Are Democrats the new Neocons?

[Rion]

At the very least, we can now put to rest that the Republican Party is the pro-war, anti-liberty party. Oh, you can make a case for it, but what I mean is that we now know that the Democratic party is just as willing, if not more so, as the Republican party to take part in war-mongering and not only violating constitutional rights, but human rights as well.

Jeremy Scahil exposes Mass-Murderer Barack Obama - YouTube


If 24 minutes is too long for you:
A) Get some medicine for that ADHD you're suffering from and...
B) TLDW version: US Election 2012 || Obama Drone Strikes Are 'Mass Murder' - Jeremy Scahill - YouTube

So congratuations. Your guy won four more years, and all that was required was to show that it wasn't what Bush was doing that the left hated so much, it was simply Bush.

Yes, I know Romney agreed with Obama, but morality doesn't work that way. One cannot simply go "Oh well, the other guy will murder children too, might as well benefit from it, if it's going to happen!" Well, a person can, but it just makes them a horrible hypocrite. In most cases, there were third-party options. Sure, Obama would have lost, but having morals sometimes mean losing so that you can take a stand for what is right. It would have sent a clear message to the Democratic Party that their members would not stand with a man who has doubled down on Bush's war policy. Instead, the moral high ground on the murdering of innocents, warmongering, and the protection of our civil rights has been lost to either party. No amount of hoping otherwise can change that.

The one cavet I have to this statement is for those who, like myself, were in states that did not have third-party options. I'd be interested in learning why you chose to vote for Obama over Romney in this case. For my own part, I picked Romney partly because I figured the media would once again be out decrying these barbaric actions, and not simply ignoring them for the most part.

 

[stamperben]

War is good for business, both Dem and GOP. Drones make profits for the manufacturer of them. The missiles ditto. It's not the political party that advocates war, but those who finance the parties who do.

 

[Illuminaughty]

War is good for business, both Dem and GOP. Drones make profits for the manufacturer of them. The missiles ditto. It's not the political party that advocates war, but those who finance the parties who do.

Have leverage on both sides and you are set no matter who wins.

 

[JBJoe]

There are a lot of Democrats who are profoundly opposed to the war. Plenty in this very forum.

I don't like the Drone strikes because, as we've seen, precision-guided weapons are sometimes precision-guided into imprecisely chosen targets. That said, the Drone strikes are a good suppression tool and if Benghazi has taught us anything it is that the risks associated with non-suppression is your political opponents using any uprising, even one that you decisively win with a 15:1 kill ratio, will be used for cheap partisan sniping.

 

[Rion]

War is good for business, both Dem and GOP. Drones make profits for the manufacturer of them. The missiles ditto. It's not the political party that advocates war, but those who finance the parties who do.

So that's your justification?

There are a lot of Democrats who are profoundly opposed to the war. Plenty in this very forum.

Opposed in name only, it seems.

I don't like the Drone strikes because, as we've seen, precision-guided weapons are sometimes precision-guided into imprecisely chosen targets. That said, the Drone strikes are a good suppression tool and if Benghazi has taught us anything it is that the risks associated with non-suppression is your political opponents using any uprising, even one that you decisively win with a 15:1 kill ratio, will be used for cheap partisan sniping.

They are not precise. Half the time they don't even have intel that an operative is there, they see someone doing something like jumping jacks and figure it's Al-qaeda training.

You're right though, they are a good suppression tool. I just never thought a 16-year old from Denver was in need of that sort of suppression.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

At the very least, we can now put to rest that the Republican Party is the pro-war, anti-liberty party. Oh, you can make a case for it, but what I mean is that we now know that the Democratic party is just as willing, if not more so, as the Republican party to take part in war-mongering and not only violating constitutional rights, but human rights as well.

Jeremy Scahil exposes Mass-Murderer Barack Obama - YouTube


If 24 minutes is too long for you:
A) Get some medicine for that ADHD you're suffering from and...
B) TLDW version: US Election 2012 || Obama Drone Strikes Are 'Mass Murder' - Jeremy Scahill - YouTube

So congratuations. Your guy won four more years, and all that was required was to show that it wasn't what Bush was doing that the left hated so much, it was simply Bush.

Yes, I know Romney agreed with Obama, but morality doesn't work that way. One cannot simply go "Oh well, the other guy will murder children too, might as well benefit from it, if it's going to happen!" Well, a person can, but it just makes them a horrible hypocrite. In most cases, there were third-party options. Sure, Obama would have lost, but having morals sometimes mean losing so that you can take a stand for what is right. It would have sent a clear message to the Democratic Party that their members would not stand with a man who has doubled down on Bush's war policy. Instead, the moral high ground on the murdering of innocents, warmongering, and the protection of our civil rights has been lost to either party. No amount of hoping otherwise can change that.

The one cavet I have to this statement is for those who, like myself, were in states that did not have third-party options. I'd be interested in learning why you chose to vote for Obama over Romney in this case. For my own part, I picked Romney partly because I figured the media would once again be out decrying these barbaric actions, and not simply ignoring them for the most part.

Do you think the US and her allies should conduct a "war on terror" ?
And if so, how would you like to see such a war conducted ?

Honest questions BTW. I have no points to score as I am not American.

 

[Rion]

Do you think the US and her allies should conduct a "war on terror" ?
And if so, how would you like to see such a war conducted ?

Honest questions BTW. I have no points to score as I am not American.

A war on terror's a stupid idea. When Al-qaeda attacked us, we should have retaliated, yes, but just in quick, surgical strikes against them and then been done with it. We played into their hands by going into their territory with a large force, fighting a "war" the way they wanted it fought, and underestimating them. All three of which violate Sun Tzu, which I believe is required reading for our commanders.

 

[Illuminaughty]

There are a lot of Democrats who are profoundly opposed to the war. Plenty in this very forum

True. I think a good number of Democrats are strongly anti-war but the elected Democratic officials (especially Obama) tend to ignore them because they know they will continue voting for Democrats even if they do keep on with neo-con foreign policy. It will always be a lesser of two evils things.

 

[stamperben]

Rion, I don't justify war. I don't agree with death of innocents. I'm just calling out the fact that profits, at ANY price, is the way it is currently done in this country.

Want to change it? Then work toward getting money out of politics so a candidate is not beholden to their billion dollar donors. Maybe then we can get candidates who truly represent the "We the people."

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

A war on terror's a stupid idea. When Al-qaeda attacked us, we should have retaliated, yes, but just in quick, surgical strikes against them and then been done with it. We played into their hands by going into their territory with a large force, fighting a "war" the way they wanted it fought, and underestimating them. All three of which violate Sun Tzu, which I believe is required reading for our commanders.

Thanks.
Pretty much what I thought about Iraq and Afghanistan (especially Afghanistan. You'd think the allied commanders had never studied any military history).
Drone strikes seem much more like the "surgical" strikes you suggest.
Anyway - I'll stop de-railing you thread now.

 

[seashale76]

True. I think a good number of Democrats are strongly anti-war but the elected Democratic officials (especially Obama) tend to ignore them because they know they will continue voting for Democrats even if they do keep on with neo-con foreign policy. It will always be a lesser of two evils things.

I see this too. However, doesn't that make those people hypocrites? The anti-war vocalization was much more prominent during the Bush administration. Obama seems to have been given a pass on that from the same individuals who constantly blasted Bush for the same things. It seems being partisan trumps matters of conscience, and I find that very sad.

 

[Rion]

Thanks.
Pretty much what I thought about Iraq and Afghanistan (especially Afghanistan. You'd think the allied commanders had never studied any military history).
Drone strikes seem much more like the "surgical" strikes you suggest.
Anyway - I'll stop de-railing you thread now.

If the drones are not accurate, and you do not have teams to confirm the info and/or carry out the actual mission, then it becomes as bad as moving an army in.

It also doesn't justify things like the Patriot Act, rendition, etc. that Obama has continued, or such acts like the NDAA, which is far worse than what W. did.

 

[Illuminaughty]

A war on terror's a stupid idea. When Al-qaeda attacked us, we should have retaliated, yes, but just in quick, surgical strikes against them and then been done with it. We played into their hands by going into their territory with a large force, fighting a "war" the way they wanted it fought, and underestimating them. All three of which violate Sun Tzu, which I believe is required reading for our commanders.

I agree.

 

[Paradoxum]

A war on terror's a stupid idea. When Al-qaeda attacked us, we should have retaliated, yes, but just in quick, surgical strikes against them and then been done with it. We played into their hands by going into their territory with a large force, fighting a "war" the way they wanted it fought, and underestimating them. All three of which violate Sun Tzu, which I believe is required reading for our commanders.

I agree. What Obama has done in this matter is wrong. Neither the Democrat or Republican party properly stand up for liberty and equality, but the Democrats do more so. That's why I might have voted for the Green or Justice party if I was American.

 

[rambot]

I had an interchange with Jeffwhosoever (I think is the handle) about this "voting" thing. I stated that I would always vote for the person whose ideals most closely match mine...even if that means I vote for a guaranteed loser.

He argued that he does not feel the same and would vote for Mitt SOLELY to ensure Obama does not get a second term.

I'm fairly convinced there are more than a few republicans AND democrats (small letters) who voted with the same logic as Jeff.

 

[stamperben]

I had an interchange with Jeffwhosoever (I think is the handle) about this "voting" thing. I stated that I would always vote for the person whose ideals most closely match mine...even if that means I vote for a guaranteed loser.

He argued that he does not feel the same and would vote for Mitt SOLELY to ensure Obama does not get a second term.

I'm fairly convinced there are more than a few republicans AND democrats (small letters) who voted with the same logic as Jeff.

I am one who only voted for Obama for the sole reason of having Romney not win, not that my vote actually mattered here in Texas. But I want to advance the thought of this state coming out from under the GOP stranglehold it now has and I think numbers for Dem candidates count much more than Green votes (for example) would in this case.

 

[JBJoe]

Opposed in name only, it seems.

That is patently false. What are you expecting? That they'd vote for Romney instead? Republicans have no track records of keeping us from entering into wars in the middle east.

They are not precise. Half the time they don't even have intel that an operative is there, they see someone doing something like jumping jacks and figure it's Al-qaeda training.

A pity you can't even read what I wrote. The drones are precise, picking targets is not. That's what I wrote, if only you had read.

You're right though, they are a good suppression tool. I just never thought a 16-year old from Denver was in need of that sort of suppression.

This is precisely the sort of partisan sniping I'm talking about. If Obama doesn't carry out a suppression effort, his opponents will hail any uprising as a dereliction of duty bigger than Watergate. If Obama does carry out a suppression effort, his opponents will declare any errors as an act of murder. The only way to win is too impossibilities: perfect target selection or perfect defense. Thus, you can be sure the "other side of the aisle" will ALWAYS have something to complain about. Right now they're complaining about both at the same time.

 

[Rion]

That is patently false. What are you expecting? That they'd vote for Romney instead? Republicans have no track records of keeping us from entering into wars in the middle east.

I think I made it pretty clear I was not saying that in my first post.

A pity you can't even read what I wrote. The drones are precise, picking targets is not. That's what I wrote, if only you had read.

I read what you wrote, it just happens to be incorrect.

This is precisely the sort of partisan sniping I'm talking about. If Obama doesn't carry out a suppression effort, his opponents will hail any uprising as a dereliction of duty bigger than Watergate. If Obama does carry out a suppression effort, his opponents will declare any errors as an act of murder. The only way to win is too impossibilities: perfect target selection or perfect defense. Thus, you can be sure the "other side of the aisle" will ALWAYS have something to complain about. Right now they're complaining about both at the same time.

The only partisan activity I see in this thread is defending targeting and murder of innocents, including our own children.

 

[Touma]

The only partisan activity I see in this thread is defending targeting and murder of innocents, including our own children.

I'm curious. What is the ratio of innocent vs combatant deaths in drones? Do you know?

 

[Rion]

I'm curious. What is the ratio of innocent vs combatant deaths in drones? Do you know?

It's just about impossible to know. The administration has a policy of declaring any male, 20 years of age or older, who is killed by a drone as a combatant unless they are posthumorously proven to be innocent. Add to that, that the wikileaks documentation has provided proof that the government will lie about who is responsible for attacks if they're a total botch... and you see the problem. As far as high-ranking leaders:

In September 2012, Peter Bergen and Megan Braun, reporting New American Foundation data, stated that since 2004, 49 “militant leaders” had been killed in strikes (accounting for 2% of all drone killings); the rest were largely “low-level combatants

And remember, "low-level combatant" means any male over the age of 20 killed by a drone, regardless if they were an actual terrorist or not.