President Obama’s Non Answer on Striking Citizens with Drones

[Ilovemyfins4eva]

When the heck did Bush ever take responsibility for anything? I must've missed that one...

All these guys pass the buck. This isn't something unique to Obama.

but with obama, its always someone elses fault. never his.

[Locke]

but with obama, its always someone elses fault. never his.

Guess you don't remember all the blame Bush put on Clinton, do you? Short memories among our conservative brothers...

[ryanosaur2000]

More like he can't say he supports the rule of law and the 6th amendment. You know basic human rights. Or just say straight up "I would never drop a bomb on an american on our soil". For some reason that escapes him.

I am assuming that you are in agreeance that the use of drones to kill civiliians (accidental or otherwise), no matter their nationality, is abhorrent? I do sometimes get concerned that the "one rule for us and one rule for them" ideology is far too prevalent in certain sections of US policy making.

[ohall]

Guess you don't remember all the blame Bush put on Clinton, do you? Short memories among our conservative brothers...

Utter nonsense. Maybe 1.5 years of that, even after 9/11 and with Clinton's obvious share in that failure, MOST REP's put that aside.

Obama is going into his freaking 5th year, bud. Anyone trying to defend this, needs to keep this in mind.

[ohall]

When the heck did Bush ever take responsibility for anything? I must've missed that one...

All these guys pass the buck. This isn't something unique to Obama.

You did. He apologized for prisoner Abuse at Gitmo and the Quran Desecration, and many more things. If you have an issue with ppl not knowing that, talk to the LIB leaning media that destroys REP's and protects LIB's day in day out.

---------- Post added at 09:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 AM ----------

I am assuming that you are in agreeance that the use of drones to kill civiliians (accidental or otherwise), no matter their nationality, is abhorrent? I do sometimes get concerned that the "one rule for us and one rule for them" ideology is far too prevalent in certain sections of US policy making.

I don't have an issue with it, if it is to protect our country from some kind of attack. However, they better have a damn good reason to kill an American resident/citizen, and they better be able to prove it.

[GoFins!]

I am assuming that you are in agreeance that the use of drones to kill civilians (accidental or otherwise), no matter their nationality, is abhorrent?

Aren't terrorists, radical Islamists, Islamic extremists, and those that support them, all civilians? They're not uniformed soldiers of their respective countries, at least not in any official capacity.

Anyone who believes killing terrorist civilians before they randomly murder non-terrorist civilians is abhorrent should be strongly encouraged to go personally negotiate with the terrorists to get a better understanding of their beliefs.

[Locke]

Utter nonsense. Maybe 1.5 years of that, even after 9/11 and with Clinton's obvious share in that failure, MOST REP's put that aside.

Obama is going into his freaking 5th year, bud. Anyone trying to defend this, needs to keep this in mind.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Case in point. Lots of hypocrisy going on in this thread...

[ryanosaur2000]

I don't have an issue with it, if it is to protect our country from some kind of attack. However, they better have a damn good reason to kill an American resident/citizen, and they better be able to prove it.

Do they not have to prove that the foreign targets were involved in terrorist activity? Or are all non-Americans far game?

[ohall]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Case in point. Lots of hypocrisy going on in this thread...

Seriously?

My point is, as serious the failings of Clinton, REP's moved along, in time, about 1.5 years into Bush's 1st term. I think we'd have to agree Bush's failings with the economy he over saw they have to be just as serious as how soft Clinton was on UBL. Black hawk down, the 1st 9/11 in 1993 and his decision not to kill UBL pre 9/11. When will the LIB's move on, Obama's 7th year, his 8th?

When does he own his presidency, never?

[ohall]

Do they not have to prove that the foreign targets were involved in terrorist activity? Or are all non-Americans far game?

Without a doubt. If for whatever reason they do this, or even seriously think about doing this, they better have 100% proof. That kind of action is beyond serious. However with Obama, I'm not sure he has to get to the 100% level, not with the protection he gets from the LIB media. He would prob just have to say it is what he says it is, and that would be enough for our media. Benghazi comes to mind.