Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Which is to say that our priority, right now, should be to make sure that we don’t elect another Bush, even if that means we have to elect another Obama. That’s my feeling, anyway.

[/quote]

Obama really isn’t materially different than Bush in terms of Foreign Policy.

Congress voted “yea” on Iraq. Bam wanted Syria, and will likely (as it is tracking now) have our boots on the ground in Ukraine…

All I’m saying is I’d like someone vastly different than the two of them. Because if Bush ordered the drone strike of citizens and their teenage sons, void of due process, please point it out to me.

They are both deplorable, and we deserve better. [/quote]

I agree with much of this, but not the first sentence. Syria–complicated, in that what Obama actually would have done probably would not have involved boots and the ground and thus probably would have not led in the direction of “real” war, which is a good thing. But, either way, in the end, nothing much happened.

Drone strikes on American citizens–his worst offense in the arena of FP, and an absolute and utter transgression. I’m with you 100 percent.

Still, what Bush did renders the two items I just detailed vanishingly small. An absolutely pointless war–a real war, mind you, with thousands of real American corpses, and many more real Iraqi civilian corpses, and trillions of dollars just–poof–gone.

In the end, the first thing I look for in a President is, “will he start a war like an asshole?” Because any war, in this day, can lead to total war. American Presidents are among the very few people on Earth endowed with the power to snuff out the universe’s last sentient thought (of which we’re aware). I can work around the taxes they levy and the laws they pass. I can’t get away from a mushroom cloud.

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Would any supporter of the war in Iraq care to address this?[/quote]

Let’s look at the objective results :

a secular dictaror, from sunni origins, with a nationalist ba’athist ideology has been replaced by a Prime Minister who is a shi’a islamist with pro-iranian tendencies.

It created a soon-to-be-filled power vaccuum, a regional chaos, and a resurgence of old ethnical and religious conflicts.

Which is a perfectly brilliant “divide and don’t even bother to conquer” move.

Especially if you consider that the oil market was left pretty much undisturbed.

The region is now like Yugoslavia after Tito’s death :
The various factions will fight between themselves for a decade or two, instead of trying to terrorize us.

Then they will redraw the map and be ready to join the rest of the civilized world.
Just like the countries of ex-yugoslavia today.

But that’s not even the whole story :

A few years after bush’s war in Irak, other (ex-)ba’athist, nationalist rulers suddenly started to fall. One after the other.

And each and everytime, it produced the same vacuum, the same local chaos, the same internal struggles, the same divisions among islamist groups, the same generational “age war”.

So Bush’s irakian move was not only a brilliant move, it’s was a perfect domino “strike”.

You just have to wait a few more years to see its final result

disclaimer : the above post is mainly an “exercice in style”.
[/quote]

And it only produced 4,487 sets of American widows and bereaved mothers! Plus a few trillion dollars, of course.

By the way, the whole argument seems to hinge on, “The various factions will fight between themselves for a decade or two, instead of trying to terrorize us.” Which is fine, except that, on the list of countries that were trying to terrorize us in the early aughts, Iraq was much lower than many of its neighbors.

Also, there isn’t any necessary connection between the Arab Spring and Iraq.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Would any supporter of the war in Iraq care to address this?[/quote]

Let’s look at the objective results :

a secular dictaror, from sunni origins, with a nationalist ba’athist ideology has been replaced by a Prime Minister who is a shi’a islamist with pro-iranian tendencies.

It created a soon-to-be-filled power vaccuum, a regional chaos, and a resurgence of old ethnical and religious conflicts.

Which is a perfectly brilliant “divide and don’t even bother to conquer” move.

Especially if you consider that the oil market was left pretty much undisturbed.

The region is now like Yugoslavia after Tito’s death :
The various factions will fight between themselves for a decade or two, instead of trying to terrorize us.

Then they will redraw the map and be ready to join the rest of the civilized world.
Just like the countries of ex-yugoslavia today.

But that’s not even the whole story :

A few years after bush’s war in Irak, other (ex-)ba’athist, nationalist rulers suddenly started to fall. One after the other.

And each and everytime, it produced the same vacuum, the same local chaos, the same internal struggles, the same divisions among islamist groups, the same generational “age war”.

So Bush’s irakian move was not only a brilliant move, it’s was a perfect domino “strike”.

You just have to wait a few more years to see its final result

disclaimer : the above post is mainly an “exercice in style”.
[/quote]

And it only produced 4,487 sets of American widows and bereaved mothers! Plus a few trillion dollars, of course.

By the way, the whole argument seems to hinge on, “The various factions will fight between themselves for a decade or two, instead of trying to terrorize us.” Which is fine, except that, on the list of countries that were trying to terrorize us in the early aughts, Iraq was much lower than many of its neighbors.

Also, there isn’t any necessary connection between the Arab Spring and Iraq.[/quote]

The Bush Doctrine sought to transform Iraq into a democracy, which would then radiate liberal ideals throughout south west Asia. It not only failed miserably in this endeavor, but was a major reason why the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated. Many scholars and practitioners believe that the forces that were committed to Iraq would have proved indispensable during a critical window of opportunity in Afghanistan. The Obama administrations surge in Afghanistan was the most prudent course of action for the United States to take, but it was unfortunately too late to be decisive.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Still, what Bush did renders the two items I just detailed vanishingly small. [/quote]

I’m not defending the war in Iraq by any measure.

But I couldn’t, for one second, agree that the blatant admission of our government that “your rights are no longer protected. All we have to do is label you a “propagandist” and we can execute you.” Is vanishingly small.

I speak out against our government pretty much every chance I get. I am without a doubt a “propagandist” in their view. My children and I can now be executed simply for what is supposed to be my right to free speech. And not a single person in government who ordered my hit will be charged with the crime they commit, and not a single fuck will be given except by the select few that understand they are next, I mean, there is a traffic jam in Jersey and the Oscars are on.

While the body count is indeed lower, and the dollar cost significantly less, the open admission by our government that they can and will kill you for speaking the wrong words… Is egregious enough for me to disagree that the current situation is “vanishingly” small compared to ill sought after war.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because if Bush ordered the drone strike of citizens and their teenage sons, [/quote]

Maybe he did, but we just don’t know.

[/quote]

I would imagine Bam’s execution of an American Citizen sans due process was not the first, nor will it be the last such action ordered.

Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Amen!

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Amen! [/quote]

The MEDIA and the advertizing machine that drives it controls the national conversation now. Of course if the independent news outlets publish anything too harsh they will get audited by the IRS or visited by men with black suits demanding their hard drives. Bam don’t fuck around when people want to tell the truth about things…

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Amen! [/quote]

The MEDIA and the advertizing machine that drives it controls the national conversation now. Of course if the independent news outlets publish anything too harsh they will get audited by the IRS or visited by men with black suits demanding their hard drives. Bam don’t fuck around when people want to tell the truth about things… [/quote]

x4

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

While the body count is indeed lower, and the dollar cost significantly less, the open admission by our government that they can and will kill you for speaking the wrong words… Is egregious enough for me to disagree that the current situation is “vanishingly” small compared to ill sought after war. [/quote]

You’re right, it isn’t vanishingly small. I hadn’t realized that I’d lumped Awlaki in with Syria with that descriptor.

However, I stand by the claim that Bush’s dollar and human-life cost render him the far worse president, as of now anyway. My thoughts on slippery slopes and the Awlaki legalese are complicated (though I am still totally with you). Bush wins in terms of sheer human suffering, if nothing else.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would imagine Bam’s execution of an American Citizen sans due process was not the first, nor will it be the last such action ordered.

Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Aren’t they just considered traitors?

Do you need to be tried in order to be officially called a traitor?

I mean, Benedict Arnold didn’t get tried, and he’s the quintessential American traitor.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would imagine Bam’s execution of an American Citizen sans due process was not the first, nor will it be the last such action ordered.

Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Aren’t they just considered traitors?

Do you need to be tried in order to be officially called a traitor?

I mean, Benedict Arnold didn’t get tried, and he’s the quintessential American traitor.[/quote]

That is, sort of, the point, lol.

We don’t need the term traitor getting tossed around, nor do we need people just sitting back and not thinking critically about who is called a traitor and for what actions they were. (Not saying you aren’t thinking critically.)

I want the default government position to be “due process”. And unless the dude picks up a rifle and shoots an arresting officer, he gets due process. If the citizen is engaged in an open act of warfare (actually firing on people during the drone strike) that is a whole different situation. But driving his teenage son to school? Yeah, no, we need to not be bombing his car at that point.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would imagine Bam’s execution of an American Citizen sans due process was not the first, nor will it be the last such action ordered.

Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Aren’t they just considered traitors?

Do you need to be tried in order to be officially called a traitor?

I mean, Benedict Arnold didn’t get tried, and he’s the quintessential American traitor.[/quote]

That is, sort of, the point, lol.

We don’t need the term traitor getting tossed around, nor do we need people just sitting back and not thinking critically about who is called a traitor and for what actions they were. (Not saying you aren’t thinking critically.)

I want the default government position to be “due process”. And unless the dude picks up a rifle and shoots an arresting officer, he gets due process. If the citizen is engaged in an open act of warfare (actually firing on people during the drone strike) that is a whole different situation. But driving his teenage son to school? Yeah, no, we need to not be bombing his car at that point. [/quote]

“MLK had a dream, Obama has a drone.”

  • Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would imagine Bam’s execution of an American Citizen sans due process was not the first, nor will it be the last such action ordered.

Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Aren’t they just considered traitors?

Do you need to be tried in order to be officially called a traitor?

I mean, Benedict Arnold didn’t get tried, and he’s the quintessential American traitor.[/quote]

That is, sort of, the point, lol.

We don’t need the term traitor getting tossed around, nor do we need people just sitting back and not thinking critically about who is called a traitor and for what actions they were. (Not saying you aren’t thinking critically.)

I want the default government position to be “due process”. And unless the dude picks up a rifle and shoots an arresting officer, he gets due process. If the citizen is engaged in an open act of warfare (actually firing on people during the drone strike) that is a whole different situation. But driving his teenage son to school? Yeah, no, we need to not be bombing his car at that point. [/quote]

This is the same erroneous slippery slope argument that Rand Paul foolishly engaged in. You, like him, are conflating domestic law enforcement with counter terrorism operations. You can’t treat targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki as if it had occurred within the sovereign territory of the U.S. Were the FBI or JSOC somehow obligated to get their asses shot off in the badlands of Yemen attempting to apprehend a regional commander of Al-Qaida who had direct links to several terrorist attacks? He renounced his citizenship (and any protections he had under the constitution) as soon as he began engaging in acts of war against the state. Due process is a idealistic pipe dream when the individual is operating outside of the U.S. in an extremely hostile and fluid wartime environment.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
…in an extremely hostile and fluid wartime environment.[/quote]

It is the creation/justification of this wartime environment that concerns me most.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
…in an extremely hostile and fluid wartime environment.[/quote]

It is the creation/justification of this wartime environment that concerns me most. [/quote]

I’m referring to Yemen specifically if I didn’t make that clear. The idea of giving an individual his day in court while he operates as a senior commander of a transnational terrorist organization within the safe haven of an ineffectual state is laughable.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would imagine Bam’s execution of an American Citizen sans due process was not the first, nor will it be the last such action ordered.

Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Aren’t they just considered traitors?

Do you need to be tried in order to be officially called a traitor?

I mean, Benedict Arnold didn’t get tried, and he’s the quintessential American traitor.[/quote]

That is, sort of, the point, lol.

We don’t need the term traitor getting tossed around, nor do we need people just sitting back and not thinking critically about who is called a traitor and for what actions they were. (Not saying you aren’t thinking critically.)

I want the default government position to be “due process”. And unless the dude picks up a rifle and shoots an arresting officer, he gets due process. If the citizen is engaged in an open act of warfare (actually firing on people during the drone strike) that is a whole different situation. But driving his teenage son to school? Yeah, no, we need to not be bombing his car at that point. [/quote]

This is the same erroneous slippery slope argument that Rand Paul foolishly engaged in. You, like him, are conflating domestic law enforcement with counter terrorism operations. You can’t treat targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki as if it had occurred within the sovereign territory of the U.S. Were the FBI or JSOC somehow obligated to get their asses shot off in the badlands of Yemen attempting to apprehend a regional commander of Al-Qaida who had direct links to several terrorist attacks? He renounced his citizenship (and any protections he had under the constitution) as soon as he began engaging in acts of war against the state. Due process is a idealistic pipe dream when the individual is operating outside of the U.S. in an extremely hostile and fluid wartime environment.[/quote]

Ladies and Gentlemen may I present to you, the erosion of your freedom and the government that was founded to preserve it.

Enjoy your stay, and enjoy being talked down to because you expect your government and its officials to respect the document they are elected and appointed to uphold.

Biz, you are, without question, part of the problem. Enjoy that.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Due process is a idealistic pipe dream when the individual is operating outside of the U.S. in an extremely hostile and fluid wartime environment.[/quote]

What’s laughable is thinking executing him and his teenage son on their way to pick up a bunch of apples is appropriate course of action, and should cause no concern for the “simple folk” back home that “just don’t understand” and wallow in their “idealistic pipe dreams” of freedom and natural rights.

GTFO with your pro government gibberish.

“The terrorists are coming” newspeak for “surrender all your freedom to the State” so we may keep you safe.

Fuck that, and fuck anyone selling that bullshit.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would imagine Bam’s execution of an American Citizen sans due process was not the first, nor will it be the last such action ordered.

Which makes it all the more depressing that we have news networks that have spent more time on a traffic jam in NJ than they did the blatant erosion of our government’s protection of our natural rights. [/quote]

Aren’t they just considered traitors?

Do you need to be tried in order to be officially called a traitor?

I mean, Benedict Arnold didn’t get tried, and he’s the quintessential American traitor.[/quote]

That is, sort of, the point, lol.

We don’t need the term traitor getting tossed around, nor do we need people just sitting back and not thinking critically about who is called a traitor and for what actions they were. (Not saying you aren’t thinking critically.)

I want the default government position to be “due process”. And unless the dude picks up a rifle and shoots an arresting officer, he gets due process. If the citizen is engaged in an open act of warfare (actually firing on people during the drone strike) that is a whole different situation. But driving his teenage son to school? Yeah, no, we need to not be bombing his car at that point. [/quote]

This is the same erroneous slippery slope argument that Rand Paul foolishly engaged in. You, like him, are conflating domestic law enforcement with counter terrorism operations. You can’t treat targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki as if it had occurred within the sovereign territory of the U.S. Were the FBI or JSOC somehow obligated to get their asses shot off in the badlands of Yemen attempting to apprehend a regional commander of Al-Qaida who had direct links to several terrorist attacks? He renounced his citizenship (and any protections he had under the constitution) as soon as he began engaging in acts of war against the state. Due process is a idealistic pipe dream when the individual is operating outside of the U.S. in an extremely hostile and fluid wartime environment.[/quote]

Ladies and Gentlemen may I present to you, the erosion of your freedom and the government that was founded to preserve it.

Enjoy your stay, and enjoy being talked down to because you expect your government and its officials to respect the document they are elected and appointed to uphold.

Biz, you are, without question, part of the problem. Enjoy that. [/quote]

The preeminent concern of the state is to provide security for its citizens. If a targeted killing occurred in the U.S. where domestic law enforcement actually has the capability to apprehend an individual, then yes, it would be an unforgivable crime. A regional commander of Al-Qaida who planned and inspired numerous attacks against American citizens operating in an ineffectual state such as Yemen? His death was both necessary and justified. You cannot conflate domestic law enforcement operations with those of counter terrorism.