Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: CIA seeks to Expand the Drone Wars

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 19, 2012, 1:05 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"The CIA is urging the White House to approve a significant expansion of the agency’s fleet of armed drones, a move that would extend the spy service’s decade-long transformation into a paramilitary force, U.S. officials said.

The proposal by CIA Director David H. Petraeus would bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and enable it, if directed, to shift aircraft to emerging al-Qaeda threats in North Africa or other trouble spots, officials said."

Because you know... now we need to bomb North Africa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-seeks-to-expand-drone-fleet-officials-say/2012/10/18/01149a8c-1949-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

US government drone strike kills 16 year old boy, his brother was also killed in a drone strike earlier that year - http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/7/us_drone_kills_16_year_old

Please stop voting for people who want to bomb countries.

145 Comments

145 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

This is moral turpitude.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx for that extremely apt and absolutely under used phrase. Some food for thought :

'War is Peace & Truth, Lies' and Orwell spins in his grave, alas.

fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

That is an excellent little book. I either need to figure out how to make the font bigger or get a hard copy, lol.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Check slider tab options at the top of the page or it's a case of 'Cltrl & +' - I'm afraid ;-) Good luck.

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Thanks. LOL.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

"The upheavals of the early 21st century have changed our world. Now, in the aftermath of failed wars and economic disasters, pressure for a social alternative can only grow" and thus, an article which may interest you :

"The historian Eric Hobsbawm described the crash of 2008 as a "sort of right-wing equivalent to the fall of the Berlin wall". It was commonly objected that after the implosion of communism and traditional social democracy, the left had no systemic alternative to offer. But no model ever came pre-cooked. All of them, from Soviet power and the Keynesian welfare state to Thatcherite-Reaganite neoliberalism, grew out of ideologically driven improvisation in specific historical circumstances.

"The same would be true in the aftermath of the crisis of the neoliberal order, as the need to reconstruct a broken economy on a more democratic, egalitarian and rational basis began to dictate the shape of a sustainable alternative. Both the economic and ecological crisis demanded social ownership, public intervention and a shift of wealth and power. Real life was pushing in the direction of progressive solutions.

"The upheavals of the first years of the 21st century opened up the possibility of a new kind of global order, and of genuine social and economic change. As communists learned in 1989, and the champions of capitalism discovered 20 years later, nothing is ever settled."

fiat justitia ...

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Eric Hobsbawm had the broadest of worldviews and a knack for seeing things from a distance. He died recently. R.I.P.

I will read the Milne article after I have my coffee, lol. I glanced at it and it looks very good. I kind of feel we are in a watershed period myself as we move from the legacy of the Industrial Revolution into the new world of the technological and information age.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Extremely insightful, experienced and worldly wise, Hobsbawm's wisdom, judgement and foresight are already being missed, since he passed away at the beginning of the month :

Further, re. US foreign policy and as an interesting aside, for perusal well after your coffee : "The Nobel Peace Prize for War",by Michael Parenti : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32797.htm .

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Great article. From it "A Nobel Prize for the EU? That seems like a rather convenient and resounding endorsement for current cutthroat austerity measures. First, corporations are people, then money is free speech, now an organization of nation states designed to thwart national sovereignty on behalf of ruling class interests receives a prize for peace. On the other hand, if the EU is a person then it should be prosecuted for imposing policies leading directly to the violent repression of peaceful protests, and to the misery and death of its suffering citizens."

It also pointed out that the "60 years of peace" included the war on Yugoslavia in 1999 and Serbian genocide as well as military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and additional locales in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Parenti also succinctly states : "Those who own the wealth of nations take care to downplay the immensity of their holdings while emphasizing the supposedly benign features of the socio-economic order over which they preside. With its regiments of lawmakers and opinion-makers, the ruling hierarchs produce a never-ending cavalcade of symbols, images, and narratives to disguise and legitimate the system of exploitative social relations existing between the 1% and the 99%."

Had Julian Assange been awarded this years Nobel Peace Prize, then that may have had some real significance and meaning, however the Nobel Committee again failed this latest test of relevance and thus, as Parenti himself ends by saying : "the Nobel Peace Prize often has nothing to do with peace and too much to do with war. It frequently sees 'peace' through the eyes of the western plutocracy."

Finally - and more in keeping with Trevor's forum-post, I append :

ipsa scientia potestas est ...

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

I cannot imagine how goddamn scary it is to live with drones flying overhead. 80% killed by U.S. drones have been civilians. Have we lost our humanity? Can we not imagine these things flying over our own homes? Seems like terror to me.

And, I agree that Assange would have been a great choice for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'Terror' is as terror does and re. US Foreign Policy, some deeper questions warrant asking :

I figure that the Seamus Milne article had a similar effect on you as on me, lol.

multum in parvo ...

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Yes, I think it did, how'd ya know? And recent news says that US troops have arrived in Israel for "US-Israel major joint exercise to test missile barrage scenario":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20002787

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

I reread the Seamus Milne article earlier today in my copy of yesterday's Guardian and also took heart from the huge anti-austerity marches in London, Glasgow and Belfast yesterday (Oct.20th) - with even The BBC accepting that 150,000 people were in Central London, which thus means that there was very probably well in excess of 200,000 in just London alone : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20007496 .

Thanx also for that revealing link and again in keeping with Trevor's forum-post, I append :

qui tacet consentire ...

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Borjan, 12, Sardar Wali, 10, and Khan Bibi, 8. Finally, some names of children killed by drones. All were from one family. They were killed this past week while collecting dung for fuel. How sad and unnecessary. My thoughts are with their family. I would love to see a picture of their smiling faces.

Re: The anti-austerity marches, hope springs eternal, as even BR said yesterday.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

How about we award an Occupy Peace Prize? The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

That is a great idea.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. your comment above about the Afghan kids - your point is hard and well made and thus I feel further compelled to append this short but powerful article :

"Why have the children killed by U.S. drones received so little attention ? The drone strikes are no less vicious than the shooting of Malala, and every true victim deserves to be acknowledged. Both the Taliban and the United States government have the blood of children on their hands, and those hands can never be wiped clean."

fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Great article. "Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities."

This is NOT civilized. Wake up people. What kind of world do you want to live in?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Most people I think never had their humanity.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

We clearly need big societal change. There was a post up by someone else recently that posed the question of why do Americans love war, or something like that, and it just rendered me speechless, to be honest, because the reasons for this are so deep and complicated. Superficiality, dreams of rugged individualism, consumerism and greed, they all contribute to the lack of humanity in our society.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. your comment and point above ("Drones hover" etc.), this is exactly what I meant by "terror is as terror does", earlier on the thread and as such, I also append this very important link :

To The Report : "Living Under Drones : Death, Injury and Trauma from US Drone Practices in Pakistan", from The Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law. I can't help feeling also, that your point re."rugged individualism" to Trevor above, really speaks to a deep truth in The USA.

verb. sat. sap. ...

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Wow! What an awesome source! Thank you.

"From June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children." - The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Particularly interesting is the chapter on living under drones. If we wish to maintain our humanity here, or get some, at a minimum, we should be much more aware of what pain and suffering our government is wreaking on certain parts of the world.

[-] 4 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

This will never end until the American sheeple stop being brainwashed by the powers that be. There is no news on this.

People have been convinced we must drone bomb for our security.

If we convince the people that it a lie that our security is at stake we can organize large protests against these crimes.

March against the drone crimes and against the lies that all war loving politicians tell.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people are convinced that we do not control our nation

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

We do not control the nation. The 1% oligarchs do. I would say that OWS is trying to convince all the 99% of this fact and rally enough of them to take back our govt. Don't you think?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Lead on, soldier. Absolutely. That's our mission.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that's a grinding wheel

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

They need to know that they (any of whom who may appear to be dissidents) are the next targets. Any country that practices death squads and targeting on mere suspicion abroad, will bring those practices home. The drone war participants are the evil of the evil, woman and babykillers.

We, in OWS, should be very concerned.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 2 years ago

who is in charge of this unquestioned war machine? the terminater?

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!" is a quotation attributed to Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Virginia Convention. It was given on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, and is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution delivering the Virginia troops to the Revolutionary War. Among the delegates to the convention were future US Presidents Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Reportedly, those in attendance, upon hearing the speech, shouted, "give me liberty or give me death!"[1]

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Really, who is in charge of this feast of death?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 2 years ago

we the people.

have probably killed via drones and unjust war in Iraq, Afghanistan

more civilians

than the terrorirsts

it should be stopped http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rogers/whos-a-target-drone-death_b_840018.html

or

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1573-how-many-civilians-have-been-killed-in-11-years-of-the-war-on-terror

Declare "victory"

and heal http://www.voterocky.org/foreign_policy_policy

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

Outraged (as well as concerned) at the continued use of our military in the death of any innocent civilians. We must continue protesting and denouncing these crimes and elect politicians who will end these practices.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I never imagined that the U.S. military would take this evil, shameful turn.

The 'concerned' part was for our own physical safety, I just didn't spell it out. If police state terror comes home, we will be the first targets.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

I agree with your suggestion we should be concerned. And I would remind you that we have been slaughtering innocents by the millions when we carpet bombed southeast asia in the '60 & '70's, and used death squads in the '80's. The early '90's saw a war in Iraq that also killed hundreds of thousands. Then there was the million or so that Bush II slaughtered. The truth is we are in a reduced "break" becasue we are killing only thousands. But that is irrelevant. Any innocent death by US mlitary is a crimr. We must protest all innocent killing.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You have a good point. During the Vietnam War the CIA's Phoenix Program did all these things (no drones of course). And ever since then these evil crimes have been crawling out of the shadows. Soon to walk in the sunlight here in the 'homeland'.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Drone Use In U.S. Could Lead To 'Warrantless Mass Surveillance': ACLU

A request for drones from a California sheriff's office prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to point out, what officials say, are significant dangers posed by the proliferation and misuse of the aerial surveillance devices.

The Alameda County Sheriff's office in Northern California has requested a grant to purchase unmanned aerial drones for video and infrared surveillance in police, fire and rescue settings, according to Pleasanton Patch.

Sheriff Gregory Ahern insists a drone deployed by his department would not be used as a "patrol tool."

"It would be a mission-specific tool for evaluating and testing for specific incidents," Ahern said. "If we do this, we have to have permission from the [federal aviation administration] defined for each specific type of mission such as search and rescue, fires or for explosive ordinances teams to take photos of suspicious devices."

But the civil liberties group notes that strong "safeguards and accountability mechanisms" must be in place to ensure that "law enforcement does not use drones to engage in warrantless mass surveillance," according to an ACLU blogpost.

Ahern touted the affordability of drones, noting that a single drone costs between $50,000 to $100,000, whereas a helicopter costs $3 million and is expensive to operate.

But the ACLU sees the cheapness of drones as another potential danger.

"When the police have to mount elaborate and costly foot and squad patrols to follow a suspect 24/7, the expenditure of resources serves as a deterrent to abuse; it forces the police to limit their surveillance to instances when it is actually necessary," the blog post says. "Drones permit the police to surveil people at all hours of the day and, apparently, at 1/30 the cost of other forms of aerial surveillance. The natural deterrent to abuse goes away, and invites abuse."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/drones-in-the-us-surveillance_n_1988540.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2593327,b=facebook

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

seeking an increase in drones despite the large scale of civilian death rates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EBHv0keeQ

[-] 6 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

I heard between 600 and 800 innocent civilians killed by drone strikes. It's a war crime as much as the millions killed by Bush!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The drones have hit thousands of civilians in Pakistan alone.

They also get sent out into Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

Un fuckin believable! Not a word on CNN. As long as we are scared shit of "the terrorists" we will let Obama bomb anyone he wants. No end in site. Romney would bomb even more! Probably invade! Too bad we have no other choice.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

We have other choices every single election.

In 2008 they could have voted for the only guy running who tried to impeach Bush and voted no on funding the Iraq war 100% of the time.

This election we have other options too. Even still. Your ballot has more than 2 names on it.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

I'm not so stupid I think anyone but the 2 colluding parties are going to win. I can vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party but that will not change anything. There is no hope. We will drone on. Maybe when the people aren't scared little sheep something can change. Not before.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

The only reason an alternative candidate doesn't win, is because people won't vote for one because they think they can't win.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

Maybe if we change some election/campaign laws a 3rd party might have an fair chance. Otherwise, guess what? They can't win!

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Changes in the laws are definitely needed. Still, there are at least three presidential candidates (Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein & Gary Johnson) on the ballot of enough states right now that any one of them could win. They only need the votes of people who think they are the best candidate. It only requires a change in the mindset of "they can't win".

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 2 years ago

Well if it only required a change in mindset I guess we don't need to change the laws. But of course we do. Because the laws allow for mindset manipulation. Do you really think one of those 3rd parties can win? You are pretty far out there if you do. And I feel for you. 3rd parties will never have a chance until the laws are changed to create fairness in elections.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

We can't wait to vote third party until the duopoly decides to enact laws to make things more fair for third parties. They aren't going to do that.

I said a third party can win. The only reason they don't is people like you who won't vote for them because you think they don't have a chance. If you'd stop thinking they don't have a chance and vote for one, then they would have a chance.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Are you as outraged that the Taliban have killed tens of thousands in Pakistan?

Here is a list of just those Taliban deaths between 2006-9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_Pakistan_2006-09

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Killing is never justified. So, sorry, no pass to your warmongering government.

Sadly, I can't find a good list of names of the innocent killed by drones, but here is something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Drone_Strikes_in_Pakistan

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It ain't your govt?

I'm against the drone bombings, Have marched, against them and signed petitions against them. I have denounced them and our Pres for them.

What about the 40k killed by the Taliban & al Qaeda in Pakistan.?

Is that ok with you.?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

I said "Killing is never justified." You are political. Do you know what I mean by that? You say one thing so that you may say another. Very sneaky, and telling Trevor that he is irrelevant tells more about you than he.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

He's a big boy. If he thinks agreeing his commentary is the measure of drone support then he has let his comments and this forum go to his head.

Ego is not a consideration.

I AM AGAINST THE DRONE STRIKES!!!!! They ain't justified. I didn't say they were.

Are you slow? Sound out the words. use a dictionary. But don't tell me I've said they are justified.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

You are against the drone strikes but you think they are justified don't you? You said "But we are killing their leaders by the dozens anyway right?. Is that also bad?" Make up your mind.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

My mind is fine thank you very much! I refuse to fit into your simplistic narrative.

I am not justifying the drone strikes.

I simply asked if killing the people slaughtering tens of thousands is bad?

What is your answer? We should not stop that slaughter? Should anyone? What about the 40k innocent Pakistanis slaughtered by the Taliban & al Qaeda.?

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Americans are not the right people to stop the Taliban and we are only intervening to serve our own purposes, anyway. Ever hear of the theory of self-determination?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What about the 40k innocent Pakistanis slaughtered by the Taliban & al Qaeda?

Are we more outraged at the 800 innocent Pakistanis because they were killed by US bombs?

Are the 40k innocent Pajkistani's killed by the Taliban less important.?

I don't think those 40k 'determined' that their 'selves' should be slaughtered.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

No, they didn't. Their country hasn't been able to self-determine it's fate for a long time.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Hallelujah!

Of course. Whatever they want. Certainly I'm not talking about military action. We have so much (which we got from exploiting the whole planet) we must be prepared to help the climate disasters that are coming, any drought, floods.

We MUST be ready to make amends for the exploitation and the wars we have been at the center of.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So no help from us?.

Don't you think we owe most of those suffering people since we have been at the center of so much brutal dictators and wars for the last 50 years?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Um. If we could possibly put our egos and own interests aside and let them guide the way as to what they need, then sure.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What should happen to all the people, all over the world suffering under brutal dictators.?

Don't they deserve help? Peace? happiness?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

I honestly believe that self-determination is the best route in most cases.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'll Kid ya doesn't only hate america ?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Huh? Sorry don't understand you're question.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The drone strikes kill more innocent civilians than "bad people"

Are you suggesting that killing innocent people in the name of saving innocent people is worth it?

VQ you don't oppose the drone wars. You don't think they're war crimes. If the drones strikes are wrong, then they are war crimes.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against the drone strikes. I have not defended then, and I do not justify them.

By your own posts the drones strikes have killed 6 "militants" for every innocent civilian.

I didn't say it is worth it. I'm saying I don't mind killing the people who have slaughtered 40 thousand innocent Pakistanis.

I ask you why you aren't outraged about the slaughter of innocent pakistani civilians by the Taliban?

Do you support the Taliban? Are you one of them?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You attempt to justify them everytime I have posted on them.

You defend them and then try and say you are not doing so.

You defend Obama for his authorization and approval of the war crimes known as drone strikes as well

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We must protest against the drone strikes. And replace the war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Murder is wrong the drone bombings are wrong. I am against them.

I recognize the REDUCTION of drone bombings and REDUCTION of killings as progress.

You pretense of suggesting I mean anything else betrays your dishonesty and partisanship.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Still murdering and bombing people is never progress.

The drones are war crimes

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 2 years ago

You have a lot of gall calling anyone 'partisan' who believes that murdering, and bombing people is not OK.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I never said drone bombing/killing innocents is progress. that is you lying again about my position.

I am against the drone bombings I recognize the reduction of drone bombings as progress.

Your pretense that I said something else betrays your dishonesty and partisanship.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You said below "Pres Obama reduced US military killings from a million+ to thousands. Isn't that progress? And why can't you recognize that?"

Still murdering and bombing people in never progress. Just look at how you're defending murder right now by calling it progress.

Why can't you recognize murder is wrong no matter who does it? Why can't you recognize that Afghanistan had it's highest civilians death toll in 2010 because of the Surge? This is nothing to praise.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Agreeing with trevor is not the measure of right & wrong.

You have clearly let your own voice & this forum go to your head.

Egos are not considered.

Pres Obama reduced US military killings from a million+ to thousands. Isn't that progress? And why can't you recognize that?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You don't have to agree with me on everything.

But the drone strikes are wrong. They are war crimes. This is one thing I am right about and you should agree with me on.

Still murdering and bombing people in never progress. Just look at how you're defending murder right now by calling it progress.

Why can't you recognize murder is wrong no matter who does it?

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against the drone strikes the protests I have been to have resulted in his reducing the number of drones strikes in Pakistan from 120 2 years ago to 35 this year. That is progress that we have created. Those reductions are indicative of the pattern towards ending them all.

How have I justified them?

How have I defended the drone strikes?

How have I defended Obamas authorization and approval.?

Why don't you stop lying about me.? Why can't you stick to the truth. Are your arguments so impotent that you must lie about mine.?

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

If you weren't defending the drone strikes your only comment on here would have been

"Trevor I agree."

instead you went off on all these tangents and asked stupid questions and you DENY the drones are war crimes and have no legal authority.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The drone strikes are not solving the problem of the Taliban.

The civil rights movement did not succeed with drone strikes.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

civil rights movement.

That's ridiculous. No comparison. Your out on a limb.

Who is the white southern jm crow racists? The Taliban? And who are the civil rights marchers? The US military? LMFAO. Please stop. Make some sense.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

How is it not a comparison?

The way blacks were treated was just as bad as the way the Taliban treats women. It hasn't even been a hundred years since lynchings were happening in our country. It hasn't even been 50 since racists were killing blacks for going to white schools.

Drone strikes are not the solution to the problem of the Taliban.

Stop defending the drone strikes.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I ain't defended any drone strikes.

Listing the facts related to the civil rights movement does not a comparison make. Who are we in your ridiculous comparison? if the Taliban is the white racists, and women arethe black oppressed. Who are we.?

Fuckin moron.

I AM AGAINST THE DRONE STRIKES!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm saying the Taliban is the racist movement and women are being oppressed. You seem to be suggesting that the US military should be a third party trying to solve the problem with bombs.

I'm saying the civil rights succeeded and no third party came over to bomb the racist white people.

I'm saying bombs and wars do not solve these problems. They often create blowback.

THE DRONE STRIKES DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS. THEY ARE WRONG.

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

If you want to help them go over there and help them.

Bombing their country isn't helping.

Let's fix our car's engine before we go on any long drives.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nothing for the innocent Pakistanis slaughtered by the Taliban?

"if you wanna help them"? You don't wanna help them?

So you don't care about the innocent Pakistanis, except to theextent you can beat Pres Obama over the head?

Surprise, surprise.

Do you think we owe the innocent Pakistani people anything for all the pain & destruction we've caused?

[-] 3 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

We owe them a lot, and so Obama should stop killing them with drone strikes right now. There are US soldiers, right now, preparing more strikes against Pakistanis, and they are led by Obama. It must be stopped. That's what we owe them. To stop killing them, pack our bags, and head home.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The CIA controls the drones, mikey.

The big crunch with Pakistan was when the Bin Laden murder took place without anybody saying okay, do it.

[-] 2 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

The CIA controls the drones... You're point? You don't think Obama has anything to say with what the CIA does?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't "love Obama" That's you twisting my meaning to distract from the issue.

I haven't "drunk the Kool aid" That's you insulting me because you can't argue your position with the facts.

I haven't "apologized for everything he does" or anything he's done!!! That's you lying because your position can't stand up to the truth.

I ain't "blinded" I see clearly Pres Obama mistakes, and failures. That's you dishonestly painting me in a way that allows you to dismiss the facts instead of addressing them.

You have to attack the messenger instead of honestly, respectfully dealing with the message because your arguments against Pres Obama are impotent and your refusal to see the truth reflects you anti Obama partisanship.

He has cut the number from 120 per year to about 35 in Pakistan.

Ended Iraq war.

Resisted right wing war mongers pressure to invade Iran.

Ended torture, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons.

These are facts. This reflects Pres Obamas efforts to demilitarize, and step back from the right wing fear mongering war on terror.

Not a defense, or excuse for his mistakes (continued drone bombs, rights violations)

Just the facts.

[-] 3 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

The only thing I know is that you defend Obama every chance you get with the vehemence of a lion in heat. You certainly would not participate in an anti-Obama protest organized by Occupy. That's for sure. The fact is, Obama did not change much at all. After four years, there are drones killing people in other countries. That's what matters. The past is finished, we care about what US is doing today. Stop comparing Obama to Bush in order to make him look good, anybody would with such a comparison. Compare him to the President of Iceland, or some other decent country. Aim high, not low.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"35 in Pakistan"

Grossly understated...we're bombing multiple countries right now.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pres needs to be much better. I agree. WE must protest more to create the change we want our leaders to make!

And WE must recognize that the repubs have obstructed all efforts to cut defense, to end the fear mongering propaganda key to the war on terror,

It's up to us! We can't expect one pol to do everything for us. It is our responsibility to recognize the slow progress that occurs and support anyone who is making that effort.

WE must vote out pols who are standing in the way, and elect those that make progress in working towards & achieving peace.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pres Obama has reduced US military killings from million+ to thousands. TODAY.

Ended the Iraq war Today.

resisted the right wing pressure to invade Iran TODAY!

Has reduced the drone deaths this year from last TODAY!

That's not a defense of the drone bombings he IS doing. I'm against that and continue to protest against him for that.

I simply recognize reality that his reductions in drone bombings represents a direction towards ending all of them.

You remain blind, in your turtle shell, drinking Kool aid when you refuse to address these CURRENT facts because you are an anti Obama partisan who doesn't care about this progress, the innocent lives at stake and only care about attacking Pres Obama.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRoaR!!!!

[-] 2 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

A President really committed to peace instead of war would be much better. Enough of these 1% warmongers.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well hasn't Pres Obama begun the process of ending these drone bombings?

He has cut the number from 120 per year to about 35 in Pakistan.

And of course Pres Obama has done more to end the propaganda of fear mongering 'war on terror' rhetoric than anyone.

I believe Pres IS ending these horrible military actions. And trying to end the 'war on terror'!

[-] 2 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

It's been four years. Obama is not ending wars. Stop drinking the kool aid. You're so much in love with Obama that you apologize for everything he does with the most ludicrous excuses. He has you blinded. Remember, he's part of the 1%, not the 99%. If you love Obama so much, then stop wasting your time on an Occupy forum, and volunteer your time for the democrat party.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Agreed!

Anything else? Is that it?

That ain't enough!

[-] 2 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

It's the first step, and it's still a long way off. After this is done, if ever, then we can ask the population what kind of help they need and would like US to give, if any. Suggestions should come from them, that's the point. It's not for the US government, or US citizens, to decide what US will do in Pakistan, or other countries.

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

The white southern jim crow guys are either in nursing homes or dead. They were DEMOCRATS btw.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yee ha!

I know all republicans are not racists, but aren't all racists republicans?

And isn't Ron Paul the old guy with the racist newsletter?

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

I know all democrats are not racists, but aren't all racists democrats?
Yeah, some nasty articles went out under a newsletter that paid him to use his name....kinda like "O" mag and Oprah. Am sure she does not review each issue prior to publication.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But Oprah didn't run for President so I guess that isn't a real good comparison.

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Look at you warmonger away.

Bomb them all you say? Don't worry that the bombs mainly kill civilians because they occasionally take out 1 bad guy. Even though the murder of many is what fuels the hatred. Perpetual war fighting off blow-back.

If you opposed the drone strikes you would not be criticizing my commentary.

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

?????? If you do say so yourself!

You are irrelevant. You think too highly of yourself. your propaganda is not so important that it is considered a measure of whether someone supports the drone bombings.

I'm against the drone bombings. For you to say mostly innocent people are killed betrays your dishonest partisanship. Your earlier commenst indicate 3500 valid deaths and up to 800 innocent.

I guess you want the numbers to be mostly innocent cause it's easier to criticize. CRITICIZE THEM. I do. I am against the drone bombings.

I'm also against the 40k slaughtered by Taliban & al Qaeda in Pakistan.

How come no outrage about that? Are you from South Waziristan?

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

The U.S. drone attacks contribute to the growth of the Taliban. They do not help put down the Taliban. Foreign intervention is at the root of all of this. The West has no place in the Middle East and should leave and allow those countries to determine for themselves how they will go forward.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So what are you saying? we are responsible for the Taliban slaughter, AND the drone strikes.

And therefore the Taliban have done nothing wrong?

Are you asking why we are in the ME? SO YOU can fill up your gas tank with cheap oil, but petroleum based plastic crap, and heat your home.

This is all in your name! YOU are responsible!. YOU failed to protest against the fear mongering 11 years ago when this began!

Please like your fuckin innocent.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

This began way before 11 years ago. Your lack of historical knowledge is very typical.

And, you are right, Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population and use more than 25% of it's resources and kill to preserve that imbalance. I'm ashamed of my country for this, and the suffering and hatred that result from it.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

There is only one real answer.

We must somehow end the fear mongering that allows the people to look the otherway or support these devastating drone strikes.

We will never end this if we don't end the propaganda that facilitates it.

!st end the fear mongering political rhetoric then everything else will fall away.

[-] 3 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

We must remove Obama from office. He is responsible for this propaganda. We must also make sure Romney does not get in because he and his Bush legacy are also responsible. They are both leaders of parties who love war.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

AM NOT!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm sure. Why?

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

You can't and you won't list 10 horrible failures of Obama's administration because that would be biting the hand that feeds you. You're a dem plant and you were outed the first day you came here.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No sir, Not an Obama plant. I make an extra effort to challenge anti Obama falsehoods.

But I have certainly recognized his failures.

You focus only on the Pres failures and so clearly you are a partisan. So I don't mind challenging you.

[-] 0 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Can you list 10 major failures of the Obama administration?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Untrue. You don't speak for me.

I support a new system, from the ground up, Horizontal, with real direct democracy! Until that emerges:

I prefer Pres Obama over Romney because Pres Obama is better. There are no other viable choices for Pres.

And I certainly don't think it's useful to lie about Pres Obamas record like you are doing. Better that people know which candidate is closer to OWS agenda. While OWS works on the new system.

Do you have a status on the new system?. Are you involved with it's creation? (3rd Party cannot win.)

I support the Dem agenda overthe repub agenda. I

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

The only thing you do on this site is defend Obama. You never discuss issues related to Occupy. You're an Obama plant. It's obvious.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No Kool aid that's you painting me dishonestly to allow you to dismiss the facts.

I've been to many of the protests against Pres Obamas drone bombings. That doesn't the change the facts you're too scared to respond to.

I ain't hiding from Pres Obamas mistakes it's you hiding from his positive efforts, because you are simply an anti Obama partisan.

[-] 1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

I am indeed anti-Obama, as well as anti-Romney. In fact, I'm anti all 1%. There's no such thing as an anti-Obama partisan, because there are many choices apart from Obama. This is what you fail to realize. You want to keep the status quo because you believe US is all it can be with Obama.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nah.

  • Pres Obama has been trying to convince the American people that al Qaeda has been decimated so he can declare an end to the war on terror.

  • ended Iraq war, ending Afghan war, resisted right wing war mongers to start Iran war.

  • ended torture, ended extraordinary rendition, ended secret prisons, resolved more than half gitmo indef detention, hasn't used the indef detention auth.

  • Never uses the propaganda rhetoric "war on terror", retired thefear mongering "color coded threat level warning system"

Repubs fighting against all these efforts. Andstill using thewar on terror rhetoric.

We must stop the propaganda 1st, 'cause it came 1st 11 years ago when repubs exploited the 9/11 attacks.

Peace

[-] 2 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 2 years ago

Keep drinking your kool aid. I guess you missed the work Occupy has done to protest against Obama. Some turtles seldom pull their head out of their shell. Looking outside can be dangerous.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Okay. Now we're onto something. Spread love, not fear.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes that is the point.

I see many discussions about ending the drone strikes and the rights violation but neverthe roots of the rhetoric of fear that keeps the public docile and submissive.

The propaganda started 1st, It must go 1st.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Actually, I think the propaganda and rhetoric of fear has roots of it's own, in corporatist, consumerist America. The focus should really be on the capitalist economic system that exploits on the micro level and macro level.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whoa! Lotsa ists in there! I am against all of those ists. And I agree economic issues are high priorities and interconnected with our foreign policy.

That does not change my profound feelings that we MUST address the fear mongering propaganda at the center of the war on terror.

It came 1st in this military debacle and must go 1st.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against the drone bombings, the iranian sanctions, & the coming iranian invasion.

But mostly I urge everyone to recognize the propaganda of war, ending the fear mongering rhetoric of the endless war on terror must by a high priority goal.

It came 1st, and so it must go 1st.

It's the only way!

Peace. Sorry for my poor skills at interaction.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21390) 2 years ago

Look, if we can debate issues and actually get somewhere, that is the point, right?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm saying BLOWBACK is real.

And the US helped put the Taliban in power in the 80's when they funded the Muhajideen and the Afghan Arabs.

FAILED REGIME CHANGE POLICIES .....still being rehashed

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree. You wanna end it? let's hear talk about the roots of the problem.!

The fear mongering that has brainwashed the American people.

That you leave out always. It was repubs after they exploited the 9/11 attacks that hey began and continue the effort to scsare the shit out of us.

End that and all this goes away. Successfully denounce that and the people will wake up from the nightmare that is George Bushs 'War on Terror'

C'mon make an effort to analyze this in a serious way. Get a little sophisticated. It is always the propaganda that comes 1st and must go 1st.

Peace

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The roots to the problem of the drone strikes are the people approving it... caugh* the Obama administration. And whoever is president next or after that... it will be them who are the problem if they continue.

The fearmongering has brainwashed you into voting for a guy who voted for war in Afghanistan, ran on increasing it, and chose a VP that voted to go to war in Iraq and was saying Iraq was a threat with WMD's dating back to the 90's.

In 2008 only 1 man ran for the democratic presidency that voted no on funding the war in Iraq 100% of the time, tried to impeach Bush for war crimes, and announced Bush needed to be impeached on a broadcast going out to millions of people.

The fearmongering and the money in politics fooled you into voting for the other guys and thinking they represented peace.

The fear mongering is a problem. Both Bush and Obama are recorded on tv telling us that men in caves are in Afghanistan and they want to kill us.

Now it's Romney and Obama telling us we can't let Iran have a WMD. The fearmongering continues. They got you thinking sanctions are good so far all the while military operations are going on in the straight of hormuz warmongering.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm againstthe Iranian sanctions and I am glad that Pres Obama has thus far successfully resisted the right wing war mongerers pressure to invade.

Perhaps really we only disagree on whether the fearmogering rhetoric of the endless "war on terror" is the roots.

I KNOW it is. And nothing will change if we do not recognize it, protest against it, denounce it, & end it. Nothing will change. If we don't end the propaganda, the wars and rights violations continue!

replace war mongering conservatives w/ peace loving progressives & protest against war and rights violations.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your article indicates a major decrease in drone bombings in Pakistan.

Thanks to this President we are finally heading in the right direction.

Heres some more REAL data that shows clearly that Pres Obama is heading towards an end to the drone bombings.

Whew!

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yeah because having more drone strikes than Bush is something to praise.

The Obama administration was the escalate of drones in the first place.

STILL BOMBING PAKISTAN

I do not praise murderers for less murder. I will be happy when they are all out of office.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah but your not so stupidyou can't detect patterns right?

LOL.

I'm against the drone bombings. I protest them, sign petitions against them. denounce them and Pres Obama for doing it.

But I'm not so anti Obama partisan that I can't see that the drone bombings are 200% fewer, and that this Pres WILL end them all!

Romney and the repubs WILL escalate and invade! Because that is what they are talkin about.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

still bombing Pakistan

still bombing Somalia

still bombing Yemen

still in Afghanistan.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

still bombing Pakistan

still bombing Somalia

still bombing Yemen

still in Afghanistan.

7 years of war under Bush bad... 6 years of war under Obama good... that's you. (number of years based on Afghanistan exit strategy) And technically since Obama supported the war in Afghanistan we're at 11 years and counting. Republicans are loving all the war Obama is supporting.

Drone strikes are not peace.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

"Drone strikes bad! Obama bad!"

You're finally catching on VQ!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

because clearly that's ALL you want right? From the 1st post I've seen from you it was obvious you don't care about war, you don't care about the innocent Pakistanis, you only care about hearing people say Obama is bad.

That is your nly goal, Your only agenda item.

What the Pakistanis that the Taliban slaughtered? What should be done about that?

What about the propaganda of war, the fear mongering at the roots of the endless war on terror.?

Why do you refuse to agree on that obvious truth about ending these problems. Of course it must end 1st. IT started everything. IT came 1st.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I am against Obama because I want the slaughter of innocent people stopped.

I'm against Obama because I care about the constitutional guarantee of due process before being killed or imprisoned.

I'm against Obama because I oppose corporate giveaways to the medical insurance industry.

I'm against Obama because I want to see war criminals and white collar criminals prosecuted instead of whistleblowers.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Obama bad!

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Damn proud to not support Obama because I do not support anyone who uses drone strikes.

I do not support anyone who supports the Patriot Act.

I do not support anyone who wants to stay in Afghanistan.

I do not support anyone who supports policy that gives unlimited resources to Wall Street.

Damn proud to say I do not support warmonger corporate whore hacks like Obama and Romney.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah but you ain't got no solutions. It's easy to rant from the back. You never discuss the root & therefore the solution.

What about the 40k innocent Pakistanis slaughtered by the Taliban & al Qaeda?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Stop the drones strikes... easy stop approving them.

Bring jobs back to America - solution - easy support trade laws that abide by American labor standards.

Low wages - solution - Support an increase minimum wage

Monetary Policy only provides unlimited resources for the banks - solution - HR 2990 the National Emergency Employment Defense Act.

The war in Afghanistan - solution - start bringing the troops home today and have them out within a couple months.

Money in politics - solution - Ban campaign contributions. Constitutional amendment.

World's largest prison population - solution - end the drug wars

Health care - solution - Medicare for all

Debt - partial solution - end the wars now, reduce military spending saving trillions, cut about 2 trillion by ending the fake debt to the Federal Reserve.

You can keep telling me I don't talk about solutions.

Ending the drone wars is a solution to problem with the drone wars.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The drone wars are a symptom of the larger problem of the war on terror.

Solution- end the fear mongering rhetoric of the war on terror.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes and to do that we need to oust people like Biden, Obama, Romney, and Ryan. They all push the fear.

"Iraq has WMD's" - who said this? Bush, Cheney, Clintons, or Biden? It was all of them.

"There are terrorists in the mountains who want to kill us" - who has said this? Bush or Obama? Both of them.

"We can't let Iran achieve a nuclear weapon." - Who said this? Romney or Obama? Both of them.

Who voted to fund the war in Iraq with a bunch of republicans? Obama or Biden? Both of them.

Who voted to go to war in Iraq? Biden or Lindsey Graham? Both of them

Seems like we agree. The corrupt politicians all need to go.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The corrupt? Sure.

Of course I'm talking specifically about the continuing fear mongering. Anyone who is saying that "al Qaeda is a greater threat than". That we "are being weak on terror" Anyone pressuring the invasion of Iran. Anyone pushing increased defense spending.

But those who do not say 'war on terror' who have said that al Qaeda has been decimated, that has reduced the US military killing from million+to thousands and continues to reduce bombings. Anyone who supports cuttting defense and merc use.

Obama bad!