U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[cubby]

The issue is that he promised to be more transparent, but he has failed to do so in accordance with the FOIA. That is a problem.

And no one is answering my question.

Was is Obama that denied the info specifically, or the bureaucracy that denied it? The President doesn't control every aspect of his administration, and I think we can all admit we'd rather have the President doing other things than fulfilling FOIA requests.

[Grizzly Willy]

If it's the Obama administration that is doing poorly, then the Obama administration is doing poorly. It's his people that aren't fulfilling the promises that Obama made.

Because there are different rules for different situations. In your example, there are laws that govern the behavior and your actions (or anyone's). Our moral high ground is what actually gives us the right to conduct our war inside the borders of Pakistan. People in this thread will "freak" when they read this, but the smart ones know that it's true.

The "only idiots disagree with me" argument is fallacious and, to crib from Wells, dumb.

[cubby]

If it's the Obama administration that is doing poorly, then the Obama administration is doing poorly. It's his people that aren't fulfilling the promises that Obama made.

Again, how have other administrations done? Have they ever done this "test" on another administration? If the test itself reasonable. These are questions that I'm asking and no one is answering. Are any FOIA requests processed within 20 days? Asking questions about things like this are key to understanding the underlying issues. Think critically and don't just go for the easy stuff.

The "only idiots disagree with me" argument is fallacious and, to crib from Wells, dumb.

I didn't say only idiots disagree with me, and you know it. What I wanted to avoid was people responding with hiccup answers, writing something out before really thinking about this issue in broad terms.

Like saying Obama is a fascist for signing the NDAA. A hiccup response.

[FusedMass]

Romney respects Israel's right to attack Iran

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...-says-20120729

Fast forward a few months

Romney: Military strike on Iran may be unnecessary

http://www.cbs8.com/story/19665256/r...i-pm-netanyahu

[Kalyyn]

Romney respects Israel's right to attack Iran

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...-says-20120729

Fast forward a few months

Romney: Military strike on Iran may be unnecessary

http://www.cbs8.com/story/19665256/r...i-pm-netanyahu

Romney: I don't think you need to attack Iran, but I respect your right to do so.

What am I missing here?

[Grizzly Willy]

You were saying that the "smart one's know it's true". Conversely, stupid people, or people who aren't smart, don't know it's true. That is how this works.

[FusedMass]

Romney: I don't think you need to attack Iran, but I respect your right to do so.

What am I missing here?

One quote is supporting a war.

The other is supporting diplomacy

[cubby]

You were saying that the "smart one's know it's true". Conversely, stupid people, or people who aren't smart, don't know it's true. That is how this works.

Which is different than "only idiots disagree with me", which is what you initially postulated. See how this works?

What's more, I've read your stuff, and I know you understand what I'm saying, so it's disappointing when you focus on the wrong stuff.

[Kalyyn]

One quote is supporting a war.

The other is supporting diplomacy

Again, you can support somebody's right to go to war while still preferring the option of diplomacy. I see no issue with this.

[FusedMass]

Again, you can support somebody's right to go to war while still preferring the option of diplomacy. I see no issue with this.

Sincerely. In the first quote. He declares no diplomacy,aggressive. Saying you respect an ally's right to strike someone is a pretty big admission of war. He almost seems eager. The second quote was today and did not lay the same kind of language. Mitt Romney flip flop's alot so I know I'm not only one seeing this.

[Spectral]

So, you would advocate the state using drones to take out suspected gang leaders in our country?

If it could be shown to a reasonable level of certainty that they couldn't be arrested and posed a threat to the public, I'd be fine with taking them out.

You only have a right to a trial if you're actually going to stand trial. I don't see a lot of international terror suspects turning themselves in for trial.

[Wells]

No. The only time extrajudicial killings are even remotely appropriate are in extrajudicial situations like international terrorism.

[Spectral]

If we were in the position that Mexico finds itself (we're not in the same ballpark, this is a hypothetical), I would be fine with essentially waging war with cartel leaders. This is not a plausible situation in the real United States.

Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious that if someone will not allow themselves to be arrested and attacks the arresting officers, they will wind up dead pretty often.

[Wells]

Well Mexico is in more or less a state of internal warfare.

[Spectral]

Right, that's why I used them as an example. If domestic criminals were powerful, difficult to bring in, very dangerous, and posed an ongoing (nearly existential) threat, I'd be OK with taking them out in a targeted fashion. I think Mexican druglords are far more analogous to Al-Qaeda leaders than any actual US example can be.

[Wells]

Yeah I was just pointing out I think Mexico's cartel problems have expanded past what I would call a usual criminal situation. I still view civilian trials as the best way to deal with terrorists and the like when its possible though.

[Spectral]

I agree completely. I'd always rather have a terrorist go to trial than have them targeted for killing.

[bergmann620]

If it could be shown to a reasonable level of certainty that they couldn't be arrested and posed a threat to the public, I'd be fine with taking them out.

You only have a right to a trial if you're actually going to stand trial. I don't see a lot of international terror suspects turning themselves in for trial.

As described by former US officials who participated, it is conducted not by military generals but by cia officers who are guiding drones from offices in Langley, Virginia, that kill people in a country with which the US is not at war.

President Barack Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan since he took office in 2009, more than four times the number of attacks that President George W. Bush authorized during his two terms, according to the New America Foundation, a Washington-based public-policy institute.

One of the approximately ten lawyers in the CIA’s counterterrorism unit would review intelligence information and draft a memo asserting that an individual posed a risk to the security of the United States. After weighing the evidence in the memo, Rizzo, who retired in December 2009, would sign his name, noting that he “concurred.” The strike was then authorized.

Tallies from leading Pakistani media organizations report that as many as eighteen hundred civilians and mid- and low-level fighters have been killed in attacks since Obama took office, as compared to the twenty “high-value” militants the US managed to kill in that period, according to New America Foundation researchers.

The CIA operatives who launched the strike had been trying to kill a man thought to be al Qaeda’s number-two leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, but he escaped. Eighteen people were killed, and Shah took pictures of jagged, metal pieces from the missile that had exploded, as well as the fresh graves.

A January 24 Washington Post story cast the incident in a somewhat celebratory tone, saying it was “the first tangible sign of President Obama’s commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups.”

The news articles mentioned only briefly the most disturbing part of the story: the drone struck the wrong target. Rather than being a militant, the homeowner had been a tribal elder who had attempted to organize a peace movement and was just the kind of person that CIA operatives had been hoping to encourage in their efforts to fight extremism. The supposed Taliban hideout was actually an eight-bedroom house that had cost $21,000 to build, a fortune in a country where the average annual income is roughly $500. The deaths of the father and others, along with the property destruction, left the family, including an eighteen-year-old son, destitute. The teenager called for revenge.

We don't even know who we're killing half the time.

[Grizzly Willy]

Sounds like we shouldn't be using drones then.

And, before anybody responds, saying that "shit happens in war" isn't a valid counter.

[starlord]

Sounds like we shouldn't be using drones then.

And, before anybody responds, saying that "shit happens in war" isn't a valid counter.

what would you suggest as an alternative? drones are lauded for not risking american soldiers lives.