

[JVS]

4. So, what part of reality do you advocate ignoring in the name of our discussion being reasonable?

[jpgray]

5. None of it

The idea is to open with something other than "your spouse is ugly and your kids are morons," which is all people will hear if you say "Obama is murdering kids in Pakistan," even though that's true. If the aim is activism, to shock and make people uncomfortable, that's fine. If you want to understand where people are coming from, it's not so good.

"Why are you wearing fur?" beats throwing red paint if you actually want to know the answer. Both have their role. Bluntness isn't a requirement for expressing or having a strong stand on an issue. Again, it depends on your purpose--activism, or an attempt to understand.

[Karmadillo]

6. But, but, but McCain's robots would have been meaner!!!!

nt

[Kaleva]

8. Where is your evidence that proves your statement in the title is true?

So far, you've expressed opinions but no supported facts in your OP.

[jpgray]

12. To you and sally cat below, "robots" refers to drones

Obama ramped up drone strikes as part of his strategy in Afghanistan. The statistics on civilian death vary depending on who you ask--New America Foundation's report estimates the civilian death rate at one in three, but estimates go from ridiculously low to outrageously high as usual.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2010/03/report-one-in-three-killed-by-drones-in-pakistan-is-a-civilian/

[Kaleva]

20. Your link says civilians were killed by drone strikes but...

no where does it say Obama sends out drones to murder children.

[jpgray]

21. Note how I used the word "that," and not the word "to"

I'm not trying to be an asshole by pointing that out, because the implication is still there, no? Many people will read the title of this OP and assume that is the intention, to sort of imply that Obama -wants- to kill kids in Pakistan for God knows what reason. Now it doesn't say that, and nothing in it is false, but that's how it reads.

In any event, people shut down, and not much productive happens. The point of the OP is to show that how we use language can encourage bad faith and ruin discussion.

[Kaleva]

22. muder is a specific crime

Here are the four main varities:

"Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

Which one are you accusing President Obama of committing?

[jpgray]

23. The OP title attributes murder to the drones, not Obama

Again, note how easy it is to read that title as more vicious and dishonest than it is--all due to its phrasing.

As for murder, a contractor or CIA civilian blowing up houses in a nation against which no use of force has been authorized would certainly meet the elements of the crime.

[Fenris]

13. Drones kill children

August 23, 2010 Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE67M0M320100823

Obama Administration seeks to bolster domestic surveillance/wiretapping

October 16, 2010 NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/19wiretap.html?_r=3&hp

Human rights campaigners voice disappointment with Obama

November 3, 2010 AFP http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRRba-gi1eH9MKqbVfRjVV3beBaA?docId=CNG.ed091710b328fd92692ce44b7df6f8e1.b51

[Kaleva]

19. Which is different then saying...

Obama is sending out robots (drones) to murder children.

[sally cat]

10. Tell us about these robots that kill children in Pakistan. If you can.

[jpgray]

14. See #12

Again, this thread is about how shocking people with language encourages them to shut down, rather than honestly discuss an issue. While technically true, the thread title certainly puts up barriers on both sides, no? It becomes more about activism for one side or the other than understanding where each side is coming from.

[Mimosa]

16. Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?

How long does the reasonable debate take? Does it ever matter what anti-war protesters think?

I doubt there'll ever be a Democratic convention resembling that in 1968. In our own way, we are as much a party of war as the Republicans.

[dimbear]

24. I'm sure we can all agree on this one. We need better drones

that kill individuals rather than groups. Rest assured they are are on the drawing boards right now.