5 ms·

Obama authorized 10x the number of drone strikes as Bush that killed over 391+ civilians while he was in office, and he did it on his own volition. Ultimately

by kirse 9y ago

Obama authorized 10x the number of drone strikes as Bush that killed over 391+ civilians while he was in office, and he did it on his own volition. Ultimately any president has to make hard life-altering decisions, so lets cut out the left vs. right nonsense. Go ahead, read the article, don't let the facts hit you on the way out. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-on-obamas-presidency/obamas-embrace-of-drone-strikes-will-be-a-lasting-legacy https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-...

rvo 9y ago
Obama is also I think one of very few presidents who explicitly targeted and killed American natural born citizen. Not accidentally, but actually targeted. Didn't even bother hiding it. But I agree with the original point, GOP did start this mess on the lie of weapons of mass destruction.
- shams93 9y ago
  Well you go back to 911 itself and the government involvement with Osama Bin Laden going back to the 1980s, go back to the CIA making my childhood incredibly dangerous by dumping incredible amounts of guns and drugs into cities such as Los Angeles. When do the American people get to tell the CIA "you're fired!"
  - rvo 9y ago
    Those were massive fups. That is very different from listing the name of an American on a "kill list" and ordering a drone strike. Judge, jury and executioner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- davvolun 9y ago
  Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, but is what Obama did significantly different from Union soldiers under Lincoln's orders during the Civil War? The form of warfare has changed dramatically, but wouldn't that be something of a parallel? P.S. I don't want to sound like an apologist regarding Obama's actions here. My personal feelings are that he was largely better than Bush, but not without fault.
  - rvo 9y ago
    No it's not different. I just said that not many presidents have targeted and killed their own citizens. Lincoln was probably one of them. Perhaps one could argue Obama was in a civil war with Americans of the Muslim faith / extremists. One could argue it was justified. I would personally feel horrible if it was justified that way. But, hey, it's not my country.
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
Every president has killed innocent people. Americans have been complicit in far worse, actually. I don't understand this whole idea that we're 'normalizing' immoral actions. Never in our history have they not been normal.
croon 9y ago
If the previous occupant kicks a hornets nest before you move in, that might force your hand in killing a lot more than the handful his foot managed. I don't disagree with the fact, I disagree with the comparison.
- TearsInTheRain 9y ago
  Ah Bush made Obama kill all of those civilians. That is such a mind boggling, ridiculous excuse.
  - croon 9y ago
    If we're to trust the IBC accounts, he killed less than half the civilians of Bush year on year, much thanks to the use of drones. I don't condone any of it, but I think you're being disingenuous about how wars work if you're suggesting they can be waged without civilian deaths.
unclebucknasty 9y ago
>Obama authorized 10x the number of drone strikes as Bush that killed over 391+ civilians Perspective is in order here. "Credible estimates of Iraq War [alone] casualties range from 150,000 to 460,000" [0]. Obama inherited two wars (one illicit) and he settled on drone strikes in part to reduce the awful rate of civilian casualties. There is really no equivalence here and to suggest that there is actually introduces the bias that makes it about right vs. left. I applaud your encouragement to focus on facts, but let's consider the complete set vs. those that support a particular world view. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Tables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#T...
- cwkoss 9y ago
  > let's consider the complete set vs. those that support a particular world view. What a pompous response. You are not using a 'complete set [of facts]' either, you're just adding your own facts which support your particular worldview. Let's not imply that anyone is working from perfect knowledge of the subject as a rhetorical attempt to signal authority. Both misleading and clearly incorrect.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    >What a pompous response. You are not using a 'complete set [of facts]' either... I've added facts to the original set that was offered. Those added facts broaden the context. If you have more facts to add that would further broaden the context, then you're free to add them as well, versus merely devising adjectives for others' responses.
0x4f3759df 9y ago
Funny expression. One of my favorites is "The only thing Obama stopped was the war protests"

by kirse 9y ago

rvo 9y ago

Obama is also I think one of very few presidents who explicitly targeted and killed American natural born citizen. Not accidentally, but actually targeted. Didn't even bother hiding it. But I agree with the original point, GOP did start this mess on the lie of weapons of mass destruction.

shams93 9y ago
Well you go back to 911 itself and the government involvement with Osama Bin Laden going back to the 1980s, go back to the CIA making my childhood incredibly dangerous by dumping incredible amounts of guns and drugs into cities such as Los Angeles. When do the American people get to tell the CIA "you're fired!"
- rvo 9y ago
  Those were massive fups. That is very different from listing the name of an American on a "kill list" and ordering a drone strike. Judge, jury and executioner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
davvolun 9y ago
Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, but is what Obama did significantly different from Union soldiers under Lincoln's orders during the Civil War? The form of warfare has changed dramatically, but wouldn't that be something of a parallel? P.S. I don't want to sound like an apologist regarding Obama's actions here. My personal feelings are that he was largely better than Bush, but not without fault.
- rvo 9y ago
  No it's not different. I just said that not many presidents have targeted and killed their own citizens. Lincoln was probably one of them. Perhaps one could argue Obama was in a civil war with Americans of the Muslim faith / extremists. One could argue it was justified. I would personally feel horrible if it was justified that way. But, hey, it's not my country.

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

Every president has killed innocent people. Americans have been complicit in far worse, actually. I don't understand this whole idea that we're 'normalizing' immoral actions. Never in our history have they not been normal.

croon 9y ago

If the previous occupant kicks a hornets nest before you move in, that might force your hand in killing a lot more than the handful his foot managed. I don't disagree with the fact, I disagree with the comparison.

TearsInTheRain 9y ago
Ah Bush made Obama kill all of those civilians. That is such a mind boggling, ridiculous excuse.
- croon 9y ago
  If we're to trust the IBC accounts, he killed less than half the civilians of Bush year on year, much thanks to the use of drones. I don't condone any of it, but I think you're being disingenuous about how wars work if you're suggesting they can be waged without civilian deaths.

unclebucknasty 9y ago

>Obama authorized 10x the number of drone strikes as Bush that killed over 391+ civilians Perspective is in order here. "Credible estimates of Iraq War [alone] casualties range from 150,000 to 460,000" [0]. Obama inherited two wars (one illicit) and he settled on drone strikes in part to reduce the awful rate of civilian casualties. There is really no equivalence here and to suggest that there is actually introduces the bias that makes it about right vs. left. I applaud your encouragement to focus on facts, but let's consider the complete set vs. those that support a particular world view. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Tables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#T...

cwkoss 9y ago
> let's consider the complete set vs. those that support a particular world view. What a pompous response. You are not using a 'complete set [of facts]' either, you're just adding your own facts which support your particular worldview. Let's not imply that anyone is working from perfect knowledge of the subject as a rhetorical attempt to signal authority. Both misleading and clearly incorrect.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >What a pompous response. You are not using a 'complete set [of facts]' either... I've added facts to the original set that was offered. Those added facts broaden the context. If you have more facts to add that would further broaden the context, then you're free to add them as well, versus merely devising adjectives for others' responses.

0x4f3759df 9y ago

Funny expression. One of my favorites is "The only thing Obama stopped was the war protests"