DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Let's stomp on Constitutional Amendments" thread
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 659, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/26/2013 05:21:04 PM · #76
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying the press was too tough on Bush as much as they aren't being tough enough on Obama. There's a difference.

Don't forget I sit in the middle of the spectrum so I have no allegience to defend someone just because I identify with their party. The left wing nut jobs are as crazy to me as the right.

Message edited by author 2013-05-26 17:29:49.
05/26/2013 10:16:57 PM · #77
Yeats said that the best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity. Obama is the best and bush is the worst.
05/26/2013 10:56:01 PM · #78
Well, all I can say is that I just returned from Star Trek and Spock declared drone strikes, military missions inside another sovereign country, and killing a citizen without due process to be "immoral". You can't argue with Spock. I win. ;)
05/26/2013 11:19:49 PM · #79
Fascinating.
05/26/2013 11:20:58 PM · #80
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I win. ;)

a Pyrrhic victory
05/26/2013 11:34:16 PM · #81
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I win. ;)

a Pyrrhic victory


Well, you did score a hit because I had to look that up. ;)
05/30/2013 02:13:15 PM · #82
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Don, you do realize that Obama has ordered six times the drone strikes with four times the casualty rate, right?


Citation please.
05/30/2013 03:43:56 PM · #83
Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Don, you do realize that Obama has ordered six times the drone strikes with four times the casualty rate, right?


Citation please.


Nice Graph here. Obama has embraced the attack of the drones, and you can watch the number of attacks ramp up from 2004 to 2010 then tail off. Of course the strikes also show a policy shift in the attempt to go after Al-Qaeda, from the mass invasions of countries and the hunt for BinLaden from

" The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people donít understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. Heís just a person whoís been marginalized. Ö I donít know where he is. I really just donít spend that much time on him, to be honest with you." Bush 2002 where almost no drones are used;

to "Tonight I can report to the American people and the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden,Ē Obama 2011 when half way through the year the strikes start falling off.

Total people killed in 356 strikes; 2014 - 3343. Of that number civilians were 258 - 307, so between 10 to 15 percent. Compared the death toll in Iraq where between 66,081 and 1,220,580 civilians have been killed in the conflict, and the drone strikes seem like a better option, if not a good one.

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 15:46:38.
05/30/2013 03:44:19 PM · #84
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



Don't forget I sit in the middle of the spectrum so I have no allegience to defend someone just because I identify with their party. The left wing nut jobs are as crazy to me as the right.


It's you middle of the road nut jobs that have me worried. LOL

05/30/2013 03:58:51 PM · #85
Originally posted by Erastus:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



Don't forget I sit in the middle of the spectrum so I have no allegience to defend someone just because I identify with their party. The left wing nut jobs are as crazy to me as the right.


It's you middle of the road nut jobs that have me worried. LOL


The worst thing about us is we appear so normal!
05/30/2013 04:08:15 PM · #86
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Total people killed in 356 strikes; 2014 - 3343. Of that number civilians were 258 - 307, so between 10 to 15 percent. Compared the death toll in Iraq where between 66,081 and 1,220,580 civilians have been killed in the conflict, and the drone strikes seem like a better option, if not a good one.


I'm not sure that's really a helpful comparison.

I don't think too many people are complaining about the technology that allows for pinpoint attacks, I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission and 2) Killing American citizens without any due process. Both are things educated people would typically worry over as being fraught with risk or implication and both have pretty well flown under the radar (pun intended) over the years (with some minor exception, the most obvious being some coverage of Republican Rand Paul's filibuster of the CIA appointment over drone attacks).
05/30/2013 04:39:47 PM · #87
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not sure that's really a helpful comparison.

I don't think too many people are complaining about the technology that allows for pinpoint attacks, I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission and 2) Killing American citizens without any due process. Both are things educated people would typically worry over as being fraught with risk or implication and both have pretty well flown under the radar (pun intended) over the years (with some minor exception, the most obvious being some coverage of Republican Rand Paul's filibuster of the CIA appointment over drone attacks).


Please find a helpful comparison.

Point 1: With the invasion of another country. It it more ethical or legal to send in troops to kill opposition and take land, than to pinpoint bomb? Pakistan was no more pleased with our going in by stealth helicopter to kill BinLaden than they were with drone strikes to kill his underlings.

Point 2: American citizens who are actively involved in a terrorist organization that has killed and is planning on killing, does not have the full set of rights. Had John Walker Lindh been killed by a mortar shell in Qala-i-Jangi he would have been due some special protection. Traitors are held to have fewer rights than foreign nationals in most law.

Yes, it is legally murky, as is all new territory, but the notion that we are better off just invading because it is the traditional way of dealing with foreign enemies is foolish. Just because Napoleon didn't have drones does not mean we must not use them. If your concern is for the death of civilians classed as "collateral damage" there is no comparison of likely deaths.

The issue is a new kind of war, one not of nation states, where massed armies face each other in civilized slaughter, but of shadow armies striking distant targets. If we eliminate drones, we are essentially going to say we are unwilling to use offensive weapons in this new war. Perhaps we are better off being purely defensive, absorbing attack after attack until the enemy gets tired, but do you think that will work?

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 16:45:03.
05/30/2013 04:42:54 PM · #88
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission and 2) Killing American citizens without any due process. Both are things educated people would typically worry over as being fraught with risk or implication


and then there's another level of education at which you realize that American citizens have no more rights than any other citizens.
05/30/2013 04:53:02 PM · #89
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Total people killed in 356 strikes; 2014 - 3343. Of that number civilians were 258 - 307, so between 10 to 15 percent. Compared the death toll in Iraq where between 66,081 and 1,220,580 civilians have been killed in the conflict, and the drone strikes seem like a better option, if not a good one.


I'm not sure that's really a helpful comparison.

I don't think too many people are complaining about the technology that allows for pinpoint attacks, I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission and 2) Killing American citizens without any due process. Both are things educated people would typically worry over as being fraught with risk or implication and both have pretty well flown under the radar (pun intended) over the years (with some minor exception, the most obvious being some coverage of Republican Rand Paul's filibuster of the CIA appointment over drone attacks).


If you take the record of the Bush administration, in context, with full disclosure of the Cheney and Bush service records, how Kerry was swift-boated, and add to it a record of a mistaken and misleading invasion into Iraq that benefited no one except defense contractors and oil companies, and add to that drone strike proliferation- then, that would be a bigger story than it is under the Obama administration.

It doesn't benefit the Friends of Obama to invade- he doesn't have the oil and defense contractor investments and friends to make those things worthwhile, and- wasn't drone usage inevitable in light of video game culture?

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 16:55:03.
05/30/2013 04:55:54 PM · #90
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not sure that's really a helpful comparison.

I don't think too many people are complaining about the technology that allows for pinpoint attacks, I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission and 2) Killing American citizens without any due process. Both are things educated people would typically worry over as being fraught with risk or implication and both have pretty well flown under the radar (pun intended) over the years (with some minor exception, the most obvious being some coverage of Republican Rand Paul's filibuster of the CIA appointment over drone attacks).


Please find a helpful comparison.

Point 1: With the invasion of another country. It it more ethical or legal to send in troops to kill opposition and take land, than to pinpoint bomb?

Point 2: American citizens who are actively involved in a terrorist organization that has killed and is planning on killing, does not have the full set of rights. Had John Walker Lindh been killed by a mortar shell in Qala-i-Jangi he would have been due some special protection. Traitors are held to have fewer rights than foreign nationals in most law.

Yes, it is legally murky, as is all new territory, but the notion that we are better off just invading because it is the traditional way of dealing with foreign enemies is foolish. Just because Napoleon didn't have drones does not mean we must not use them. If your concern is for the death of civilians classed as "collateral damage" there is no comparison of likely deaths.

The issue is a new kind of war, one not of nation states, where massed armies face each other in civilized slaughter, but of shadow armies striking distant targets. If we eliminate drones, we are essentially going to say we are unwilling to use offensive weapons in this new war. Perhaps we are better off being purely defensive, absorbing attack after attack until the enemy gets tired, but do you think that will work?


I'm a bit surprised this is your position. It seems to go against what I would have predicted and I don't know if you are just knee-jerk defending your guy or you really feel this way.

Response to point 1: Neither is "more" ethical. Both are wrong. We are not at war with Pakistan the last time I checked. Sovereign nations are to respect sovereign nations. So if Canada sent their Moosejaw Drone (a heavily armed mountie on a horse) into Michigan and killed a high level gun runner, six of his henchmen and three innocents, your response would be "well, at least it wasn't a full invasion so that makes it tolerable"? Then Mexico send their CCB (Chihuahua carpet bombs, literally a pack of trained chihuahuas with TNT strapped to their back), to kill a cartel boss hiding in Tuscon. They kill him, his wife, his three children, and four maids (two had green cards). Do you think we'd be all good with that?

Response to point 2: Your point isn't made until we determine who is a terrorist or a traitor. The last time I checked these were determined by a court of law when it comes to American citizens. Who determines who is a terrorist? Who holds that this is punishable by death? What level of scrutiny is required? Are you comfortable when the next guy making that decision doesn't fall within your political spectrum of ideology?

Don, I don't know what you mean there or whether that was just a throwaway comment. Can you clarify?
05/30/2013 04:57:27 PM · #91
Originally posted by posthumous:

and then there's another level of education at which you realize that American citizens have no more rights than any other citizens.

[sarcasm=ON]
Of COURSE we do; we're "exceptional". Besides, THEY aren't "citizens", they're "foreigners". It's important to understand these distinctions, sir...
[/sarcasm]

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 16:57:51.
05/30/2013 04:58:49 PM · #92
Originally posted by blindjustice:

If you take the record of the Bush administration, in context, with full disclosure of the Cheney and Bush service records, how Kerry was swift-boated, and add to it a record of a mistaken and misleading invasion into Iraq that benefited no one except defense contractors and oil companies, and add to that drone strike proliferation- then, that would be a bigger story than it is under the Obama administration.


What bizarro-world FOX news do you listen to?
05/30/2013 05:05:56 PM · #93
Originally posted by BrennanOB:



Total people killed in 356 strikes; 2014 - 3343. Of that number civilians were 258 - 307, so between 10 to 15 percent. Compared the death toll in Iraq where between 66,081 and 1,220,580 civilians have been killed in the conflict, and the drone strikes seem like a better option, if not a good one.


That does make sense doesn't it though?

There can be little doubt that the shoot/no shoot call is a hell of a lot less pressured, and more informed, from 20,000ft than it is when bullets are whizzing past your face. It only makes sense that the unintentional/civilian deaths should be far lower than what one would expect in a high stress fast paced confrontation.

I think where people get all hung up on this is the fact that humans are now fighting something fairly similar to the terminator robots of our nightmares. Never mind that there are humans involved at nearly every stage of this process - the mere fact that a human is being killed by what appears to be an unmanned machine seems to scare us, despite the fact that it's really only remotely piloted.. In fact, I think our naming scheme here is a huge part of the problem - "Drones", "Unmanned Arial Vehicle" (recently I saw this in a news article as "Unmanned Automated Vehicle" even further promoting this misconception), "Predator", etc..

I still find the use of drones on US citizens slightly disturbing, but the use of drones in general is probably the most effective and 'humane' method to conduct warfare yet devised by man.
05/30/2013 05:10:47 PM · #94
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by posthumous:

and then there's another level of education at which you realize that American citizens have no more rights than any other citizens.

[sarcasm=ON]
Of COURSE we do; we're "exceptional". Besides, THEY aren't "citizens", they're "foreigners". It's important to understand these distinctions, sir...
[/sarcasm]


While you're somewhat right - countries are kinda like families - and I would expect a person to protect their family, often even if the family member has done something wrong - and I think this generally extends to citizenship as well - it's been somewhat accepted throughout history that you can probably have some reasonable expectation that your patrial nation won't take the initiative to lodge a hellfire missile up your rectum.
05/30/2013 05:12:23 PM · #95
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission


I'm not a fan of the drone program, but I think this claim has been overblown. As far as I know, the U.S. has used drones in six countries, and the only one of the six where we weren't actively at war or didn't have the government's permission is Pakistan (and it's arguable whether the Pakistani government was always in the dark regarding U.S. drone strikes inside that country's borders).
05/30/2013 05:14:08 PM · #96
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission


I'm not a fan of the drone program, but I think this claim has been overblown. As far as I know, the U.S. has used drones in six countries, and the only one of the six where we weren't actively at war or didn't have the government's permission is Pakistan (and it's arguable whether the Pakistani government was always in the dark regarding U.S. drone strikes inside that country's borders).


How is it then overblown? Especially considering the vast majority of drone attacks are IN Pakistan? Your objection makes no sense to me.
05/30/2013 05:18:35 PM · #97
Robert and Don need a review of John Locke...
05/30/2013 05:22:19 PM · #98
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission


I'm not a fan of the drone program, but I think this claim has been overblown. As far as I know, the U.S. has used drones in six countries, and the only one of the six where we weren't actively at war or didn't have the government's permission is Pakistan (and it's arguable whether the Pakistani government was always in the dark regarding U.S. drone strikes inside that country's borders).


How is it then overblown? Especially considering the vast majority of drone attacks are IN Pakistan? Your objection makes no sense to me.


Because the U.S. relationship with Pakistan is a very complex one. Let me ask you this. Do you think the U.S. was justified in going after bin Laden without the knowledge of the Pakistani government? A justifiable violation of sovereignty or not, in your opinion?
05/30/2013 05:28:07 PM · #99
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think they are complaining about two things: 1) Carrying out attacks within the borders of another sovereign country without their permission


I'm not a fan of the drone program, but I think this claim has been overblown. As far as I know, the U.S. has used drones in six countries, and the only one of the six where we weren't actively at war or didn't have the government's permission is Pakistan (and it's arguable whether the Pakistani government was always in the dark regarding U.S. drone strikes inside that country's borders).


How is it then overblown? Especially considering the vast majority of drone attacks are IN Pakistan? Your objection makes no sense to me.


Because the U.S. relationship with Pakistan is a very complex one. Let me ask you this. Do you think the U.S. was justified in going after bin Laden without the knowledge of the Pakistani government? A justifiable violation of sovereignty or not, in your opinion?


I don't think it was any more justified than a political assassination. We may be happy with the results, but the cost to our reputation and precedents set are not always obvious and possibly very high. Do you think political assassinations are within the realm of "justifiable violations of sovereignty"?

Does your moral sense of reciprocity tell you that we should tolerate other countries carrying out drone strikes within our borders?

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 17:30:24.
05/30/2013 06:17:32 PM · #100
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I don't think it was any more justified than a political assassination. We may be happy with the results, but the cost to our reputation and precedents set are not always obvious and possibly very high. Do you think political assassinations are within the realm of "justifiable violations of sovereignty"?


Are you suggesting that the targeting of Bin Laden had political undertones. I don't recall his being elected to political office in any country... he was pure and simple a terrorist with no affiliation to any one country but rather someone who was guided by his personal convictions and utter disdain western society.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



Does your moral sense of reciprocity tell you that we should tolerate other countries carrying out drone strikes within our borders?


Assuming that citizens of another country, used the USA as a home base to commit atrocities against their own, and taking into consideration that possibility that the USA did nothing to assist the said country, then reciprocity would be a bitch and ... considering the precedent set... might be viewed as being totally justified by some.

Having said that, considering the might of the US military, that is definitely not something that would be recommended.

Ray

Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 06/19/2019 12:43:13 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/19/2019 12:43:13 PM EDT.