Glen Greenwald . . .

[sonofdaxjones]

tears the face off Barry "20,000 airstrikes in his first term" Obama, and the Obamabot Strawman arguments for perpetual war.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/21/king-obama-drones-militarism-sanctions-iran

The way in which "America's soul is totally poisoned" is evident in virtually every debate over US policies of militarism. Over the weekend, several pro-war national security "experts" argued: "I'd pay closer attention to critics of drone strikes if they explained their recommended alternative." This is a commonly heard defense of Obama's drone assaults: I support drones - despite how they constantly kill innocent adults and children - because the alternative, "boots on the ground", is worse.

Those who argue this are literally incapable even of conceiving of an alternative in which the US stops killing anyone and everyone it wants in the world. They operate on the assumption that US violence is and should be inevitable, and the only cognizable debate is which weapon the US should use to carry out this killing (drones or "boots on the ground"?). Even though they have no idea who the US government is killing, they assume, with literally no evidence or basis, that those being killed are "terrorists" who want to attack the US and that therefore they - and anyone close to them - must be killed first. As Jonathan Schwarz noted on Sunday, they have literally embraced the same mindset as the Terrorists they claim to loathe: we must use violence and killing, even if it means we kill innocents, because we simply cannot conceive of any alternative.

Never once do they stop and wonder: why are there so many people in the world who want to attack the US? Never once do they do what King so bravely and rather subversively urged: "the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence" is it "helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves". King explained: "from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition." King thus urged the nation to "understand the arguments of those who are called enemy."

Adhering to King's prescription - "understanding the arguments of those who are called enemy" - would clearly reveal the obvious "alternative" to Obama's global assassination program: namely, ceasing the endless violence that is what drives so many people to want to bring violence to the US in return, combined with prosecutions of the handful of people who possess both the intent and capability to attack the US.

Arguing that "we must drone-bomb people in order to stop terrorism" is the equivalent of arguing that "we must continue to smoke cigarettes in order to stop lung cancer". As ample evidence proves, the so-called "solution" to Terrorism - endless violence and killing - is actually its primary cause. As the Yemeni blogger Noon Arabia put it this weekend after a series of multiple drones strikes on her country: "For those arguing effectiveness of drones, let me explain: civilians killed => animosity towards US = Qaeda members increase = Vicious [circle]!"

[steve dave]

JESUS rough ridin' CHRIST GLEN WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?

[sonofdaxjones]

You mock what you don't understand.

Sad

[ednksu]

Here we find the same stunted worldview. US aggression and belligerence toward Iran are and should be inevitable, and the only Serious debate is which weapons should be used to perpetuate it: sanctions or bombing? Questioning whether Iran is pursuing a bomb, or a negotiated settlement with its leaders, or containment if they do proliferate, are not even acknowledged as alternatives. It doesn't even enter the imagination. A citizenry that has been fed a steady diet of war and aggression and demonization is understandably incapable of even entertaining "alternatives" that do not involve causing the deaths of others, and of expressing nothing but pure callousness when confronted with the human suffering of the policies they support.

 


also citation for 20k in strikes please I ctrl+f in your articles and didn't see it.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

From the comments:

MLK: "I have a dream..."

Obama: "I have a drone..."

 

[sonofdaxjones]

Here we find the same stunted worldview. US aggression and belligerence toward Iran are and should be inevitable, and the only Serious debate is which weapons should be used to perpetuate it: sanctions or bombing? Questioning whether Iran is pursuing a bomb, or a negotiated settlement with its leaders, or containment if they do proliferate, are not even acknowledged as alternatives. It doesn't even enter the imagination. A citizenry that has been fed a steady diet of war and aggression and demonization is understandably incapable of even entertaining "alternatives" that do not involve causing the deaths of others, and of expressing nothing but pure callousness when confronted with the human suffering of the policies they support.

 


also citation for 20k in strikes please I ctrl+f in your articles and didn't see it.

But drone strikes are only the tip of an iceberg, making up less than 10 percent of at least 20,130 air strikes the U.S. has conducted in other countries since President Obama's inauguration in 2009

http://www.alternet.org/world/bomber-chief-20000-airstrikes-presidents-first-term-cause-death-and-destruction-iraq-somalia

I never picked you to be such a war hawk and advocate of U.S. hegemony edn . . . color me 

[bubbles4ksu]

more goddamn liberal hypocrisy. they always claim they want america to be destroyed by radical islam, then they turn around and dronebomb those who make statements like "death to america." i'll never understand the rough ridin' libtards.

[Paul Moscow]

more goddamn liberal hypocrisy. they always claim they want america to be destroyed by radical islam, then they turn around and dronebomb those who make statements like "death to america." i'll never understand the rough ridin' libtards.

Progressives (Greenwald is one of them) have been outspoken about drone strikes under Obama since the beginning of his term practically. Jeremy Scahill has written a lot about it, it's been featured on democracy now countless times. Bill Maher called Obama's drone strikes "terrorism".

In this case it's 99% the military industrial complex. Liberals are quiet, sure but this is a topic that republicans could hammer Obama on but you hear nothing from them. All of DC is quiet.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

more goddamn liberal hypocrisy. they always claim they want america to be destroyed by radical islam, then they turn around and dronebomb those who make statements like "death to america." i'll never understand the rough ridin' libtards.

Progressives (Greenwald is one of them) have been outspoken about drone strikes under Obama since the beginning of his term practically. Jeremy Scahill has written a lot about it, it's been featured on democracy now countless times. Bill Maher called Obama's drone strikes "terrorism".

In this case it's 99% the military industrial complex. Liberals are quiet, sure but this is a topic that republicans could hammer Obama on but you hardly hear nothing from them. All of DC is quiet.

You don't here anything from republicans because most of them back it, and that would be hypocritical, so they can't use it against him. They could certainly make fun of the lib hypocrites and media for not saying anything, though.

[Paul Moscow]

more goddamn liberal hypocrisy. they always claim they want america to be destroyed by radical islam, then they turn around and dronebomb those who make statements like "death to america." i'll never understand the rough ridin' libtards.

Progressives (Greenwald is one of them) have been outspoken about drone strikes under Obama since the beginning of his term practically. Jeremy Scahill has written a lot about it, it's been featured on democracy now countless times. Bill Maher called Obama's drone strikes "terrorism".

In this case it's 99% the military industrial complex. Liberals are quiet, sure but this is a topic that republicans could hammer Obama on but you hardly hear nothing from them. All of DC is quiet.

You don't here anything from republicans because most of them back it, and that would be hypocritical, so they can't use it against him. They could certainly make fun of the lib hypocrites and media for not saying anything, though.

My point is that there is a sizable faction of liberals outside of the blue dog dems whose biggest complaint about Obama is the drone strikes.  If the left would engage the progressives the same way the right engaged the tea party then we'd actually get somewhere.

[michigancat]

I am opposed to drone strikes and human strikes and boots on the ground just about anywhere. I would love for our military budget to be a shitload smaller.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I didn't want to look for Dax's "US, world biggest arms dealer thread", so I thought I would put this here:

http://freebeacon.com/egypt-to-receive-f-16s/

January 22, 2013 4:01 pm

The State Department has refused to cancel or delay the delivery of several American-made F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, claiming that the arms deal serves America’s “regional security interests,” according to an official State Department document obtained by the Free Beacon.

The news that the Obama administration would uphold an aid package to Egypt that included the military hardware prompted concern on Capitol Hill from lawmakers who said the deal was not prudent given the political situation in Egypt, where Muslim Brotherhood-backed President Mohammed Morsi has clashed with democratic protestors.

“Sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks are to be given to the Egyptian government before the end of the year under a foreign aid deal signed in 2010 with then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak,” Fox News reported Tuesday.

[Paul Moscow]

I am opposed to drone strikes and human strikes and boots on the ground just about anywhere. I would love for our military budget to be a shitload smaller.

For all the credence given to the idea that speaking out for aggressive gun control is political suicide there seems to be an even greater fear among politicians to speak out against whatever the hell motivates our military.