Sadly, I'm not surprised barely anyone showed up.
Sure 'occupying' hearts and minds is pretty much the same as 'winning' them, right?
It's remarkable that they had a hearing at all, so maybe this can be the start of something significant.
So, our military strategy for combating terrorism consists of out-terroristing the terrorists?
[sarcasm intensity=bitter]I know that our poor, overworked mainstream media outlets have more big stories than they can keep up with,[/sarcasm] but why the hell is this not headline material?
And five congressmen showed? WTAF?
One of them was Rush Holt. He seems to be one of the few who hasn't sipped the Kool aid.
And yet the GOP is all hot and bothered about getting the best friend of the second cousin of someone who once visited the Diplomatic Mission at Benghazi. As long as the witness will speak against Obama or Clinton, the GOP will attend.
What if we gave a war, and WE didn't even show up?
Grayson, too. I may not be particularly proud of my country, but at least I have some reason to be proud of my state.
I can say this for sure - if I were an American citizen, I would strongly consider emigrating and renouncing my citizenship.
Well said--I can't heart this enough.
Given the overwhelming stupidity that appears to happen on a regular basis down here, I agree with your sentiment about Grayson, but proud of FL? Hmm...I fear Allen West ground out that particular feeling in me.
We are doing that already: unmanned drones.
None of my Congress-critters found this worthy of their inestimable attention. But I am grateful for every one who did.
As someone who designs the targeting and aquisition optical systems for these machines, yes, we are out to out-terrorize the terrorists. They kill us, we kill them. They're welcome to stop anytime.
So, are you saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with terrorism as long as it serves a legitimate interest?
How will you be able to tell that they have stopped? When they'll have not attacked your country for over a decade, something like that?
so it's nice that the errors and details of america's drone strikes are being discussed... but i'm still really confused about the exact point at which it became normal and acceptable in the first place, that america can fly in and kill whoever they want, in other countries, that they are not at war with?
are other countries allowed to do this too? are they allowed to do it in america?
You seem to have a problem with not reading articles, because nobody in the appalling incident described had anything to do with terrorism, even by the pitiful criterion of geographical location.
Or at least I hope you didn't read it, because the idea that someone would read about such cruel murders and callously shrug it off with such an obviously inadequate defense of the practice is too sickening to dwell on.
Great questions. It's worth pointing out that the US has some agreement forged with Pakistan and Afghanistan about drone strikes, and so in some technical sense the practice is legal (but IANAL, so chill, Winston) according to international law. Still, the issue remains about whether American citizens or public officials would be okay with Indonesia leveling an American city block to murder an arbitrary person-of-interest.
A saying comes to mind, something along the lines of "do unto your neighbors as you would have done unto you" or whatevs. Damn you, Jeebus, for your tabletized morals and whatnot!
next page →