Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - NationalThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.
Okay, transfer this scenario to something we all know. In World War II we bombed whole cities to get a factory or an entire train to get one man and his staff. Would it be acceptable to target say Feld Marshall Rommel if we also killed his entire family, staff, and some hotel employees. I think the answer is yes from today's prospective. In 1944 there was a certain expectation of civilized behavior but that ended with that war. Patton wanted to meet his opposite number on a field between the two armies armed with revolvers (Patton was an Olympic pistol champion) and their battle would decide the entire battle. If there was an alternative would we have taken out a staff car, driver, aid de camp, and bodyguard to get Rommel? Not a doubt about that. They were all military. That would be the difference; one is a no brainer and the other takes some thought. In the latter scenario the decision would be made by the president. That is a concern from the latest speech; Obama wants to give the authority to lesser mortals so he is out of the loop.
In WWII, we didn't generally "bomb(ed) whole cities to get a factory". Whole cities were bombed while attempting to destroy a factory.
Now I know you don't see a difference in those 2 statements but there is a major one.
One is a reflection of policy and the other is a reflection of combat capability.
Whole cities with multiple factories were bombed.
The one example that comes to my mind was a major transportation/communications hub that allowed refugees to escape an advancing army and to move reserves to reinforce a front. It also sheltered 500,000 to 1,000,000 people. There wasn't much left then. Mostly rebuilt since the Russians pulled out in 1989, it is once again a beautiful city. I have been lucky enough to go there several times for business. This example is Dresden.
A train is a single, large moving vehicle. Tough to destroy one car.
In WWII, a civilian on a military train was fair game. If our military knew Rommel was on a military train (other than a hospital train or some such), they would not have hesitated to destroy the train and all of it's passengers.
How can I say that? Operation Vengeance. Another example of an American President saying kill this man. Two planes carrying Yamamoto and his staff were intercepted using information from broken code messages.
So it looks like we may all know about this but it's obvious you don't.
You don't even understand that WWII and the counter-terrorism war have few similarities in the areas you are trying to compare. Right down to you using Patton, a brilliant combat soldier but a PR nightmare, as a valid voice of policy. He was not "civilized" when it came to combat. He understood the difference between his whimsical musings and the brutal realities of combat. He knew he would never face his opposite number for one on one combat in the real world. In the war on terrorism today, Patton's mouth could create as many, if not more, new soldiers as he killed.
Terrorists surround themselves with their own or other's families. There will almost always be collateral damage. It's inevitable.
So your statement the President is trying to distance himself from a decision is instantly suspect. As you have said many, many, many, many times, the President is ultimately responsible for all decisions. I think he is doing exactly what you have asked him to do. More transparency in the decision process. But that really isn't what you wanted, is it? Oversight is good. It keeps the record straight.
Written records are great. It keeps lowlife, motherfucking, cocksucking, blue balled bastards, lying lowlife pieces of shit who wouldn't know the truth if it came out of the dick they were sucking, from getting away with lying their asses off. Lies that are obvious because the cowardly honor stealers, assholes who seldom post links because there are no links to the bull shit that pours out of their mouths like the dog cum that pours out of their asses.
To set the record straight, I don't believe bull shit pours out of jd's mouth. And I know he'll post a link to prove his earlier statement about me and I'll have to post some insincere apology.
Until then, eat shit and die, you RIFed piece of garbage.
Many posters need to read the original post of this thread.
This isn't about "collateral damage" per se. The WWII Dresden analogy isn't applicable. We don't "carpet drone" for the most part. Also, there is some actionable intelligence to approve a drone strike likely since sometime in the Bush II administration. The drone operators aren't looking for signs on buildings that say "Al Kayda Hideout, meeting at 4, drone strike at 4:15, don't b l8."
No, Holder said 3 of the 4 weren't "specifically targeted." Now I understand about the web designer...but the other two? We don't send drone strikes out, especially to kill Americans, without knowledge that they are on an approved kill list and the drone is supposed to eliminate them. Or at least that's what Barry had me believing.
So, what happened?
There was talk today on the Sunday morning news shows that Obama's speech was a statement directed at other nations who are quickly developing drone technology.
Reread what BigTex was answering to put it in context. He was indicating if his kids were terrorists, the U.S. should drone them.
I think you need to re-read, Sir.
Old Dingus
Let me give you an internet hint Old Dingus, if you post something to be sarcastic or ironic or funny AND you need CONTEXT...it appropriate to quote the material you are responding to in your post.
I think BigTex's response stands as is and is quite consistent with his post history.
Let me give you an internet hint Old Dingus, if you post something to be sarcastic or ironic or funny AND you need CONTEXT...it appropriate to quote the material you are responding to in your post.
I think BigTex's response stands as is and is quite consistent with his post history.
That's rich! One of the two dullest knives in the drawer trying to tell my of my intent. I suspect the other dull knife is soon to follow.
If MY "children" were known terrorists (foreign or domestic) intent on killing innocent Americans,your damn right I would "still think their cause is just."
Next question?
No. You do a great job of articulating your intent!
And personally I find it almost humerous (almost) that the issue of using a drone has now become a political right/wrong issue. Is it somehow better (or worse) if a piloted vehicle flying 40 miles away launches a missile instead of a person in the US desert launching a missile thousands of miles away? What the hell is the difference?
I don't think anyone is arguing any major difference between a drone launching a missile vs a piloted aircraft launching a missile. In both cases approval is usually needed before that missile is launched.
I don't think anyone is arguing about the use of drones to protect American troops either.
But the Attorney General (not the POTUS, not the Theater Military Commander, not a CIA Chief) said that TWO Americans had been killed in an "unspecific" drone attack. Nobody has said whether they were on the kill list that Obama personally approves. Holder then says they were legitimate targets because they were on the "global battlefield."
BTW, the Obama administration changed the definition of "collateral damage" so that any man of military age killed in a drone strike was a legitimate target.
The dullards are rallying around BigKotex again. Keep the libtard Socialist Democratic faith!
Hmm, I wonder what Old Dingus' reaction will be knowing that he is now being referred to as a "dullard." Don't worry OD, you were intelligent enough to comprehend the true meaning of my statement. Obviously, Turdfly and Hanoi James were not!
