General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy son, who preferred Obama over Romney had some pretty startling things to say............
He doesn'th think President Obama is any better than Bush on foreign policy and maybe even worse because of his use of drones and his hit list. And the fact that he killed an American citizen. He just thinks he is the lesser of two evils. He is 21 and very politically aware. What do I say to him?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tree-Hugger
(3,370 posts)Thank him for his concern and introduce him to Democratic Underground. He'll find the truth here.
demwing
(16,916 posts)It's the OP's child, not some DU worry troll for fuck's sake
Ian David
(69,059 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Tree-Hugger
(3,370 posts)Response to Tree-Hugger (Reply #1)
Post removed
renie408
(9,854 posts)Cause that is some pretty shitty parenting there, my friend. The kids comments and concerns are legitimate and if they send him HERE, a good many of the members are going to tell him he is right.
I don't know why shit like this is so much more annoying coming from newbies, but it is.
Tree-Hugger
(3,370 posts)I guess because I am a "newbie" I thought that this site was good for discussion like that and would benefit her son. Shucks. 
renie408
(9,854 posts)'thank him for his concern' part that I found annoying. But GOSH GOLLY GEE WHIZ I guess you were being sincere, huh?
You know another thing I find annoying? Using emoticons when you could always just be obnoxious in print.
Tree-Hugger
(3,370 posts)Wouldn't want you to be annoyed.
dsc
(52,166 posts)and is ending the other that he inherited. I will concede the drone issue but ending two wars is a pretty big deal.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)The SOFA was established during the Bush administration.
morningglory
(2,336 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)during the allied bombing raids. For a time, he lived in an apartment building next to a railroad station. One morning, pre-school aged, he woke up from a night in the basement bomb shelter to discover that the half of the building in which his friends lived had been bombed. His friends were dead.
His view on the drones is something that I had never thought of. He says that while for many, many centuries "leaders" who took nations to war could avoid the carnage and violence and send others to fight, the drones enable the military to destroy relatively specific targets. Yes. The drones do not totally eliminate civilian deaths, but they make it much easier to kill the "leaders," and place the risk of death on those who actually make the decision to go to war.
It is a moral dilemma, but that dilemma always exists once there is a war.
Perhaps the precision of drones will cause leaders to be more cautious about declaring wars and more willing to compromise and make peace.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)will get you the greater evil 100% of the time. Sometimes a little better than the other guy is the best you can do, depending on the political climate.
He's right about the drone strikes, those damned things need to go. However, he's not right about Obama's overall foreign policy which has stressed diplomacy over going in with six guns blazing like Yosemite Sam Bolton would likely do.
Suich
(10,642 posts)Obama killed an American citizen? I don't understand. What do you mean?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)
...
In April 2010, American President Obama placed al-Aulaqi on a list of people the United States Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill. The "targeted killing" of an American citizen, sometimes described as an assassination order, was unprecedented. Al-Aulaqi's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court. Al-Aulaqi was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life. The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft in Yemen to search for and kill him, firing at and failing to kill him at least once, before he was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Two weeks later, al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was also killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen. Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar, made an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.
Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
catbyte
(34,437 posts)He was an American citizen.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)very likely what OP's son was referring to.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)who went somewhere and joined AQ and became a leader, did videos calling for the killing of Americans and such. He was popular and a leader because he could speak English well (of course), he was an American, and so was a good recruiter to the "cause." He was very dangerous. I don't recall if he was of arab descent, but he was darkish with beard and such, so fit in with AQ even if not arab.
There's no doubt about what he was or what he was doing. The videos were shown. Intel said he was a leader of some faction or something, and the videos seemed to bear that out.
My understanding is that he wasn't captured and tried here because he was in fact a member of AQ, a terrorist, had moved and was living in another country, and the country's policy about AQ and terrorism, and they couldn't capture him. One argument is that he in effect had renounced citizenship. Anwar Al-Aqar or whatever.
Here's an article that discusses both sides of it:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/11/obamas-killing-of-us-citizens/
Repubs tried to make a stink about this this past summer, but it didn't take hold. (Repubs, no less.) It's a sticky situation. You decide. As for me, I think it had to be done, in order to save lives, because he was high up and effective, apparently.
Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #11)
Comrade_McKenzie This message was self-deleted by its author.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I will never forgive him for that. It is a bloody stain on his legacy and should not be whitewashed. All without any sort of due process.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)The Iraq war was based on lies right form the start. Obama opposed that war and ended it. Took longer than my liking but... he ended it. I don't agree with the drones either but Bush's foreign policy cost thousand of lives and left thousand more maimed for life. I much prefer the diplomatic approach of Obama.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)and certainly when the two intersect it gets rough.
Bush could barely function with toadies, even allies were rough going.
Fence rider
(48 posts)He is all bunkered up! You can bet on that! I sure noticed they kept his ass under wraps for the duration of the entire election season.
Your son should have listened to Mitt! And not just the speeches, the actions, remember they DO speak louder than words.
His shoot from the lip bravado would have ended up killing more Americans somewhere in this world for sure!
How could you vote against someone because of his Predecessor, now that is just backward!
Drones are a neccessary fact of life today, can you imagine how many ground troops would be required for their type of operation? How many young men wouldn't come home just to get one commander or bomb maker that some guy with a joystick gets from a seat in the US.
Hit List? These people have openly stated that they have intentions to KILL as many Americans as possible! That puts them on my hit list too! If that doesn't put them on yours then i question your patriotism. Better to stop him with a drone than let him plot to bring down a plane full of civilians?
Has he done his homework on Mitt? Have him read the Rolling Stone article and see Mitt's true skill! Legal Theft/Job Elimination.
Lesser of two evils? Well maybe he is right but now it doesn't matter. Mitt is going back to his
real talent Being a FILTHY RICH thief!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Excuse me? Just why is 'war' or our new WMD method of killing foreigners, a 'necessary fact of life'?? Did you get lost? The Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, none were a 'necessary fact of life' .They are wars for profit and oil and other resources. We COULD just buy what we need, but then those greedy, corrupt Defense Contractors, like KB&R and Halliburton, and our mercenary armies, like Blackwater would have to go out of business..
Drones are our latest WMD because no one wants to see our army on their soil after the horrendous destruction and loss of innocent life in Iraq and Afghanistan any more. So now we kill people by remote control.
Can you explain why any of this was 'necessary'?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)and then read them.
toddaa
(2,518 posts)Personally, I find it a bit unsettling when my kids agree with me. Fortunately, the both think I'm full of shit, so I must not be a total failure as a dad.
1springhill
(63 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)not the first term when the radical neocons were almost completely in charge - He probably is not all that far off base,
What you need to explain to him is that in order for Democrats to beat back the charge of appearing weak on defense or soft on terrorism -killing a sufficient number of people including a lot of innocents as well as supporting draconian laws with grave constitutional civil liberties concerns are a necessary evil.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Obama isn't bringing any wild policy shifts to that area of our nation's record. Nor did Bush. Nor did Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan... We've been using the same foreign policy since Harry Truman.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)For sure Justice Ginsberg will retire before the end of Obama's second term, and there's the chance another will retire, and possibly even a third one might vacate their seat due to illness or death.
So, having one to three more new liberals on the Court is a great reason to be happy that Obama will still be Our President.
1springhill
(63 posts)Like I said he is very politically aware........almost majored in political science. He support President Obama because of the domestic issues, but like I said he feels very strongly about the targeted killings, especially US citizens.
sellitman
(11,607 posts)I don't. I believe there is always room for improvement.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)his foreign policy wasn't that much better than his predecessor.
How does Supreme Court justice have anything to do with drone strikes?
brokechris
(192 posts)But he did get us out of a war. And domestically Obama has been much better--no contest!
Lilyeye
(1,417 posts)My ex is in his 20s and voted for Gary Johnson even though he voted for Obama in 08. His new group of friends are Paul/Johnson supporters. He says the exact same thing and doesn't really like the President at all anymore.
1springhill
(63 posts)he liked him a lot.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)a third party board and smoke what the fraudster Ron Paul does, becoming a multi-millionaire being a shyster fraud talker.
people on Dem. Underground do NOT go third party, except in the very,very,very rare instance (like Charlie Crist in Florida vs. Scott vs. Meeks) where the dem cannot win and
the Bernie Sanders/Angus Kings where all 3 would have caucus'd with the dems after victory.
Sounds like more Ron Paul/Ralph Nader bullshit
NO third party ever.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)and there are more than a few of us long time DU'ers who agree with this kid concerning the drones and civil liberties.
My oldest (24) almost didn't vote, he said they were both bad. then I explained why Obama was the only choice of the two, "the lesser of two evils", if you will. One does some things you don't agree with, but the other does EVERYthing you don't agree with.
To the original OP: just continue to educate him while talking to him like the young man he is becoming.
randr
(12,414 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Vinegar ain't good
Oh and I voted for a republican this time around. Sorry, no democrat was on the ballot for that position. But het, I do no hold an us vs them world view.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)in all positions
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Simple, prop 14, the dem came in third place in June, only two top getters get on the General.
Eyes of the World
(93 posts)At least according to THIS long time "lurker"
former-republican
(2,163 posts)And if the Obama administration as was said by the President.
I will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon ...period
Well if sanctions don't work then guess what guys.
Another war
Cha
(297,574 posts)with that Ignorant statement.
1springhill
(63 posts)Not cool.
Cha
(297,574 posts)find it an enlightened statement?
1springhill
(63 posts)and he knows more about what is going on than most.............now if you are taking drones and target assassinations out of the realm of foreign policy then he would have a different view I believe, but it is a part of our foreign policy.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)I guess I could spend all night posting links on how Obama has followed the foreign policy of Bush
but really why do that?
In fact he increased bombings by ten fold in Pakistan , but again why bother if you are convinced other wise?
Cha
(297,574 posts)war on Iraq and his policy was never ending war. President Obama wrapped up bush's Misbegotten War ON Iraq.. and is winding down the war in Afghanistan.
PBO and his Admin are trying to Protect us and not start any wars. Diplimacy is Pres Obama's method except when Al Qaida and the Taliban is concerned because they're not interested.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)I'm talking about the current policy.
If Obama was President back then.
I agree with you that we wouldn't be in Iraq.
Lets be 100% honest about this.
The reason we were able to leave Iraq was because of the troop surge that at the time Obama opposed.
We didn't have enough troops to secure roads and towns. They would go back to the green zone and then
at night IED 's were planted.
Also the withdrawal date was set under Bush not President Obama.
I'm not going to make things up just because I support President Obama.
I don't do that. I didn't do it for Bush , when he fucked up I called him on it.
And I personally was against the war in Iraq from the start.
I'm not going to sugar coat anything here. As for the war in Afghanistan .
Obama is the one who sent a large troop surge, he could have said no we are leaving.
He didn't , he increased the war.
Cha
(297,574 posts)I stated bush's policy and now President Obama's Current Policy.
There's a Vast Difference.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)in many aspects when he took the oval office.
Is it because that's just the way of the world right now?
I can't answer that . But there's a lot of things the President could have done differently.
I support him because he's my President and I voted for him .
I think he's a good man but that doesn't change my view on his foreign policy.
Cha
(297,574 posts)say so.. but, don't lump it into "just like bush's" because it isn't even close.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)I've found that claim a few times in my interactions with some right wingers here in Oklahoma. They are trying to go after Obama on foreign policy because that is generally their territory or so they think, and Obama took all that away from them. The Republicans know that Bush name has became a dirty word with most of the public, so they think that if they can get the meme out there while tying Obama to Bush that they can make in roads with the public and tarnish a Democratic President in the process. It's all a game, and it's bullshit.
Cha
(297,574 posts)would they to lump Pres Obama in with bush. I'm sick of that re-writing of history.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Duhbya got us into two wars with the goal to have perpetual wars as far as our and our childrens' generation could see. Hence, Gitmo, where terrorists are actually bred. This has always been the goal of Republicans - all war all the time.
When President Obama took over, he was faced with a LOT of crap, but above all else, two wars that were making al-Qaeda and the Taliban stronger (since they can recruit telling their people we need to defend the homeland and Allah from the Christians and American aggression).
Duhbya, not President Obama, stirred the wasps nest and they came out in fury. Now, President Obama is faced with having to clean up, not only the economic mess Duhbya and useless, deficit-spending Republicans have left behind, but he had to face an abnormally hostile GOP in Congress - in addition to having to win over Democrats who mostly favored Hillary Clinton for president back in 2008.
I have a 26-year-old son who asks me about these things and I tell him the simple truth: President Obama has to clean up the horrible mess from eight years of a Republican pResident and twelve years of a Republican-controlled Congress, and it takes time to do it.
Cha
(297,574 posts)Foreign Policy, BlueCaliDem. The Terrorists that bush fomented with his War On Iraq is an important part of the equation of what's been happening since Obama became President.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It never ceases to amaze me when Democrats and Leftists forget this tiny but all important detail that separates the disastrous Duhbya foreign policy and President Obama's attempt to bring it to an end. A lot of people in those countries got hurt; innocent people with families. The wounds will take time to heal.
sense
(1,219 posts)feels the same way about Obama. He's always had difficulty seeing the big picture and gets very involved with just a few of the details. He's very smart, but doesn't seem to understand the slow pace of change in government, nor does he really "see" what has happened with with the Republican agenda and the things they've put in motion to destroy this country over the last 30 years or so..... He accuses me of promoting conspiracy theories when I tie things together over many years of their manipulation......
He's a big fan of Noam Chomsky, as am I, but I think if you're really only paying attention to what he's talking about you're going to find the problems of this world overwhelming and depressing. There are a lot of good things going on and I think that Obama's second term will be decidedly more positive than his first and he'll be more successful in helping this country move forward. I have sent my son long lists of the things that have been accomplished so far, most of which I don't think he was aware of. I think President Obama has learned a lot from the mistakes he made in dealing with and underestimating the sociopathy of the republicans and I think in his second term we will see a much stronger persona emerging.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)made of the nation he has to live in.
Oh, and to stay far away from the military.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Anwar al-Awlaki's SON grew up OUTSIDE of The USA and he was NOT the target of the drone.
In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad."
Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies." He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not." On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against American soldiers, and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."
---------------------------------------
Did you catch that? " ... raise children "on the love of Jihad."
He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son - the 'teenager' was the son of one of the Most Wanted members of Al Qaeda.
al-Awlaki's son lived in Yemen since 2002 - he was NOT raised like an American, The son was raised 'on the love of Jihad'.
There have been children as young as six years old that have been trained by members of Al Qaeda.
------
AND...
Anwar al-Awlaki's son knew the men he was with in the car were his father's terrorists buddies.
He traveled from the town he was living in to the town/place the terrorists were meeting,
the drone attacked one of the top terrorists after everyone left the building the meeting was being held in, they were in a car.
If he hadn't been hanging around the terrorists at the time of the drone strike he would still be alive.
He was NOT the target of the drone the terrorists were.
Here's a TIP: If you don't want to die from a drone strike then do not ride around in a car in Yemen with known terrorists.
Cha
(297,574 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)argument is morally suspect.
You're only supporting the son's argument.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)All they see is that he was an American citizen, and the Rightwing exploit that every chance they get. They don't bother to look into what this son of al-Awlaki could have become - a second bin Laden? And what loving father would bring his son to Yemen, knowing he himself was sought after, putting his young son in harm's way?
But that seems to be pooh-poohed away because he was "an American citizen", as if that absolves him and his family from any and all wrongdoing. It baffles the mind.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)HE was 16 fucking years old, for god's sake.
You apologists for this disgust me.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)if you can't stand the heat, don't put your son in the kitchen.
I'm sorry rational thinking people disgust you, but traitors who plot to harm these United States disgust me FAR more, and they should disgust you, and I hope you'll at least give a flying fuck about that at least.
And sixteen or not, he was already following in his terrorist father's footsteps. If anyone should be faulted for this poor boy's fate, it should be his father and his family who allowed this to happen to him, and who allowed his father to take him to YEMEN - you know? The country that's a haven for terrorists who continuously plot to attack our country?
When the red haze lifts, I hope you'll at least remember, that the target had always been al-Awlaki, not his son. Unfortunately, the boy became a casualty of war, thanks to his own father.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They had no loyalty to the US - they hated it. Anwar Al-awlaki entered the US on a student visa at one point (so he felt he was a foreigner) and spent very little time here.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)So legally they were citizens. They had the right to live here and contribute and say the pledge of allegiance and all that claptrap. And to fight for us if we were attacked. They did not chose that. They chose to actively go against us and even claim NOT to belong (entering on a foreigner's visa). They hated us.
Hell there are people in other countries with no right to our citizenship at all who would love us more.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)Not too much disagreement between the two on foreign policy.
Cha
(297,574 posts)Lying Ass mittLies Romney. And, the talkingheads? You're giving them as an example of credulity?
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Cha
(297,574 posts)Cha
(297,574 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Cha
(297,574 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)It would take a very courageous and brave president to put a stop to it. Maybe next time, but don't bet on it.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Huntsman is the kind of leader and man this country needs. Obama would do well to choose him.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts) 
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)And FUCK any SCAB that supports him.
Get it through your thick skull, Huntsman is a REPUBLICAN trying to fool epople that are politically naive into thinking he is not exactly what he is.
A REPUBLICAN.
I understand you now.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Even FDR had to fake them out for years to get in, and he was one of them. The screening process is pretty thorough.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)for the lesser of two evils. We could use three or four candidates. Our election process has reached complete corruption status and the system must be changed. I believe we will see a new Obama in these next four years, it would be the Obama we all voted for in the previous election four years ago. I will be patience.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)I don't think Bush's invasion of Iraq can be divorced from the Neo-Con's aspirations, which made very grim reading: the economic plundering that was envisioned and the sheer incompetence of some of the people chosen to work in Baghdad, early in the war.
Books he could read:
'The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time'., by Antonia Juhasz. She is an economist, and in the book she goes into great detail about the plan Bush backers had to buy out businesses in Iraq on the cheap, sell them to corporations etc,.
and the reasoning behind the many laws enacted by the Provisional Authority and why.
'Imperial Life in the Emerald City' by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.. choosing party loyalists rather than people with experience...
Re drone attacks, balancing perceived threats vs sending in more soldiers... No easy answer.
1springhill
(63 posts)He is a wonderful son. He studies and he cares about what goes on in the world, really takes it to heart. I will give him your recommendations. Thank you nenagh.
Response to 1springhill (Reply #44)
nenagh This message was self-deleted by its author.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)That right there makes Bush worse than anything Obama has done.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts) 1springhill
(63 posts)Well, maybe by your view of the world. However, he does have more class.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)The fact that the election's over, and you feel you have to "say" something to a grown man belies your prejudiced depiction of said grown man. 
1springhill
(63 posts)don't know what it is, don't care. Have a good night.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts) Night, Night! Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)seriously. the election is over and we won.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,239 posts)As for "making DU suck"? Well, you probably know that better than me.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)to do ANYTHING to protect the USA.
and I like drones myself, saves a lot of soldiers lives
Too bad they didn't have a drone back in WW2 at the start, and have one had obliterated Adolf Hitler BEFORE he did most of what he did.
Hope they will in the future save hundreds of millions more lives prior to armed wars where thousands of citizens of earth die.
and see how great Lincoln,FDR,LBJ and Obama are
Tell him(if of course you are talking about your son, and not just using a classic hit/run type post entry as sometimes people with almost no post totals use, I forget the five letter word normally used) that the fake equating of bush/to someone else is meaningless.
ALSO- tell "him" to answer who he will vote for in 2016.
I assume (ha ha ha assume, you know what assume means, right???) he will vote for
HillaryClinton45 over Jeb Bush, correctomondo, right?
because that is the choice coming.
but go see Lincoln the movie.
ANYTHING A PRESIDENT DOES IS 100% DOABLE, long as the public reelects the president.
If one doesn't like it, the public will let the president know by denying election.
(unless of course the president gets a blowjob from an intern, then they will initiate impeachment hearings.)
But of course, remember the most important if using the fake Bush/other person bullcrap ratio.
Remember Jeb Bush will be the nominee of the repubs in 2016
And remember your kid (if that is real), will decide then who they should vote for
Hillary or Jeb. Jeb or Hillary.
and never waste a vote on a 3rd party, anyone with political awareness should already know how the fake Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry line caused Bush in the first place.
SO I ASSUME your "kid" was a Carter/Gore/Kerry fan, correct???
Let's get some background here 1springhill.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)1. The war the drones are fighting is one that shouldn't be fought in the first place. The goalposts have moved all over the place since 2001, and it's starting to feel like the Vietnam War, when U.S. troops were fighting just because "we can't leave now."
2. The lives of the Pakistani civilians who are being killed are not "collateral damage." They are real people with real families who love them--and who live in a revenge-based culture. Each civilian killed by drones has relatives who will be duty bound by their culture to take revenge, i.e. more "terrorists."
Our government is wasting $250 million PER DAY on a war with no clear purpose (FACT: You'll never get rid of all the people who hate the U.S. Never, and your attempts to kill them off will just piss off more people. This isn't a government you're fighting, as in World War II. It's a loosely organized group of people with individual agendas, whether to fight for Islam or to avenge relatives or to gain wealth and prestige.). Most of that money, over $1 billion per week, is borrowed.
Furthermore, drone warfare is dehumanizing. The drone operator sits thousands of miles away, and it feels like playing a video game. If we're going to fight a war, I want the combatants to KNOW in a visceral way that they're killing human beings.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The son is lacking in education regarding military/war history. Hasn't realized how bad it was - he needs to learn about WWII and how many civilians were killed in it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Hyperbole aside, the drone campaign is creating widespread loathing and hostility to the United States. That is the opposite of something designed "to protect the USA."
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)this is not the 1940s or 1850s
we need more protection as everyone suffered for a decade after 9-11, until Obama killed Osama.
Had they used a drone on him a decade ago, the world would have been better off,
and had they rebuilt the WTC instantly, like they rebuild instantly in Israel, psychologically all would have been better
If you trust the president as I trust Obama, then there is no worry.
If you don't trust Bush,then don't let Jeb near the White house and there will be no problem.
Its who controls the buttons, not the button itself.
BTW, I would rather have nationwide drones, than one single legal handgun.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yes, I agree this is not the 1940s or 1850s. We are supposed to learn from the past.
Protection is a matter of quality not quantity. The TSA is the best example of that. "Everyone" is more hyperbole. The killing of bin Laden did not make us either more safe or more endangered. I agree that, had he been killed ten years ago, with or without a drone, the disruption to al Qaeda would have been more acute. As it is, the impact is far less except for propaganda purposes.
Re WTC, the NYC zoning laws are more formidable than al Qaeda could ever hope to be. I hope you're not advocating war for the sake of morale.
As a matter of fact, I don't trust Obama on the use of war powers. He has a record on this. The issue is the vague war powers to begin with. That is far more important that who holds the office.
I prefer neither handguns nor drones but if forced to at gunpoint, I would pick handguns. The technology and cost of drones guarantees a state monopoly on violence and eavesdropping.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)Wartime powers? When did John Yoo's theory of the unitary executive become standard orthodoxy at DU?
You've just proven the OP son's point.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--position ever since the end of WW II, that most of his fellow citizens care more about things that directly affect their own lives, and that if this is ever going to change it will have to be as a result of a bottom up popular movement.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--position ever since the end of WW II, that most of his fellow citizens care more about things that directly affect their own lives, and that if this is ever going to change it will have to be as a result of a bottom up popular movement.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Most criticism has been hyperbolic, especially in regard to the drone strikes.
aandegoons
(473 posts)Maybe your concern is pointed at the wrong concern.
trumad
(41,692 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)When you say something on the Internet that you can be sure would get your teeth knocked down your throat in the real world, then you're a fucking coward. Make fun of others' kids at your own peril, trumad.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Politicians don't just have to worry about winning over the people - they also have to worry about appeasing the various power structures that exist. The military-industrial complex is very real, and will not be dismantled overnight.
I wouldn't discourage his idealism, but I would remind him to think about the realities of the situation.
hockeynut57
(230 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Hundreds of billions squandered.
Um...no.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Polarized society and all that we live in.
Love him, discuss with him, realize he might have a point.
Oh and yes, empire is messy.
But jaysus some folks have real issues. You do not do what many of you are suggesting...as a parent.
toddaa
(2,518 posts)My personal parental philosophy is to provide my children with the skills to think for themselves and provide a safe place for open and frank discussion. All I demand is that they can provide a rational, lucid defense of their opinions and they are not just regurgitating someone else's talking points (including myself).
zonkers
(5,865 posts)n/t
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)Sorry to keep it short.
I guess you know your son better than we do, and how to approach that issue. If it were my child, I would approach it keeping that in mind and try and find out why he/she feels that way, where the information came from. Then I would give them the facts and links to back it up. Obama does not compare to Bush on foreign policy. I've found that to be a right wing meme.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)wrong with that. But Bush lied us into war, Obama has done nothing even close to comparable to the whole 'mushroom cloud' fear mongering of that administration. To claim that he has is wholesale denialism of the intensity of Bush's crimes. To say Obama is no better sounds to me like a defense of Bush's WMD lies and invasion of Iraq not to mention a defense of Bush's intelligence failures which allowed 9-11 to occur without interference. The PDB that said 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' was ignored by Bush. Your son seems to want to tamp down the culpablity of Bush in that regard.
While I am not a fan of armed drones nor of hit lists, anyone who thinks the US has not used any means in it's power to take out enemies for as long as we have existed is nuts. The fact that we know about it now means it is less covert, and less likely to be abused, less likely to continue as policy. Those who think other Presidents did not do such things are just dreaming the good old dream.
Anyone who can look at the Iraq Invasion and say 'that's no worse than what Obama does' is just not well informed, not only about Obama but about Bush.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)And then I looked at the time stamps.
Everyone was shitfaced.
Now it makes sense.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Are you Jesse Ventura? or do you just play him on internet forums?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)But the drone use IMO is not foreign policy, that is a war policy. Kudos to your son for being aware of what is going on. He just needs to keep paying attention with an open mind and he will find his way, and his party. Welcome to DU.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)At least about some things. Obama is no prince, is no prophet, and is not the second coming of Jesus. Many of his actions and policies are questionable from a liberal standpoint.
The American political game is just that. A game. It's all about choosing sides and pretending that one side is evil and the other good, without acknowledging the obvious flaws in that argument, or any flaws at all on the chosen side. It's a team sport, and the team is god. What the gods say and do are driven, not by voters or by the needs of the nation, but by the sponsors' agendas.
It would be good for the future of the nation if young people are willing to acknowledge reality; only then will it be possible to move forward with constructive change.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that came from those lies is no worse than things Obama has done. I do not agree with that. This does not make Obama a prince, it just makes him not GW Bush.
I guess for those who saw the Iraq ramp up and Shock and Awe as not all that bad might agree that Obama is as bad as Bush.
In English, it is not necessary for a person to be perfect to be 'better than' another. 'Better than Bush' does not mean 'A Prince'. It means better than Bush. Nixon was better than Bush. Nixon was evil. But still better than Bush....of course, those who think Bush was not that bad might see him as equal to other Presidents of either Party. That's not how I see it.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I don't think GWB was the worst; Ronald Reagan holds that place for me.
Better than GWB doesn't mean much. Obama said some things before he got to Washington that he didn't back up when he got there when it comes to war in the Middle East. He said some other things on the campaign trail in '08 that horrified me; the concept of unilateral action in Pakistan, for example.
He continued too many Bush II policies, including the bogus "war on terror." That's not as bad as starting that war, especially the way it was started, but it's not the foreign policy I want to see, and I'm okay with saying so out loud.
I can dislike or disagree with some of Obama's policies without it being about GWB. That's how we get the whole concept of voting for the lesser evil; every time someone points out something bad, somebody else has to throw a boogie man up to compare, instead of just addressing the point. It's a masterful distraction, and it has allowed the Democratic Party to devolve, in my opinion.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Vietnam, Korea, WWII. At least the drones try to take out specific bad guys.
Maybe Hiroshima will be a good lesson on the improvement in technology. If we must have a war, at least we can make some effort to exclude civilians. What of the death camps, the sufferings of Poland during WWII? Civilians were generally involved. American citizens got killed a lot more often in traditional wars. At least the US citizens killed here are thought to be working for the other side.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)That does not mean they did not happen and that they did not happen in an earlier time due to technology.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)upi402
(16,854 posts)Me too. I'm on the fence about drones, but he sounds pretty astute when it comes to the big picture.
Obama violates our civil liberties worse than Bush, that's for sure. He lets some real criminals go too, while persecuting others that did no harm...
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)god forbid, Romney had been elected and continued that policy?
Because I wouldn't. Which makes it easy for me to say that I agree with your son.
And I voted for Obama (and donated way more money than I could afford to his reelection). But it certainly didn't mean I blindly agreed with him on everything, or felt obligated to agree. It meant I agreed with him on enough things.
So I don't understand why you feel the need to say anything to your son. He is obviously able to draw distinctions and think for himself. Isn't that what you want him to do? Or would you prefer him to march blindly in lockstep with Obama, even when Obama's policies match Bush's, or what Romney's would have been?
I think you could learn from your son.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)ideal solutions are not optimal ... yet.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)That's a good beginning.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)a "libertarian" think tank funded by Koch brothers, and that others pushing this line have similarly dubious politics, for example Alex Jones and his various "left" guests including Chris Hedges. Then explain that their mission is to demoralize Democrats so the GOP can keep winning midterm elections.
My own experience is that this particular line is the latest in a long effort to suppress Dem voting by pushing false equivalence à la Ralph Nader, and you can see how that turned out in 2000. The grand master is Noam Chomsky but few will believe he's a stooge so it's probably better not to bring him into it.
That said, it would be better if the US stayed out of the affairs of most foreign countries, but good luck putting that genie back in the bottle, and the fact is that US foreign policy under Obama is far less aggressive than under Bush-Cheney. But we have a long way to go so I hope your son will see this as an opportunity to get involved in making it better.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)In terms of things we don't like about candidates (with a chance of winning), most thinking adults are voting for the lesser of two evils.
Sure there are a few true believers out there, but most of realize that the best we can hope for is to help the guy closest to our beliefs with the best chance of winning.
Edited to add: Its a ridiculous statement to say that Obama's foreign policy is the same as Bush's when Bush sent us into two war in his term and Obama has essentially gotten us out of one and will likely get us out of the other.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, people wonder why we're stuck with them after they buy into it.
melody
(12,365 posts)When challenged by a large, threatening collective, primates pack with the strongest collective with which they can best identify. It's not a ploy -- it's survival in the real world.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)But in this case, Bush was a much worse President than Obama.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Sure Obama didn't start any wars but really hasn't had to. Iran has been the only nuisance and that issue is still unresolved. If they start lobbing bombs, then we may not have a choice but to act.
There really isn't a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. There has not been any major geo-political shift while Obama has been in office. Our enemies and allies are still largely the same. Our relationship with Russia is still one of distrust.
Gitmo is still open. We still have troops in 150+ countries. We have 1,000+ military bases around the world.
Really....what's changed between Bush and Obama?
allrevvedup
(408 posts)That's what really made me sit up and take notice this election. That took guts and principle and I don't know many Dems let alone repukes that have that kind of resolve. He very nearly lost this election over Iran if you consider what was happening when Benghazi got hit.
So, yes, I'd say there's a huge yawning chasm between Dem foreign policy, or at least Obama's, and GOP foreign policy.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)What, you want your son to be all happy, happy, joy, joy in the face of more war, more violations of nations' sovereignty, more needless killing of innocents, more elimination of our basic civil liberties?
Obama is the lesser of two evils, a center right, authoritarian president who is willing to continue America's imperial role in the world. Just because he is better than the Republican alternative that was offered up doesn't make Obama good by any stretch of the imagination.
Sounds like you've got an intelligent, perceptive son who is willing to do his own thinking. That is a good thing, leave it alone.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)See Iran for example. Her son like you I imagine are letting CATO flunkies like Greenwald and Hedges pour banana oil in your ear. You need to read more critically.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Codifying the Bush attacks on our civil liberties into law with the NDAA, more warrantless wiretapping, killing American citizens abroad without true due process, really, you don't find that disturbing?
Yes, Obama got us out of Iraq, but then proceeded to double down in Afghanistan, and just recently signed an agreement to keep up to twenty four thousand troops in the region for ten years after the so called pull out date of 2014.
Meanwhile, he has opened up fronts in this "war on terra" throughout the Middle East including Yemen and Libya, not to mention in places across Africa, including Somalia, the Congo, and Uganda.
You are assuming that I'm a victim of propaganda, sorry, but that is a false assumption. One has but to look at the news and Obama's record to perceive the truth. If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem, not mine. But don't try to blow smoke up my ass that everything is just hunky dory, it isn't, and if you would take off your rose colored Obama glasses, you would see that as well.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Anybody who wants to honestly argue that Pres. Obama is as bad or worse than Pres. Bush in terms of foreign policy is basically ignoring the entire first four years of the Bush administration, and much of the second four.
Mind you, I do have serious issues with many of the foreign policy choices made by the president, and have been a vocal critic of him at many times over the last four years, but what you are saying here is so hyperbolic it's not even funny.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Has none of what I mentioned happened?
Look, if it were a Republican in the Oval Office with his own personal kill list, we would be damning him to hell. But since the current occupant has a D behind his name, lots of people simply turn the other way and say "Carry on."
allrevvedup
(408 posts)(killed by "friendly fire" in 2004) or Rachel Corrie (bulldozed to death in 2003). The al-Awlaki's deaths are unfortunate, yes, and the drone strikes are disgraceful and immoral, but to compare those crimes to the thousands upon thousands of civilians butchered, tortured, and falsely imprisoned by Bush-Cheney, including US citizens on US soil (Jose Padilla for example), is pure tea-party lunacy.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)First of all, the Bush administration, other than starting the war, had nothing to do with Tillman's death. Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was killed by our administration without the benefit of due process, a process, might I add, that Padilla went through and wasn't killed.
As far as the thousands and thousands of civilians killed, there is no doubt that Bush was responsible for that. Yet while the death toll under Obama may be smaller, mainly due to the fact that Obama has been in charge for a shorter period of time, thousands and thousands of civilians have also died with Obama running the war.
I'm sorry if you don't like reality, but it is reality nonetheless. It is reality that we are engaged in imperial wars and military actions around the globe. Obama has not brought the troops home, simply repositioned them. If you can't acknowledge this basic fact, then you simply aren't acknowledging reality.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)and burned through billions of dollars and thousands of lives with no discernible return on investment beyond record profits for Exxon-Mobile, Halliburton, Blackwater and assorted Bush-friendly contractors, profiteers and clients. We don't know who they secretly killed because they didn't tell us. To claim that the targeted execution of a relative handful of Islamic militants is as bad or worse is a perverse whitewashing of Bush criminality. Total drone deaths as of June 27, 2012:
source: http://www.juancole.com/2012/06/graphs-of-death-us-drone-strkes-visualized-serle.html
MH1
(17,600 posts)to get better* people into the political system, who may someday be able to achieve the presidency.
* by "better" I mean more matching to his ideals.
Also, you could discuss the mosaic of issues that affect us all, that there is no perfect candidate, and we have to make choices based on the aggregated characteristics of the candidates. Oh and that voting 3rd party is usually a wasted vote, but if he stays engaged enough, he may be aware when there is a time that a 3rd party vote is appropriate. He should be thinking in terms of getting the best possible outcome of each election, not on fulfilling his own vanity with his vote.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)I wouldn't talk politics with your son. No good can come of it. Obviously he has his own
perspective. We do not live in a perfect world and we are surrounded by some very powerful evil folks. Obama can't do it by himself. Maybe your son can get involved in something positive to move this country toward a better place.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its all irrelevant. He is being sucked into an obfuscating distraction. Our planet is dying.
Once anyone comes face to face with both the reality of the sixth extinction and the futility of politics, then they can be free from the political sideshow that means nothing. He must seek meaning and resilience as we approach an extreme biological bottleneck
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)lolz
But he thinks Obama is just like Bush?
Ever find yourself saying "Everyone's out of step but my Johnny"?
Julie
patrice
(47,992 posts)hidden the problems there are with policy in our political system. I'd like to see anyone produce a quote that contains, "I promise that I will give you ________." He has, in fact, shown a bright light on much of what does go on and has reminded everyone that he is not a king (though we have grown quiet comfortable under Republican kings), so what happens is to a large extent the effect of what individual persons, one at a time, DO and that's NOT people who are waiting around to see what everyone else is saying/doing, but those who work on understanding and seeing clearly enough what needs to be done in their own lives and set about figuring out how to do that.
The difference between "evils" is defined by each of our own, one-at-a-time INDIVIDUAL, active commitments and responsibilities for what happens.
An evil we are facing right now is the very real and dangerous fact of blow-back from our generations of violent actions in the world. What would you do if another country was responsible for killing lots of your friends and families? Forget? & What would you do if you were responsible for what happens with such people who are so passionately committed to revenge that they'd operate outside of all known laws for ALL time in order to do any one of the many many forms of harm that are possible upon your people who, while indirectly responsible for said crimes, are more innocent, or at least ignorant, compared to the real evil-doers, than they are guilty? - AND - even though you're responsible for what happens, there's no way to actually change those on all sides who are generating the hate and revenge?
If a person is maturing/developing person at all times, until you die, you can be passionately in love with our Constitution and respect our laws. People who are growing do not believe fairy stories just because it's fun and because they want to. Adults recognize the truth. It is the truth about all laws, including our Constitution, that they are imperfect (doesn't take much of a look at the Constitution to establish THAT). Their imperfection is in the nature of all things, but that doesn't mean that it must be accepted, nor does it mean that we should hate those flaws that truth/reality inevitably manifests, flaws like the necessity of defending ourselves. The challenge to all true lovers, including those who claim to love our Constitution, is to love the LIVING dynamic of a thing that we see manifested in interactions between "perfection" : "error".
This applies to the fact that it is not possible to write a perfect Constitution, nor perfect laws to suit every last single one of the, to all practical intents and purposes, infinite permutations of circumstances, some of them waaaaaay more dangerous than others, that need some degree of the stability. We have historically acted collectively to provide some degree of stability by our efforts to regulate ourselves and others through various means, including law and The Constitution, but we DO know that we CAN'T write perfect laws, though we talk about that effort, and the Constitution, all of the time as though we do. This is why process is so important, especially the processes known as law.
Law can't be perfect and if we tried, we'd have to write laws for absolutely everything and that's not only not possible the effort to do so is not desirable to human growth and development. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this, but too often, because of sloppy moral development, we pretend tooooooooo much that what happens is the responsibility of external authorities, like law, like The Constitution, like government, like churches, like mom & dad, or families, or our peers, so if I/we can just get away with it, it must be okay, right? And responsibility, and hence autonomy, remains FOREVER external.
Our history has placed us in an extremely dangerous environment. Our laws can't perfectly protect us. We really have ALWAYS depended upon the character and the primacy of individual conscience, though we pretend otherwise and that fact, our reliance on individuals to do the right thing, is only really just much more evident now than ever. EACH of us must make that conscience call and Presidents in particular have special challenges in that regard, so it would bode better for all of us if, as we make our own conscience calls, we take particular care with things like what we all just did on November 6 and pick people who demonstrably manifest the ability to think critically and honestly, decide and then to stake their own lives on the outcomes of what they do. And, yes, to me this means we should figure out how to elect more people who actually do live lives like our own.
Each of us must do our best to live in reality; we don't have to hate our imperfect laws and the imperfect Constitution to do that, in fact, we can love it better for what it really is and what it REALLY means about who we are by what each of us is becoming.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)using people's own terminology to say what I want to say, rather than speaking to them in foreign concepts, such as the challenges posed by trying to judge things (in process) FOR OTHERS as "lesser", "two", or "evil" or not and then punishing them for not agreeing with me.
In this particular instance, my point was that what things actually are (despite these or other labels) are the result of ongoing individual commitments to the truest praxis possible. That's something PO is called to do; that's something each and everyone of us is called to do.
patrice
(47,992 posts)things are so significantly less bad than their alternatives that our choices shouldn't be such a problem, still that doesn't mean that we can just ignore whatever the down-side is no matter how small we think it is, because that can have consequences when placed within macro-contexts, something ecology has shown us. Realistic awareness is the most functional state of being and pretending that something is perfect is not realistic.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)sorry I led you astray, son with all those years of republican talking points and Fox news I pounded into your brain.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The drone program and killing American citizens who fight for Al Qaeda in a combat zone are allowed under the rules of war. No the war wasn't declared, but nobody (not just the US) declares war anymore, and really hasn't since World War II. It's an antiquated formality.
So I agree with your son that this is disconcerting. Wars usually have end dates and they have limited battlefields. Thus, you can't use the rules of war to just kill anybody anywhere you like. Essentially we could in theory do that right now because the 2001 AUMF doesn't take us to war against a nation.
Now I'm not losing sleep over the thought that the US government will start using these powers to silence political dissidents, because I don't believe in slippery slope arguments. Still, I'm not sure I like them having that much power and I don't know if all of that killing is really necessary.
Fla Dem
(23,736 posts)Unfortunately we are still cleaning up the mess left by the last administration. However, if your son is progressive or left leaning, then President Obama is in no way the lesser of two evils. There is so much more to support him for than rail against him. No president or administration will ever satisfy all citizens 100%. I myself am disappointed the administration did not aggressively pursue criminal charges against the hedge fund managers, bankers and financial services executives, who brought our economy close to the brink of depression. But to say my support of him is the lesser of 2 evils would be way over the top.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Although I don't think Clinton was any different, nor would H. Clinton be any different.
Democrats are just as evil when it comes to foreign policy as Republicans. After all, who prosecuted the Viet Nam war? Lyndon Baines Johnson (for the most part).
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Fuck the bastard and may he rot in hell.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)dazzled by OBVIOUS party partisan BULLSHIT and might be annoyed by your attempt at that because you would have to bullshit or flat out LIE and that is an insult to the intelligence of any politically "aware"person. the DEMS are far better on gay and women's rights issues but i am sure that is not much comfort to those on the "receiving end' of our foreign policy.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)None of them were named Solyndra, so probably not.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)and despite whatever misgivings he has over Obama's foreign policy voted for him - that shows maturity. I think it's good that he thinks for himself. With age comes perspective however, and while there are aspects of Obama's foreign policy that can be frustrating or even downright disturbing (kill lists, especially with American citizens on them should be of great concern for all of us), the contrasts between Bush and Obama are great. Otherwise, the neocons wouldn't have been so desperate to boot Obama out. We should all be thankful they lost. A Romney presidency would have meant a much greater probability of a full scale war against Iran.
The drone strikes and the innocent civilians killed due to them is and should be a moral concern for us all. I view them as a necessary evil though mainly because there few if any alternatives. The fact is that terrorist cells do operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan with impunity. The governments in those countries (as well as those like Yemen) are unable and often unwilling to cooperate. Unless we as a nation are willing to commit and risk our troops' lives to eliminate these targets, drones will be continued to be used.
I'd advise him to do some more reading from different sides of the issue. There are definitely issues with the way (and the frequency with which) they are used, but if it comes down to risking soldiers' lives or sending a drone to kill known terrorists, it's preferable to send in the drone. This may sound cold, but I'm guessing that's the rationale the administration is making when launching these strikes. Ideally the governments would clamp down harder on these groups.
mzmolly
(51,003 posts)to drones?
Bush killed thousands of American citizens.
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
Obama ended the war in Iraq, he hasn't started new conflicts.
Your son sounds ill-informed vs. politically aware.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Maybe he should post in this thread to tell you a thing or two.
renie408
(9,854 posts)And as I tell him, Obama is President of the United States.
Not Black Jesus.
Yeah, there are some areas where intelligent people might disagree with his policies. I have a few myself. I am not a believer or a follower and I don't need the man to be perfect. I just need him to be trying and to be better than the other guy. I am not 100% comfortable with the extent of his use of drones. But that doesn't mean that I throw the whole man away. I put it all on a scale and see which way it tips. It is still tipping to the good for me at this point. Every person has to decide for themselves, though, which way the scale goes.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)DO YOU GET MY DRIFT, HMMMMM?
renie408
(9,854 posts)You lost me with the '#43' thing.
I am assuming you either do not credit ANY criticism of Obama as you think he is perfect and therefore possibly the Messiah, or maybe it is just THIS criticism you discount? Or do you find the method of drawing attention to the criticism disingenuous?
Cause I am thinking that there is room for people to find the use of drones disturbing, so maybe it is the method of bringing it up that you are dismissive of?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Then disown the idiot, and change your name.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)but they replace weapons that used to kill thousands of innocents.
Bush started two wars. Obama ended one and is winding down the other.
Bush rejected alliances when they didn't dance to his tune. Obama has begun the long process of repairing those friendships.
Bush endorsed torture and under him it became the norm. Obama rejected it outright and the practice has been ended.
Bush lied. Obama might chose his works carefully some times, but when there's been a problem, he steps up and owns it.
Bush said he didn't really think about the man who killed 3000 innocents on American soil. Obama ordered that man killed.
Bush showed an open contempt for Congress, the general public, and the rights of those who didn't support him.
Obama has bent over backwards--even pissing off his own base in the process--to encourage bipartian cooperation.
Bush had to mull over whether scientists could use stem cells to fight cancer. Obama mulled over extending equality to gays.
Is Obama the lesser of two evils? Well, no one is perfect, so inevitably... Yes, he is. But he is so by an immense margin.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Some here deny your son's charges while others agree with him.
Who is offering a vision for change?
I think we need to change the Supreme Court before any meaningful progress can be made. Otherwise the Robert's court will just ratify the crimes of the cabal. There can be no justice til this court os changed, and even then it will be a long struggle.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)WE did. We allow our Politicians to reauthorize the PATRIOT ACT. OUR President signed it. We did NOT take him to task for it. WE DID NOTHING TO PREVENT IT. It is one of the things that make me grind my teeth about President Obama. That he reauthorized that Civil Liberty killing law when he campaigned to trash it. I give him a pass on Guantanamo Bay, the Congress, which included a ton of Democrats shit him on that deal. But the PATRIOT ACT was all set up to die, and he signed the reauthorization act.
President Obama, our President, the President I donated to help re-elect, the President I voted for, orders the Drones in. The complaints of the young man are valid. President Obama ordered the death of an American Citizen by Drone strike. Not the Supreme Court. Do I like that decision? No. Because all we refuse to learn after centuries of examples is that Violence results in Violence. Until everyone sits down and talks, no peace can, or will exist. Look at Europe. How many times did France and Germany have wars? Veterans from the previous war led the next campaign against the hated enemy three times at least. Probably many more than that. After the Second World War, we finally sat and talked it out. Look at Europe now. The Euro group is going, not smashingly well, but still going. France and Germany discuss differences, they don't man the trenches and start the bugles to blowing.
We have to sit and work out our differences, and as long as they're blowing up our troops, and our people, we'll keep dropping bombs on them from planes and drones. They won't stop, and neither will we. Where does it end? After fighting big Desert mistake number two, are we now preparing to fight big desert mistake number three in another five years? I'd bet yes. Because we won't figure out how to live and let live.
The Supreme Court has shit to do with any of that. The Roberts Court could issue an opinion that Drone Strikes are hunky dorey, and in the end, the President decides. Use them or not, order them in or not. Bomb or not. All of that is decided by one person, and it ain't the Robert's Court.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I seriously doubt that a veto of the Patriot Act would have brought about the positive changes that we're dreaming of. The reauthorization was very popular with Congress. My guess is that we would have a Republican president-elect right now had he done so.
I'll tell you what though, his closing Gitmo by keeping it open pissed me off more than anything he's done since. It was too much of a Bushism for me to handle, more blue skies bs, and to do it as his first official act, well that just sent me over the edge.
As an aside, he really didn't sign the reauthorization, it was done by autopen since he was in Europe at the time. I only mention this because of its symbolic value. I believe there will be a better case that can be made against the Patriot Act when it comes up again in two years. The public is listening more now than in the recent past. Sanity seems to be slowly returning.
I think it's an eternal struggle, one where you can easily win the battle but lose the war, so to speak. And the stakes are very high. I believe that there are those who long to launch a nuclear first strike. They want it very bad. They were not supporting Obama.
I am convinced that war crimes have been committed under this president's watch, but again, we don't seem to have any effective way of dealng with it, any more than we did under previous administrations.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)You veto the PATRIOT ACT. You stand up and hold a press conference. "I Vetoed this because of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Sixth Amendment are all violated by this act. It is an abomination, and as we feared, abused with astounding regularity by the Federal Agents. We Civil Libertarians warned that the Federal Agents would abuse this, and as I've learned, it has been used over ten thousand times to circumvent the Due Process protections. I might reconsider, if it had been used sparingly, but it wasn't. It was used when the Federal Agents did not have enough evidence for a Search Warrant. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and I will not sign this legislation into law which attacks it's very core of protections for the individual."
Then the debate is on. Let the FBI explain why they've used ten thousand letters to circumvent due process. Don't tell me we've had that many Anti-Terrorism cases, because there would have been a mention that we caught a battalion of terrorists in the United States. Even the Faux News Legal team would have to admit that telling a suspect that they can't talk to a lawyer is not in keeping with the spirit of the amendment. So who would get up there and defend those abuses? Sure they would have some straw man ticking time bomb argument, easily shot down. "What do we do if we KNOW that he's got the information?"
"Call a Judge, get a warrant. Judges are on call all night and even on weekends and holidays for that kind of a thing. We have panels of secret judges who don't do anything but this kind of a thing."
"You don't have time."
"You have time to get a letter from your superior, but not to make a phone call to a Judge?"
The argument is easy, and it's constitutional. We had the chance, we blew it. Just because I wasn't served with one of those letters, and YOU weren't, doesn't make them right for ANYONE to be served with them. Being thrown in jail without bail, without access to council because you wanted to talk to a lawyer about the letter, and the information they demanded is wrong. Morally, and constitutionally wrong. We know it, we've gotten soft because we don't want to make waves while WE're in office. If not now, when?
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)But Bush started the Iraq war on the basis of nothing but his Daddy complex; nothing Obama has done is remotely comparable.
Time for change
(13,718 posts)Having people assassinated without any kind of due process is a crime and, in my opinion immoral. Worse yet, in the course of these drone strikes, many innocent bystanders, many of them children, have been killed. Furthermore, these actions have generated widespread hatred of Americans throughout much of the Muslim world, thereby increasing, not decreasing our risk of terrorist attacks.
Many DUers felt, rightly, that George W. Bush should be impeached, among other things, for actions similar to these. Why should we feel differently about it when conducted by a Democratic President?
I do think that Obama is better than Bush. At least he didn't start an unnecessary war. But he certaininly has continued one much longer than was necessary.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I say that because he sounds suspiciously just like the third partiers here.
Oh, and a course in game theory would help, too, if he still hasn't figured out why the US can't have third parties by then.
If that doesn't work nothing will. You might as well tell him to organize a constitutional convention so we can have a parliamentary system. I'd support it.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Perhaps we should admit that our party is better than the Rethugs, but not nearly as good as it COULD be. Nobody talks better than we do. We talk about the rights of the individual, then we join the Rethugs in voting for, and signing the PATRIOT ACT. Sure Liberty is important, but it's far more important to empower the secret police. Do you remember when we called them the Secret Police? I do, it was about four years ago, when our candidate Senator Obama was running for office.
Are we better than the choices offered by the Rethugs? Yes. Absolutely. No doubt about it. Can we do better? Yes. We have to, because if we don't, those third parties are going to grow again, and again siphon off votes from our party. We can start to live up to our rhetoric. We can shut down the PATRIOT ACT and we can demand that our elected officials shut down the torture facility at Guantanamo Bay. If I wanted a Fascist Right wing government, I would be a Repug. We can do the things we talk about, we can stand up for principals, and demand our elected officials vote the way we feel. WE put them there, WE campaigned, and WE donated. We talked about the issues to people all over this nation, and those issues haven't changed. Why are our elected officials changing? We won. Yet now we've got Democrats talking about jacking the age up on Social Security. Apparently they think a lifetime isn't quite long enough before you retire. If we jack the age up, perhaps a few more will die before they retire. If we jack it up a lot, perhaps a lot will die before they retire and we can use that money for more drones to splat people with.
We win, and then capitulate before we even get started. That is what I think this young man is talking about. We need to live up to our ideals, those things we campaign on, and hold up as a difference betwen us and the fucking RW that inflicted this crap on us. Having Bush and the Repugs put the PATRIOT ACT on us was bad enough. To have our own party renew it is intolerable.
Texas Lawyer
(350 posts)agreed with on more issues, we'd lose a 50 state landslide.
I did not support Obama in the primary in 2008 because he's a moderate (and -- to his credit -- he's pretty candid about it; anyone who's read his autobiographical writing will see that he not bleeding heart liberal Democrat much less a dreaded "Socialist" .
Jimmy Carter has been a great ex-President -- especially on foreign affairs -- but he was not more liberal than Obama on most issues. Clinton was a great president (especially when you compare him the the guy he replaced, the guys he beat and the guy who came after him) but he was no flaming liberal.
Johnson? Moderate. Kennedy? Moderate.
We haven't really elected a liberal president since FDR.
We could possibly nominate a liberal (that's who I'll support in the primary), but the more liberal the candidate we nominate in the primary, the less success we typically have in the general election.
Sometimes you nominate a Bill Clinton or an Obama instead of a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren, which can be disappointing to a true liberal, but the consolation from nominating a moderate is that, if we nominated Sanders or Warren, we run a greater risk of electing a Bush/Cheney- or a Romney/Ryan-type ticket.
