Ulysses G. Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Not really.......If it is not acknowledged to even exist then we the people are not privy to it. It IS acknowledged. Edited February 9, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Not really.......If it is not acknowledged to even exist then we the people are not privy to it. It IS acknowledged. Yes that drone strike was acknowledged & you know it was the 1st time in all these years yes? The video link did not work but I had seen it before...Did you notice the 3 pages of comments under it on You Tube? Not one in support I am not naive enough to think war does not happen. But I do think there are Constitutional protocols in our Constitution for a reason. Those reasons are there to protect us same as the rest of the Constitution I agree with RP who many think is against all war. Yet that is not true at all. He just feels if it is war declare get in & get out & win We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty. Edited February 9, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) ..Did you notice the 3 pages of comments under it on You Tube? Not one in support Incorrect once again, but, as is typical on the Internet, there are a lot of nuts posting a bunch of ignorant, hate-filled comments - if that is your point. Edited February 10, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) ..Did you notice the 3 pages of comments under it on You Tube? Not one in support Incorrect once again, but, as is typical on the Internet, there are a lot of nuts posting a bunch of ignorant, hate-filled comments if that is your point. Not at all like I said I saw it when it aired on TV...Your link which did not work led me to the Youtube It is there I noticed the comments... Yes I agree hate filled comments....but it was your link not mine that listed them. As for incorrect? How so? Was this not Obama's first admission publicly? It even says so on your link.... President Barack Obama has confirmed for the first time that US drones have targeted Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants on Pakistani soil Edited February 10, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Not one in support You said "not acknowledged", but that is not correct. You said "not one in support", but there is - just trying to keep things honest. Edited February 10, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Not one in support You said "not acknowledged", but not correct. You said "not one in support", but there is - just trying to keep things honest. That is fine & hate to get sidetracked over minutia.... I think basically it has been shown many times & even admitted to by the CIA that it is neither acknowledged nor denied I imagine it has a lot to do with the agreement with Pakistan government to fly drones in their air space in exchange for XX billion per year USD As for the Obama video yes as I said the 1st time/admission yet the drones have been there since 2004 Lastly yes it is a small thing & was your link that I glanced at the comments on....Just looked again & did not see any support but that does not matter either way as they are for the most part as you said hateful comments & I agree with that. I only posted my comments here because of a post I saw by chuckd saying.. here we go again I agree & this topic has been done to death here. I think we all know where each of us stands on it. I just wanted to be clear that there is more than one facet to those who are against it. It is also based on its effects here at home in the USA that a solution should be sought. Either it is war & they budget for it go in there & do the deed....or it is not. This bleeding out of America through actions such as these should not be ignored by citizens who care about the future of their country. Edited February 10, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Not one in support You said "not acknowledged", but not correct. You said "not one in support", but there is - just trying to keep things honest. That is fine & hate to get sidetracked over minutia.... . Posting things as facts that are incorrect is not "minutia". It is either laziness or purposeful misdirection. Some member's posts are constantly full of this kind of spin and pointing it out helps everyone looking for the true story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) helps everyone looking for the true story. As I said...fine....one admission (in campaign year) 2012 of a previously...as in since 2004 action that was never acknowledged till of course this one blurb assuring voters it is a precise science. This is still minutia/sidetracking .........answers nothing of the bigger questions regarding Constitutionality/Funding/Declaration of War etc.etc.etc. Edited February 10, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) The CIA run the drones. Have the CIA acknowledged their use? Have the CIA said how they are used, what intel is used? Who decides to bomb or not? What is the procedure for such determination? I'm sure they have been asked a million times. Edited February 10, 2012 by Wallaby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So the President has acknowledged the use of drones once. How many times did you want him to acknowledge it? When you get into matters of National Security, then for very obvious reasons, the amount of information and the timing of the release of information is protected. This protection is provided by laws and those laws are subject to review by Congress and the Courts. Do you really think the CIA is unconstitutional? Who do you believe has the constitutional right to operate drones? I very much doubt the constitutionality of drones is even a question that the Courts would address. The point seems to be that some people live in a world in which bad things won't happen and where we can all just be open and honest and hope for the best. Or some folks think it's just fine that these militants attack us wherever and whenever they want; including on our own soil, in Europe, Asia and Africa. The war on terror, like the war on drugs, will never be won. I just hope it is not lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) The war on terror, like the war on drugs, will never be won. I just hope it is not lost. These undeclared Drone wars.....War on Terror.... If they are never won are they not already lost? Lost $$$$....Lost lives....Lost freedoms & liberties of US citizens? This is the problem with undeclared wars with no real aim in mind. All they have done is undermine our National Defense...Serve as incentive for Al Qaeda..Drain our financial resources.. demoralize our military men & women....worsen the financial crisis we now are in full throttle. We will learn the same lesson Russia did & others that followed the same route. Our military superiority backed by nukes will no more save us/our economy than it saved Russia when it collapsed. Russia thousands of nukes & military superiority could not help their economy when it collapsed We keep debasing our dollar over ignorance such as this & we will soon enough see the runaway inflation that others saw. Personally it looks like it is already too late to me. But I hope I am wrong As RP has stated... The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan - just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America's long term interest Whether your for drones or not does anyone not think that is true? If honest elections were allowed does anyone think it will not be religious fundamentalist they choose in those countries? If so then what are we doing there? Edited February 10, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The "hated" Shah of Iran is a lot less hated than the religious nutjobs in charge today. He actually did a lot of good things as well as bad. In the Islamic Middle East, one often has to choose the best of a lot of bad options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) The "hated" Shah of Iran is a lot less hated than the religious nutjobs in charge today. He actually did a lot of good things as well as bad. In the Islamic Middle East, one often has to choose the best of a lot of bad options. Yes *we* think so....But it is not *our* country to decide. That in the end is always the problem. Which is why we should seek "policy that serves America's long term interest" Edited February 10, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The war is on terrorism and not winning it does not mean it is lost. Keep the terrorists and their antics in the part of the world where they originated. Do you believe that the lost 'freedom and liberties' will somehow be restored when we leave the region? Do you think that ending drone strikes will make life all warm and fuzzy again? Many of the 'rights' we have were never really rights to begin with; they were privileges we enjoyed in a different time. As I child I could get on my bike and go play with my friends. I went where I wanted to. I had to be back at dinner time. You can't let children do that today. We are and will be leaving the area. Drone strikes aren't slowing that down. If anything, they are speeding it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The war is on terrorism and not winning it does not mean it is lost. Keep the terrorists and their antics in the part of the world where they originated. Do you believe that the lost 'freedom and liberties' will somehow be restored when we leave the region? Do you think that ending drone strikes will make life all warm and fuzzy again? Many of the 'rights' we have were never really rights to begin with; they were privileges we enjoyed in a different time. As I child I could get on my bike and go play with my friends. I went where I wanted to. I had to be back at dinner time. You can't let children do that today. We are and will be leaving the area. Drone strikes aren't slowing that down. If anything, they are speeding it up. Well what's the point in dead terrorists if the paperwork isn't in order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The "hated" Shah of Iran is a lot less hated than the religious nutjobs in charge today. He actually did a lot of good things as well as bad. In the Islamic Middle East, one often has to choose the best of a lot of bad options. Yes *we* think so....But it is not *our* country to decide. Many Iranians think so. They miss the guy compared to what they have now. "Other Iranians online sought to put the Pahlavi legacy in a more modern perspective, arguing that although the family members lived in luxury, they at least sought to serve Iran, whereas the mullah-princes of Iran's clerical elite make no pretense of building the nation." Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040830,00.html#ixzz1lxAUAI93 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The war is on terrorism and not winning it does not mean it is lost. Keep the terrorists and their antics in the part of the world where they originated. Do you believe that the lost 'freedom and liberties' will somehow be restored when we leave the region? Yes defense at home 100% supported That is where the infraction occurred yes? Does spending trillion in a country that is never going to change going to ultimately help that?...No Do I believe our stolen rights & liberties will be returned HE11 NO!!!!!!!!! That is the problem I am not talking about riding a bike as a child I am talking about rights taken away via false pretense on this so called war on Terror. They are no different than the gun grabbers taking away rights from lawful citizens while the crooks continue to flourish with their guns & lack of controls Your right though one way or another we are leaving the area...Via pressure by taxpayers or via going broke first. At the end of the day do you expect unicorns will then crap skittles In Pakistan? Me neither...SO at the end of the day....Why spend $1 more? Why spend 1 American life more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The war is on terrorism and not winning it does not mean it is lost. Keep the terrorists and their antics in the part of the world where they originated. Do you believe that the lost 'freedom and liberties' will somehow be restored when we leave the region? Yes defense at home 100% supported That is where the infraction occurred yes? There have been lots of "infractions" overseas for many decades. Just defending the homeland won't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 There have been lots of "infractions" overseas for many decades. Just defending the homeland won't do it. At some point it will have to....because if not then we follow in the exact same footsteps of failed empires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 And this thread is about a drone strike, not empires and stolen rights, the state of the US economy and trips down memory lane on a bicycle. I get it. Some of you don't like drone strikes. Some of you do. Stay on topic, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 An inflammatory and insensitive post has been removed as well as a reply to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 An inflammatory and insensitive post has been removed as well as a reply to it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So the President has acknowledged the use of drones once. How many times did you want him to acknowledge it? When you get into matters of National Security, then for very obvious reasons, the amount of information and the timing of the release of information is protected. This protection is provided by laws and those laws are subject to review by Congress and the Courts. Do you really think the CIA is unconstitutional? Who do you believe has the constitutional right to operate drones? I very much doubt the constitutionality of drones is even a question that the Courts would address. The point seems to be that some people live in a world in which bad things won't happen and where we can all just be open and honest and hope for the best. Or some folks think it's just fine that these militants attack us wherever and whenever they want; including on our own soil, in Europe, Asia and Africa. The war on terror, like the war on drugs, will never be won. I just hope it is not lost. The CIA are civilians who are not covered in the Rules of War outlined in the Geneva Convention. If they shoot or kill in the name of a country as non uniformed civilians, they are murderers and that has to matter to somebody. I don't think the worthiness of the actual target should matter when it is about murder. If one of these guys should end up in a war crimes trial, his position will be weak to say the least. Do we care or do we not care about War Crimes? I would simply suggest that the Obama's lawyers have kept him from addressing the matter even though we have been doing it since 2004. I am sure the Nazis considered what they were doing in the camps in the best interest of the fatherland but they were at least uniformed. This legal situation is similar any many ways. Ah, we all miss the good old days of the Great War when both sides wore uniforms and charged through the mud at machine guns. But today they don't, and only one sid has no qualms about killing innocents and children, and hiding amongst their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It probably did kill militants. If uncle sam's drone had killed innocents, then the Pakis would be demonstrating in the streets. Interesting, the Pakistanis don't demonstrate when nationalities other than Americans kill their brethren. It is not the demonstrations against death that I have a problem with.... It is the cheering of death by any country/citizens that I find in bad taste Death is nothing to celebrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It probably did kill militants. If uncle sam's drone had killed innocents, then the Pakis would be demonstrating in the streets. Interesting, the Pakistanis don't demonstrate when nationalities other than Americans kill their brethren. It is not the demonstrations against death that I have a problem with.... It is the cheering of death by any country/citizens that I find in bad taste Death is nothing to celebrate. I agree, which is WHY I was and am so incensed at many Muslims reactions on 9/11.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) It probably did kill militants. If uncle sam's drone had killed innocents, then the Pakis would be demonstrating in the streets. Interesting, the Pakistanis don't demonstrate when nationalities other than Americans kill their brethren. It is not the demonstrations against death that I have a problem with.... It is the cheering of death by any country/citizens that I find in bad taste Death is nothing to celebrate. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Attila the Hun, Caligula, Mussolini, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein and others spring to mind when discussing deaths that one could celebrate. Edited February 11, 2012 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, Mussolini, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein and others would probably agree with you. Not so sure about bin Laden and Attila the Hun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Stay on the topic and be civil to one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, Mussolini, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein and others would probably agree with you. Not so sure about bin Laden and Attila the Hun. Speaks volumes and no more need be said IMO.. Edited February 12, 2012 by metisdead 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now