Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We didn't.When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?
But children in the Waziristan province of Pakistan sometimes get hurt if they are too close to an al-Qaeda or Taliban leader or safe-house or operating-base that we target with drones or commandos or other military assets, because the Government of Pakistan cannot (or will not) destroy it or them on their own. Unfortunate. Regretable. Likely to continue, unless the Pakistanis get their act together and rid their province of such a presence, themselves.
Both Bush II and Obama have used drones extensively, right? How is this partisan?
--------------------
IMHO: Anything that (a) kills America's enemies in asymmetrical warfare but (b) spares American military lives and (c) minimizes collateral damage and casualties (as opposed to carpet bombing, for example) gets a 'yes' vote in my book.
.
Good answer. It's not a patisan policy. The Echo-Chamber however is highly partisan and will disagree with President Obama if he says the sky is blue.
Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Withdraw from their countries, leave them alone and watch our own borders for "terrorists". This war on terror, like every other war, is a complete failure. You can not fight an idea with bombs and guns. All we're doing over there is making more enemies, which leads to more "terrorism" and then more war.
Both sides of the coin cheer, as long as it's their team doing the war making.
The nobel peace prize recipient ought to know that, but instead, he's cut from the same statist cloth as Bush.
Did anybody say that the Bush Administration had been responsible for the death of a Pakistani child through the use of drones?"...When did Bush kill children in Pakistan with drone aircraft? Link please."
Does such minutiae matter?
The Bush Administration has apparently done their share.
Beginning with a first-ever Death Strike in October 2002 against an Islamist group in Yemen that racked up a body-count of 6.
How many drone-based Death Strikes did the Bush Administration undertake in either Iraq or Afghanistan in the period September 2001 - January 2009?
I haven't got a clue.
I don't have access to a list of those missions.
And I don't have the time or energy or desire to go looking.
Perhaps you can find that for us and publish it here.
And when you do, I'm guessing that you'll find a whole lotta sorties on that list.
With at least some of them resulting in collateral civilian casualties - including children.
Iraq and Afghanistan were/are active combat zones with a strong US presence.
Waziristan is an active combatant refuge zone that is attacked frequently by US drones.
Legally, in theory, and in practice, the distinctions are blurred and near-to-pointless.
In all of those cases and in all of those regions we were/are using drones to attack our enemies.
If you intend to make a partisan issue out of it, you might want to take a deep breath and rethink that position, before getting too badly bogged down in an un-winnable and rather pointless exchange with those who see very little 'partisanship' attached to the topic of drone use, other than short-memoried political opponents trying to make something out of nothing. IMHO.
Did anybody say that the Bush Administration had been responsible for the death of a Pakistani child through the use of drones?"...When did Bush kill children in Pakistan with drone aircraft? Link please."
Does such minutiae matter?
The Bush Administration has apparently done their share.
Beginning with a first-ever Death Strike in October 2002 against an Islamist group in Yemen that racked up a body-count of 6.
How many drone-based Death Strikes did the Bush Administration undertake in either Iraq or Afghanistan in the period September 2001 - January 2009?
I haven't got a clue.
I don't have access to a list of those missions.
And I don't have the time or energy or desire to go looking.
Perhaps you can find that for us and publish it here.
And when you do, I'm guessing that you'll find a whole lotta sorties on that list.
With at least some of them resulting in collateral civilian casualties - including children.
Iraq and Afghanistan were/are active combat zones with a strong US presence.
Waziristan is an active combatant refuge zone that is attacked frequently by US drones.
Legally, in theory, and in practice, the distinctions are blurred and near-to-pointless.
In all of those cases and in all of those regions we were/are using drones to attack our enemies.
If you intend to make a partisan issue out of it, you might want to take a deep breath and rethink that position, before getting too badly bogged down in an un-winnable and rather pointless exchange with those who see very little 'partisanship' attached to the topic of drone use, other than short-memoried political opponents trying to make something out of nothing. IMHO.
The hypocrisy is that when Republicans do it it is bad, when Democrats do it it is a necessary evil. Why do you not get this simple fact?
Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else
And I agree, my original post was addressing the OP's seemingly complete obliviousness to the drone issue, nothing more. It was all the other liberal nuts who went into full blown meltdown mode, going so far as to manufacture words I never said. It's called lying.
Please tell me how you got all that out of that one sentence?
I asked you a question, which, since you cannot answer, completes the implied point of the question.
You asked a question and insinuated what you thought my response would be, which is the same thing as making shit up. Like this: "NYcarbineer thinks its ok to kill children when they are standing next to Al Qaeda operatives therefore NYcarbineer hates children". That is what you are doing, and it is completely disingenuous and very adolescent. If you cannot ask a question without adding a disingenuous snarky twist, then you are not worth conversing with.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Withdraw from their countries, leave them alone and watch our own borders for "terrorists". This war on terror, like every other war, is a complete failure. You can not fight an idea with bombs and guns. All we're doing over there is making more enemies, which leads to more "terrorism" and then more war.
Both sides of the coin cheer, as long as it's their team doing the war making.
The nobel peace prize recipient ought to know that, but instead, he's cut from the same statist cloth as Bush.
I've supported going after, hunting down, and killing or capturing the forces of al qaeda since 2001.
Don't look now, but..."...The entire OP was intended as a partisan issue. Perhaps if you took the time to read it you might find it much easier to comment on the OP like a rational human being. But alas, it was not to be."
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Withdraw from their countries, leave them alone and watch our own borders for "terrorists". This war on terror, like every other war, is a complete failure. You can not fight an idea with bombs and guns. All we're doing over there is making more enemies, which leads to more "terrorism" and then more war.
Both sides of the coin cheer, as long as it's their team doing the war making.
The nobel peace prize recipient ought to know that, but instead, he's cut from the same statist cloth as Bush.
I've supported going after, hunting down, and killing or capturing the forces of al qaeda since 2001.
These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.
Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
The point of the OP was about methods of killing. If those methods arbitrarily kill children then perhaps they need to be looked at. I'm absolutely certain you'd call dead children collateral damage had Bush been President.The hypocrisy of you leftist loons is unbelievable.
Is there a method of conducting a war that has zero collateral damage? Or do you expect Obama to be the first person ever to find a way?
Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else.
The hypocrisy is that when Republicans do it it is bad, when Democrats do it it is a necessary evil. Why do you not get this simple fact?
Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Obama Has Touted Al Qaedas Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack
(CNSNews.com) President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been decimated, on the path to defeat or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.
This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack.
Is there a method of conducting a war that has zero collateral damage? Or do you expect Obama to be the first person ever to find a way?
Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else.
The hypocrisy is that when Republicans do it it is bad, when Democrats do it it is a necessary evil. Why do you not get this simple fact?
How many people do you know who opposed going after al qaeda after 9/11?
These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.
Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
We didn't.
But children in the Waziristan province of Pakistan sometimes get hurt if they are too close to an al-Qaeda or Taliban leader or safe-house or operating-base that we target with drones or commandos or other military assets, because the Government of Pakistan cannot (or will not) destroy it or them on their own. Unfortunate. Regretable. Likely to continue, unless the Pakistanis get their act together and rid their province of such a presence, themselves.
Both Bush II and Obama have used drones extensively, right? How is this partisan?
--------------------
IMHO: Anything that (a) kills America's enemies in asymmetrical warfare but (b) spares American military lives and (c) minimizes collateral damage and casualties (as opposed to carpet bombing, for example) gets a 'yes' vote in my book.
.
Good answer. It's not a patisan policy. The Echo-Chamber however is highly partisan and will disagree with President Obama if he says the sky is blue.
And your side's echo chamber will ignore a whole bunch of stuff Obama does. Bush didn't use the drone as extensively as has Obama. Bush didn't target US citizens either. And as far as we know he didn't kill a 16 year old US citizen.
Withdraw from their countries, leave them alone and watch our own borders for "terrorists". This war on terror, like every other war, is a complete failure. You can not fight an idea with bombs and guns. All we're doing over there is making more enemies, which leads to more "terrorism" and then more war.
Both sides of the coin cheer, as long as it's their team doing the war making.
The nobel peace prize recipient ought to know that, but instead, he's cut from the same statist cloth as Bush.
I've supported going after, hunting down, and killing or capturing the forces of al qaeda since 2001.
So you support failed policy. i got that much already.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Obama Has Touted Al Qaedas Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack
(CNSNews.com) President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been decimated, on the path to defeat or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.
This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack.
It would have saved you much time and trouble to have said 'I can't. I don't have a better plan.
Of course we've already established that you are on al qaeda's side at this point.
Drones - its a method - who cares?
If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?
On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?
Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?
Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Here is one way which seems to work and really is the only way. Bombing an ally country to which we are not at war seems to have the opposite effect then the one desired.
How Yemen May Defeat al-Qaeda
Could tiny, impoverished Yemen be showing the way to vanquish al-Qaeda? Thats the subject of my latest article in the current issue of TIME magazine. This summer, unnoticed by most of the world, Yemeni troops reclaimed territory that for over a year had been controlled by the terrorist networks local franchise, known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsila (AQAP). The fighting was intense and bloody, but in the end the jihadists were soundly beaten. Many were killed, and those who fled are now finding it much harder than before to find shelter among tribesmen in the more remote parts of the country.
Read more: How Yemen May Defeat al-Qaeda | TIME.com
I've supported going after, hunting down, and killing or capturing the forces of al qaeda since 2001.
So you support failed policy. i got that much already.
And when al qaeda is able to regroup, refit, and retrain unmolested, until the next 9/11,
who will get credit for that failure?
