Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans outraged Obama usurped their 'Daddy party' throne (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "removed several other al-Qaida leaders..." (7+ / 0-)

    Considering the massive CIVILIAN casualties that the drone bombing campaigns create ("U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners"), and has completely pissed Pakistan off ("U.S. drone strike riles Pakistani politicians") by resuming bombing within our supposed "ally" and giving them even more reason to keep supply routes closed, a lot of this is doing far more harm than good.

    Killing civilians pisses off the residents of the places being bombed, and makes them easier to recruit by terrorist organizations. We also cannot possibly hope to succeed with a strategy of "kill every terrorist in existence". Bombing in Pakistan, despite government demands to stop, means that much-needed supply routes for the forces in Afghanistan remain cut off, and that can't be beneficial to the soldiers there (and it means that they're really, really pissed off with us).  Besides, if many of these groups are as degraded as reports indicate, then it really doesn't matter if they have a few people still plotting things. It's just a few losers with big dreams that will never happen.  

    And the CIA isn't making things any better, with their new requests for the authority to assassinate  "targeted strike" anyone, for "suspicious behavior", even when they have no idea who they are.

    "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

    by Hayate Yagami on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:13:38 AM PDT

    •  Oh, and this little tidbit: (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, 420 forever, BradyB, Funkygal, raster44

      From a CNN article:

      "Our ability to respect the sovereignty of other countries and to limit our incursions into somebody else's territory is enhanced by the fact that we are able to pinpoint-strike an al Qaeda operative in a place where the capacities of that military in that country may not be able to get them," Obama said.
      Or more simply, "We'll bomb whatever we want to bomb, and to hell with what the local governments want."

      "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

      by Hayate Yagami on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:17:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A few people plotting things took down the World (5+ / 0-)

      Trade Center, hit the Pentagon, and destroyed four airplanes and all aboard.  All total, almost 3,000 people.  

      Were I you, I wouldn't take so lightly what "a few people still plotting things", are capable of doing.

      •  A large network that got numerous operatives... (5+ / 0-)

        ...into the country, trained in country, plus massive intelligence failures, and a method of attack that will literally never work again.  It requires a lot of money, organization, and investment, which, if reports are to be believed, AQ no longer has.

        Second, even if I accepted that at face value, your response completely misses the point that killing civilians as "collateral damage" makes the problem worse.

        "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

        by Hayate Yagami on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 10:00:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course killing civilians makes things worse. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raster44

          But, if you assume that we have to stop terrorists, what would be a better way to do so? Should we invade the country? A whole lot more civilians were killed in Iraq than have been killed by the drones. Should we send in the SEAL teams? There's no way to guarantee that civilians won't be killed that way, either, and we're also risking the very best of the American military. Can you name a single way of eliminating the threat to us without endangering civilians? What would you have us do?

          It's so easy to complain when the welfare of three hundred million people is not your responsibility.

          "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

          by tb92 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:37:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you reject the premise, the argument fails (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mookins, Funkygal, raster44, Odysseus

            Your whole post is based on the first "if", and you assume that the only solution is to kill every single terrorist out there.  That's not a plan, that's absolute insanity.  And when you kill civilians, the ones left behind are easier to radicalize, and you're left with a hydra problem (kill one, two more come back).

            Intelligence works. If you find actionable evidence about a specific plot by specific people, you stop them. Arrest or detain them where they are if it's possible, or simply prevent them, or people working with them, from getting into position to do it.  9-11, for example. If the dots had been connected earlier, and the suspicious behavior of the hijackers had been noticed by the intelligence community, they could have been stopped anywhere from when they entered the country, to the flight schools, to the day they set foot on the airplanes.  Killing them all isn't the only option.

            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

            by Hayate Yagami on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:04:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not the only option. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              raster44

              And it's not the only effort the President is making. But it most certainly stops those particular men from planning any additional attacks. I'm fairly sure it makes other men a little more thoughtful before they volunteer to plan attacks. And it makes us FEEL safer. In the same way that Bush made America weaker by encouraging fear, Obama can make us stronger by encouraging confidence. That may not speak well of us, but it's the way most humans work. I can tell you this, if I knew people were planning to hurt my family, I wouldn't sit around and wait for them to do so. I would take the battle to them. That's what the President is doing.

              You might be right from a logical point of view, but there are human emotions involved here, and that changes things.

              "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

              by tb92 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:25:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "And it makes us FEEL safer" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus

                While simultaneously making things worse.  It's worse than a placebo. It's a poison pill sold as a cure.

                "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                by Hayate Yagami on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:00:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Alternative Radio interviewed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raster44, Argyrios

          a Pakistani journalist, a grand-niece or something of Benazir Bhutto- so maybe that colors her view, but- she said look, the drone strikes have killed three or four thousand Pakistanis, but the extremists have killed thirty or forty thousand of them, so it's a pretty clear choice.

    •  It's a legit debate--I don't deny that (5+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site