[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pookie

I'll answer more fully later but in the meantime this stood out to me. The "precision" (lol) killing isn't an alternative to carpet bombing and invasion forces, it's an accompaniment. If anything the "precision" (rofl) killing is an alternative to the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists. And so being is by far the greater of two evils, especially as the "precision" (ffs) killing has claimed the innocent lives of at least 15 times the number of intended targets killed.

it's an accompaniment in afghanistan but not in pakistan-- i can't imagine what a clusterfuck would be if the US went to invade pakistan. even in afghanistan the drones are an alternative to troops that not just kill civilians but also urinate on corpses. at least drones don't have bladders.

here's a bit on the plans to invade pakistan-- a nuclear power for fucks sakes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-m..._b_600014.html

but yeah it's a shit situation no matter how you cut it. i just think the more rationality can be brought into the process the greater the chances for some sort of a temporary truce of the kind desperate people call "peace". if the pentagon is using drones because they think it's their best option, i might disagree, they have their own internal disagreements too== but if they are using drones because "it's the hammer of the gods, as fulfilling the prophecies of Ragnar 2, verse 36" that would be another fucking story.

Originally Posted by Pookie

No. All this shows is a party attempting to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy even though he is largely just continuing their policies (just saw this). The main difference between Obama (and co.) and Bush (and co.) is in approach. Obama would never have reacted to 9/11 by promising to find those responsible and "kick their ass". His response would have been way more calm and articulate but would he have done the same as Bush? Absolutely.

on afghanistan, sure-- but iraq??? the iraq invasion was a neocon wet dream!!! completely manufactured. no fucking way. just-- no.

painting obama as weak is part of politicking of course but it's a proven fact that the republicans are much more grandiose and deluded when it comes to the international arena.

Originally Posted by Pookie

This is interesting (not intended as a direct response to your points but on a similar subject):

Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On

some of this makes a point and some of it is bullshit but that's too much to discuss on a tuesday morning.

Originally Posted by Pookie

Tell me about it! !!!- for what it's worth.
Not sure I agree 100% but I certainly wouldn't ever exclude myself from the political process because of its inadequacies. For example as much as I find myself angered by Labour's lack of response to the Tory government's mixture of dogma and incompetence and as much as they angered me when in power because of their many pro-corporation policies, I would have them back in power tomorrow if I could.

here's larry summers on the subject. yes he may be a shill for the banks or whatever, and he said insensitive things about women, bla bla bla, he's not Jesus Christ IV, but he's a competent nerd:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...a4a_story.html

like you with labor, i'm pissed off at the obama administration for many reasons, from domestic espionage to not standing up with enough force against the republicans in the budget battles, but to claim that another obama term vs. having romney bring his incompetent self plus his coterie of right wing lunatics would be the same thing-- and therefore one shouldn't bother voting as suchfriends claims-- is just... well... fucking retarded.