Props to the Military, CIA and, yes, to Obama

reality exists with or without the paperwork. vietnam was not a declared war. our great uncles fought and died just the same. the war against al queda is a war. if you a ****ing retard and like to repeat "terror is not a tanglible item and therefore you cant really have war against it" then bully for you, you are a an idiot, most likely a white person with an IQ about 103, who either loves ron paul or john stewart or both.

but again, the fact is that we are at war. and we kill the leaders of the group we are fighting. if you think our government is actually killing nice fellas that have nothing to do with terrorism, then you are a kook and have all manner of emotional problems.

 

Oh, you thought I was talking about war. No, I was talking about War, as declared by Congress. Maybe you couldn't tell the difference.

 

it saddens me a little that you think this is a point worth making. wars happen regardless of what you or congress say, people are dead just the same.

do you think we should put our soldiers in jail for killing vietnamese because they were not at war, according to you? because killing people isnt acceptable in peacetime. i am just saying i think it is suspicious and i have questions.

 

Are you purposefully being obstinate? Can we please elevate the level of the discussion? Someone has to decide when we go to war - our founders thought that Congress should be that someone. The country is more likely to support a war when enough representatives from around the US are involved in that decision, rather than one executive. I'm not questioning the actions of our troops, who are following orders, I'm questioning the source and validity of those orders.

This must be purposeful intellectual dishonesty from you; someone as smart as you proclaim to be wouldn't be this inept at understanding the argument.

 

When you are killing an enemy combatant who is firing upon you, the evidence is flying with each enemy bullet that who you've engaged is an enemy combatant. There is no time to build a case, and there is no need as the case is made on the spot.

The difference with al-Awlaki is that this guy wasn't squeezing triggers, and we were targeting him based on allegations that haven't been substantiated to my knowledge. When we have time to prove our case against a US citizen and no effort is made to do so, we are left to take their word for it. You have no problem with that, I am less willing to assume that unnamed government officials will make a better decision than the legal system in place that still reports to the people.

There is the argument that intelligence and national security would be compromised if too much information is provided to the public (and terrorists). I can understand that to some extent, but it is an argument that lends itself to abuse.

 

We don't declare war for most of the wars we fight. Are you aware of this?

 

I guess this war is beingh fought with you mostly out of the loop. You would think our military would run these sorts of things past you, given your knowled
E and position

 

I have a problem with that, don't you?

 

My knowledge is based on the knowledge of those whose job it is to report on stuff that happens. Based on the knowledge of those closer to the situation that I get my knowledge from, the allegations have not been substantiated.

You know, if your argument is that it is in the interest of national security that the allegations aren't substantiated, that's a point that I can't really argue past. Except to say that operating in the shadows should be minimized as it can be easily abused.

But your argument is that it doesn't matter, the army can allege what it wants of who it wants and operate based on those allegations without need for substantiation. In the heat of the moment I can mostly buy into this argument, but not as much when actions are premeditated (for years).