Comments about ‘What others say: Obama's forgotten victims’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 23 2013 12:25 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Any collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan during the bush years, or were those victims 'forgotten' too? Or just ignored?

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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?

airnaut
Everett, 00

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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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 radical right.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

CLM
Draper, UT

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...

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"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?

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

If 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.

CLM
Draper, UT

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments