Obamacare vs Supreme Court Round 2: This time its personal?

[giblets]

Did Congress declare war on Yemen? Did Congress even declare war on some obscure militant group in Yemen? How are we at war with them?

They committed an act of war when they flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of Americans. On account of that I'm okay with having the government kill members of Al Qaeda. Even members of Al Qaeda who happen to have US citizenship, which of course makes their lives far more valuable.

[Felch]

So 100% of the people killed in drone strikes were involved in the 9/11 attack?

[Felch]

Since Obama took office he's killed 2,500 people with drone strikes. Some of them may have been guilty, but it seems strange that they were all guilty. I don't see how a few goatherds meeting up in Yemen is any threat to me. I'd wager that most have never done anything at all to hurt any Americans.

[giblets]

So 100% of the people killed in drone strikes were involved in the 9/11 attack?

You can't conduct a war without collateral damage. If you want to destroy Al Qaeda's leadership you'll probably make some mistakes in the process.

[dannubis]

We don't arrest people anymore because with the restrictions on gitmo it's more convenient to just shoot them.

To be quite honest our #1 problem in Afghanistan is our excessively legalistic attitude. We have to give people warning before shooting them. That was a new rule introduced after troops figured out the best way to take out taliban head honchos was kill them in their sleep. Now they get away.

Why, they could still wake them up before they shoot ?

[dannubis]

So 100% of the people killed in drone strikes were involved in the 9/11 attack?

Please post this in the next Israel vs Palestinians thread

[kentonio]

You can't conduct a war without collateral damage. If you want to destroy Al Qaeda's leadership you'll probably make some mistakes in the process.

So basically it's fine for the US to kill literally any person in the world just so long as they believe there might be a terrorist in the vicinity? Is that not the natural conclusion of your argument?

[Felch]

Please post this in the next Israel vs Palestinians thread

There's actually a meaningful difference in the circumstances. You see, Yemen is very far away from the United States. There aren't hundreds of rockets a year bombarding American cities from Yemen. But if you want to pretend like the two circumstances are identical, go ahead. It'll be one more reason for me to disregard your weak and unconvincing arguments.

[giblets]

So basically it's fine for the US to kill literally any person in the world just so long as they believe there might be a terrorist in the vicinity? Is that not the natural conclusion of your argument?

They need to have good evidence that the strike will hit a terrorist. Also, the local government needs to be unable or unwilling to cooperate in apprehending the terrorist by less violent means. There is no need for drone strikes in the UK because the UK has a responsible government.

[dannubis]

There's actually a meaningful difference in the circumstances. You see, Yemen is very far away from the United States. There aren't hundreds of rockets a year bombarding American cities from Yemen. But if you want to pretend like the two circumstances are identical, go ahead. It'll be one more reason for me to disregard your weak and unconvincing arguments.

I wasted 5 seconds reading that lame ass excuse.

[snoopy369]

I wasted 5 seconds reading that lame ass excuse.

It's not totally wrong. Sort of like the difference between me shooting someone who is stalking around my home vs. going into the ghetto and killing someone who looks shady. The former is much more justifiable than the latter, no? I think Felch's point is that perhaps we're overstepping our original goals here (keeping the US safe from terrorist attack) and have allowed mission creep to turn into "get rid of all of these people who we don't like".

[Guynemer]

I'd go ahead and change your "It's not totally wrong" into "Felch is 100% correct."

[DinoDoc]

Well to be fair in the case of the Yemen strike, the target in question was involved in the "work place violence" at Fort Hood.

[snoopy369]

I'd go ahead and change your "It's not totally wrong" into "Felch is 100% correct."

I don't think I'd ever call Felch 100% correct of anything, even if he said 2+2=4. In this case, as most, he's significantly exaggerating things to make his point.

[dannubis]

I'd go ahead and change your "It's not totally wrong" into "Felch is 100% correct."

"Civilian casualties are not the same under all conditions but they are the same under all conditions"

Or do we make one exception ? Or 2?