Drone War Expansion Sparks Questions About Effectiveness, Oversight

[Cancel 2016.11]

Melissa Harris-Perry: Obama Administration Has Institutionalized 'Perpetual War' (VIDEO)

Melissa Harris-Perry was alarmed over President Obama's drone policy on Saturday, lamenting the country's "perpetual war state" and alleging that Obama has expanded some of policies put in place by George W. Bush.

The MSNBC host was reacting to a controversial Justice Department white paper, which says that the U.S. can legally order the killing of Americans if they are suspected of being senior Al Qaeda members. Harris-Perry noted that while on-the-ground fighting in Iraq has largely ended, she said that there are still special forces units and drone strikes being carried out in war zones — a development she said indicated the country's never-ending state of war.

"The perpetual war state ignited in response to the September 11th attacks has become an institutional apparatus that needs no particular provocation," Harris-Perry said, adding that kill lists and "imminent threat" have become "entrenched protocols" since 2001. "Counterterrorism policies put into place under President George Bush have been continued and robustly expanded under President Obama," she alleged.

Harris-Perry alleged that despite Obama's calls for the contrary, his administration has largely institutionalized "perpetual war."

"While we can be pretty sure that a mere territorial dispute will not lead our troops back into the trenches, the expansion of what counts as a justification for preemptive strike — we are left asking, what will get us out of war?" she said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/melissa-harris-perry-drones-obama_n_2657457.html

I saw that. And she has always been IMO, a fairly big Obama apologist, so this was very good. I think pressure is mounting but we'll see if it has any effect.

 

[blackascoal]

I saw that. And she has always been IMO, a fairly big Obama apologist, so this was very good. I think pressure is mounting but we'll see if it has any effect.

When I saw this article I was SHOCKED.

Given the Obama apologist that she is, I thought this was something out of the Onion. But it appears that she is indeed taking a stand on drones.

Hopefully, this grows among the rest of the fake humanitarians at MSNBC.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, I'm gonna find a particular thread from six years ago. You're safe.

But I know. And you know. And I think others do too.

Which is bullshit. You make up a claim that is completely unfounded and then when asked for evidence tell us 'I am too lazy to back up my claim, but you all know its true'...

Complete nonsense.

And, didn't you in your usual spoiled brat unrestrained anger type of way, actually PM me that shit about you and your cousin laughing at me? Anyway, bottom line? You loveeeeee airstrikes and drone strikes as long as a Republican is doing them. You will support them again as soon as a Republican takes office. YOu'll then say "it's different because (insert whatever excuse townhall has come up with)"

More complete bullshit.

And then you'll tell me to pull up this thread. From what will then be five years ago. I wonder who you think you're kidding? I even wonder if you pull off kidding yourself.

I love how you tell me what I will and wont do, what I did and didn't do... all with no shred of evidence at all.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Which is bullshit. You make up a claim that is completely unfounded and then when asked for evidence tell us 'I am too lazy to back up my claim, but you all know its true'...

Complete nonsense.



More complete bullshit.



I love how you tell me what I will and wont do, what I did and didn't do... all with no shred of evidence at all.

K

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

When I saw this article I was SHOCKED.

Given the Obama apologist that she is, I thought this was something out of the Onion. But it appears that she is indeed taking a stand on drones.

Hopefully, this grows among the rest of the fake humanitarians at MSNBC.

I wonder if the left and I guess I mean the so-called "professional left" isn't losing a lot of credibility and maybe they are starting to wake up and realize this.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You're so FOS. It was years ago while Bush was President and you had never met an airstrike you didn't lovveeeeee. YOu were making the exact same argument Billy mentioned - that our bombers are now so "precise" that there is barely any collateral damage. And I said I had seen too much to ever support airstrikes (because I had watched some very painful documentaries), and you said you and your big bad air force cous were laughing your asses off at me because I was ignorant.

The fact is that you are exactly what you are claiming liberals are. A hack who supports all of this shit...just as long as a Repubilcan is doing it.

I know it. You know it. No one believes for one second you'll ever admit it. But others know it too.

I can vouch for that. He always used the "invevitable" argument as well, and argued that any President would have had to do it.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I can vouch for that. He always used the "invevitable" argument as well, and argued that any President would have had to do it.

He thinks everyone has amnesia...typical righty.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I can vouch for that. He always used the "invevitable" argument as well, and argued that any President would have had to do it.

Yes, I stated that the war was inevitable. I still believe it was to this day. I never said that any President would have had to do it. That is yet another of your straw men, similar to the warped memories Darla has shown as to what was actually said. What I did say is that the no fly zone/containment strategy would not have worked indefinitely. Sooner or later it was going to blow up in our faces. I also stated that Bush did not need to go in when he did. that he should have waiting until after Afghanistan was done before engaging Iraq. But I am sure you will 'forget' that portion of the discussion.

Pretending I stated that I loved airstrikes or that I supported them regardless of target etc... is pure nonsense. So as I asked Darla, either post a link to the thread where you think I stated such or do shut the fuck up.

Darla now tries to cover up her comments by saying it was in PM that I stated some of the things she accuses me of saying... which is convenient, because PMs are not to be posted for the board... hence the term PM.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Cant help but point out again how Darla and Lorax continue to try and divert this topic onto what I 'said' years ago rather than focus on Obama's bombing innocent children and brown people (as Darla would have put it under Bush).

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Yes, I stated that the war was inevitable. I still believe it was to this day. I never said that any President would have had to do it. That is yet another of your straw men, similar to the warped memories Darla has shown as to what was actually said. What I did say is that the no fly zone/containment strategy would not have worked indefinitely. Sooner or later it was going to blow up in our faces. I also stated that Bush did not need to go in when he did. that he should have waiting until after Afghanistan was done before engaging Iraq. But I am sure you will 'forget' that portion of the discussion.

Pretending I stated that I loved airstrikes or that I supported them regardless of target etc... is pure nonsense. So as I asked Darla, either post a link to the thread where you think I stated such or do shut the fuck up.

Darla now tries to cover up her comments by saying it was in PM that I stated some of the things she accuses me of saying... which is convenient, because PMs are not to be posted for the board... hence the term PM.

Saying that Bush didn't have to go when he did is tepid at best. Combined with mischaracterizing that conflict as "inevitable," and that is what we call "full blown Bush apologism."

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

darla and onceler lying

shocking

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Yes, I stated that the war was inevitable. I still believe it was to this day. I never said that any President would have had to do it. That is yet another of your straw men, similar to the warped memories Darla has shown as to what was actually said. What I did say is that the no fly zone/containment strategy would not have worked indefinitely. Sooner or later it was going to blow up in our faces. I also stated that Bush did not need to go in when he did. that he should have waiting until after Afghanistan was done before engaging Iraq. But I am sure you will 'forget' that portion of the discussion.

Pretending I stated that I loved airstrikes or that I supported them regardless of target etc... is pure nonsense. So as I asked Darla, either post a link to the thread where you think I stated such or do shut the fuck up.

Darla now tries to cover up her comments by saying it was in PM that I stated some of the things she accuses me of saying... which is convenient, because PMs are not to be posted for the board... hence the term PM.

Are you delusional??? Do you seriously think it's the fact that I can't post PM's that's preventing me from posting a six year old PM from YOU? Do you think I save them??

you probably do think that. get over yourself SF.

Look, you didn't forget the conversation and I think your initial response shows that you didn't forget it. You went about finding out whether I had the post, or the PM (hilarious. egotist), and then you moved onto full-fledge denial. You know it. I know you know it, and that's why I don't care.

 

[Bonestorm]

Cant help but point out again how Darla and Lorax continue to try and divert this topic onto what I 'said' years ago rather than focus on Obama's bombing innocent children and brown people (as Darla would have put it under Bush).

Well, like, you're the one engaging on the topic. I mean, you're challenging people to tell you the stuff that you said. What do you expect?

It's like attending a town hall and asking a question and getting upset that people answered you.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Cant help but point out again how Darla and Lorax continue to try and divert this topic onto what I 'said' years ago rather than focus on Obama's bombing innocent children and brown people (as Darla would have put it under Bush).

Under Bush, you did the old "LMAO MORON" at me when I complained about all of the civilian casualties and you mocked me for my "ignorance" in not understanding that our bombs are now so "precise" that there are very few civilian casualities.

You know it. I know it. The End.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Saying that Bush didn't have to go when he did is tepid at best. Combined with mischaracterizing that conflict as "inevitable," and that is what we call "full blown Bush apologism."

Sorry 'bout that.

LMAO... so saying Bush fucked up in how he handled it is 'Bush Apologism'??? Yep... just as stupid now as you were then.

Let me guess, you are now (after years of waiting) going to finally explain how that was going to end without conflict? No fly zone for 50 years? Keep starving the Iraqi people through sanctions on Saddam?

What exactly was the alternative again?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Under Bush, you did the old "LMAO MORON" at me when I complained about all of the civilian casualties and you mocked me for my "ignorance" in not understanding that our bombs are now so "precise" that there are very few civilian casualities.

You know it. I know it. The End.

Bullshit... I mocked your ignorant claims of grossly exaggerated death tolls when every available Iraqi governmental source said you were wrong. You chanted that millions were dying by our bombs. That was not the case. I never stated that there were 'very few' civilian casualties. Only that the numbers were not anywhere near the gross exaggerations you were claiming. You know it, I know it. The end.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, like, you're the one engaging on the topic. I mean, you're challenging people to tell you the stuff that you said. What do you expect?

It's like attending a town hall and asking a question and getting upset that people answered you.

After they have made false claims as to what I have said. Yes, as I stated, they wish to divert.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Bullshit... I mocked your ignorant claims of grossly exaggerated death tolls when every available Iraqi governmental source said you were wrong. You chanted that millions were dying by our bombs. That was not the case. I never stated that there were 'very few' civilian casualties. Only that the numbers were not anywhere near the gross exaggerations you were claiming. You know it, I know it. The end.

Surreeeeee you did.

Did you know that you always repeat what others say to you? That's the "I know you are what am I?" tactic. It's considered the absolute cutting edge in debate tactics...among the kindergarten set.

Aren't you supposed to be a college grad??

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

LMAO... so saying Bush fucked up in how he handled it is 'Bush Apologism'??? Yep... just as stupid now as you were then.

Let me guess, you are now (after years of waiting) going to finally explain how that was going to end without conflict? No fly zone for 50 years? Keep starving the Iraqi people through sanctions on Saddam?

What exactly was the alternative again?

No fly zones, continued sanctions, the works. As has been proven - beyond the shadow of a doubt - war is a last resort only, when all other options have been exhausted, and when we have no other choice to defend America.

Trying to make the case that a protracted, destructive 10-year conflict was "inevitable"' and somehow the best option is actually insane.

 

[blackascoal]

No fly zones, continued sanctions, the works. As has been proven - beyond the shadow of a doubt - war is a last resort only, when all other options have been exhausted, and when we have no other choice to defend America.

Trying to make the case that a protracted, destructive 10-year conflict was "inevitable"' and somehow the best option is actually insane.

How does that apply to Libya?

It doesn't.

Obama did the same thing that Bush did.