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 101 - 125 of 659, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/30/2013 06:24:45 PM · #101
As in all things, context matters. I think we should expect a government to which we give millions in military aide to cooperate with us in apprehending someone who is responsible for the mass murder of Americans, yet for many reasons which have been well documented, the U.S. government could not trust the Pakistanis to cooperate on this matter. You're damn right I think we had every right to go in there and get him. As for drone strikes in Pakistan, I'll get back to that later, must get dinner going for the hubs...
05/30/2013 06:36:56 PM · #102
Originally posted by RayEthier:

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.


Nope. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I said I viewed it LIKE a political assassination. I didn't say it was one.
05/30/2013 06:38:25 PM · #103
Originally posted by RayEthier:

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


Seeing that Pakistan is a fully capable nuclear power, I'd say I'm not sure it's recommended in this situation either...

I think you are right that reciprocity is a bitch and personally I don't like the idea of another country carrying out a drone attack on our soil. North Korea behind the controls or, heaven forbid, the French?!?

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 18:40:44.
05/30/2013 07:44:22 PM · #104
So in a case like we had with Bin Laden and you had to make the choice would you:
A.Invade the country using the same logic we used to invaded Afghanistan.
B.Send in an assasination team without local assent.
C.Inform the local government, knowing that to do so will ensure he will be tipped off and disappear again.
D.Do nothing.
05/30/2013 07:55:20 PM · #105
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

So in a case like we had with Bin Laden and you had to make the choice would you:
A.Invade the country using the same logic we used to invaded Afghanistan.
B.Send in an assasination team without local assent.
C.Inform the local government, knowing that to do so will ensure he will be tipped off and disappear again.
D.Do nothing.


D? What did killing him accomplish besides feed the hungry mouth of nationalism?
05/30/2013 08:04:02 PM · #106
C is a false choice.

You seemingly want me to cave on the principle because we view Osama as a "bad man". While I understand THIS example and may even sympathize, what happens when I don't. If China were to send an agent to assassinate the Dali Lama (involved in terrorism according to them) while on our soil, am I forced to apply the same principle that applied to Osama? I'm sure the natural response is to say that Osama and the Dali Lama are nothing alike, but the Chinese may disagree and wouldn't the precedent say that THEY are the ones to make that call?

This argument is so naturally downhill (ie in my favor). I wonder if people would be making such efforts had Bush been the one to get Osama.
05/30/2013 08:07:59 PM · #107
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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?


I'm sorry, you can refute my positions?

Your premise was that Obama is getting a pass in the news, with respect to ramping up of Drone warfare, and my point is, (without being able to do it as well, much less needing to supplement statements from Brennan) that the more bellicose and less effective administration was the Bush administration, and that an escalation of drone warfare wouldn't be noticed.

05/30/2013 08:46:33 PM · #108
You still make no sense to me. Honestly, your sentence is a grammatical mess. I think you are saying drone warfare wouldn't be noticed because its much more under the radar than Bush's actions. We already know this to be the case. We're arguing whether drone warfare SHOULD be noticed similarly to previous actions.
05/30/2013 08:53:34 PM · #109
Brennan, care to comment whether you had an opinion when Nixon invaded into Cambodia?

Judith, lets say in some alternate universe Obama is brought before The Hague and is charged with directing actions that killed hundreds of innocent civilians in a country where he had no legal right to effect actions and no recognized rules of engagement apply. You are his head defense lawyer. What is your argument?
05/30/2013 09:00:42 PM · #110
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You still make no sense to me. Honestly, your sentence is a grammatical mess. I think you are saying drone warfare wouldn't be noticed because its much more under the radar than Bush's actions. We already know this to be the case. We're arguing whether drone warfare SHOULD be noticed similarly to previous actions.


a grammatical mess? you are too much! Admittedly I am typing on a phone and invoking poetic license with articles and tenses and such.

If you can't figure out my arguments, you are probably best off continuing to defend your mostly indefensible not-so-moderate-as-you-may-think positions. You are doing an admirable job at that, as you do in most forums, debating and defending such positions.
05/30/2013 09:13:39 PM · #111
I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.
05/30/2013 09:47:14 PM · #112
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.


So why do you continue to specifically lay blame on Obama? Bush was guilty of the same crimes. When you talk about an alternate universe where Obama is called before the Hague, they both ought to be.
05/30/2013 09:49:15 PM · #113
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.


You know what they say about the size of a mans sentence...
05/30/2013 10:25:33 PM · #114
Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.


So why do you continue to specifically lay blame on Obama? Bush was guilty of the same crimes. When you talk about an alternate universe where Obama is called before the Hague, they both ought to be.


Well, first because we're talking about drones and that is really Obama's game although Bush had his hand in some as well. Second, because I know where everybody stands politically and there is no need to attack Bush in these circles. It will be done for me.

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 22:27:27.
05/30/2013 10:26:50 PM · #115
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.


You know what they say about the size of a mans sentence...


Is it like having big hands or a fancy sports car? :)
05/30/2013 10:45:21 PM · #116
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't being insulting. Your sentence is 62 words long!

My position is moderate in the sense that I have no need to defend a political figure because of the little D or R after his name.


So why do you continue to specifically lay blame on Obama? Bush was guilty of the same crimes. When you talk about an alternate universe where Obama is called before the Hague, they both ought to be.


Well, first because we're talking about drones and that is really Obama's game although Bush had his hand in some as well. Second, because I know where everybody stands politically and there is no need to attack Bush in these circles. It will be done for me.


I think if you want to have a meaningful discussion about the legalities of the drone program, introducing the partisanship tone that you have by blaming it on Obama isn't going to help. You say you've done that in a preemptive move because others will blame it on Bush, but framing it like that has derailed the conversation from the get go. Not very objective or "moderate" either.
05/30/2013 11:10:43 PM · #117
Well, from the get-go the conversation was about the IRS and the difference I see between Bush's sins and Obama's as reported by the media. I honestly would have thought most of the usual people on here would be against the idea of drone strikes. I know they've been against the patriot act and against Bush's "war on terror" and Guantanamo up until 2008. I'm being a bit partisan here because I'm calling out the crew over their silence. It doesn't make sense that Guantanamo was bad under Bush and then forgettable under Obama. Drones? The same.

Is have more respect if I heard people say, "hey, I voted Obama and think he's done a decent job, but I can't side with him on this drone thing." It doesn't make them raging Republicans. It makes them independent thinkers.
05/30/2013 11:11:52 PM · #118
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

C is a false choice.


Defend that statement if you would.

David Corn says in his book showdown "Obama and his aides dismissed a joint raid with the Pakistanis. They simply could not trust them. U.S. officials had long suspected Pakistanís Inter-Services Intelligence of routinely tipping off targets of U.S. actions, including drone strikes. Obama did not believe any other nation, let alone Pakistan, could be trusted with advance information of an assault."

From wikipedia on the ISI "The Guantanamo Bay files leak, however, showed that the US authorities unofficially consider the ISI as a terrorist organization equally dangerous as Al Qaeda and Taliban, and many allegations of its supporting terrorist activities have been made"

And "An assessment by British Intelligence in 2000 into Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan showed the ISI were playing an active role in some of them.[124] The leak in 2012 of e-mails from Stratfor revealed that papers captured during the raid in Abbotabad on Osama Bin Laden's compound showed up to 12 ISI officials knew where he was and that Bin Laden had been in regular contact with the ISI"

In the light of the proof that the ISI was working with Bin Laden, the only person who was arrested was Dr. Shakil Afridi who helped the CIA find Bin Laden, was found guilty of treason, but none of the ISI officers who sheltered Bin Laden were tried, fired, or demoted.

So tell me how you inform the Pakistani government and still get Bin Laden. You have two choices. Get him, or inform the ISI. There was never a hope of both.

Message edited by author 2013-05-30 23:21:32.
05/30/2013 11:17:16 PM · #119
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

C is a false choice.

You seemingly want me to cave on the principle because we view Osama as a "bad man". While I understand THIS example and may even sympathize, what happens when I don't. If China were to send an agent to assassinate the Dali Lama (involved in terrorism according to them) while on our soil, am I forced to apply the same principle that applied to Osama? I'm sure the natural response is to say that Osama and the Dali Lama are nothing alike, but the Chinese may disagree and wouldn't the precedent say that THEY are the ones to make that call?

This argument is so naturally downhill (ie in my favor). I wonder if people would be making such efforts had Bush been the one to get Osama.


...and of course you would have a myriad of examples where the Dali Lama planned, funded and assisted in the training of suicide bombers and jihadist type fighters. I would hazard a guess that the United Nations might not agree with your premise that a comparison between the two is a realistic proposition... but I could be wrong.

I have no idea where you get the impression that people would be less favourable of this action had it been undertaken by President Bush... that my friend is mere speculation on your part.

Ray
05/30/2013 11:25:02 PM · #120
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, from the get-go the conversation was about the IRS and the difference I see between Bush's sins and Obama's as reported by the media. I honestly would have thought most of the usual people on here would be against the idea of drone strikes. I know they've been against the patriot act and against Bush's "war on terror" and Guantanamo up until 2008. I'm being a bit partisan here because I'm calling out the crew over their silence. It doesn't make sense that Guantanamo was bad under Bush and then forgettable under Obama. Drones? The same.

Is have more respect if I heard people say, "hey, I voted Obama and think he's done a decent job, but I can't side with him on this drone thing." It doesn't make them raging Republicans. It makes them independent thinkers.


I agree.
05/30/2013 11:27:35 PM · #121
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Robert and Don need a review of John Locke...


I looked up John Locke and he was NOT an American citizen.
05/31/2013 12:11:59 AM · #122
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

C is a false choice.


Defend that statement if you would.

David Corn says in his book showdown "Obama and his aides dismissed a joint raid with the Pakistanis. They simply could not trust them. U.S. officials had long suspected Pakistanís Inter-Services Intelligence of routinely tipping off targets of U.S. actions, including drone strikes. Obama did not believe any other nation, let alone Pakistan, could be trusted with advance information of an assault."

From wikipedia on the ISI "The Guantanamo Bay files leak, however, showed that the US authorities unofficially consider the ISI as a terrorist organization equally dangerous as Al Qaeda and Taliban, and many allegations of its supporting terrorist activities have been made"

And "An assessment by British Intelligence in 2000 into Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan showed the ISI were playing an active role in some of them.[124] The leak in 2012 of e-mails from Stratfor revealed that papers captured during the raid in Abbotabad on Osama Bin Laden's compound showed up to 12 ISI officials knew where he was and that Bin Laden had been in regular contact with the ISI"

In the light of the proof that the ISI was working with Bin Laden, the only person who was arrested was Dr. Shakil Afridi who helped the CIA find Bin Laden, was found guilty of treason, but none of the ISI officers who sheltered Bin Laden were tried, fired, or demoted.

So tell me how you inform the Pakistani government and still get Bin Laden. You have two choices. Get him, or inform the ISI. There was never a hope of both.


Knowing is too strong a word. "Fearing" might be better. They didn't even know Osama was actually there.

I'm also afraid the Osama thing is being confused with the drone strikes. Osama was killed in May of 2011 and we have plenty of drone strikes after this. So, lets pretend for a moment we all agree that Osama was a big enough whale to justify the attack (using people and not drones as we all know by now). . What of the 60+ strikes since? Do they qualify under the same pretext or do we need a different justification?
05/31/2013 12:12:15 AM · #123
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Robert and Don need a review of John Locke...


I looked up John Locke and he was NOT an American citizen.


Heh. That made me chuckle. :)
05/31/2013 12:20:57 AM · #124
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

C is a false choice.

You seemingly want me to cave on the principle because we view Osama as a "bad man". While I understand THIS example and may even sympathize, what happens when I don't. If China were to send an agent to assassinate the Dali Lama (involved in terrorism according to them) while on our soil, am I forced to apply the same principle that applied to Osama? I'm sure the natural response is to say that Osama and the Dali Lama are nothing alike, but the Chinese may disagree and wouldn't the precedent say that THEY are the ones to make that call?

This argument is so naturally downhill (ie in my favor). I wonder if people would be making such efforts had Bush been the one to get Osama.


...and of course you would have a myriad of examples where the Dali Lama planned, funded and assisted in the training of suicide bombers and jihadist type fighters. I would hazard a guess that the United Nations might not agree with your premise that a comparison between the two is a realistic proposition... but I could be wrong.

I have no idea where you get the impression that people would be less favourable of this action had it been undertaken by President Bush... that my friend is mere speculation on your part.

Ray


What does the UN matter? China has accused the Dalai Lama of "terrorism in disguise" and that's all that matters for the scenario. Nobody goes to the UN to ask "mother may I" when it comes to assassinations. The point is to raise a scenario where our own interests may not be served by the killing or our own sovereignty is violated and whether we still think the action is justifiable.

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 00:22:31.
05/31/2013 12:28:12 AM · #125
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Knowing is too strong a word. "Fearing" might be better. They didn't even know Osama was actually there.


Really? You can not even admit that they knew he was there? You do accept that he was where they found him, or are you going off the deep end with the fake moon landing and the black helicopters?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm also afraid the Osama thing is being confused with the drone strikes. Osama was killed in May of 2011 and we have plenty of drone strikes after this. So, lets pretend for a moment we all agree that Osama was a big enough whale to justify the attack (using people and not drones as we all know by now). . What of the 60+ strikes since? Do they qualify under the same pretext or do we need a different justification?


No. They do not. If you accept that Bin Laden was worth going after, then the same justification is acceptable for any other enemy combatant. You either take Richard's path and say we should not go after any person (presumably we can go after them when they attack us but not before or after) by any means except through requests for extradition, or you accept military force can be used to attack those who have declared the intent to attack us, even if it is on the soil of another country. This was why we invaded Afghanistan. Are you OK with invasion but not drones? Or is no use of force moral in the territory of another nation?
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 06/20/2019 08:10:01 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: 06/20/2019 08:10:01 PM EDT.