Drone Strikes--Legal, Ethical, and Wise?

Posted in the Grand Rapids Forum

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of105
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
More importantly, maybe you should show us what you thought of these tactics when Herr Bush was in office. Provide us with some of those links to the posts were you were against the killing of civilians when he was in office.
If that isn't possible, I guess you've proved yourself as just another right wing fanatic!
No need to get so defensive Bob.
Just a simple question.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Feb 16, 2013
 
Drone strikes...
I may have missed this being brought up but I'd like to ask some questions given we are dealing with someone who obviously wishes to do Americans harm.
Should we send in Troops to try to capture this person or persons? This would endanger the lives of our Troops and probably innocent bystanders.

Should we send in a Drone and eliminate the problem endangering only those in the sights of the drone including innocent bystanders but not any of our Troops?

Or...should we do nothing and let the problem fester hoping the problem will go away and deal with it after they manage to kill innocent Americans?

I'm not taking any sides here, just wondering what others think about this.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
Drone strikes...
I may have missed this being brought up but I'd like to ask some questions given we are dealing with someone who obviously wishes to do Americans harm.
Should we send in Troops to try to capture this person or persons? This would endanger the lives of our Troops and probably innocent bystanders.
Should we send in a Drone and eliminate the problem endangering only those in the sights of the drone including innocent bystanders but not any of our Troops?
Or...should we do nothing and let the problem fester hoping the problem will go away and deal with it after they manage to kill innocent Americans?
I'm not taking any sides here, just wondering what others think about this.
If the drone strikes are done legally and within the Constitutional bounds, no issues here Wiggley. As for the collateral damage, yes that does happen in certain instances. I, however, take issue when the administration officials say, "Well perhaps that young person that was killed (the child of the target by the way AND their friend) should have chosen different parents." What would you and the others be saying had someone in GW's administration said such a thing? The calls for impeachment would be loud and long.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
Drone strikes...
I may have missed this being brought up but I'd like to ask some questions given we are dealing with someone who obviously wishes to do Americans harm.
Should we send in Troops to try to capture this person or persons? This would endanger the lives of our Troops and probably innocent bystanders.
Should we send in a Drone and eliminate the problem endangering only those in the sights of the drone including innocent bystanders but not any of our Troops?
Or...should we do nothing and let the problem fester hoping the problem will go away and deal with it after they manage to kill innocent Americans?
I'm not taking any sides here, just wondering what others think about this.
I've no problem with drone strikes, up to and including targeting Americans guilty of treason and terroristic acts against America. Especially when the use of these weapons might save the best and finest this country has - our troops.

What I do have a problem with is a president, his cabinet and a large group of voters, that a few short years ago did their best community organizer routine to demonize and undermine a president who used what weapons were available at the time to address a terrorist problem, NOW acting as if it's fine and dandy for a democrat president to do the same.

I recall demands for impeachment, cries of "war criminal", "Murderer", "Tyrant", "Warmonger!!", and watching people mass in Washington DC, holding signs with Bush's head under a bullseye. Funny, those same people have seemingly vanished off the scene now that Obama is president.

And if you think what Bush did is any different than Obama sending drones over the border to indiscriminently blow up anything within a certain radius, including innocent civilians, I would strongly urge a reality check.

If you think for a second the media and the same democrat Bush protestors wouldn't be right back in the streets, screaming and shouting for impeachment, should a republican president send in a drone strike, or have even thought to be considering targeting America citizens, then you are beyond a reality check's help.

You may argue the comparison, but you cannot argue the hypocrisy.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Feb 16, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>If the drone strikes are done legally and within the Constitutional bounds, no issues here Wiggley. As for the collateral damage, yes that does happen in certain instances. I, however, take issue when the administration officials say, "Well perhaps that young person that was killed (the child of the target by the way AND their friend) should have chosen different parents." What would you and the others be saying had someone in GW's administration said such a thing? The calls for impeachment would be loud and long.
It's not easy to "choose your parents". Given that the only alternative would be to send our Troops into harm's way to try to capture only the one person or...do nothing at all and wait for the bad stuff to happen later, here in America.
It's kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mr Wiggley wrote:
Drone strikes...
I may have missed this being brought up but I'd like to ask some questions given we are dealing with someone who obviously wishes to do Americans harm.
Should we send in Troops to try to capture this person or persons? This would endanger the lives of our Troops and probably innocent bystanders.
Should we send in a Drone and eliminate the problem endangering only those in the sights of the drone including innocent bystanders but not any of our Troops?
Or...should we do nothing and let the problem fester hoping the problem will go away and deal with it after they manage to kill innocent Americans?
I'm not taking any sides here, just wondering what others think about this.
It all depends on the political party you belong to.

Democrats see the need to use whatever force is needed to protect our country from real threats. Neo-Cons feel the need to blast their way through whatever country offends them or their allies in the aparthied regime of Israel.

Please note that the same fanatics that wail about a few supposed bystanders getting killed in a drone strike ordered by the current president, are always the first ones that bring up the call NUKE THEM when discussing one of their mortal enemies......

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
I've no problem with drone strikes, up to and including targeting Americans guilty of treason and terroristic acts against America. Especially when the use of these weapons might save the best and finest this country has - our troops.
What I do have a problem with is a president, his cabinet and a large group of voters, that a few short years ago did their best community organizer routine to demonize and undermine a president who used what weapons were available at the time to address a terrorist problem, NOW acting as if it's fine and dandy for a democrat president to do the same.
I recall demands for impeachment, cries of "war criminal", "Murderer", "Tyrant", "Warmonger!!", and watching people mass in Washington DC, holding signs with Bush's head under a bullseye. Funny, those same people have seemingly vanished off the scene now that Obama is president.
And if you think what Bush did is any different than Obama sending drones over the border to indiscriminently blow up anything within a certain radius, including innocent civilians, I would strongly urge a reality check.
If you think for a second the media and the same democrat Bush protestors wouldn't be right back in the streets, screaming and shouting for impeachment, should a republican president send in a drone strike, or have even thought to be considering targeting America citizens, then you are beyond a reality check's help.
You may argue the comparison, but you cannot argue the hypocrisy.
Not sure where you are coming from but I'd say for myself, we had no business going into Iraq. As far as Afganistan, I'm on the fence as it's turning out History is repeating itself.
If people are crying foul about Iraq, I agree.
Either way, there seems to be no good solution...that's what's unfortunate.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It all depends on the political party you belong to.
Democrats see the need to use whatever force is needed to protect our country from real threats. Neo-Cons feel the need to blast their way through whatever country offends them or their allies in the aparthied regime of Israel.
Please note that the same fanatics that wail about a few supposed bystanders getting killed in a drone strike ordered by the current president, are always the first ones that bring up the call NUKE THEM when discussing one of their mortal enemies......
Did you REALLY say"Democrats see the need to use whatever force is needed" and then in the same post say the Republicans blast away???? Are you drinking AND smoking today???? What a pinhead......
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure where you are coming from but I'd say for myself, we had no business going into Iraq. As far as Afganistan, I'm on the fence as it's turning out History is repeating itself.
If people are crying foul about Iraq, I agree.
Either way, there seems to be no good solution...that's what's unfortunate.
It's easy to look back on a decision after it's played out and decide whether it was wise or not.
After listening to Obama rail against Bush and the war on terrorism throughout his first campaign I find it surprising he went down the same road in Afghanistan. I find it interesting the same people who demonized Bush are now silent, or on the fence, now.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Feb 17, 2013
 
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy to look back on a decision after it's played out and decide whether it was wise or not.
After listening to Obama rail against Bush and the war on terrorism throughout his first campaign I find it surprising he went down the same road in Afghanistan. I find it interesting the same people who demonized Bush are now silent, or on the fence, now.
It's very difficult to rationally converse with someone who is so jaded in their opinions but I'll try anyway.
First...your inferrence that I've demonized Bush is false and unwarrented.
Second...Anyone with any rational memory will recall that our invasion of Iraq was based on lies...supported by Bush. I can't change that nor can you. You can face that fact or start slinging countershit stuff about something else that Obama did. The fact remains and it's history. You do recall Colin Powell resigned shortly after being embarrassed by that lie right?
Third...My recollection is that Obama made work of and did get us out of Iraq and is working on getting us out of Afganistan. Bush got us into each country. Do you see the difference or are you that mentally blocked?
Forth...War is war...Obama didn't start it, he stepped into it. His choice of using Drones is not limited to killing bad guys, they do a lot of other missions also.
Fifth...I hope you understand I am neither left nor right, republicant nor democrap, and wish you the same capability to be so some day.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Feb 17, 2013
 
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It all depends on the political party you belong to.
Democrats see the need to use whatever force is needed to protect our country from real threats. Neo-Cons feel the need to blast their way through whatever country offends them or their allies in the aparthied regime of Israel.
Please note that the same fanatics that wail about a few supposed bystanders getting killed in a drone strike ordered by the current president, are always the first ones that bring up the call NUKE THEM when discussing one of their mortal enemies......
I do disagree Bob. What's the difference between "using whatever force" and "blasting through whatever country"?

My questions were not about either of those anyway. It was about what the options are and their alternatives and consequences.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Feb 17, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>If the drone strikes are done legally and within the Constitutional bounds, no issues here Wiggley. As for the collateral damage, yes that does happen in certain instances. I, however, take issue when the administration officials say, "Well perhaps that young person that was killed (the child of the target by the way AND their friend) should have chosen different parents." What would you and the others be saying had someone in GW's administration said such a thing? The calls for impeachment would be loud and long.
After thinking about this some more I'd say I agree with you here.
I think the problem might be the Constitution and applicable laws being the Founding Fathers did not have terrorism and the capability to use drones to deal with it.
That being said, this may require another government agency, but it may be necessary.
Your thoughts on this??
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Feb 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
After thinking about this some more I'd say I agree with you here.
I think the problem might be the Constitution and applicable laws being the Founding Fathers did not have terrorism and the capability to use drones to deal with it.
That being said, this may require another government agency, but it may be necessary.
Your thoughts on this??
Good morning Wiggley. Hope your weekend is going well. I think the Founding Fathers had terrorism in their own day, perhaps not on as grand a scale as we are dealing with, but I think they had it. I agree they didn't have the technology to deal with the terrorists. As for another government agency, I think we have the Homeland Security AND the Defense Departments. I would think they are 2 agencies that could deal with this effectively. My concern here is that Obama is using the drones on U.S. Citizens no matter where they are in the world. The Constitution does not say "once a citizen leaves the country they lose their rights set forth in this document." I understand the need to take out those who would harm us, but I worry that we are going to far in that endeavor and some President or member of an administration, either this one or one down the road, will use these "opinions" by the DOJ to use the drone technology on people that are NOT terrorists nor are they affiliated with terrorists. The Constitution has set up the legal boundaries for handling U.S. citizens and those boundaries should be followed UNLESS Congress adapts new laws AND the Supreme Court concurs those laws are Constitutional. That is why we have the greatest country in the world, IMO.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Feb 17, 2013
 
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure where you are coming from but I'd say for myself, we had no business going into Iraq. As far as Afganistan, I'm on the fence as it's turning out History is repeating itself.
If people are crying foul about Iraq, I agree.
Either way, there seems to be no good solution...that's what's unfortunate.
I agree with you about Iraq, even though i do feel that Saddam at one time had enough chemical weapons, to kill all those kurds(likely now, buried in Syria)....On Afghanistan, i wish we would have learned more from what the russian's experienced there. And that the desire to rid Al Queda might have been accomplished better by greasing the country's leadership to allow our better black ops in the more current, surgical strike methods. Does'nt seem to be any end line......As it is now, we have lost thousands fighting the taliban, for dubious reasoning because they are resident afghans......
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Feb 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
I do disagree Bob. What's the difference between "using whatever force" and "blasting through whatever country"?
My questions were not about either of those anyway. It was about what the options are and their alternatives and consequences.
You need to read my statement again.

I can think of very few Democrats that had a problem with going into Afghanistan after the attacks against our own country. America was using whatever force was needed to insure that the terrorists there wouldn't be able to freely attack us like that in the future.

And then we have the Republicans..... Haliburton needs profits, so we attack Iraq. Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists then, and Saddam wasn't arm in arm with the other great satan the Neo-Cons fear - Iran. Well, they are now!

The Shiite majority in Iraq is now directly linked to the Mullahs in Iran. We just had to blast our way into a country that wasn't a direct threat to our nation. Thousands of American soldiers dead, and many many more crippled for life to do what? Iraq surely isn't an allied with us.

Finally, while we're talking about blasting our way through whatever country...... Do you remember John McCain's little diddy?

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,,,,,,, Bomb, Bomb, Iran!
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Whitmore Lake, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Feb 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to read my statement again.
I can think of very few Democrats that had a problem with going into Afghanistan after the attacks against our own country. America was using whatever force was needed to insure that the terrorists there wouldn't be able to freely attack us like that in the future.
And then we have the Republicans..... Haliburton needs profits, so we attack Iraq. Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists then, and Saddam wasn't arm in arm with the other great satan the Neo-Cons fear - Iran. Well, they are now!
The Shiite majority in Iraq is now directly linked to the Mullahs in Iran. We just had to blast our way into a country that wasn't a direct threat to our nation. Thousands of American soldiers dead, and many many more crippled for life to do what? Iraq surely isn't an allied with us.
Finally, while we're talking about blasting our way through whatever country...... Do you remember John McCain's little diddy?
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,,,,,,, Bomb, Bomb, Iran!
And thousands of Americans dead right here at home..... The diddy came from a parody song played on radio......
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
It's very difficult to rationally converse with someone who is so jaded in their opinions but I'll try anyway.
First...your inferrence that I've demonized Bush is false and unwarrented.
Second...Anyone with any rational memory will recall that our invasion of Iraq was based on lies...supported by Bush. I can't change that nor can you. You can face that fact or start slinging countershit stuff about something else that Obama did. The fact remains and it's history. You do recall Colin Powell resigned shortly after being embarrassed by that lie right?
Third...My recollection is that Obama made work of and did get us out of Iraq and is working on getting us out of Afganistan. Bush got us into each country. Do you see the difference or are you that mentally blocked?
Forth...War is war...Obama didn't start it, he stepped into it. His choice of using Drones is not limited to killing bad guys, they do a lot of other missions also.
Fifth...I hope you understand I am neither left nor right, republicant nor democrap, and wish you the same capability to be so some day.
Reread you post, Mr Wiggley. You should recognize there is virtually nothing in your words that would reflect anything but an anti-Bush/defense of Obama stance. There is nothing in your own words that demonstrates you are neither left or right, as you say. Instead, you just take the stance that Bush knew what he as being told was a lie - you can't possibly know this - and that poor Obama had no choice but to invest more troops and drones into other Middle Eastern countries. Therefore, with all due respect, you're projecting the "jaded opinion" angle. And you're right, it is very difficult indeed to rationally converse with someone like you.

Not that this will do any good but, let's be sensible here: Obama simply followed through with Bush's previous timeline in troop withdrawal. He didn't put work into that. He simply let the already in place plan follow through. So let's not make his "actions" out to be more than they were.

Next, Bush didn't force Obama to bring the war to Afghanistan. In fact, Obama ran on the platform of ending these wars and bringing out troops home, then spoke of meeting with these radical terrorist-infested country's leaders to discuss a solution. Instead, he sent troops and drones into other Middle Eastern countries, causing thousands more deaths of innocents and militants, and driving our costs of war deeper and deeper. We are not in Obama's war whether you want to admit it or not.

Make one thing very clear, I most certainly am not neutral when it comes to politics, and I will never claim to be. If you want to pretend you are that's up to you.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Feb 18, 2013
 
Sorry - "we are NOW in Obama's war ...". Damned typos.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Feb 18, 2013
 
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprising: Pot will do that to you and progressives already have very short (and selective) memories.
We don't have any problem remembering the 2008 economy and who the President was.....

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Feb 18, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>It's okay...the arrogance of the left is nothing new. For whatever reason, they can't just make their point without being demeaning and talking down to the great unwashed. It would be cute if it wasn't so nauseating.
Not as bad as being two-faced.....One face criticizing the President for sacrificing our national security.....While the other face, criticizes the President for using drone strikes to combat terrorism.....

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of105
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

27 Users are viewing the Grand Rapids Forum right now

Search the Grand Rapids Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 6 hr Go Blue Forever 914
Amazing $5,000 Kitchen Makeover 7 hr Rick 1
What about the Malaysian jetliner? 17 hr Go Tigers 17
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 21 hr Plughead 922
Local News Women (Apr '09) Tue El Presidente 2,254
What Obamacare's Advertising Is Costing We Taxp... Tue Jim 10
Report: ACA Will Increase Costs of Small Busine... Tue Jim 200
•••
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••