Skip to main content

View Diary: Malala tells President Obama "Drones are fueling terrorism" (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think he's been taking the path (11+ / 0-)

    of least resistance, just as has so often done.

    It's true that he's not particularly malicious. Also he doesn't have a Cheney whispering into his ear, telling him to hit Iraq.

    But he has expanded American warmaking power enormously. I don't think it's because he showed restraint, but because he did what was easiest and most convenient for him politically.

    Because these technologies like drones and cyberwarfare are so new and untested, there is no body of international law that regulates them and there is little opposition because few people even understand what can be done with these technologies. Obama took advantage of this to build a massive unconventional warmaking capability under everyone's radar, one that is poorly understood.

    If he'd pushed old-school land wars and invasions like Bush, it would have been a huge headache for him politically--as we saw with his attempt to take us to war with Syria. It is only political constraints that prevented him from advocating those kinds of wars. Not any moral compunction or sense of restraint.

    This is Obama at the UN:

    The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region.
    This is astonishing. Bush never said anything this bellicose or unilateral. Obama says that whenever we think we need to go to war to defend "our core interests" (whatever those may be--he doesn't define them), we will. Not just in self defense, not under UN approval. But whenever we think we need to.

    This is not a man who is urging restraint on American military power. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:56:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  core interests (8+ / 0-)

      US interests equal corporations, imo.
      Too bad they don't pay for all the military hardware and supply their own soilders.
      Why not?  
      Because that would cut in to their profits.
      I still don't understand when the US bombs another country it is called fighting terrorism.
      But when those that have been bombed fight back, they are called terrorists.
      If another country droned the US, or invaded it would we be called terrorists if we fought back?  

      Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

      by snoopydawg on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:20:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think any President who'd (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      I Lurked For Years

      oppose the 'global hegemony by dint of arms' agenda would survive their term of office, at the very least, politically. Obama, not Obama, is hardly relevant when it comes to foreign policy making in the US.

      Although more relevant than the American public.

      The other points I raised are infinitely more profitable to consider.


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 07:11:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site