Seriously, what are you fucking talking about?
You want proof for something I never claimed?
Seriously, what are you talking about?
President Obama reflects on the use of the drone program and " the illusion that it is not war"
- Thread starter Deleted member 69501
- Start date
You want proof for something I never claimed?
Seriously, what are you talking about?
This is some of the worst gaslighting I've ever seen. He's a war criminal end of story, there's nothing complicated about it.
Or he could've just not done drone strikes. Its really not that complex.
Obama could've never done a single drone strike and US citizens largely would not be upset at the lack of said drone strikes. This idea that he was 'forced' into the policy by the public is complete BS. The man run on closing fucking Guantanamo and was elected, his voters were in favor of ending this kind of policy or at the very least ambivalent towards it.
whats worth noting here is that while high profile, named targets are among those targeted by drone strikes, they are overwhelmingly the minority. In fact in Pakistan, among all the reported "militant" death which number anywhere from 2000-3500, about 80 were high profile targets/named leadership. The rest were low level "militants". Of which if you take the American govt at its word, they had ties to terrorist organizations in whatever capacity that led to their extrajudicial killing. Or in some cases, every 18+ male in a strike zone could be declared a combatant and thus be marked down as a militant. There's something deeply wrong with that
And that's just what the government admits to. As much as Obama says he tried to clean up the process, when you actually read up on how the government determines who to kill it's actually fucking frightening. And I think it's harmful to take the government at its word on its efficacy on combating terrorism when it can't even be transparent or honest in its process or reporting.
I honestly feel like I am getting dumber by the minute reading some of these responses.
Let's try this one more fucking time:
No candidate was either winning a party nomination or the presidency on a platform of drawing down in Afghanistan in 2008 or stopping the war on Al Qaeda/terrorism in 2008/2012.
Drone strikes were an extension of the war on terror, anyone not willing to prosecute that strategy was not getting the nominee and would have struggled to keep office. This was reflective of the American people who overwhelmingly supported going after terrorist threats and overwhelmingly supported drone strikes. So you got nominees that were willing to execute it and administrations that would carry it out. You got drone strikes specifically because of the morally bad options available to prosecute this strategy that wasn't going away, drone strikes had better trade offs compared to other alternatives. Which were still morally wrong on a number of principles.
Yeah, Glenn was pretty reputable here. The sources and information from him at the time that article was posted revealed a whole lot about the secret kill program. Which is why you'll see his name around a lot of sources from around this time. Spare me the faux outrage when you're in here still covering for the lies of an administration that has murdered literally countless for nothing at all. Fucking nothing.
The US posture in all conflict related matters is security and silence. Whether they believed public opinion was on their side or not(and it was), they would be engaging all the same. I'm not saying it's right, but that hardly proves some secret fear or this absurd notion they were acting against the will of the American people.
When the expanded drone strikes were leaked Americans overwhelmingly supported them and continued to up until Obama left.
U.S. Public Support for Drone Strikes
Developing strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies.www.cnas.org
Maybe if Obama was a Manchurian foreign policy candidate and he turned into a dove after lying his way to a nomination and victory he could pull it off, but thats pretty silly hypothetical to ponder, and given how powerful the fear of terrorism has been, and how strong the moniker of being strong on terrorism was, it seems unlikely in my mind.
American people are shit, and as shitty people we lock in our politics into really shitty path dependencies. Not sure why this is a controversial thing to point out that I am getting quoted endlessly.
All I'm saying is that public opinion was molded by the OBama admin due to the lies and obfuscation, and it'll be great if you looked at your own damn link, cause they state some nuances you're literally overlooking and I'm tired of repeating.
And I'm not not going to follow you down the hole of just blaming Americans as being a shitty people to excuse OBama's very deliberate war criming and repudiation of damn good advice given to him by many and more.
Reposting again:
Call Off Drone War, Influential U.S. Adviser Says
For months, Pakistani leaders have complained, loudly, about American drone strikes on their territory. Now, an influential adviser to American policymakers is raising his voice against the unmanned attacks, too. "If we want to strengthen our friends and weaken our enemies in Pakistan, bombing...
There's a reality where Obama follows this advice, where he follows the advice in Afghanistan, and doesn't lose a vote. Maybe gains them. All I'm saying here. If you want to waste my time again posting meaningless public opinion polls, feel free but my answer is going to be the same unless you have anything more.
You keep on implying that Obama didn't have a choice, that he was forced to drone strike civilians. It's from words such as "forced to", "political cover", "no realistic option". Always the underlying current is "he didn't have a choice". So, the next question is, do you have proof of this? We have him joking about drone strikes and changing the rules of drone strikes to justify civilian deaths. Where's the evidence that allows you to imply that Obama had his hands tied behind his back and was forced to kill civilians? Would he have lost the election if he...didn't drone strike civilians? Was he forced to by the people? Where is you proof that Obama had to drone strike civilians, whether because of the election or because he was faced with that idiotic trolley problem?
They would be upset about abandoning the war on terror, which is what drone strikes were in pursuit of executing.
Thinking otherwise is attempting to gaslight American history
So basically the American public wanted Obama to drone strike Pakistanis and if he said he was not going to do it, he would have lost the election?
So I guess it's the fault of the blood thirsty Americans who want innocent people killed and whom Obama had to please in order to win the election. And considering this is Obama's liberal/progressive base and not the Trumpers - that does indeed say something about the US.
I don't think anyone would have cared if didn't build all those drone bases in Africa.
I think most Americans don't even know about them.
Why do we keep on talking about complexity for? That's meaningless. the person who got like murder at their wedding didn't care about the 40-year geopolitical process of American involvement middle East. The people who were murdered by Obama's decisions don't give a fuck about that. but yet we continue on this weird complexity BS for issues that really aren't that complex. Like it's not rocket surgery m
This is the endpoint of the (false) assertion that Americans were jonesing for more "roaring success" "fighting terrorism" in the Middle East circa 2008, yes.
The drone program was heavily obfuscated by the admin to the degree that the public largely had no idea what was happening with them until years later. No one was demanding drone strikes, particularly not in places like Pakistan or a Somalia or other countries we weren't even formally involved in militarily. Nor were they demanding that we kill thousands of civilians or demanding that we designate male minors as combatants based on no evidence.
"The War on Terror" can be literally anything, Obama could've just funneled money into DHS and said it was to prevent domestic terror threats and there you go, no extrajudicial killings of foreign civilians necessary. The drone policy was a long series of deliberate choices that knowingly let to mostly civilian casualties followed by a concerted effort to cover up said casualties. There is no legitimate moral defense of the policy.
I never once said he had his hands tied to pursue his policies exactly as they were executed, Ive said very clearly over and over again that Obama has a lot of deserved criticism for his execution of drone policies within the war on terror,. the war on terror being the thing I have been saying was not politically feasible to end. And because of that you get locked into the sort of pick your poison options lastbroadcast brought up. But within the framework of the options Obama chose there is plenty of deserved criticism. Like the lying, like the lax policies around civilian deaths, like the coverups, like the collateral damage, and just because something locks someone onto a path doesnt mean they are morally absolved for still walking it willingly.
I am starting to think a lot of you simply do not realize Obama didnt magically wake up and decide to drone countries. It was a shift in tactics about an ongoing military strategy that the American people were in deep support of and both political parties backed and gatekept, and would not vote for someone showing weakness or appearing to abandon it. Which again, I am struggling to see how this either morally absolves Obama or is controversial to point out?
Show me any anything that shows Americans wanting drone strikes? Which were done in almost complete secret and it wasn't for some brave journalists we would probably never know the extent.
Where is your proof? Where is your proof that if Obama said "no drone strikes", he'd have lost the election? Especially since America for the most part was unfamiliar with the drone strikes at that time.
They can't because it doesn't exist, in fact their entire theory about the way war works in this country is completely wrong. In reality it is the opposite, history has shown again and again that in the modern era, US political leadership and military brass desire war, then go to great lengths to convince the American people said war is necessary, usually through obfuscation of facts and outright falsehoods.
This idea that the American public demands all of this war and the political leaders of this country are pulled along by the whims of the people into war is ludicrous and completely ahistorical.
Jesus fucking Christ.
I really dont know how many times I can keep repeating myself only for you to set up another straw man by not actually reading the words I fucking write.
Try that again
I didn't write that. You did. Again, where is your proof
It's not a strawman, multiple people have asked you repeatedly to provide any kind of evidence of your claims that drone strikes were politically necessary policy to pursue and you are either unable to or refuse to.
They wanted no more terrorists.
They wanted no more terrorist episodes on America soil.
They wanted as few American military deaths as possible.
They wanted no more ground wars.
They didn't want people that appeared soft on going after terrorists abroad.
Now tell me what platform a presidential candidate runs on, gets elected, and gets re-elected that achieves that while walking away from the War on Terror? Because if you are arguing anything but that than you are simply arguing for a change in tactics and we are right back to lastbroadcasts post. Drone strikes were a symptom, not the disease, the disease was the war on terror and it's enablers were the American people.
Obama is deserving of plenty of criticism for his execution of the tactics he chose, tactics that were actually an improvement over the even more indiscriminate bombings of his predecessor and successor, but that is not to say he doesn't rightly deserve blame for plenty. But the idea that we could have just not done the whole war on terror thing, not really realistic given the forces in motion.
Making a bunch of statements as if it's fact is not proof. Come on, at least give me a poll. So far you are claiming that you are right than accusing others, including posters that have shown multiple articles about the issue, of gaslighting. Where is your proof?
Just wondering out loud at this point, but how many votes in middle America does Obama lose if he doesn't drone strike a bunch of brown civilians 3 days after his inauguration:
www.theguardian.com
Or to frame the question a different way: why should any of us here care that Obama may have been making cold calculated decisions to win votes by engaging in these atrocities, most of which he hid from the public anyways?
And despite all these calculated moves of cold murder and lies, Dems still got their asses kicked throughout the Obama admin
All that lying and murdering for nothing. Guess they just needed to do more of it to win more votes, yeah?
Victim of Obama's first drone strike: 'I am the living example of what drones are'
Faheem Qureshi was 14 when a drone attack on his home left him with horrific injuries, several family members dead and his dreams for the future in tatters
www.theguardian.com
Or to frame the question a different way: why should any of us here care that Obama may have been making cold calculated decisions to win votes by engaging in these atrocities, most of which he hid from the public anyways?
And despite all these calculated moves of cold murder and lies, Dems still got their asses kicked throughout the Obama admin
All that lying and murdering for nothing. Guess they just needed to do more of it to win more votes, yeah?
There's a reason why Muslim-Americans kept supporting Bernie Sanders in the primaries - both times when he stood against Clinton and Biden. Because of his non-interventionist foreign policy. Because more than anyone, they understand what US foreign policy does to their community. Bombing families, killing people, leading to more radicalization and terrorism only makes their own lives harder and maybe affects the lives of their friends and family in those places.
And Muslim Americans supported Obama because he campaigned on 'Hope and Change', because he talked about Palestinian rights, promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay, condemned torture and seemed to understand why intervention in these regions was bad. Unfortunately all that 'Hope and Change' turned out to be just rhetoric with no substance behind it.
And Muslim Americans supported Obama because he campaigned on 'Hope and Change', because he talked about Palestinian rights, promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay, condemned torture and seemed to understand why intervention in these regions was bad. Unfortunately all that 'Hope and Change' turned out to be just rhetoric with no substance behind it.
Because NOWHERE have I said that.
Drone Strikes = tactics from the portfolio used to execute the War on Terror.
The War on Terror = A pursuit no presidential candidate had the capacity to walk away from or not pursue diligently due to the American populace and political climate.
Therefore, it is silly to think that there is some world where Obama can just not do these things(or an alternative from the portfolio), let alone win on running against it. That doesn't absolve him morally for all the shitty stuff he did using those tactics and in how he executed it, but the reality is America was on a path dependency that made this pretty much inevitable since the response to 9/11 and they(we) deserve as much blame as anyone. Especially because once it was shown the light, Americans loved it.
OP
OP
I agree, however the basic idea of nationalism, is that in some way you value your fellow compatriots, over those in other countries, particularly if they are perceived as a threat. In other words, if as a president he has clear intelligence suggesting that someone was trying to attack American civilians/soliders a president would be obligated to take action. Because their lives are more valuable, or at least, in the eyes of those he serves their death would be a far greater tragedy.
In summary, we should never idolize politicians nor should we expect them to being the kind of change that we Invision in our heads. Oh and nationalism is terrible.
Your post right here is literally saying it though, lol. He could've chosen to 'fight terror' any number of ways that didn't involve drone striking civilians and the American public wouldn't have cared.
Hard to claim that the American public deserves the blame for policies and wars that they were heavily misled and lied to about, or at least equally responsible as the actual war criminals.
lol maybe you should read your own posts because you literally just said that.
I feel like it's incumbent upon elected officials to lead rather than be potentially boxed in by an electorate that had "blood lust" as a non-negotiable.
But like others have pointed out. If all the murders were just performance art for an inhumane electorate to appear tough on terror, it was both a failure in combating terrorism as well as an electoral failure.
But like others have pointed out. If all the murders were just performance art for an inhumane electorate to appear tough on terror, it was both a failure in combating terrorism as well as an electoral failure.
I already posted links earlier to massive studies about public opinion.
So don't give me that shit
Honest question, how old are you?
...But a majority of Americans were against e.g. the Iraq invasion even in 2008?
Also why is any of this even relevant to you if your position is that being "locked in" on a particular path doesn't absolve him?
Last edited:
If the public wants blood the moral thing to do is obviously lie about escalation not being nessecary (which bonus isn't actually a lie), not to ramp up droning people and then lie about doing it.
And it also didn't work so there's that to weigh as well.
And it also didn't work so there's that to weigh as well.
Its clear Obama truly believed this shit, but the idea you were ever going to get someone that either didn't, or was just doing it for performance art to win re-election, was not realistic.
How about just not do it was never a viable option because the American people took it off the table earlier in the process, and kept reinforcing it for nearly 2 decades. Really, until 2018/2020.
So you either lock in people that are believers in the cause differentiating on manner, depth, and breadth, people willing to lie about it and carry it out to keep power, or maybe you get some Manchurian candidate willing to sacrifice it all and just eventually get replaced by someone likely to overcorrect.
Hence a path dependency forms.
Old enough that I was a teenager durng Bush's late years deep in conservative territory. And even there, people were sick of the war on terror. People were sick of the troops over there. People were sick of the lies and incompetence. Even while attempting to whitewash bush by pretending he didn't know any better, people were sick of Guantanamo, the Middle East, and the War on Terror.
Or you can just answer the question when someone asks you like adults do
Again, proof. Proof that if Obama didn't not drone strike, he would have lost the election. You are saying things as if they are fact. Show me evidence.
How about you stop twisting yourself into knots to cape for war crimes
And I was of voting age for both his terms, and I posted a collection of moving public opinion about this topic on the other page collected over the decades.
The public has only recently deprioritized the war on terror and up until that point has not been tolerant of people not demonstrating perceived strength in pursuing terrorists abroad(with some caveats, often somewhat contradictory, but hey, it's America), at least not outside very safe districts on the left. Especially not in presidential races.
It is not exactly that difficult to hold both things as being true: America was locked into a path dependency around the war on terror that if it didnt produce drone strikes like under Obama, would produce tactics with some moral issues, and the American people should be on the hook more for this period(that is still ongoing mind you) than they scapegoat at leaders for, and that within his own constraints Obama is deserving of plenty of moral criticisms.
People aren't asking for clarification of your point of view, you've said the same thing about 5 times now. They are asking for evidence of your claims, which you have not provided.
This is such bullshit, Obama isn't a scapegoat he's the one who crafted the policy, pursued the policy to its endpoint (mass killings of civilians including children and American citizens) and then lied to the American people about the outcomes of said policy. By what measure is the average American more responsible for the policy than the man who crafted, executed, and hid the policy?