The Awesome Obama Thread II

1) not all terrorists are al Qaeda
2) al Qaeda does not wear a uniform when bombing US bases or public areas
3) al Qaeda is not Afghanistan or Pakistan, they are not a nation state.I never said we were violating al Qaeda's national sovereignty - they don't have a nation to have sovereigty rights over.I said we're violating the sovereignty rights of Afghanistan and Pakistan, neither of which we are at war at, both of which are supposed to be our allies, and both of whom have sovereignty rights over their own airspace, regardless of whether or not some al Qaeda militants happen to by hiding out within their borders.I never said that we should stop drone attacks if al Qaeda told us to stop. I said that we should stop violating Afghanistan and Pakistan's airspace if they revoke their permission for us to use it.Let's take a look at this from a slightly different angle - maybe your poor sensibilities will find this more "sensitive."The United States does not operate exclusively from aircraft carriers in international waters. Instead, we obtain permission from other nations to use their airspace so that we can fly more directly to where we want to go, sometimes even using their airfields.If one of those nations withdraws permission for us to use their airspace, we can no longer fly over that nation, nor use its airbases.Afghanistan and Pakistan are allied nations with their own airspace. They can choose to allow us to fly over their territory in order to seek out and attack suspected terrorists...or they could withdraw that permission.As we are not at war with Afghanistan or Pakistan (even if I grant that we are at war with al Qaeda, which I do not), we cannot legally violate their airspace without their permission.If we continue to use drone attacks in Pakistan or Afghanistan after we no longer have permission to use their airspace, we have committed an agressive act of war - even if our intent was only to attack al Qaeda.Let's say that Turkey, another US ally, has discovered several al Qaeda training camps within its territory. They can grant us permission to use their airspace and/or send troops to their nation to help root out and eliminate the al Qaeda members, or they can refuse to give that permission and say that they will take care of the problem internally. Regardless of whether they are successful or not, the United States can only send troops or fly within Turkey's airspace if they give us permission to do so. If we don't, we've just invaded Turkey, and now instead of an ally, their actual military will attack our troops and drones and planes on sight.Do you see what I;m getting at here yet? The issue isn't al Qaeda. I have no particular issue with shooting an actual suicide bomber or a guy shooting at US troops (or Afghani civilians; hell, I have no problem with lethal force being used in the immediate protection of innocent life from imminent danger from an illegal assailant regardless of circumstance, which is kind of the point when US drones are killing people who are not terrorists).The issue is that to get to al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan, we need the cooperation and permission of the governments of Afghanistan or Pakistan, neither of which we are at war with, neither of which are Taliban or al Qaeda. Recall that "violating international law" has been used as justification for multiple independent nations to enact trade sanctions and even military force even in the recent past. ...It should be legal to hate AnyNation. Certainly not, but if a nation is harboring terrorists there are other, diplomatic means to put pressure on them to either grant permission to use their airspace to clean up the mess or to take care of it themselves. You know, the way that we got permission from Pakistan in the first place - we give them a ton of aid, and if they revoke permission to use their airspace that aid may be revoked. This is called diplomacy, and it's how nations interact with each other without going to war so that invasions aren't necessary. Where, precisely, is it legal to conspire to bomb civilians? I was unaware that this was legal in Aghanistan or Pakistan - I wonder what else might be legal there?Honestly crash, that's an absurd argument. unless you're redefining "terrorist" to mean "anybody who hates America," which of course is perfectly legal even within the borders of the United States. Curiously, we don;t send drone attacks or even police against people who hate the current administration, not unless they follow up that hate with an actual plan or attempt to commit a real crime. Would you care to provide evidence that, in Afghanistan or Pakistan, it is perfectly legal to conspire to or actually fire automatic weapons at security forces or allied military forces, or to bomb civilians?Because I don't think it's actually legal in either nation to be a terrorist. I'm fairly certain that, if the Afghani/Pakistani police were to catch a cell of terrorists assembling pipe bombs or whatever in a cave or somebody's apartment, they could in fact be arrested and charged with crimes.

He sways me when he's correct. As it should be. He correctly pointed out in the previous discussion that the Obama administration cannot be held responsible for what Congress does or does not do; he can use words and sign or not sign laws, but in the end only Congress gets to make them.That certainly doesn't mean I always find his arguments persuasive. Occasionally I just find him to be a stubborn, amoral asshole. Which I suppose is fair because he finds me to be "insensitive." Likely this is because crash tends to argue via the letter of the law, while I base my positions on ethics rather than legality. Ideally both would be the same, but alas, this is reality...and of course ethics are to a point subjective (excepting of course that if you have the same values to begin, the logical moral positions that stem from those values should remain the same as well).

Hi Omni, I'm quoting you here as a reply both to you and to crash, because the above is how I can potentially be convinced to sway my support.I'm a humanistic utilitarian. I value the net reduction in human suffering and death. My revulsion at drone attacks stems from my sense of justice which in this case essentially boils down to "sometimes you have to kill to save lives, but for the love of humanity make sure you're killing the right people and not just contributing to more death and suffering."Instances where drone attacks have blown up weddings and stories I've heard on NPR detailing the extremely low level of certainty required for authorization of a drone attack (ie, look Muslim and have something that looks like it might be a weapon from a long distance, which covers just about everyone in Afghanistan or Pakistan) cause me to expect that the accuracy of drone attacks (meaning the killing of actual, real threats as opposed to "collateral damage") to be rather low. If I am mistaken in this belief, I would welcome evidence to prove me wrong - it would make me feel an awful lot better about my country. I've never seen a cogent analysis of the issue from that perspective.I'm not just some peacenik tree-hugger pacifist (though I really, really wish I could be). I firmly believe that the United States was justified in using nuclear weapons at the end of WWII (largely because of what everyone knew and when they knew it; had psychic powers or time travelers from the future with 20/20 hindsight existed, the rational choice would have been different). I understand that defending oneself often means killing threats, and I understand that killing threats is virtually never clean. I just want to be certain that we're using the most accurate, least harmful methods, particularly considering the problem of increased enemy recruitment in the face of perceived (real or imagined) injustice from the American military.

I think he's more commenting on how the defunding of the war effort caused massive problems.I wasn't alive for Vietnam and I don't have time to do research at the moment, but I would hazard to guess that either by removing funds, Congress also impeded the ability to pull out, or that the President simply continued to "stay the course" despite the new lack of funding and that this crippled the American ability to prosecute the war decisively. Or both.How far off am I?

...what?

Maybe, but he's been replaced by Dark Oni, who would insist that "the problem of terrorism would go away if everybody would stop eating so much damned meat, stop smoking, and get some exercise, you fatty nerd."

I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise with regard to Vietnam.