why do u even respond to my posts. just ignore them. after today, thats what i'll do with yours. good day
I agree with this. It makes it easier to draw in followers to your cause in the belief that America is evil, when America is doing some pretty foul shit
And it's easy to say that democracy is just a fig leaf over traditional hereditary rule when the most powerful democracy in history spends two generations supporting hereditary tinpot dictators all around the world while the same families dominate the democratic process in that country.
I understand the attraction of both doing nothing, which has the virtue of being easy, and simple concepts. But I am afraid those approaches do not work here. The War in Iraq failed for reasons having nothing to do with drones. No need to say more about that case here, as far as the real reasons it failed. I am not so sure I would say the war in Afghanistan is/was a failure in the same respect. The goal there initially was largely met, which was revenge against al Qaeda and the Taliban. al Qaeda's capabilities have been substantially diminished, and we have no reason to think they would have been anything but stronger if we had done nothing, particularly to them in their safe haven in Afghanistan. Drones also had nothing to do with al Qaeda's decision to attack the World Trade Center, both times. Current examples of outbreaks of muslim fundamentalism, such as in Egypt, have much more to do with disatisfaction with their own governments than with US military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere. You paint with too broad a brush. Back to drones - I do think the situation can be improved, as I suggested, and due process strengthened. And there should be further analysis whether there might be unintended consequences to their use which mitigatet their effectiveness. But there is nothing I think that is inherently more bad than good about them.
Why do you post here if you cannot take criticism of the subject matter of your posts? If you want to only have people agree with you, you can always call into Rush's show. Or Beck's.
As I said to Biggs earlier, islamic fanatics committed 9-11 before drones existed. I AM concerned about the effects of tactics, but it is simply nonsense to think the hatred of the arab world against the US has mostly to do with justifiable anger at this or that military tactic. They hate us for our freedom and our economic ascendency. We are a reproach to their whole worldview and set of "principles". That is what it is about, not drones.
It isn't nonsense to think that as revolution after revolution moves across the mid-east and Africa the US response is an example of how democracy really works. We have had attacks all over the world since 9-11. The question isn't do we have real enemies, we do, the question is how much power do we give the President and is legal oversight going to limit our ability to protect ourselves within reason. As you have pointed out there is no oversight and while Obama is a nice democrat with impeccable legal credentials, he isn't going to be in the White House for all that long. He is codifying assassination by Presidential fiat. Hardly reasonable. Doing nothing is not my preferred method. This is why a guy like Ron Paul has zero attraction to me. I have lived through this kind of Presidential power grabs in the past and I don't see them as having a good outcome. The law generally is the best way to proceed and war is still best left to a United Country with Congress involved and a public army carrying out the orders of the Commander and Chief.
I don't buy this. Drones were not the beginning of American misconduct. And if they hate us because of our "freedom" or "economic ascendency" it has more to do with how we acquired it and/or how we can be a nation of people bitching and complaining at the same time our obesity rates are soaring because we eat for taste when people over there eat what they can to survive because we have raped the rest of the world of their natural resources. That is just an example. I never thought too much of the idea that they hate us because of a set of principles. It is that our principles step on the toes of everyone else. And then on top of that we don't even practice the principles that we declare so valuable. And then we use violation of said principles as an excuse to invade foreign lands. But only if there is something to gain.
U.S. broader focus a result of winding down the War on Terror and China's escalation of the SCS territorial claims. SCSI ---> increased U.S. attention; not the other way around.
It's called "imperialism" and "militarism", the same reason we hated Great Britain in 1775 (unless you solely attribute that to Americans hating the Brit's freedom and economic ascendancy...).
Ok, so there was nothing in the recent Presidential campaign put out by the GOP candidates that would have made me vote for them. And, there was much in the broader GOP platform that made me not vote for them. That being said, I've just about had it with the democratic party and the President's obsession with tax increases to solve every problem. Not to mention the President's most recent speeches not really addressing the debt, but only really focusing on spending more to save every last soul in America. I am shocked that the democrats are really going to go all in on expanding this current debt situation, rather than attempt to be responsible and do the adult thing. It would seem that the goal is only to increase the base by reaching out to more and more folks who they hope will be grateful. At the wider expense of the country itself. That being said, the GOP is still not a viable alternative just because it's reasonable thinking adults have all been evicted or marginalized by a cult of religious female hating medieval war mongering racist jokers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/sequester-state-of-play-r_n_2689312.html
US broader focus is a result of China's increases in military spending over the last decade and their much more aggressive foreign policy posture, first in Africa as a test bed from 1998 onwards and now in South East Asia and on their periphery in general. The pivot to the broader focus on the region looks slow for a reason, it was first proposed in 2005 and then got derailed somewhat by the surge in Iraq and the related military and political action required to follow through on that. One of the main reasons that Bob Gates was retained by President Obama was that he was a key point man in the effort and a big supporter of it. His job was to be the lynch-pin in the process while the State Department transitioned to the new administration and Hillary got up to speed. He left after that was well-established. The new Secretary of State is an old South East Asia hand, having fought there in the 60's and 70's. The incoming Secretary of Defense (hopefully) is also a Vietnam vet. Their job is to make the pivot work and finish off what Gates started and Hillary shepherded over the last three years. The key aim of the pivot is to keep China in a productive role in the region and world economy without allowing them to assert a Monroe-ish doctrine over the areas on the periphery of their territorial claims. The risks in the situation extend to World War III at the worst levels. That's why everything is happening at such a glacial pace.
Have to say that the Republican defeat of Hagel should be an embarasment to the entire country. Any thought that Lindsey Graham and John Mcain were either moderate or willing to work toward a better country has been put to rest. The Republican party is a complete joke right now. Doesn't mean I agree with the Democratic agenda or much of the policy but you can't close your eyes to this kind of slap at the President during a time when we have soldiers in combat.
People aren't closing their eyes. 2014 is going to be a lot rougher for Republicans than it ought to be. If Hillary runs in 2016 it's probably going to be the wipeout election we've been waiting for over the last two decades. West Virginia wouldn't vote for Obama but they will landslide for Hillary over whatever nominee the Republicans put up, so will about a dozen other states that have been firewalls for the Republicans in their time of mass insanity.
Bah. Chuck Hagel is dumb as a stump, and we DO have a perfectly fine SecDef until a qualified replacement is found. The soldiers in the field are better served if we find a better candidate and not rush a dunce into office.
Republicans are treating government like a winner-takes-all death struggle and they've been doing this since President Obama was elected in 2008. The problem with the approach is that if you lose there's nothing left.
Such empty silliness. Doom isn't as close as you seem to always think. Let's keep in mind that the popular vote broke thing, and Mitt Romney carried more congressional districts. Which is to say, this isn't a president who gets the benefit of any doubt from the general public and, as we've seen time and again, doesn't play well campaigning for anyone but himself. The midterm vote can be an angry vote, for sure, but angry on behalf of this president? I doubt it. You're creating a voting class that doesn't now exist, and it'll have to whip together pretty quickly to do what you think it will. What's remarkable is how the president continues to choose paths and policy that we know don't work, while standing in the way of those we do. Green energy is wonderful. I'm working that angle myself. But opening up Keystone and freeing up public lands to shale gas fracking would create just the sort of boom he would need to ride his OTHER policy choices across the finish line. Instead, he's focused on small battles. I suppose he sees fighting for an increase in the minimum wage a a way to create a populist groundswell of support. Leaving aside the regressive harm it would do, it's such a minuscule fraction of the working population that people just yawn. This is a man who called a gaggle of presidential historians to the White House to discuss the qualities of great presidents; presumably because he had visions of his place in history. In the end, he WILL be a historically significant president. Although, I imagine he wanted it to be for something more substantial than just skin color.
The first cabinet nominee filibustered in the history of the country and you're still talking as if you guys are playing the right game. Just remember when it happens that nobody did it to you guys, you did it to yourself.
