Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
- Best answers
i mean obama was a bad president but there literally has never been a good one so it's more a question of "more or less bad" than "good or bad".
no.I don't think he completely realized what was going on so I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
(source)“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”
yes, they in fact literally do.Counter-terrorism drones do not make him a war criminal.
it is well known that if you do a crime that someone else did before it isn't a crime for you to do it. very solid argument, 10/10.If you're concerned that he may have killed civilians, it should be noted that every American killed by terrorists was a civilian.
who judged them terrorists? oh, yeah, right, obama. the criteria was: "any male of combat age is a terrorist". useful, that. but then when they bombed a wedding party with women and children present, they both insisted they didn't do it and that everyone there was a terrorist anyway. funny, that. definitely a sign of someone being honest.Who judged these folks killed by counter-terrorism as civilians. What criteria were used, the word of a terrorist?
that would be the genocides and imperialism, amongst other things.Please tell why every other American president was a terrible person.
i'm not sure why you'd think this is a question you can catch me out with. all of them are criminals too, to the present day.Please include comparisons to past German leaders, you can leave out Hitler, his story is well known.
ah, i see, that's why the usa doesn't declare war anymore, to avoid the war crimes trials. good trick, that. he's a mass murderer then. cool. good upgrade. that makes him a president to be proud of, i suppose.Also war criminal is reserved for after a declaration of war, not when you say it is.
you do realise that saying "it's politically expedient" doesn't make it ok?an even more important concern for the American voter.
about that:The major question here is not whether to send in the drones, but when is it justified - is there enough evidence that the target is responsible for terrorist acts? Is the intel on his movements good? The lists of targets Obama sometimes talked about and how it is being vetted by the military and the administration is crucial here.
(source)Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.
about that:Obama moved some of the strikes from the opaque CIA to the more transparent Pentagon in 2013, which was some progress. In 2016 he ordered that all civilian casualties should be investigated, compensations paid and reports made public.
(same source as above)But over the Obama presidency, it has become harder for journalists to obtain information from the government on the results of particular strikes. And Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has fought in court for years to keep secret the legal opinions justifying strikes.
Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and lead author of a 2013 study of drones, said the president’s statement “highlights what we’ve sort of known: that most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names.”
(source)But a focus on “balancing” legitimate kills and innocents killed sidesteps one of the most potent critiques of Obama’s approach: that many aspects of targeted killing policy are on dubious legal footing, and that Obama has set hugely dangerous precedents. Obama administration officials have variously argued that targeted killing with drones is a state secret or a so-called political question that isn't properly justiciable.
Thanks to Obama’s actions, Donald Trump will be inaugurated into an office that presumes the authority to secretly order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens. Was the particular way that Obama targeted Anwar al-Awlaki worth that price?
it should be quite clear that it's obvious that trump is worse, and i never indicated otherwise (and i'm not sure why you'd think or imply that i believe otherwise if you know me at all). that doesn't change what obama is responsible for, and he is a criminal as a result.Just so we are clear where Obama stands on the US Presidents scale.
i'm quoting (among others) the new york times. it literally doesn't get any more milquetoast centrist. by any reasonable metric, obama is a monster, and it's fortunate for him that he is overshadowed by others more monstrous ahead and behind.right wing and far left [...] propaganda efforts with no nuance nor value.
What in the name of vaporised afghan children am i readingYou're talking stupid now. Please stop. It should be noted the phrase is COUNTER-terrorism. If you're concerned that he may have killed civilians, it should be noted that every American killed by terrorists was a civilian. If you are a true civilian standing near a terrorist targeted by a drone, sorry. Pick better neighbors. Who judged these folks killed by counter-terrorism as civilians. What criteria were used, the word of a terrorist? During the Gulf War in Iraq, I saw a group of locals standing near what was purported to be a bombed-out building. In front of the ruins was a sign, in English, which read "Baby Milk Factory." Forgive me, but I doubted the veracity of that sign. Please tell why every other American president was a terrible person. Please include comparisons to past German leaders, you can leave out Hitler, his story is well known. Be sure to include Himmler, Heydrich and Hess. Also war criminal is reserved for after a declaration of war, not when you say it is.
you have "terrorists" (any male of military age, remember?).You have the terrorists and you have the tech to kill them
meaning there's a bi-partisan consensus that they are okay and few voices asking for more transparency.
now what do you do and still get re-elected for a second term.
you do realise that saying "it's politically expedient" doesn't make it ok?
"let's murder random people because we think some of them might maybe be terrorists" strikes me as the epitome of failing to deliver solutions for real problems. especially since the alleged problem ("terror vitims' blood") is specifically made worse by that course of action (both by encouraging radicalisation and by itself basically being terrorism, incidentally).failing to deliver solutions to real problems.