Yes, drone strikes

lot of innocent people killed in drone strikes......

that's what I hate about war! its always the innocent, and women and orphans that suffer most.

lot of innocent people killed in drone strikes......

that's what I hate about war! its always the innocent, and women and orphans that suffer most.

Well the actual target of that drone strike has never been named maybe it was the 16 year old boy his father Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen was killed (some say justifiable some say not) 2 weeks before, both I will add happened in Yemin a country that we have never officially declares war

There is also Samir Khan an American citizen who was killed in Yemin

Where does the outrage start? When it is a republican and not when it is a democrat?
Or are you equally as critical of both administrations (as I am)

But George W. Bush is responsible, right Binnie? Bush and Cheney secretly made Obama order all those drone strikes.

Well the actual target of that drone strike has never been named maybe it was the 16 year old boy his father Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen was killed (some say justifiable some say not) 2 weeks before, both I will add happened in Yemin a country that we have never officially declares war

There is also Samir Khan an American citizen who was killed in Yemin

Where does the outrage start? When it is a republican and not when it is a democrat?
Or are you equally as critical of both administrations (as I am)

dude, it was leaked to the media sometime ago that American citizens would be targeted overseas. I really think it was a Pentagon leak to desensitize everyone to what they were planning to do.

President Obama has supposedly authorized drone strikes that have killed thousands. Two to three thousand or better. But he really can only trust what the Pentagon or his advisers tell him. They may be the only ones who really know why a drone strike has to occur.

This might piss a lot of people off but....

War is just another government program..historically the worst though.

dude, it was leaked to the media sometime ago that American citizens would be targeted overseas. I really think it was a Pentagon leak to desensitize everyone to what they were planning to do.

President Obama has supposedly authorized drone strikes that have killed thousands. Two to three thousand or better. But he really can only trust what the Pentagon or his advisers tell him. They may be the only ones who really know why a drone strike has to occur.

But he really can only trust what the Pentagon or his advisers tell him. They may be the only ones who really know why a drone strike has to occur.

I enjoy almost every single OakAsFan post. I think that poster is a valuable addition to the board, something Pizzaboy once said about myself.

Even if you don't agree with OakAsFan, you certainly must be relieved that you have a poster with knowledgeable posts to converse with.

When I said that I was responding to calling one person a war criminal while not acknowledging atrocities by another andministration I see as hypocrisy but I could be wrong.



The U.S. Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones unless it is used as a last resort against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of grave harm. Even in the context of an armed conflict against an armed group, the U.S. government may use lethal force only against individuals who are directly participating in hostilities against the United States.-From ACLU

It being leaked doesn't make it right



Not really supposedly he has admitted to civilian deaths.



You can say it is the advisors Pentagon but we may never know, the same thing can be said about Bush administration and weapons of mass destruction he was told by his advisors and the Pentagon yet he is still called a war criminal. I will say I don't believe the War in Iraq was "right" and I think Hussein should still be in power as bad as that sounds



The President may get information from advisors but the decision is his.

I just don't see any good in sending thousands and thousands of troops in Syria, or Iraq, the wars over there may be the kind we can never win. is Hillary really that dumb.

We're living in times where independents somehow became the real partisans.

That doesn't make any sense at all. It's an oxymoron. The key concept is that PARTisan relates to a PARTy. Especially someone who knee-jerk instinctively defends their party and depends on the party's talking points to have an opinion instead of thinking for him or herself. So independents can't be partisans, which means we're living in times where partisans are so partisan that they falsely accuse independents of being "the real partisans."

Good post. To your first paragraph, looking for consistency in people to separate the thinkers from the partisans is helpful. Let's find out, who's standing on principle and who's just shilling for a political party.

I got called. Left wing "libtard" many times during those last years of Bush being president. Now I'm getting called a racist right winger for criticizing the government.

That doesn't make any sense at all. It's an oxymoron. The key concept is that PARTisan relates to a PARTy. Especially someone who knee-jerk instinctively defends their party and depends on the party's talking points to have an opinion instead of thinking for him or herself. So independents can't be partisans, which means we're living in times where partisans are so partisan that they falsely accuse independents of being "the real partisans."

Since the 80s political scientists have pointed to the 'myth of the independent voter'. It's been covered in most basic college poli-sci texts since that time.

Most data seems to indicate that of the electorate, only 10-11% of self proclaimed independents are truly independent. This is from Pew, Gallup, ANES studies/polls. Most independents are 'leaners' that fall in along dem/GOP party lines, rivalling the support of self proclaimed partisans.

The number of people who are not registering as a member of a party is increasing, but truly independent voters are much rarer.

I think it's obvious that most people calling themselves independent lean one way or the other ideologically. But that's besides the point.

The distinction isn't between independents vs people belonging to a political party but by people that defend their party no matter what, and hate the other side no matter what. That's what's usually meant by partisan people.

It's not about being dumb, it's about keeping the engine of the war industry running. And it's not only for profit, but also to test new weapons and to provide fresh troops with field experience. If you're a world power you can't sit still if you want to keep on top. That is why the U.S. is continuously involved in conflicts. Politicians like Hillary won't tell you this but it's the simple truth.

That's what partisan means? Thanks, guy. Must write that down. Just have to find a pen...

Anyway, someone had mentioned upthread that independents can be partisan, someone else mentioned that they can't be. My point was they can be, and frequently are partisan. Statistical evidence supports this.

Since the 80s political scientists have pointed to the 'myth of the independent voter'. It's been covered in most basic college poli-sci texts since that time.

Most data seems to indicate that of the electorate, only 10-11% of self proclaimed independents are truly independent. This is from Pew, Gallup, ANES studies/polls. Most independents are 'leaners' that fall in along dem/GOP party lines, rivalling the support of self proclaimed partisans.

The number of people who are not registering as a member of a party is increasing, but truly independent voters are much rarer.

Since the 80s political scientists have pointed to the 'myth of the independent voter'. It's been covered in most basic college poli-sci texts since that time.

Most data seems to indicate that of the electorate, only 10-11% of self proclaimed independents are truly independent. This is from Pew, Gallup, ANES studies/polls. Most independents are 'leaners' that fall in along dem/GOP party lines, rivalling the support of self proclaimed partisans.

The number of people who are not registering as a member of a party is increasing, but truly independent voters are much rarer.

Democrats should just start openly recognizing "partisan independents" as a segment of the Republican base, not unlike the tea party, just for the fun of it.