Barack Obama - A Promised Land

[MJHolland 12,723]

1 minute ago, derpmonster said:

I appreciate you arguing in good faith. I'll add something to this. ACA was almost verbatim the same as Romney Care from Utah. Thats why it's called a republican bill by many.

As for war crimes, we can't read minds. We don't know what he intended or didn't intend for sure. What we do know is he had the information available at his disposal that 90% drones were mistargeting and decided to continue this program. 

Many people throughout history who we now agree are on the wrong side were doing what they thought was right. Many didn't intend to harm. He thought he was fighting terror and thought it made sense to allow all those collateral deaths. Some in the future may see that as barbaric especially when some people who were killed had nothing to do with any terror and were attending a local wedding.

Yep, this is true (except Romney was governor of Massachusets). 

Lol ok re: your 2nd paragraph... idek how to respond. But... I don't think Obama wanted to intentionally kill civilians. If you think about this critically, considering that civilian casualties are used to recruit more terrorists, it doesn't really make sense that he'd want to increase them. 

Today is the first time I've heard about that 90% number, so while I find it alarming and sad, I don't know how much I can buy into it at this moment. Will do some more research when I'm home this evening though. 

[bionic 41,840]

I look forward to the audiobook. I hope Obama is open about all the negatives of his career 

[derpmonster 22,412]

1 minute ago, Nino said:

you can try swallowing the pill that America has its issues but isn't exactly evil because I sense some cognitive dissonance here

No, thanks. You clearly have issues with logic as you're setting up false dichotomies and constantly project.

2 minutes ago, Nino said:

Excuse me for not feeling sorry for militants who die fighting for a cause they signed up to die for.

**** the civilian casualties right? Imagine if thousands of american citizens were being killed by a state sponsored attack from another nation.

[derpmonster 22,412]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

But... I don't think Obama wanted to intentionally kill civilians. If you think about this critically, considering that civilian casualties are used to recruit more terrorists, it doesn't really make sense that he'd want to increase them. 

I'm not saying he intended to kill more people. Theres almost no reason anyone would do that. I'm just saying people intend to do the good thing but end up causing a potentially criminal effect anyway.

Either way it was a bad or incompetent choice in its effects and that he did give people more reason to recruit terrorists further.

[MJHolland 12,723]

1 minute ago, derpmonster said:

The basic requirement for a civilian death to be lawful in international law is if it was not the direct object of the attack but rather collateral. 

How do you explain the bombing of an entire wedding where most if not all were civilians? If it was a mistargeted attack, that's criminal negligence in my opinion.

Yes, the wedding incident is really painful to even think about. 

I remember that being a really complicated news story when it happened, but I think I remember it to coming down to bad intel. 

Basically they were trying to catch a target who was apparently a very imminent threat to thousands of innocent people and it was the first time they'd seen him in years. 

I read Ben Rhodes' book a few years ago. He was one of the closests foreign policy advisors to Obama. He recounted that day and said it was one of the worst days of his life, and Obama was personally devastated and his outlook on foreign policy changed for the rest of his admin. 

Negligent, maybe, but I don't see criminal intent. 

[derpmonster 22,412]

Just now, MJHolland said:

Yes, the wedding incident is really painful to even think about. 

I remember that being a really complicated news story when it happened, but I think I remember it to coming down to bad intel. 

Basically they were trying to catch a target who was apparently a very imminent threat to thousands of innocent people and it was the first time they'd seen him in years. 

I read Ben Rhodes' book a few years ago. He was one of the closests foreign policy advisors to Obama. He recounted that day and said it was one of the worst days of his life, and Obama was personally devastated and his outlook on foreign policy changed for the rest of his admin. 

Negligent, maybe, but I don't see criminal intent. 

yes. But they got bad intel repeatedly but didn't think to significantly reevaluate their program. 

Also, criminal intent is not necessary for a criminal outcome. 

[lego 44,165]

Just now, MJHolland said:

but I think I remember it to coming down to bad intel. 

 

if you google wedding + drone  you’ll get more cases like that one, latest under Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/23/asia/afghanistan-wedding-attack-intl/index.html

 

it just keeps happening

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes

[lego 44,165]

U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-drones-idUSKBN1W40NW

 

this was recent too, drone strikes should be banned 

[Nino 12]

12 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

No, thanks. You clearly have issues with logic as you're setting up false dichotomies and constantly project.

**** the civilian casualties right? Imagine if thousands of american citizens were being killed by a state sponsored attack from another nation.

Except there have been American civilian casualties in every war we've ever fought in and I'm not the one screaming WAR CRIMINAL over using tactics meant to actually decrease civilian casualties.  

14 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Today is the first time I've heard about that 90% number, so while I find it alarming and sad, I don't know how much I can buy into it at this moment. Will do some more research when I'm home this evening though. 

the tl;dr version is that america's strategy at the time of trying to remove key targets was being fueled by wrong or even falsely planted intelligence. In a successful strike there's bound to be more than one person who dies too which further inflates that number. Not going to give my opinion on it in this post so that the anti-america brigade doesn't try to conflate the facts with my opinions  

EDIT: to be clear, the 90% figure doesn't mention how much of it is civilians though. Let's not forget that you can also just kill the wrong military people before it gets twisted again  

[Nino 12]

If the other side is planting false counter-intelligence that puts key military targets at a completely peaceful wedding, that's the same as using those innocent civilians as meat shields. Absolutely horrific on all sides.

[LadariousGarage 1]

Quick reminder that he bombed the absolute **** out of several middle eastern families... just because he isn't Trump and is a Democrat doesn't make him the best president of all f*cking time

[HorusRa2 4,978]

11 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Most importantly, can I just ask what war crimes you think Obama committed? I'll remind you that war crimes are an actual defined thing in international courts of law, and civilian casualties do not consitute a war crime unless they are flagrantly intentional and pervasive. There's never been a war that didn't involve casualties. 

  Reveal hidden contents

I'm asking you to be objective. I realize that you probably have a moral objection to all war period, but that doesn't make it a war crime.

Calling someone a war criminal is very serious and I'm just asking you to back that claim up. 

Below are just some points in response to your other points. 

Agreed that the '08 bailout wasn't harsh enough on the people who created the mess. But he didn't created the conditions that led to the crash, and at the same time the stimulus did save us from a full blown depression which I give him credit for. Plus we saw the longest economic expansion of US history afterwards (yes I realize the gains were mostly to the rich). 

He didn't actually cave on healthcare. He didn't have the votes to pass a public option because centrist Senator Joe Lieberman (D) blocked it. Obama pushed very very hard for a public option, and not a SINGLE Republican (in the House or Senate) voted for the Affordable Health Care Act, so I'd hardly say it was a republican bill. 

Obama actually implemented a lot of regulations against the police, including de-militarizing state police forces (banned the pentagon from transferring military equipment to civilian law enforcement offices, which Trump undid day #1). I give him a lot of credit there. 

The drone strikes are in my view what makes him a war criminal. As I understand it, when an individual is attacked who is not a lawful military target and there is disproportionate civilian harm then you can argue that it is a war crime. And to your credit, Obama's use of drones got "morally" better as his presidency went on but the fact remains that there were some strikes that disproportionately affected civilians compared to military adversaries. Ergo in my view he is a war criminal. 

Yes he caved on healthcare. And republicans were obstructionist to everything Obama so that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a republican bill. The function of Obamacare was the individual mandate and the marketplace. This was a healthcare plan designed in part by the conservative Heritage Foundation that was originally used by Mitt Romney when he created, "RomneyCare." What Obama and the dems passed at the time was the republicans plan. When it became the democrats plan of course the republicans opposed it. You can say that more people got health insurance, and that's true. But the cost of healthcare has only gotten exponentially more expensive which means that Obamacare didn't do enough. And to the extent that it expanded coverage, the coverage is still not universal. And to date, Joe Biden's plan (sorry have to plug this in) is to only cover 97% of Americans. So 12 years later and we still aren't there and the pestering over Obamacare and the public option are a direct cause of that. 

While he did not create the financial crisis and what led to the crisis, what he is responsible for is a recovery that went entirely to the rich. He does not get credit for the recovery when the recovery was for so few and not for the many. Besides, the measure of the economy toplines is the basis for that so-called economic expansion anyway so I don't think that he gets credit here. 

I'm fine with the credit on the police except for the fact he still abused the military/police state at standing rock. So mixed bag situation here. 

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/

 

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, Nino said:

If the other side is planting false counter-intelligence that puts key military targets at a completely peaceful wedding, that's the same as using those innocent civilians as meat shields. Absolutely horrific on all sides.

 

You are extremely disrespectful. You’re doing everything to blame someone else. American army is not full of saints.

[Nino 12]

6 minutes ago, lego said:

You are extremely disrespectful. You’re doing everything to blame someone else. American army is not full of saints.

Well there's no evidence to support that they're going out of their way to kill innocent people and the report that mentions the instance in question specifically makes reference to how terrible accidents like this happen because of shaky or purposefully bad intel.  I think it's pretty obvious that an organization as bureaucratic as the United States military wouldn't declare open season on innocent civilians on purpose considering the chain of command a drone strike authorization has to make it up. That would imply several levels of complete lunatic killers with no sense of morality at every step of the chain.  The real disrespect is assuming the terrorists are the ones who spare civilians.  The complete lack of critical thinking being applied in this thread is astounding.  

I've been disrespected by you and literally flamed by you specifically as well as other users in this thread for having a different point of view when I haven't made a single personal attack so maybe take it somewhere else  

[MJHolland 12,723]

2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

The drone strikes are in my view what makes him a war criminal. As I understand it, when an individual is attacked who is not a lawful military target and there is disproportionate civilian harm then you can argue that it is a war crime. And to your credit, Obama's use of drones got "morally" better as his presidency went on but the fact remains that there were some strikes that disproportionately affected civilians compared to military adversaries. Ergo in my view he is a war criminal. 

Yes he caved on healthcare. And republicans were obstructionist to everything Obama so that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a republican bill. The function of Obamacare was the individual mandate and the marketplace. This was a healthcare plan designed in part by the conservative Heritage Foundation that was originally used by Mitt Romney when he created, "RomneyCare." What Obama and the dems passed at the time was the republicans plan. When it became the democrats plan of course the republicans opposed it. You can say that more people got health insurance, and that's true. But the cost of healthcare has only gotten exponentially more expensive which means that Obamacare didn't do enough. And to the extent that it expanded coverage, the coverage is still not universal. And to date, Joe Biden's plan (sorry have to plug this in) is to only cover 97% of Americans. So 12 years later and we still aren't there and the pestering over Obamacare and the public option are a direct cause of that. 

While he did not create the financial crisis and what led to the crisis, what he is responsible for is a recovery that went entirely to the rich. He does not get credit for the recovery when the recovery was for so few and not for the many. Besides, the measure of the economy toplines is the basis for that so-called economic expansion anyway so I don't think that he gets credit here. 

I'm fine with the credit on the police except for the fact he still abused the military/police state at standing rock. So mixed bag situation here. 

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/

 

Re: drone strikes, @Nino actually makes a solid point.

There would have been way more civilians casualties, as we saw in the Bush 2.0 years (200,000+ civilians dead), if Obama went after targets using more traditional targets (Obama-era civilian mid east death look like they're around 1-2k). I haven't seen the data or experts confirm this, but my strong suspicion is that Obama's use of drones actually led to less loss of life overall. 

But again, I would love to see someone point to an actual international wartime law that Obama violated. Calling someone a war criminal isn't really a matter of opinion. There are actual laws and statutes governing war and weapons of war, and drones are not forbidden. To be a criminal you have to break a law! 

Re: healthcare, I'll take 97% coverage any day of the week. It's either that or watch the insured rated drop drop drop under Republican leadership.