Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open. Remember all their sturm und drang about these issues during the Bush years? Neither do they. “It’s as if all that international-law, humanitarian, have-you-no-decency crap was just… crap. And partisan crap at that.” Pretty much.
This post was last modified on April 12, 2021
View Comments (14)
Ridiculous. My guy's Gitmo is OK, yours is not. Yeah, its like every damn issue approached by unthinking partisans.
I've heard or seen some left commentators rail against Obama for it (maybe Cenk), so at least a few are trying to be consistent
Yeah, but when they do, they will 'leave the plantation' and face ostracism for it. Again, cognitive dissonance for the political win.
I respect the ones that hold to a philosophically consistent belief -- while I disagree as to the utility of Guantanamo, if they are expressing different opinions, at least they're thinking and not just knee-jerking.
Interesting. When Bush did it, he was evil and those that agreed were too. When Obama does it, he being the savior of the world; then it is all good.
Liberalism = Insanity.
The two faced nature of progressives is so plain to see, even they usually acknowledge it with a 'so what' or 'it isn't the same' or any other lame group of words.
That's funny considering I just read an article yesterday about how pissed Pakistan is at the number of civilians killed over the last three years from the escalated drone strikes. It also talked about how they would support Iran if Israel decided to attack.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4115452/Pakistan-blasts-lethal-US-drone-attacks.html
So currently we have Iraq and Pakistan siding with Iran. We have a choice in Afghanistan to stay indefinitely and control what little we can, or leave and let the Taliban take control of everything. We spent an untold amount of money intervening in Libya. We are currently making plans to help overthrow the Syrian government and possibly send troops like the Brits already have. We have Egypt detaining several Americans and possibly jailing them for five years or more after the "Arab Spring." Oh, and the Liberals support all of this to boot.
Guys, as Conservatives we really need to take a step back and have a discussion about our role in these hellholes going forward and if we need a change in tactics or not.
I agree. But is isolation our answer? I ask because your a Paul supporter, so i am wondering your take on it.
I think of the world before America was the super power, and after. I dont think a foreign policy of "not being the police of the world" is in our own best interest as far as our own security.
Well I don't see these countries as a major security risk to us, in the sense that they can harm us in such a way that we would be unable to wipe them out overnight, and be done with them all. I'm a little more to the right on my support for Israel then Ron Paul is, but I think they're more than capable of defending themselves and doing what they think is in their best interests without us doing it for them. I would support them, but don't think we should do it for them, since they have proven to be more than capable of protecting themselves.
As far as Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of our middle-east policy: what has it gotten us? Are we safer in some way? Have we made more friends or more enemies since our invasion of these countries?
The point I was trying to make is neither Democrat or Republican is asking: Has this worked? Can we try something different? Is there a better way? What can we do that will make them”quit harassing the hell out of non-Muslims?” Is it good that "the enemy is now more desirous to wage asymmetric war?" Good questions, I don't have the answers, but I'm not running for anything.
For the sake of perspective though, today it boggles my mind that in the 2008 election one of the topics was: “Should we stay in Iraq for 100 years if we need to?” I'm sure that sounds crazy today, but did it four years ago? What will sound crazy four years from now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlKX9BZNVKc&feature=related
(I can't believe I thought Ron Paul was crazy last election with answers like this)
We used to be a superpower, yes. But we gave more to our defeated enemies than anyone else in the history of man. We recreated Germany and Japan after WWII. And everyone knew what we belived and how we would react to threat. But starting with Korea, we have not engaged in a military action that has been "won" since. And the ongoing issues that has created are worse than the wars themselves. I am not a fan of war. It is a childish and expensive way to settle differences for the most part. But sometimes, it is all that works. We have tried isolationism, we have tried diplomacy, we have tried secret ops. None of them worked. Only when America basical bombed an enemy country off the map did their warlike leaders pay attention. Sad? Absolutely. Effective? Very. It's sort of like parents and spankings (not BEATINGS, spankings.) You don't necessarily have to do it, you just have to make them believe you will. No one respects America anymore. It is seen as weak and profligate, with a population that is spoiled, illprepared and unwilling to defend ourselves. I seriously think we need to change that attitude. The best defense is frequently an good offense.
...actually, a lot of Republicans I know are asking questions like that.
It is very human to want to retaliate when you are under attack -- and to retaliate with the things you know how to retaliate with. This problem is a lot more complex than simple conventional warfare can fix. The hatreds, hard-heartedness, and nuttiness over in that part of the world have been there for a long time -- even between Christian sects.
In order to 'fix' it, we need a more intelligent foreign policy -- and we need to stop sending money over there. In fact, we need to stop buying their oil, and we need to build nuclear plants here. Fuel prices are crazy -- it isn't just the social engineering part where we subsidize a mobile lifestyle with cheap gas, and subsidize an electric vehicle lifestyle with expensive gas.
Like they say about fires, if you want to put them out, stop adding fuel.
After that? We'd need something other than an idiot in the White House that can assess what is going on, and come up with a plan.
Are we really surprised that Pakistan ( a Muslim country) is going to back Iran (another Musli country) if they are involved in a war? Give you a hint. They aren't even backing US in the war they are already in. Generally speaking, I am against scorched earth policies (family was devastated by Sherman's march to the sea) but I am having doubts about these morons. I am not sure there is anything else that will result in a positive change. That is, they will quit harrassing the hell out of non muslims.
I think that Dear Leader likes the drones, as he feels they are a politically expedient way to wage war -- and while they certainly are cost effective, their excessive use does breed outrage -- and justifiably so.
As much as I am disgusted for what Sherman did (war crimes against his own fellow citizens) (My 6x great grandpa was nearly hung for saying that Booth was about 6 years too late -- and my family were all Northerners!), he did have a point when he said that "you do not wage war on your enemy's *ability* to make war. You wage war on your enemy's *desire* to make war." He went about that in the most inhumane way, but he had his orders. After Nuremberg, that's no longer an excuse.
In what Barry is doing, I see the exact opposite effect of that statement (much like what happened with Sherman) -- the enemy is now more desirous to wage asymmetric war because of Obama's political cowardice.
Promising change---- changing the promises.
Its all good in the land of the hypocrites .
This should be "Majorities of Liberal Democrats now support welfare drones and keeping EBT cards going."
Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Liberals have always supported drone strikes and keeping Gitmo open, except when President Chimpy McHitler was in the Oval Office.