How do we pick targets for drone attacks?

• Con_Alma

  It's a right that would and should exist even if there was no need to be protected at all... be it from either private interests or governemntal interests. The justification doesn't exist in being able to protect.
  
  It's why I listed the court case DC vs. Heller.
• justincredible

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1382021 wrote:Edit: I have no problem with amending the 2nd amendment either. It was written by slave owners.

  What purpose does the second sentence serve?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Since when will a gun defend against a drone? lol. You gotta be a hell of a shot to shoot down a Predator. Love how the thread has fallen apart.
  
  How do we pick targets, if you want to wage war against the U.S. Government.
  Sounds like a slippery slope right?
  But, explain to me how this would be any different than during the Cold War, or World War II, or even the Civil War?
• sleeper

  

  justincredible;1382025 wrote:What purpose does the second sentence serve?

  Need to have things signed by non-white people these days so its not racist.
• justincredible

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1382026 wrote:How do we pick targets, if you want to wage war against the U.S. Government.
  Sounds like a slippery slope right?
  But, explain to me how this would be any different than during the Cold War, or World War II, or even the Civil War?

  You're cool with a 16 year old American citizen being murdered with a drone?
  
  WH response? Shoulda had a better father.
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html
• GoChiefs

  

  justincredible;1382025 wrote:What purpose does the second sentence serve?

  Because there wasn't a Rooney Rule in affect during the signing of the Constitution, so it's invalid in today's day and age. Those crazy white people back them be ignorant.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  justincredible;1382031 wrote:You're cool with a 16 year old American citizen being murdered with a drone?
  
  WH response? Shoulda had a better father.
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

  I'm not cool with it, but what other options are there?
  Send in a SEAL Team and risk casualties?
  Rely on the Yemen Government to do the job?
  It is the least bad option.
• justincredible

  

  Seriously, though. I don't understand how anyone is cool with murdering (yes, it's murder) anyone abroad without an official declaration of war from Congress. The President alone should not be able to decide this shit. And we aren't at war with Pakistan. Why the fuck are we droning the shit out of people in their country? Murder someone's family and they are absolutely going to take up arms against the United States. All this shit does is breed more terrorism. It's complete bullshit and needs to stop.
• justincredible

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1382036 wrote:I'm not cool with it, but what other options are there?
  Send in a SEAL Team and risk casualties?
  Rely on the Yemen Government to do the job?
  It is the least bad option.

  Stop murdering people?
• BoatShoes

  justincredible;1382025 wrote:What purpose does the second sentence serve?

  Perhaps what he means that we often appeal to the irrelevant opinions of men who have been dead for two hundred years and were significantly less intelligent than our society in the aggregate in this day and age (as evidenced by their endorsement of the arcane practice of enslaving other humans) rather than discuss issues on the merits.
  
  For instance, instead of weighing the merits of X policy proposal we say "Doesn't matter because I think Thomas Jefferson would say that's Unconstitutional and I can cite dictionaries from 1789 in support of that claim."
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1382023 wrote:It's a right that would and should exist even if there was no need to be protected at all... be it from either private interests or governemntal interests. The justification doesn't exist in being able to protect.
  
  It's why I listed the court case DC vs. Heller.

  You're acting like the jurisprudential reasoning and theories beyond why Heller endorsed it as an individual right as opposed to simply a right for armed-militia insurrection do not matter. :rolleyes:
• justincredible

  

  Perhaps the government should try something radical. GTFO of the middle east (and every other country for that matter). They don't want us there. We shouldn't be there. We should mind our own fucking business and let them do their own thing.
• justincredible

  

  BoatShoes;1382040 wrote:Perhaps what he means that we often appeal to the irrelevant opinions of men who have been dead for two hundred years and were significantly less intelligent than our society in the aggregate in this day and age (as evidenced by their endorsement of the arcane practice of enslaving other humans) rather than discuss issues on the merits.
  
  For instance, instead of weighing the merits of X policy proposal we say "Doesn't matter because I think Thomas Jefferson would say that's Unconstitutional and I can cite dictionaries from 1789 in support of that claim."

  So the Constitution is irrelevant because it was written over 200 years ago? Got it.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  justincredible;1382045 wrote:Perhaps the government should try something radical. GTFO of the middle east (and every other country for that matter). They don't want us there. We shouldn't be there. We should mind our own fucking business and let them do their own thing.

  100% agree
  
  (my second sentence was a poor attempt at showing it was out dated)
• justincredible

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1382050 wrote:100% agree
  
  (my second sentence was a poor attempt at showing it was out dated)

  The 1st Amendment was written by slave owners. Outdated.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1382044 wrote:You're acting like the jurisprudential reasoning and theories beyond why Heller endorsed it as an individual right as opposed to simply a right for armed-militia insurrection do not matter. :rolleyes:

  I'm not acting. It's not simply a right which exists for armed militia insurrection.
  
  It is right for use in any lawful manner.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  justincredible;1382051 wrote:The 1st Amendment was written by slave owners. Outdated.

  Amending and getting rid of are two separate things. If the first amendment was ever outdated in todays society i could see it being amended.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1382045 wrote:Perhaps the government should try something radical. GTFO of the middle east (and every other country for that matter). They don't want us there. We shouldn't be there. We should mind our own ****ing business and let them do their own thing.

  Beingn in the middle east is our business. Although being there creates blow-back scenarios it alos lessens the impact of additional uprisings that can threaten the citizens of the U.S..
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1382056 wrote:Beingn in the middle east is our business. Although being there creates blow-back scenarios it alos lessens the impact of additional uprisings that can threaten the citizens of the U.S..

  I 100% disagree.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Con_Alma;1382056 wrote:Beingn in the middle east is our business. Although being there creates blow-back scenarios it alos lessens the impact of additional uprisings that can threaten the citizens of the U.S..

  There is no reason for us to be in any country. The money and resources we're using over there is pointless.
• justincredible

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1382065 wrote:There is no reason for us to be in any country. The money and resources we're using over there is pointless.

  Yeah, no shit. How much are we spending occupying all these countries?
• GoChiefs

  

  justincredible;1382067 wrote:Yeah, no shit. How much are we spending occupying all these countries?

  But we can steal their oil when we kill them all!!!
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  justincredible;1382067 wrote:Yeah, no shit. How much are we spending occupying all these countries?

  Enough to start knocking down our national debt and maybe helping people get out from under massive student loan debt.
• Con_Alma

  Raw Dawgin' it;1382065 wrote:There is no reason for us to be in any country. The money and resources we're using over there is pointless.

  I disagree. The most significant point is the continued effort of keeping our finger on the pulse of the most volatile area of the world to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens and the stability of the world economy.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1382067 wrote:Yeah, no ****. How much are we spending occupying all these countries?

  We should spend whatever it takes...and we do.