Obama kills too many

Status
Not open for further replies.

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,769
Reaction score
0
Under Obama, he has authorized more kills than ever. In fact, more than Bush and Republicans are already complaining about his excessive kills!

"Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing."

washingtonpost.com

Face it - Obama's doing better than Bush - he's actually killing as many as he could to get rid of those evil people instead of capturing and debating over where to hold them!

It gets the job done. And it's quick. Just like the good old days! :)
 
Oh lol, I can't wait and see about what txgolfer say about it. :hmm:
 
Under Obama, he has authorized more kills than ever. In fact, more than Bush and Republicans are already complaining about his excessive kills!

"Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing."

washingtonpost.com

ah... typical of someone who doesn't know a thing or two about warfare. That's why there are more wars and deaths under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents.

Basic War 101
1. Dead body doesn't give you any vital information
2. More deaths mean more enrollments by family members, friends, etc. for revenge killings
3. This tactic is completely opposite to Obama's constant preaching during his campaign

maybe I'll mail him a book as a gift

art-of-war.jpg


Face it - Obama's doing better than Bush - he's actually killing as many as he could to get rid of those evil people instead of capturing and debating over where to hold them!
I'm confused by your statement. Obama was trying to cockblock Bush by trying to stop him from killing enemies and capturing terrorists. Under Obama Administration, the government has been debating among themselves where to hold them since Obama signed the Executive Order to shut down Gitmo Camp.

It gets the job done. And it's quick. Just like the good old days! :)
oh - yea all thanks to GWB. GWB created tools and protocols that never existed before that enable future Presidents to effectively combat against terrorists. Unfortunately - Obama has misused this tool.
 
Oh wow, Jiro is right so you better to trust his word, Netrox.
 
Hmm interesting........Waterboarding is bad.......but killing is good.
 
I'm confused by your statement. Obama was trying to cockblock Bush by trying to stop him from killing enemies and capturing terrorists. Under Obama Administration, the government has been debating among themselves where to hold them since Obama signed the Executive Order to shut down Gitmo Camp.

oh - yea all thanks to GWB. GWB created tools and protocols that never existed before that enable future Presidents to effectively combat against terrorists. Unfortunately - Obama has misused this tool.

First, he opposed the IRAQ WAR, not Aghfanstain war.

Second, he made it clear he's going to war there and said he's gonna kill leaders. He kept his promise.

Third, while we kill more, we don't kill every one. We still capture some Taliban leaders alive to get information.

Please give me a break. :)
 
First, he opposed the IRAQ WAR, not Aghfanstain war.

Second, he made it clear he's going to war there and said he's gonna kill leaders. He kept his promise.

Third, while we kill more, we don't kill every one. We still capture some Taliban leaders alive to get information.

Please give me a break. :)

Really????? The article you cited quoted military personel as being confused with the detention policy.
 
So, while the military personell is confused, it's best that we just kill until we figure out how to detain them. How's that? :)
 
First, he opposed the IRAQ WAR, not Aghfanstain war.
uh.... this article is not about Iraq or Afghanistan. The killing isn't done in only Afghanistan. It said "East Africa" - to be more specific.... Somalia. methinks you didn't read this article.

Second, he made it clear he's going to war there and said he's gonna kill leaders. He kept his promise.
Correction - he made it clear that he will shut down Gitmo Camp, withdraw the troops ASAP, give more rights to prisoners, increase accountability & oversight, and bunch more promises that he never kept... because he has reverted everything back to Bush way but more reckless.

Third, while we kill more, we don't kill every one. We still capture some Taliban leaders alive to get information.
I'm very confused by your statement. Capture Taliban leaders alive to get information? How? The White House just authorized blowing up a vehicle carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan.... an Al-Queda leader who HAD a very high-value information.

According to article you provided - "But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever."

GOOD JOB OBAMA!!!! :roll:

Please give me a break. :)
no
 
So, while the military personell is confused, it's best that we just kill until we figure out how to detain them. How's that? :)

But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.

how about that, huh? You don't care for information on future terrorist attacks on USA?
 
So, while the military personell is confused, it's best that we just kill until we figure out how to detain them. How's that? :)

the military is even more confused under Obama Administration. There wasn't a situation like this under Bush Administration. Bush knew what he wanted. Bush expected the best people to give him information and advices at the meeting in order to make an executive decision. A Blink Decision.

Obama has all kinds of advisers at his disposal and still..... Obama doesn't know what he wants. That's why he is notorious for running meetings far beyond the time allocated for it. worse of all - his own deadlines were not met. That is a very serious and a very poor example of leadership. It worries me.
 
Not going to bash him for this

NO. If ending the war means getting it on as hard as we can well that is a very decisive decision. That is the only way any war gets won. It was not a decision lightly made and I respect the hell out of that. While the right was bashing away saying too slow too indecisive, blah, blah, blah, the man was making one the most important decisions of the 21st century and did it in his own time. Now we are doing it and it is bash, bash, bash, nope you guys aren't to be pleased and frankly I am starting to wonder your maturity level has dropped to kindergarten. Gitmo is wrong in every sense of the American creed but it is a tarbaby as he found out. He had the guts to try and fix it. Health care, we are being freaking raped by the insurance companies and a system without proper balance and controls. He stuck his neck out a mile to help us all and got pissed on. Nope I am not going to bash this man.
 
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It's quite simple. The increased kill rate comes from the decreased will to do controversial stuff to get life-saving intelligence out of these guys. Intelligence keeps us safe, so less intelligence means less safe. Killing these guys is better than doing nothing, but I kind of miss having a president with the stones to interrogate the bad guys and say "meh, whatever" to the naysayers.
 
So, while the military personell is confused, it's best that we just kill until we figure out how to detain them. How's that? :)
That sounds like the old "hawk" philosophies:

"Shoot first, and ask questions later."

or

"Kill 'em all, and sort 'em out later."

:hmm:
 
This is an interesting viewpoint:

...Echoes of al-Qaeda arrests

Baradar's handling appears to echo that of two senior al-Qaeda terrorists who were captured in the early days of the Obama administration. In January 2009, Pakistani commandos, acting on intelligence from the CIA, seized a Saudi al-Qaeda operative named Zabi al-Taifi. A U.S. counterterrorism official told the Associated Press that Taifi "was among the top two dozen al-Qaeda leaders" and "was deeply involved in internal and external operations plotting." A month later, the CIA and the Pakistani commandos in Quetta captured an al-Qaeda terrorist named Abu Sufyan al-Yemeni. According to The New York Times, he was "on CIA and Pakistani lists of the top 20 al-Qaeda operatives" and "helped arrange travel and training for al-Qaeda operatives from various parts of the Muslim world to the Pakistani tribal areas."

Like Baradar, Taifi and Yemeni possessed valuable intelligence. But instead of sending them to the CIA or Guantanamo, they were sent to Islamabad, interrogated briefly by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, and then repatriated to their home countries, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Where are these men now? In the wake of the recent attempt by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to blow up an airplane over Detroit, it would be enlightening to learn what happened to these two senior al-Qaeda terrorists.

Are they in prison? Have they been released? Have they returned to the fight? Was either involved in the Detroit attack? Perhaps the most transparent administration in history would like to explain their fates.

The handling of these terrorists makes a mockery of Obama's moral preening on interrogation. The president says he has "banned torture." On his second day in office, he issued an executive order mandating that "an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States ... shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach ... that is not authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual."

Handing off to Pakistan

Yet in the cases of Taifi and Yemeni — and now Baradar — Obama has allowed Pakistan to interrogate these terrorists in our place. They are not under the control of U.S. officials, or detained within a U.S. government facility. While U.S. officials must do everything they can to ensure their humane treatment, the Pakistanis are not required to follow the Army Field Manual or interrogate these terrorists according to the new standards mandated by the Obama administration. And, as The New York Times put it, "the Pakistanis have long been known to subject prisoners to brutal questioning."

Allowing foreign intelligence services to question terrorists is a loophole in President Obama's new, morally superior interrogation policy — one that allows tough interrogations to proceed without staining Obama's reputation. Such loopholes expose the hypocrisy of Obama's approach to interrogation. He claims the moral high ground, when all he is actually doing is outsourcing the tough cases.

The problem is that when interrogations are outsourced, America is dependent on the competence and effectiveness of the foreign intelligence service that is interrogating the terrorist — which is almost certainly less competent and effective than our own interrogators would be. If the terrorists refuse to cooperate, we have no options to compel their cooperation. And the Pakistanis do not need our permission to release or repatriate them.

Hopefully, Baradar's interrogation will produce useful intelligence. The fact that he is alive and in questioning is progress. But that does not excuse the fact that America today still has no program to hold and effectively interrogate high-value terrorists ourselves....
Column: Outsourcing the war on terror - Opinion - USATODAY.com

(Bold emphasis is my addition.)
 
Reminds me of a movie I saw (the name slips me)....
Soldiers were marching and singing....
"This is my rifle....this is my gun....
This is for killing......(then grabs their crotch) and sings...
And this is for Fun"!
 
Reminds me of a movie I saw (the name slips me)....
Soldiers were marching and singing....
"This is my rifle....this is my gun....
This is for killing......(then grabs their crotch) and sings...
And this is for Fun"!


That's been in a few movies......but most likely you are talking about Full Metal Jacket...

Great Movie.....at least the first half
 
That's been in a few movies......but most likely you are talking about Full Metal Jacket...

Great Movie.....at least the first half

yup. the FMJ.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U]YouTube - This Is My Rifle. This Is My Gun[/ame]
 
look at the ending where Stewie did same thing

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh2F5H3q-rU]YouTube - Stewie This is my rifle this is my gun[/ame]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top