Obama's Drones for American Kills!

[aboutime]

YOU just don't get it America. Obama needs to use those drones to kill Americans who disagree with him. That's why he and Holder passed his KILL list. The drones just make it easier to use HERE AT HOME. And Fire Marshals across the nation will be told to identify the Unknown Explosions, and Fires caused by Drone attacks as Electrical in origin. Just watch.


Americans just don't get it. Obama needs to use drones to kill Americans who disagree with him. That's why he and Holder so easily passed the OBAMA KILL LIST.

What they didn't tell us...The AMERICAN people is. The use of drones makes it easier to use here AT HOME.

Fire Marshals who investigate suspicious fires, and explosions caused by OBAMA DRONE Attacks, will merely identify the causes as Electrical in origin.

I know it sounds like another Conspiracy Theory. That's exactly what OBAMA hopes it will become.

Just watch, pay attention, and ask yourself the questions when this stuff becomes more frequent.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0206cd20130205090904.jpg

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc10699820130207021300.jpg

[bingster]

YOU just don't get it America. Obama needs to use those drones to kill Americans who disagree with him. That's why he and Holder passed his KILL list. The drones just make it easier to use HERE AT HOME. And Fire Marshals across the nation will be told to identify the Unknown Explosions, and Fires caused by Drone attacks as Electrical in origin. Just watch.


Americans just don't get it. Obama needs to use drones to kill Americans who disagree with him. That's why he and Holder so easily passed the OBAMA KILL LIST.

What they didn't tell us...The AMERICAN people is. The use of drones makes it easier to use here AT HOME.

Fire Marshals who investigate suspicious fires, and explosions caused by OBAMA DRONE Attacks, will merely identify the causes as Electrical in origin.

I know it sounds like another Conspiracy Theory. That's exactly what OBAMA hopes it will become.

Just watch, pay attention, and ask yourself the questions when this stuff becomes more frequent.


Really man? This is a worthy subject worth a serious thread. I can argue on both sides of this issue, but instead you come up with this useless crap.

Have a real argument, please.

[red states rule]

Really man? This is a worthy subject worth a serious thread. I can argue on both sides of this issue, but instead you come up with this useless crap.

Have a real argument, please.

I am sure you could argue both sides of this issue

If Bush was still President you would be outraged over a US President "murdering" US citizens without due process, reading them their rights, and being judged by a jury of his peers

But since Obama is President you would probably say he is doing his job, killing terrorists, keeping America safe, and taking the war to them and not having the war fought on US soil. Obama refutes the "myth" libs are soft on terror and you racists will stop at nothing to try and tear down this wonderful President

OK Bing how did I do? Did I nail all your talking points?

[red states rule]

Looks like a war in brewing inside the Dem party

Of course Dems will support the use of drones to kill terrorists until a Republican is elected President - then it will become a war crime to use them to send terrorists back to Allah





Politico media writer Dylan Byers (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/02/fourfifths-of-ed-schultzs-viewers-agree-with-us-drone-156481.html) reported that Ed Schultz viewers on MSNBC are bigger Obama fans than Schultz fans. While Schultz asserted on Thursday night that "many Americans want to know how the United States can order the killings of American citizens without due process," a phone survey during the hour of his show found

78 percent said they agreed with "the policy of targeted killing of American citizens." Only 22 percent stuck with Ed.

Byers wrote, "These results may have come as a surprise to Schultz -- neither he nor MSNBC PR immediately responded to a request for his reaction -- because the results of his viewer surveys almost always align with his own progressive worldview."


"It doesn't meet the moral or constitutional standard that we expect of any administration," Schultz said earlier this week. "We're losing the moral high ground by doing this."


On his radio show, Thom Hartmann railed against the majority POV of MSNBC viewers:


Once we've signed off on the policy that we can send a drone any damn well place we want and we can drop a bomb on anybody we want simply because our president said so, without due process, that then gives license to Mexico to send drones over Phoenix to bomb drug lords.


And it gives license to Canada to send drones over Montpelier, Vermont to take out the people who are stealing maple syrup.


And it arguably gives license to the Iranians to say, 'There's somebody helping develop one of those Stuxnet viruses in New York, [so] we're gonna take out that city block.'


Or China [could say] 'Hey, there's a dissident in so-and-so, let's take them out.'


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/02/08/oopsy-78-percent-ed-show-viewers-side-against-ed-schultz-favor-drones#ixzz2KSfJymRJ

[red states rule]

Another example of the double standards the liberal media has on Obama's drones

During the Bush year Eleanor Clift was a huge anti war and anti Bush "reporter"

Now she loves the drones that Obama is sending out to kill America's enemies



<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=281 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119889" frameBorder=0 width=500 allowfullscreen="" peppyCount="1"></IFRAME>








[/QUOTE]

[revelarts]

.. I can argue on both sides of this issue, but instead you come up with this useless crap.

Have a real argument, please.

I can argue both sides of Cutting Jims Dog's head off. But it's wrong on it's face.
No matter what the arguments supposed merits.

On it's face this drone thing unconstitutional and illegal. In the U.S.. and Overseas in most cases.
Bush and his lawyers made an argument for torture, doesn't/didn't make it legal or right and certainly not necessary.

the world is the battlefield idea makes ANYone a target. and the President has TAKEN the authority.
Why in the world should OBAMA consider that the congress or the courts have ANY right/authority to take his right to kill ANYONE -who he deems an enemy- away?
By what law should he subject himself to their authority on this matter?
There is No authority for this any ANY law or constitution. So who can take it away?

[red states rule]

I can argue both sides of Cutting Jims Dog's head off. But it's wrong on it's face.
No matter what arguments supposed merits.

On it's face this drone thing unconstitutional and illegal. In the U.S.. and Overseas in most cases.
Bush and his lawyers made an argument for torture, doesn't/didn't make it legal or right and certainly not necessary.

the world is the battlefiled idea makes ANYone a target. and the President has TAKEN the authority.
Why in the world should OBAMA consider that the congress or the courts have ANY right to take his right to kill ANYONE -who he deems an enemy- away?
By what law should he subject himself to their authority on this matter?
There is No authority for this any ANY law or constitution. So who can take it away?

Rev this is one of the few tings I support Obama on. Killing those who take part in the planning and implementation of terror attacks on the US need to be killed. What I find typical is the same libs who blasted Bush for doing the same thing are silent or openly support Obama

I will let lib Tina Brown prove this point


:<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=281 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119881" frameBorder=0 width=500 allowfullscreen="" peppyCount="1"></IFRAME>

[revelarts]

Rev this is one of the few tings I support Obama on. Killing those who take part in the planning and implementation of terror attacks on the US need to be killed. What I find typical is the same libs who blasted Bush for doing the same thing are silent or openly support Obama

I will let lib Tina Brown prove this point


:



yes Partisan libs , are kinda sicking on this and other issues.
At least your consistent, however Red, it was Bad policy when Bush did it and As I've said many times- Obama and Bush are the same in many areas.

But I'm waiting for Anyone to who think Drone Strikes are GOOD but should have some "oversite" to show how and where legally it's suppose to come from when the power was JUST ASSUMED out of thin air by the president Anyway?

[revelarts]

White Paper leaked..


ACLU JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure. Well, it’s a very significant document, and it’s a remarkable document, and it’s something that everybody really ought to read, in the same way that everybody ought to read the torture memos from the last administration. It sets out, or professes to set out, the power that the government has to carry out the targeted killing of American citizens who are located far away from any battlefield, even when they have not been charged with a crime, even when they do not present any imminent threat in any ordinary meaning of that word. So it’s a pretty sweeping power that’s been set out. And the memo purports to provide a legal justification for that power and explain why the limits on that power can’t be enforced in any court.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The confidential Justice Department white paper that you’re talking about, Jameel Jaffer, introduces a more expansive definition of "self-defense" or "imminent attack" than any articulated by the U.S. government before. It reads, quote: "The condition that an operational leader present an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." Can you talk about the significance of that and how exactly "imminent" is defined in this document—

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: —or not defined?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, well, I mean, I think you—you know, you have to start with the acknowledgment that there are circumstances in which the government has the authority, and maybe even the responsibility, to use lethal force. Even if you think about it domestically—somebody is running down the street, waving a gun around, threatening civilians—the government doesn’t have to go to a judge beforehand to seek a warrant to carry out that use of lethal force. But that’s a situation in which the threat is imminent, in the ordinary meaning of the term: There’s not time to go to a judge; there’s not time for deliberation.

But the kind of imminence that the government is defining here, or the way that the government has defined the term here, is much, much broader. They’re talking about situations in which the person presents no immediate threat, there’s no known plot. These people are located far away from any actual battlefield, so you’re not talking about a situation in which there are battlefield exigencies that the government has to worry about. You’re really talking about something that looks a lot more like a law enforcement context. And in that context, the traditional rule is the government has the authority to use lethal force only in very narrow circumstances. And this memo really redefines those circumstances entirely.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to Attorney General Eric Holder, a comment he made last March when he outlined what the White House billed as the legal rationale for its claimed right to kill U.S. citizens who belong to al-Qaeda or associated forces.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: It is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats that we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make—does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, respond to Attorney General Eric Holder.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, it’s not a question of immunity. This is kind of a straw man. Nobody is arguing that Americans are entirely immune from the government’s use of lethal force. The question is: Under what circumstances can the government use lethal force? And again, for a very good reason, those circumstances have traditionally been defined very narrowly. Now what the government is doing is creating an extremely broad category of people who can be targeted without judicial review before the fact, without judicial assessment of the evidence after the fact. It’s a very dangerous thing that the government is doing.

And I think that at some level, I think the people who have written this memo and the people who are exercising this authority in the Obama administration must be convinced of their own trustworthiness. But even if you accept that the people who are now in office are trustworthy in this sense, this power is going to be available to the next administration and the one after that, and it’s going to be available in every future conflict, not just the conflict against al-Qaeda. And according to the administration, the power is available all over the world, not just on geographically cabined battlefields. So it really is a sweeping proposition....

....
JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, so two things about that. First, I think one of the most chilling aspects of the power that the government is claiming here is that they’re claiming the authority to do all of this in secret, not just keep it secret from the courts or keep their justification secret from the courts, but keep the exercise of this power secret, so they can carry out these killings of American citizens, among many others, without even acknowledging to the public or to any court that they have exercised that authority. And that really is a chilling proposition. But that’s one thing, and that’s one of the things that they’ve done in the Abdulrahman case: They have failed to acknowledge that they actually carried out this killing, although everybody knows it to be true.
But we have other litigation which we’re doing with the Center for Constitutional Rights. It’s a constitutional case on behalf of the three U.S. citizens who were killed in 2011, including Abdulrahman, the 16-year-old. And that’s a case in which we are raising claims under the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, the due process clause, arguing that the government does not have the right, again, except in these extremely narrow circumstances, to carry out targeted killings without judicial review. And the government’s response to that lawsuit has not been to defend their authority on the merits. They’re not actually saying, "We have the right to do this." They haven’t actually filed any of those arguments in court. Instead what they’re arguing is: This question of whether the government acted lawfully or not is a political question committed to the political branches, and the judges have no role to play, no role whatsoever to play, in assessing whether the killing of an American citizen was lawful or not.

AMY GOODMAN: How does it stop? Where does it stop? You kill them in Yemen, American citizens and others—no trial, no charge. What about in the United States?
JAMEEL JAFFER: There’s no line. You know, if you look at the memo, the briefing paper that was released yesterday, there’s no geographic line. And you can remember how most of the country reacted when President Bush declared the authority to hold American citizens detained in the United States: Most of the country said, "You can’t be serious. You’re going to treat the United States as part of the battlefield. You’re going to detain American citizens inside the United States as enemy combatants." And now, the Obama administration—you know, if you accept the memo on its face, you accept the briefing paper on its face, the Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority. They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit.....


...
AMY GOODMAN: And as you said, don’t they say—don’t the documents say that they will kill someone if it puts U.S. personnel at risk?
JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right. I mean, I think that one of the—you know, one of the really troubling things about the document is the way that it defines this phrase, "Capture is infeasible," because once you see that phrase in the first paragraph, "Capture is infeasible," it sounds like a real restriction on the government’s authority to use lethal force. But halfway through the memo, they redefine the phrase, "Capture is infeasible," to mean something more like: "Capture is inconvenient." And once you redefine the phrase in that way, then you’ve opened up the possibility of the use of lethal force much more broadly. And again, it does raise the question of whether they are using the use of lethal force as a substitute for detention, and even if they’re not, whether that possibility is open for another administration in the future....



http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/kill_list_exposed_leaked_obama_memo?autostart=true&get_clicky_key=suggested_related


<iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2013/2/5/kill_list_exposed_leaked_obama_memo" frameborder="0"></iframe>


(http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/kill_list_exposed_leaked_obama_memo?autostart=true&get_clicky_key=suggested_related)

[taft2012]

The drones are coming for our marijuana fields! :salute:

[red states rule]

Another example of liberal intelligence

On his MSNBC show this morning, the hopelessly naive Hayes suggested that rather than debating "big war"—boots on ground—versus "small war"—targeted strikes—we go for a third option "no war." In Hayes's fantasy-land, America declares the war on terror over and "declares itself at peace."



http://www.mrctv.org/videos/hopelessly-naive-hayes-end-war-terror-declare-ourselves-peace

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/02/10/hopelessly-naive-hayes-end-war-terror-declare-ourselves-peace#ixzz2KdV9hIpS

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c10711220130213120100.jpg

[bingster]

I can argue both sides of Cutting Jims Dog's head off. But it's wrong on it's face.
No matter what the arguments supposed merits.

On it's face this drone thing unconstitutional and illegal. In the U.S.. and Overseas in most cases.
Bush and his lawyers made an argument for torture, doesn't/didn't make it legal or right and certainly not necessary.

the world is the battlefield idea makes ANYone a target. and the President has TAKEN the authority.
Why in the world should OBAMA consider that the congress or the courts have ANY right/authority to take his right to kill ANYONE -who he deems an enemy- away?
By what law should he subject himself to their authority on this matter?
There is No authority for this any ANY law or constitution. So who can take it away?

I do agree there needs to be judicial review. I don't like the double meaning of the word "imminent" for instance. This white paper scares the hell out of me! It seems obviously wrong to me, although the classified part of this paper has not been released yet-and I think that's suspicious also.

On the other hand, we are still fighting an ongoing war with AQ no matter what title you come up with to describe it. With our current level of technology, do you think we should ignore AQ activity all over the world unless we declare separate wars for each circumstance? What is your solution?

[bingster]

Rev this is one of the few tings I support Obama on. Killing those who take part in the planning and implementation of terror attacks on the US need to be killed. What I find typical is the same libs who blasted Bush for doing the same thing are silent or openly support Obama

I will let lib Tina Brown prove this point


:<iframe title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119881" allowfullscreen="" peppycount="1" frameborder="0" height="281" width="500"></iframe>





I'll admit, she's completely correct. But, please........

It's not just about party, Bush attacked a country that did not attack us!!! He trumped up b.s. evidence and was either incompetent or dishonest in presenting it. He also sanctioned torture. Lots of Republicans didn't like what Bush was doing, not just liberals.

Yes, if Bush was still president after all of the above, he would be impeached for this white paper, but after all of the above, it's not just a political double standard.

I think it's human nature for liberals to trust Obama more than Bush. But we are speaking out about the drone strikes. Nobody on the left is comfortable with this white paper and we want more information about it.

[jimnyc]

It's not just about party, Bush attacked a country that did not attack us!!!

I'll disregard the majority of wars in our history that lead to the most bloodshed - all on the Democrats dime. Let's stick to just Obama for now. Can you link me to your continued criticism on Obama, and just Libya for starters. I'd like to see if you are a hack that only believes it's wrong when an (R) is in office, or equal condemnation. Being that Libya was more recent, and didn't have congressional approval like Bush did, I'm sure you've complained on here somewhere about Obama and Libya.....

[revelarts]

I do agree there needs to be judicial review. I don't like the double meaning of the word "imminent" for instance. This white paper scares the hell out of me! It seems obviously wrong to me, although the classified part of this paper has not been released yet-and I think that's suspicious also.

On the other hand, we are still fighting an ongoing war with AQ no matter what title you come up with to describe it. With our current level of technology, do you think we should ignore AQ activity all over the world unless we declare separate wars for each circumstance? What is your solution?

There is no solution to terrorism.

The IRA and others like them have been around for how many years?
The PLO and it's off shoots how many?

But calling it a war to justifiy killing terror suspects put MORE people in danger than. the old way of tracking and and attempting to thwart through other legal channels, Arrest on conspiracy charges, espionage charges, If possible cut off funding sources, , counter there proaganda, not give them more excuses to or real resons to be able to recuit if it's in our best interest.

but giving the prez a blank check to kill anyone is complete BS and is not a honest solution.

sounds good to some people " just shoot the B******eds". Makes some people feel like the jobs gettin done. but it's a tar pit.

Just think of how many people that have been released from Gitmo at this point. All of them were terrorist Supposedly. Supposedly with AlQueada, "the worst of the worst" is what Cheney and Bush called them. But one of the chief prosecutors at Gitmo resigned and other lawyers did as well, becuase the evidence was so thin, some coerced and the system of determining their guilt was so sketchy.
Now Obama is telling us now that he's "Agonizing" over the assassinations of these "bad guys" .
frankly I have no reason to believe that these people are any more guilty than those we've already released from gitmo, who were "the worst of the worst". At least at Gitmo they had some thin chance to get out one day. Now there's no way to even make a case, political or judicial, for your innocents.

There's no easy way to deal with terrorism but the President is not God or Big Brother and should not be killing people for PRE-crimes or Thought crimes by his own will - really his advisers- and that all in secret.

If they are that dangerous let the regular legal process happen- investigation, law enforcement, covert ops then military if necessary. But not this radio shack sci-fi tyranny.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=616102#post616102)
I can argue both sides of Cutting Jims Dog's head off. But it's wrong on it's face.
No matter what the arguments supposed merits.

On it's face this drone thing unconstitutional and illegal. In the U.S.. and Overseas in most cases.
Bush and his lawyers made an argument for torture, doesn't/didn't make it legal or right and certainly not necessary.

the world is the battlefield idea makes ANYone a target. and the President has TAKEN the authority.
Why in the world should OBAMA consider that the congress or the courts have ANY right/authority to take his right to kill ANYONE -who he deems an enemy- away?
By what law should he subject himself to their authority on this matter?
There is No authority for this any ANY law or constitution. So who can take it away?





Der Bingster retorts: I do agree there needs to be judicial review. I don't like the double meaning of the word "imminent" for instance. This white paper scares the hell out of me! It seems obviously wrong to me, although the classified part of this paper has not been released yet-and I think that's suspicious also.

On the other hand, we are still fighting an ongoing war with AQ no matter what title you come up with to describe it. With our current level of technology, do you think we should ignore AQ activity all over the world unless we declare separate wars for each circumstance? What is your solution?

I want to hit this comment head on first.

By Revelarts:
*On it's face this drone thing unconstitutional and illegal. In the U.S.. and Overseas in most cases.*

Since we did declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq, at least in Afghanistan one can argue for their use given Bush had permission from Congress and that is all that is required. I am trying to recall if Bush used Drones in either Pakistan or Yemen but know Obama has. as to those two countries, unless said country or countries as the case may be, only if said countries approved would they be legal. It depends therefore where one is used if it is constitutional. We might review history on Tripoli to see how that was handled.

Again by Revelarts: Bush and his lawyers made an argument for torture, doesn't/didn't make it legal or right and certainly not necessary.

This one is much worse.



Why would Bush do this since at all times the admin denied, as I also join them in doing, that waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding like most other things has a number of ways to do it.

First the old way.

They literally tried to drown the people and at the last instant, stopped and questioned them.

The Bush system was not one bit like that.
And the Bush system was approved prior to the CIA using the system.
And the Bush system kept a doctor at the site making sure the prisoner was not harmed.
And the Bush system only lasted a few seconds.

That is not how torture works.

I could expand but feel this is what is needed to prove that Bush did not seek permission to "Torture".

What I really want answered is why, since terrorists caused in American cities, people to try to flee intense fires, some holding hands with others in the buildings, leaping to their certain death, there is all this sympathy for terrorists at all?

Why must people show sympathy to terrorists?

[bingster]

I'll disregard the majority of wars in our history that lead to the most bloodshed - all on the Democrats dime. Let's stick to just Obama for now. Can you link me to your continued criticism on Obama, and just Libya for starters. I'd like to see if you are a hack that only believes it's wrong when an (R) is in office, or equal condemnation. Being that Libya was more recent, and didn't have congressional approval like Bush did, I'm sure you've complained on here somewhere about Obama and Libya.....

Are you comparing war in Iraq to our intelligence help in the overthrow of Libya? Of course, I fall on the side of success without losing our soldiers vs a senseless war that cost us 4000 American lives.

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png





I want to hit this comment head on first.

By Revelarts:
*On it's face this drone thing unconstitutional and illegal. In the U.S.. and Overseas in most cases.*

Since we did declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq, at least in Afghanistan one can argue for their use given Bush had permission from Congress and that is all that is required. I am trying to recall if Bush used Drones in either Pakistan or Yemen but know Obama has. as to those two countries, unless said country or countries as the case may be, only if said countries approved would they be legal. It depends therefore where one is used if it is constitutional. We might review history on Tripoli to see how that was handled.

Again by Revelarts: Bush and his lawyers made an argument for torture, doesn't/didn't make it legal or right and certainly not necessary.

This one is much worse.



Why would Bush do this since at all times the admin denied, as I also join them in doing, that waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding like most other things has a number of ways to do it.

First the old way.

They literally tried to drown the people and at the last instant, stopped and questioned them.

The Bush system was not one bit like that.
And the Bush system was approved prior to the CIA using the system.
And the Bush system kept a doctor at the site making sure the prisoner was not harmed.
And the Bush system only lasted a few seconds.

That is not how torture works.

I could expand but feel this is what is needed to prove that Bush did not seek permission to "Torture".

What I really want answered is why, since terrorists caused in American cities, people to try to flee intense fires, some holding hands with others in the buildings, leaping to their certain death, there is all this sympathy for terrorists at all?

Why must people show sympathy to terrorists?




Sorry Robert, but that's crap. I don't care if you do have a doctor, psychologist, or even a priest present. Waterboarding is torture. It always has been, it always was, and the world sure as hell knows that it is. All it did for us is to multiply the terrorist recruiting. Another favor for Osama Bin Laden.

[Robert A Whit]

Der Bingster retorts:I'll admit, she's completely correct. But, please........

It's not just about party, Bush attacked a country that did not attack us!!! He trumped up b.s. evidence and was either incompetent or dishonest in presenting it. He also sanctioned torture. Lots of Republicans didn't like what Bush was doing, not just liberals.

Yes, if Bush was still president after all of the above, he would be impeached for this white paper, but after all of the above, it's not just a political double standard.

I think it's human nature for liberals to trust Obama more than Bush. But we are speaking out about the drone strikes. Nobody on the left is comfortable with this white paper and we want more information about it.

While your claim about Bush attacking is factually correct, we all know how he handled this. He went to congress and they called for Bush to attack.

If you are only saying it was Iraq, that is BS. Both countries had not attacked us. So why the hypocrisy?

Why have you NEVER mentioned that Clinton attacked a nation that in no way attacked our country. Clinton waged war against a nearly defenseless country formerly called Yugoslavia for about 3 months. I never hear your outrage about that.

Next Clinton without so much as permission from Congress attacked not only Yugoslavia, but attacked Iraq. Over and over Clinton did to Iraq what the Japs did to Pearl Harbor.

I am shocked that both countries had not declared war on Clinton over his acts of war. Alas when weak, some countries don't put up much resistance. Hitler proved that. And Clinton proved it much later.

You guys remind me of those Germans that backed Hitler but had not backed President Hindenberg just so you know.

You have been told of proper books to study to learn what Bush really did. Don't act like you were not told. And though told, you keep posting the democrat 101 doctrine. I have heard it said that Goebbels claimed if one lies over and over, it becomes true. Well, I don't believe that is how it should be in this country.

You were told where Bush got his evidence. Most presidents can simply rely on our resources such as our FBI and CIA.

But Bush dug much deeper. Bush consulted with Arab leaders and they told Bush that Saddam has and will use WMD on our troops. Ask the troops who waged war. They remember wearing combat gear meant to defeat WMD. That was no act by them my man. General Tommy Franks got advice on this from two major Arab leaders.

Maybe you wanted to keep Saddam but the position of your own party even before Bush was elected was to get rid of Saddam. They wanted him gone so badly they created a law to get rid of the man.

Bush did not sanction torture. I might have been willing, but Bush was not willing. Bush got legal advice at all times and only with their green light did he proceed. No fact finding court has found that Bush sought torture nor even engaged in torture.

I have not seen this white paper and don't feel inclined to speak of documents I have not read.

[Robert A Whit]

Sorry Robert, but that's crap. I don't care if you do have a doctor, psychologist, or even a priest present. Waterboarding is torture. It always has been, it always was, and the world sure as hell knows that it is. All it did for us is to multiply the terrorist recruiting. Another favor for Osama Bin Laden.

Waterboarding as it was done to 3 men, is done as a routine matter to our own Navy seals.

How can you justify the US Navy, which Obama commands, waterboarding our Seals then talk the way you talk?

Done a particular way, waterboarding though not fatal, does not produce injuries and only scares, it is not torture. Our CIA did not use the old fashioned form.

But you don't seem much concerned with truth to begin with so perhaps my words fall on deaf ears.

Bin Laden was an able leader so I don't believe that waterboarding 3 men when his men cut off heads, bugged him one bit. Matter of fact, he did far worse.

[jimnyc]

Are you comparing war in Iraq to our intelligence help in the overthrow of Libya? Of course, I fall on the side of success without losing our soldiers vs a senseless war that cost us 4000 American lives.

In other words, you're a hack, and can't seem to find the time to condemn Obama for putting boots on the ground in a country that hasn't attacked us. That was your complaint, no? So you wouldn't have minded Bush attacking Iraq so long as it killed less?

Face it, you condemn one while being oblivious to another.

[bingster]

There is no solution to terrorism.

The IRA and others like them have been around for how many years?
The PLO and it's off shoots how many?

But calling it a war to justifiy killing terror suspects put MORE people in danger than. the old way of tracking and and attempting to thwart through other legal channels, Arrest on conspiracy charges, espionage charges, If possible cut off funding sources, , counter there proaganda, not give them more excuses to or real resons to be able to recuit if it's in our best interest.

but giving the prez a blank check to kill anyone is complete BS and is not a honest solution.

sounds good to some people " just shoot the B******eds". Makes some people feel like the jobs gettin done. but it's a tar pit.

Just think of how many people that have been released from Gitmo at this point. All of them were terrorist Supposedly. Supposedly with AlQueada, "the worst of the worst" is what Cheney and Bush called them. But one of the chief prosecutors at Gitmo resigned and other lawyers did as well, becuase the evidence was so thin, some coerced and the system of determining their guilt was so sketchy.
Now Obama is telling us now that he's "Agonizing" over the assassinations of these "bad guys" .
frankly I have no reason to believe that these people are any more guilty than those we've already released from gitmo, who were "the worst of the worst". At least at Gitmo they had some thin chance to get out one day. Now there's no way to even make a case, political or judicial, for your innocents.

There's no easy way to deal with terrorism but the President is not God or Big Brother and should not be killing people for PRE-crimes or Thought crimes by his own will - really his advisers- and that all in secret.

If they are that dangerous let the regular legal process happen- investigation, law enforcement, covert ops then military if necessary. But not this radio shack sci-fi tyranny.

Great post. That's why I'm conflicted. You still haven't convinced me that we should trash the radio shack gizmo, but I can't find fault with anything you've said. Although I am a liberal I haven't been a fan of Obama's willingness to adopt the Bush doctrine of, as you put it "killing people for PRE-crimes or Thought crimes", but at the same time, I don't think we can just sit back and allow it to happen either. I don't know, bud. Good post.

[bingster]

In other words, you're a hack, and can't seem to find the time to condemn Obama for putting boots on the ground in a country that hasn't attacked us. That was your complaint, no? So you wouldn't have minded Bush attacking Iraq so long as it killed less?

Face it, you condemn one while being oblivious to another.

What does Libya have to do with Iraq? Libya's people were trying to overthrow a dictator. The Iraqi people were not trying to overthrow Sadam. They tried that once, and the U.S. let them get slaughtered. And I was happy not to put boots on the ground in Libya, our allies were happy to do it instead. Most of our allies were hesitant to help us in Iraq and some were dead against. Many of the leaders of those allies that did, didn't survive the next election.

And they not only didn't attack us, they weren't even a threat.

[cadet]

Great post. That's why I'm conflicted. You still haven't convinced me that we should trash the radio shack gizmo, but I can't find fault with anything you've said. Although I am a liberal I haven't been a fan of Obama's willingness to adopt the Bush doctrine of, as you put it "killing people for PRE-crimes or Thought crimes", but at the same time, I don't think we can just sit back and allow it to happen either. I don't know, bud. Good post.

Why do you say that so much? Is it because you don't agree with what the president does, but don't want to disagree with him? Don't be a liberal bandwagon. I can respect a guy who actually believes in that crap, a little more then someone who's just agrees because they're told to.

[bingster]

Why do you say that so much? Is it because you don't agree with what the president does, but don't want to disagree with him? Don't be a liberal bandwagon. I can respect a guy who actually believes in that crap, a little more then someone who's just agrees because they're told to.

If you read my whole post you would see that I'm not for trashing the whole program. It's wrong the way it is. That's as close as I can get to wanting to trash the whole thing. That evil group is still planning to kill us, and I think we need to use extreme measures to combat it.

But, I also agree with all of relevarts post. Our collateral damage is spawning more terrorists. Obama, as far as I can see, does not have the right to do what he's doing. I'm just man enough to say "I don't know". You can respect whomever you want, I just don't believe in black and white.

[jimnyc]

What does Libya have to do with Iraq? Libya's people were trying to overthrow a dictator. The Iraqi people were not trying to overthrow Sadam. They tried that once, and the U.S. let them get slaughtered. And I was happy not to put boots on the ground in Libya, our allies were happy to do it instead. Most of our allies were hesitant to help us in Iraq and some were dead against. Many of the leaders of those allies that did, didn't survive the next election.

And they not only didn't attack us, they weren't even a threat.

What does it have to do with it? Didn't you just bitch that we put boots on the ground in a country that didn't attack us? Yet you apply different standards elsewhere, and undoubtedly because it was an action from Obama, where he AGAIN bypassed Congress.

[bingster]

While your claim about Bush attacking is factually correct, we all know how he handled this. He went to congress and they called for Bush to attack.
After they lied about the intelligence to the American people
If you are only saying it was Iraq, that is BS. Both countries had not attacked us. So why the hypocrisy?

Why have you NEVER mentioned that Clinton attacked a nation that in no way attacked our country. Clinton waged war against a nearly defenseless country formerly called Yugoslavia for about 3 months. I never hear your outrage about that.
Yugoslavia was about genocide.
Next Clinton without so much as permission from Congress attacked not only Yugoslavia, but attacked Iraq. Over and over Clinton did to Iraq what the Japs did to Pearl Harbor.
Sadam Hussein attempted to kill George H.W. Bush
I am shocked that both countries had not declared war on Clinton over his acts of war. Alas when weak, some countries don't put up much resistance. Hitler proved that. And Clinton proved it much later.

You guys remind me of those Germans that backed Hitler but had not backed President Hindenberg just so you know.
Just had to work in a couple Hitler comparisons, didn't you?
You have been told of proper books to study to learn what Bush really did. Don't act like you were not told. And though told, you keep posting the democrat 101 doctrine. I have heard it said that Goebbels claimed if one lies over and over, it becomes true. Well, I don't believe that is how it should be in this country.
I've read plenty of books about Iraq, three of the authors were in the room during the intelligence meetings
You were told where Bush got his evidence. Most presidents can simply rely on our resources such as our FBI and CIA.
The "Italian letter" (the source of Bush's 16 word speech line) was b.s. and even Tenet knew it. In fact, anyone with access to google could have proved it was b.s.
But Bush dug much deeper. Bush consulted with Arab leaders and they told Bush that Saddam has and will use WMD on our troops. Ask the troops who waged war. They remember wearing combat gear meant to defeat WMD. That was no act by them my man. General Tommy Franks got advice on this from two major Arab leaders.
Yea, it was funny how the definition of WMD changed quickly from nukes to biological weapons. That was a crack up.
Maybe you wanted to keep Saddam but the position of your own party even before Bush was elected was to get rid of Saddam. They wanted him gone so badly they created a law to get rid of the man.
You're right about that, be we weren't planning to send "shock and awe"
Bush did not sanction torture. I might have been willing, but Bush was not willing. Bush got legal advice at all times and only with their green light did he proceed. No fact finding court has found that Bush sought torture nor even engaged in torture.
Bad advice, it was torture
I have not seen this white paper and don't feel inclined to speak of documents I have not read.
It's in it's entirety (the white paper) at the top of this thread. It's bad news and it definitely describes suspicious activity.

[bingster]

What does it have to do with it? Didn't you just bitch that we put boots on the ground in a country that didn't attack us? Yet you apply different standards elsewhere, and undoubtedly because it was an action from Obama, where he AGAIN bypassed Congress.

Look, a country doesn't have to attack us to provide a reason to invade. In the case of Iraq, they not only didn't attack us, they weren't a threat to us or anyone else. The last time Sadam did ugly things we either attacked him (Kuwait, or when he attempted to assassinate G.H.W. Bush) or ignored him (gassing the Kurds or the Iraqi's in the south-During Reagan's and George H.W. Bush's terms).

We invaded Yugoslavia to stop genocide, and helped out in Libya when they were overthrowing Ghadafi. We could have offered air support if Sadam Hussein was being overthrown by his people, but they lost the appetite for it after being slaughtered the last time they tried.

And with Iraq, we were operating on false intelligence. It was crap and Bush should have known better, and I believe he did.

[bingster]

]I'll disregard the majority of wars in our history that lead to the most bloodshed - all on the Democrats dime. [/U]Let's stick to just Obama for now. Can you link me to your continued criticism on Obama, and just Libya for starters. I'd like to see if you are a hack that only believes it's wrong when an (R) is in office, or equal condemnation. Being that Libya was more recent, and didn't have congressional approval like Bush did, I'm sure you've complained on here somewhere about Obama and Libya.....

That's funny how you poke a jab for WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Besides Vietnam, which of the three should we have avoided?

I'll admit, we shouldn't have fought Vietnam and we, the Democrats, did start it.

[cadet]

That's funny how you poke a jab for WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Besides Vietnam, which of the three should we have avoided?

I'll admit, we shouldn't have fought Vietnam and we, the Democrats, did start it.

Korea and Vietnam were classified as conflicts, not wars.
I know, I'm a :smartass2:

[jimnyc]

Look, a country doesn't have to attack us to provide a reason to invade. In the case of Iraq, they not only didn't attack us, they weren't a threat to us or anyone else. The last time Sadam did ugly things we either attacked him (Kuwait, or when he attempted to assassinate G.H.W. Bush) or ignored him (gassing the Kurds or the Iraqi's in the south-During Reagan's and George H.W. Bush's terms).

We invaded Yugoslavia to stop genocide, and helped out in Libya when they were overthrowing Ghadafi. We could have offered air support if Sadam Hussein was being overthrown by his people, but they lost the appetite for it after being slaughtered the last time they tried.

And with Iraq, we were operating on false intelligence. It was crap and Bush should have known better, and I believe he did.

Absolutely amazing to see the hackery and change of standards and methods to determine what wars are OK for you and which aren't. You seem 100% oblivious to the 12 years of Saddam outright refusing to abide by 17 UN resolutions over 12 years, which warned of what would happen if he continued to defy the world, which he did. But anyway, I'm not going to debate the war itself. I simply find it hilarious watching liberals dance away the night so they can find ways to condemn actions by republicans and find it ok for democrats to do the same or similar. That's like 9 times now I have seen you choose party over country, or taking a different stance based on party. I mean, you did just get done condemning the one war solely because it was on a country that didn't attack us. YOU made your stance there, not me. But when I point out that Obama did the same, the dancing begins and it's somehow ok for him to do.

You'll find that I supported boots on the ground in Libya, just not bypassing Congress. Many of the war related things I agree with Obama on, other than decisions that harm them or the vets. I would support the same in Syria. I wouldn't make my war stances, and why I think we should assist other countries, based on which letter (D) (R) is in office.

[bingster]

Waterboarding as it was done to 3 men, is done as a routine matter to our own Navy seals.

How can you justify the US Navy, which Obama commands, waterboarding our Seals then talk the way you talk?

Done a particular way, waterboarding though not fatal, does not produce injuries and only scares, it is not torture. Our CIA did not use the old fashioned form.

But you don't seem much concerned with truth to begin with so perhaps my words fall on deaf ears.

Bin Laden was an able leader so I don't believe that waterboarding 3 men when his men cut off heads, bugged him one bit. Matter of fact, he did far worse.

It doesn't usually cause permanent harm but that's never been an element of the definition of torture. Seals are trained and know what to expect. I got c.s. gassed in the Army, doesn't make it a good thing.

[jimnyc]

That's funny how you poke a jab for WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Besides Vietnam, which of the three should we have avoided?

I'll admit, we shouldn't have fought Vietnam and we, the Democrats, did start it.

Not a one do I poke a jab at. Just pointing out the irony of today's liberal/democrats who condemn wars and such, and don't realize that Democrats were responsible for starting FAR many more wars and FAR many more deaths on the watch of a Democrat started war.

[bingster]

Absolutely amazing to see the hackery and change of standards and methods to determine what wars are OK for you and which aren't. You seem 100% oblivious to the 12 years of Saddam outright refusing to abide by 17 UN resolutions over 12 years, which warned of what would happen if he continued to defy the world, which he did. But anyway, I'm not going to debate the war itself. I simply find it hilarious watching liberals dance away the night so they can find ways to condemn actions by republicans and find it ok for democrats to do the same or similar. That's like 9 times now I have seen you choose party over country, or taking a different stance based on party. I mean, you did just get done condemning the one war solely because it was on a country that didn't attack us. YOU made your stance there, not me. But when I point out that Obama did the same, the dancing begins and it's somehow ok for him to do.

You'll find that I supported boots on the ground in Libya, just not bypassing Congress. Many of the war related things I agree with Obama on, other than decisions that harm them or the vets. I would support the same in Syria. I wouldn't make my war stances, and why I think we should assist other countries, based on which letter (D) (R) is in office.

And I don't either, no matter what you write or think. I've admitted bias, but Iraq and Libya aren't even comparable.

[bingster]

Not a one do I poke a jab at. Just pointing out the irony of today's liberal/democrats who condemn wars and such, and don't realize that Democrats were responsible for starting FAR many more wars and FAR many more deaths on the watch of a Democrat started war.

There is such a thing as a just war. I'm not a complete dove.

[bingster]

Korea and Vietnam were classified as conflicts, not wars.
I know, I'm a :smartass2:

He was comparing Iraq to Libya, so I don't think we cared about classifications.

[jimnyc]

There is such a thing as a just war. I'm not a complete dove.

I know, and in liberal lala land a just war = Democrat started war

And not a whimper of condemnation for bypassing Congress to achieve his end either? Why, because YOU approve of "him helping"? Some of us approve of people helping elsewhere, regardless of the rhetoric you use to spin things. This is why I have standards, and apply them equally. Some people apply based on party. To each their own I suppose.

[jimnyc]

Always a decent reminder of history

<object height="400" width="600">
<embed src="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/American-Wars.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="400" width="600"></object>

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=617337#post617337)
While your claim about Bush attacking is factually correct, we all know how he handled this. He went to congress and they called for Bush to attack.
After they lied about the intelligence to the American people

Incorrect. Nuff said since I have explained this previously.

If you are only saying it was Iraq, that is BS. Both countries had not attacked us. So why the hypocrisy?

Why have you NEVER mentioned that Clinton attacked a nation that in no way attacked our country. Clinton waged war against a nearly defenseless country formerly called Yugoslavia for about 3 months. I never hear your outrage about that.
Yugoslavia was about genocide.

You were lied to by Clinton if you accept that as fact. There was no genocide.
Besides, one has to go to congress to get permission to conduct war as we did it. Well, per law, presidents can have war up to a point with no permission but the law was not set forth for cases that are not proven and Clinton had no proof.

Next Clinton without so much as permission from Congress attacked not only Yugoslavia, but attacked Iraq. Over and over Clinton did to Iraq what the Japs did to Pearl Harbor.
Sadam Hussein attempted to kill George H.W. Bush

How many times with huge attacks do you think he got for that bit of a threat. I think he only threatened.

And president Bush in his book debunked that claim by saying he at no time waged war on Iraq over that. But you appear to approve it when Clinton did. I do not recall Clinton making that claim just so you know.

I am shocked that both countries had not declared war on Clinton over his acts of war. Alas when weak, some countries don't put up much resistance. Hitler proved that. And Clinton proved it much later.

You guys remind me of those Germans that backed Hitler but had not backed President Hindenberg just so you know.
Just had to work in a couple Hitler comparisons, didn't you?

I was speaking generacly only and was not slamming you at all.

You have been told of proper books to study to learn what Bush really did. Don't act like you were not told. And though told, you keep posting the democrat 101 doctrine. I have heard it said that Goebbels claimed if one lies over and over, it becomes true. Well, I don't believe that is how it should be in this country.
I've read plenty of books about Iraq, three of the authors were in the room during the intelligence meetings

Can't imagine who. But even so, nobody is stopping you from quoting them or telling us your sources.
You were told where Bush got his evidence. Most presidents can simply rely on our resources such as our FBI and CIA.
The "Italian letter" (the source of Bush's 16 word speech line) was b.s. and even Tenet knew it. In fact, anyone with access to google could have proved it was b.s.

That is not Bush's source. All Bush did in his STOU was bring up that is what he was told by England. When Bush got called a liar, England came to his rescue and said that they indeed had told Bush that. I also remind you that Bush did not give STOU that had not first been very carefully screened by officials in departments like the FBO and CIA, et al.

But Bush dug much deeper. Bush consulted with Arab leaders and they told Bush that Saddam has and will use WMD on our troops. Ask the troops who waged war. They remember wearing combat gear meant to defeat WMD. That was no act by them my man. General Tommy Franks got advice on this from two major Arab leaders.
Yea, it was funny how the definition of WMD changed quickly from nukes to biological weapons. That was a crack up.

What the hell? Bush never stated Saddam had nukes at all. Not ever. This is democrat 101 operating. The official position of the USA is that WMD does not only say Nukes, it includes weapons such as Saddam used to kill his own people.

Maybe you wanted to keep Saddam but the position of your own party even before Bush was elected was to get rid of Saddam. They wanted him gone so badly they created a law to get rid of the man.
You're right about that, be we weren't planning to send "shock and awe"

I love that term because it is a figure of speech of some reporter. General Franks indeed shocked and Awed Saddam Hussein. Forced him to live in some sort of fox hole.

I never saw much sign that Clinton intended to obey a law he signed, so you may be correct about that claim.
Bush did not sanction torture. I might have been willing, but Bush was not willing. Bush got legal advice at all times and only with their green light did he proceed. No fact finding court has found that Bush sought torture nor even engaged in torture.
Bad advice, it was torture

Nope. It is done all the time to Seals.
I have not seen this white paper and don't feel inclined to speak of documents I have not read.

Thanks to your reply, I now know that the paper is post number one. Thank you very much. Since I plan to read it, do you also plan to read the 58 pages of material by Dr. Lindzen about so called climate change?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=617338#post617338)
Waterboarding as it was done to 3 men, is done as a routine matter to our own Navy seals.

How can you justify the US Navy, which Obama commands, waterboarding our Seals then talk the way you talk?

Done a particular way, waterboarding though not fatal, does not produce injuries and only scares, it is not torture. Our CIA did not use the old fashioned form.

But you don't seem much concerned with truth to begin with so perhaps my words fall on deaf ears.

Bin Laden was an able leader so I don't believe that waterboarding 3 men when his men cut off heads, bugged him one bit. Matter of fact, he did far worse.



Der Bingster says: It doesn't usually cause permanent harm but that's never been an element of the definition of torture. Seals are trained and know what to expect. I got c.s. gassed in the Army, doesn't make it a good thing.

Hell, it caused no harm. I remind you that scaring them is not harm. Well, the CIA trained the terrorists since you have that casual view of this element.

I got gassed but simply never breathed the stuff in. So many guys in the room I easily outsmarted somebody. I recall this pretty damned well. I also watched as one of the guys got the shock of his life when he was captured during Escape and Evasion and I mean by electricity. Bet you don't call that torture but you sure call a few drops of water on cloth to be torture.

But when done to Seals, not a bit torture.

Double standard is what Jim told you. Now do you understand why he said that?

[Kathianne]

Always a decent reminder of history

<object height="400" width="600">
<embed src="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/American-Wars.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="400" width="600"></object>

It seems to me that it was the Democrats that fired on Ft. Sumter, beginning the Civil War. Considering that we count all war dead as 'Americans' from the Civil War, same should be said regarding the parties at the time. With that addition, the differences would be even more stark.

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=617337#post617337)
While your claim about Bush attacking is factually correct, we all know how he handled this. He went to congress and they called for Bush to attack.
After they lied about the intelligence to the American people

Incorrect. Nuff said since I have explained this previously.
Lies Lies Lies
If you are only saying it was Iraq, that is BS. Both countries had not attacked us. So why the hypocrisy?

Why have you NEVER mentioned that Clinton attacked a nation that in no way attacked our country. Clinton waged war against a nearly defenseless country formerly called Yugoslavia for about 3 months. I never hear your outrage about that.
Yugoslavia was about genocide.

You were lied to by Clinton if you accept that as fact. There was no genocide.
Besides, one has to go to congress to get permission to conduct war as we did it. Well, per law, presidents can have war up to a point with no permission but the law was not set forth for cases that are not proven and Clinton had no proof.
The war was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing) and systematic mass rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Bosnian_War), mostly led by Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs) and, to a lesser extent, Croat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croat)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#cite_note-ICTY:_Bla.C5.A1ki.C4.87_verdict_-_A._The_Lasva_Valley:_May_1992_.E2.80.93_January_1 993-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#cite_note-ICTY:_Naletili.C4.87_and_Matinovi.C4.87_verdict-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#cite_note-ICTY:_Kordi.C4.87_and_.C4.8Cerkez_verdict-10)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#cite_note-ICTY:_Initial_indictment_for_the_ethnic_cleansing_ of_the_Lasva_Valley_area_-_Part_II-11) forces. Events such as the Siege of Sarajevo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo) and the Srebrenica massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre) would become iconic of the conflict.
Next Clinton without so much as permission from Congress attacked not only Yugoslavia, but attacked Iraq. Over and over Clinton did to Iraq what the Japs did to Pearl Harbor.
Sadam Hussein attempted to kill George H.W. Bush

How many times with huge attacks do you think he got for that bit of a threat. I think he only threatened.

In 1993, Bush visited Kuwait to commemorate the coalition's victory over Iraq in the Gulf War, where he was targeted in an assassination plot. Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in using a car bomb to kill Bush. Through interviews with the suspects and examinations of the bomb's circuitry and wiring, the FBI established that the plot had been directed by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. A Kuwaiti court later convicted all but one of the defendants. Two months later, in retaliation, Clinton ordered the firing of 23 cruise missiles at Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad). The day before the strike commenced, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright) went before the Security Council to present evidence of the Iraqi plot. After the missiles were fired, Vice President Al Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore) said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented".[117 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H_W_Bush#cite_note-117)] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H_W_Bush#cite_note-117)
And president Bush in his book debunked that claim by saying he at no time waged war on Iraq over that. But you appear to approve it when Clinton did. I do not recall Clinton making that claim just so you know.

I am shocked that both countries had not declared war on Clinton over his acts of war. Alas when weak, some countries don't put up much resistance. Hitler proved that. And Clinton proved it much later.

You guys remind me of those Germans that backed Hitler but had not backed President Hindenberg just so you know.
Just had to work in a couple Hitler comparisons, didn't you?

I was speaking generacly only and was not slamming you at all.

You have been told of proper books to study to learn what Bush really did. Don't act like you were not told. And though told, you keep posting the democrat 101 doctrine. I have heard it said that Goebbels claimed if one lies over and over, it becomes true. Well, I don't believe that is how it should be in this country.
I've read plenty of books about Iraq, three of the authors were in the room during the intelligence meetings

Can't imagine who. But even so, nobody is stopping you from quoting them or telling us your sources.
Colin Powel, Richard Clark, and Paul O'neill all three say Bush was obsessed with Iraq from the very 1st intelligence meeting on. Bush didn't want to hear about Al Qaeda before 9/11 and still suspected Sadam's complicity despite the lack of intelligence. Powell considers his televised testimony the lowest point of his career and is ashamed of it.
You were told where Bush got his evidence. Most presidents can simply rely on our resources such as our FBI and CIA.The "Italian letter" (the source of Bush's 16 word speech line) was b.s. and even Tenet knew it. In fact, anyone with access to google could have proved it was b.s.
That is not Bush's source. All Bush did in his STOU was bring up that is what he was told by England. When Bush got called a liar, England came to his rescue and said that they indeed had told Bush that. I also remind you that Bush did not give STOU that had not first been very carefully screened by officials in departments like the FBO and CIA, et al.
It was intelligence shared by both British and American intelligence and was by far the most compelling piece of evidence by nature. But, when you look at the evidence, anyone with access to google could prove that it was bunk. In fact, the whole concept of Sadam needing yellow cake was stupid, since he already had access to plenty. A few of the books I've read also say that CIA was against using the 16 word line but his assistant (Tenet's) allowed it in.
But Bush dug much deeper. Bush consulted with Arab leaders and they told Bush that Saddam has and will use WMD on our troops. Ask the troops who waged war. They remember wearing combat gear meant to defeat WMD. That was no act by them my man. General Tommy Franks got advice on this from two major Arab leaders.
Yea, it was funny how the definition of WMD changed quickly from nukes to biological weapons. That was a crack up.

What the hell? Bush never stated Saddam had nukes at all. Not ever. This is democrat 101 operating. The official position of the USA is that WMD does not only say Nukes, it includes weapons such as Saddam used to kill his own people.
You can't convince me that the line "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" and everything Colin Powell talked about in his televised briefing wasn't about nukes. None of it was about biological weapons until much later.
Maybe you wanted to keep Saddam but the position of your own party even before Bush was elected was to get rid of Saddam. They wanted him gone so badly they created a law to get rid of the man.
You're right about that, be we weren't planning to send "shock and awe"

I love that term because it is a figure of speech of some reporter. General Franks indeed shocked and Awed Saddam Hussein. Forced him to live in some sort of fox hole.

I never saw much sign that Clinton intended to obey a law he signed, so you may be correct about that claim.
Bush did not sanction torture. I might have been willing, but Bush was not willing. Bush got legal advice at all times and only with their green light did he proceed. No fact finding court has found that Bush sought torture nor even engaged in torture.
Bad advice, it was torture

Nope. It is done all the time to Seals.
Yea, they're taught to withstand torture
I have not seen this white paper and don't feel inclined to speak of documents I have not read.

Thanks to your reply, I now know that the paper is post number one. Thank you very much. Since I plan to read it, do you also plan to read the 58 pages of material by Dr. Lindzen about so called climate change?
nope.

[gabosaurus]

OK scholars, here is a good question for you: Which presidents have started war where the U.S. fired the first shots?
I'm not talking about entering a conflict which was already in progress. I am talking about starting the war with either an air attack or ground invasion and then escalating it.
Report here.

[Kathianne]

OK scholars, here is a good question for you: Which presidents have started war where the U.S. fired the first shots?
I'm not talking about entering a conflict which was already in progress. I am talking about starting the war with either an air attack or ground invasion and then escalating it.
Report here.

One could argue the Civil War, though it was not the 'elected' US President that ordered the first shot. The meeting up at Lexington credits the British for 'moving back' the colonists, though Concord and their return to Boston was a different story all together.

I'm pretty sure the War of 1812 was begun by Americans, though one could argue that impressment of American seaman caused that event. While it ended up ending future conflicts with England, it was a silly war. We got a lot of patriotic symbolism from it though. ;)

[jimnyc]

Robert, Bing - I'm sure you guys are able to differentiate who wrote what in those last few purple/white/red posts, but I have no clue who said what. Not complaining, but you guys either need to use the quote brackets or a better way. I almost just went blind! :poke:

[Kathianne]

Robert, Bing - I'm sure you guys are able to differentiate who wrote what in those last few purple/white/red posts, but I have no clue who said what. Not complaining, but you guys either need to use the quote brackets or a better way. I almost just went blind! :poke:

I was going to bitch, thanks for saving me from that.

[bingster]

It seems to me that it was the Democrats that fired on Ft. Sumter, beginning the Civil War. Considering that we count all war dead as 'Americans' from the Civil War, same should be said regarding the parties at the time. With that addition, the differences would be even more stark.

Only if you claim the Confederate Democrats are not the current Republican party. That would be kinda ridiculous.

[Kathianne]

Only if you claim the Confederate Democrats are not the current Republican party. That would be kinda ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all. You are lying there.

[bingster]

Not ridiculous at all. You are lying there.

I HATE being called a liar! Ugh! I'm wrong sometimes, and I'll admit it, but I DON'T LIE!

Think about it. Do you think all of the radical Lincoln Republicans moved south and Dixieland moved north? Really? The parties flipped almost completely between 1860 and now. TR passed the progressive torch to Wilson, and the southern strategy from Goldwater to Reagan completed the job. Do you see a lot of Liberals celebrating Confederate generals today? How many Democrats fly the confederate flag? It's not a lie, it's common sense.

The Republican party was founded on Hamilton, not Jefferson politics.

[Kathianne]

I HATE being called a liar! Ugh!

Think about it. Do you think all of the radical Lincoln Republicans moved south and Dixieland moved north? Really? The parties flipped almost completely between 1860 and now. TR passed the progressive torch to Wilson, and the southern strategy from Goldwater to Reagan completed the job. Do you see a lot of Liberals celebrating Confederate generals today? How many Democrats fly the confederate flag? It's not a lie, it's common sense.

The Republican party was founded on Hamilton, not Jefferson politics.

No, read your history, you'll find what happened. So perhaps you're ignorant and not a liar. Improvement, I guess.

[aboutime]

I HATE being called a liar! Ugh!

Think about it. Do you think all of the radical Lincoln Republicans moved south and Dixieland moved north? Really? The parties flipped almost completely between 1860 and now. TR passed the progressive torch to Wilson, and the southern strategy from Goldwater to Reagan completed the job. Do you see a lot of Liberals celebrating Confederate generals today? How many Democrats fly the confederate flag? It's not a lie, it's common sense.

The Republican party was founded on Hamilton, not Jefferson politics.


bingster. Try as you will to re-write History. Does not mean your WIKIPEDIA expertise is accurate, and unquestionably true.

Whoever you think you are, or whoever has fed you so much contrived information...should be punished for ruining your life.

[Kathianne]

One could argue the Civil War, though it was not the 'elected' US President that ordered the first shot. The meeting up at Lexington credits the British for 'moving back' the colonists, though Concord and their return to Boston was a different story all together.

I'm pretty sure the War of 1812 was begun by Americans, though one could argue that impressment of American seaman caused that event. While it ended up ending future conflicts with England, it was a silly war. We got a lot of patriotic symbolism from it though. ;)

So Gabby, you DO have an answer, no?

[bingster]

bingster. Try as you will to re-write History. Does not mean your WIKIPEDIA expertise is accurate, and unquestionably true.

Whoever you think you are, or whoever has fed you so much contrived information...should be punished for ruining your life.

So, you actually think the whole Confederacy moved north and is now the current Democratic party?

Insults are not arguments. Think about it and argue.

It's not a perfect analogy, Republicans have always been about business interests, but they didn't adopt states rights until the segregation debate. Democrats started some civil rights tendencies with Wilson and FDR, but there were still Dixiecrat Democrats in the 60's. They certainly took the stronger Federalist reins with FDR which was formerly Lincoln's platform.

But Goldwater and Nixon flipped the electoral map with their runs for president.

I'm not a wiki addict, but I do use it a lot on this forum, because it's a hell of a lot faster to cut and paste out of wiki than to thumb through hundreds of books I read and then retype. I don't read much on-line as apparently some of you do.

I always receive insults when posters can't argue my point.

[Kathianne]

So, you actually think the whole Confederacy moved north and is now the current Democratic party?

Insults are not arguments. Think about it and argue.

It's not a perfect analogy, Republicans have always been about business interests, but they didn't adopt states rights until the segregation debate. Democrats started some civil rights tendencies with Wilson and FDR, but there were still Dixiecrat Democrats in the 60's. They certainly took the stronger Federalist reins with FDR which was formerly Lincoln's platform.

But Goldwater and Nixon flipped the electoral map with their runs for president.

I'm not a wiki addict, but I do use it a lot on this forum, because it's a hell of a lot faster to cut and paste out of wiki than to thumb through hundreds of books I read and then retype. I don't read much on-line as apparently some of you do.

I always receive insults when posters can't argue my point.

I didn't say any such thing. I merely believed you when you claimed that is what HAD to have happened. It wasn't any such thing. Indeed, your perceptions of the Republican Party in recent times is uninformed, that must be your excuse.

[bingster]

bingster. Try as you will to re-write History. Does not mean your WIKIPEDIA expertise is accurate, and unquestionably true.

Whoever you think you are, or whoever has fed you so much contrived information...should be punished for ruining your life.

I read books, mostly history, how do you get your "contrived information"?

[aboutime]

I read books, mostly history, how do you get your "contrived information"?


Really? Well then. How bout sharing what you consider 'contrived information' I have stated here...just for starters???

Not opinions, not conjecture. Pure, documented, verifiable Facts that are 'contrived' according to you.

[Robert A Whit]

OK scholars, here is a good question for you: Which presidents have started war where the U.S. fired the first shots?
I'm not talking about entering a conflict which was already in progress. I am talking about starting the war with either an air attack or ground invasion and then escalating it.
Report here.

Hoooooooooooooo buoy

General Washington fired at his own country. You said started war.
Abe Lincoln fired the first shots that killed people.
Polk fired first at Mexico.

I plan to include some wars we joined.

Say you take WWI, II and Korea, et al.

While we did not start those wars, our shots by definition once we shot, were OUR first shots. I am not clear why your plan is to omit those wars. Explain please. We had to get to Korea for instance to be shot at or shoot at them.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, there is no practical difference in what they did vs what we did say to Grenada or Iraq or even Afghanistan or Yugoslavia when it was a country. Clinton fired the first shots at Yugoslavia and he even kept up his crap in Iraq.

I am not clear what you are angling for.

[Robert A Whit]

nope.

Jim wants you to learn how to use the quote function. I am able to figure you out but this forum normally uses quote marks to separate posters from each other.

I don't understand how you can conclude the Seals are not tortured but then claim that 3 terrorists got tortured. (statement by Robert to Bingster)

Yo Jim

That multi colored post had me in black, then Der Bingster came back in red and I replied to him as I recall in purple. I have to check to see if I also posted in Blue. So sorry you got confused. Think of that post like a xmas tree. LOL

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=617419#post617419)
So, you actually think the whole Confederacy moved north and is now the current Democratic party?

Insults are not arguments. Think about it and argue.

It's not a perfect analogy, Republicans have always been about business interests, but they didn't adopt states rights until the segregation debate. Democrats started some civil rights tendencies with Wilson and FDR, but there were still Dixiecrat Democrats in the 60's. They certainly took the stronger Federalist reins with FDR which was formerly Lincoln's platform.

But Goldwater and Nixon flipped the electoral map with their runs for president.

I'm not a wiki addict, but I do use it a lot on this forum, because it's a hell of a lot faster to cut and paste out of wiki than to thumb through hundreds of books I read and then retype. I don't read much on-line as apparently some of you do.

I always receive insults when posters can't argue my point.





Kathianne retorts: I didn't say any such thing. I merely believed you when you claimed that is what HAD to have happened. It wasn't any such thing. Indeed, your perceptions of the Republican Party in recent times is uninformed, that must be your excuse.

Der Bingster persists on painting the Democrats as this wonderful party to negros.

Maybe he thinks his party decided to just like that became republicans.

That if true is nonsense.

People, I grew up an intensely loyal Democrat. I hated President Nixon. My family had no use for Eisenhower. We only liked Democrats.

I can damned well report what took place then because I was a voter. My rule was be democrat or be gone. Just like these democrats are now posting.

I assure all you republicans and others, you will NEVER get a Democrat to change their mind. They will block out of their minds all things you say unless you favor them.

I lived this. I recall in 1971 having a hell of an argument with my then broker over him backing republicans. I was pretty pissed off I was working for one of those SOBs.

Some republicans here may have always been a republican but I happen to have fliped over like that proverbial turtle.

I thank Jimmy Carter for me wanting to find out more stuff. I decided to study.

I am damned fortunate to have come across a book that so fascinated me that along with other reading caused my heart to change.

It is a rather slow process.

I will say a bit about what I went through. Just the idea of voting for a republican almost made me puke.

Even what I read could not remove the feeling I was maybe going to be a traitor.

I knew I hated the rich.

My mother stunted my economic growth by always badmouthing republicans.

Obama pulls the same crap today.

I spent 40-42 years as a die hard democrat.

Trust me, the party has these posters well in line.

I am a hard ass I believe because I grew up using the Democrat talking points.

I was flat out lied to. By Mom and the resdt of the democrats. Mom died and I assure you I loved her. She was not politics to me, she was my loved mom.

The day she learned I planned to vote for Reagan was plain not comfortable. She tried every trick to talk me out of it. I was on outstanding terms with my parents.

My change was not revenge or some shitty excuse.

Democrats must dig deep inside themselves. I blame my change on education. And I believe the education was true and very sound. Hell, I even read Thomas Paines works. If you think they only apply to the era of G Washington, think again. I never heard of those books of his in school. Not even in college.

I have been both attacked, bored and sort of amused over a long time by the lies by Democrats.

Look, they allege they care about the middle class. Why can't they prove this?

Do they treat lower taxes for the poor and middle class as doggie treats?

Where I sent to high school, it was very hard to spot any negroes. I can't recall the kids even bringing up negros. We were more concerned about Mexicans due to them calling themselves Pachukos and having some convict like tattos on them. Today you don't even run into many people who know what a Pachuko was. Thiose guys were poor. I recall Mexican girls taping between their fingers, one bladed razor blades. And lord help the girl they bitch slapped. Try getting your face slapped by somebody with razor blades taped between their fingers. Those girls were as mean as the guys were.

Thus in the Army starting in Feb 1962 did I get my real exposure to negros.

I hope I don't make you women blush but at Fort Ord, CA, the first warning we all got by the cadre over us was NEVER say those filthy words starting with Mother and a terrible end word that you can imagine by saying sucker. No it was not sucker. Think of the filthy word.

A guy in my unit told me he planned to clock negros use of that hateful word.

He could stop watch them. And he told me the count was like 93 times in something like 2 minutes. We heard this all the time.

Still, I simply assued they loved smearing mothers all over this world.

I got back one evening to Ft Ord from a weekend pass. A row of phone booths was against some building I think. I recall the row but maybe they were free standing. Anyway, this Mormon solder was on the phone to his parents. That was the last time they heard him talking. A negro was angry that all booths were full and rather than wait, he went back to his platoon area in the army building and got his knife.

For some wild ass reason, he figured he could just kick open the door, stab the guy from Utah and somehow end up talking on the phone. That whacky SOB murdered that young buy. However since I was a leader, trained by the Army at leadership academy, I did not hold this against all the negros. I knew one bad apple and all that crap.

I arrived at Ft. Benning Georgia with maybe out of 140 men, perhaps I had less than 10 negros in my group that I led.

We went by train and that ride to this day may be the longest train ride I took. I took some other long rides in Europe.

I had no problems on the train with any of the Negros. So when I got to Ft. Benning, I figured these guys were okay. Bear in mind I was a Democrat. I would tend to think now that I remind myself of this that I would not be liked if they knew I was a Democrat. Still I was not prejudiced. I took each man according to how he did.

We decided to go up to the runway and watch some Army skydivers practicing. That lasted not over an hour at most.

Kato from Michgan had been training with me at Fort Ord. I pcked my pals pretty carefully and I thought of him as a pal. Kato played cards on the train to Ft. Benning with then Cassius Clay. I sat playing pinochle with other army guys and saw Clay at the table across the center aisle from me. I had no clue who he was. Kato later told me he had been a winner at the Olympics and was 8th rank as a heavy weight. He was very quiet so far as I noticed. I recall later on he bragged a lot. But on the train he was playing cards with his brother and his wife and to me seemed just like any other person. Kato made sure he told me at Ft. Benning who he was.

Anyway, we got done watching skydivers practice so I says to Kato, hey, I will put some gas in your car and let's go into town. We were next to Columbus Georgia and if you know that area, they have a bridge over the river that becomes Alabama.

Kato tells me he won't go to town. I says, hey, why not. He did not speak of Democrats or republicans. He said we might get the shit knocked out of all of us if we dared go into town.

I sort of laughed and says, I don't imagine they will beat us up. He persists and refused to go into town.

That made me feel sorry for negros.

A few months later the Army put me on a commercial airplane that landed at the Philadelphia airport and by Army bus we spent some period of time and got to Ft. Dix, NJ. Pennsylvania was brand new to me. I have since been over quite a bit of PA. I find the state was kind of fun to be in.

Anyway, from Ft. Dix by airplane out of McGuire AFB in NJ the AF plane landed in New Foundland to fuel up. That ride to Frankfurt, Germany was only topped by the ride back for a long time flying. I was amazed it took so long just to fly to Germany. Course it had 4 engines and not a jet so I think the top speed was maybe 225 mph.

One of those MAT Air force planes in 1962-4 was one hell of a slow ride. Better of course than sleeping in bunks on ships with men puking down on your bed.

When I got to Germany and run into guys who got there via Ships, they told me plenty about those ships. Mom, back in those days, your son slept where men kept pucking.

Maybe Bingster went by troop ship. Maybe by the time he got in, he rode an airplane too. They were just about to phase in jets and on the way back home, I almost got a ride on a Jet where the flight was maybe 8 hours. And to New Jersey to boot.

Ok, I wanted to make this more than just about negros. Forgive me if you are bored.

Now, in Germany is where I ran into some ass kicking Negros. Seems over there, their ass hole way of being started to become clear.

I never mentioned this before but once I got to HQ/HQ company, short of cash due to how they did it to troops between pay checks, I had to wait some time to get full pay. I am talking of maybe $85 by that time if that. Some guy told me some other guy had money to loan. I asked him how much was the interest. I learned that if I borrowed $5 bucks, I would pay back I would pay back $8 bucks. And this for 30 days at max. $10 bucks would cost me $20.

I did not borrow. I says to myself, maybe I can be a money lender. Why the hell not?

I got my pay and decided to loan some of it out. I had too little to loan very much. I can't recall lending to any Negro. I did loan to an E-6 one time and he said he was going to gamble. When he came back for more, I gave him another $20 so he was into me for $40 plus $20 in interest. I thought he was flat nuts to gamble. He was in Germany living off post with his wife and I think about 2 kids. He came back the 3rd time and I told him he reached my limit.

When it came time for him to pay me back, I pulled him aside and told him, all I want is the same amount I loaned to you. I won't take your money to deprive your wife and children.

The single guys never got that break. Those guys spent my dollars to find German women to have sex with. I had no problem making them pay me for that function.

Those guys that I served with had women on their minds. When they were not training, they were slut hunting. I recall one German girl they smuggled into the building and some guys told me she banged many of them. I believe over 50 of the guys. They took her upstairs to the Day room. Troops know what a Day room is. I think she got laid on pool tables.

So about the negros. I had some big negro from one of the line companies tell me he would be glad to work for me.

I says, doing what? He told me he would be my loan agent and loan money. Do you think I got my money back? LMAO I think he paid some of it back. He promised to beat the shit out of any guy who refused to pay. I told him upon hearing that, no thanks. No more money to you to loan. I recall when my unit starting having serious problems with negros. I have no idea why they acted that way. We had to assign Armed guards to guard the buildings. We knew some negroes had used knifes at night to stab soldiers. Due to my job, they treated me fine until I was about to go work at the airfield. Suddenly they got pissy. I recall one negro out in the hall taking a baseball bat and hitting it on the floor to threaten me over his assignment at working in the kitchen or maybe guard duty. I told him I do not pick who goes. I just type up the orders. But he wanted to prove he was a bad ass.

Anyway, that is my story.

I came home still a die hard democrat. I told you what changed me. My change took place during the final year of Jimmy Carter and not at all over the hostages. I figured he did all he could do about that issue.

[Robert A Whit]

Only if you claim the Confederate Democrats are not the current Republican party. That would be kinda ridiculous.

Do you honestly believe that crap?

But for republicans, the civil rights act of 1964 would never have made it.

But those democrats who fought the republicans did not change parties. Why don't you find out what a lot of democrats in the south really still believe in?

[Robert A Whit]

So, you actually think the whole Confederacy moved north and is now the current Democratic party?


Robert says: How do you dream up this stuff? I think the same racist Democrats exist today that has long existed.


Bingster keeps talking: Insults are not arguments. Think about it and argue.


Robert says: Correct.


More Bingster: It's not a perfect analogy, Republicans have always been about business interests, but they didn't adopt states rights until the segregation debate.


Robert again: What the hell? Do you mean to tell me that those in the Abe Lincoln party were not in business or had business interests? Have you totally forgot that Democrats in the South also had business interests? If you can't stay on topic, plainly tell me why not?




Bingster claims: Democrats started some civil rights tendencies with Wilson and FDR, but there were still Dixiecrat Democrats in the 60's. They certainly took the stronger Federalist reins with FDR which was formerly Lincoln's platform.

But Goldwater and Nixon flipped the electoral map with their runs for president.





Robert back for more: Not trying to be rude, what what are you smoking today? Here is your argument. Democrats in the South so loved Goldwater and Nixon that by golly they suddenly decided to flip parties. I can't believe you got that well trained in Democrat 101 talk. Man you know all the looney stories.

Here in plain english. That is conjecture by you trying to get around it was your party that when Johnson shows up stood in the way of Civil rights. FDR kept the military segregated. He had as much use for Negros as he had for the Japs he finally allowed to fight. Wilson was a real socialist and I believe FDR was as well, but man you never knew FDR the way I knew him. Wilson died before I was born but his presidency has dismayed me and shocked me.



Bingster snaps back:I'm not a wiki addict, but I do use it a lot on this forum, because it's a hell of a lot faster to cut and paste out of wiki than to thumb through hundreds of books I read and then retype. I don't read much on-line as apparently some of you do.

I always receive insults when posters can't argue my point.


Robert again: Well, I sure don't wish to insult you but please, mix up your books. I can tell you first learn what the book plans to say they you get it and read it. I think that applies to most of us. I was raised talking Democrat 101 so I can spot the fibs told by democrats.

Well folks, clearly you needed a former Democrat voter to fix his problem.

Fuzzy non logic happens when one tries to use one event as if it proves something entirely different.

I may be one of the rare posters who actually went to the congressional records to study in detail what took place during the civil rights fight. Once Johnson signed on, suddenly Democrats wanted all the credit. President Johnson says, in the record by the way, that he thanked Everett Dirksen a republican for helping him force his own party to get off their duffs and pull for civil rights. They were disgusted with Johnson for a long time. I speak of democrats of course. By the way, some Democrats actually did support those rights but they had one hell of a time trying to get the rest of the democrats to vote for the 64 civil rights law.

[gabosaurus]

One could argue the Civil War, though it was not the 'elected' US President that ordered the first shot. The meeting up at Lexington credits the British for 'moving back' the colonists, though Concord and their return to Boston was a different story all together.

I'm pretty sure the War of 1812 was begun by Americans, though one could argue that impressment of American seaman caused that event. While it ended up ending future conflicts with England, it was a silly war. We got a lot of patriotic symbolism from it though. ;)

The Civil War was just that, Americans attacking other Americans. It wasn't the U.S. fighting a foreign power.
My knowledge of the War of 1812 is entirely lacking, so I really don't know.
To my knowledge (which may be flawed), these are conflicts that the U.S. began as the aggressor against a foreign nation:

Mexican War of 1846
Spanish-American War
Grenada
Panama
Gulf War
Iraq-Afghanistan

Not to mention other conflicts that the U.S. instigated to begin "regime change." Primarily in Central and South America.

[Kathianne]

The Civil War was just that, Americans attacking other Americans. It wasn't the U.S. fighting a foreign power.
My knowledge of the War of 1812 is entirely lacking, so I really don't know.
To my knowledge (which may be flawed), these are conflicts that the U.S. began as the aggressor against a foreign nation:

Mexican War of 1846
Spanish-American War
Grenada
Panama
Gulf War
Iraq-Afghanistan

Not to mention other conflicts that the U.S. instigated to begin "regime change." Primarily in Central and South America.

Right from Slate, Gabby? So it was a rhetorical question, eh? A fair case can be made for each of these wars, but why would I bother, when you admit to being ignorant? You know no more about those you list, than that which you agree you are ignorant of.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/10/does_the_united_statesstart_wars.single.html

So, about the War of 1812?

[gabosaurus]

Right from Slate, Gabby? So it was a rhetorical question, eh? A fair case can be made for each of these wars, but why would I bother, when you admit to being ignorant? You know no more about those you list, than that which you agree you are ignorant of.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/10/does_the_united_statesstart_wars.single.html

So, about the War of 1812?

When the heck have I ever read Slate? The conflicts I listed are remedial history. And I admitted to knowing very little about the War of 1812.

[Kathianne]

When the heck have I ever read Slate? The conflicts I listed are remedial history. And I admitted to knowing very little about the War of 1812.

So defend why those wars were wars of aggression. No problem.

[gabosaurus]

So defend why those wars were wars of aggression. No problem.

Each was an invasion of a sovereign country. Making them all wars of aggression. What was our justification for any of these, other than than reasons that were justified by our own selfish reasons?

Of course, nothing beats the shame of America's involvement in Viet Nam. A conflict mismanaged to the point where our country was defeated and forced to withdraw.

[red states rule]

I'll admit, she's completely correct. But, please........

It's not just about party, Bush attacked a country that did not attack us!!! He trumped up b.s. evidence and was either incompetent or dishonest in presenting it. He also sanctioned torture. Lots of Republicans didn't like what Bush was doing, not just liberals.

Yes, if Bush was still president after all of the above, he would be impeached for this white paper, but after all of the above, it's not just a political double standard.

I think it's human nature for liberals to trust Obama more than Bush. But we are speaking out about the drone strikes. Nobody on the left is comfortable with this white paper and we want more information about it.

You are like most libs right now. If it is your guy killing terrorists - it is OK

Much like everything else the left was upset over during the Bush years, now the "outrage" has disappeared

Here a two lefties defending Obama and his drone attacks



<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=281 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119811" frameBorder=0 width=500 peppyCount="1" allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>

[Drummond]

I'll admit, she's completely correct. But, please........

It's not just about party, Bush attacked a country that did not attack us!!! He trumped up b.s. evidence and was either incompetent or dishonest in presenting it. He also sanctioned torture. Lots of Republicans didn't like what Bush was doing, not just liberals.

Yes, if Bush was still president after all of the above, he would be impeached for this white paper, but after all of the above, it's not just a political double standard.

I think it's human nature for liberals to trust Obama more than Bush. But we are speaking out about the drone strikes. Nobody on the left is comfortable with this white paper and we want more information about it.

... ah, an 'It's All Bush's Fault' post.

Tiresome Leftie rot, this ...

Needless to say, in typical propagandist Leftie fashion, you've just 'happened' to 'forget' the events of almost all of the 1990's ... and even before that, if you go back to Saddam's use of a WMD against the Kurds ..

There's just too long a recitation on this link of the events of the 1990's to copy and paste it all here. Just open the link, and READ IT.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218

You've two choices. One, you can admit that Iraq and its WMD's was such a long-standing, and UNRESOLVED, issue ... that Bush's eventual action in 2003 was not only deserved but if anything overdue, or .. for the sake of your ludicrous spin, you can try to show us that Bush was indeed responsible and culpable, by 'proving' to us that he was continually President from 1991 until 2008.

So which will it be, Bingster ? Admission of an ignored and politically undesirable truth, or, a trip into fantasy land ?

[Drummond]

Of course, nothing beats the shame of America's involvement in Viet Nam. A conflict mismanaged to the point where our country was defeated and forced to withdraw.

It takes a Leftie to regard a fight against Communist enslavement as something 'shameful'. So, there would've been a LACK of shame in NOT opposing the Communist force ?

But in any case, your statement is contradictory. If you're saying that the conflict was 'mismanaged' .. this has to surely mean that it would've been managed far better had American forces prevailed, and achieved ultimate victory ??

Yet .. you consider the America's 'involvement' to involve 'shame' !! Gabby, make up your mind.

[Drummond]

There is no solution to terrorism.

The IRA and others like them have been around for how many years?
The PLO and it's off shoots how many?

But calling it a war to justifiy killing terror suspects put MORE people in danger than. the old way of tracking and and attempting to thwart through other legal channels, Arrest on conspiracy charges, espionage charges, If possible cut off funding sources, , counter there proaganda, not give them more excuses to or real resons to be able to recuit if it's in our best interest.

but giving the prez a blank check to kill anyone is complete BS and is not a honest solution.

sounds good to some people " just shoot the B******eds". Makes some people feel like the jobs gettin done. but it's a tar pit.

Just think of how many people that have been released from Gitmo at this point. All of them were terrorist Supposedly. Supposedly with AlQueada, "the worst of the worst" is what Cheney and Bush called them. But one of the chief prosecutors at Gitmo resigned and other lawyers did as well, becuase the evidence was so thin, some coerced and the system of determining their guilt was so sketchy.
Now Obama is telling us now that he's "Agonizing" over the assassinations of these "bad guys" .
frankly I have no reason to believe that these people are any more guilty than those we've already released from gitmo, who were "the worst of the worst". At least at Gitmo they had some thin chance to get out one day. Now there's no way to even make a case, political or judicial, for your innocents.

There's no easy way to deal with terrorism but the President is not God or Big Brother and should not be killing people for PRE-crimes or Thought crimes by his own will - really his advisers- and that all in secret.

If they are that dangerous let the regular legal process happen- investigation, law enforcement, covert ops then military if necessary. But not this radio shack sci-fi tyranny.

A couple of comments.

Starting with .. 'There is no solution to terrorism' ... well, if there was just one thing which terrorist groups across the world would love you to believe .. wouldn't it be EXACTLY THAT ?

So, in peddling that disgusting rot, Revelarts, aren't you doing the terrorists' jobs for them ?

If, as you say, there's no solution to it, you have to be saying that any efforts expended to curb it, or wipe it out, are fruitless. Meaning .. YOU ADVOCATE SURRENDERING TO IT ??

Admit it .. you're a bog-standard LEFTIE, aren't you ?? Who else but a shameless Leftie (- terrorists notwithstanding -) would peddle such defeatism ?

Next, to ... 'The IRA and others like them have been around for how many years?'

Your use of the present tense is taken to mean that you think they still exist (or that you want others to believe that). Well .. NOPE ...

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/adams-government-should-not-apologise-for-ira-567282.html


He added that the IRA no longer exists before criticising paramilitary displays at the funeral of Real IRA boss Alan Ryan in Dublin. Shots were fired over his coffin by masked men.

"The IRA is gone," said the Co Louth TD. "We should not confuse those little maverick groups who paraded around this city recently. We should not confuse them with the IRA.

There may be perhaps small, quite insignificant splinter groups out there .. but the IRA itself is GONE.

Now, Revelarts, here's the truth you'd doubtless not want to dwell on. The IRA was DEFEATED. The IRA spent decades waging its chosen 'war' through terrorism, but the UK never, NEVER, yielded to them to any appreciable degree throughout that time (.. and Mrs Thatcher's defiance of them was magnificent!). The one and only way the IRA ever achieved anything at all .. and their chief aim, that of a united Ireland, never was achieved .. was by turning to peace.

So, your rot is exposed as the rot it IS. Terrorism CAN be defeated, it WAS defeated, and how ?BY NEVER GIVING IN TO IT.

You may not like the fact that this completely defies your defeatist line. But, there it is. The moral bankruptcy of the Leftie approach is easily discernible.

As for the rest of your post, it all adds up to an argument to push the line that you might as well be as soft on terrorists or suspected terrorists as it's possible to be. You offer NO solutions, ONLY DEFEATISM.

Well ... I for one find that offensive, and especially since we Brits PROVE you wrong.

Revelarts, here's the simple truth. Never yield to terrorism, never be soft on it, ALWAYS fight it, and you can prevail, and triumph. You can show terrorists that their savagery can have no future .. just by exercising enough of a backbone to stay the course.

Maybe that's not the Leftie way. I say ... TOUGH. SURRENDER TO THAT SCUM SHOULD NEVER BE AN OPTION.

And here's my final point. I say - you should do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. I don't care what it takes, so long as the necessary effort is expended. Thus .. I say that drones are fine. Their use should continue, perhaps be intensified.

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. Take note, in all of the responses to this thread from Liberals, Dems, and Progressives...how their One, Predictable method of BLAME always surfaces whenever they can't, or won't rely on Honest, Factual information to make their point.

Gabby inserting her facts about Vietnam are like combining Black paint to Black paint...hoping it will change to White paint.

[revelarts]

A couple of comments.

Starting with .. 'There is no solution to terrorism' ... well, if there was just one thing which terrorist groups across the world would love you to believe .. wouldn't it be EXACTLY THAT ?
blah blah blah...

did you even read anything past IRA?

what is it about using law enforcement and military under the law that you didn't catch. or that sounded like "let them win".

you making a a Straw Godzilla to knock down Drummond. Re read my post and quote me where i said "give up".
Stop trying to shoe horn this into you narrow leftright hole.

I stand by my statement, Just like there's no final solution to crime, it can be reduced yes but there is no solution to "terrorism". specific terrorist groups might fade away but there will always be "terrorism" as long as there are humans with grievances they feel aren't being addressed.
There's no solution to that problem.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/so-is-it-true-that-the-ira-has-not-really-gone-away-28781308.html

[Drummond]

did you even read anything past IRA?

I briefly skimmed it. I admit, I have an intolerance to Leftie BS, which affects my attention span after a few moments ...


what is it about using law enforcement and military under the law that you didn't catch. or that sounded like "let them win".

I caught the sense of the piece ... you want authorities tied up in as much procedure as can be managed, with as little 'get up and go' proactivity driving them as possible.

If you like, I'll cite evidence of the conclusion .. if I must. Surely, though, anyone reading your post will recognise I have a point.


you making a a Straw Godzilla to knock down Drummond. Re read my post and quote me where i said "give up".
Stop trying to shoe horn this into you narrow leftright hole.

Even though you don't use the words 'give up', to say that there's no solution to terrorism is the same as insisting that people resign themselves to it as a permanent fact of life. How doesn't that add up to surrendering to it ??? Have everyone believe that it cannot be stopped will kill the effort TO DO JUST THAT.


I stand by my statement, Just like there's no final solution to crime, it can be reduced yes but there is no solution to "terrorism". specific terrorist groups might fade away but there will always be "terrorism" as long as there are humans with grievances they feel aren't being addressed.
There's no solution to that problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually have no need to answer you more than this.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/so-is-it-true-that-the-ira-has-not-really-gone-away-28781308.html

:lame2::lame2::lame2:

I suggest you read your own link !!!


... All of which adds to the intrigue surrounding the charges preferred which relate to events around 1999/2000 when the ink on the Good Friday Agreement had well and truly dried.

The IRA though was still active then and has remained so since the turn of the century which begs the question - why did the PSNI decide to process perhaps new information but certainly information relating to 'old' matters.

Proceedings in Laganside Court last week indicated that the five against whom charges were preferred deny committing the offences which include belonging to a proscribed organisation "namely Provisional Irish Republican Army" between specified dates.

They are also accused of arranging or assisting in the management of a meeting by PIRA and supporting a proscribed organisation on dates in 2000. Surely this was not to do with the organising of an Army Convention to confirm the disbandment of the IRA?
Where are any RECENT activities mentioned ?

And why is 'disbandment of the IRA' even getting a mention, if they truly remain active and any form of force to be reckoned with ??

Revelarts, you've cited an opinion-piece (at best) centred around issues current A DECADE AGO. And you want people to infer from this that the IRA remains undefeated, in order to prop up your DEFEATIST contention that terrorism is ultimately unbeatable.

:lame2:

[revelarts]

I briefly skimmed it. I admit, I have an intolerance to Leftie BS, which affects my attention span after a few moments ...


I caught the sense of the piece ... you want authorities tied up in as much procedure as can be managed, with as little 'get up and go' proactivity driving them as possible.
If you like, I'll cite evidence of the conclusion .. if I must. Surely, though, anyone reading your post will recognise I have a point.

..use...the old way of tracking and and attempting to thwart through other legal channels, Arrest on conspiracy charges, espionage charges, If possible cut off funding sources, , counter there proaganda, not give them more excuses to or real reasons to be able to recuit if it's in our best interest....
If they are that dangerous let the regular legal process happen- investigation, law enforcement, covert ops then military if necessary. But not this radio shack sci-fi tyranny.

If Any honest person reads what i wrote above they would NOT IN ANYWAY assume it's equal to giving up Drummond. It's completely dishonest of you to imply that it is.
your honest enough to admit you didn't even read it. I'd appreciate it if you'd admit you've falsely represented my comments as well.




Even though you don't use the words 'give up', to say that there's no solution to terrorism is the same as insisting that people resign themselves to it as a permanent fact of life. How doesn't that add up to surrendering to it ??? Have everyone believe that it cannot be stopped will kill the effort TO DO JUST THAT....


Do we give up on policing crime Drummond? Yes or NO?

[Drummond]

If Any honest person reads what i wrote above they would NOT IN ANYWAY assume it's equal to giving up Drummond. It's completely dishonest of you to imply that it is.

your honest enough to admit you didn't even read it. I'd appreciate it if you'd admit you've falsely represented my comments as well.

Here's your post again, IN ITS ENTIRETY ... not just cherry-picked bits ...


There is no solution to terrorism.

The IRA and others like them have been around for how many years?
The PLO and it's off shoots how many?

But calling it a war to justifiy killing terror suspects put MORE people in danger than. the old way of tracking and and attempting to thwart through other legal channels, Arrest on conspiracy charges, espionage charges, If possible cut off funding sources, , counter there proaganda, not give them more excuses to or real resons to be able to recuit if it's in our best interest.

but giving the prez a blank check to kill anyone is complete BS and is not a honest solution.

sounds good to some people " just shoot the B******eds". Makes some people feel like the jobs gettin done. but it's a tar pit.

Just think of how many people that have been released from Gitmo at this point. All of them were terrorist Supposedly. Supposedly with AlQueada, "the worst of the worst" is what Cheney and Bush called them. But one of the chief prosecutors at Gitmo resigned and other lawyers did as well, becuase the evidence was so thin, some coerced and the system of determining their guilt was so sketchy.
Now Obama is telling us now that he's "Agonizing" over the assassinations of these "bad guys" .
frankly I have no reason to believe that these people are any more guilty than those we've already released from gitmo, who were "the worst of the worst". At least at Gitmo they had some thin chance to get out one day. Now there's no way to even make a case, political or judicial, for your innocents.

There's no easy way to deal with terrorism but the President is not God or Big Brother and should not be killing people for PRE-crimes or Thought crimes by his own will - really his advisers- and that all in secret.

If they are that dangerous let the regular legal process happen- investigation, law enforcement, covert ops then military if necessary. But not this radio shack sci-fi tyranny.

Note the words in blue font.

All I've changed into blue font ... with the wording itself otherwise left unchanged .. is designed to make the reader think negatively about being properly, enthusiastically proactive against terrorists. You EVEN include a form of wording hinting at some possible 'innocence' involved where Gitmo detainees were concerned !!! And my own wording, said this:


you want authorities tied up in as much procedure as can be managed, with as little 'get up and go' proactivity driving them as possible.

I believe I've proved my point.

You want authorities going after terrorists to be mired in red tape when making the effort. If any are captured and placed in Gitmo, we need to see them as 'quite possibly innocent', therefore, their incarceration there may be 'some form of diabolical liberty'.

Oh, and to top it all, ALL of this needs to happen within a context which governs all of it .. that ... I quote ....


There is no solution to terrorism.


Do we give up on policing crime Drummond? Yes or NO?

Terrorism is WORSE, DEMANDING A SPECIAL EFFORT. As I've said before, Revelarts, I believe we in the West are in a race against time to make sure, and to do it PERMANENTLY, to keep WMD's out of the hands of terrorists.

We aren't talking bank robberies here, or muggings in alleyways. We're talking about savages who want to kill, indiscriminately, in large numbers !

NO LEVEL OF FATALISM IN THE FACE OF ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE OPTION ...

... though Lefties are too busy launching 'Be Kind To Terrorists' weeks to care ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here's your post again, IN ITS ENTIRETY ... not just cherry-picked bits ...



Note the words in blue font.

All I've changed into blue font ... with the wording itself otherwise left unchanged .. is designed to make the reader think negatively about being properly, enthusiastically proactive against terrorists. You EVEN include a form of wording hinting at some possible 'innocence' involved where Gitmo detainees were concerned !!! And my own wording, said this:



I believe I've proved my point.

You want authorities going after terrorists to be mired in red tape when making the effort. If any are captured and placed in Gitmo, we need to see them as 'quite possibly innocent', therefore, their incarceration there may be 'some form of diabolical liberty'.

Oh, and to top it all, ALL of this needs to happen within a context which governs all of it .. that ... I quote ....





Terrorism is WORSE, DEMANDING A SPECIAL EFFORT. As I've said before, Revelarts, I believe we in the West are in a race against time to make sure, and to do it PERMANENTLY, to keep WMD's out of the hands of terrorists.

We aren't talking bank robberies here, or muggings in alleyways. We're talking about savages who want to kill, indiscriminately, in large numbers !

NO LEVEL OF FATALISM IN THE FACE OF ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE OPTION ...

... though Lefties are too busy launching 'Be Kind To Terrorists' weeks to care ...

We must--

--------------------- never never never , ever ever give up!

Islam will soon reveal that it is the greatest enemy to mankind ever known..

[taft2012]

I do agree there needs to be judicial review.

Where does the US Constitution place Commander-in-Chief military decisions under the reivew of the judiciary?

So I guess the concerns about slippery slopes are not genuine here, because this one's a doozy.

[fj1200]

^When it's not a military decision. :slap:

[taft2012]

I stand by my statement, Just like there's no final solution to crime, it can be reduced yes but there is no solution to "terrorism". specific terrorist groups might fade away but there will always be "terrorism" as long as there are humans with grievances they feel aren't being addressed.
There's no solution to that problem.



There's no single "solution" to international authoritarian imperialism either, which made World War II what? A waste of time?

There was a solution to the specific examples of Japanese, German, and Italian authoritarian imperialism. Since then the world has generally been chilling out on that particular front of invading and annexing neighbors.

Making the likelihood of a lasting success a very remote possibility makes the attractiveness of the terrorism option less appealing. Just like Mexicans in their hearts would love to invade Texas and California and re-annex them...

[taft2012]

^When it's not a military decision. :slap:

Which it is.

[fj1200]

Which it is.

No. Using the military to carry out non-military decisions doesn't make it a military decision.

[taft2012]

No. Using the military to carry out non-military decisions doesn't make it a military decision.

So, like bombing an aircraft plant in Berlin in 1945 would have been a non-military target because there were no military people within?

[fj1200]

So, like bombing an aircraft plant in Berlin in 1945 would have been a non-military target because there were no military people within?

Wow, you really don't understand the issue do you?

[taft2012]

Wow, you really don't understand the issue do you?

No, I understand the issue quite well.

I suspect you understand where answering this question will lead, which is why you consciously ducked it.

[fj1200]

No, I understand the issue quite well.

I suspect you understand where answering this question will lead, which is why you consciously ducked it.

How about we started where you aren't confusing declared wars with undeclared and foreigners with citizens?

[red states rule]

I can see libs like Gabby and Bing telling FDR he has to get a Judge to sign off on a Court Order before the US can start bombing cities in Germany or Japan.

[fj1200]

I can see libs like Gabby and Bing telling FDR he has to get a Judge to sign off on a Court Order before the US can start bombing cities in Germany or Japan.


How about we started where you aren't confusing declared wars with undeclared and foreigners with citizens?

ibid.

[red states rule]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/K/_/4/obama-drones.jpg

[taft2012]

How about we started where you aren't confusing declared wars with undeclared and foreigners with citizens?

:rolleyes: Oh, good Lord. Here, I'll save us a lot time by rehashing a decade's worth of debate on the topic....

Me: OK, so what is the Constitutional template the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution for "formal" declarations of war?

After much back and forth you either agree or do a Gabby, because there is no Constitutional template for declaring war. The Commander-in-Chief has the ability to make war, and the Congress has the power to stop it. When the Commander-in-Chief orders bombs dropped on your head, and the Congress has been paying for it for over a decade... guess what? You can safely assume the USA is making war against you.

Moving on...

I must assume you agree with the premise that the aircraft factory in Berlin is a legitimate military target, even though there are no military personnel inside... Fantastic, we agree.

Now... whoever said they were foreigners in that aircraft factory? My example is that this particular factory is owned by an American with Nazi sympathies and staffed with American engineers.

Now what would you have had FDR or HST do in this instance? Would they have had to go to a judge first to get approval prior to bombing the aircraft plant? And what would the judge say? Due process protects life *AND* property... so even if the factory was empty of American citizens for an overnight bombing run, this American's property would still be protected by the due process clause (by your logic)... If the judiciary had its way, this aircraft factory would continue making planes for the enemy until our ground troops reached Berlin and could arrest the American aircraft plant owner. Do you really think that scenario would have been intended by the Founders?

So while the executive branch and the judiciary go back and forth in a military operational debate that the Constitution doesn't cover, aircraft continue to roll out of the factory, killing American soldiers.

Who will the American people hold responsible for the unnecessary military casualties? The President or the judiciary? Who do the American people elect and expect to lead the country on military matters? The President or the judiciary?

...it's quite simple, but of course none of the questions will be answered.

[fj1200]

:rolleyes: Oh, good Lord. Here, I'll save us a lot time by rehashing a decade's worth of debate on the topic..
...
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/strawman.jpg
...
...it's quite simple, but of course none of the questions will be answered.

I see we are in agreement with your first sentence. Nevertheless I was contemplating addressing your post piece by piece but it's clear that you still don't understand the issue, or are just completely avoiding it, and only wish to raise an army of strawmen, who may or may not be Americans in Nazi uniform :rolleyes:, that no one here has really taken the other side on. Are we talking about a declared war where or other action where clear military force is expected/required? No. Or are we talking about specific actions where an American citizens is targeted? Yes.

I can see though how it is "simple" to you.

[taft2012]

I see we are in agreement with your first sentence. Nevertheless I was contemplating addressing your post piece by piece but it's clear that you still don't understand the issue, or are just completely avoiding it, and only wish to raise an army of strawmen, who may or may not be Americans in Nazi uniform :rolleyes:, that no one here has really taken the other side on. Are we talking about a declared war where or other action where clear military force is expected/required? No. Or are we talking about specific actions where an American citizens is targeted? Yes.

I can see though how it is "simple" to you.

What questions do you stubbornly cling to regarding the status of this war? Two presidential administrations have been carrying it out and Congress has been funding it for over a decade.

Are you one of those guys who sits around waiting for your blind date to show up until the staff starts sweeping up and putting chairs on top of the tables?

[fj1200]

What questions do you stubbornly cling to regarding the status of this war? Two presidential administrations have been carrying it out and Congress has been funding it for over a decade.

Thank you for admitting again that you have no idea the issue being discussed. You can either read back through the thread closely to see exactly where you got off track or for the shorter version... read the thread title. :slap:


Are you one of those guys who sits around waiting for your blind date to show up until the staff starts sweeping up and putting chairs on top of the tables?

I'm sorry that you got stood up too many times... but I can see why.

[red states rule]

Why the hell would anyone ne upset over Obama using the drones? Besides the blatant double standards the left and peacenik crowd is showing given how they were screaming about "Bush the war criminal" - at least these terrorist bastards will not be waterboarded

What you rather have? Terrorists blown to bits or have water squirted down their nose?

[taft2012]

Why the hell would anyone ne upset over Obama using the drones? Besides the blatant double standards the left and peacenik crowd is showing given how they were screaming about "Bush the war criminal" - at least these terrorist bastards will not be waterboarded

What you rather have? Terrorists blown to bits or have water squirted down their nose?

The "pothead conservative" perspective only recognizes the due process aspect of the Constitution in this matter. The war powers placed in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief merely annoys them in their little quest to protect their stash.

When the war powers are pointed out to them, they retreat to their liberal roots and grasp at the long-disproven liberal saw horse of "this isn't a declared war"....