The Awesome Obama Thread II

Come on Phat, get serious.Have you not seen the relative value of the US dollar to the Canadian dollar, the Australian dollar?

I see nothing in the issue of Omar Ahmed Khadr that suggests child torture.

Yup, and at 15 I'm not sure that qualifies as a "child".

Too sophomoric and funny.What have I posted that suggests I favor torture under any conditions or do you just enjoy misrepresenting what others post?

I made an issue of you claiming that was an example of child torture.

There are affidavits from those who say he was not tortured, that he was lying, as well as his assertions.Also, the Under 18 provision simply says that those under 18 should be given special protection, a vague and undefined stipulation.In the quotes you present are not what I'd consider torture with the possible exception of the dragging incident and there is no evidence that happened.Further, it is irrelevant whether or not someone was tortured whether the government should be proceeding with the trial .

Three times.

Actually I not just support and approve of the drone strikes so far, I hope that they are a sign of an increasing awareness of the changing paradigm of war.Nation State-Nation State wars are simply no longer economically practical in either monetary or human costs. Strategic strikes like the US drone strikes are far preferable and a great way to minimize both the monetary and human costs.The US Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were just plain not very bright. But they were typical of the current paradigm of Nation State-Nation State conflicts.IMHO a far better response in Afghanistan would have been similar to what is being done now, discrete, stealth and select targeting without notice, but I also think it would be better still without acknowledgement. Send in Seal Teams, drones, smart bombs, snipers; and target the individuals instead of the Nation State.Iraq is a different story. I can't yet see any justification for invasion or specific targeting there.

Actually, I would say that strategic and unacknowledged strikes cause far less civilian deaths than the average Nation State-Nation State war and create far fewer enemies than invading a Nation.

I'm sorry but how exactly is substituting selective strikes for carpet bombing and invasion escalating violence?Since when is it a choice of diplomacy or violence?Do you enjoy creating false dichotomies?

And I agree with what you have said.I have long, long said that Police Action is a good procedure, and that had we spent one one hundredth of what we wasted on the Iraq and Afghanistan war on aid to Palestine, Yemen, Angola, Sudan there is a pretty good chance we would see much less anti-American feelings and terrorism.But the various solutions are not mutually exclusive, we need to have a well stocked tool box so that we can choose the least harmful most likely to succeed tool in any given case.The problems are that since Jimmy Carter we have not had many Presidents willing to use multiple tools and so many of the really useful tools don't make good media fodder.

Was Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?Is anything you posted related to what I actually said?

No, I should not fear that the USA is creating standards for all nations to copy; in fact I should hope that is true.And of course the US did not need an excuse related to Afghanistan's or IRAQ's energy resources. Sorry but that is just silly.

If we wanted oil or natural gas we could simply buy it for far less than the cost of either invasion, plus no where can you point to me ever saying either invasion was justified or warranted.Misrepresent folk much?

I'm saying that your assertion is not the truth.