Obama less popular on DU than war-making

[davidswanson]

Did you ever notice the vicious contempt for war opposition on DU?

I'm very encouraged to see the rapidly growing willingness to get honest about Obama.

War deserves no less.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. WHAA?

What war? You have an ambiguos way of communicating your idea.

[dionysus]

2. "Did you ever notice the vicious contempt for war opposition on DU? " nope.

[joshcryer]

8. +1.

It feels as if sometimes we're in an alternate reality where stuff that didn't happen happened.

[Ikonoklast]

50. I want the OP to support his position with actual numbers.

If he can't, and I already know that he can't, it's just smoke blowing out of his ass.

[emulatorloo]

117. Or as we used to call it, Flamebait.

[treestar]

82. No here too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. They've resorted to just making shit up, since nothing else seems to work.

[dionysus]

109. i'll answer that with a merry christmas power fist! hold down the fort while i'm away ;)

<-- power fist

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. please bring back unrec

[JTFrog]

4. ^^this +1 n/t

[northoftheborder]

5. Unrec. only OK if the count can be shown just as the Rec. is

[The Doctor.]

90. And the unreccers.

Too many cowards unrecced perfectly thoughtful, useful threads and slinked away. If we bring back the 'unrec', let people stand by their actions.

[stuntcat]

95. ONLY if

the un-rec'ing was an embarrassing waste of energy and time. so often petty.

It killed me all the bazillion reasons adults gave for un-recing important issues.

I'm sorry that new visitors to DU saw us acting like bitter little brats.

[davidswanson]

6. now do you see what i mean?

if not, see my journal over past year

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Sorry n/t bye bye

[Richardo]

54. Hear hear

[SidDithers]

92. +1...

Threads like this one just scream out for unrec.

Sid

[liberal N proud]

137. Unfortunately the trolls are recommending these threads and there is nothing we can do to counter it

[joshcryer]

7. DU has always been anti-war.

The country has been at war since shortly after DUs inception.

[sabrina 1]

9. People are confused. If it's a Republican war, it is evil.

If it's a Democratic war, it's a 'humanitarian intervention'.

Humanitarian bombs do not kill in the same way as Republican bombs.

Never mind that it is the US' Foreign Policies that should be the topic.

It works, no matter who is directing the policy, at least half the country will support it. They are clever, the War Mongers.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. This was not a Democratic war ,PERIOD. President Obama pulled troops

Not John Mcinsane or any other Sycophant Poppy would have served up, Wake up!

[cowcommander]

14. So why did Obama want at least one permanent military base in Iraq then?

[orpupilofnature57]

19. Hold up ! Him letting " Contractors " stay , thats worse

he's not perfect and Iraq was NOT his or the Democrats war!

[orpupilofnature57]

85. McInsane would had us there for a century.

[BobbyBoring]

112. you're right

But one can make an educated guess.

[orpupilofnature57]

125. Any guess would be overqulified.War mongers love

War ,nothing in his philophy or actions would lead a Rational person to Any other conclusion.

[orpupilofnature57]

124. "You don't need a weatherman to know which way

a war monger goes" Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, is how his tune goes.I'm a soothsayer on the weekends.Thanks for the Edit ,I hope my message got thru.http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/

[snooper2]

96. probably the same reason we have a base in just about every other country in the World

What needs to happen is the budget of DoD gets wacked...

[orpupilofnature57]

130. Civil war ,Didn't do it ,Shrub and his cronies made that

Impossible.

[sabrina 1]

20. Yes, that one was a Republican war.

And they get the blame for that one, at least from the 'left'.

But we are now engaged in more wars, with even more 'on the table'. And now we are being told that 'we have to fight terror' to explain them. That's what Bush told us but we were not that easily fooled .... then!

Would you support this administration going to war with Iran? I know we on the left totally opposed it when Bush was president.

But I see some softening of that position on the left lately since it has become a possibility. And if it happens, I have a feeling there will be major amnesia about the opposition from the Left during the Bush era.

[orpupilofnature57]

23. I am opposed to war for any reason., my

hope was president Obama would Instanly start to pull out ,and abolish the Patriot act ,and tax the rich.I'm secure in the fact he's doing better than McInsane or ANY repuker ,ANY.

[TheWraith]

43. Ah, the "more imaginary wars" meme.

Yes, we're fighting 32 new invisible wars. Which, conveniently, don't involve any actual US armed forces. As opposed to the ACTUAL wars he's bringing to an end, or that the Republicans would like to start.

[sabrina 1]

46. Yes, the new 'smart policies'. Where we use drones and troops provided by

our 'allies' in Qatar among others. Hillary explained it all in a recent interview. Very clever I suppose, although not many are fooled in other parts of the world.

[joshcryer]

58. +1.

I can't say the truth because it would only be suppressed. But you pretty much cover it.

[sabrina 1]

71. The truth should never be suppressed and in my experience has not been.

If you just stick to the truth, there is nothing to fear. So go ahead, if what if you have to say is the truth, it will not be suppressed.

[joshcryer]

74. Ahh, OK, well, I do not believe the allegations made were honest or truthful...

...and that, indeed, it represents what one might consider a pattern of allegations that are not truthful over a long period of time as it concerns the President and his fully consistent foreign policy actions.

Foreign policy actions which I mostly disagree with, mind you, but fully in line with his campaign promises. (I am against all forms of targeted killing.)

[ooglymoogly]

56. +1...then! good one. nt

[Fuddnik]

87. This has been a Democratic war since 2007.

When we took control of both houses, and continued to fund it.

No if, ands, or buts.

Wake up! Take off the blinders.

[The Doctor.]

91. Yes, and one ended by Democrats. Indeed, 'take off the blinders'. n/t

[SidDithers]

93. By that logic, it then reverted to a Republican war again...

When they took control of the House in 2009.

Right?

Sid

[tavalon]

65. This is the thing I hate the most

The "my team" mentality. Politics isn't sports. Some things are wrong and even evil, even if our team is doing it.

[BobbyBoring]

115. I wish everyone shared your opinion on the subject

If we are to survive as a nation, we have to get away from the my side your side thing. Things can not be right if a Democrat does them and vice versa. There is right and then there's wrong. Like many others have voted for Obama, I thought that he would get us out of the big war, the war on Terra.

I'm glad were getting out of Iraq, but were not really getting out of Iraq. We're bringing home our lowly paid unappreciated troops but leaving behind 60 some thousand six-figure Halliburton and Blackwater types.it's pretty clear by now that the same people that pulled Ws strings are pulling Obama's.

[tblue]

128. Yep. That's it!

Maybe once I internalize that I can get on board. On second thought, no, I can't.

[Octafish]

11. No time for warmongering.

It's gotten old, like me. I remember Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Iraq I, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Libya, Chad...

PS: Thanks for the OP, davidswanson! It's nothing personal against Obama, it's just that the military industrial complex has run the nation and the Constitution into the ground like no enemy ever could.

[orpupilofnature57]

13. Ike warned us.

[Octafish]

16. You see what Panetta said about the illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous Iraq invasion?

"As difficult as (the Iraq war) was, I think the price has been worth it, to establish a stable government in a very important region of the world." -- Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/20/propagandizing-for-perpetual-war/

[orpupilofnature57]

25. Polishing a turd ,it's an insult to intelligence, I know.

[bigtree]

15. it's just a cynical outgrowth of that 'willingness' you speak of

. . . to make arguments here against the President. That measure of 'popularity' you're making in this observation may just be a result of the merging of the political forum with the general one.

There really isn't any increased interest in the actual conflict, the specific expenditures, the details. Look at the recent debates here over the NDAA. Not much about 'wars' in the objections.

[joshcryer]

18. Yes, GD was always more popular than GDP...

...and anti-Obama sentiment was always more popular than pro-Obama sentiment. The merging of the forums only illustrates that.

[sabrina 1]

22. The arguments are not against the President, they are against US Foreign

policy, which most DUers used to agree on. Bush was not the one responsible for Iraq, although he definitely was more than willing. But I've read since then that it ws Cheney who wanted to go to war with Iran and that Bush refused which caused a rift between them. Not sure if that is true, but if so, I have a feeling that this too was no a Bush decision, but came from wiser heads who knew what the consequences would be.

Btw, if this administration goes to war with Iran, would you support it?

[bigtree]

27. whatever. Anti-war here is a fad which increases in relation to opposition to the President

More activism here against Bush and war, increased opposition to wars at times here in context of opposition to this President. Interest in the details, the mechanization, the expenditures, the death toll of citizens and troops . . . not so much response when posted.
I opposed militarization and aggression against Iran before it was cool. I believe everything I wrote against Bush still applies today . . .

Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Making the Iran Thing Legal-Like
A military assault on Iran at this point can't be called 'legal'. There is no law the Bush regime has at their disposal that they can use to find Iran guilty of, or as an accomplice to, anything illegal.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/authorspage.php?sid=176&entry=articles&pg=3

more: http://www.opednews.com/author/author176.html

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, then, what if this adminstration decides it is legal?

After all we know now that the CIC is the decider, just as he was under Bush. Will you support it now?

Personally, I don't think the president matters anymore. I and so many others have come to believe that there is a system in place which is explained to each new President when he gets there. I also believe that to get there, candidates have to have shown a willingness to support 'US Foreign Policy'.

For me, it is about changing the system. Because I no longer believe that even if we got the best, most progressive president ever by some accident of fate, he could not go against the powers behind this government.

So, the whole corrupt system has to be changed, and that is up to the people now.

[bigtree]

39. why would I support it then?

No, this President is being advised by a pack of Bush holdovers and encouraged by a very anti-Iran SoS in Clinton. We're certainly correct to be concerned about this administration's continuation of the Bush aggression and anti-democratic interference in Iran's political affairs as well. At this point it's hard to say where Congress would come down on any overt militarization by the U.S. toward Iran. Even less clear where they stand, collectively and individually, on the question of, say, overtly or covertly persuading Israel to take some sort of military action.

I have to say, from the administration's standpoint, it doesn't look good. They have moved to parroting the last administration's chatter about 'underground bunkers' and the like. That's an indication of the continuing influence of the bomb makers whose executives still infect the Pentagon and influence the policy advise the President receives and relies on. Also, he's mostly bought into the scheme to build and sell 'missile defense systems' to Eastern Europe to defend against the boogeyman of Iran somehow threatening these countries with their missiles; even though Iran hasn't threatened anyone, not the U,S,, not Eastern Europe. It's also about Russia, but that's another thread . . .

I do think you're probably barking up the wrong tree debating me on this as some potential proponent of militarization in any form.

[sabrina 1]

42. Apologies then.

I agree with most of what you said. I asked only because I see so many progressives supporting things they railed against when Bush was doing them. So I'm never sure who might have, well 'changed their minds' about issues that once were so important to the 'left'.

[orpupilofnature57]

32. Dick declared war on us!

Misanthrope of the decade ,hands down.

[Ikonoklast]

52. If Iran gives or sells nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations, would you go to war over that?

This is the real and unspoken fear over Iran, not that they would develop and have nuclear weapons of their own; and it isn't just coming from this government.

Plenty other countries around SW Asia and the ME aren't very happy with the religious nuts in Tehran. There is no love lost between the Arab states and the Persians.

Iran has shown it had no problem with arming their proxies in other countries.

Acquiring a nuclear weapon is the Holy Grail of any terrorist group....and once they got one, they would USE IT.



Would you want this nation, or any other nation, say Israel, to go to war with Iran to stop that from happening?

This is not a blue-sky scenario, this is what Iran's nuclear program all boils down to.

[sabrina 1]

57. Well, that's your opinion. I don't agree with it. It is the

story that has been told by the War Mongers for almost ten years now, and has been debunked by more than credible people over and over again.

But, frankly, if I were a MEastern, African or South or Central American country, I would look around the world and observe which countries ended up being attacked and invaded by Western powers, and I would notice that none of them had Nukes.

Otoh, N. Korea, a country named as part of the 'axis of evil' by the Bush gang, has never even been threatened with an invasion. So seeing how things are in the real world, the first thing on my list to protect my country from Imperial invasion, would be to acquire Nuclear Weapons. Gadaffi eg, was safe from invasion so long as they thought he had Nukes. As soon as he gave them up, look what happened.

I don't see Iran threatening this country. I see US threatening them, constantly. So, if they finally decide that NOT having nukes, doesn't stop the threats and lies, then to use an old Irish saying 'they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'.

Your scenario is completely without evidence of any kind other than the constant beating of the war drums for ten years now, by the PNAC gang whose policies are now US policies, to our detriment.

So no, I did not support invading Iran when Bush told the story you just told, and I will never support it. Because we are the aggressors here.

As far as giving nukes to terrorists, where is the evidence of that? Israel has nukes and has threatened to use them. Are you outraged over that? What should we do about THEM? Invade them too? Because if they do attack Iran with nukes, they will start WW111.

Don't you think maybe someone should be worried about that since 1) We know they have them and 2) They have stated their willingness to use them. Iran otoh, does not have them nor have they ever threatened to use them.

Seems odd to me that the focus would be on the country which does not have them and has not threatened to use them, while ignoring the country that does.

The only conclusion that can be reached from all this is that the 'nuke' claim is simply the Iran version of Iraq'w WMDs as an excuse to carry out the wet dream of the PNAC gang.

[Ikonoklast]

76. This works only if you believe that Iran is only pursuing a peaceful nuclear program.

That part has not been 'de-bunked' unless you believe that the U.N. is lying. The U.N. has stated that Iran has a nuclear program well underway.

It hasn't been 'de-bunked' as far as Iran goes, they themsleves state that they are pursuing a nuclear program.

It works only if there was no real hard evidence that Iran finances and arms Hezbollah, a real and actual terrorist organization that kills people. There is evidence in abundance of that fact, unless you do not believe the U.N. on that score, either.

It has little to do with Iran threatening this country directly and everything to do with Iran using the threat of nuclear blackmail to exert de-facto control over a very large fraction of the world's energy reserves, whether those reserves are in their own country or not.

If that happens, the entire world's economy would collapse, making our current difficulties look like nothing in comparison. That is economic warfare, and like it or not, no country will sit still and let that happen.

Even China has been expressing concerns over Iran's intentions, after all, they buy the bulk of Iran's oil, and they don't want to see the world economy slide into chaos.

It also has much to do with Iran being controlled by a fundamentalist religious government. Their type of lunatic god guys are no saner than our lunatic god guys, I see them as two sides of the same coin, brothers bound by intolerance.

I do not assume that Iran has peaceful intentions because they say they do.

I do not assume that Iran is a rational political state, a stable political state, or that their increasingly unpopular governing body will not do something really, really stupid in order to maintain power.

They have already shown that they will shoot down their own people who are out in the streets seeking political freedom from an oppressive religious regime and a greater say in how they are governed, without any hesitation.

And as far as Israel goes, no, I am not afraid of Israel using their nukes against us in any way.
As much as this might pain you to hear, they are an ally of this country and have never threatened to use their nuclear arms against us at any time, nor would they ever sell or give them to a terror group that fights proxie battles for them against other sovereign states.

Iran has threatened the very existence of the state of Israel, and has repeatedly called for its destruction.

Iran has in fact already declared that they have not only short range missile delivery systems for use in theater operations, but have recently confirmed the acquisition of both improved medium and long range multi-stage ballistic missile systems capable of warhead delivery within a 1000km radius.

Israel has never called for the extermination of all Persians from the face of the Earth.

They have stated that they will use any means at their disposal to defend themselves from such an attack.

I don't see the state of Israel funding any third-party proxies to launch random missile attacks from outside Iran's borders killing Iranians indiscrimanently.




You can throw PNAC around all you want, but it doesn't change the facts in evidence unless you'd much rather believe what Ahmedinajahd has to say, or the Mullahs as the truth and ignore all other evidence.

[sabrina 1]

84. Everything you say about Iran, can and has been said about the US except that

when it comes to the US is not just speculation.

Iran and every other country in the world, has the same rights this country has to have the same weapons this country has and NO ONE has used them to the extent we have. The world is not sympathic to the US deciding who should and who should not have weapons.

I do not see Iran attacking and invading several countries in the world. I see the US doing so. I see Israel threatening Iran and interfering in other countries also. So, let's stop with the nonsense. We heard all these lies about Iraq also. When Iraq did attack other countries including Iran, it was with OUR blessings and we supplied the weapons, to BOTH sides.

We are the biggest threat to the world right now and your post underscores that. The American people better wake up, a war with Iran WILL start WW111 and they will have allies they might not have had had WE not attacked so many other countries, at least one with Nukes. So, I sincerely hope that this administration is as smart as Bush apparently was in the end, when it came to Iran. And as we all know, if even HE knew it was an insane idea, that ought to tell people something.

[cpwm17]

140. Thanks for supporting peace. The Iran bashers have no self awareness.

We are the ones that are already guilty of what they claim Iran is doing and may do in the future.

Iran hasn't attacked any other country that didn't attack it first in hundreds of years. These war-mongering Iran bashers are projecting.

The US is the main threat to World peace. The Iraq war is the worst crime committed so far this millennium. The US is threatening to possibly commit a worse crime against Iran. Iran will strongly defend itself. It is their right.

Iran has already been severely hurt by US foreign policy. The US overthrew their democracy in 1953. The US supported the Shah's torture program, which included skinning alive its victims. The US supported Saddam's unprovoked war against Iran, murdering 500,000 of Iran's citizens. The US is supporting a terrorist program against Iran. The US has sanctioned Iran for decades, etc.

Iran's nuclear program is the most closely watched nuclear program in the World. Our own intelligence agencies say that there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. That's the official position of the US Government. Claims against Iran come from people with political motivations.

[sabrina 1]

141. You're welcome, I sincerely hope that no one in this administration will be insane enough to cave

in to the warmongers all of whom SHOULD have been investigated and prosecuted by now, but who are still around, urging this president to intervene in the ME where we have no business being.

Everything you said about Iran is a fact. I am stunned at the hypocrisy, well not really when it comes to the US government, but that anyone after Iraq, who calls themselves a Democrat, is buying any of these lies.

[monmouth]

17. I really wish unrec was still available. Such crap posted here lately..n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Latley ,how about people that stuck up for " not on the table " Pelosi

some people have Always posted ,who should'nt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Well, he got that nice Peace prize and then escalated a lost war.

[cstanleytech]

66. So, you would have prefered that we just bailed and let the people of Iraq suffer

for our nations screwup of totally destabilizing their country? An interesting idea.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Who caused most of the suffering?

Why..I do believe that it was the good ol' USofA. Wasn't it?

And, how has us hanging around helped undo the suffering we caused? How's our sticking around and escalating the carnage in Afghanistan helping?

[cstanleytech]

81. Our government caused alot of the problems sure but I find it interesting that

you seem to believe (and my apologies if I am mistaken) that they all would have gathered round a nice fire and made S'mores while singing Kumbaya and all would he well if we had just withdrawn all our troops before the government there had a chance to get its house in order.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. The government of Iraq is the author of many of the problems.

And, our staying isn't going to help "stabilize" anything. Our "interests" in Iraq have nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.

[cstanleytech]

103. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am talking about

keeping troops there right now, that or you mistyped because I am not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. You seem to be under the impression that our destruction and occupation of Iraq

has been helpful in staving off the problems now occurring and that we should have stayed longer to "help" them.

[cstanleytech]

121. No, I dont think we should still be there

because I believe we have done all we can at this point to right the wrong we did to them and their nation and for now the job is up to them to do.

[xiamiam]

105. truth..nt

[marasinghe]

26. i've noticed the same trend on DU -- as we've seen in the country at large.

it appears to be seeping through to the very base. appears to be the actualization of an old meme, pushed by an old, closeted fascist & overt imperialist, turned World War 2 hero & neo-con+lib archetype -- Winston Churchill -- who is supposed to have said: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain".

it seems to me that a large percentage of the general population flush their souls & their ideals down the sewer of comfortable & mindless conformity, when they reach their forties. i think: partly due to the so called maturing of those who once stood firm for righteousness -- as they slide down the slippery slope to the rightist side of the divide.

[orpupilofnature57]

28. Never taken a Right view in my life!

I'm 54

[marasinghe]

44. 59 myself & the same. but - & this is only a guess - i think we are a small minority.

[sabrina 1]

38. I think the change in principles is just the result of the relentless propaganda

machine Americans are exposed to. You have to be strong in your convictions not to cave to the attacks you will surely endure if you refuse to jump on board with the warmongers. And as people grow older, maybe they just decide to not fight it anymore, some of them, although, thankfully, no all.

[think]

29. Drones are pretty

fucking evil if you think about it

[orpupilofnature57]

30. Terminator shit ,it's wrong and smacks of NWO.

[think]

37. I get visions of 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Revelations, Ezekiel , and Daniel when I read about drones

and none of these visions are good. Death from above with no fear of retribution is not the domain of heroes and saints.

It is one thing to use drones for surveillance and another thing entirely to kill with impunity without trial or proof of provocation where acceptable levels of collateral damage are assigned in a country we are not at war with.

[think]

41. By the way. Is it too early to start talking about a peace dividend?

[DissedByBush]

99. I like drones

I don't believe in chivalry in war crap, just as I don't believe in the concept of a fair fight. This isn't a game. If you're in it, you're in it to win, not play around with the lives of our servicemembers. Whenever you can kill them without the possibility of them being able to kill you, that's a good thing.

They're also a lot less expensive than manned attack aircraft, which is good for our nation's pocketbook. A tiny fraction of the money wasted on the F-22 program could keep us in drones for decades.

[think]

100. And children as collateral damage in a country we are not at war with is acceptable?

What happens when the tables are turned and another country uses a drone attack here to take out a drone facility that has targeted their nation? Is this a defensible act?

Drones dehumanize war and make the unacceptable acceptable just as tasers aren't supposedly lethal so police will use them in situations where there is no threat of physical harm to an officer. Yet people die from taser attacks and now this has become acceptable collateral damage.

Where does one draw the line or have we become a nation that disavows basic human rights over the ease and convenience of technology to inflict pain and damage to human beings? I think I answered my own question.

Drones for surveillance or to support our troops on the field are areas where I can accept their use. However, targeting individuals who may or may not be terrorists in a country we are not at war with while allowing women and children to be acceptable collateral damage is barbaric at best.

[DissedByBush]

107. Blaming the tool

You talk about collateral damage, but that happens regardless of whether the aircraft is manned.

I believe we should use the most effective tool for the job that places our servicemembers at the least risk. I'm not for unnecessarily risking the lives of our servicemembers out of some sense of fair play.

"Yet people die from taser attacks and now this has become acceptable collateral damage. "

That's why we call it "less lethal" not "non-lethal." I figure if an officer has a choice between his pistol and a taser, I'd rather him use a taser if he can. If you get rid of tasers, you limit his choice to the pistol, and then how many people do you think will die? Overuse of tasers is, of course, a valid and important issue, just as is needless shooting with the pistol. Producing tasers with pistol handles was flat-out shocking to me, and it lead to that death in Oakland.

"However, targeting individuals who may or may not be terrorists in a country we are not at war with while allowing women and children to be acceptable collateral damage is barbaric at best. "

If you're talking about al-Awlaki, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe we have the right to take out Al Qaeda operatives wherever they may be. Our only concern is pissing off the country where that operative was killed, but that's a diplomacy issue. I'm glad Obama is stepping up the use of such targeted attacks rather than blindly invading countries, carpet bombing with B-52s and sending over salvos of Tomahawks.

As far as collateral damage goes, it would help if the enemy didn't purposely surround himself with human shields. When he does, I put the responsibility for the deaths on him.

[think]

108. You might also be concerned about the death of innocent civillians of a country that is our allie

Every time we kill an innocent man woman or child with our drones we build contempt for America that could lead to more Pakistani people joining the war against the country who is attacking them. Now you have more potential "terrorists" and targets to hit with drone strikes and the the war has just grown larger in scope. It is a never ending war that America will dump money into while killing more Pakistani citizens and further infuriating the people there.

Obviously this is just my opinion but if you can show where our drone strikes have discouraged enlistment in Al Quaeda and increased our popularity in Pakistan please feel free to post it.

We are capable of dealing with rogue terrorists without stooping to their level and allowing ourselves to accept the ongoing death of innocent women and children as justified.

[DissedByBush]

110. Again, not the tool

"Every time we kill an innocent man woman or child with our drones we build contempt for America"

This is a possibility whether it's a drone-launched missile, a dumb bomb (which we rarely use anymore), smart bomb or missile launched by a manned aircraft, or a soldier with his gun. The United States does more than any country in history to minimize the possibility of civilian casualties, with the possible exception of the Israelis. Our old dumb bombs were cheap, while the new smart munitions designed to minimize civilian casualties are very expensive.

However, civilian casualties have been a sad fact of warfare since the beginning of war. Years ago it was standard practice to purposely target civilians. In Western nations this has happened as recently as the firebombing of Dresden in WWII. Among our enemies this is still standard practice.

"Obviously this is just my opinion but if you can show where our drone strikes have discouraged enlistment in Al Quaeda and increased our popularity in Pakistan please feel free to post it. "

I don't know about increasing popularity -- this isn't a popularity contest. However, al Awlaki was an extremely successful recruiter. He directly recruited many operatives, and many other famous terrorists claim their acts were directly inspired by him. His death certainly hurt Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts.

[think]

116. To Obama's credit most of the 160 children killed by drones were under Bush's term

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/

It is still deplorable that we accept the killing of children as justifiable but less killing of kids is better I guess....

[DissedByBush]

118. It is a difficult position we've been placed in

When deployed in conflict, our soldiers tend to be completely separated from uninvolved civilians except in clearly known cases, such as guarded checkpoints on roads.

A mortar strike on our soldiers over there pretty much guarantees the enemy will only kill soldiers. We tend to carry only soldiers and involved civilians in our vehicles, so a targeted roadside bomb will not likely kill uninvolved civilians. An enemy can easily strike us with a very high confidence that uninvolved civilians will not get hurt. This is a war, and our soldiers are fair game. A car bomb at a checkpoint with civilians present means that the enemy purposely targeted civilians in addition to soldiers, and they do tend to do that, but we shouldn't lower ourselves to that standard.

Our problem is that the enemy purposely hides among civilians. They appreciate the propaganda value of their kids who were killed because they were kept in close proximity to armed combatants.

It's hard to fight against such an enemy without killing kids, no matter how hard we try otherwise. The only other thing to do is not fight, and of course to lose if we choose that.

Of course, instead of blaming the killing on us, you could blame the killing on those combatants who purposely put those children in harm's way.

[think]

111. As of April 25th 2011 this blog has documented over 702 taser deaths in the US

http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-follows-are-names-where-known.html

Did all these people deserved to die? My opinion is that a taser has become a convenient tool for a police officer to use to demand compliance without regard for the welfare of the person they "unintentionally" kill.

Police officers have an extremely dangerous job and have every right to defend themselves. But when tasers are used on people who serve no or minimal threat to an officer's safety I find it impossible to justify the use of tasers in these situations.

[DissedByBush]

114. Again, blaming the tool

The policies concerning the use of the tool should be blamed. Misuse of the tool should be punished.

I agree that a taser should not be used as an easy way to demand compliance. It should be used to protect the officer when it is felt the most likely deadly force of a pistol is not called for, and less harmful means such as club or hands isn't enough to ensure the officer's safety.

The "Don't tase me bro" guy's treatment was definitely not called for, and should have resulted in criminal prosecution for the use of the taser.

But a big, crazed unarmed guy barreling down on a smaller (say, female) cop, she needs something more than a nightstick, and I'd prefer she use the taser rather than a pistol. You take away her taser, and the guy is most likely going to die instead of having a very small chance of dying.

I wonder how many lives tasers have saved when they were substituted for a pistol shot.

[think]

120. I refuse your claim that you can't blame the tool.

I can easily blame a tool that shouldn't be used in non life threatening and would not have been replaced with use of a gun. Hundreds of innocent people would still be alive if police didn't have tasers.

How many taser deaths must I post where the victim never threatened the police before one decides that maybe it was the fact that a tool was available that caused an innocent life to be taken?

Here's a deaf man who was tasered to death on his bicycle for not stopping:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2011/11/another_taser_death.shtml


Here is a woman in a WHEELCHAIR who was tased to death:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/642742453/634684

Here's a teenager murdered by taser for resisting arrest:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-28/justice/michigan.taser.death_1_taser-non-lethal-force-dwyer?_s=PM:CRIME


Here's another case:

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011/oct/25/suit-claims-negligence-taser-related-death-ar-1410321/

And another:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/24/allen-kephart-taser-death-evid

Here's a Polish guy who didn't understand english getting tasered to death:

Here's a guy who got tasered to death for honking at a police officer:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/02/us-taser-death-idUSTRE78106C20110902


Are you telling me these people would have all died even if the authorities had no access to a taser? Would the cops shoot all these people? How else would they DIE?

seriously...

[DissedByBush]

122. How many would be dead if police didn't have tasers?

I'd bet many thousands, far more than have died from taser use, both negligent and responsible.

Your examples show a clear reason: The taser was used in cases where the officer was not in danger

We both agree that is wrong. Tasers should be for defense of the officer or others, not as an easy way to stop or subdue a non-violent suspect.

But can you agree it would be better for a violent suspect threatening an officer to be shot by a taser rather than by a .45?

If so, then the problem is with the wrongful use of tasers, not in the tasers themselves.

[fascisthunter]

126. which tool? The defender of the drone or...?

[DissedByBush]

132. The one with his head in the sand n/t

[fascisthunter]

139. oh... the defender of the drone... thanks

[bhikkhu]

45. Most ways of killing large numbers of people are pretty evil.

we get used to the old ways and they don't seem so bad, then new ways come along and they seem worse...

[tavalon]

67. I do think about it

And yeah, I really do think they are evil. I think much if not most of what happens in war is evil. I wish we had dropped the war DNA when we left the chimps behind. They have it to, you know. This urge to fight is in our DNA but that doesn't make it right.

[Ikonoklast]

33. Lots of really stupid ideas are "popular" on DU.

Doesn't make them less stupid.

According to DU polling a few short years ago, Dennis Kucinich was going to be the nominee for president.

DU said so.





See how that works?

IT DOESN'T.

[sabrina 1]

36. The only reason that was stupid is because Wall Street determines who the nominees

will be and Kucinich would be viewed as an enemy by Corporate America. Not because of the people, because of the real powers behind our government.

[Ikonoklast]

40. Really? Then riddle me this:

Why is it Dennis Kucinich couldn't ever win a state-wide office in his home state of Ohio?

Even when other Democrats were winning?

Why is it he can't even BUY a vote south of U.S. 30 in this state?

Maybe it's just because he's seen as too much of a crackpot by the majority of voters in Ohio.

And that has exactly *zero* to do with Wall Street, and everything to do with a flawed candidate.

[sabrina 1]

47. And yet, he keeps getting elected.

Explain that. Despite the efforts from the Right to unseat him, they have failed.

Remove the money from politics, and see who the people choose. Until then, no one who doesn't accept large sums of money from Corporations, has a chance at making it to the WH and increasingly, to Congress.

[Ikonoklast]

48. He tilts at presidential windmills from a safe district.

Well, it *was* safe.

Here's a little heads up...don't tell anyone....but the Right tries to unseat every Democrat in every district in this state in every election!

Shocking, I know!

And here you thought it was just Dennis!


Actually, they spend very little money in Dennis' district right up until the last election, because it was a waste of time as he had a very safe district, and the Republicans had a hard time even getting someone to run against him.

Just about anyone with a 'D' after their name would have kept that district. You could have got a ham sandwich elected in that district if it had a 'D' after its name.

Unlike a real and actual Progressive like Sherrod Brown, who can and does get elected to a national office from Ohio, faux progressive Kucinich and his cult of personality gets rejected by large margins every time he tries.

Why is that, I wonder?

The Right goes after Sherrod Brown full tilt, they don't pull any punches against him, but poor Dennis just can't seem to weather the same storm.

That's the usual fate of flawed candidates, they do well in the small pond, but the big lake is a whole 'nother ball game.

[dreamnightwind]

55. Actually I think the best candidates

all have more problems the larger the race they enter.

Small district elections require less money, they require less favorable media coverage, and they require less ass kissing of the corporatists who run the national Democratic Party..

In the next co9uple of years we may go through a lot of grief in this country and I expect that Dennis' views will look better to more people. Though it should have been obvious enough in 2008, he was the only candidate for the Dems who even remotely spoke for a lot of us.

[Ikonoklast]

62. And did you ever really wonder why that is?

The more diverse your electorate is, the less you can run as an idealogue, from either side. If you want to get elected, and try to accomplish any good, you have to play to everyone that might pull a lever for you.

If you do, you DO NOT win. It is actually just that simple.

So many people fail to understand that simple reality; they forget that not every voter thinks just like they do.

Like you as a voter (and I am not picking on you) and your own strongly held personal political beliefs, you have a polar opposite who holds the opposite political beliefs just as strongly. As a zero-sum game, both positions are just as valid, though you might not think so.

Those other people get to vote, too. And any politician worth his salt would try to get that other person's vote if he could.

You cannot win elections in a state or district by playing to only one side if the political split is close to 50/50; you must do your best to win a many of those votes as you can and then govern or represent ALL voters in your state district, not just the ones that voted for you.

That's what the Republicans have been doing, they think that once in office they possess a mandate to only represent Republican political points of view, Republican voters, and now look where that is taking them, right off of a cliff.

The Republican governors who immediately tried to ram through their agenda after getting elected forgot about all the voters who *didn't* vote for them, and those people got pissed off, big time, in Wisconsin, in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, feeling totally politically disenfranchised.

They are all doing something about it.

Boehner and Cantor are doing the same thing in the House, I mean, these guys are fucking up in a rather huge way because they are ruling like there is no other political party, ignoring everything else in order to ram through their pro-corporate, pro wealthy, anti-worker agenda.


And yet there are those here who would want Obama to rule the same way, instead of governing every citizen in this country, those to his Left want him to be their version of Bush, ignoring dissident opinion, and just move his own agenda forward.

Look how well governing that way worked out for us in the last eight years.

I do not have much animosity toward many of the stances espoused by Dennis Kucinich, I do not agree with all of them, but he has some valid solutions on many issues where I find common ground with him.

My complaint with him is that he is a flawed candidate, and because of those flaws, his message gets lost. He is far from perfect, but too many here only hear his speeches without really knowing anything at all about the man giving them.

You cannot have one without the other, the stirring words come with along with the flaws.

[sabrina 1]

59. A long time ago I decided that Dennis Kucinich was a kind of

litmus test to judge people by. Still is, apparently. The right really hates him, btw, because he speaks the truth. True, we live in a time when speaking the truth is highly suspect especially if you are an elected official.

Dennis Kucinich is inconvenient to those whose motives regarding the US are more than questionable. He has always been that way, fearless in terms of telling the truth. It put him on a Mafia hit list early on in his political career, but did not deter him.

The man has guts, I guess a man with guts makes the rest of them in DC look bad.

[Ikonoklast]

63. This is where you are wrong. The Right does not hate Dennis, they don't really care much

one way or another about him.

You may think they hate him because of his political positions, but for the most part concerning Dennis, they just ignore him.

Have you ever wondered why you seldom see anyone from the Right in front of a camera bashing anything said or done by Dennis Kucinich?

It's because they know that he is ineffectual, and they don't want anything to do with changing that.

[sabrina 1]

73. You haven't spent time on rightwing forums, have you?

He is among the most hated Democrats and was even more so during the Bush administration. I know, I saw the hatred, on a daily basis. And sad to say, many of the attacks on him are repeated now on the left.

He scared them badly when insisted on contradicting the lies about WMDs just as anyone contradicting the lies about Iran's Nukes scares them now. Although they are confused now re Iran. They were all for it when Bush was president, now they are not sure if they should be because if this administration goes to war in Iran, what should they do then?

Situational ethics, it's difficult to know where you are supposed to stand until someone sends you the memo. That is why Dennis Kucinich is so effective when he does get a change to be heard. His convictions for the most part, remain solid, no matter who is in power.

He should become an Independent like Sanders, he sure is not appreciated by the Dem Party now, although he used to be.

He is way before his time. This country is still at the primitive stage in terms of how to achieve what is needed without killing people all over the world.

Dennis is a far more evolved human being. He would be immensely popular in one of the Northern European democracies which are way beyond the stage we are at, having gone through the caveman period long ago and learned it really isn't the way to achieve the kind of society people want to be a part of.

[Ikonoklast]

79. You must be kidding me. Forums? That's like farting in a hurricane. The noise isn't even heard.

Political discussions such as we are having right now used to be held in taverns across the world, and the is probably comparable to what we are doing electronically.

The problem is, it don't mean squat. Bunch of loud-mouthed half drunks mumbling about Revolution, but wanting someone else to be the first out the door.

What you and I post here, or on any other site, or anyone on the Right, is just so much blather, it changes no opinions, it fixes nothing, it is just what is is, words posted on a message board.

People that take this seriously, or even worse, personally, have a vanishingly small perspective of where all this fits in in the overall scheme of things.

To political junkies it may mean something, but c'mon, face it, we are actually a tiny minority in this country.

Most people don't even give a damn enough to give a damn about politics.

As far as Dennis goes, IMO he is actually a Green, he just won't come out and say so, as he knows that he'd never hold elected office in this state again.

The Democrats would run a candidate against him, and as Dennis is less than personally wealthy, funding a campaign would be problematic as a Green, so he stays under the Democratic umbrella.

I look to him to change as soon as he retires, he will no longer call himself a Democrat.

As far as the Northern European evolved democracies go, we'll see how well they fare after their economies and social programs are no longer subsidized by North Sea oil, as it is currently dwindling down.

[dreamnightwind]

51. Yeah, that Kucinich guy is so flawed...

Are you serious with that? Unbelievable. Who isn't flawed? Why pick on Dennis? He is one of the best we have, seems like there would be someone more deserving of your scorn. Do you support any of the non-corporatists? By the way, I think that is the answer to your question "Why is it Dennis Kucinich couldn't ever win a state-wide office in his home state of Ohio? ". He's not in bed with the "right" corporations enough to get their campaign dollars, and he's probably well to the left of most people in Ohio. That's something I would applaud, not attack.

There was really no reason not to support Dennis in the primaries in '08. I was disappointed DU didn't support him more. Now we're paying the price for electing a corporatist.

[Ikonoklast]

53. Then how does Sherrod Brown, a real Progressive get elected?

If you think that he's a 'coporatist', you don't know too much about Ohio politics.

If Dennis is 'well to the left' of most Ohioans, how does he keep getting elected to his own district, which isn't very left at all, it is mostly middle-to-lower blue-collar working class people that are rather socially conservative?

It's because he campaigns one way in his district, and another when speaking to a national audience.

I know.

I've heard him speak in his district.

There are *two* Dennis Kuciniches; the one you see, and the one his constituents get to see.


And if you really think Dennis doesn't take much in the way of corporate dollars, then you never heard of Sam Miller of Forest City Enterprises, the Ratner family, or the Salzbergs.

Don't feel bad, most people haven't.

I know you haven't, or you wouldn't be posting what you post about Dennis and corporate money.

These people have hundreds of millions of dollars of privately held wealth at their disposal.

Forest City donates huge sums of money to Cleveland area Democratic politicians.

Lots of that largesse goes to Dennis.

They have owned Dennis ever since he was a councilman wanting to be mayor of Cleveland. They are a huge real estate investment and development firm who got lots and lots of friendly bids from the City of Cleveland and under the Kucinich Administration.

There is so much people don't know about Dennis Kucinich here it is sickening.

He fools lots people with his populist rhetoric, but in the end, he sells out cheap.

[DissedByBush]

119. Thanks for blowing it for me

For a long time I thought that even though I often disagree with Kucinich, at least he's someone who will always go with his conscience, and not what the corporations or party tell him to do.

Of course, Sherrod Brown has taken a ton of money from the law, health care and real estate industries too.

But then Kucinich has taken a small fraction of money from industry that Sherrod Brown has. He's looking better again.

[Fuddnik]

89. He never ran statewide.

And most of the voters south of US 30 are the crackpots in the equation. Think Boner, Mean Jean, Bob Ney......ad absurdum.

Anybody who has to pander for fundie votes in Southern Ohio won't get mine.

[demosincebirth]

49. +1

[Hissyspit]

83. I don't recall anyone saying Kucinich was going to the be the nominee. I recall all kinds of people

saying they WANTED him to be the nominee.

Not the same thing.

[T S Justly]

35. You mean because he senselessly prolonged unpopular military offensives on Iraq for three years?

That makes sense. Thank you.

[EFerrari]

60. Happy Xmas, David.

[DirkGently]

61. Only when it gets tangled up in the ubiquitous: Obama: Yay or Boo? poop throwing.

[tavalon]

64. I hadn't noticed

I do know that I was against the Afghanistan war and wanted a police action that would have brought Bin Laden to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity. I do know that I was against Operation OIL in Iraq because, well, it was just wrong, as most wars are. Oh, and they lied to us to get their war on. And I do know that I was against the photo op murder of Bin Laden because I wanted him brought to the Hague to stand trail for crimes against humanity. I also know that I want the whole of the Bush administration to be taken to the Hague to stand trail for War Crimes. I do know I hate that a place called Guantanamo Bay Detention center ever existed and still exists.

And the saddest thing I know is that since none of those things happened the way I know they should have, there are a whole bunch of accomplices after the fact who are now culpable and should stand trial at the Hague.

If the world were just, the Hague would be a busy, busy place.

I won't say there was never, ever a war I could support, but there has never, ever been a war during my life that I could support. At all. Evil, every one.

[Hatchling]

68. +brazilion!

[cliffordu]

72. So he ended the war in Iraq and you're still running with this canard?

Really.

Out of Afghanistan in '12, just like he said we'd be out of Iraq in '11

You'll have to try another tack soon.

[joshcryer]

75. Just movin' the goalposts.

He could get us out of Afghanistan and sign an executive order against targeted killing, and they'd find something else.

[Ikonoklast]

80. Well, kicking puppies throught those goalposts might still upset a few people.

I hear BHO is pretty good at that from inside the thirty, never misses a one from that range.

[Kolesar]

86. Flame bait...eom

[SidDithers]

94. Osama bin Lynched...nt

Sid

[fascisthunter]

127. neemee, nib nub

durrrrr... stick to the day job, if you have one.

[Galle]

97. We 're supposed to leave Afghanistan in 2014. So he will actually give us 6 more years of war.

[JTFrog]

98. And some things are even less popular than Obama.

Nope, never noticed the contempt for war opposition on DU.

Did you hear that the Iraq war ended? I'm sure there are still ways some will use that to try to besmirch Obama's name. The right wing is all ready all over it. I'd like to think that only the right would bash him over the head with ending the Iraq war, but I'm sure to be disappointed.

[leeroysphitz]

106. There used to be war opposition on DU. That was back when a republican was in office.

These days? Not so much. Hmm...

[backtomn]

113. This is not the first time......

.....that this poster has presented an opinion that appears light-years from reality. It is time for him to move on.......and not continue to criticize his greatest allies......again. Please end the silliness.

[Deep13]

123. "Did you ever notice the vicious contempt for war opposition on DU?"

No.

[Skittles]

129. WTF are you talking about???

DUers have long been disgusted at the fact that NO ONE has been held accountable for these senseless wars

[orpupilofnature57]

131. JFK was the last man to take responsibility

[RZM]

133. No he's not

Not even close.

You could easily test this, even without polls.

Just start two threads in GD:

'K and R if you like Obama'
'K and R if you like war making'

Then compare the results. Until you do that, I'm going to assume you're joking around and that this OP is unsubstantiated flame bait.

[joshcryer]

134. It's a play on the false "DUers are for ending Habeus Corpus" meme.

I expect more of it in the future, peoples pet theory being reversed:

DUers are for charter schools and against teachers.

DUers are for Wall Street and against Occupy.

DUers are for global warming and against climate change mitigation.

Add more here.

Ironically the jury process makes these call out posts perfectly valid.

[orpupilofnature57]

135. DUers all have guns ,ah thats it, All DUers are really closet

Teabaggers.

[liberal N proud]

136. I fully support the President and he has my vote in 2012.

No amount of discontent on this board or any other board will make me change my mind. The trolls who think they will make a change can all stop because Obama supporters are not going to be swayed by your propaganda.

[orpupilofnature57]

138. Agreed!!!! Good one!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.html

[sabrina 1]

142. Well, that's fine, but if he starts a war in Iran, I will not be supporting him. I'm not a 'my party

right or wrong' advocate. History has tons of tragic examples of that kind of thinking. I'm for 'right' and 'wrong' as is the case with more and more people now as we all learned so much we did not know about our foreign policies during the Bush years. Which is the reason we supported Democrats. I hope they do not remove that reason ....

[cpwm17]

143. DU is mostly anti-war

But DU responses to David Swanson's OP's are frequently pro-war, so David Swanson gets the impression that many on DU like war. David Swanson OP's go to the heart of US war propaganda; stuff that even folks that consider themselves anti-war believe.

It's unfortunate that David Swanson doesn't stick around to defend himself. This is unfortunate. He could help his cause.

He should also write shorter OP's so more people would actually read what he writes, because nothing is more important than opposing the war-mongers.