The Awesome Obama Thread II

Oh I used it not because I thought it was cute. As I said above, in this case the Judge was not being unintentionally insulting.

Sorry but I don't see how any of that has anything to do with Obama or that Obama ever presented a "demand for immunity for american soldiers to carry out atrocities against women and children"

Yawn.Obama had nothing to do with either the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions.The Iraq and Afghanistan invasions happened.Recalling troops involves more than just an order, is best done gradually and must also consider domestic repercussions.Drone attacks are less destructive and more selective than carpet bombing.The issue is not whether anyone approves of what the current US policy is but rather what steps need to be taken to minimize adverse effects both home and abroad.

The German invasion of Poland happened.Note that that is irrelevant to anything related to Obama.

Unfortunately in an area where there is NOT a rule of law, normal police and judiciary procedures just are not practical.Yes. arrest and trial would be preferable, but I see no way that it would be possible currently.

In times of war it is more than sufficient.Using the drone protects American (or other nationals) lives.The issue of saving combatants lives certainly needs to be discussed as we develop a rational and paradigm for non-nation state conflicts. I hope that will evolve.

The reason we don't use drone attacks on narcotics dealers in New York City is that there is a rule of law in New York City and an arrest is possible there, but that is not true in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan.Yes, it is not a Nation State conflict and we are not fighting a uniformed military and it is NOT a situation covered by any current conventions.We are still trying to develop the paradigm needed in this type of conflict.We don't have to go as far as Afghanistan or Iraq though to find similar lawless conditions, I just need to go a few miles south of me to be in an area much like Afghanistan in that regard.IMHO the invasions of both Iraq and Iran were immoral, possibly illegal and certainly stu-pid, but we are there.Until we can figure a way to get out of there I support minimizing US casualties.Yes, it's likely that we are making a few more enemies but I fear that is a cost we must accept for the moment; we screwed up the chance and opportunity to win hearts and minds and now it is simply work out the best exit strategy.Personally I like the Nixon plan, declare victory and run.

The German invasion of Poland may not have been legal and whether or not it was moral depended on your point of view.What does that have to do with Obama? Last I heard he had not invaded Poland.

Yes I support using drones instead of humans, but only over the near term.It is impossible to just go arrest someone in Iraq or Iran just as it is impossible to do that in Mexico.Yes, we have not yet employed drones against the drug dealers and cartels, but that might still come.No, I do not think there are any unalienable rights, only those rights we decide to implement.Yes, US casualties are of greater importance to me than Afghan casualties.We cannot pull out until we can reach agreement with the other nations also in this mess because of us, and that includes the British and the current Afghan government.We should try to kill as few people other than the objective as possible.There is a big difference between capturing folk during the events that happened before at what is going on today. Afghanistan today is much like Mexico where there simply is no structure, where police are either on the bad guys payroll or targets of opportunity, where whole towns and areas are run not by the government but regional warlords.

I am an American.It may well become necessary to use tactics like assassination of the drug cartel leaders but I hope not. It is serious though. If so then yes, attacks using a drone would be preferable to sending in human troops.Morality plays little part in my position, it's very likely that my position is immoral.I am trying not to dodge much of what you say though but believe I have answered your questions.

Reality.

Yes that does surprise me.Reality is finding the better solution in a given set of circumstances. It's nice to work towards an ideal but reality says that evolves, often glacially slowly.

I'm not trying to tell you anything.My personal experience give life value.The only important morality is MY personal morality and as I have said, sometimes the right thing to do may well be immoral.

First, it is none of your business how I develop my morality.Yes, of course I value actual experience over abstract experience.Yes, I can have empathy for general and even abstract concepts.But I really don't see what any of that has to do with the thread?

Nope, nothing I can see that needs clarification.I have already said that reality determines what is right to do and that depends on the particular circumstances of every instance.There simply is no universal answer.