PDA

View Full Version : Ralph Nader: Obama’s a ‘war criminal’



Dolphins9954
09-25-2012, 07:53 PM
It’s no surprise that Ralph Nader (http://www.politico.com/tag/ralph-nader) isn’t a fan of former President George W. Bush. After all, the longtime activist ran against him in both 2000 and 2004. But Nader’s even less a fan of President Barack Obama, if only because he thinks Obama was capable of so much more.

On issues related to the military and foreign policy, Obama’s worse than Bush, “in the sense that he’s more aggressive, more illegal worldwide,” Nader told POLITICO, going so far as to call Obama a “war criminal.”

“He’s gone beyond George W. Bush (http://www.politico.com/tag/george-w-bush) in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”

Nader called Obama (http://www.politico.com/p/pages/barack-obama)“below average because he raised expectation levels. What expectation level did George W. Bush raise?… He’s below average because he’s above average in his intellect and his knowledge of legality, which is violating with abandon.”

“I don’t know whether George W. Bush ever read the Constitution,” said Nader. “This man taught the Constitution, and this is what we got.”

Nader gave Obama this much: He’s the lesser of two evils when compared to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. But he said Obama is “the more effective evil because he brings credibility, he brings the democratic heritage to it, he has legitimized the lawless war-mongering and militarism abroad of George W. Bush.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html#ixzz27WqYVmpK

Valandui
09-25-2012, 08:18 PM
I love how he's basically calling Bush a retard. I have news, anyone who doesn't think Bush was playing that idiot persona for all it's worth is mistaken. I've talked to people who have been around and talked to him who told me that it goes off and on like a light switch when he walks into a crowded room.

Dolphins9954
09-25-2012, 08:31 PM
Just one in fifty victims of 'surgical' US strikes in Pakistan are known militants.


The product of nine months' research and more than 130 interviews, it is one of the most exhaustive attempts by academics to understand – and evaluate – Washington's drone wars. And their verdict is damning.

Throughout the 146-page report, which is released today, the authors condemn drone strikes for their ineffectiveness.

Despite assurances the attacks are "surgical", researchers found barely 2 per cent of their victims are known militants and that the idea that the strikes make the world a safer place for the US is "ambiguous at best."

Researchers added that traumatic effects of the strikes go far beyond fatalities, psychologically battering a population which lives under the daily threat of annihilation from the air, and ruining the local economy.

They conclude by calling on Washington completely to reassess its drone-strike programme or risk alienating the very people they hope to win over. They also observe that the strikes set worrying precedents for extra-judicial killings at a time when many nations are building up their unmanned weapon arsenals.

The Obama administration is unlikely to heed their demands given the zeal with which America has expanded its drone programme over the past two years. Reapers and Predators are now active over the skies of Somalia and Yemen as well as Pakistan and – less covertly – Afghanistan.

But campaigners like Mr Akbar hope the Stanford/New York University research may start to make an impact on the American public.

"It's an important piece of work," he said. "No one in the US wants to listen to a Pakistani lawyer saying these strikes are wrong. But they might listen to American academics."

Reprieve, the charity which is trying to challenge drone strikes in the British, Pakistani and American courts, said the report detailed how the fallout from the extra-judicial strikes must be measured in terms of more than deaths and injuries alone.

"An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies," said Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith.

"Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meeting or anything that involves gathering in groups."
Some of the most harrowing personal testimonies involve those who have witnessed "double-tap" strikes.

Researchers said people in Waziristan – the tribal area where most of the strikes take place – are "acutely aware of reports of the practice of follow-up strikes", and explained that the secondary strikes have discouraged ordinary civilians from coming to one another's rescue.

One interviewee, describing a strike on his in-laws' home, said a follow-up missile killed would-be rescuers. "Other people came to check what had happened; they were looking for the children in the beds and then a second drone strike hit those people."

A father of four, who lost one of his legs in a drone strike, admitted: "We and other people are so scared of drone attacks now that when there is a drone strike, for two or three hours nobody goes close to [the location of the strike]. We don't know who [the victims] are, whether they are young or old, because we try to be safe."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

CedarPhin
09-25-2012, 08:31 PM
My grandparent's next door neighbor was one of W's drinking buddies.

CedarPhin
09-25-2012, 08:34 PM
I really don't see a problem with the drones. It doesn't matter to me if a bunch of kids get blown up at a tribal meeting of the minds, a 13 year old can kill you just as much as a 33 year old can. To me, the outrage about it is just outrage for the sake of being outraged. Someone being killed in Pakistan has no effect on my daily life, I just really don't care. Some innocent people get killed? Eh. It's war, it happens.

Rather have us terrorizing asshats from the skies than having our troops coming home without limbs or ****ed up minds. Drones are cheaper too. Not really seeing how it's a big deal.

Now us blowing up US citizens without due process? That's pretty ****ed up. Every US citizen should be entitled to his/her/it's Constitutional rights, but some ******* in the mountains of the nether regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan? Fire away.

Valandui
09-25-2012, 08:41 PM
My grandparent's next door neighbor was one of W's drinking buddies.

Would he say my statement is correct?

Tetragrammaton
09-25-2012, 08:54 PM
Of course Obama is a war criminal. The only problem is that there is no alternative to it.

Dolphins9954
09-25-2012, 08:56 PM
I really don't see a problem with the drones. It doesn't matter to me if a bunch of kids get blown up at a tribal meeting of the minds, a 13 year old can kill you just as much as a 33 year old can. To me, the outrage about it is just outrage for the sake of being outraged. Someone being killed in Pakistan has no effect on my daily life, I just really don't care. Some innocent people get killed? Eh. It's war, it happens.

Rather have us terrorizing asshats from the skies than having our troops coming home without limbs or ****ed up minds. Drones are cheaper too. Not really seeing how it's a big deal.

Now us blowing up US citizens without due process? That's pretty ****ed up. Every US citizen should be entitled to his/her/it's Constitutional rights, but some ******* in the mountains of the nether regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan? Fire away.


Sake of being outraged????

Only 1 and 50 are known militants. And let's not forget the rule of law, sovereignty of nations and that one thing what's it called. Oh yeah WAR CRIMES. Bush and now Obama have really set dangerous precedence with these actions. And totally have gone far beyond the restraints put on them by the constitution and the law. I know a dead innocent muslim even kids means nothing in your eyes. But it means something in the world and the moral standards we should adhere to. Especially when we wage this "War on Terror". It's just another mark on the list of total hypocrisy and double standards that is our foreign policy over there. We wage a war on terrorists while supporting terrorists in Libya, Syria and Iran. At the same time commiting terrorist attacks ourselves. I go beyond Nadar's "war criminal" charge and call it for what it is. These are acts of terrorism and are no different than the terrorist we supposedly despise. Acts like these along with our extremely flawed foreign policy will only ensure that the wars never end and MIC is always open for business.

Spesh
09-25-2012, 08:56 PM
“We’re dealing with a real sick, decaying Democratic Party that can’t defend the country against the cruelest, most ignorant, most anti-worker, most war-mongering, most Wall Street–indentured Republican Party in its history, since the 1850s.”



Spot on. For both parties.

I do have a question though. How can Nader claim that Obama is the more effective of two evils on foreign policy when Romney says he would not only keep most of Obama's policies but also increase them? Does he mean Romney would be more incompetent than Obama or does he just mean that under Bush the world viewed our actions as rogue and it is now part of our cultural identity? I suppose im a questioning what Nader means by "effective".

CedarPhin
09-25-2012, 09:04 PM
Sake of being outraged????

Only 1 and 50 are known militants. And let's not forget the rule of law, sovereignty of nations and that one thing what's it called. Oh yeah WAR CRIMES. Bush and now Obama have really set dangerous precedence with these actions. And totally have gone far beyond the restraints put on them by the constitution and the law. I know a dead innocent muslim even kids means nothing in your eyes. But it means something in the world and the moral standards we should adhere to. Especially when we wage this "War on Terror". It's just another mark on the list of total hypocrisy and double standards that is our foreign policy over there. We wage a war on terrorists while supporting terrorists in Libya, Syria and Iran. At the same time commiting terrorist attacks ourselves. I go beyond Nadar's "war criminal" charge and call it for what it is. These are acts of terrorism and are no different than the terrorist we supposedly despise. Acts like these along with our extremely flawed foreign policy will only ensure that the wars never end and MIC is always open for business.

Hella red herring. I could care less what race, creed, color, religion anyone is. If they're pointing guns and shooting at me, planting land mines to blow me up, they shouldn't expect any sympathy when they inevitably get taken behind the woodshed. They'd do the same thing to us if they were in our position. That's the PaulBot way though, appeal to people's emotions by throwing racially-charged stuff in there like the bolded comment.

Back to your rant though, I fail to see how blowing up something with a drone constitutes an act of terrorism. It's terror from the skies for those people for sure, but you can hardly put it in the same discussion as say, 9/11, Oklahoma City, or the Marine Barracks/US Embassy in Beirut. We're at "war" right now, whether people like it or not. People get killed and maimed in wars. They're not really war crimes, a war crime to me is the destruction of an entire group of people, like what Hitler or Stalin did to the Jews, or what Saddam did to the Kurds. A few accidents here and there hardly constitute what I'd consider a war crime. People wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time all the time. My advice? Don't go to wedding parties in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Where was this outrage when Bush was in power?

Dolphins9954
09-25-2012, 09:11 PM
Hella red herring. I could care less what race, creed, color, religion anyone is. If they're pointing guns and shooting at me, planting land mines to blow me up, they shouldn't expect any sympathy when they inevitably get taken behind the woodshed. They'd do the same thing to us if they were in our position. That's the PaulBot way though, appeal to people's emotions by throwing racially-charged stuff in there like the bolded comment.

Back to your rant though, I fail to see how blowing up something with a drone constitutes an act of terrorism. It's terror from the skies for those people for sure, but you can hardly put it in the same discussion as say, 9/11, Oklahoma City, or the Marine Barracks/US Embassy in Beirut. We're at "war" right now, whether people like it or not. People get killed and maimed in wars. They're not really war crimes, a war crime to me is the destruction of an entire group of people, like what Hitler or Stalin did to the Jews, or what Saddam did to the Kurds. A few accidents here and there hardly constitute what I'd consider a war crime. People wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time all the time. My advice? Don't go to wedding parties in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Where was this outrage when Bush was in power?


Paulbot??

Can you seriously have a debate without throwing out the same tired line. First off it is a war crime to target rescue workers and innocent people. Second off Pakistan didn't attack us and we haven't declared war on them. In my eyes I see no difference when a terrorist straps a bomb to himself and kills a bunch of innocent people than when we bomb funerals and rescue workers. The result is the same. If you can explain the difference to me I would love to hear it.

baddsnapp4
09-25-2012, 11:44 PM
I say we are just giving back some of what weve been getting. What about our marines? what about the victims in the Twin Towers? I say fight fire with fire, they want to play dirty pool, LET EM HAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Dolphins9954
09-26-2012, 09:32 PM
I say we are just giving back some of what weve been getting. What about our marines? what about the victims in the Twin Towers? I say fight fire with fire, they want to play dirty pool, LET EM HAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


Then why are we supporting jihadists and terrorists in Libya, Syria and Iran?

Shouldn't we be bombing them too? Oppa Gangnam Style!!!!!!

Dolphins9954
09-26-2012, 10:02 PM
Spot on. For both parties.

I do have a question though. How can Nader claim that Obama is the more effective of two evils on foreign policy when Romney says he would not only keep most of Obama's policies but also increase them? Does he mean Romney would be more incompetent than Obama or does he just mean that under Bush the world viewed our actions as rogue and it is now part of our cultural identity? I suppose im a questioning what Nader means by "effective".


Obama is a far better used car salesman than Bush.

Spesh
09-27-2012, 10:19 AM
Obama is a far better used car salesman than Bush.

So he's refering to selling the public on his foreign policy? Makes sense, the domestic outrage over our foreign policy has mostly dissolved. Most of the outspoken opposition is hypocritical, those who are outraged over Obama for "spreading democracy" in Libya and Egypt were some of the same that defending Bush tooth and nail for his "spreading of democracy". Im not refering to those who objected to getting involved in other nations affairs, but those(Sean Hannity comes to mind) who had no problem with us invading but were enraged at Obama for backing regime overthrows by the citizens. So long as you supported democracy by looking through the scope of a gun, your in the clear.