Remember when we used to get angry about atrocities committed by our Government?

[cali]

We got angry about going to war under false pretenses. We got angry about torture. We got angry about domestic surveillance.

Now? Not so much.

Where's the consistency in that? Is it really a good thing to circle the wagons around drone bombings? Is it a good thing to defend the encroaching security state? What does it say about people who condemn such things only when it's politically expedient to do so?

No, I don't hate President Obama. I hate our government committing atrocities no matter who is President. You can argue that we're committing fewer atrocities now, and I'd agree with you, but I don't agree that remaining defending or remaining silent about the atrocities being committed is morally or intellectually defensible

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Are you saying President Obama is a war criminal?

I think lives are being saved, on balance, with the drones, and therefore I approve of them.

[cali]

5. No. And I suggest you inform yourself about drones

If you are informed and you believe that lives are being saved, you're defending the indefensible: Civilians being blown to bits and then their rescuers being blown up by blatantly illegal double tapping.

And do you give a shit about thousands and thousands of people being terrorized day in and day out?

[tecelote]

7. Collateral Damage

Sounds acceptable but it's really the killing of innocent people without accountability.

We have become what our ancestors were afraid we'd become. Heartless murderers.

[maxsolomon]

14. I think the poster was saying that

AMERICAN lives are saved by using the drones. That's likely true given the available alternate methods to prosecute a war.

I believe the Military also asserts that civilian casualties are reduced. That, I don't have any way to judge.

[cui bono]

19. Actually, that's likely false since the drone attacks will attract more to groups like Al Queda.

We weren't attacked on 911 for no reason at all. These terrorist groups want us to get out and leave them alone and when we don't their membership multiplies. Drone attacks can only make us less safe from terrorists.

If the situation were reversed, would we be calling these drone attacks terrorist attacks? I bet we would.

[LuvNewcastle]

28. Exactly, the terror attacks don't just come out of the blue.

There are a lot of people in the Middle East and other parts of the world who are being negatively affected by our foreign policy and our activities in their countries. Now they can add the drone attacks to the list of intolerable things our government does to them. Until we seriously address the problems we cause over there, we can expect more attacks from them. We're terrorizing them and they terrorize us.

[maxsolomon]

56. Sorry, likely true. Immediate American casualties are reduced.

Immediate casualties to American military personnel. Ground forces. This is verifiable. We kill and kill in Yemen & Pakistan & Somalia, but there are no American casualties, or at least no significant numbers. Innocent local civilians, sure, but that is apparently not the concern of American Politicians, is it?

There's no way to calculate the hypothetical casualty count of future blowback, unless you know of some method I don't. I'm sure the CIA has given it a shot, and reported the odds to the POTUS. If Al Qaeda membership multiplied every time there was a drone strike we'd be seeing hostilities escalate, 1,000s of additional Jihadis every year. We're not.

[Uncle Joe]

9. The problem with drones is they make waging war easier than it already is.

It's literally a video game with little to no repercussions on our domestic end.

Before Presidents had to calculate the potential loss of American Life because he knew if the cost became too great there would political consequences.

If you approve of drones, the next logical step will be combat capable robots and remote controlled jet fighters which are already on the way, in which case waging war will be even easier still.

The less connection the American People have to the human cost of waging war, the more apathetic and cold hearted we will become as a nation.

In the long run this can only lead to disaster because at some point these systems can and will be turned against the American People, as will the rest of the world.

[Vincardog]

35. I am.

[NuclearDem]

36. Committing war crimes tends to lead that designation, yes.

[woo me with science]

2. Hear, hear.

Thank you, cali.

K&R

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

[rock]

4. Ah yes, the Pre-bush* years

[DontTreadOnMe]

6. I have thousands of topics for things that need change, drones is NOT one of them

Maybe if you post a few MORE threads today on this SAME issue you might get "more" attention....

[cali]

8. Oh, I intend to. How pitiful.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. You intend to? Good.

I'll kick and rec each and every one that I see.

Others don't like it? Too bad.

[xiamiam]

67. this needs attention.enough attention to stop it

or do you think its a great idea that children in Pakistan and yemen are afraid of the sky...because of us?

[cali]

11. whatever you say.

fine, I don't speak for you. I was using a colloquialism. And I wasn't just speaking of duers.

[hfojvt]

48. but how many people are really in the position of flip-flopping?

many of the people who are not terribly concerned about drones now, perhaps were not terribly concerned about drones then. Perhaps nobody spoke up about their lack of concern here for fear of having to stand alone and to then be singled out as a "bushbot". Now some may feel more free to dissent.

Although back in the day, Bush was sometimes attacked for breathing wrong. As the quote goes, "a friend can dump a plate of spaghetti in your lap and you will laugh about it, but the way your enemy holds his/her fork will infuriate you." There is some of that. Sometimes "principles" are not as important as "friendship" even when the friendship with my old drinking buddy Obama is only an imaginary one where I've got a crush on Obama, and he doesn't even know I exist.

[PDJane]

12. I think that is because the US has become, on balance, a state that condones terrorism.

Israel is a terrorist state, and they receive cash from the US, along with weapons. Same goes for Egypt. Same goes for Saddam Hussein; the only secular state in the middle east got blown to bits when their dictator decided that his people deserved something from the oil under their soil.

The US is not a supporter of freedom.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. That was when Republicans were doing it.

[malaise]

15. Many of us still do but we don't spend 24/7

attacking Obama

[cali]

18. and I certainly don't do that, malaise

some of us, unlike you, don't defend him no matter what and haven't lost our minds to partisan worship.

[ScreamingMeemie]

29. I have to step in here and say that I don't see cali doing that.

I see cali bringing things up that were, once upon a time, things that Democrats (and DUers without fail) held as sacred. And now they are thrown by the wayside in the D vs. R football game that no one truly wins.

That's what I see. I applaud her for it, because some of the blindly faithful to the letter "D" make that very hard to do.

[JI7]

16. the PAkistan Govt doesn't want to be seen as going after Terrorists

[bobGandolf]

17. I still get pissed at our countries atrocities.

It is better that Obama has reduced the numbers, but I don't think people are satisfied.

[tridim]

20. I can't remember a day you haven't been angry about something related to Obama or the Democrats.

You might want to examine that issue as a first step.

[cali]

23. that's because you have an entirely selective memory and

you've ignored my demonstrating to you that what you claim is bullshit by posting links to my threads that praise the President.

simple really. duh.

[tridim]

30. Yea, I've seen your "praise the prez" posts.

He's a good dude, but he sucks because blah blah blah, fucking blah...

It's exactly how Mittens used to "praise" the President.

[cali]

32. fail again. I have more than a few threads that straight out praise, tdim

[tridim]

33. That's just super. nt

[leftstreet]

73. Are DUers obligated to praise Obama?

Is that in the TOS?

[ecstatic]

21. The problem is WAR. By making it about drones,

you are in a way condoning war, just not the weapons used. We should be telling our leaders to stop getting involved in the Middle East and Israel/Palestine. If we stayed out of it, Al Qaeda & Company would instantly lose interest in the U.S., then we could focus on the teahadists right here on US soil.

For me personally, there is not a such thing as a superior weapon of war. They are all terrible. However, the drones are a little better when it comes to precision. So let's not waste time demanding that we return to less sophisticated weapons that actually kill more people.

[PDJane]

25. No. The problem is not war.

The U.S. is not at war with Pakistan. Technically, Pakistan is an ally. The war against terrorism is a ridiculous thing that is going to allow the U.S. to justify bombing civilians at will and tracking people all over the globe. The theory of full-spectrum dominance is what gave rise to this, and it is terrorism in service of theft of money and resources.

It's wrong.

[Savannahmann]

22. They don't circle the wagons so much as they just look in another direction.

Sort of like the Whites did in the 1960's when the police were beating blacks, or those young college kids who went south to try and register people for the vote. Those who looked the other way, weren't defending the institutionalized racism so much as they were unwilling to get personally involved.

The same way the Anti-Bush war crowd isn't so much defending the actions of this administration, so much as they are simply busy with other issues.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. you are trying to suggest that when the Republicans do something wrong we should condemn it and when

the Democrats do something wrong we should condemn it too. You honestly don't see the blatant hypocrisy in that kind of thinking?

[cali]

27. .....

[NuclearDem]

31. Why, that would just be silly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Why waste a pleasant swoon by opening ones eyes to the idol's misdeeds?

[pa28]

34. K&R

[JaneyVee]

37. Idk, ask the Republicans, they're the only ones that act in such a way.

[cali]

40. so the Amnesty International report on drones that was released today is all lies?

Denial.

[JaneyVee]

58. Who's cheering and circling the bandwagons?

[JoePhilly]

38. I've been consistent.

Disagreed with Bush's use of torture. Glad Obama stopped that.

Agreed with Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Disagreed when he lost focus there and turned to Iraq. Agreed with Obama returning focus to Afganistan.

Disagreed with Bush's invasion of Iraq. Glad Obama ended that.

Viewed drones as a military method no different than cruise misseles or tanks, or bombs. Would prefer a world where they are unnecessary, but prefer these mechanisms to large scale boots on the ground efforts.

Never hated our government regardless of who was President.

And there is a big difference between "remaining silent", and "stopping to take a breath" from time to time.

But hey ... I'm no FDR.

On Edit: On NSA ... I predicted that once the Patriot Act passed, no President would return that power. That prediction was made long before I had ever heard the name of the current President.

[cali]

41. and hey, you ignore reality too! cool beans.

Pretend that AI report is all lies.

[JoePhilly]

49. Actually, I like reailty ... I like its complexity ... its variability ...

... and all of the many differences that make one situation and event different from another.

I also enjoy reading the views of people who live in a black and white world, those who avoid (or to use your word "ignore&quot the grey areas of which our complex reality is truly comprised.

Interestingly, those folks spend much of their time being very very upset (often publicly) because reality won't constrain itself to their simplistic perspective.

[11 Bravo]

39. The reason one needs to post that "I don't hate President Obama" is the same reason that ...

FoxNews needs to bleat ad nauseum about being "Fair and Balanced". Because in each case, the totality of their work would indicate otherwise.

[cali]

42. the reason you ignore the reality of drone strike atrocities

is because you don't give a damn that we're killing civilians and children. that much is clear. Bravo.

[DevonRex]

53. Let's not take the bait anymore. Myself included.

That's why the thread was started - to reignite old wars. Cali can fight with him/herself.

[11 Bravo]

57. And once again you overplay a losing hand. In no way do I ignore the reality ...

of drone strikes. I abhor, on a level that I doubt that you could ever comprehend, the death of innocent civilians. Long ago, possibly before you were born, I had to wade through the remnants of what is now euphemistically called "collateral damage". I still have nightmares. What's your experience in that regard?
In any case, let me clear it up for you. My issue is not with those who draw attention to wrongs committed by the government, (even when repeated posts about the same issue might be considered by one less cynical than myself to be indicative of a different agenda).
Nope, I simply have a problem with disingenuous bullshit artists who repeatedly claim not to dislike the Democratic President of the United States, but somehow manage to devote 75% of their posts to slamming him.

[xiamiam]

68. you are the one who is making this about obama

the truth of the matter is that these are his drone wars and it is his Tuesday morning 'kill list'..its wrong, abhorrent, immoral. The difference between you and the guys who are making those strikes is that they are in a center in Omaha, or florida, and its more like playing video games. They can go out for a cold beer afterwards and not pick up the collateral damage. They will not have the same nightmares that you say you have

This is not about Cali or the rest of us being fed up with this disgusting practice. It is about all of us coming to our senses about murdering innocent people in the name a war on terror..all while we are the perpetrators.

[11 Bravo]

72. Ahh shit. I was hoping she would show up to fight her own battle. Or at least long enough ...

to call me "sweetie".

[BluegrassStateBlues]

43. Well said.

[cali]

44. It's not about President Obama. Some of you are so wrapped up

in adoring everything about him that you "think" any criticism is wrong.

It's not healthy.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

46. I don't agree with his stance on marijuana. I think he's on the wrong side of history on that. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

47. Your constant need to attack Obama isn't healthy

It's actually very unhealthy.

I'm worried for you.

[cali]

64. lol. put your mind at rest and stop making things up.

I don't constantly attack the President. I'm fine with your blind adoration. I criticize policy. you see that as attacking the President. It's not and it's very unhealthy to think it is- just as it's unhealthy to blindly adore a politician.

[DevonRex]

52. This^^^^^^is why you started the thread. To be divisive and start this shit again.

Enough I of this bullshit.

[Dragonfli]

45. All those issues are why I joined here and other places (internet and RealWord) to engage in

opposition and demonstration with others of like mind to try to stop such things. (other issues being right wing financial and trade policies shared by the right and faux left "new" Democrats that both have implemented since the nineties).

When Bush was Resident, my opposition to these things was common and well shared here, now my opposition results in attacks against my opposition to such things even by many posters that used to join me in such opposition.

I was naive and surprised by this turn of events that is an equal problem in the real world groups I have fallen out of grace with. I guess they call it party loyalty, or more appropriately partisanship, but I still can't shake the term "hypocrisy" from my thoughts when thinking of it.

It has left me wondering if my views belong in any party all, even though there was A time quite recently when I thought such views defined me as a Democrat.

Much to ponder regarding what it means to belong to any party, (even the one I've belonged to since the 70s) in this post millennial age...

[DevonRex]

50. Cali, this is divisive. It's too soon. Way too soon.

There's a reason that replies haven't been overwhelmingly positive. And it has nothing to do with the issues. It has to do with the fact that people have really enjoyed the recent comraderie we've shared and we don't want it to end yet.

Don't you understand that? Your post was relatively substance free.

[TheKentuckian]

61. It shouldn't be. What is it to be divided about?

[xiamiam]

69. bs..unity in illusion

while we spend trillions on bogus wars and black ops and drones. We need to turn away and not say truth because we agreed on ending the shutdown. PUH_LEASE!!!!

[Rex]

51. Still angry after all these decades!

That will never change.

[Blue_Tires]

55. Remember when after the anger and outrage, DU actually had real,

grownup discussions on how best to address certain problems in the bigger picture? Now most posters are just content to stay mad and fling shit at each other nonstop...

[woo me with science]

59. kick

[questionseverything]

60. i appreciate your op cali

i do not know if angry is the right word for how i feel now that current admin has obstructed justice by not prosecuting the last bunch of war criminals,continued the spying ,well you know the list,i think i am more sad than anything because we have become what we hated before

[Martin Eden]

62. Obama took us to war under false pretenses?

Which war did he start? Not so sure about the torture, either.

But Obama is definitely responsible for the atrocities of drone strikes, and I am indeed angry. IMO it's illegal, immoral, and is doing more to create anti-US terrorists than to eliminate that threat (so it's just plain stupid along with being illegal and immoral).

He does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and should give it back (no kidding).

I don't know if Obama has increased domestic survelliance; we just may be more aware of it now post-Snowden. However, he certainly hasn't stopped it (though I'm not sure how all-powerful any president is against the apparatus of the National Security State). In any event, I want my representatives in Congress and my president to do everything they can to protect my privacy and my civil liberties -- and Obama has failed to do that.

Of course things would likely be much worse under a Republican president, but that should not stop us from holding this Democratic president's feet to the fire!

[cali]

63. I said nothing of the kind and it's utterly contemptible to suggest I did.

[Martin Eden]

65. Pardon me, but you did imply exactly that.

In your OP you stated:
We got angry about going to war under false pretenses. We got angry about torture. We got angry about domestic surveillance.

Now? Not so much.

If you did not intend what is clearly implied in the quote above, then this is a misunderstanding resulting from your own poor wording. "Now? Not so much." relates directly to the specifics cited above it, and is clearly a criticism that we are not getting angry about the same transgressions by this Democratic president.

THAT is how I understood what you wrote. I was NOT trying to misrepresent what YOU wrote.

[cali]

70. You most certainly are NOT pardoned

"we got angry over going to war under false pretenses" was CLEAR FUCKING REFERENCE TO THE IRAQ WAR.

FUCKING DUH.

Have we gone to war under President Obama? No.

ludicrous.

I don't pardon obdurate dishonest wherein a person repeats and cements the original untrue assertion.

EVER

[Martin Eden]

71. That's OK, because I pardon you ...

... for your failure to express yourself coherently, and for your misplaced righteous indignation.

Your heart appears to be in the right place, even though you are extremely over-sensitive when your own errors are pointed out to you.

I'm sure you'll get over yourself one of these days, but I'm done talking to you today.

Best Wishes,
M.E.

[sabrina 1]

66. Some of us are still angry about atrocities committed in our name.

But in general I don't think the American people fully grasp the scope of the atrocities committed against so many innocent people. And there is a faction that wouldn't care anyhow since they view 'foreigners', especially dark-skinned foreigners as disposable and probably evil. There is a huge amount of racism involved in our foreign policies. Same as there was in the foreign policies of the British Empire. See Churchill's despicable suggestions as to how to get rid of all Arabs eg, sickening.

Anyhow, I haven't changed my views re the killing of innocent people on the pretext of the WOT since it began under Bush. I haven't seen any reason why I should.