2012 presidential debates

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:35 am

First topic message reminder :

If you are watching the first Presidential Debate post your thoughts real time.

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:41 am

Shirina wrote:
I like that the board subs with eff

I added that.

Clever girl.

by Shirina Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:43 am

Obama just needs to pound that 47% remark. He needs to remind the American people just how Romney feels about the poor, elderly, disabled, returning vets, etc. Americans have a short memory, so Obama has to keep reminding them.

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:47 am

I think he may in the next debate. It will be closer to the election.

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:48 am

Don't you have VA benefits?

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:50 am

My alarm is going off. I need to put the top up and put it away

by Shirina Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:50 am

I do, but the nearest real VA hospital is in Johnson City, TN ... and I can't be driving back and forth that far. I'm getting some new tests done though this month.

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:50 am

I'll be back.

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:51 am

I worry about you. Isn't it precious. And just a bit creepy.

by Shirina Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:54 am

LOL! Seeya, Willing. I have to get going. Need to lay down for a bit. Take care. Smile

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:29 am

ROMNEY THE LIAR'S ***PATHETIC*** DEBATE LIES, PART FOUR
Courtesy of Reuters:

TAX BREAKS FOR SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS

Romney challenged Obama's statement that companies can take a tax deduction for shipping jobs overseas.

"Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you are talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant. The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case," Romney said.

What Obama was actually describing was a tax break for ordinary business expense, including deductions allowed for a company if it closes its plant in the United States and moves it to another country.

In July, Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal that would have provided a tax credit to companies that move production back to the United States. It also would have ended the tax break that companies can claim when closing a domestic plant, even if operations are moving abroad.

DOES OBAMA'S PLAN CUT $716 BILLION FROM MEDICARE?

Romney repeatedly cited a figure of $716 billion - saying Obama would cut that amount from Medicare to fund his healthcare overhaul. That claim has been rejected by Democrats and independent analysts.

Obama's healthcare law would slow payment increases for hospitals and insurers, something it views as a savings rather than as a cut to Medicare benefits or programs. It does not change the basket of benefits offered to patients.

The $716 billion figure is a Congressional Budget Office estimate of how much the law would save in Medicare spending from 2013 to 2022, compared with what would have occurred without reform. Those funds would be used to help expand health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

Obama's Affordable Care Act also offers new benefits to the elderly, such as prescription drug rebates and discounts, and preventive tests including mammograms and cancer screenings without copays or deductibles under Medicare Part B, which covers visits to doctors' offices and outpatient clinics.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:51 pm

Will America really vote for adopting a hostile face to everybody else in the World?
Are they really that dumb?

Sorry I asked.

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:49 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Will America really vote for adopting a hostile face to everybody else in the World?
Are they really that dumb?

Sorry I asked.

They have before. But you would hope not. When Americans go abroad we are often surprised that the people we meet are not at all like we expected. Often this is a delightful surprise.
We forget though that Americans are not the standard for the world in fact we are just a small piece of it.
I met a couple on vacation or holiday from their point of view. They were taken aback that I was American and had progressive view points.
This arose during a conversation. They were saying that "the US is so vast, so rich, so powerful, and so technologically advanced, how is it you do not take care of your own?"
The were a couple from England our closest ally, and a fellow from Canada. They were so surprised when I agreed with them.

They see all Americans as red neck. Flag waving, gun toting, bible thumping, troglodytes that look down on the rest of the world. They see a nation that is so blessed to have what we have. And yet so disrespectful of the rest of the world.

I was slightly embarrassed for their view of us. I explained that we were not all like that. That the majority of us are decent people. I explained that we are unfortunately brainwashed by the thirty second advertisements for whatever product we are being fed. Whether it be a consumable or a political viewpoint. They agreed that this happens in their countries too. I suspect it is not to the degree it is in the US though.

I feel so fortunate to be on these boards and be able to share and discuss issues as a citizen of the world. We should all feel this way where ever you come from.
I am humbled

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:08 pm

Since this thread’s topic centers on Mitt Romney (not a current office holder vs. President of the United States and former United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr., perhaps this is an appropriate thread to discuss the candidates in comparison with one another.

Romney held a gubernatorial post, which inherently does not involve foreign affairs, while Obama, for almost eight years, has held two posts, President of the United States and United States Senator, which inherently involve foreign affairs.

Romney has delivered on no foreign affairs campaign promises, while Obama on four huge foreign affairs campaign promises, (1) remove combat ground troops from Iraq, which has been accomplished, (2) reduce combat ground troops presence in Afghanistan, which is being accomplished (3) systematically eliminate al qaida leadership wherever they are found, which is being accomplished, and (4) kill Osama bin Laden, who now swims with the fish.

Obama, during his first run as Democratic nominee, was accused of simultaneously being a communist, a Muslim, and a Christian each of which is mutually exclusive to each of the other two, while Romney, during his first run as Republican nominee, has been asked few questions about his membership in the Mormon religion, in spite of the fact that, as a Temple Mormon, he has sworn a blood oath to do all that he can do to bring about an American theocracy the effective leaders of which would be the Mormon Prophet and his assistants in Salt Lake City.

by willingsniper Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:24 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Since this thread’s topic centers on Mitt Romney (not a current office holder vs. President of the United States and former United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr., perhaps this is an appropriate thread to discuss the candidates in comparison with one another.

Romney held a gubernatorial post, which inherently does not involve foreign affairs, while Obama, for almost eight years, has held two posts, President of the United States and United States Senator, which inherently involve foreign affairs.

Romney has delivered on no foreign affairs campaign promises, while Obama on four huge foreign affairs campaign promises, (1) remove combat ground troops from Iraq, which has been accomplished, (2) reduce combat ground troops presence in Afghanistan, which is being accomplished (3) systematically eliminate al qaida leadership wherever they are found, which is being accomplished, and (4) kill Osama bin Laden, who now swims with the fish.

Obama, during his first run as Democratic nominee, was accused of simultaneously being a communist, a Muslim, and a Christian each of which is mutually exclusive to each of the other two, while Romney, during his first run as Republican nominee, has been asked few questions about his membership in the Mormon religion, in spite of the fact that, as a Temple Mormon, he has sworn a blood oath to do all that he can do to bring about an American theocracy the effective leaders of which would be the Mormon Prophet and his assistants in Salt Lake City.

Good post.

by **Ivan** Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:38 pm

willingsniper. Congratulations on this brilliant thread! I'm in the UK and was no doubt asleep when all this was happening. I've really enjoyed reading your comments and those of Shirina as the debate was taking place. Thank you both.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:59 pm

It's rather alarming how the Public's choice somehow always comes down to a Beauty Contest on TV.

Logic suggests that future Presidents of the USA will all have enjoyed a career in Hollywood first.

Maybe that explains why some of the Labour Party Faithful are getting twitchy about their current Leader.

by Shirina Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 pm

Logic suggests that future Presidents of the USA will all have enjoyed a career in Hollywood first.

This reminds me of the movie "Back to the Future."

When Marty McFly is trying to convince Doc Brown that he came from the year 1985, Doc Brown asked who is president in 1985. Marty confidently says, "Ronald Reagan."

Doc Brown exclaims, "Ronald Reagan? The ACTOR?!?"

But later, when Doc Brown sees a video camera for the first time, he says, "No wonder your president's an actor. He has to look good on TV!"

How true.

by willingsniper Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:07 am

Here's what 30,000 people in Madison did today. Check out this photo from President Obama's rally:
2012 presidential debates - Page 3 506dfe886a668.preview-620

2012 presidential debates - Page 3 506dfe886a668.preview-620

by willingsniper Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:10 am

Shirina wrote:
Logic suggests that future Presidents of the USA will all have enjoyed a career in Hollywood first.
This reminds me of the movie "Back to the Future."

When Marty McFly is trying to convince Doc Brown that he came from the year 1985, Doc Brown asked who is president in 1985. Marty confidently says, "Ronald Reagan."

Doc Brown exclaims, "Ronald Reagan? The ACTOR?!?"

But later, when Doc Brown sees a video camera for the first time, he says, "No wonder your president's an actor. He has to look good on TV!"

How true.

Isn't this true.

I voted for Arnold. I am not proud in hind sight. Please do not disown me. I believe in second chances, do you?

by willingsniper Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:04 am

Tim Dickinson
October 4, 2012 9:32 AM ET
Mitt Romney turned in a polished performance in last night's presidential debate – and revealed himself to be an accomplished and unapologetic liar. In an evening where he sought to slice and dice the president with statistics, Romney baldly misrepresented his own policy prescriptions, made up numbers to fit his attacks and buried clear contrasts with the president under a heaping pile of horseshit.

Here are mendacious Mitt's five most outrageous statements:

1. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." Romney flatly lied about the cost of his proposal to cut income-tax rates across the board by another 20 percent (undercutting even the low rates of the Bush tax cuts). Independent economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade.

2. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." Romney has claimed that he will pay for his tax cuts by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions. The factual problem? Romney hasn't named a single loophole he's willing to close; worse, there's no way to offset $5 trillion in tax cuts even if you get rid of the entire universe of deductions for the wealthy that Romney has not put off the table (like the carried interest loophole or the 15 percent capital gains rate.) The Tax Policy Center report concludes that Romney's proposal would create a "net tax cut for high-income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower- and or middle-income taxpayers." Moreover, some of Romney's tax cuts are micro-targeted at American dynasties, particularly his proposal to eliminate the estate tax, which would reduce his own sons' tax burden by tens of millions of dollars.

3. "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work."

4. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." Romney is reviving Sarah Palin's old death panels lie here. Obamacare does establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board to help constrain the growth of Medicare spending. The body has no authority to dictate the practices of the private insurance marketplace. And the law also makes explicit that this body is banned from rationing care or limiting medical benefits to seniors.

5. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." In the biggest whopper of the night, Romney suggested that his health care proposal would guarantee coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions. This is just not true. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you would be shit out of luck. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage, as even Romney's top adviser conceded after the debate was over.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#ixzz28OFOXYbw

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:30 am

Another Mitt Romney (not a current office holder vs. President of the United States and former United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. comparison.

Romney has participated in “outsourcing” American USV jobs and other economic enterprises, while Obama has ensured that General Motors, with its skateboard technology and related hydrogen delivery infrastructure technology, remains an American USV company.

A word about the geopolitical significance of this Obama accomplishment. Awhile back, before most of us were born, a great global war was won by the right side because the right side owned sufficient technology to win the war. Three examples:

ASDIC, or SONAR, commonly rendered in non-acronym form as “sonar”, was a key Allied advantage in both Europe and the Pacific. Pioneered by the UK and shared with the US, its use allowed British, Canadian, and US sub hunters to devastate U-boats and I-boats.
RADAR, commonly rendered in non-acronym form as “radar”, was also a key Allied advantage in both Europe and the Pacific. Likewise pioneered by the UK and shared with the US, its use helped British and US aircrafts to achieve air superiority in both theatres.
The Anglo-American North American Aviation P-51D Mustang, requested by the RAF, conceived and delivered by North American as the P-51A, and ultimately retro-fitted with the superb Rolls-Royce Merlin power-plant (licensed to Packard for P-51D use), this collaborative aircraft became arguably the finest land-based piston-engine fighter aircraft of all time, escorting Allied bombers over Berlin and Tokyo, the only fighter aircraft in the world at that time with sufficient range to do so.

Honesty compels relating the other side of the coin; German and Japanese technological advantages came far too close to delivering victory to the Axis powers. That’s a sobering thought to a mongrel like me, given the racist policies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

The application of this observation to the geopolitical significance of this Obama accomplishment? It’s not wise to allow those who have historically demonstrated readiness to attack and destroy you to own your key technology companies and technologies. Japan was poised to gobble up GM, but, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama Jr., GM and its skateboard are securely in American USV hands, and we’re inclined to share its advantages with our friends.

by willingsniper Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:32 pm

by willingsniper Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:36 pm

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:52 pm

I believe that the average Elector glazes over when presented with alternative sets of figures. Newspapers know how to convey the same information in a digestible form. e.g. (Your take-home pay could fall by $30 a week if so-and-so is elected).

by Beth fph Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:55 am

willingsniper wrote:Post your reactions to the debates line by line. Turn it on and let the fur fly!

It's a little late to go "line by line" : ), but I'll give a quick, capsule review of my reactions.

Obama will have to do better. The jovial, "just friends hangin' out", persona is not what's called for, imo. He and his coaches may have thought he'd be one-up by making Romney seem too distant and austere in contrast. But, we have serious problems in this country, so taking things lightly isn't where he needs to be.

I hope they always remind Obama .. Romney occasionally puts his foot in his mouth so watch for it and make the most of it, if it happens.

They were both okay but Romney came across a little better.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:09 am

It's only a variation on the X-Factor. Maybe a panel of nauseating "judges" would smarten their Act.

by methought Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:16 pm

I watched 2 TV programmes last night. The first was on Charlie Rose debating whether terrorists captured abroad should be tried under US jurisdiction or killed as enemy combatants. The vote preferred trying people brought to Guantanamo Bay as terrorists rather than shooting suspects in their own countries.

Crimes against America was the focus, rather than crimes against people, and I found it to be the lesser of 2 evils, frankly. It would be good if Imran Khan could raise the profile of drones killing children in Pakhistan. One controller advised it is difficult to get a sense of scale when someone is playing by the roadside on the drone's camera.

The other programme was the News, about the presidential election in Venezuela, when a brave Ken Livingston said he praised Chavez for arresting the owners of a TV company for telling watchers to go out and over-throw the government by force. The interviewer suggested he was controlling the media, and Ken asked how secure their jobs would be if they called on Brits to take to the streets to get rid of our democratically elected government. His main point though, was that oil profits were being ploughed back into the country's infra-structure, providing free education and healthcare, rather than allowing American oil companies to remove the profits out of Venezuela.

I'd like to see an American socialist trying to air a point of view like that on American TV. It'll never happen.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:27 pm

"I'd like to see an American socialist trying to air a point of view like that on American TV."

Well that time may not be very long delayed. Evidently almost a third of US residents have Spanish as their first language, and those people know EXACTLY what the CIA has been up to in Latin America. The power of Spanish-language media is yet in its infancy, but with the character of a smouldering volcano.

by methought Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:31 pm

And yes, Mitt Romney was a tour de force. I don't know if Obama did get any good lines into the debate but the clips I saw on the News only showed Obama with his head in his hands.

by methought Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:33 pm

It'll never happen OW - it would be called 'anti-American'.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:20 pm

methought wrote:
Crimes against America was the focus, rather than crimes against people…

“Crimes against America” are crimes against people. Americans USV are people; crimes against America USV almost always involve extermination of Americans USV. View the linked video.

Live TV footage/coverage of a crime against America USV exterminating innocent human souls
https://www.youtube.com/v/UVhhu5OjMf8

In the instance recorded on this video, crime against America USV involved extermination of nearly three thousand innocent human souls, Americans USV and others, by Islamafascist murderers/terrorists.

methought wrote:
It would be good if Imran Khan could raise the profile of drones killing children in Pakhistan.

It would be good if methought could raise the profile of Predator drones killing al qaida and taliban Islamafascist murderers/terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen. It would be good if methought could raise the profile of SEAL Team 6 killing the chief beast, al qaida Islamafascist murderer/terrorist Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, living comfortably with multiple wives in a multi-story compound within sight and earshot of Pakistani military authorities.

methought wrote:
I'd like to see an American socialist trying to air a point of view like that on American TV. It'll never happen.

Perhaps the American USV socialist who might try to air the point of view you reference was exterminated during the commission of a crime against America USV, and thus any possible airing of the referenced point of view by this exterminated American USV will never happen due to this American USV socialist’s prior extermination.

by **astradt1** Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:52 pm

Ha the 911 trump card has been played.........

by methought Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:09 am

Does anyone have a peaceful outcome in view?

by methought Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:22 am

Perhaps the best propaganda machine ever put out by America was Star Trek the Next Generation. One day, in a rosy future, the prime directive will ensure that the world is at peace, with respect, cooperation and mutual respect applied to everyone everywhere.

Democracy is about revolving ideologies rather than revolution, as a Chinese American told a Chinese interviewer on Chinese TV. Humanity has the potential for great good and great harm. I know which side I would like to be on, but also recognise which side my bread is buttered. It would be good if the benefits could be agreed and shared more fairly.

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:22 am

"It would be good if the benefits could be agreed and shared more fairly."

Governor Romney thinks that the benefits ARE shared fairly. He deserves a bigger share than anyone else because he considers that he worked for it.

Others may differ, but that's what he and his supporters genuinely think.

To the victor the spoils.

by Shirina Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:36 pm

He deserves a bigger share than anyone else because he considers that he worked for it.

Of course he'd think that ... which is why they hate leftists. People like Romney simply cannot fathom that the salaries of he, and those like him, are completely out of proportion to what they actually do. First of all, there is a point somewhere -- admittedly I don't know where, and it IS an arbitrary judgment -- a person like Romney stops earning their money. You might be able to claim that you earn $500,000 per year, but no one *earns* $25 million per year. No singular job is worth that much money.

The second issue is what these multi-millionaires actually do for society, which is very little. The capitalist mentality is that simply making money is the highest form of success. HOW you make that money is irrelevant. This is why a man who literally sells stones in the form of a "Pet Rock" earns far and away more money than, say, a teacher or even a scientist. The world can do just fine without Pet Rocks (and has been for about 30 years now) but would be hard-pressed to survive without teachers, cops, scientists, and even the folks who haul away our trash. I think the world would do just as well without Bain Capital as it could with it, but Romney walks away with a massive salary every year. Most teachers in America do not even earn the *average* income in this country.

by Shirina Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:07 pm

The first was on Charlie Rose debating whether terrorists captured abroad should be tried under US jurisdiction or killed as enemy combatants.

Why shouldn't they be shot as enemy combatants? That's what they are. In any shooting war, whether declared or not, combatants on both sides do not try to capture each other. If they willingly surrender, that's one thing, but it should be pointed out that terrorists with martyrdom on their minds do not throw up their hands at the first sign of the "cops." They are not garden variety criminals caught robbing a convenience store. If US troops -- or anyone else's troops -- were forced into trying to capture these elusive people, we would get ourselves into the same kind of political mess that was Vietnam.

No one really "declares" war any more, at least not with official speeches and communiques sent by ambassadors. In the modern era, war is declared through hostile acts -- invasions, bombings, and, yes, acts of terrorism.

It would be good if Imran Khan could raise the profile of drones killing children in Pakhistan.

The condemnation of drone attacks is, quite frankly, the same kind of resistance to changes in warfare that we ALWAYS see when new weapons are introduced to the battlefield. Drones are likely the future of modern war since there's no point in sending a manned aircraft into danger when an unmanned drone works just as well. Yet here again we see evidence of the implied belief that only American weapons kill children; the rest of the world only "plays" at war, apparently, and anyone killed by a terrorist's bomb simply counts to 20 then gets up and goes about their lives once more like kids playing in their back yards.

And when I talk about terrorists' bombs, I don't even mean attacks upon Westerners. Nearly every day, a terrorist blows something up -- a cafe, a bus station, a police station, a church, a shopping center, a school bus ... you name it. Children, the elderly, all sorts of men and women. No one is above and beyond the slaughter. It's just that these bombings never make the front page here in the West unless a Westerner is among the victims. While pacifists in the West are quick to shed tears over children accidentally killed by American drones, their eyes are remarkably dry when a Muslim intentionally kills other Muslim children.

How many know of the 86 people killed when a suicide bomber blew up two mosques in Lehore, Pakistan? The 25 who were killed at a marketplace in Peshawar? The 40 who were killed while on a train in Moscow? The 28 killed and 300+ injured when Sunnis blew up a Shi'ite mosque in Zahedan, Iran? The 46 killed and 100+ wounded when a suicide bomber blew herself up in the middle of a UN food distribution center again in Pakistan?

The American presence in the Middle East didn't cause these deaths, and while it is easy to point fingers at the "evil occupiers" for the woes of the region, the sad and horrific truth is that these folks slaughter each other just as readily with or without American drone attacks, thus the undue emphasis placed upon the actions of Americans is unwarranted, in my opinion.

by methought Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:55 pm

It is good that people are called to account for their actions. Drones are scary though. No warning - no enemy in sight - people just minding their own business in their usual home town - and boom - half a dozen women and children digging in a field - oops no they weren't planting mines....

Perhaps there is less of the computer game ethos about it now. Yes it is a good way to monitor the potential for terrorism, for surveillance - great - just keep the oops factor to a minimum and no-one will be complaining. Not even Pakhistan wants Al Qaeda terrorists in its backyard.

by methought Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:07 pm

The rule of law is what we live by. It shouldn't be any different when we are outside of our borders, if we are to lead by example, and win hearts and minds.

by Shirina Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:20 pm

It is good that people are called to account for their actions. Drones are scary though. No warning - no enemy in sight - people just minding their own business in their usual home town - and boom - half a dozen women and children digging in a field - oops no they weren't planting mines....

How easy do you think it would be to identify women and children digging in a field if you were flying an F-16 or A-10 moving at 500 mph?

Yes it is a good way to monitor the potential for terrorism, for surveillance - great

If surveillance ... in other words, targeting information ... comes from drones, then we'd still end up sending strike aircraft to bomb the very same targets the drone would identify ... so why not just use the drones instead of the aircraft?

The only way to ever know for SURE if people are terrorists or civilians is to have boots on the ground, and even then, without uniforms or identifying insignia, the first sign of terrorism comes in the form of dead soldiers or a bomb going off. Yes, the "oops" factor is never a good thing. But like I said, there is undue criticism of drone attacks, an unfair weight given to them as opposed to the murder and death that takes place every day -- deliberately -- by terrorism all over the region. It's almost a form of reverse racism whereby Muslims are allowed to kill whomever they wish, but Americans are crucified for every civilian death no matter how accidental. Purposeful murder by Muslims = okay. Accidental death by Americans = bad.

by **astradt1** Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:35 pm

If surveillance ... in other words, targeting information ... comes from drones, then we'd still end up sending strike aircraft to bomb the very same targets the drone would identify ... so why not just use the drones instead of the aircraft

Drones are operated by humans, it is humans who look at the information (pictures) they send back to base, so it is humans how make the call as to whether to attack or not........All too often it is the shot first and ask questions after mentality human who makes the call....

No country can fall back on the 'it was the drones how got it wrong' defense

by Sponsored content