“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#81 Feb 18, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Reread my original question...here let me repost it for you...
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.

Nowhere did I mention politics. Nowhere did I mention any President. You were the one who ultimately had to drag names of Presidents and politics into this and began the defense of Bush and the hammering of Obama's actions.

If you want to cry about and defend Bush, that's fine. I didn't agree with everything he did nor I don't agree with everything Obama is doing either.

You are obviously jaded and a hard core republicant. You are part of the political problem just like the hardcore democraps.
Try, if it's possible, to look at my question from the Moral and Ethical angle and see what you can come up with.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#82 Feb 18, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Hey there Really...I had a great weekend Thank you. Hope you did also.
I agree with what you are saying except I think we need to establish early on what constitutes a threat and what the process needs to be to justify a Drone strike. I do not believe any one person should have the final say either, no matter what their office or title might be. Maybe some high-ranking people from several agencies including the military?
Hopefully this can be worked out, as you say, with the Constitution in mind and the consensus of our Courts.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#83 Feb 18, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>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.....
It's hard to believe that the same people wailing about how wrong it is to use a drone strike today, are the very same people who want to know why the President didn't use them in........ BENGHAZI!

Do you think any of the teabaggers remember The Kobayashi Maru?

Do you think any of them are smart enough to know how to google that up?
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#84 Feb 18, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread my original question...here let me repost it for you...
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.
Nowhere did I mention politics. Nowhere did I mention any President. You were the one who ultimately had to drag names of Presidents and politics into this and began the defense of Bush and the hammering of Obama's actions.
If you want to cry about and defend Bush, that's fine. I didn't agree with everything he did nor I don't agree with everything Obama is doing either.
You are obviously jaded and a hard core republicant. You are part of the political problem just like the hardcore democraps.
Try, if it's possible, to look at my question from the Moral and Ethical angle and see what you can come up with.
Fine ... Let's put aside for the time being politics and the fact that Obama is the one calling for these drone strikes. That's a whole different topic in itself.

From an ethical, moral, human standpoint I'd have to say any military action where weapons are detonated is an act of war, and war is painful, violent and often kills or destroys the lives of innocent people. You either accept that it's a necessary act in an attempt to rid the world of a greater problem, or you consider the act itself to be just as bad as that which you are trying to stop.

The problem we often run into is that we want these wars to be clean and tidy. Only the bad guys get killed, and everyone likes us. Well, that's not war - and that's what Bush found out when he tried to pick off just the bad guys with precision weapons. He found out the bad guys were surrounding themselves with school children and then when they got killed the cowardly terrorists screamed bloody murder that "Americans are killing children!!!" and turned it into a PR stunt. So war is anything but neat and tidy.

Is war moral and ethical? In my opinion it is when it's in self-defense of our country or people who we are responsible to protect. Therefore if sending a drone over the border will eliminate a threat to our country, then I'm all for it. If the threat to our country is an American citizen guilty of treason, I have no problem with killing that threat in any way possible.

The real question shouldn't be specifically about drones though. It should be "should we be waging war in Middle Eastern countries at all?" Again, that's a subject for others to debate on another thread.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#85 Feb 18, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>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.....
Not criticizing him for combating terrorism, criticizing him for ignoring the Constitution to murder American citizens overseas. Are you that foolish that you don't know the difference?? It would appear so.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#86 Feb 18, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to believe that the same people wailing about how wrong it is to use a drone strike today, are the very same people who want to know why the President didn't use them in........ BENGHAZI!
Do you think any of the teabaggers remember The Kobayashi Maru?
Do you think any of them are smart enough to know how to google that up?
Had he used them in Benghazi on those attacking and murdering the 4 Americans, things might have been different. Your hero, however, was "busy" doing other things and didn't have time to pay attention to 4 Americans being murdered. As to your Star Trek reference, it figures...my 14 year old grandson loves Star Trek too. He, however, understands the difference between science fiction and actual warfare and the murdering of American citizens. Something you could learn as well.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#87 Feb 18, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey there Really...I had a great weekend Thank you. Hope you did also.
I agree with what you are saying except I think we need to establish early on what constitutes a threat and what the process needs to be to justify a Drone strike. I do not believe any one person should have the final say either, no matter what their office or title might be. Maybe some high-ranking people from several agencies including the military?
Hopefully this can be worked out, as you say, with the Constitution in mind and the consensus of our Courts.
Thanks Wiggley, I had a great weekend! I agree with your idea of more than one person or agency having to agree to the drone strikes and the targets. I also think that establishing what is a threat and what isn't a threat is something that needs to be set up as well. A criterion that everyone understands and is Constitutionally sound would be a great idea!

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#88 Feb 18, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>We don't have any problem remembering the 2008 economy and who the President was.....
But some folks do have difficulty remembering who controlled the House AND Senate back then,.....
:)
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#89 Feb 19, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Had he used them in Benghazi on those attacking and murdering the 4 Americans, things might have been different. Your hero, however, was "busy" doing other things and didn't have time to pay attention to 4 Americans being murdered. As to your Star Trek reference, it figures...my 14 year old grandson loves Star Trek too. He, however, understands the difference between science fiction and actual warfare and the murdering of American citizens. Something you could learn as well.
People involved in a war are not murdered, they are killed. A certain President whom you wish to remain un-named was the one that coined the term War on Terror. Many punidts have described the killers in this case as terrorists.

Hence, the ambassador and the CIA operatives were killed in the War on Terror, and were not murdered.

Ask your grandchild what the point of that exercise was all about. Even he should know that is was a situation were the person being tested could not win, regardless of their actions........ Exactly like the current President finds himself.

It's too bad that a 14 year old is most likely smarter than you will ever be!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#90 Feb 19, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to believe that the same people wailing about how wrong it is to use a drone strike today, are the very same people who want to know why the President didn't use them in........ BENGHAZI!
Do you think any of the teabaggers remember The Kobayashi Maru?
Do you think any of them are smart enough to know how to google that up?
Very important from CBS and BBC, this morning concern's the chinese hacking into US infrastructure. Mandiant Cyber Security has discovered the source of the hacking to be a specific building, within a chinese military base, inside of Shanghai...If this proves true, it might be time to set up some trade sanctions and slow the flow of all the shoddy, poor quality products from China, until this activity is curtailed and assurances are provided.....
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#91 Feb 19, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Very important from CBS and BBC, this morning concern's the chinese hacking into US infrastructure. Mandiant Cyber Security has discovered the source of the hacking to be a specific building, within a chinese military base, inside of Shanghai...If this proves true, it might be time to set up some trade sanctions and slow the flow of all the shoddy, poor quality products from China, until this activity is curtailed and assurances are provided.....
Yup, here's a situation where China is flexing its economic muscle against the country that gave it the boost in that very power to begin with. You would think that we would learn from our past mistakes, but it never works out that way.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#92 Feb 19, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, here's a situation where China is flexing its economic muscle against the country that gave it the boost in that very power to begin with. You would think that we would learn from our past mistakes, but it never works out that way.
I would hope that Kerry or President Obama are summoning the chinese ambassador to the Whitehouse, as we speak.....we might start by limiting their imports, drastically....
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#93 Feb 19, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>I would hope that Kerry or President Obama are summoning the chinese ambassador to the Whitehouse, as we speak.....we might start by limiting their imports, drastically....
Agreed. We should limiting them anyway, cyber threat or not. We are in debt up to our eyeballs with China, so it's not like we have much leverage, but what we do have we need to be utilizing.

Think Obama is up for a showdown with China??

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#94 Feb 19, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. We should limiting them anyway, cyber threat or not. We are in debt up to our eyeballs with China, so it's not like we have much leverage, but what we do have we need to be utilizing.
Think Obama is up for a showdown with China??
China is apt to have alot of internal problems with their own people, as not everyone has profited from the new capitalism....i think that is a bigger problem for them than anything....President Obama needs to be firm with them about this real threat to our friendship and trade.....China would have huge problems, if we ever turned off the trade tap....

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#95 Feb 19, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. We should limiting them anyway, cyber threat or not. We are in debt up to our eyeballs with China, so it's not like we have much leverage, but what we do have we need to be utilizing.
Think Obama is up for a showdown with China??
Hey Oneal...thanks for the great response to my question the other day...well said.
As far as your question here, I don't think any president and probably most of our congress could do anything about China right now. We/they need to first eliminate big business/corporations from their pocketbooks first.
I'm not sure how that could be accomplished but I believe it's necessary for Amreica to move on.

Your thoughts??

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#96 Feb 19, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks Wiggley, I had a great weekend! I agree with your idea of more than one person or agency having to agree to the drone strikes and the targets. I also think that establishing what is a threat and what isn't a threat is something that needs to be set up as well. A criterion that everyone understands and is Constitutionally sound would be a great idea!
Oh now we went and said something that makes sense...
Guess how far that will go...
Oh well, have a nice day!!!

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#97 Feb 19, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
People involved in a war are not murdered, they are killed. A certain President whom you wish to remain un-named was the one that coined the term War on Terror. Many punidts have described the killers in this case as terrorists.
Hence, the ambassador and the CIA operatives were killed in the War on Terror, and were not murdered.
Ask your grandchild what the point of that exercise was all about. Even he should know that is was a situation were the person being tested could not win, regardless of their actions........ Exactly like the current President finds himself.
It's too bad that a 14 year old is most likely smarter than you will ever be!
Bob...think about what you just said.
Of course people who die in a Warzone can be and are killed. Qualifying the reason for their death can and does call on our Morals as Humans to determine the reason for their death. An outright opponent in battle vs the raid of a village or town and killing everyone is totally different.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#98 Feb 19, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>But some folks do have difficulty remembering who controlled the House AND Senate back then,.....
:)
Hey Jim...Hope all is well.
I can't help myself here...
IMHO...both House and Senate have been and are controlled by big money regardless of which political party is in the majority.
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#99 Feb 19, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Oneal...thanks for the great response to my question the other day...well said.
As far as your question here, I don't think any president and probably most of our congress could do anything about China right now. We/they need to first eliminate big business/corporations from their pocketbooks first.
I'm not sure how that could be accomplished but I believe it's necessary for Amreica to move on.
Your thoughts??
Hey thanks. If you've read any of my posts to "Seen It Before" you'd know how I feel when people only cite business/corporations as the problem. I have no experience on how China works, but I am quite versed in how corruption works between some American companies and our seedy politicians. It's by no means a one-sided affair and I really hate it when people make the false generalization that corruption begins and ends with business owners.

The answer in my mind is economic and energy independence - and a government that sticks to doing what it's supposed to do while enforcing and obeying the laws it took an oath to protect - and only that. PERIOD!

I know you hate when I slam Obama, and you think it unwarranted and partisan, but I see nothing in his philosophy that gives me confidence his plan will bring us independence of any kind, least of all economic or energy independence. So, despite pissing you off again I'm gonna have to fall back on my feelings that this administration specifically is particularly disadvantageous due to it's rigid ideology toward leading us to the place we need to be to get out from under China and the Middle East.
Justin

United States

#100 Feb 19, 2013
St Stephen wrote:
If they are 'over there' conducting training or plotting against US citizens then, IMO, they have decided to forfeit their American rights and that includes a right to trial.
As far as drones go? I see no difference between a drone or an AH-64 Apache. The drone is much cheaper and doesn't have a family with kids back in the States.
Why is the drone issue such a big priority for you? Don't you have more important things to do, like burn a stack of Bibles or march in the gay pride paraden while running around screaming "bigot" and "intolerance" at everyone who disagrees with you?

Can't you just sum it all up to say that Bush is to blame for all of the world's problems and then move on?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Democrat's Husband Caught Stealing Republican C... 1 hr Oneal 1
Holder Says He Regrets Fox Reporter Subpoena .... 1 hr Oneal 1
21st century huberis flips the bird to national... 23 hr bobolinq 1
Sturgis latino festival (Aug '07) Wed sturgis urinal 6
Hillary says, "Businesses Don't Create Jobs" Wed Oneal 3
"I was in a state of denial:" West Mi... Wed cora arch 1
Voting Machines Changing R Votes To D Votes ...... Wed Oneal 4
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]