Any collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan during the bush years, or were
those victims 'forgotten' too? Or just ignored?
But drone attacks are clean, no TV coverage of the collateral damage like we saw
everyday on the news with Iraq and Afghanistan. If voters can't see it,
perhaps it doesn't exist? Like his admission that Americans were killed by
drones without due process! If GWB had done that, imagine the left's
outrage! But since its their ideological soul mate commanding the attacks there
is nothing more than a wink and a nod from them?
Although I disagree with the use of drones, I can't help but
question the deafening silence of the 100's of Thousands killed in; carpet bombing, smart bomb bombing, glide bombing, cluster
bombing, Fuel Ait Mixture bombing, MOAB bombing, bunker
busting bombing, during the Bush Wars.
Hutterite, we all know the answer to that.Victims didnt matter until
fall of 2008. Anything before that has been quickly swept under the rug by the
Re: "The civilian victims of drone strikes have not been let down just by
Obama."They haven't been let down by the President, at all.
As odd as it is to see me in the role of defending the President, truth requires
I do so.Additional Protocol I, Part IV, Section II of the 1949
Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons and Populations in Time
of War has been universally-accepted international law for generations. It
provides -- "The presence or movements of the civilian population or
individual civilians must not be used to try to shield military objectives from
attack or to shield, favour or impede military operations."Which
is exactly what terrorists intentionally do. It's the cowardly terrorists,
NOT the President that choose to cower under the skirts of innocents.Terrorists, NOT the President that are letting them down.
In his counterterrorism speech yesterday, President Obama stated that it was
"time to narrow the scope of the grinding battle against terrorists and
begin the transition to a day when the country will no longer be on a war
footing." As part of a this shift in counterterrorism policy, the president
said he would put "new restrictions" on the use of drones and recommit
to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He even went so far as to seek
new limits on his own war power.I doubt it! The president has lost
so much credibility with all his broken promises that it is impossible to put
much credence in these latest words on ratcheting back the war on terror.Drones kill countless more civilians than terrorists, creating a new set
of enemies for the US and intense blowback: end it! As for Gitmo, there is a 3
month hunger strike involving 100 detainees who would rather die than remain in
indefinite detention. Of the 166 detainees, 86 have been cleared for release and
only 3 have been charged: close it! Executive power is out of control: curtail
it! All wishful thinking, unfortunately...
"it is the duty of our government to stop America’s extrajudicial
campaign of killing on our territory, just as it is the Pakistani
government’s duty to eliminate the menace of terrorism from the country
"And there in lies the whole problem... .part two of this
statement. We have two choices, use drones, or send boots into Pakistan.
Until the Pakistani government shuts down these safe havens, the options are
rather limited. Doing nothing isn't an option. We didn't start this
war... and I don't blame Bush for going after them..... which brings
up...@Mountainman - your kidding again, right? The number of
civilians killed in Iraq is estimated far north of 100,000 noncombatants. Under
Bush more that 150 people were abducted under the policy of Extraordinary
Rendition... it is a policy started back under the Reagan administration and
continued even until today. @CLM - so what do you propose? What is
the answer. Conservatives don't want Gitmo closed. The option for Drones
is boots on streets... and under that condition, far more civilians die then
terrorist - the numbers don't lie. We lived that for 10 years. So what do
you propose doing differently?
Mountanman - While you and I both apparently agree the drone strikes need to
stop, you're wrong to clam the left doesn't care. The true left is
the only faction in America that does. evidenced by Madea Benjamin's
actions yesterday from Code Pink, not the Tea Party. Talk to actual liberals,
you won't find a drone supporter among us. procuradorfiscal -
Wrong on so many levels I don't have sufficient space to call them all out.
Here are a few:1 - The world is not a battlefield, despite what
illogical interpretation of the AUMF one takes. Geneva doesn't apply to
drone strikes in Yemen.2 - Drone strikes are surprise attacks, most
people killed are not "cower[ing] under the skirts of innocents."
They're out buying milk b/c they have no idea they're being
targeted.3 - Your foregone conclusion that a target is
"guilty" is misplaced, particularly when it comes to Signature Strikes.
4 - The program violates the sovereignty of other nations. 5 - It's unconstitutional.
MountanmanHayden, IDIf GWB had done that, imagine the
left's outrage! ======= Don't be so
infantile.I have yet to have a single "liberal lefty"
support drone attacks.BTW -- This still does get GW Bush off the
hook for starting an unproked war and invading a non-threatening country killing
150,000 Iraqi citizens using carpet bombing for their oil.
Utah Blue Devil: There are always more options than boots on the ground. (Never
mind that boots on the ground have been nothing but a waste of human life, both
for civilians as well as military, in US wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan.)
Personally, I'd like to see the US respect Pakistan's sovereignty,
abide by their Guidelines for Revised Terms of Engagement with USA/NATO/ISAF,
and leave the country. Unfortunately, there's no chance of that happening.
However, instead of slaughtering innocents with drone warfare, the
US could discontinue subsidizing Pakistan, the current program, 2009-14, being
$7.5 billion. And if the United States wants one last chance of salvaging a
relationship with Pakistan, it should put on the table a conditions-based,
civilian-nuclear deal. These are options off the top of my head, I'm sure
there are others.As far as Gitmo goes, it is absurd to keep it open
with 50% of inmates cleared for release and only 3 charged. The Supreme Court
must define war-time detention and ensure the right to habeas corpus. Congress
must lift the restrictions on transfer and release. And the remaining 77 men
should be tried in federal court.