How does everyone feel about the POTUS

Hell I don't think I've ever been accused of anything but being liberal and this bothers me, so you are right it's not just Repubs. Now granted there are those who are going to call for this president to be impeached for any and everything he does, and those on the left who will blindly follow Obama anywhere and never question shit, but I think most pragmatic people are concerned with this.

 

We'll wait to see how Red weighs in.

 

Delusionally with he's right and we're all wrong stupid repubs.

 

Red other than the first strike into Afganistan after 9/11 it should be called the Stupid War. Afganistan is a sink hole worse than Vietnam...a area (not even a country) where people relish living in the dark ages and when we leave will revert to the tribal warfare they have enjoyed for 2500+ years.

Bush should have left after the first strike, but was not smart enough to. The Ds piled on and made it their patriotic tough man issue and kept demanding more. President Obama doubled down in 2008 and escalated the war. His actions increased the rate of US soldiers & marines deaths and accelerated the drain on our wealth; all for nothing. In the end, in spite of the trillions of $$ flushed down the drain and thousands of lives lost, we will have left the area unchanged in nature but even more hardned and destabilized another (Pakistan).

Red ole buddy I wouldn't call that a good war by any definition.

 

Winston1 said: ↑

“Red do you think the info he is given and acts on is 100% correct?​

No intelligence is 100% correct if that were the bar nothing would ever get done. There is a balance to be had here between confidence in the intelligence and the risk of bad intelligence blowback. We have top men working on this. Top. Men. And it takes an executive with balls.

You avoid the point Red. There are many drawbacks to unlimited drone attacks. First is the moral and to allow anyone to set rules of action without check and balance is immoral. I had the same reservations when Bush started them. Second and more importantly we are losing access to intelligence by killing them. Remember OBL was found through intelligence gathered through captured Al Quiada. They are adjusting their methods and adapting. Rendition and culling inteligence from them is needed as well. It is much easier to kill than to make a judgement to send men into harms way. As I have said before I salute BHO for the OBL raid but he should remember that much of the intelligence that made it possible came from captured al Quaida.

Winston1 said: ↑

“What about the families of the ones targeted who are also killed, is killing them ok? Is it just the whim of Mars that they die as well or are the tainted by their father's actions? Sort of old testement "son of the father" deal isn't it?​

No, it is far older and more basic than biblical, it is a tribal stance. If they kill our women and children and then they hide behind their own women and children, it is THEY that cause their deaths. War is hell.

SO you advocate acting like the savages you berate?
Winston1 said: ↑

“A question does Kahlid Shiek Mohammad and the other captives at Guantanemo deserve a trial or should we just put a good old .45 behind his ear (and the others) and pull the trigger? What would you say if one day any president announced that that had been done?​

We should have tried every damn one of them years ago and sentenced them to death or life in a Supermax prison when found guilty. If they aren't guilty, then we let them go. We've already let the innocent go and some of the guilty as well. The ones that are left have no chance in hell of escaping conviction. Again you avoid the point...what is the difference between drone attacks and a bullet to the head? If you believe so strongly that the drone attacks are totally ok then a bullet to the back of the head is different only in the tool used and range.

Winston1 said: ↑

“BTW is just calling for the damnation and fall of the US qualify for voiding one's citizenship?​

No, who said it was? Taking up arms against the US and joining the military forces of foreign enemies is what loses you your citizenship. Why are you defending these scumbag turncoat terrorists? Have you no shame? Damn Red you sound like a Republican. There is nothing I said in their defense but only the way they are dealt with. Have you no shame but to try to change the subject.

Winston1 said: ↑

“When a citizen takes arms against the US he still holds it till it is stripped in court or by acts of congress. Look to Aaron Burr and Jeff Davis and RE Lee. All the other soldiers in the civil war retained their citizenship.​

It was a CIVIL WAR, they did not take arms and join a foreign enemy. By definition a civil war is a war beteeen members of a single country. Aaron Burr killed a man in a duel, he did not join the forces of a foreign enemy.Well Red the south did believe they had left the US and were citizens of another country. They took up arm much more effectivelky against the country than any of the current lot of "turncoats".
Actually Burr did much more than that. He tried to recruit an army, first to conquer Mexico and failing that tried to take it back to the US and carve out a new seperate country. Read your history.
The Burr conspiracy in the beginning of the 19th century was a suspected treasonous cabal of planters, politicians, and army officers allegedly led by former U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr. According to the accusations against him, Burr’s goal was to create an independent nation in the center of North America and/or the Southwest and parts of Mexico. Burr’s explanation:[clarification needed] To take possession of, and farm, 40,000 acres (160 km²) in the Texas Territory leased to him by the Spanish. When the expected war with Spain broke out, his accusers said he would fight with his armed "farmers," to seize some lands he could conquer in the war.
U.S. President Thomas Jefferson and others had Burr arrested and indicted for treason with no firm evidence put forward. Burr’s true intentions are still considered unclear to historians, some of whom claim he intended to take parts of Texas and some or all of the Louisiana Purchase for himself. Burr was acquitted of treason, but the trial destroyed his already faltering political career.


Winston1 said: ↑

“Likewise the few Germans in WW1 & 2 who supported the Germans were tried as citizens. You state your point above with such conviction, are you a constitutional lawyer?​

Are you? So what? I have read the Constitution and it is pretty easy to understand. What don't you understand? Why don't you state your points with conviction? Actually there are more twists and turns on the path to losing ones citizenship than you note. Follow the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Citizenship#Loss_of_citizenship
Winston1 said: ↑

“Finally would you give the same latitude to say president Palin?​

Sure, would you be making these objections to a republican President? Actually I did when many 9/11 statues were enacted. Latitude? You act like we are massacring thousands of Americans at home in their living rooms, which is absurd. You are right... to accuse me of that is absurd. It isn't the number killed but the the lack of control and checks. Numbers are meaningless sport whether 1 or 1000 or 1 million. We have killed a handful of senior AL Qaeda operative overseas who were actively involved in terror against the US. Why do you think they deserve a pass?Who said they deserve a pass. You continually try to make it like it is either kill them or coddle them. That is a false comparison and diminishes your argument
.
Winston1 said: ↑

“Red you are so gung ho but have you given the concequences much thought?​

Of course! Do I sound like I'm making it up as I go to you? Yes you do

What "consequences" do you fear so badly? Is it a reasonable fear? Make your case. I have made it several times and like Martin you never do anything but try to shout louder and louder as if that would make your argument. ​

-----