Reply With Quote
sadly hilarious per the usual
sadly hilarious per the usual
We should have put boots on the ground and invaded Japan in 1945 rather than dropped two atomic bombs! Sure, Japan's surrender would have taken much longer, it would have cost god only knows how much more money, and the lives lost during the actual invasion would have made Normandy Beach look like child's play, but we would have had boots on the ground!
All situations are different.
had boots on the ground in iraq and ended up paying them not to kill us. lol
bone head thinks it means something.
Would it have been more honorable to attack with troops instead of use the nuke? If so, is that a preferable outcome?
I think you know the answer to that.
Why are you standing up for this excessive use of aerial bombs and missiles, in areas not designated war zones?
The most important thing would be that they could never call us cowards.
I don't know; that is why I asked. In fact, many have argued that the use of nuclear bombs was excessive.
I'd like to know what you define as "excessive". And, technically speaking, any area with a terrorist seems to be deemed a 'war zone' in the current climate. (I disagree with that, but it does seem to be the current understanding.)
We were at war with Japan. We are not at war with the nations the terrorists reside in.
Doesn't that matter to you?
"Boots on the ground" somehow being more "honorable" than drones when our Cons ution is getting shredded and our reputation is being ruined either way
Using that logic, we wouldn't be allowed to put boots on the ground in those countries either if those countries disagreed. It seems most countries that would agree to boots on the ground would also agree to drone/missile strikes. Additionally, you didn't answer my question about the "honor" of using nukes. Do you think that once we formally declare war, any weapon we use is considered "honorable"?
Also, you never answered how many cruise missiles are too many.
Well, continue rationalizing this excessive force. I see I'm not going to get through to you.
How are using drone strikes more "excessive" than using troops on the ground? Do you think troops on the ground as much more surgical? Sure, special ops are likely to be so, but not your average company or platoon. They make mistakes, kill innocents, etc etc as well.
Now, if you think that drone strikes are too prevalent, and we should require stricter standards, then sure, I could go with that. But that's not replacing a drone with a soldier, that's just choosing to be more picky about our targets.
I've been arguing on this board for a long time that using excessive force will likely lead to more terrorists. I'm glad you agree with me. I've also argued we should reduce our overseas presence for the same reasons.
Finally, we have to weigh the costs of sending an actual soldier to do the job instead of the drone. We might have a more surgical strike, but you're risking a soldier's life, which is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Additionally, you're adding an unknown amount of dollars to the cost of America's budget in the future, since it costs more to support a human being than a drone.
Bingo. No amount of saved lives and saved money can measure up to the assurance that your enemy doesn't think you're a coward.
Continue rationalizing the War in Iraq as something that was done with honor because we had "boots on the ground". I see that you'll come up with whatever warped logic is needed to justify foreign policy decisions from team red.
IMO, Hitler had much better foreign policy than Obama. His Nazi death camps like Auschwitz might have been used for the sole purpose of gassing millions innocent people to death, but rounding up Jews and locking them in a gas chamber required boots on the ground. Maybe Obama's foreign policy has only led to a tiny fraction of civilian death's that Hitler's foreign policy led to, but I don't think anyone ever questioned the level of honor Hitler displayed by using boots on the ground to commit genocide. Hitler > Bush > Obama as far as foreign policy goes.
The honorable Obama..
.
A boy named "Adam"
"If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who's being targeted, and why."
-- Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union
Largely thanks to a complicit corporate-state news media, the story of a U.S. teenager executed without trial by the government has largely gone under the radar.
The teen -- who we will temporarily refer to as "Adam" -- was born on August 26, 1995 at approximately 1:16 pm in Denver, Colorado. Like many Americans, Adam came to enjoy watching movies, playing football, computer games, and swimming.
Following the attacks of 9/11, the father of Adam -- also a U.S. citizen -- was invited to a luncheon at the Pentagon designed to encourage religious tolerance.
In late 2002, Adam and his father moved to Britain, and then Yemen in 2004.
In 2008, U.S. intelligence agencies made the claim that the father of Adam had been a "spiritual counselor" for some of the 9/11 hijackers and had also assisted in various terror plots. The following year, Adam's father went into hiding, but this wouldn't deter his son from eventually setting off to try and find him.
Around 6:30 am on September 4th, 2011, Adam quietly slipped away from his family home in Sana, Yemen, leaving behind a note for his mother. "I am sorry for leaving in this kind of way," he wrote. "Forgive me. I miss my father and want to see if I can go and talk to him."
Yet as it turned out, Adam would never get a chance to talk to his father. That's because on the 30th of September, Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama authorized two U.S. predator drones to kill the man. For this U.S. citizen, there would be no trial, no jury - just a mere accusation of guilt by faceless officials and a subsequent execution.
Shortly after news of his father's death surfaced, Adam, his 17-year-old cousin with whom he had been staying, and a few other friends set up a barbeque and celebrated their last night together. Adam called his mother and planned to return home the next day, a promise to be broken against his best intentions. He would never see her again.
As the teens chatted and ate dinner, brave aerial drones quietly sailed through Yemen's clear October skies, watching intently from above with powerful robotic eyes and patiently awaiting further orders. Eventually, such orders came and, with the press of a button, missiles shattered the night's calm like a stone to glass and screamed through the air before plowing into the teens without warning and engulfing them in a suffocating inferno which neither escaped from alive.
Desperate to justify their actions, the U.S. government initially claimed Adam had been in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and that the intended target of the drones was a "senior al-Qaeda operative" named Ibrahim al-Banna, a man who later turned up alive and well.
Moreover, news media reports at the time went so far as to suggest that Adam was not a teenager, but a grown man with ties to al-Qaeda, an utterly baseless claim, but not one without a purpose. Referring to Adam as "military-age" at the time of death meant that by international protocols he would therefore be considered a legitimate target.
Still, even supposing one looks beyond the blatant violation of international protocols, what is to be said of those in a domestic sense? What kind of precedent is being established when U.S. citizens can be targeted for assassination by their government without trial? If it can happen to Adam and his father, who might be next? Why aren't these questions being asked?
Perhaps these questions aren't being asked because Adam's name is actually Abdulrahman, and when a foreign-sounding name like his is thrown across American news media outlets, nobody really seems all too concerned by it. Yet, if the headlines had in fact read "Adam" instead of "Abdulrahman", how differently would this have played out?
The establishment of such a dangerous precedent remains entirely dependent on continued complacency by the public. If the government can get away with killing U.S. citizens without trial overseas, how long will it be until the killings come home?
In May 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration began streamlining the licensing process for public agencies to "safely" fly drones, with law enforcement a prime target.
During that same month, The Huffington Post reported on the case of Rodney Brossart, the first U.S. citizen to be arrested using an unmanned drone.
Where was Rodney arrested? Pakistan? Yemen? Try North Dakota.
Make no mistake: the drones are coming, and the death of "Adam" and his father may only be the beginning.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
"I really feel disappointed that this crime is going to be forgotten. I think the American people ought to know what really happened and how the power of their government is being abused by this Administration. Americans should start asking why a boy was targeted for killing. In addition to my grandson's killing, the missile killed my brother's grandson, who was a 17-year-old kid, who was not an American citizen but is a human being, killed in cold blood. I cannot comprehend how my teenage grandson was killed by a fire missile, how nothing was left of him except small pieces of flesh. Why? Is America safer now that a boy was killed? ... I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer."-- Nasser al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman's grandfather
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Robert Gibbs, former White House Press Secretary and a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, was asked in October 2012 about the death of Abdulrahman, to which he smugly replied that the teen should have had a "far more responsible father".
Where is the outrage?
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
See also:
Murder Made Easy - Two different studies offer new insight into the psychology behind killing, but what does it mean for the future of aerial drone warfare?
The United States of Predator Drones- From Afghanistan to Yemen, from Yemen to Mexico, from Mexico to your back yard, drone use has drastically expanded and shows no signs of slowing down
A brief history of George W. Obama - Has the same U.S. President been in office for the last 11 years? The following timeline covers key events between 2001-2012
Posted 18th October 2012 by Jonathan Reynolds
If you study the layers that's definitely forged. My guess is he was an Islamic operative from Kenya.
Wild Cobra, you are completely wrong here.
I mean, there is no way you could be more wrong. Here's why:Please don't try to mitigate or ignore your error.
If you study the layers that's definitely forged. My guess is he was an Islamic operative from Kenya.
lol guess
Going off what I learned from the Trump-Arpaio school of birth certificate analysis, it's not much of a guess other than what country he's actually from. That's definitely forged judging by the layers, and he's definitely an Islamic operative from Kenya or a surrounding country.
BS, he was an American. And he wasn't even accused of a crime. He was a 16 year old American boy, targeted, assassinated, no due process.
It was murder. Obama is a murderer that needs to stand trial, period.
The fact you can't figure out what I'm doing just shows how dense and horribly stupid you are. I'd normally keep the act up for a few more posts but you're so gullible it's not even fun.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
