[quote]Legionary wrote:
If an individual can’t accept that entities of the United States government necessarily do very bad things for very good reasons, their conception of America is an idealist pipe dream.[/quote]
Like last time, you argue from a position of practicality and reason. That said, I’m not a big fan of even the most remote possibility that someone could be drone striked on US soil. Once it is done once, the second time is a little easier, so on and so forth.
AT the very least, in the US, send in a SWAT unit. That way he can die in a “firefight” whether he picked up a gun or not.
Just like with the Patriot Act, I’d rather they lied about this stuff, than rub it right in my face that they can and will kill me at their will. [/quote]
So you’re ok with putting SWAT teams with families in harm’s way to achieve the same end result that a pilotless machine could do more efficiently?
I sleep just fine at night, and don’t have a single worry about the big bad government boogie man coming into my house and killing me
[/quote]
Good for you.
Must be nice. I’ll be sure to let the uncountable people murdered by their government throughout history know that YOU are safe, and our government could never, ever do what has been repeated time and time again thoughout history. Yeah, we’re different, and evolved, that’s it.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
If an individual can’t accept that entities of the United States government necessarily do very bad things for very good reasons, their conception of America is an idealist pipe dream.[/quote]
Like last time, you argue from a position of practicality and reason. That said, I’m not a big fan of even the most remote possibility that someone could be drone striked on US soil. Once it is done once, the second time is a little easier, so on and so forth.
AT the very least, in the US, send in a SWAT unit. That way he can die in a “firefight” whether he picked up a gun or not.
Just like with the Patriot Act, I’d rather they lied about this stuff, than rub it right in my face that they can and will kill me at their will. [/quote]
So you’re ok with putting SWAT teams with families in harm’s way to achieve the same end result that a pilotless machine could do more efficiently?
Interesting.
[/quote]
Yeah, because get this: they might hesitate when the loss of life of the “good guys” is there.
I sleep just fine at night, and don’t have a single worry about the big bad government boogie man coming into my house and killing me
[/quote]
Good for you.
Must be nice. I’ll be sure to let the uncountable people murdered by their government throughout history know that YOU are safe, and our government could never, ever do what has been repeated time and time again thoughout history. Yeah, we’re different, and evolved, that’s it.
[/quote]
Yeah, don’t forget America is the best most unique country ever…we work harder, we are the most ingenious, we are the most successful form of government mankind has ever known…American exceptionalism is a real thing, and we are not to be compared to any other country (especially those of the smelly European variety) and we just really nailed it…
No one in the national security apparatus is arguing for the capability, which makes Paul’s argument a straw man. Did you read the second paragraph of my previous post?[/quote]
Didn’t they snipe some innocent teenage kid when they took out a propogandist a year ago or so? Wasn’t that kid a US citizen?
Am I right in thinking that the “slipper slope falacy” isn’t that much of a falacy when a teenage boy can be slaughtered simply for being in the car with his father?
I think it was in Yemin or where ever, but god damn man. Really?
Yes the government does fucked up shit, but I’ll be convinced this is a good idea. [/quote]
Snipe wouldn’t be the term I would use with 100 pounds of high explosive. Wasn’t his father, Anwar al-Aulaqi, also a senior al-Qaeda recruiter and spokesman in the Arabian peninsula? As far as I know, its not likely that intelligence would have known that at the time. Even if they had, would it be prudent to call off the strike? Would we have extended the same courtesy to the man he answered to, Usama bin Laden? They were both targeted killings, weren’t they? Collateral damage has always been and always will be an inescapable facet of warfare. To oppose al-Aulaqi’s killing because of his son’s death, you would also have to oppose all forms of armed conflict to remain philosophically consistent. Yeah its fucked up, but so is the world we live in.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
If an individual can’t accept that entities of the United States government necessarily do very bad things for very good reasons, their conception of America is an idealist pipe dream.[/quote]
Like last time, you argue from a position of practicality and reason. That said, I’m not a big fan of even the most remote possibility that someone could be drone striked on US soil. Once it is done once, the second time is a little easier, so on and so forth.
AT the very least, in the US, send in a SWAT unit. That way he can die in a “firefight” whether he picked up a gun or not.
Just like with the Patriot Act, I’d rather they lied about this stuff, than rub it right in my face that they can and will kill me at their will. [/quote]
So you’re ok with putting SWAT teams with families in harm’s way to achieve the same end result that a pilotless machine could do more efficiently?
Interesting.
[/quote]
I have to side with Beans on this, using high explosives that kill indiscriminately is an absurd proposition in an American urban area, especially so when you have readily available and highly trained paramilitary forces with home field advantage, with logistical support out the ass I might add.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Did you read the second paragraph of my previous post?[/quote]
Did you read my responce:
LOL, yes teh military and police have such an impressive record as to never having made a lapse in judgement. Neither has the Whitehouse or CIA for that matter.
If their aren’t any weaponized drones in the air we don’t have to worry about it.
Doesn’t make it right in other countries, but that is an argument I’ll never win, as these people and you that defend them, believe they are infallable. [/quote]
Yes, as human institutions, they have, can, and will inevitably fuck up. Did I ever claim otherwise? Our rights as Americans do not exist in a vacuum independent of the realm of power, ambition, and violence. Your idealism has its place, but in the realm of Foreign Policy it necessitates that one naively assume that potential threats are rational actors and share the same values that you do. Works pretty well with other democracies. Now, hate fueled, non-state extremists? Not so much.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Quite frankly the idea of a sitting President killing an American citizen on American soil while he is sitting at a fucking cafe eating dinner (a la Jane Fonda) is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house.[/quote]
Tell that to the Branch Davidians Clinton burned to death.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
As far as I know, its not likely that intelligence would have known that at the time. Even if they had, would it be prudent to call off the strike? [/quote]
This is my whole point. Who is answering these type questions is my major issue.
We’re talking about lawyers/career politicians who nominate people based largely on favors for donations and/or other types of support, who are going to have final say.
Now a jury isn’t going to be perfect either, but at least, at the very least, the evidence is presented in an orderly fashion and given consideration.
Men lust for power, this can’t be denied. The longer we can hold off giving them the power that comes with these type killings the better.
My point isn’t that we should or shouldn’t have nuked the dude. I’m comfortable with the fact he more likely than not had it coming. My point is, mistakes are made, which you acknowledge so…
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Yeah, don’t forget America is the best most unique country ever…we work harder, we are the most ingenious, we are the most successful form of government mankind has ever known…American exceptionalism is a real thing, and we are not to be compared to any other country (especially those of the smelly European variety) and we just really nailed it…
[/quote]
Governments are comprised of people. People are fallible. Therefore government is fallible.
None of what you’ve said here, true or not, whether I’ve even said it or not, is at all relevant.
[quote]except when I’m irrationally afraid of it…
MUR-ICA[/quote]
Irrationally?
Not that I agree with that word, but I’d rather be “irrationally afraid” of government than invite in Hitler, like Austria…
Does anyone think that Paul’s filibuster may have been intended to put himself in the national spotlight for a run in 2016? [/quote]
Without question. It also had a much larger point, that goes well and above the specific question you will hear attacked by the left (and people here that don’t get it either.)
I am watching OFA, MM, the MSM and Social Media Leftys working themselves up into a self righteous, mouth frothing, tizzy already.
This was a chess move. And yes, was also done to get the reaction it did from the likes of the McCain’s of the world.
He is his father’s son, without question, but he is far from stupid. I believe he is a jew, not sure why but I was under that impression. So does that make him a window dressing too?
