Originally Posted by Justin '77

And yet you're casting your vote for the guy who did that to this kid and hundreds of others? The mind boggles; I had the impression that you were ethical.

Rani was correct, after pondering this photo and realizing there are numerous others like this innocent child, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. Now I guess I will join the ranks of the vilified Nader. Oh well!

Originally Posted by Aramea

Been using that expression for years, so it's not exactly new. Your attempt at shaming me and others into your position should tell me something, but I simply lack the people skills to analyze it.

It is not a cop out to say that targeted attacks are better at managing collateral damage than the indiscriminate mass bombing that Bush used in the Iraq War. I don't like drones and I said as much above. If Republicans regain the White House, we are looking at potential "Shock and Awe II" in Iran. I really hate S&A warfare, so I look at the current situation as an improvement.

I have a similar view of the difference between Bush 43's and Obama's approaches to fighting insurgency. First, Bush 43 was too much into preemptive unilateral invasions. He underestimated the number of boots needed on the ground to cleanly suppress an insurgency. He overestimated the effectiveness of high tech toys. His notion of building permanent bases in Iraq to keep troops near the oil and be able to project power into other countries in the region was ill founded. Anticipating that we would be greeted as liberators was quite wrong. Working to put our own interests and promote our own culture ahead of local needs and desires led to something closely resembling a quagmire. To a great degree, towards the end of Bush 43's time, he and Obama came into agreement that getting the troops out was the proper move. Of course, he wouldn't admit the incursions were a mistake born of wrath and arrogance.

Yet I'm not sure I'm thrilled with Obama's approach, either. He is setting some nasty precedents. Nation states, under the Obama Doctrine, are allowed to blow up opposition in violation of international law. It is justifiable under existing law and tradition to use military force including air power in war zones, but not in civilian areas far from a fighting front. Under Obama, there has been no great attempt to avoid civilian casualties.

Mind you, I found the Bush 43 era policies problematic as well. If a sniper fired on US troops out of a civilian Iraqi village, US air and artillery would frequently destroy the village. The lives of US soldiers were worth far more than local civilian lives, at least in the eyes of US soldiers. Understandable, but problematic if the goal of the war was to win hearts and minds. If one was building permanent bases with intent to have troops near the oil indefinitely, not respecting local lives was a mistake. The yankees directly contributed to the local hatred of the yankees.

Obama is updating the rules of war in a perhaps necessary response to the nature of modern terrorist conflict. If the 'terrorists' are going to hide among the civilian population, and the traditional rules of war say one cannot in time of peace attack civilian targets, the rules are going to have to be rewritten. We're going to have drone pilots in California assassinating freedom fighters / terrorists and their families in Afghanistan, then going home to have supper with their own families.

This is perhaps effective tactics, but I am less inclined to differentiate between bombs dropped from aircraft and bombs delivered as IEDs. The shift in tactics seem to be effective. Whether there will be consequences in the future we'll have to see.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It wasn't an attempt to shame you. It was a photo of reality. It's something that has been banned from TV and other medias because it touches one's heart. And, for heavens sake, the powers that be can't afford for that to happen.

The war in Vietnam was ended, partially, because the American people actually saw the carnage on the nightly news.

I have seen the photos before and they are, indeed, heartbreaking.

Any yes, this:

Tell this child and the hundreds just like him, that great slogan about perfection.

is an attempt to shame or diminish. My heart has already bled enough for the little boys that get blown to bits as a result of US actions in the ME, as I have a struggling little boy of my own. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to do it one more time.

Originally Posted by Weave

Uh yeah I work for a living. In fact I just had to endure higher health care costs and a policy that covers less. My parents are both on medicare and with Obamacare their choices for doctors and health care facilities are going to be reduced. My wife's health care policies are getting worse as well, all thanks to Obamacare.

So you think that wouldn't have happened in the absense of Obamacare? Higher health care costs, policies covering less and costing more -- that's been the story of health care insurance and expenses for the past 30 years.

Originally Posted by Deb C

That seems to be the newest slogan of the Democratic party. It's the latest cop out for those who wish not to see the dangerous situation.



Yeah, that's all about expecting perfection. Tell this child and the hundreds just like him, that great slogan about perfection.

What about the people splattered on the sidewalk after jumping out of the World Trade Center, or the ones who were burned alive or died in plane crashes?

Oh yeah, they were Americans. They deserved it.

How about all of the people tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein? The ones who he fed feet-first into industrial meat grinders, the women he had raped on video as punishment for their husband/father/brothers political disloyalty? How about this 15 year old Pakistanti girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for speaking against them?



This is where the phoniness, hypocrisy and dishonesty of people like Justin (and presumably you as well) rears its head. It only matters when America does something violent. Even if that violence is in response to, and an attempt to stop, the violence perpetrated and initiated by others. The double standard wielded by the far left is monumental, and completely disqualifies their point of view.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Yet I'm not sure I'm thrilled with Obama's approach, either. He is setting some nasty precedents. Nation states, under the Obama Doctrine, are allowed to blow up opposition in violation of international law. It is justifiable under existing law and tradition to use military force including air power in war zones, but not in civilian areas far from a fighting front. Under Obama, there has been no great attempt to avoid civilian casualties.


Obama is updating the rules of war in a perhaps necessary response to the nature of modern terrorist conflict. If the 'terrorists' are going to hide among the civilian population, and the traditional rules of war say one cannot in time of peace attack civilian targets, the rules are going to have to be rewritten. We're going to have drone pilots in California assassinating freedom fighters / terrorists and their families in Afghanistan, then going home to have supper with their own families.

This is perhaps effective tactics, but I am less inclined to differentiate between bombs dropped from aircraft and bombs delivered as IEDs. The shift in tactics seem to be effective. Whether there will be consequences in the future we'll have to see.

Patrick Cockburn, journalist for *The Independent* has this to say about drones.

How US drones forge as many foes as they kill


World View: The enhanced use of unmanned attack planes is at the heart of American foreign policy

Drones have other serious disadvantages. They create rage in the countries where they are used, such as Pakistan. If, as is evident, they are carried out with the connivance of Islamabad, this discredits the government as American proxies. Exact figures about civilian casualties are often mythical since outsiders do not know who is living in family compounds in Afghanistan or north-west Pakistan (witness the time it took for US intelligence to find Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad compound).

Many places where drones are used are inaccessible to foreign or even local journalists. Civilian casualties can be minimised or denied. I reported in 2009 a US bombing raid on three villages in Farah province, south of Herat, which killed 147 people, according to locals. There were craters 30ft deep which a US spokesman cheerfully suggested had been made by Taliban fighters throwing grenades into houses. This was an obvious lie, but it was impossible for journalists to prove the opposite.


Of course, local people knew what had happened. They drove their tractors pulling trailers full of body parts to the provincial capital where government soldiers opened fire, killing three of them. I wondered at the time how many of the surviving young men of the three villages, and in the rest of Farah province, joined the Taliban because of that bombing raid.
Drones do not change very much on the ground. They do provide political camouflage at home and abroad, concealing the US retreat in Afghanistan and Iraq. They store up trouble because they may create more enemies than they eliminate. They rely on a network of informants that can only be established in weak, failed or failing states. They also invite other states such as China and Russia to invest in drones to kill their dissidents beyond their borders. Secret assassination campaigns by drones, hot-air balloons, bombs or rare poisons all carry the risk that somebody, somewhere is plotting their retaliation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...l-8229276.html

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

What about the people splattered on the sidewalk after jumping out of the World Trade Center, or the ones who were burned alive or died in plane crashes?

Oh yeah, they were Americans. They deserved it.

How about all of the people tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein? The ones who he fed feet-first into industrial meat grinders, the women he had raped on video as punishment for their husband/father/brothers political disloyalty? How about this 15 year old Pakistanti girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for speaking against them?



This is where the phoniness, hypocrisy and dishonesty of people like Justin (and presumably you as well) rears its head. It only matters when America does something violent. Even if that violence is in response to, and an attempt to stop, the violence perpetrated and initiated by others. The double standard wielded by the far left is monumental, and completely disqualifies their point of view.

That was a very sad and tragic attempt on a young life. It has been the only photo of a severely attacked child that our media has shown. That's because it flames the fires of consent for more war. Should America's media show the carnage of the innocents that we murder and maim, that would give us an entirely different perspective of our war on terror. Instead they are allowed to use this sweet innocent child as fuel for more US violence. Showing one side of the story is, in my opinion, propaganda.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I have seen the photos before and they are, indeed, heartbreaking.

Any yes, this:



is an attempt to shame or diminish. My heart has already bled enough for the little boys that get blown to bits as a result of US actions in the ME, as I have a struggling little boy of my own. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to do it one more time.

To shame or diminish was not my intention. Sorry if it came off that way.

Originally Posted by Deb C

That was a very sad and tragic attempt on a young life. It has been the only photo of a severely attacked child that our media has shown. That's because it flames the fires of consent for more war. Should America's media show the carnage of the innocents thatwe murder and maim, that would give us an entirely different perspective of our war on terror. Instead they are allowed to use this sweet innocent child as fuel for more US violence. Showing one side of the story is, in my opinion, propaganda.

Exactly. And that's what you're engaged in.

Originally Posted by Deb C

To shame or diminish was not my intention. Sorry if it came off that way.

Thank you! I admit that I am probably too sensitive when it comes to cute little boys. The US owes kids like that the "great medical care" that we have available here.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This is second hand, so take it with a grain of salt. Here goes....

My boyfriend is from Battle Creek, Michigan, and he still has family there. His sister reported seeing a car bumper sticker that said "Don't re-nig. Vote Romney".

Afterward. I decided to see if I could google the slogan and see what came up. My boyfriend's sister's tale seems much less incredible.

I live near Battle Creek... and although I have never seen that disgusting bumper sticker I saw one near the Republican party headquarters in the town in which I live. It reads:

"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to show that you are not a racist you can vote for Romney in 2012 to show that you are not an idiot"

I have to give some credit to that sticker -- it is longer than the usual R meme, but I think that it is derived from a commonplace spiel about interracial dating, so it is just as lacking in imagination. Imagination and the political Right likely separated when Walt Disney died.

I can't be sure. Did anyone vote for JFK to show that he was not bigoted against Catholics?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

What about the people splattered on the sidewalk after jumping out of the World Trade Center, or the ones who were burned alive or died in plane crashes?

Oh yeah, they were Americans. They deserved it.

Our media showed few images of such. Bodies so disfigured are put in closed caskets in America. Live photos showed people jumping to their deaths rather than being burned alive, but those images were not replayed in American media. I can think of few people deserving to be burned alive. I once spoke of one major Nazi war criminal being 'unjustly hanged for his role' with the twist that he deserved to be burned at the stake. Convicted for his role in charge of the Nazi extermination camps, he was culpable for people being burned alive or fed to predatory animals.

The image that Deb C shows is intended to elicit our sympathy. You miss the point. War has always been Hell (William Tecumseh Sherman), but despite improved conduct by soldiers in the field (Geneva Convention) and better battle-field medicine, war has become far more of a hazard to civilian populations. When one considers that 4T warfare stops at nothing with the techniques and the killing technologies then available and retaliation for atrocities falls upon nations... America is in a 4T. Overkill is a norm in a 4T even if it is not criminal in purpose.

Of you want to know how nasty war can be to civilian populations, then watch this animated film Grave of the Fireflies ... if you dare.



Millions of liberals cheered after receiving the news that Osama bin Laden had just been whacked.

How about all of the people tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein? The ones who he fed feet-first into industrial meat grinders, the women he had raped on video as punishment for their husband/father/brothers political disloyalty?

Saddam Hussein was doing such with the complicity of the Reagan Administration during the Iran-Iraq war. That's before I even discuss what Josef Stalin was doing to people when he was our WWII ally.

How about this 15 year old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for speaking against them?

No excuses. Such is terrorism with the intention of murder.

This is where the phoniness, hypocrisy and dishonesty of people like Justin (and presumably you as well) rears its head. It only matters when America does something violent. Even if that violence is in response to, and an attempt to stop, the violence perpetrated and initiated by others. The double standard wielded by the far left is monumental, and completely disqualifies their point of view.

It is up to someone wronged to decide what the appropriate retaliation is. Sometimes the wisest solution is to turn the other cheek and get away. The first punch delivered in a bar-room brawl is one too many.

Originally Posted by Weave

Uh yeah I work for a living. In fact I just had to endure higher health care costs and a policy that covers less. My parents are both on medicare and with Obamacare their choices for doctors and health care facilities are going to be reduced. My wife's health care policies are getting worse as well, all thanks to Obamacare.

Someone else has noted how utterly stupid this is so I'll move on to the other two idiocies.

Originally Posted by Weave

I've also witness trillion dollar deficits every year of Obama Presidency which means eventually we are gonna have to pay those off with my taxes being raised.

Deficits are in a year that the feds spend more than they tax. The only place they "go" is as part of the govt's overall debt. That debt is paid off in its entirety every 3-4 months and re-issue it again with plenty of buyers. The only thing it "cost" is the interest which provides income to a great many people and institution who then might spend it. If that spending when added to all other spending by the feds, state and local govts and by the private sector exceeds what the economy can supply, then that will put pressure on prices - that is one of ONLY two ways we might pay for it. The other way is if the feds decide to manage that inflation by raising taxes. How in the hell do you know that spending is going to exceed the ability of economy to provide? It certainly isn't the case now and the trends are that it isn't bloodly likely in the future. So what makes you say it will? The first step in stopping being one of the sheeple is to start thinking for yourself.

Originally Posted by Weave

also just found out our President was aware almost immediately that the compound in Benghazi was under attack and did not order a relief mission as several requests for help were sent out. He dithered and allowed people to be killed. He then sent out spokespersons who lied and said it was all about a video, when it was obisous form the start it was a terrorist attack.....

Rank incomopetence, so yeah I hope Romney wins......

Oh, so you're one of the ones who believe the attack was being monitored in real time that night. Like when they got Osama, hey? You do know that the OBL mission was planned for almost a year. Do you really think the monitoring for the OBL mission was available within hours, if not minutes, for Benghazi??? Are you really this stupid?

Oh, and I guess that when things got hot, Obama would just call Iron Man to get there in under 10 minutes? Or, maybe it was suppose to be the Incredible Hulk or maybe Spiderman?

I'm amazed that your married. You got the maturity of a 13 year old.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Oh man, you're gonna love to hate me for this. In 2000, I turned 18 and voted for the first time. In Florida. For Nader.

I registered as a Republican in the start of the year, and my vote was a protest vote against Bush's changes to the party platform later in the year, after he won the primary. That was the last time all references to "limited government" and "individual rights" were seen in the official party papers.

Those concepts remain a large part of the propaganda, but it's not part of the "official" plan anymore.

Gore was never on my radar. What a chump.

Well, we got a Prez who refuse to take a briefing on al Qaeda from the beginning of his transition until August, just days before the 9/11 attack. We got a Prez that took his eye off of OBL and lied his ass off so as to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. We got a Prez who stuck his head up his ass during Katrina. We got a Prez who let the financial sector run wild leading to the financial meltdown and the Great Recession. Etc. etc.

If you're looking for a high-five from me, it ain't gonna happen.

If you're looking for redemption, you know who you need to now vote for, if not canvass for.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Been using that expression for years, so it's not exactly new. Your attempt at shaming me and others into your position should tell me something, but I simply lack the people skills to analyze it.

It is not a cop out to say that targeted attacks are better at managing collateral damage than the indiscriminate mass bombing that Bush used in the Iraq War. I don't like drones and I said as much above. If Republicans regain the White House, we are looking at potential "Shock and Awe II" in Iran. I really hate S&A warfare, so I look at the current situation as an improvement.

Your obviously someone who doesn't live in magic pony land.

Unfortunately that means your a target for the clueless and the sanctimonious. They're lazy; you're not.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It wasn't an attempt to shame you. It was a photo of reality. It's something that has been banned from TV and other medias because it touches one's heart. And, for heavens sake, the powers that be can't afford for that to happen.

The war in Vietnam was ended, partially, because the American people actually saw the carnage on the nightly news.

Well, I'll be an optimist and take this to mean you're starting to understand that our elected officials only reflect what the majority of people want. The hope here is you understand that you need to change the minds of a majority of voters.

That does put you far ahead of clowns like Justin and Rani, but if you think it's going to happen assuming or projecting self-righteous superiority to those voters, you'll be more of hindrance than a facilitator of the desired change.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Someone else has noted how utterly stupid this is so I'll move on to the other two idiocies.




Deficits are in a year that the feds spend more than they tax. The only place they "go" is as part of the govt's overall debt. That debt is paid off in its entirety every 3-4 months and re-issue it again with plenty of buyers. The only thing it "cost" is the interest which provides income to a great many people and institution who then might spend it. If that spending when added to all other spending by the feds, state and local govts and by the private sector exceeds what the economy can supply, then that will put pressure on prices - that is one of ONLY two ways we might pay for it. The other way is if the feds decide to manage that inflation by raising taxes. How in the hell do you know that spending is going to exceed the ability of economy to provide? It certainly isn't the case now and the trends are that it isn't bloodly likely in the future. So what makes you say it will? The first step in stopping being one of the sheeple is to start thinking for yourself.



Oh, so you're one of the ones who believe the attack was being monitored in real time that night. Like when they got Osama, hey? You do know that the OBL mission was planned for almost a year. Do you really think the monitoring for the OBL mission was available within hours, if not minutes, for Benghazi??? Are you really this stupid?

Oh, and I guess that when things got hot, Obama would just call Iron Man to get there in under 10 minutes? Or, maybe it was suppose to be the Incredible Hulk or maybe Spiderman?

I'm amazed that your married. You got the maturity of a 13 year old.

Im not surprised that you are divorced, given your "warm and sunny personality"......

Originally Posted by Deb C

Rani was correct, after pondering this photo and realizing there are numerous others like this innocent child, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. Now I guess I will join the ranks of the vilified Nader. Oh well!

Okay, but when it becomes clear that President Romney gave the thumbs-up to Netanyahu to nuke Iran, I hope you are as indignant with yourself when you see pictures of the 100,000, if not millions, of kids with cancer and mutations as far away as India and Australia.

You go girl!

Originally Posted by Deb C

Patrick Cockburn, journalist for *The Independent* has this to say about drones.

How US drones forge as many foes as they kill


World View: The enhanced use of unmanned attack planes is at the heart of American foreign policy


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...l-8229276.html

I would not be at all surprised if Patrick Cockburn is correct. It seems more important for American presidents to look strong and prove America strong than to end conflicts or to save lives. "Bin Ladin is dead, and General Motors is alive!" Drones might be bad foreign policy, illegal, and counter productive, but a president in Washington DC telling a drone driver in California to kill a terrorist and his family in Pakistan sure proves how macho the president is.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I have a similar view of the difference between Bush 43's and Obama's approaches to fighting insurgency. First, Bush 43 was too much into preemptive unilateral invasions. He underestimated the number of boots needed on the ground to cleanly suppress an insurgency. He overestimated the effectiveness of high tech toys. His notion of building permanent bases in Iraq to keep troops near the oil and be able to project power into other countries in the region was ill founded. Anticipating that we would be greeted as liberators was quite wrong. Working to put our own interests and promote our own culture ahead of local needs and desires led to something closely resembling a quagmire. To a great degree, towards the end of Bush 43's time, he and Obama came into agreement that getting the troops out was the proper move. Of course, he wouldn't admit the incursions were a mistake born of wrath and arrogance.

Yet I'm not sure I'm thrilled with Obama's approach, either. He is setting some nasty precedents. Nation states, under the Obama Doctrine, are allowed to blow up opposition in violation of international law. It is justifiable under existing law and tradition to use military force including air power in war zones, but not in civilian areas far from a fighting front. Under Obama, there has been no great attempt to avoid civilian casualties.

Mind you, I found the Bush 43 era policies problematic as well. If a sniper fired on US troops out of a civilian Iraqi village, US air and artillery would frequently destroy the village. The lives of US soldiers were worth far more than local civilian lives, at least in the eyes of US soldiers. Understandable, but problematic if the goal of the war was to win hearts and minds. If one was building permanent bases with intent to have troops near the oil indefinitely, not respecting local lives was a mistake. The yankees directly contributed to the local hatred of the yankees.

Obama is updating the rules of war in a perhaps necessary response to the nature of modern terrorist conflict. If the 'terrorists' are going to hide among the civilian population, and the traditional rules of war say one cannot in time of peace attack civilian targets, the rules are going to have to be rewritten. We're going to have drone pilots in California assassinating freedom fighters / terrorists and their families in Afghanistan, then going home to have supper with their own families.

This is perhaps effective tactics, but I am less inclined to differentiate between bombs dropped from aircraft and bombs delivered as IEDs. The shift in tactics seem to be effective. Whether there will be consequences in the future we'll have to see.

Over the past 60 years Alexander Hamilton has gotten the last laugh, He wanted the President to be an elected king ruling over a great military power with a state that served the interest of the 1%. In the wake of the world wars were were forcibly thrust into the position of Universal State, and it has corrupted our Republic the way it corrupted Rome's.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, but when it becomes clear that President Romney gave the thumbs-up to Netanyahu to nuke Iran, I hope you are as indignant with yourself when you see pictures of the 100,000, if not millions, of kids with cancer and mutations as far away as India and Australia.

You go girl!

...and every country in the EU.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that voters could like Romney more just because of one debate performance? Don't they care enough to learn or even remember anything about him?

And they also appear ready to put back the right-wing extremists in congress who led our nation to the bring of default, tried to remove all environmental regulations, and refuse to negotiate any raise in taxes? what we have here is a far situation more tragic than NDAA or drone attacks. We have an American public that has all the wrong values and priorities, and is ready to send their nation and world into rapid decline.

If you don't think there's a difference between Democrat and Republican, you might check out the environmental scorecard
http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/scorecardweb.pdf
The current republican congress is the worst-ever. People who vote to re-elect them are voting to destroy themselves.

Mitt Romney in 2011: 'We Cannot Afford' Federal Disaster Relief

We'll see if he flip flops on this one.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Mitt Romney in 2011: 'We Cannot Afford' Federal Disaster Relief

We'll see if he flip flops on this one.

So far he is the gymnast of logic and reality.

Where is Charles Dickens when you need him?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Rani was correct, after pondering this photo and realizing there are numerous others like this innocent child, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. Now I guess I will join the ranks of the vilified Nader. Oh well!

If you live in a place where your vote doesn't matter, a protest vote is a good option. If, on the other hand, your vote can actually change things, you need to consider which of the two real options (i.e. the ones that can win) you fear more.

The next President gets at least one and probably two SCOTUS appointments. Romney has already decided on Robert Bork clones. Are you OK with that?