The Glade 4.0

Fair enough, he just picked it up and ran with it.



I don't believe the drone program is the opposite, so much as it allows action to be taken where it hasn't been in the past. i.e. our ability to hit targets is better. That is leading into some grey areas that will need to be sorted out, but I don't really feel like we're in completely uncharted territory here.



I suspect much of our issue is with semantics. What is unilateral to you? I'm sure that there were teams of people who have created the kill lists for the drone program and I'm sure that there is some oversight going on. It's certainly not the case that Obama just gets up in the morning on the wrong side of the bed and adds a name to the list. But all that said, the oversight may not be someone from the judicial branch. So we're likely splitting hairs on who should be doing the oversight, etc.

But I also think the discussion around what is a "combat zone" has some merit. The reality of an enemy like Al Qaeda is that they don't take to the field in an large scale organized manner. They also surround themselves with civilians so that it increases the likelihood that an innocent is killed if they are targeted giving them more ammunition within their countries to recruit and paint the West as this evil empire. From my point of view, unless we are going to completely give up on being pro-active with removing the various elements of Al Qaeda's operations, they are forcing us to engage them in areas that aren't your classic "combat zone". I hate that we are being forced there, but I really don't see any other viable alternative that doesn't significantly put us at risk.

We are not forced to engage. We could simply leave the area they are in and give them no easy means to attack the US. This would force them to expend a great deal of energy planning and attempting to execute attack on the US, which would give us more time and avenues to investigate to stop it. It would also remove the recruiting power of having their target firing missiles and killing innocent people willy-nilly all over their nation.

In fact the drone-as-killers program with its soulless terror in the sky is one of the things that we could stop now and be better off for rather quickly.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I would have to do some research to get the details, but if all you're saying is that the President made public statements denying the presence of "ground troops" at a time when we had ACS personnel on the ground, I don't see a problem with that. Presumably, most if not all air-to-ground operations these days involve support personnel literally on the ground (DE can correct me if I'm wrong on that), but that's a completely different thing than having "ground troops" involved. And if reporters specifically asked whether there were ACS personnel on the ground and he dodged the question, I don't have a problem with that either. You don't advertise the presence of a small number of support personnel during active combat operations, because those troops don't have the capacity to mount a strong defense if they're located by the enemy.


No, actually only 2 of my other points involved blaming Republicans, and when assigning responsibility for policy outcomes, I think it's important to look at the reality of who actually pushed for that outcome. Obama pushed fairly hard for closing GITMO, and Republicans pushed hard to keep it open. Yes, it's possible Obama might have been able to ram it through, but at the end of the day, Republicans won that battle and got the policy result they wanted, so I assign the blame to them. Similarly on the payroll tax, Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax cut, but Republicans opposed that extension. In this case, the Dems didn't even bother to fight for it, so I suppose you could say they share some of the blame, but I would still assign the bulk of it to the party that actually advocated for the resulting policy.


1. Because when you balance out all the positives and negatives, I don't think it's correct to say he's "bad". I disagree with some of his positions, and I strongly oppose some others, but overall, I think he's done a reasonably good job on most things.

2. I don't think he's delivered any less than is usual for Presidents.

3. Because I think establishing a vast, largely unchecked detention system and initiating the systemic use of torture and abuse resulting in thousands of human rights violations, including the deaths of several dozen detainees (that we know about) is significantly worse than targeting one American citizen (or possibly two) who is openly advocating on behalf of enemy forces in wartime. Doesn't mean the latter is ok, but it doesn't hold a candle to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crimes.


Because I don't think it is a false dilemma. I believe in making the best choice from the reasonably available options (sorry, no third party martyrdom for me), and until the Republican party pulls its head out of its collective ***, that's Obama and the Dems.


I addressed the nature of Bush's war crimes above, and as for the NATO thing - I have no idea what you're talking about, but I can pretty much guarantee that if I were to look into it, I'd find that there's some perfectly reasonable policy behind it (probably having to do with negotiations surrounding START II) that you and World Net Daily (and pretty much no one else) think qualifies as a "demonstrable act of treason". Sorry, not the same thing.

Aizle:

Actually, all of those points had to do with the general meme -- "It's not Obama's fault." Only 2 specifically name the Republicans as at fault ...

I'd blame them all, Democrats and Republicans alike, because the thing neither of you seem to grok ...

Obama didn't change our government's overall policy direction; he didn't change our fiscal or military or geopolitical direction; all he did was campaign, twice, on not being Bush, while continuing pretty much every Bush policy or expanding on them in some cases -- State Secrets anyone?

_________________

Do you think that the 9/11 attacks were easy to organize, fund, recruit for, and execute?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No. Relatively easy to hide from the government? Probably.

Suffice to say I think you overestimate our ability to be effective by a purely defensive stance.

Unilateral, within a modern government context, refers to any program wholly executable within a single branch of government. Additionally, in this case, the point is that the President can get up on the wrong side of the bed and just add a name to the list. Regardless of whether you believe your particular favorite would do it, is that an authority you want the President to have?



This was specifically Rand Paul's point: in a "war" in which the battlefield is "global" or "everywhere," where do these lines get drawn? If they're "everywhere," that theoretically means these strategies and tactics can be used on US soil. Thus, filibuster.



I don't really see Al-qaeda as a "significant threat" to US security. WMD proliferation? Sure, because it could get into Al-qaeda's hands. But that becomes a separate issue, essentially. Otherwise, trigger-happy Israelis, the debt situation, and N. Korea are all more "significant" threats, IMO. (Not necessarily in that order)

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Most do, mainly because "most" have involved U.S. troops already being on the ground anyhow, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other cases, like Libya and very early in Afghanistan, it is preferable to have ground Forward Air Controllers present when fixed-wing aircraft are attacking targets in close air support of troops. Otherwise, it is very difficult for the pilot to determine exactly what he's supposed to attack. His aircraft is moving very fast, he does not have real-time updates on the ground, and one vehicle from a fast-moving fighter jet looks much like another. Getting lower can help, but that exposes him more to shoulder-fired SAMs, gunfire, and reduces the time he has to identify the target by putting more terrain in the way.

Whilst attacking targets not in contact with the enemy, ground support is far less important. The targets tend to be fixed and more easily identified.

As to whether such teams constitute "ground troops" well.. technically speaking they are troops, and they are on the ground. So yes, they technically are there. However, they don't do anytihng except support the air attack. The term "ground troops" tends to imply troops that actually engage in ground combat, and not merely at the very-small-unit level. Rather it implies troops that engage meaningful enemy formations with the intent of destroying them through application of combat power, not special forces raids and such that disrupt and degrade, but don't destroy major enemy formations. Contrary to what many people think SF formations, and even large light formations like Ranger battalions are absolutely no match for mechanized forces in open combat.

I won't say which of you is right and wrong. I would say from a strict technical standpoint, Khross appears to be correct, but from a more colloquial standpoint, you appear to be correct.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."