But but...muh drone strikes...

[xcvbn]

i never said it was, i agree

I wasn't inferring you were, just trying to interject with the "indiscriminately droning Americans" thing because it's a big deal that apparently no one wants to talk about anymore.

 

[GriftyMcGrift]

and god forbid, i mean god forbid anyone that posts here go out and actually speak to other humans every once in a while

i can almost guarantee that regardless race, color, religon, political stance will have very very similar ideas and concerns about this particular topic and further more, just like normal human beings would be able to discuss it, see others view points and maybe come to a compromise


or just continue on with the team a vs team b bullshit whatever

 

[WiolentOne]

All US Presidents ever have gotten away with murder with little to no scrutiny. Putting at the feet of Obama is silly. He is certainly "the drone strike President", but the rest of your post ignores literally the entire history of the US. Particularly since WWII.

That's not true. Some presidents were more harshly criticized than others.

And if you were literate you could thread title which relates to the specific topic of drones. I'll put it at Obama's feet because he set the precedent for their reckless and questional use.

 

[Peteyandjia]

Wrong. Policy matters. Rules of engagement matter. Chain of command matters. Accountability matters. The difference in policy is that the executive will no longer have a close eye on the drone strikes. The CIA is going to be given more authority to assassinate too. This isn't just about a shift in technology, it's a shift in policy. More recklessness, less oversight.

It's a step in a worse direction, I agree.

 

[theBLADE1]

You're almost impossibly stupid for reading my OP that way. I didn't excuse anything Obama did. You need to apologize for being that retarded. And then you need to light your wallet and your testicles on fire for the Hitler/Mao analogy.

And you are one of the most fake posters on this forum. That's a tall task BTW

 

[Fawlty]

And you are one of the most fake posters on this forum. That's a tall task BTW

But I would expect you to feel like I'm not in reality, because you're a conspiracy theorist and generally nutty about everything. You realize that don't you? Does that occur to you before you type about how fake I am- that according to a reasonably normal worldview, that I would expect you to feel like that?

 

[touchedbyjab]

I never had a problem with the drone strikes.. More of them dead.. The better.

The left is going to be hypocritical though.. Silent on Obama killing muslims.. But will call Trump literally Hitler

This. US hasn't cared about Middle East civilian deaths in 8 years, but now that Trump is president he is personally responsible for every single one. Literally hitler.

 

[WiolentOne]

"Alt-right left wing"

I like the sound of that.

 

[HomerThompson]

This. US hasn't cared about Middle East civilian deaths in 8 years, but now that Trump is president he is personally responsible for every single one. Literally hitler.

*200 years

 

[AgonyandIrony]

lmfao @Fawlty. This is getting more amazing and pathetic by the day. Your breakdown since a winner won the election is awesome to watch. Where were you when Obama was killing children with drones strikes? Idiot liberals are suddenly giving a shit about the hospitals he bombed? Oh wait, no they're not. That would take a functioning brain. Let's blame 'literally Hitler' instead hahaha.

Okay this is fucking retarded. Much of outcry about the hospital bombing in Afghanistan was from the left. And drone strikes were a major issue and protested by left wingers.

 

[GriftyMcGrift]

Okay this is fucking retarded. Much of outcry about the hospital bombing in Afghanistan was from the left. And drone strikes were a major issue and protested by left wingers.

dont let reality get in the way of this amazing thread

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I remember reading an article that said Obama's presidency essentially "normalized" drone strikes. Thats true. Obama himself joked about it which he should have been lambasted for. He set the precedent now it's par for the course. He got away with murder because he was considered a likable guy by the left. He recieved some criticism but not as much as he should have. Now future presidents will follow Obamas lead and not be subjugated to all the criticisms they deserve. That's the sad reality of the situation.

Not only that, the Obama presidency destroyed the anti-war left. Think about how the left was up in arms over Bush's war of aggression in the ME, but nary a peep when Obama injected the drone program with meth and steroids and expanded the bombing into 5 more countries.

Now they're slowly and carefully, so as to not seem like blatant partisan hypocrites, donning their anti-war schtick again. None of them will acknowledge that Obama's administration set the precedent for subsequent POTUS' to operate from and/or expand upon. And none of them recognize how much this damages their credibility and the credibility of people who never took their eye off the ball.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

people are really in here claiming that (insert buzz word for democrats/liberals) didnt have problems with the drone strikes

like one of the biggest foreign policy criticisms of obama and the way the government was flubbing civilian casualities, the secret process determining who dies and all that went with it...and because people are so pro team a or team b they will convince themselves of anything

we are so fucked
just google "obama drone strike policy criticism"

the first results are the atlantic, the guardian, washington post, NYT all of them criticise it in some form or another

and I'm no expert but most of these are generally left leaning??? I could be wrong

Right wingers love to put every non-Republican in one basket and label folks in that basket as: Democrats, lefties, progressives, liberals, sjws, etc. They don't distinguish, which is short sighted to say the least. That being said, Democrats didn't care that Obama was the Drone Strike President. Some liberals have, but not Democrats. Look no further than who they supported in the Democratic Primaries. Look no further than this thread for that matter.

 

[GriftyMcGrift]

Right wingers love to put every non-Republican in one basket and label folks in that basket as: Democrats, lefties, progressives, liberals, sjws, etc. They don't distinguish, which is short sighted to say the least. That being said, Democrats didn't care that Obama was the Drone Strike President. Some liberals have, but not Democrats. Look no further than who they supported in the Democratic Primaries. Look no further than this thread for that matter.

I get what your saying but I think there's an important distinction that needs to be made.

This is just based on my own interest in the topic over the years and what a quick search found

IMO when you look, most American's supported the drone strikes due to it being better than the alternatives

Everyone mostly agrees that there are people overseas that pose immediate threats either to our "national security" or troops that are active in that part of the world
Everyone mostly agrees that the alternatives(not taking action, putting more boots on the ground/in the air) is not acceptable if we have the technology to prevent it

What I feel have been the biggest criticisms and the things that have been debated the most are the way they are carried out.
The method and the process for determining targets and carrying out attacks.
I feel the criticism of the way they were carried out was quite loud by many people including the left and the right especially when it came to drones being used on american citizens over seas. I feel this is one of the biggest criticisms of Obama's foreign policy that was a pretty common headline especially when the drone strike surge started around 2010 or so

Just a quick search shows me this from 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/democrats-drone-policy_n_2862544.html


So now we are to the point that Trump wants to further relax the things that regulate the process or whatever and people are understandably concerned.

People already had a problem with it both in the political side and public side for a while now before Trump ever came in the picture

The fact that its immediately turned into a discussion not on what may be wrong with the process and method for carrying these out but instead immediately turned into partisan "nuh uh what about when YOU DID THIS" that every.single.discussion devolves into is very disheartening


edited for giant run on sentence

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I get what your saying but I think there's an important distinction that needs to be made.

This is just based on my own interest in the topic over the years and what a quick search found

IMO when you look, most American's supported the drone strikes due to it being better than the alternatives

Everyone mostly agrees that there are people overseas that pose immediate threats either to our "national security" or troops that are active in that part of the world
Everyone mostly agrees that the alternatives(not taking action, putting more boots on the ground/in the air) is not acceptable if we have the technology to prevent it

What I feel have been the biggest criticisms and the things that have been debated the most are the way they are carried out.
The method and the process for determining targets and carrying out attacks.
I feel the criticism of the way they were carried out was quite loud by many people including the left and the right especially when it came to drones being used on american citizens over seas. I feel this is one of the biggest criticisms of Obama's foreign policy that was a pretty common headline especially when the drone strike surge started around 2010 or so

Just a quick search shows me this from 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/democrats-drone-policy_n_2862544.html


So now we are to the point that Trump wants to further relax the things that regulate the process or whatever and people are understandably concerned.

People already had a problem with it both in the political side and public side for a while now before Trump ever came in the picture

The fact that its immediately turned into a discussion not on what may be wrong with the process and method for carrying these out but instead immediately turned into partisan "nuh uh what about when YOU DID THIS" that every.single.discussion devolves into is very disheartening


edited for giant run on sentence

It immediately turned partisan because that is how the hack OP framed the discussion.

Here's a wee brick upside the head for those who bitched about Obama drone strikes in favor of Trump. Most complainers were from our resident alt-right left wing, but plenty of vanilla Trump supporters jumped on it as well.

And while

Everyone mostly agrees that there are people overseas that pose immediate threats either to our "national security" or troops that are active in that part of the world
Everyone mostly agrees that the alternatives(not taking action, putting more boots on the ground/in the air) is not acceptable if we have the technology to prevent it

, Everyone is mostly wrong, imo. Nearly 30% of those people still believe Saddam had WMD and/or was connected to 9/11. Not only that, but once it was objectively proven that both were false, we are still there and the media never really asked "Why?". This is not why we're fighting over there. It never was. And once you come to that conclusion you recognize the rest is inexcusable.

Here is a great read that I shouldn't have hid in one of my previous posts as it is relevant and poignant to this thread and US FP overall:


After 8 Years of Expanding Presidential War Powers, Obama Insists They Are Limited


Anticipating that Donald Trump might try to fulfill his promises to “bomb the shit” out of terror groups and do a “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” President Obama released a report on Monday summarizing his administration’s views of the legal barriers and policies limiting the president’s military power.

The 61-page report calls for trying terrorism suspects in civilian court and explains at length why no future president could legally torture detainees. It lays out the administration’s self-imposed limits on military operations — and declares that a 2001 resolution Congress passed in the wake of 9/11 is not a blank check to go to kill alleged terrorists wherever they are.

“It clearly reads like an explanation, a textbook that’s left for the next person,” said Naureen Shah, director of the Security With Human Rights Program at Amnesty International. “Here are all the things you cannot do.”

But in trying to defend Obama’s legacy, the report paints a picture of an administration far more restrained than it was in practice.

The report comes just weeks before Trump will inherit bombing campaigns in seven countries, a legally unaccountable drone program, and an open prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The new report is the latest in a series of public steps Obama has recently taken to give the appearance of reining his war powers. Over the summer, for instance, the White House released its internal guidelines for drone strikes outside of war zones and issued a new executive order calling for more transparency on casualties going forward.

But both documents could be revoked by a stroke of the next president’s pen – a fact that CIA Director John Brennan admitted at an event in July.

Obama dramatically escalated the use of drones to kill alleged terrorists far away from recognized warzones. In an October interview with New York Magazine, Obama noted that his executive reforms to the drone program were motivated by concern he would hand off a killing program with no oversight or controls. “You end up with a president who can carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate,” said Obama.

But more quietly, Obama has continued to expand the power of the president to wage covert war. The Washington Post reported last month that Obama was elevating Joint Special Operations Command – the government’s high-level team for global killing missions – into a “ new multiagency intelligence and action force,” with expanded power to launch attacks on terrorist groups around the world.
.....