Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Do you know who authorizes all the drone strikes? You might be surprised.

Posted 6 years ago on May 31, 2012, 12:58 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

“A series of stunning revelations about the secretive U.S. drone campaign abroad.

1) President Obama personally authorizes each drone strike.

2) The White House continues to fail to provide its legal rationale for the killings which include Americans and civilians.

3) Any male of fighting age killed by a drone is automatically assumed to be a militant.

“When Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, it did not authorize endless war against countries we are not at war with. These drone strikes are being conducted in the name of our national security and yet Congress and the American people have not been provided with the legal justification for such strikes. The use of drones must be subject to the same legal constrains and oversight as any other weapon.

“These attacks undermine the morals, values and the strategic goals of the United States. The fact that they are conducted with complete impunity and with no accountability threatens to set a dangerous precedent that could unravel the very laws and international standards the U.S. helped to create. Even the most ardent supporter of the current President should consider the precedent created by granting the President the power to circumvent the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” said Kucinich.


"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths," the Times reports. I'll say! It's a "counting method" that various characters created by Joseph Heller could love, in that it removes the word "count" from the word "accountability." These drone strikes only kill militants because "militants," strictly defined, means "military-aged males who are killed by drone strikes." (Not that anyone is performing rigorous background checks on these piles of corpses.)




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22956) 4 years ago

"U.S. Drone Strike Hits Convoy Headed To Wedding Party In Yemen, Killing At Least 13, Officials Say"


"Reuters quotes Yemeni security officials as saying the wedding party was targeted after it "was mistaken for an al-Qaeda convoy."


[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Just don't stand close to me, dude. I hate being a terrorist.

I'd rather stand next to the polling place in a poor neighborhood and commit voter fraud. The GOP wants to use drones to eliminate us for VWP (voting-while-poor.)

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

This boils down to the extent to which we're willing to compromise our liberty and our virtues for the sake of a little extra safety. It's possible that even if we withdrew our forces from places like the middle east, we would still face a formidable terrorist threat. While we can say there's other things that kill or harm people in greater numbers than terrorism, I think there's a good argument that terrorism shocks a society much more than other causes of death (like lung cancer or motor vehicle accidents).

That said, the slippery slope is easy to see. Our government is already considering authorizing drone flights in US airspace (beyond the confines of our border region). I think this should concern people.

This is one reason why I'm so concerned with the progress of this movement. We have a grave responsibility. If we become the laughing stocks of our society, then every position we take becomes tainted. In effect, we wind up helping those we oppose.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

or gang violence which every year far exceeds the death toll of terrorism. In my opinion gang violence is terrorism. Why don't we drop drones strikes in our cities? Because it's wrong and not the proper solution to the problem.

"If we become the laughing stocks of our society, then every position we take becomes tainted. In effect, we wind up helping those we oppose." - It's sad how true this statement is about a lot of issues

A lot of people refuse to look into the fraud on Wall Street because they believe the negative nonsense the tv says about OWS instead of looking into the issues. A lot of liberal refuse to take the stance against the federal reserve because of Ron Paul. Ron is wrong about a lot of things, a lot, but the Federal Reserve is corrupt to the bone. And repubs refuse to look into a lot of real issues because they're presented by "the liberal media."

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I think there's some danger that we're over-complicating this whole thing. I mean, Glass Steagall gave us a relatively stable financial system for 7 decades (that's a pretty strong track record), and during that entire period, we had a central bank. Not that I'm necessarily a proponent of central banking, but people are understandably hesitant to support sweeping & radical changes, when it seems apparent that a proven (and less drastic) solution is available (not to mention, much easier to implement).


[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Congress failed to impeach Bush for war crimes and they're failing to impeach Obama now.

There is no longer any ounce of accountability in our federal government. War crimes run rampant. Congress is bought. What's next?

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

I think thats why Obama declined to prosecute anyone in the Bush administration. He knew he would be open to prosecution as well for what he had planned. But don't tell the Obamabots on here that.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 6 years ago

True Dat

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

That's an equivalency of criminally false proportions.

But Mike Malloy agrees with you. http://www.mikemalloy.com/

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 6 years ago

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot on board. Its flight is either controlled autonomously by computers in the vehicle, or under the remote control of a navigator, or pilot (in military UAVs called a Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) on the ground or in another vehicle. There are a wide variety of drone shapes, sizes, configurations, and characteristics. Historically, UAVs were simple remotely piloted aircraft, but autonomous control is increasingly being employed.[1] Their largest use is within military applications. UAVs are also used in a small but growing number of civil applications, such as firefighting or nonmilitary security work, such as surveillance of pipelines. UAVs are often preferred for missions that are too "dull, dirty, or dangerous" for manned aircraft.

UAV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle [right click]

The First Drone Games http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ9tVxPkunI&list=PLE724501BDD60E5F7&feature=view_all [right click]

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

drone murders are wrong,. period. Obama is a corporate war-thug of the highest order. he campaigned on it and got elected on it,. this should surprise no one. the GOP is worse,. so voting is not an option,. the two parties both support corporate rule,. and this military police state sht, all rolled up in the bankster pyramid-scam they call the monetary system. "we gotta' feed the economy or all is lost" this is all they have to offer.

permaculture, slowmoney, relocalize, etc.


[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

WOW! I'm not surprised!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Who should authorize the drone attacks if not our great President?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Well first they should not be getting authorized because the majority of them are illegal.

Also they are counterproductive to our goal. Every time these strikes kill someone's family we are fueling their hate for our country.

Bombs and sanctions are counterproductive when they hurt civilians more than the enemy leader.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago


[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Why are they illegal? Because you can't just kill people in foreign countries we're not at war with. There are laws against unauthorized war and wars of aggression toward another nation.

I'm surprised no one talks about Bush and Obama's use of Black Water anymore. Murder is wrong!

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 6 years ago

Well said TM !!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

I think you are mistaken. We can kill our enemies at will. You must have missed the memo. The countries we bomb have given us permission. And we have all kinda laws that let us kill people at will. So.......... Not illegal. Sorry. Do you mean that you are against these actions BEING legal?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

it's sad that people are so blinded by party politics that democrats have turned into the pro-war party just to defend Obama... like the republicans did for Bush.

It's as illegal as torture

What law allows for killing American citizens without trial or evidence in a country we're not at war with?

Because there are laws against that. The constitution is full of them.

[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

Especially since everyone of those bombs he drops makes us less safe.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

No more drone bombs!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

And what about you.? can you take a break from attacking the president and go on the record. Do you think drone bombing should be illegal? And are you against taking out Osama? Lets hear it. no personal attacks on me or our President. Just take a stand. sheesh!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

The words in my post are from Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinch.

The way the drones are being used have been illegal the majority of the time.

You do know Osama was not killed by drone strikes right? We sent in a team of seals to get that bastard.

I am taking a stand. NO MORE WAR!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

What about drones I think they are legal. Should they be illegal? So you support the Osama mission? you didn't say. as usual

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

We had permission to fly in their airspace and Pakistan leaders also wanted to get Bin Laden. Of course I supported going after Osama.

There were also zero innocent casualties in that mission. So of course I support that. Drone strikes kill innocent people all the time and don't have the knowledge of a seal.

Osama is dead! No more war!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Ok so you supported the Presidents Obama assassination. And you are against killing innocent civilians from drone bombing. Me too its horrible. I do not prefer a 10 yr war though. So there is that balance. Of course we keep the drone bombing victims (innocent or otherwise) under wraps so I don't know what is really goin on with that. I think we should just protest against drone bombing and maybe get it to be illegal. whatta ya think are you with me?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

I've been speaking out against the drone bombs in countries that did not attack us. That's what my entire post is about.

The way the drones are being used is illegal a majority of the time.

I can't really stress this enough. You keep saying they're legal but have yet to provide any evidence that they are.

Why is the ACLU suing the Obama administration?

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

ok. then it is being handled. Let the courts decide. I support a court case regarding drone bomb use. So what about the real issues that affect the 99%. Like the 1% rigging of the tax system to help them and hurt us. Can we agree on taxing the wealthy up the ass and cutting our taxes?. Where are you on that one?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

No it's not going to court. The administration is using it's power to keep getting extensions to avoid court.

What about the likewise real issues of the 1% profiting from these wars and killing people for profit? Wall Street has made a killing on these wars. Corporations for the 1% are making billions on government contracts with the wars. Even black water got huge contracts again after Obama took his presidency. These vicious acts of corporatism need to stop.


Why are you trying to silence me on this issue?

Our taxes have been cut. And I do agree the tax on the wealthy needs to go up as does the their 110,000 dollar cut off for social security.

:::Edit for reply to your absurd below statement you made: Lulz and now in you accuse me of favoring Bush? Did I not tell you how much I opposed the WMD war in Iraq? Have you heard Mitt, Obama, and Congress talking about Iran's WMD program? Congress is preparing for war in HR 4310. Also I did not vote for Bush. I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 either. So take your name calling and wild accusations to Fox News. I am anti-war and I oppose WAR CRIMES! This is not a partisan issue. This is a fact.

The drone wars on nations that did not attack us are illegal as Bush's torture policies. Killing civilians in nations that did not attack us is counterproductive. Stephen Colbert is talking about the drone wars and killing civilians right now as I watch his show and type this to you.

Obama is the current president and the drone wars are the current issue. That is why he gets my attention now as Bush did when he warmongered during his presidency.

No save your breathe.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

I'm tryin to draw you out on all issues. not silence you. The drone bombing issue must be addressed in court and with protests. I am ok with these failures since I know we are ending wars, and not starting new 10 yr wars. Warbucks? that was during your boy Bush. (you don't mention that) This pres has cut down merc contracts and will eliminate entirely (something neo cons would never do). This pres has cut Military budget and plans more (again something your neo cons would not) Wealthy tax cuts are certainly an issue the right has pledged to do. The left has pledged wealthy tax increases. Right doesn't believe in raise income limit on SS. So why are you anti left and pro right?. You seem duplicitous.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Well. It is legal. Are you saying you want these actions to be illegal?

[-] 0 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

The US's decision to step up the drone war again in Pakistan, opposed by both government and parliament in Islamabad as illegal and a violation of sovereignty, reflects its fury at the jailing of a CIA agent involved in the Bin Laden hunt and Pakistan's refusal to reopen supply routes for Nato forces in Afghanistan. Those routes were closed in protest at the US killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers last November, for which Washington still refuses to apologise.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Yeah yeah they squealed a little. And took away our cheap supply line. But we had an agreement to drone bomb their country and they allowed it many times. They were unhappy this time cause we went after Osama without tellin them. Tough luck. We give them a lot of money and maybe they should have turned Osama over instead of protecting him. y'know we bombed the shit out of the last country for 10 yrs (afghan) that didn't turn osama over. You against taking out Osama?

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

You are just as bad as the so called conservitives on here. The only difference is you are a Democrat.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Take a stand on an issue instead of attacking people. Are you against taking out Osama? Simple question. Lets hear it republican boy.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

I'm not a republican you simpleton. I'm far to the left of the democrats and far to the left of you. I would of supported Bin Laden being apprehended and brought to trial for the USS Cole bombing.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

"Simpleton"? You are so superior than me. I'm not worthy! teach me please. Drone bombing illegal?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Then you are against the mission that killed him? Why can't you say it? What do you mean cole bombing.? Uh oh..... You don't think he was behind 9/11 do you?. Are you one those conspiracy nuts?

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

The real problems that face the 99% is the black mascot of wall street who hasn't lifted a finger or said a word about the recall effort against Scott Walker. You know why? Because the Democrats are just as in bed with the corporate elite as the republicans. Do you know who makes the drones that bomb and murder these people allover the world? General Electric. Do you know how much taxes GE paid last year? 0 taxes. Do you know who Obama's chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is? Jeffery Immelt the CEO of GE. If that aint in the bed of the 1% then I don't know what is.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Pushing the fallacy that the parties are the same minimizes the crimes of the republican neo cons and serves the 1%. Dem fin reform has been watered down, and implementation has been slowed down by republicans. The republicans have obstructed every effort to get Americans back to work through democratic jobs bills, the repubs watered down health care reform, the repubs have already said they are gonna cut taxes for the 1% by cutting programs for the elderly, sick, poor, and middle class. The dnc has given some money (not enough) to wi. Dems are on the right side of all these issues. they can be made to serve the 99% with constant pressure by OWS. You disagree? "left of me"?

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

No I'm not but I don't believe they had enough evidence to convict him of that crime. I am sure that he funded the networks that carried out the mission but I don't think that in a court of law they could convict him of it. Yes I don't beleive in executions with out trial, I believe in the rule of law.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

well we ain't gotta prove nutin' He's dead! clean and simple. Was that wrong? Maybe. Sorry Next issue. How does this address the crimes against the 99% perpetrated by the 1%? I guess you don't care about that mr "i'm to the left of you". You ain't kiddin anyone with your unfair attacks on the President while ignoring the real problems that face the 99%. You don't seem left at all!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33633) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Long past time we canceled Pakistan's billions of USA dollars in military aid.

[-] 0 points by quatloo55 (10) 6 years ago

I wish people would have some discriminator circuitry built into their heads. Just because it's written doesn't mean it's true.

I'm no fan of Obama, but this statement is ABSOLUTE BULLSCHIT:

"1) President Obama personally authorizes each drone strike."

It's taken care of by others. PERIOD.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Who are the others? The people pushing the buttons? People do come to Obama with the plan. But like this says he authorizes it. The CIA can't just do what it wants. It has to get authorization to do to what it wants.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 6 years ago

I do agree with statement that president has authority for carrying out drone attack. Why do you think GOP develops regulation of drone use in USA? in order to fight with terrorism outside of US. If terrorists threaten to US citizens, US property or US equipment drone attack shall be implemented outside US territory without violating international and diplomatic relations. its remind me futuristic movies where government and police use robots and propaganda radiation antennas. In situation when ordinary people lose the ability to receive signal from antennas they becomes rebels and police forces try to do everything to eliminate them.

[-] 0 points by quatloo55 (10) 6 years ago

There are people in the chain that can authorize. Who, I have no idea and don't care.

They don't wake the president everytime they catch some asswipe planting an IED. They'd be constantly bothering him. Someone gives the OK to fire the hellfire and away it goes. I'm sure it's not a decision lightly made, but it needs to happen and the president isn't the deciderer over every detail for god sakes.

You think every time a soldier starts a fire fight in the field, they consult the president? Yet a fire fight still results in deaths.

Use your head. NOT EVERYTHING IN THE MEDIA IS TRUE. Start thinking for yourself.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Dennis Kucinich is an activist in the government with a perfect voting record. He stands with unions and has been speaking the truth for years. He's been speaking out against the manipulation of the big banks on our government and he's been speaking out against the illegalities and the war crimes since Bush was in office.

My post is a direct quote from a man I trust and respect. I'm going to believe him over some guy on an internet forum.

I've sourced out the information. You can fact check it yourself.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Ask yourself, who got us in this war and who is trying to get us out?

Then watch this and try to conceive what a gigantic mess the American theater is, compared to this tiny Danish one. It's on line and at Netflix.


[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

Obama isnt trying to end anything

Fact 1: It is not the case that all US troops will be removed from Afghanistan by 2015. In his drawdown announcement this past June, President Obama did not say that all US troops would leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014. What he did say was 10,000 troops would be removed by the end of this summer, with 23,000 additional troops leaving at the end of the summer of 2012. After that, according to the President:

our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security. Notice that the President did not say that our mission in Afghanistan will end by 2014, only that it will cease to be a "combat" mission and become a "support" mission. What you should be asking yourself is, "what is a support mission?", "how many troops will be required for it?", and "how long will it last?" We will get to these questions shortly. First, it's important to highlight two things:

Fact 2: There is currently no end date for the war in Afghanistan. Nowhere in the President's speech did he mention a deadline for the full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. No end date for the support mission has been supplied. At present, the expected duration of the war in Afghanistan is indefinite.

Fact 3: Obama's drawdown plan only removes roughly half the number of troops that he introduced into Afghanistan. When President Obama took office, there were roughly 34,000 US troops in Afghanistan. In two "surges", Obama added to this figure over 66,000 additional troops. By reducing the US troop presence by 33,000, his drawdown plan will leave about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan next September with no timetable and no strategy for their removal.

Fact 4: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's comments earlier this year about speeding up the transition to Afghan control do not mean that US troops are leaving Afghanistan any sooner. The administration took a lot of flack following Panetta's February 2012 comment that the US-led mission in Afghanistan could transition control to the Afghan security forces by as early as 2013. To ease confusion over these remarks, the administration made clear that Panetta's comments did not mark any change in the US withdrawal plan as outlined by President Obama in June 2011.

Fact 5: The "support" mission will not necessarily be small, nor will it be free of combat missions. A "support" mission sure sounds more reassuring than a combat mission, right? Sounds like only a few troops will remain behind to support the Afghan security forces?

Not if Iraq is any example. The combat mission in Iraq ended in August 2010, at which point troop levels were brought down to 50,000. In October 2011, over a year later, there were still about 45,000 troops left in Iraq. Furthermore, these supposedly non-combat troops would engage in combat missions and were described as having a "combat capacity" by administration officials, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in which they engage in "targeted counterterrorism operations" and work and fight alongside Iraqi security forces. In light of this, "support" seems to be nothing more than a euphemism for extended combat.

In fact, reports are indicating that the US presence in Afghanistan will consist of a "slimmed-down counterinsurgency strategy" that would help protect the Afghan population--as well as hunt down Taliban insurgents and al-Qaeda members. There may also be forces dedicated to holding territory won by the US in recent years. In any case, it seems quite clear that the continued US presence in Afghanistan will look nothing like the US presence in, say, Germany.

Per a previous agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, all US troops were supposed to leave Iraq at the end of 2011. That didn't stop the Obama administration from trying to pressure the Iraqi government to extend the deadline, allowing the US to leave up to 10,000 troops indefinitely. Fortunately, this plan has been been abandoned, and all but about 150 US troops attached to the US Embassy left on time. But a similar fight over keeping to a deadline for withdrawal may erupt in the future over Afghanistan--whenever a deadline is, in fact, established.

Fact 6: Reports indicate that the Pentagon wants to keep 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. In August 2011, it was reported that the Pentagon is trying to strike a deal with the Afghan government to leave 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan until at least 2024. Keep in mind that there were only 34,000 troops there when Obama took office. That means that the net withdrawal would be a mere 9,000 troops. Furthermore, before 2008, troop levels were at roughly 25,000 or less. So leaving 25,000 troops in Afghanistan would be to merely return to 2007 troop levels.

If this deal goes through, the US will be at war in Afghanistan for at least 13 additional years--that's three more years than we've been at war to this point. Meaning that we wouldn't even be at the half-way mark today, let alone nearing the end!

The US is still in negotiations with the Afghan government about leaving troops in the country indefinitely. While no concrete number has surfaced since last August's report, indications are that the US is still trying to leave thousands of troops after 2014.

Fact 7: Ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could save the US roughly 400,000 jobs. $200 billion is a conservative estimate of the savings to the federal budget from 2012-2021 of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq this December (as previously agreed) and withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan after 2014 (as popularly understood.)

In a 2007 paper, Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts estimated the impact of an additional billion dollars in military spending on employment compared to other uses, using a standard input-output model of the U.S. economy.

They found that an additional billion dollars in military spending would create 8,555 jobs. In contrast, an additional billion in tax cuts for personal consumption would create 10,779 jobs. Other categories of federal spending examined - education, health, mass transit - created more jobs than tax cuts for personal consumption. [See table 1, page 6.]

Thus, the net effect of moving one billion dollars from the domestic economy to military spending would be to destroy at least 2,224 jobs; moving $200 billion from the domestic economy to military spending would destroy at least 444,800 jobs. Conversely, saving $200 billion by ending the wars as previously scheduled, rather than saving it from the federal budget by using the chained CPI and raising the Medicare retirement age, would save more than 400,000 jobs.

Learn more here >

Fact 8: The lack of a timetable for withdrawal is a key obstacle in peace negotiations with the Taliban. While major media outlets were recently declaring the peace process in Afghanistan lost due to the assassination of Berhanuddin Rabbani, the Chairman of the Afghan High Peace Council, they failed to point out that one of the primary barriers to peace has been in place for a long time: the refusal of the US government to establish a timetable for the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan. Taliban spokesmen have made it quite clear that peace requires a willingness by the US to leave; but the US military has done just the opposite through its negotiations with the Afghan government to keep 25,000 troops in the country until at least 2024.

Fact 9: There are less than 100 al Qaeda left in Afghanistan--but there are over 700,000 Afghan and international forces there to fight them. Last year, Leon Panetta said that there were less than 100 members of al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. According to the latest Brookings Institute Afghanistan Index, there are 129,895 international troops in Afghanistan under NATO and Operation Enduring Freedom; 336,806 Afghan Security Forces; 90,000 private Defense Department contractors; and 2,000 private contractors training the Afghan Army. Additionally, there are 150,000 Pakistani troops on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That's a grand total of 708,701 versus 100. Seems a bit overkill.

Fact 10: There is popular support for ending the war now. A recent CBS poll indicates that nearly 2/3 of Americans support ending the war in Afghanistan within the next two years. Sixty-two percent said troop levels should be decreased immediately. 38 percent want large numbers to return from Afghanistan within a year; 24 percent said they'd be willing to have troops there for one to two more years; ten percent said they'd accept two to five more years; 18 percent said they'd be willing to have troops there "as long as it takes." Thus, 62% want US troops out in no less than two years. Only one in three Americans think that fighting in Afghanistan is the right thing for the United States to do.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Don't do that. What, do you have that on a flash drive, or a sticky note?

It was all about the pipe line before 9-11, probably before W or even Bubba. There's only one thing harder to get to let go than a pit bull on a cat, an oil company on a fresh field. And oil feeds the military. And with the post Cold War "New World Order" business was slow. Then we had 9-11, the War On Terror, and a dumb-ass puppet and bam, they struck oil and a pipeline through "Yeu-Becky-Becky-Stan"!!! Now try to get them to let go of that. These are the pals of the Powers That BE!!! They tell the world what to do. What's a skinny black man, with no support from anyone, gonna do about that? Hmmm? I DON'T HEAR YOU????

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Exactly what he's told, why else would they have picked him?

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Why can't you get it? Don't you want to? Are you just prejudiced?

Don't you see anything beyond black and white? Don't you understand finesse, exceptions, grey areas, duplicity, multiplicity?

Are you a robot? Does irony evade you?

What am I working with here? Get me while I still give a shit and I'll teach you something.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

What I said goes with what you were saying, its deeper than the surface stuff.

Why are you so defensive?

[-] -2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

"Defensive" is your inch deep world. I'm getting impatient with your limitations.

Hurry up! Losing interest.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8375) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Fact you refuse to address, either Obama or Romney will be President in 2013, how will hurting Obama not help Romney? How will Romney be better?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

Neither candidate for President is good on this issue. Obama isn't pulling these troops out fast enough IMO, and Romney will not do any better. What has Romney stated to be his timetable for getting the troops home? Does he have one? Did any of the Republican nominees declare that they wanted to end these wars?

[-] -2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

Are you going to balance this with an attack on Romney as well, or are you playing to only one side? OWS is nonpartisan.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 6 years ago

I don't remember you ever posting anything like this when people blast Romney on this site. OWS is nonpartisan.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

Because I'm sick and tired of everyone only jumping on one side. This isn't the "attack Obama forum." either. And since the mods don't delete these threads like they should, SOMEONE should call these people out.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

I can't attack Romney on this issue because he does not authorize drones. He currently has no power when it comes to the wars because he holds no position in the federal government and is not president... and he won't be either because he is going to lose this election. Most republicans don't even like Mitt Romney.

In my OP these are words from a DEMOCRAT named Dennis Kucinich. None of the words in this post are from me. I will not change the words of a direct quote because then it is no longer accurate.

If Romney shared a roll in bombing people, which if he became president he would, then I'd criticize the fuck out of him for bombing countries that didn't attack us. But as of now he has no power in the matter.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

You are always only attacking the President. Your obvious republican hack roots are apparent to all. Why don't criticize your candidate Romney for something other than the drone issue that "you can't because he isn't president"? Please. You are transparent!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

I constantly quote a Democrat named Dennis Kucinich. Did you ever notice that? Dennis is my main man when it comes to how I think our government should be run. He's the guy constantly speaking out against the big banks and the government starting undeclared wars. I am a hardcore liberal that speaks out against warmonger presidents.

We N.E.E.D. Economic Growth! Not Bombs in foreign countries.

If bush was still president, you'd see me speaking out against him like I did when he was president. But currently that is not the case.

There's a huge difference between a real democrat like Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, and a California style republican claiming to be a democrat like Barack Obama.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago
[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

How convenient. What about the other republicans currently in power. You don't have any criticism for them? Why does your criticism end with the dem president? Because you are a republican hack! Thats why!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Whatever you need to tell yourself. Here's a link to me constantly posting on my republican congressman's facebook

Notice how i criticize him all the time. I also write letters to his office and make phone calls and have even gone to his office a few times. For christmas I dropped off 10 copies of the bill of rights so he could remember what's he's supposed to uphold.

I'm real easy to spot. My name on FB is also TrevorMnemonic. http://www.facebook.com/leeterry

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Whatever. When you criticize one party continually with out mentioning the other equally guilty party.then you show yourself to be a partisan. It's not what think. It's what you do!

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Here's some quotes I've left on my republican congressman's page, Lee Terry's page.

When he talked about government and the internet I said "If you meant anything you just said then why does your voting history show the opposite when it comes to government intrusion?"

When he mentioned the troops I said "Do them a favor and stop voting for more war."

A month after the republican JOBS Act passed I asked, "How many jobs has the JOBS act created since it's passage? Is it still zero since the JOBS act doesn't create a single job?"

When he constantly talks about the Transcanada pipeline I always aske "Lee Terry, are you on the payroll for Transcanada or something?"

So keep drawing your conspiracy theories. I''ll stick to facts.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

I will decide based on what I see here. You are anti Obama. You level unfair criticisms against him and equate him with the war criminal Bush. This clearly is not backed up by facts, He has ended the illegal Iraq war, and is ending the Afghan, He has not started any other and has gotten all appropriate approval for the very targeted use of military action. When it is made illegal I will call it illegal. I'm against war but not against defending ourselves.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

I am anti-any poltician funded by Goldman Sachs that appoint Monsanto to the FDA and attacks nation's that did not attack us.

Did Pakistan attack us? Why have we bombed them 275 times and calling all the dead "militants" if they're military aged males? That is wrong.

Obama's administration has given out hundred million dollars contracts out to Black Water. Bush's criminals.

Attacking nations that did not attack us and killing their civilians is illegal and counterproductive.

War criminals should be impeached. The severity of the crime shouldn't matter. War crimes are ware crimes. Murder is wrong. So take that how ever you want. You obviously have a vivid imagination.

Bush should have been impeached for war crimes. I said that during his presidency. Obama should be impeached for war crimes.

If congress actually impeached people for war crimes, the war crimes would stop.

If Obama was impeached last year, we could have a better democrat run for office this year. Instead we're stuck between Goldman Sachs 2012 and Goldman Sachs 2012 2.0

No more responses for you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

We are bombing Pakistan with their approval. End of story. Apparently we have enemies there. Obama has cut down the merc contracts and will eliminate them (repubs would not do that) Civilians die! we kill a lot fewer than when we used helicopter gunships and untargeted bombs. Our current mistakes represent an improvement! Thats a fact. And There is no evidence that this Pres is a war criminal. When you say that you show your partisanship.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Yemen? and all the other countries we're droning?

Did we have the approval of the kids that have been killed by drones in Pakistan?

What choice did Pakistan have after seeing what happened to Iraq for not complying? Maybe there was some pressure there.

Murder is wrong. Bombing nations that did not attack us is counter productive.

Also if you fact check my statement, I said "a majority of drone strikes are illegal" ... that is different than saying "all of them are illegal." I never said all of them are illegal.

Damn it. This time I'm for real. No more responses for you VQ. I'm taking notice.

Once again you have yet to provide any information saying it's legal. I've provided lawsuit information from the ACLU as well as my original post. You can not kill American citizens without trial, without proof, and you can't do it with bombs in a country we're not at war with and did not attack us. Now go read the constitution and the war powers resolution.

If you want to denounce truth to support bombs that are killing innocent people and spreading hate for our country and growing terrorist cells that's on you. Bombing countries that did not attack us is counterproductive and wrong. I will speak out against anyone who supports such a bullshit aggressive action of war that only creates more problems.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

You mean giving notice? Yemen, pakistan, Libya, whoever. We had permission. We took great efforts to protect civilians. We didn't intend to kill innocence, it was an accident! We're sorry. Oops. We recognize, (me and the Pres) that it is counter productive. If the drone bombs which I do not support are illegal I haven't seen that case law. So I don't call him a war criminal. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld team though now there is a bunch of war criminals. That we can agree on.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

I disagree. You are a partisan hack. You support the 1% against your own interests. You are a tool. You have no honor.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Nice name calling. Try using logic and facts.

Is anything in my post not factual? Because it all is. Try and argue with logic. Accusing me of such drivel and nonsense is just you trying to cover the tracks for something that needs to end. The wars need to end. The bombs need to stop. What this president is doing is illegal. And I will speak out against these illegal actions no matter how many times you use name calling.

Go read my post where I criticize congress for preparing for war with Iran in HR 4310

Go read my post where I criticize the repubs in congress for their "Bombs not bread" campaign.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

It is not illegal. You believe it is but it ain't. We've been bombing people with impunity for decades. The wars are ending. the last one is afghan and we are ending it. haven't started any others. Your refusal to acknowledge those facts betrays your partisanship. Bombing is gonna have to go to trial. As it is we have permission from the sovereign nations involved. Your ignoring of that fact shows your partisanship.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

what facts?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

That this Pres ended illegal Iraq war, Started the draw down and agreed to the end of the Afghan war. Has started no other wars, Is not involved in any other wars, The drone bombings are approved by the countries we are bombing, and there is no case law against these actions. Those are facts. No?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

bombed Libya, Pakistan, Yemen

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

With permission, Does not constitute a war.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Let me know when Romney authorizes a drone strike. Mitt Romney is not in the federal government as of now. He is not president and currently has no influence on the wars and who we bomb.

I've already criticized Romney in many posts for his identical stance against Iran and the Iraq style WMD threat... as well as for many other reasons.

Also the words in my post are from Democrat congressman Dennis Kucinch. I'm just sharing his link and his information.

But hey... go ahead and jump to conclusions.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33633) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

You know whats funny Romney was all over the current admin for bombing Libyan military vehicles - for America intervening in a dictator slaughtering his population.

Now He is on the air last night saying that we should be doing the same thing in Syria.

Two faced Much?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Romney is indeed a spastic flip flopper. I disagreed with the action taken in Libya.

When the problem is a guy killing people in a city you don't solve the problem by killing a bunch of people in a city like we did to Sirte, which is completely destroyed, and Tripoli as well where the rebels flew an Al Qaeda flag over the summer.

Our country used diplomacy in the past to get Gaddafi to not seek nuclear weapons. I feel like Obama and NATO rushed to bombs on Libya.

What's ironic is that Bush took out Saddam, a leader who killed his own people, and democrats despise Bush for the war in Iraq, but they praise Obama for Libya where Obama and NATO took out a leader who killed his own people. Even Clinton thought Iraq had WMD's.

Who killed more people? Gaddafi in Misrata or NATO and the rebels in Sirte and Tripoli? What was done in Libya was not a solution to the problem. Libya was on the list of countries to go after. Iran is the prize in the center.

The assault on this city of 100,000 left virtually every building smashed, with untold numbers of civilians dead, wounded and stricken by disease, as they were deprived of food, water, medical care and other basic necessities.

You should look up the before and after photos of Sirte.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33633) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

I actually liked how we intervened in Libya. Pinpoint Bombed military vehicles and let the population take care of the hand to hand.

I think we should do the same to Assad.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Let me reiterate what you supported in Libya and hope happens to Syria

"The assault on this city of 100,000 left virtually every building smashed, with untold numbers of civilians dead, wounded and stricken by disease, as they were deprived of food, water, medical care and other basic necessities."

We didn't pin point bomb anything in Sirte. Look at the residential areas completely destroyed. We can't choose sides in civil wars. Especially when one side is getting help from small groups of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists. Gaddafi was bad but so are the rebels. We should not be attacking any country that did not attack us or our allies.

NATO commander admits that "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists among the Libyan rebels. This should officially classify them as "associated forces" under the NDAA of 2012. - (tries to down play it... reminds me of the Bush era trying to justify their problems... "it's not as bad as it sounds." Sorry I don't believe government lies) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtGe6zk52Cw

Proof of inhumanity amongst the "libyan rebels" as they torture blacks on video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4icorYD_mE&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video

This is all a power grab for oil control in the region. If you don't think that's true... why aren't we going after North Korea or China for their crimes against humanity? What about the people of Tibet?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33633) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Did not say I liked what was going on in the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. I do not think we should be there at all.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

it's been too damn long! That's for sure. Longest war in our history.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33633) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

I knew that was gonna happen right when they announced it. It is another Vietnam. No telling who is who. Should have been left up to the population of that country to handle their own mess.

Intervening in Libya was a different matter and I think we did the right thing the right way and I believe we should do it again in Syria.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

So you think a civilian death toll higher than the leader killing people is the best solution for a leader killing people? How is that?

Where is the peace in Libya now?

I agree something needs to be done... but ideas that kill civilians are counter productive.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33633) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

It is in their hands. As it should be. We stopped the government from slaughtering their population. Now they can find their own consensus as it is their country. It is now their civil war not ours. The odds have been evened out. It is up to the whole population now as to how " THEY " want to work it out. They must deal with their internal problems their way.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

We stopped their government from killing less people than our government killed with NATO. Now their major cities are in ruins too from all the damage from the bombs. Cities without working water and so many more problems.

Once again that is not a solution. Killing civilians is counterproductive! I can't stress this enough.

We'll have to agree to disagree because now we're just repeating ourselves.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33633) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

I have always said that we should not be in Afghanistan. That should be something they should handle as that is their country. If we had clear military targets like in Libya and a clear cut purpose of stopping the slaughter of civilians by their government. I would want it handled the same as it was with Libya. Level the field and let them go at it in equal fashion to resolve their conflicts their way.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Thats why we protected them! We are the good guys! Sometime there comes a time when we have to destroy the village to save it. No I'm sorry. I don't mean that. Thats some vietnam war non sense. What about the financial issues that hurt the 99%?. Why don't you stop looking for anti Obama propaganda and support the 99%.