Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nimbus101

Bernie and Drones

Recommended Posts

Hello!

 

I am a lifelong democrat, who has always leaned towards the left in life.

 

I have tried becoming more political as I grow up into adulthood, and although I can't say I've reached a level of knowledge I am comfortable with, I feel like I am on my way.

 

Lately I have been "feeling the bern". I relate to a lot of the opinions he's expressed, and his ideas for helping America internally very much relate to me. I have donated to the campaign.

One thing that has me a bit concerned is his support of the Obama drone program. While I have seen some quotes where Bernie agrees that the drone program needs more precise targeting, the vibe I've been getting is that his outrage for the economic situation at home does not extend to foreign affairs.

 

In fact, I've felt a bit disillusioned by the Obama Drone Program in general. While admittedly, I do not have all of the facts to back up my disillusion, I feel that this program goes against what I had originally supported Obama for in the first place.Drones that have the potential to kill innocent people or people without a trial seems to be worse than torture/waterboarding. Yet where is the outrage? Is it because we have a democrat in office? If Bush had a "kill list" would things have been brought up differently?

 

Can someone who is more informed on these matters comment? Where does Bernie Stand? Why are liberal progressives ok with the drone program?

Look forward to discussing with everyone this campaign season!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two basic attitudes that one can take against drones.

 

(1) using drones to assassinate anyone is always wrong, as everyone has the right to a fair trial.

(2) in at least some cases, many lives can be saved by eliminating a known evil person with a drone.

 

So would you favor taking out Hitler early in 1939, before he invaded Poland, or not?

 

If you would, then you are using a relativistic moral code, and if not, you are using a strict absolutist moral code.

 

In the second case, everyone wants to take out only the bad guy. But sometimes this will be impossible. Say he is riding in an open jeep at 70 mph and no one is wearing a seatbelt.

Then you can add different scenarios: (a) the other passengers are all his underlings, ( B) he is with his wife or wives (3) he is taking a bunch of small cute and of course, innocent, children to the orphanage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi nimbus101. Welcome to the forum.

 

In post #2 Onassis gives some perspective on basic approaches to the use of drones. Attitudes vary through many shades of gray.

 

Bernie is for much more selective and limited use of drones than in the Obama administration. He is not ruling out this effective method of removing bad actors. But he objects to their relatively indiscriminate use up to now.

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/01/sanders-drones-foreign-policy.html

Bernie Sanders Embraces Limited Use of Drones as One Tool of Foreign Policy

 

SANDERS: I think what you — Martha, what you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective, there are times and places where they have been absolutely countereffective and have caused more problems when they have solved. When you kill innocent people, what the end result is that people in the region become anti-American who otherwise would not have been.

So, I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case.

The context of this statement was a discussion of the use of force. Sanders had just told Raddatz that “I get very nervous about my Republican friends who keep implying that the only way we could do that is through another war. War is the last resort, not the first resort.” Sanders did admit, “yeah, there are times when you have to use force, no question about it.”

For some (progressive) critics, this will be Bernie Sanders refusing to end the drone program and therefore embracing the idea of endless war. For other (conservative) critics, this will be seen as Bernie Sanders making America weak by showing hesitation in the use of force.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that has me a bit concerned is his support of the Obama drone program. While I have seen some quotes where Bernie agrees that the drone program needs more precise targeting, the vibe I've been getting is that his outrage for the economic situation at home does not extend to foreign affairs.

 

In fact, I've felt a bit disillusioned by the Obama Drone Program in general. While admittedly, I do not have all of the facts to back up my disillusion, I feel that this program goes against what I had originally supported Obama for in the first place.Drones that have the potential to kill innocent people or people without a trial seems to be worse than torture/waterboarding. Yet where is the outrage? Is it because we have a democrat in office? If Bush had a "kill list" would things have been brought up differently?

 

Can someone who is more informed on these matters comment? Where does Bernie Stand? Why are liberal progressives ok with the drone program?

Look forward to discussing with everyone this campaign season!

 

Sanders will not be ending the drone program.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/252270-sanders-i-wouldnt-end-drone-program

 

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/bernie_sanders_says_he_wouldnt_end_drone_program_20150831

 

It is highly unlikely he will scale back CIA operations and JSOC either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you favor taking out Hitler early in 1939, before he invaded Poland, or not?

 

If you would, then you are using a relativistic moral code, and if not, you are using a strict absolutist moral code.

 

Those in favor of assassinating Hitler in 1939 are doing so with the foregone knowledge of who Hitler was in history. If such knowledge was not available to them, as it would not have been to people living in 1939, assassinating him would not a question of relative or absolute morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sanders will not be ending the drone program.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/252270-sanders-i-wouldnt-end-drone-program

 

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/bernie_sanders_says_he_wouldnt_end_drone_program_20150831

 

It is highly unlikely he will scale back CIA operations and JSOC either.

 

While I'm against military action, including the use of drones, which is not in the actual defense of the United States, my main personal agenda is domestic. I still support Bernie because I feel he is possibly the only hope to bring back the middle class in the US and halt the rise of Oligarchy.

 

From a purely practical election point of view:-- Bernie's relatively moderate stance on gun freedoms and his support of military drone strikes, albeit "scaled back", positions him more popularly in the general election, once the primaries are over. He could get swing votes which otherwise would not come his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have saved the Kaiser and then not put Hitler into a position to enter power via the loss of WW1, from which Hitler became a disgrunted soldier.

 

Undoubtedly, Bernie Sanders will allow NSA to spy and drones and we'll be flying NATO missions against civilians and dropping the good old Depleted Uranium. I'm sure there will be someone, a leader overseas, and it will be his turn as a Democrat to hunt this leader and kill and drop DU hardened munitions into civilian areas with NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If their respective voting records are any indication, Sanders will be a lot less warlike than HRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree that Bernie seems less warlike than HRC. I just find it weird that there was so much outrage at waterboarding/torture yet drones are accepted as a necessity of war. Seems to be hypocrticial to me. Trying my best to understand so that I can fully jump in this campaign, but is my only sticking point so far. Still won't hesitate to vote for Bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always felt that the drone program was like drinking the Kool-Aid in that it never will work. Where we do use it, we use it in war-torn areas where there is no solid government, where only the infinitesimals who have no real voice are affected/inflicted by such a threat. And while it may be so easy for them to be neutered more by insane war lords already sitting at their door, I don't think any of the infintesimals are saying, well the drone killed some of my friends or a few of my family members by accident, yet the important reason behind their attacking nature is good, the big picture behind the unmanned drone strike is a good one.

 

We don't see the world as it is. We just don't. We don't see all the good people behind the few bad thugs. We just can't. We spend billions and billions in the technology of war, and we spend next to nothing understanding trying to figure out how to make peace.

 

Bernie's wrong about drones. He's not good at answering his support for gun rights. Hell, they are all that way. I wonder why?

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have saved the Kaiser and then not put Hitler into a position to enter power via the loss of WW1, from which Hitler became a disgrunted soldier.

 

Undoubtedly, Bernie Sanders will allow NSA to spy and drones and we'll be flying NATO missions against civilians and dropping the good old Depleted Uranium. I'm sure there will be someone, a leader overseas, and it will be his turn as a Democrat to hunt this leader and kill and drop DU hardened munitions into civilian areas with NATO.

 

I'd rather have saved the Kaiser and then not put Hitler into a position to enter power via the loss of WW1, from which Hitler became a disgrunted soldier.

 

Undoubtedly, Bernie Sanders will allow NSA to spy and drones and we'll be flying NATO missions against civilians and dropping the good old Depleted Uranium. I'm sure there will be someone, a leader overseas, and it will be his turn as a Democrat to hunt this leader and kill and drop DU hardened munitions into civilian areas with NATO.

We don't "drop" DU munitions. The GAU-8 gun in the Warthog.. shoots 30 mm DU rounds into tanks. Do you know what a GAU 8 is? It's a HUGE machine gun that has a SUPER rate of fire... you generally ain't shooting it in a "civilian" area.. If there's an enemy tank.... Pretty much ANY way to kill a tank poses some hazard to anyone close. In Kuwait.....if a Warthog was coming...the Iraqi troops knew to run AWAY from their tanks... quick.

 

WAR is never "plan A". We've been OFFICIALLY at WAR with Al Qaeda since 9/11, but in general..at war with Terrorists longer than that. When it comes to Al Q terrorists (especially) it's open season. Any way,any place. Mostly... we save Hellfires for the VIP's. The guy who's a nobody... simply ain't worth a $60,000 missle. Wee COULD.. in SOME cases, fire a Hellfire from an Apache, BUT....in countries where we can't be OFFICIALLY there... we can't do it with MANNED aircraft, with "boots on the ground" so.. we use DRONES. It's politics. A drone is not EXACTLY violating airspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from what I understand, the president doesn't just point his finger and say, "That Guy"

 

The CIA picks out targets and operations, and tries to get the president to sign off on them. If he doesn't, then the ball gets kicked back to congress or some senate sub committee or the joint cheifs until somebody, somewhere, gives them the greenlight to go ahead, with or without the presidents approval. If the president doesn't sign off on them, he gets called an "obstructionist" and he starts earning those grey hairs on his head.

 

I sometimes forget that all the president can really do is talk, he has no divine right to rule, he can't really order anybody to do anything, he has to convince them to follow him. I probably shouldn't have called Obama the CIA's house boy, but it just seems so damn frustrating, I mean he's the god damn PRESIDENT, he should be able to tell people what to do.

 

Of course, this is all just speculation, for all I know the president is a warmongering lunatic who eats puppies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent thread, the dreaded drones do more harm than good is true. We don't even know the full extent of drone warfare as it is being utilized by our own country today. I suppose one not knowing believes what they believe...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/drone-strikes-101-facts-a_n_2458066.html

 

I wasn't there as an american GI in Vietnam, but my older brother was. So were many of his friends who he went to high school with. My wife was there during the war, just a kid. Her dad got her out, he was a high ranking officer in the South. He actually got a Master's Degree from Cornell University, graduating top of his class in 1965. Our war in Vietnam didn't help any of them. The communist did win the war, and they were mostly unaided by the Russians - we all were told lies by our own government about this fact. The Vietnamese reds tried to indoctrinate all the people after they took over and they took that country down. How did they ever start to get out? It wasn't with our help. They figured much of it out on their own after much suffering.

 

China did the same with Mao. My dad was there in WWII. The communist took that beautiful country down and it took several decades before any change took place. Did we change China with Nixon's insight? Nope. They did it on their own, but a small bump to the Trickster that old Dick... it made sense to talk to them.

 

 

All this talk about economics, and none of it makes any sense. It all comes up as a big zero, and people wonder why is that? What happened to econ 101, just the basics? Monopolies, oligarchies, duopolies, oligopolies are

bad. How do you find a way to promote innovation and efficiency? How do you even start to teach people to learn on their own in a way that is not corrupt for the many, the infinitesimals that are the people who end up suffering the most with each downturn?

 

A: you stop with this superiority complex that is pushed by the West incessantly and has been for the last couple hundred years

B: you take a good look at the continued waste of resources and the outlandish style of mercantilism that concretely exists but is never mentioned

C: Leaders speak and communicate

D: strength is never found by spending ten times more in bombs Ad nauseam - Einstein

E: simply look at the history in the most honest way possible.

 

Here's the thing, we will in our lifetimes experience things like machine languages that allow for what some call now the perfect algorithm. Where computers can think on their own and out perform their human hosts.

No, they won't better the human hosts on their own, but yes, if the wrong human hosts put them to work for all the wrong reasons, that could very well spell doom for all humankind.

 

Look, I look at the stars and all above, and I wonder how miraculous, what a miracle there is for us all to embrace. I believe in hope and progress and I think very much so that if we find a way or a bridge to unite the majority

which is good, the future, the advancements for all are well beyond anyone's imagination. I think there's room in this universe for human achievement, an incredible and limitless amount.

 

Working together we could go to Mars and far beyond. We could also find ways to make this planet we call home a better place to boot. That ain't no easy thing mind you. But we are on the cusp. I think we are at that place, "Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his/her character. And that is what keeps him/her out of the abyss" Bud, are you listening?

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While I'm against military action, including the use of drones, which is not in the actual defense of the United States, my main personal agenda is domestic. I still support Bernie because I feel he is possibly the only hope to bring back the middle class in the US and halt the rise of Oligarchy.

 

From a purely practical election point of view:-- Bernie's relatively moderate stance on gun freedoms and his support of military drone strikes, albeit "scaled back", positions him more popularly in the general election, once the primaries are over. He could get swing votes which otherwise would not come his way.

 

I don't expect to agree with any candidate on all of the issues. When I look back at my stances in the past, I don't always agree with all of the either. So I don't always agree with myself. However, in my opinion, of the candidates I have looked at Bernie is by far in the most agreement.

 

Further, often there are statements made by candidates who change once in office. Even those in office change over time. It is difficult to predict the future so I don't know what any candidate will do once in office. However, those who say the wrong things typically behave in the wrong way, and those who say the right things do the right things more often.

 

I understand the need for the main priority being domestic issues, but I believe the foreign policies of the US create havoc and difficulty all over the world. There are terrorists wanting to attack the US, with reason. I want those reasons to change. Take the reasons away and most of the difficulty goes away. It would save billions of dollars and possibly millions of lives.

 

I don't mean to minimize the domestic issues, but I want a whole president; and as I said, Bernie comes closer than anyone else. I would be hard pressed to suggest anyone running for president has a better foreign policy than Bernie. (I admit not having looked at everybody, so there may some, and if so, they should get some publicity to get the word out, and perhaps change the conversation.)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • By king of the county

    Test


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...