New Obama Book: "Drones Make Me Real Good at Killing People."

[KevinWestern]

Not the case here. Citizens as combatants or non-combatants working for the enemy and out of reach of LEO have no rights as such to avoid be droned.

This is technology, not civil rights.

So you're saying all 900 of those innocent civilians killed under Obama's Drone orders were combatants or aiding combatants?

Don't think that's the case, Jake...

Cut the shit, Kevin. What does it matter if they are killed by an Obama drone or a Bush cluster bomb?

Yes, correct Bush and Obama are one in the same (I agree) - what's your point?

 

[Synthaholic]

So you're saying all 900 of those innocent civilians killed under Obama's Drone orders were combatants or aiding combatants?

Don't think that's the case, Jake...

Cut the shit, Kevin. What does it matter if they are killed by an Obama drone or a Bush cluster bomb?

Yes, correct Bush and Obama are one in the same (I agree) - what's your point?

Oh, so you opposed the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war?

 

[KevinWestern]

The majority of Democrats did vote no.

I said the Democrats had the power to stop the Iraq War. Lookin' at that chart and I see 80+ Democratic "yays". You're telling me they hold no responsibility for their actions?

And FUNNY how you didn't include the Senate vote, where the majority of Democrats voted "yes".

Why is that Synth?

Democrats gave Bush the authorization to go to war - meaning, they did not tie Bush's hands. Democrats did not vote to go to war.

Passage of the Iraq War Resolution was not a declaration of war.

Synth, can you do me a favor and at least be honest here? I know I'm (sincerely) trying my best to be upfront and not make this into a kiddie conversation. Every Congressperson knew exactly what he/she was voting on, which was 'should the United States go to war with Iraq - "yes" or "no"'? And I'm sure you're very well aware of this, given that you're not an imbecile (which I'm assuming you're not).

 

[Synthaholic]

I said the Democrats had the power to stop the Iraq War. Lookin' at that chart and I see 80+ Democratic "yays". You're telling me they hold no responsibility for their actions?

And FUNNY how you didn't include the Senate vote, where the majority of Democrats voted "yes".

Why is that Synth?

Democrats gave Bush the authorization to go to war - meaning, they did not tie Bush's hands. Democrats did not vote to go to war.

Passage of the Iraq War Resolution was not a declaration of war.

Synth, is that really your defense? Lol, I mean come on man can we at least be honest here? I know I'm trying my best to be upfront and not make this into a kiddie conversation. Every Congressperson knew exactly what he/she was voting on, which was 'should the United States go to war with Iraq - "yes" or "no"'? And I'm sure you're very well aware of this, given that you're not an imbecile (which I'm assuming you're not).

That's false. Bush framed it as a last resort, and not wanting his hands tied. He also framed it as his stick in case Saddam didn't give up his WMDs.

The inspectors concluded there were no WMDs, but Bush invaded anyway.

Sorry - gotta run - Rachel's re-broadcast is on, and I have to go see her make fun of little Rand Paul wanting to challenge her to a duel!

 

[Iceman]

Obama strikes me as the type of guy who would absolutely piss his pants if he were confronted by any of the Afghans he is bragging about droning. What a weak ass beta male he is.

 

[rightwinger]

We all know a president wouldn't say anything like that and it is obviously fabricated

Nice try though

Well, I would almost agree with you if it wasn't for the fact the President has pretty loose lips regarding drones, and doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the whole thing.

Now, I fully realize this is a "joke", however if you take into consideration that hundreds and hundreds of children have been blown up by drones in the past five years this starts to come off as just a bit tasteless.

Actually, completely tasteless and this is obviously not fabricated. Thoughts?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4]Obama Jokes About Killing Jonas Brothers With Predator Drones - YouTube[/ame]

When someone can provide the full context of the quote, we can talk

In the meantime, I say bullshit

 

[rightwinger]

So you're saying all 900 of those innocent civilians killed under Obama's Drone orders were combatants or aiding combatants?

Don't think that's the case, Jake...

Cut the shit, Kevin. What does it matter if they are killed by an Obama drone or a Bush cluster bomb?

Yes, correct Bush and Obama are one in the same (I agree) - what's your point?

I think they both faced the threat of terrorism

Bush addressed that threat by invading nations he saw as harboring terrorism and putting in a government that would be less terrorist friendly

Obama addressed the threat by finding out where terrorists were hiding and taking them out with a drone

No, I don't think it is the same

 

[KevinWestern]

We all know a president wouldn't say anything like that and it is obviously fabricated

Nice try though

Well, I would almost agree with you if it wasn't for the fact the President has pretty loose lips regarding drones, and doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the whole thing.

Now, I fully realize this is a "joke", however if you take into consideration that hundreds and hundreds of children have been blown up by drones in the past five years this starts to come off as just a bit tasteless.

Actually, completely tasteless and this is obviously not fabricated. Thoughts?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4]Obama Jokes About Killing Jonas Brothers With Predator Drones - YouTube[/ame]

When someone can provide the full context of the quote, we can talk

In the meantime, I say bullshit

I think that is the full context, as it's a standalone "joke". He was talking about the Jonas Brothers coming for his daughters, and warned that he has "predator drones", incinuating he would "kill them" (because that's what drones do).

 

[rightwinger]

Well, I would almost agree with you if it wasn't for the fact the President has pretty loose lips regarding drones, and doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the whole thing.

Now, I fully realize this is a "joke", however if you take into consideration that hundreds and hundreds of children have been blown up by drones in the past five years this starts to come off as just a bit tasteless.

Actually, completely tasteless and this is obviously not fabricated. Thoughts?

Obama Jokes About Killing Jonas Brothers With Predator Drones - YouTube

When someone can provide the full context of the quote, we can talk

In the meantime, I say bullshit

I think that is the full context, as it's a standalone "joke". He was talking about the Jonas Brothers coming for his daughters, and warned that he has "predator drones", incinuating he would "kill them" (because that's what drones do).

Yea....kill the Jonas brothers is a joke

Still looking for full context on the "Drones make me good at killing people" quote

 

[JoeB131]

More proof that Hussein is willing to put the constitution into the shredder.

WTF are you talking about? We're at war with the Taliban.

What part of that can't you understand?

Matt,

I think you are a good guy, so I will point out two things as gently as I can.


1. Only a sick bastard would take pleasure in killing other human beings, no matter what the reason. To brag that "drones make me good at killing people," is more than a little creepy. Obama is one sick bastard.

2. Obama has never declared "A War of Terrorism." He has never suggested we are at war, period, except for military operations in Afghanistan. If you can find a quote where Obama has ever said we are fighting a war against radical Islam, I will apologize. But I don't think he has.

I don't know, I think sending in drones to take out terrorists is a lot more cost efficient than invading a country (assuming you actually get the RIGHT country), occupying it for a decade, pouring billions of dollars into rebuilidng their infrastructure while ours crumbles around us, and generatinga whole new generation of people who hate us.

The drone thing is much cooler.

 

[KevinWestern]

WTF are you talking about? We're at war with the Taliban.

What part of that can't you understand?

Matt,

I think you are a good guy, so I will point out two things as gently as I can.


1. Only a sick bastard would take pleasure in killing other human beings, no matter what the reason. To brag that "drones make me good at killing people," is more than a little creepy. Obama is one sick bastard.

2. Obama has never declared "A War of Terrorism." He has never suggested we are at war, period, except for military operations in Afghanistan. If you can find a quote where Obama has ever said we are fighting a war against radical Islam, I will apologize. But I don't think he has.

I don't know, I think sending in drones to take out terrorists is a lot more cost efficient than invading a country (assuming you actually get the RIGHT country), occupying it for a decade, pouring billions of dollars into rebuilidng their infrastructure while ours crumbles around us, and generatinga whole new generation of people who hate us.

The drone thing is much cooler.

I'd be more apt to support drone strikes if 1/4 of the victims weren't innocent bystanders and little kids. How is that supposed to help in a war against people who are "mad at us", lol?

Don't you see? This "war" is designed to last forever, and it will as long as you continue to buy into it.

Let's see...

Terrorists killed 3k in US and we retaliate by sending 6k (equivalent to two 9/11s) Americans to their deaths plus an additional couple hundred thousand middle easterners?

Who is the real monster here? (Hint, look at the stats)

 

[KevinWestern]

Serious question for the board: given that 9/11 resulted in the deaths of 3,000, how many US and Middle Easterners now must be killed before we are satisfied with our "revenge"?

The counts are well into the hundreds of thousands; should we try to reach a million? Maybe 10 million?

We've spent $4 trillion+, maybe should we get that number to $20? Screw education, who needs it?

My point is when does it end? You can't "kill" the concept of someone not liking you, lol, and you certainly don't do it by killing their children with flying death machines. There is no end until you demand to end it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Link? because according to my understanding, that's just more talking point BS.

Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Your Search Has Timed Out


Search results in THOMAS are temporary and are deleted 30 minutes after creation.Please try your search again.


So you can't provide the text of the bill?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

 

[BlindBoo]

Where are you getting this 'pleasure' lie?

Are you confusing this with Mitt saying "I like to fire people'?

Or maybe Dubya getting pleasure for executing Karla Faye Tucker?

His mocking of Karla Faye came during an interview by Tucker Carlson for Talk magazine, in 1999. It was in response to Carlson asking him for his impressions regarding Karla Faye's interview on the Larry King show, prior to her execution.

"He (Larry King) asked her real difficult questions, like, `What would you say to Governor Bush?'"

"What was her answer?" I (Tucker Carlson) wonder.


"`Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me.'"

I must look shocked - ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anti-crime as Bush - because he immediately stops smirking. "It's tough stuff," Bush says, suddenly somber, "but my job is to enforce the law."

​

I'll stick up for poor old Bush on that one.http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/tucker/1.html

What she did has nothing to do with what Bush did.

It's inexcusable for a sitting Governor to smirk and joke and mock a condemned prisoner whose life is solely in his hands.

Fer fuck's sake, even Tucker Carlson was shocked and taken aback.

What Bush did was nothing compared to what Karla did to that poor girl cowering under a blanket pleading for her life. The real injustice is that Texas allow Karla to live for so long after her gruesome crime.

 

[KevinWestern]

That's false. Bush framed it as a last resort, and not wanting his hands tied. He also framed it as his stick in case Saddam didn't give up his WMDs.

The inspectors concluded there were no WMDs, but Bush invaded anyway.

Sorry - gotta run - Rachel's re-broadcast is on, and I have to go see her make fun of little Rand Paul wanting to challenge her to a duel!

Whether or not Bush framed it as a last resort is completely and utterly irrelevant, the point is that Democrats explicitly gave Bush the authorization to use force (aka start a war) in Iraq if he determines to do so.

Why wouldn't the Democrats - if they were sane - just demand that they vote on war when the time comes, lol? Why would they proactively give Bush - who's spouting aggressive rhetoric & has a family history of starting wars and aiding Nazis - the power to use military force if he finds it necessary? What do you think is going to happen?

I mean, are the Democrats complete morons?

How come Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and others all had the wisdom to vote 'no', demanding more evidence?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That vote authorized Bush to make the decision if he thought it was necessary

The decision to invade belonged to Bush and Bush alone

It is his legacy.....5000 Americans dead, tens of thousand wounded, 100,000 Iraqis killed

Just to refresh your rather faulty memory, read this paragraph:

The Bush administration briefly used the term "Coalition of the Willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq. The original list released in March 2003 included 46 members. In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations.

Dont make me laugh trying to sell Bushs coalition of the willing as a legitimate coalition. It was the US and UK with the others sending a mere handful of troops in noncombat roles.

That "coalition" included half of democratic congresscritters. Bummer for your tqalking points, isn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

Just to refresh your rather faulty memory, read this paragraph:

Dont make me laugh trying to sell Bushs coalition of the willing as a legitimate coalition. It was the US and UK with the others sending a mere handful of troops in noncombat roles.

That "coalition" included half of democratic congresscritters. Bummer for your tqalking points, isn't it?

Moron has no clue what the Coalition of the Willing was

Google is your friend

 

[Synthaholic]

Serious question for the board: given that 9/11 resulted in the deaths of 3,000, how many US and Middle Easterners now must be killed before we are satisfied with our "revenge"?

The counts are well into the hundreds of thousands; should we try to reach a million? Maybe 10 million?

We've spent $4 trillion+, maybe should we get that number to $20? Screw education, who needs it?

My point is when does it end? You can't "kill" the concept of someone not liking you, lol, and you certainly don't do it by killing their children with flying death machines. There is no end until you demand to end it.

Well, I agree with this. I thought the reaction to 9/11 was totally overblown in the first place.

 

[Synthaholic]

There you go, Kevin!

Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Your Search Has Timed Out


Search results in THOMAS are temporary and are deleted 30 minutes after creation.Please try your search again.


So you can't provide the text of the bill?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

Words mean things.

 

[rightwinger]

There you go, Kevin!

Your Search Has Timed Out


Search results in THOMAS are temporary and are deleted 30 minutes after creation.Please try your search again.


So you can't provide the text of the bill?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
2. acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

Words mean things.

Bush lied when he said all diplomatic and peaceful means of resolution would not resolve the issue

Hans Blix had asked him to hold up his attack till he had more time to investigate. Bush pushed the attack because he knew his excuse for attacking would disappear if Blix could investigate more