Obama's speech/outrage at congress failure to pass gun law

[JimC]

There's an aspect of this that caught my eye while I was watching it. I know there's another thread specifically on the broader issue, but as that is just going to turn into the usual stupid gun debate thread, I wanted to host this separately.

The thing that caught my eye is a phenomenon that people have been talking about in regards to Obama ever since he first ran for the Presidency. That is, his ability to win you over with his words (and delivery). While I was watching that speech, I was right on his side, and in that moment it would be impossible to think that this man is responsible for so much authoritarian crap and oppression. He's a fucking magician, man! He has such a talent for oration.

Essentially, about half way through his speech, while I was getting ready to slober all over his digital cock, I snapped out of it and remembered this is the man who is responsible for so many terrible things, including the terrible drone attacks on innocent people, including children; and the seemingly unconditional support of the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli's; among other things.

Then, so many of his words became just empty rhetoric.

The polarisation of our politics is shown by the fact that so many others will criticise him from the other side of politics...

Mind you, I suspect sandinista would say that it is not Obama the man that counts, but that the US power structure he represents, whose military activities have not changed a great deal when one party took over from another. I'm not saying that is a final truth either, but it's an arguable point of view...

[Robert_S]

There's not as much difference between the parties as I'd like, but as the man said: "The arc of history is long..."

[Warren Dew]

The thing that caught my eye is a phenomenon that people have been talking about in regards to Obama ever since he first ran for the Presidency. That is, his ability to win you over with his words (and delivery). While I was watching that speech, I was right on his side, and in that moment it would be impossible to think that this man is responsible for so much authoritarian crap and oppression. He's a fucking magician, man! He has such a talent for oration.

Essentially, about half way through his speech, while I was getting ready to slober all over his digital cock, I snapped out of it and remembered this is the man who is responsible for so many terrible things, including the terrible drone attacks on innocent people, including children; and the seemingly unconditional support of the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli's; among other things.

Yes. I remember listening to part of his state of the union speech last year. It was great - it sounded like a Tea Party speech! Then I realized his actual policies were the exact opposite, and I snapped out of it.

I suspect he actually believes he's governing according to his speeches, and is just not smart enough to realize what the actual effects are of the policies Valerie Jarrett and his other handlers have him put in place.

[pErvinalia]

rEv, if you ever find a politician who shares your views on every single subject and can also function as an effective leader in a democracy, let me know. I know of no such being. As far as I can see, Obama's about as close as I can realistically get.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt had a scheme to increase the size of the Supreme Court so he could pack it with New Deal-friendly justices. Eisenhower signed off on a bloody coup in Iran. JFK hedged and procrastinated on civil rights. And Clinton was getting blowjobs in the west wing from an intern. I think I can put these things into the contexts of far larger perspectives when assessing an overall legacy.

A handful of Obama's achievements to date:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... 035755.php
http://obamaachievements.org/
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/mai ... -2009.html
But, even in 2013 the President doesn't have a weapon that can take out Al Qaeda fighters without also hitting some of the human shields they surround themselves with, so some on the left get hissy about his "empty rhetoric" in general. Gimme a break. This is one thing that drives me nuts about liberals as opposed to conservatives. I despise conservatism, but at least they're good at solidarity within their ranks. Throughout history, left-of-center organizations are always plagued by infighting, but conservative ones are more cohesive.

Well, Obama and the Democrats on average aren't the "left", so that takes care of that problem. The issue with the collateral deaths is about effectiveness. Are they making the terrorism problem better or worse by regularly killing innocents? Many argue that it is making it worse. I subscribe to this. Same with the Iraq nonsense, same with supporting Israel, and sticking the US's noses in revolutions in the Arab world. He can't lambast congress for not taking the rational decision, when the US government continues to make irrational decisions all across the globe.

(BTW, I hope you're not hung up on "drones". If you don't like aerial strikes against Al Qaeda/Taliban targets, that's fine (although I'd give that opinion more respect if you voiced a credible alternative), but I tend to roll my eyes when I hear people gripe about unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. I don't even like the word drones, due to its inherent inaccuracy. It's just sensationalism to think that unmanned aircraft are an entirely different thing from manned aircraft. There are still human pilots on the ground, human mission planners, human targeteers, etc., just like there have been for generations. The day that "drones" are deciding for themselves where to fly and what to attack, then it becomes an important point of contention.)

The only issue I would have with the "unmanned" part is that there is a disassociation between the pilot and the theater. And there's been quite a few reports and anecdotal accounts about this for years now. But as I said above, the main problem I have with it is the killing of innocents, and the irrationality of thinking that this will reduce, not increase, terrorism.

[JimC]

Commenting on the above post, on the particular the issue of missile attacks by unmanned aerial vehicles. It has become clear that these strikes are causing significant civilian casualties, and their continuing use is not only unethical, but largely counter productive, since the casualties they cause are entrenching a virulent hatred of the west.

If one could somehow guarantee that every drone strike killed nobody except armed militants, the issue would not arise. But clearly, this is not the case. More and more evidence is coming to light that drone strikes in the border areas of Pakistan/Afghanistan are killing women, children and non-militant males, as well as the occasional party of Pakistani soldiers.

The US government has clearly decided to stick with a position of using military technology in this way, but they are increasingly viewed by the rest of the world as ethically and politically unsound.

[Warren Dew]

The US government has clearly decided to stick with a position of using military technology in this way, but they are increasingly viewed by the rest of the world as ethically and politically unsound.

That's the way they're viewed by most of the Tea Party folks in the U.S., as well - and also by parts of the far left here.

[JimC]

The US government has clearly decided to stick with a position of using military technology in this way, but they are increasingly viewed by the rest of the world as ethically and politically unsound.

That's the way they're viewed by most of the Tea Party folks in the U.S., as well - and also by parts of the far left here.

For somewhat different reasons...

[JimC]

The ethical position of drone strikes needs to be dissected carefully...

Scenario 1 A group of armed militants is spotted, and tracked, and all enter an uninhabited house to have a meeting. The house and militants are destroyed by a well aimed missile, but, somewhat freakishly, a fragment kills a child playing 40 metres away...

Scenario 2 Reliable intelligence suggests a group of militants are meeting in a house. There is a low but real possibility that women and children may also be there. A missile strike is ordered, and later it is discovered that the wife of one of the militants was also killed.

Scenario 3 A very high level terrorist has been tracked, and is staying in a village. He is a major player, whose death would foil many a terrorist plot. He is staying with an extended family of supporters, several women and children are living there. Too good a chance to miss, house destroyed, means justify the ends...

Where is the true US position?

[Warren Dew]

Where is the true US position?

Scenario 4 A suspected terrorist is in the open, amidst a couple dozen unidentified men. The shot is taken, and the unidentified people are assigned to the "assumed terrorist" category.

Seriously, that's what's happening. The Obama administration now assumes that all adult male casualties are unlawful combatants merely by virtue of being casualties.

[JimC]

Where is the true US position?

Scenario 4 A suspected terrorist is in the open, amidst a couple dozen unidentified men. The shot is taken, and the unidentified people are assigned to the "assumed terrorist" category.

Seriously, that's what's happening. The Obama administration now assumes that all adult male casualties are unlawful combatants merely by virtue of being casualties.

I don't think it was any different under Bush, but I agree...

It is not a good look, in either international politics, or military ethics...

[Clinton Huxley]

Where is the true US position?

Scenario 4 A suspected terrorist is in the open, amidst a couple dozen unidentified men. The shot is taken, and the unidentified people are assigned to the "assumed terrorist" category.

Seriously, that's what's happening. The Obama administration now assumes that all adult male casualties are unlawful combatants merely by virtue of being casualties.

Aye, shooting at a blank wall and then drawing a target around the bullet hole.

[Warren Dew]

Where is the true US position?

Scenario 4 A suspected terrorist is in the open, amidst a couple dozen unidentified men. The shot is taken, and the unidentified people are assigned to the "assumed terrorist" category.

Seriously, that's what's happening. The Obama administration now assumes that all adult male casualties are unlawful combatants merely by virtue of being casualties.

I don't think it was any different under Bush, but I agree...

Under Bush, there was no presumption that unidentified casualties were unlawful combatants, and as a result, there were far fewer attacks, and only on higher level targets. The situation was closer to your (3) - not that that's acceptable, either.

[JimC]

Well, if that's truly the case, it would seem that Obama is more the captive of the US military than most would have thought...

Sandinista, would honestly value your opinion in this particular case...

[Clinton Huxley]

Say it ain't so!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ap ... d-senators

[Warren Dew]

Well, if that's truly the case, it would seem that Obama is more the captive of the US military than most would have thought...

Or, this is what Obama wants, which is what an unbiased observer would assume. After all, Obama campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan in 2008, so he's just doing what he promised to do.