Obama's Drone War - He's More Deadly than Bush 43

Originally posted by muse7
But hey this is another Obama hit piece so it must be parroted!

But hey, the O-bots are really hanging on to their guy and can't take the truth of the statistics.
Truth doesn't equal 'hit piece'. It only equals truth.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by muse7

 

So it's cool if one guy kills X number of people because some other guy killed X^Y number of people?

Hows about its not cool that either guy has killed / is killing people?

No? Take your blinders off. I'm not defending either guy here. I'm just stating that the title of this thread is obviously misleading, and on top of things it's taken from a BLOG

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by muse7
But hey this is another Obama hit piece so it must be parroted!

But hey, the O-bots are really hanging on to their guy and can't take the truth of the statistics.
Truth doesn't equal 'hit piece'. It only equals truth.

"Truth" is subjective around here. Some people think he's a Kenyan Communist that is trying to transform the U.S. into a Communist utopia.

reply to post by muse7

Lame. The information came from CNN and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute among other places. And instead of trying to show the drone stats wrong, you just throw mud on the sources. Sorry .. that mud doesn't stick. The sources are just fine. Obama, on the other hand, isn't.

Originally posted by muse7
"Truth" is subjective around here. Some people think he's a Kenyan Communist that is trying to transform the U.S. into a Communist utopia.

Deflection. Failure. There is nothing subjective about the statistics provided.
If you have a problem with the stats .. take it up with CNN and Columbia Law School.
(hey .. didn't Obama go to Columbia?? I think I read that somewhere ... )

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by muse7
"Truth" is subjective around here. Some people think he's a Kenyan Communist that is trying to transform the U.S. into a Communist utopia.

Deflection. Failure. There is nothing subjective about the statistics provided.
If you have a problem with the stats .. take it up with CNN and Columbia Law School.
(hey .. didn't Obama go to Columbia?? I think I read that somewhere ... )

Not trying to deflect anything. Your title is still very misleading nonetheless.

But like I said, since Obama took office in 08 then yes it is safe to say that more people have died as a result of drone strikes.

Overall? Bush is responsible for over 100,000 Iraqi deaths alone, not counting people from Afghanistan. Add on top of that over 4,000 dead U.S. Soldiers.

It's safe to say that Bush still takes the title as the more deadly of the two.

But I'm not defending either one in this one.

Originally posted by muse7
Your title is still very misleading nonetheless.

I dunno' about that. It clearly says 'drones' and is a drone comparison ...

But I'm not defending either one in this one.

Good. Neither one deserves a pat on the back ... ya' know??

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by muse7
But hey this is another Obama hit piece so it must be parroted!

But hey, the O-bots are really hanging on to their guy and can't take the truth of the statistics.
Truth doesn't equal 'hit piece'. It only equals truth.

so what do you think he should do??.....send in troops?....negotiate with the terrorists?....ignore it, let the terrorists do what ever they want?...only go after people after they kill Americans or our allies?

Originally posted by Faust100f
LMAO! I am an "Ameri-can" a Army Vet from the Vietnam War Era and a Farmer in Iowa with a CPA and a JD degree. Who are you? POST REMOVED BY STAFF

So I'm an Army veteran from Iraq 2005. However I am rational enough to realize that not everyone wants to kill us and even the ones that do are mostly because we don't leave them alone.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

This is blatant racism. You have apparently bought so far into the idea of a Muslim being the "bad guy" of the current day that you are just making stuff up or taking small sections of their population and attributing it to the whole people. Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Because the way you are talking suggests otherwise.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF
.

Should they? Did you know that during the height of the suicide bombings in Iraq that the terrorists had ran out of willing suicide bombers and were kidnapping a family member of some family and forcing either the husband or wife to go out and blow themselves up to save their kidnapped kin? If this hadn't happened then these people would have stayed out of the whole thing and gone about their lives the best they could in the war torn strip of hell that they called home.

Case in point the Islamic Officer at Ft. Hood who killed other Soldiers, his loyalty was to Islam and Jihad not to America and our way of life. 20 Arabs took down the World Trade Center; and we will not even talk about the Boston Marathon, or the honor killings that have taken place in this country.

First off there have been spies and turncoats in every conflict since ever. This is nothing new and happens all the time. As far as the terrorist attacks on civilian targets go, that is just the enemy we are dealing with. They go to extreme lengths to get their point across. This still doesn't mean that everyone affiliated with the religion that these terrorists worship is also a terrorist.

So you live in fantasyland, thank God that the CIA is comprised of American's who know how to handle the people in this region of the world, and are more concerned about protecting Americans than worrying about collateral damage in our enemies back yard. Adios Amigo. John.

No, you live in fantasy land. Apparently you seem to think that everyone in the world should love our way of life. This isn't the case and will never be the case. Going around killing the people that don't agree with our way of life is stupid and just makes the world hate you. You say you were in Vietnam. Do you also believe the crap the Army told you about Charlie and the Vietcong? Or do you know that we were really the aggressors in that war as well?

Looks like some of the posters would prefer that more of our soldiers get killed by engaging the enemy instead of using a weapon that puts none of our men and women in combat at risk. Face it a drone is a more efficient weapon. Yes civilians do get killed but compare the numbers of civilians killed using a drone as compared to a full scale assault. When you start with the artillery and carpet bombing towns far more civilians get killed. In this sense Obama is far less deadly than Bush.

The war on terror is yet another war that cannot be won just like the war on drugs. All it is is a money pit that will only cost America is more debt, dead people and ruined lives. If Obama were smart he would do like Reagan and pull our people out of there we need to fix our own country instead of trying to fix others.

Fact number 1:

Obama has killed more people by drones than were ever put in Gitmo.

Fact number 2:

Bush didn't kill American citizens by drones:

Fact number 3:

Really arguing that Obama is better than Bush?

Reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly?

What's the difference between Bush and Obama?

The body count, and Bush doesn't have a 'Nobel Peace' prize.

So Bush is more 'deadly' eh?

50,000 Mexicans have died from the violence in Mexico, and the current administrations gun running.

Wonder what the body count was in Libya?

I have seen that over 70,000 Syirans have died in their 'civil war' aided by the US.


Then of course there is that other 'hot topic' I can't say because some say 'its not related'.

I say the current administration deadlier than the last.

I wouldn't worry about being on a watch list. I think the best thing to do is look at what Obama specifically said he was going to do, and then check and see what he actually did.

When he was running for office, he handed out a bunch of pamphlets on his policies at a speech of his that I went to. I am under the impression that the pamphlets were made to get him elected and honestly had nothing to do with his policies. As in on purpose.

And McCain seems to have let him win.

I have to disagree with the OP in the spirit of this. It's not often we disagree, and we don't in most ways for this ...but do on a major point.

On the first point, I don't disagree. Obama has, by sheer body count under the Drone programs, been more lethal than Bush's command and approach for the same places and war.

It's the second implied point and, not so implied but outright said by others that I disagree with. Obama isn't worse than Bush and Bush isn't worse than Obama. They are different. One isn't better or worse than the other. Opportunity and circumstance have defined what each has been able to do in different places as well as technology advancement to allow Obama to go further than Bush could.

The only thing, if anything, to make Obama worse and not equally bad in this example is the fact Bush is a former President and no longer commands a Military or sets policy for the same. Obama does. Bush can no longer stop or turn off what he began. Obama can. Obama chooses not to, every day. That would be the sole factor pushing the pointer over the middle line.....but only by the smallest hair and only in relevance to who we need to focus on.

Focus on the man who is still DOING it and not so much the one who is a historic note to how we got here. That's fair enough.

You think Obama's deadly now, just wait til they start arming the domestic drones and using them on us.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


thank you for your service.

My dad is a vietnam vet, and he doesn't have quite such jaded views, though he also doesn't sugarcoat his opinions with PC aspartame. You are allowed to dislike people, blatant blanketed hate is something else all together.

Maybe the person needs to remember people like the American born and raised Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay who refused to go to war because it was against his religious beliefs (muslim) ... or say the British Cat Stevens who promoted world peace through his music (also muslim) ...

When you blanket categorize everyone, you are the bad guy. You are exactly like the extremists filled with hate who blanket the U.S. for what extremists do, or for failed policies. A farmer in the midwest has nothing to do with the global banks, but they are just as much to blame in the extremist eye ... just the same as hating everyone from a certain area of the world or certain religion cuts you of the same cloth as they.


I'm not necessarily for drone strikes, nor am I for perverse military action worldwide. I think our funds and efforts would be much more productive if we focused them on the protection of our borders, used the military and a civil service program to rebuild our communities through massive public work efforts, providing jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, and creating a better future for our country and our people. Sounds more productive and long lasting than fighting overseas. Especially considering our highways, bridges, electrical grid, and many more things we rely on need to be given much needed tlc, overhauls, and redesigns.

I also think the intelligence behind the drone strikes needs to be very clear, if they are going to do it. Human collateral damage should not be an option ... how can the justification of killing innocents be any more sane than what an extremist claims? Blood shed is blood shed, especially when you are willing to kill random innocent civilians for probabilities and supposed ideals.