Skip to main content

View Diary: I'm In. (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Still better than carpet bombing or shock & awe (7+ / 0-)

    The Fall of the House of Murdoch -with Eric Lewis and all the latest Leveson evidence out now!

    by Brit on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:52:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  not necessarily ... (9+ / 0-)

      What happens to us as a people when we can kill endlessly, quietly, and for free?  Why does al Qaeda in Yemen have far more support today than they did when the drone campaign started?  Even if you don't care about the morality, it doesn't work. We are creating "terrorists" faster than we are killing them.

      It needs to end.  There might be very particular situations where a drone attack could be justified, but it cannot be routine, and it is particularly dangerous to hand over entire wars (those in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere) to a classified program.  The people being hit know full well where the attacks are; the only purpose the classification serves is to hide the war from the American people who are supposedly in charge, and the Congress that supposedly has the war power.

    •  Is it a choice between the two? No, of course (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Little, blueoasis, MrJayTee, BentLiberal

      not.   So to suggest one is not really that bad because, you know, there has been worse is, imo, a very poor response.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:18:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Psychological insulation. (0+ / 0-)

        Moral triage.

        Emotional hygiene.

        What happens at the intersection of "believing in" politicians and the financial interests of the MIC?

        Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan; American citizens (and family members) killed without even the pretense of due process...and beat goes on.

        In America liberals worry about the mass murder of innocents by madmen with guns.  When it comes to the murder of innocents in Muslim countries by smiling politicians in handsome suits, that liberalism evaporates.  

        The Empire never had better servants.

        Any significant cut to the social safety net ends my support for the Democratic party.

        by MrJayTee on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:46:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah yes, let's paint all liberals with one (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund

          broad brush, shall we?  It's so accurate and accomplishes so much.

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:52:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whoa, chief! I'm on your side. (0+ / 0-)

            Any significant cut to the social safety net ends my support for the Democratic party.

            by MrJayTee on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:01:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And to clarify.. (0+ / 0-)

            There may be people who describe themselves as liberals who are against the MIC and its control, but in general, liberalism is notoriously pro-finance and socially centrist or at best center-left, like the Democrats who went along with the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.  The Democratic party has been brought near ruin by them.

            There is a difference between liberal and leftist.  If we are to have an end to abominations like the drone war, we need more of the latter.  I make no apology for characterizing liberalism as being pro-capital and pro-imperialism.  History shows it to be so.

            Any significant cut to the social safety net ends my support for the Democratic party.

            by MrJayTee on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:09:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We might be on the same side on this issue, but (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan, Quicklund

              I continue to take issue with your thinking you can put people into these nice little boxes and define words and labels to fit your arguments.

              I'm a liberal.  I have no problem with capitalism, except that it, like all economic theories, works in theory only and not in reality, and this country is far, far from even the theory of capitalism.  It's some strange system that puts risk on the shoulders of the public and profits to the already wealthy.  I do have a problem  with imperialism in all its guises and forms.  Yet I'm a liberal.  

              Few people fit in the boxes, so painting with a broad brush is nearly never productive.

              "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

              by gustynpip on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:42:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, whoa! (0+ / 0-)

                Having a difference of opinion on the meaning of "liberal" isn't the same as putting "people into these nice little boxes".  You've made way too much soup from one oyster.  What we have here is a difference of opinion over a definition.

                Now, it's fair to say not everyone agrees with my definition; and I recognize your right to define yourself any way you like, but I also recognize my own right to look at the history of that definition and judge for myself whether it applies.  Looking at the liberal parties of Western imperial nations and their behavior internationally, liberalism has cohabited quite peacefully with imperialism for well over 200 years, particularly in the United States.  

                That may not describe you, however you define yourself, but it does describe much of liberalism.

                •  You made my point. As you now say "much" of (0+ / 0-)

                  liberalism.  Whereas in your original post you stated "this is what liberals believe."  You certainly have the right to use whatever language you believe applies and I have the right to call you on it.

                  "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                  by gustynpip on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 12:39:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK. (0+ / 0-)

                    I'll say "most" or "much of" in similar contexts.

                    This doesn't negate the historically comfortable relationship between liberalism and imperialism, but it respects the feelings of people who self-identify as liberals, but differ from liberalism on key points like imperialism.

                    Fair enough?

        •  All of the bullshit is showing up in ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, Quicklund

          ... this thread. What do you mean by "American citizens"? Perhaps you should review 8 USC § 1481 and this.  

          Also, do tell what exactly goes into the decision-making for a strike to happen. You mentioned no "pretense of due process." The burden is on you. Do you have any idea? Or, are you just spouting fact-less bullet points? (I have actually read up on the process, but I think you need to do so.).  

          I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

          by Tortmaster on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 12:28:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure I'm following you, except (0+ / 0-)

            That you're obviously pissed off.

            Your link to wikipedia describes al-Aulaqi as an American citizen, including his US birthplace.  Sounds like an American citizen to me.  As to due process, there wasn't even so much as an indictment that would lead to a transparent judicial process.  The decision on which Americans to assassinate rests with the executive branch as judge, jury, and executioner.  

            Unless whatever the courts refuse to put a stop to is automatically due process?  Would that apply to what the Bush administration did?  The courts didn't seem to have had a taste for getting in Bush's way, either, never mind what any future Republican admin might do.

            Since say you've read up on the process, I'd appreciate a recommendation of what specifically I need to read to understand where you believe I'm wrong, because what I've seen are formalistic excuses like the ones used to excuse the Bush administration, and because the laws exist as interpreted, not merely as statutes.

            I'm not here for a pissing contest.  I'm willing to be informed and I mean what I say in good faith.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site