lol, Jimmy Carter unloads on Obama (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

not sure if we're at bottom or have more room to go down but this is funny

Et Tu, Jimmy?When Jimmy Carter starts criticizing your foreign policy as weak and indecisive, you are getting to the bottom of the barrel. Jimmy unloaded on Barack Obama yesterday:

Former President Jimmy Carter is criticizing President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, saying he has shifting policies and waited too long to take action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
In an interview published Tuesday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the 39th president said the Obama administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIL to build up its strength.
Carter said Obama’s air campaign against ISIL in Iraq has “a possibility of success,” provided that some troops are available on the ground. He did not specify whether he meant U.S. or other ground forces.
The former Democratic president and Georgia governor also said the president has shifted his Middle East policy on several occasions.
When you’ve lost Jimmy “Boots on the Ground” Carter, whom haven’t you lost? That’s got to be a short list.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/et-tu-jimmy.php

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Skeet skeet skeet

 

[ffldrew]

When Jimmy Carter starts criticizing your foreign policy as weak and indecisive, you are getting to the bottom of the barrel.

Egypt - Israel agreement down?

Pretty sure that is the #1 to #3 foreign policy accomplishment in post WWII era

 

[timschochet]

When Jimmy Carter starts criticizing your foreign policy as weak and indecisive, you are getting to the bottom of the barrel.

Egypt - Israel agreement down?

Pretty sure that is the #1 to #3 foreign policy accomplishment in post WWII era

About 80% of that was Anwar Sadat, while 15% was Begin willing to return the Sinai Desert. Carter gets credit for hosting the affair at Camp David.

Jimmy Carter wrote a shameful and disgusting book, filled with outright lies, about Israel and Palestine, called, "Peace, Not Apartheid." That really tells you all you need to know about Jimmy Carter. He was, without a doubt, the worst foreign policy President of the 20th century and probably competes with George W. Bush as overall worst foreign policy President. Conversely, I regard Obama as one of our best.

 

[DocHolliday]

Tell us something we do not know Tim.

Obama as one of the best POTUS in regards to foreign policy. This is a classic line.

 

[timschochet]

Tell us something we do not know Tim.

Obama as one of the best POTUS in regards to foreign policy. This is a classic line.

That's what I think. It hasn't been perfect, but I think overall he's been outstanding. I've explained why several times before.

 

[jon_mx]

When Jimmy Carter starts criticizing your foreign policy as weak and indecisive, you are getting to the bottom of the barrel.

Egypt - Israel agreement down?

Pretty sure that is the #1 to #3 foreign policy accomplishment in post WWII era

About 80% of that was Anwar Sadat, while 15% was Begin willing to return the Sinai Desert. Carter gets credit for hosting the affair at Camp David.

Jimmy Carter wrote a shameful and disgusting book, filled with outright lies, about Israel and Palestine, called, "Peace, Not Apartheid." That really tells you all you need to know about Jimmy Carter. He was, without a doubt, the worst foreign policy President of the 20th century and probably competes with George W. Bush as overall worst foreign policy President. Conversely, I regard Obama as one of our best.

You do not handle criticism of your dear leader very well.

 

[Fennis]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

 

[Scoresman]

jimmy carter wasnt a very good president. if he thinks something is wrong, doesnt that mean it's probably working pretty good?

 

[StrikeS2k]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

Yep. But Tim is good with it. Because Obama did it. If Bush had done it Tim would have started four separate threads about it.

 

[Fennis]

which would be worse: Jimmy Carter thinking you are doing a bad job or George W Bush thinking you are doing a good job?

 

[Scoresman]

which would be worse: Jimmy Carter thinking you are doing a bad job or George W Bush thinking you are doing a good job?

yeah this was my point. if you as president are doing something different than how jimmy carter would be doing it, the odds of you doing it right have just increased.

 

[timschochet]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

Yep. But Tim is good with it. Because Obama did it. If Bush had done it Tim would have started four separate threads about it.

If Bush had done this I would have defended him as well.

 

[Jayrod]

which would be worse: Jimmy Carter thinking you are doing a bad job or George W Bush thinking you are doing a good job?

yeah this was my point. if you as president are doing something different than how jimmy carter would be doing it, the odds of you doing it right have just increased.

Yup, flawless logic here.

 

[tommyboy]

this is like Pete Rose ripping on John Daly's horrible gambling strategy

 

[jamny]

Carter just turned 90. He's trying to hang on long enough for Obama to take his crown as worst President. Two more years Jimmy! Hang in there!

 

[avoiding injuries]

Tell us something we do not know Tim.

Obama as one of the best POTUS in regards to foreign policy. This is a classic line.

That's what I think. It hasn't been perfect, but I think overall he's been outstanding. I've explained why several times before.

I'm going to have to side with Leon Panetta over you on this one.

 

[jonessed]

Greatest foreign policy leader in the history of the universe.

 

[timschochet]

Tell us something we do not know Tim.

Obama as one of the best POTUS in regards to foreign policy. This is a classic line.

That's what I think. It hasn't been perfect, but I think overall he's been outstanding. I've explained why several times before.

I'm going to have to side with Leon Panetta over you on this one.

It's certainly an unpopular view. Virtually nobody agrees with me on this. Well, maybe Michelle does...

 

[jonessed]

Tell us something we do not know Tim.

Obama as one of the best POTUS in regards to foreign policy. This is a classic line.

That's what I think. It hasn't been perfect, but I think overall he's been outstanding. I've explained why several times before.

I'm going to have to side with Leon Panetta over you on this one.

And Gates, and Hillary to a large extent.

 

[timschochet]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

For decades following World War II, this country had critics like Daniel Ellsberg tell us that there was no such thing as "strategic bombing" because far too many innocent people were killed every time. Ellsberg, Chomsky, and others who made this criticism were considered radicals and their views were rarely reported in the mainstream news, except during the latter half of the Vietnam War. It's a legitimate argument, but it's also a pacifist argument, and anyone who made it has to be opposed to all warfare in order to be consistent, since there is no way to engage in modern industrial warfare without killing innocent people.

Now we have drones which are far more specific than any other previous weapon, so much so that their existence really does make "strategic bombing" a reality for the first time ever. There is no question that they save much more lives than any previous attempt at bombing. (And not incidentally, they also save the lives of our service men and women because they can be fired with accuracy from anywhere without risk from those who use them.) But ironically, the use of these weapons, perhaps because they target individuals so precisely, are condemned much more loudly than strategic bombing ever was. Now if you were a pacifist all along, like an Ellsberg or Chomsky, then It's perfectly fine for you to criticize the use of these weapons. But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

The issue of some of the targets being American citizens is different, and a bit more troubling (at least to me). But if they have chosen to embrace radical terrorism against the United States, then they should IMO be regarded as enemy combatants in time of war, and are therefore subject to be killed if our government deems it necessary.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

For decades following World War II, this country had critics like Daniel Ellsberg tell us that there was no such thing as "strategic bombing" because far too many innocent people were killed every time. Ellsberg, Chomsky, and others who made this criticism were considered radicals and their views were rarely reported in the mainstream news, except during the latter half of the Vietnam War. It's a legitimate argument, but it's also a pacifist argument, and anyone who made it has to be opposed to all warfare in order to be consistent, since there is no way to engage in modern industrial warfare without killing innocent people.

Now we have drones which are far more specific than any other previous weapon, so much so that their existence really does make "strategic bombing" a reality for the first time ever. There is no question that they save much more lives than any previous attempt at bombing. (And not incidentally, they also save the lives of our service men and women because they can be fired with accuracy from anywhere without risk from those who use them.) But ironically, the use of these weapons, perhaps because they target individuals so precisely, are condemned much more loudly than strategic bombing ever was. Now if you were a pacifist all along, like an Ellsberg or Chomsky, then It's perfectly fine for you to criticize the use of these weapons. But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

The issue of some of the targets being American citizens is different, and a bit more troubling (at least to me). But if they have chosen to embrace radical terrorism against the United States, then they should IMO be regarded as enemy combatants in time of war, and are therefore subject to be killed if our government deems it necessary.

This is some damn Tim.

 

[Gr00vus]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

For decades following World War II, this country had critics like Daniel Ellsberg tell us that there was no such thing as "strategic bombing" because far too many innocent people were killed every time. Ellsberg, Chomsky, and others who made this criticism were considered radicals and their views were rarely reported in the mainstream news, except during the latter half of the Vietnam War. It's a legitimate argument, but it's also a pacifist argument, and anyone who made it has to be opposed to all warfare in order to be consistent, since there is no way to engage in modern industrial warfare without killing innocent people.

Now we have drones which are far more specific than any other previous weapon, so much so that their existence really does make "strategic bombing" a reality for the first time ever. There is no question that they save much more lives than any previous attempt at bombing. (And not incidentally, they also save the lives of our service men and women because they can be fired with accuracy from anywhere without risk from those who use them.) But ironically, the use of these weapons, perhaps because they target individuals so precisely, are condemned much more loudly than strategic bombing ever was. Now if you were a pacifist all along, like an Ellsberg or Chomsky, then It's perfectly fine for you to criticize the use of these weapons. But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

The issue of some of the targets being American citizens is different, and a bit more troubling (at least to me). But if they have chosen to embrace radical terrorism against the United States, then they should IMO be regarded as enemy combatants in time of war, and are therefore subject to be killed if our government deems it necessary.

The technology is capable of targeting individuals precisely. A problem most of us "pacifists" are very concerned about is that the people directing the drones don't really seem to be doing due diligence in verifying that the individuals the drones precisely target are actually dangerous in some way. And of course there's the whole violation of due process, etc. as well, but you waffle on that one day to the next, so I don't know if that's an important issue for you today.

 

[GrandpaRox]

When Jimmy Carter starts criticizing your foreign policy as weak and indecisive, you are getting to the bottom of the barrel.

Egypt - Israel agreement down?

Pretty sure that is the #1 to #3 foreign policy accomplishment in post WWII era

About 80% of that was Anwar Sadat, while 15% was Begin willing to return the Sinai Desert. Carter gets credit for hosting the affair at Camp David.

Jimmy Carter wrote a shameful and disgusting book, filled with outright lies, about Israel and Palestine, called, "Peace, Not Apartheid." That really tells you all you need to know about Jimmy Carter. He was, without a doubt, the worst foreign policy President of the 20th century and probably competes with George W. Bush as overall worst foreign policy President. Conversely, I regard Obama as one of our best.

You really are clueless aren't you

 

[timschochet]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

For decades following World War II, this country had critics like Daniel Ellsberg tell us that there was no such thing as "strategic bombing" because far too many innocent people were killed every time. Ellsberg, Chomsky, and others who made this criticism were considered radicals and their views were rarely reported in the mainstream news, except during the latter half of the Vietnam War. It's a legitimate argument, but it's also a pacifist argument, and anyone who made it has to be opposed to all warfare in order to be consistent, since there is no way to engage in modern industrial warfare without killing innocent people.

Now we have drones which are far more specific than any other previous weapon, so much so that their existence really does make "strategic bombing" a reality for the first time ever. There is no question that they save much more lives than any previous attempt at bombing. (And not incidentally, they also save the lives of our service men and women because they can be fired with accuracy from anywhere without risk from those who use them.) But ironically, the use of these weapons, perhaps because they target individuals so precisely, are condemned much more loudly than strategic bombing ever was. Now if you were a pacifist all along, like an Ellsberg or Chomsky, then It's perfectly fine for you to criticize the use of these weapons. But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

The issue of some of the targets being American citizens is different, and a bit more troubling (at least to me). But if they have chosen to embrace radical terrorism against the United States, then they should IMO be regarded as enemy combatants in time of war, and are therefore subject to be killed if our government deems it necessary.

The technology is capable of targeting individuals precisely. A problem most of us "pacifists" are very concerned about is that the people directing the drones don't really seem to be doing due diligence in verifying that the individuals the drones precisely target are actually dangerous in some way. And of course there's the whole violation of due process, etc. as well, but you waffle on that one day to the next, so I don't know if that's an important issue for you today.

First off, I am not suggesting that anyone who criticizes drone warfare is a pacifist. I am suggesting that if you criticize ANY kind of warfare in which innocent people are killed, then you have to be opposed to ALL modern warfare to be consistent. (I am not referring here to the DELIBERATE killing of innocent people- we can regard that as immoral under any circumstance.)

Second, your objection seems focused on the way these drones are specifically being used- if indeed not enough due diligence is being performed, then in principle I would agree with you that this is objectionable. However I don't know if that's the case, and I'm wondering how you know that it is the case. To be clear, it would not surprise me if there have been screwups and mistakes made. This is, after all, our government. But that in itself is never enough, at least IMO, to find the whole program objectionable.

I already gave an answer about due process, but to simplify it:

1. We are at war with radical terrorists who seek to harm the United States.

2. The best way for us to win this war is to kill these terrorists.

3. It's irrelevant if some of these terrorists are American citizens; if they are terrorists, and if we are at war with them, then we have the right to kill them, and due process doesn't apply.

 

[timschochet]

When Jimmy Carter starts criticizing your foreign policy as weak and indecisive, you are getting to the bottom of the barrel.

Egypt - Israel agreement down?

Pretty sure that is the #1 to #3 foreign policy accomplishment in post WWII era

About 80% of that was Anwar Sadat, while 15% was Begin willing to return the Sinai Desert. Carter gets credit for hosting the affair at Camp David.

Jimmy Carter wrote a shameful and disgusting book, filled with outright lies, about Israel and Palestine, called, "Peace, Not Apartheid." That really tells you all you need to know about Jimmy Carter. He was, without a doubt, the worst foreign policy President of the 20th century and probably competes with George W. Bush as overall worst foreign policy President. Conversely, I regard Obama as one of our best.

You really are clueless aren't you

Quite often.

 

[Gr00vus]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

For decades following World War II, this country had critics like Daniel Ellsberg tell us that there was no such thing as "strategic bombing" because far too many innocent people were killed every time. Ellsberg, Chomsky, and others who made this criticism were considered radicals and their views were rarely reported in the mainstream news, except during the latter half of the Vietnam War. It's a legitimate argument, but it's also a pacifist argument, and anyone who made it has to be opposed to all warfare in order to be consistent, since there is no way to engage in modern industrial warfare without killing innocent people.

Now we have drones which are far more specific than any other previous weapon, so much so that their existence really does make "strategic bombing" a reality for the first time ever. There is no question that they save much more lives than any previous attempt at bombing. (And not incidentally, they also save the lives of our service men and women because they can be fired with accuracy from anywhere without risk from those who use them.) But ironically, the use of these weapons, perhaps because they target individuals so precisely, are condemned much more loudly than strategic bombing ever was. Now if you were a pacifist all along, like an Ellsberg or Chomsky, then It's perfectly fine for you to criticize the use of these weapons. But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

The issue of some of the targets being American citizens is different, and a bit more troubling (at least to me). But if they have chosen to embrace radical terrorism against the United States, then they should IMO be regarded as enemy combatants in time of war, and are therefore subject to be killed if our government deems it necessary.

The technology is capable of targeting individuals precisely. A problem most of us "pacifists" are very concerned about is that the people directing the drones don't really seem to be doing due diligence in verifying that the individuals the drones precisely target are actually dangerous in some way. And of course there's the whole violation of due process, etc. as well, but you waffle on that one day to the next, so I don't know if that's an important issue for you today.

First off, I am not suggesting that anyone who criticizes drone warfare is a pacifist. I am suggesting that if you criticize ANY kind of warfare in which innocent people are killed, then you have to be opposed to ALL modern warfare to be consistent. (I am not referring here to the DELIBERATE killing of innocent people- we can regard that as immoral under any circumstance.)

Second, your objection seems focused on the way these drones are specifically being used- if indeed not enough due diligence is being performed, then in principle I would agree with you that this is objectionable. However I don't know if that's the case, and I'm wondering how you know that it is the case. To be clear, it would not surprise me if there have been screwups and mistakes made. This is, after all, our government. But that in itself is never enough, at least IMO, to find the whole program objectionable.

I already gave an answer about due process, but to simplify it:

1. We are at war with radical terrorists who seek to harm the United States.

2. The best way for us to win this war is to kill these terrorists.

3. It's irrelevant if some of these terrorists are American citizens; if they are terrorists, and if we are at war with them, then we have the right to kill them, and due process doesn't apply.

Start with this. Skip ahead to 6:30 if you don't want to watch the whole thing (though I recommend it).

And conducting targeted death strikes on people without due process is a great start at finding any program objectionable. Particularly when the technology allows you to be precise in your targets and you're still managing to kill innocent people instead through incompetence.

 

[Dondante]

When Jimmy Carter starts criticizing your foreign policy as weak and indecisive, you are getting to the bottom of the barrel.

Egypt - Israel agreement down?

Pretty sure that is the #1 to #3 foreign policy accomplishment in post WWII era

About 80% of that was Anwar Sadat, while 15% was Begin willing to return the Sinai Desert. Carter gets credit for hosting the affair at Camp David.

Jimmy Carter wrote a shameful and disgusting book, filled with outright lies, about Israel and Palestine, called, "Peace, Not Apartheid." That really tells you all you need to know about Jimmy Carter. He was, without a doubt, the worst foreign policy President of the 20th century and probably competes with George W. Bush as overall worst foreign policy President. Conversely, I regard Obama as one of our best.

Fixed.

 

[Plorfu]

lol?

 

[The Commish]

wait...wut? This is some political shenanigans right? If Carter is considered one of the worst on foreign policy ever, why would anyone use his opinion on foreign policy as "evidence" or "proof" of anything? If anything, wouldn't one be forced to believe the opposite of what Carter says is probably true when it comes to foreign policy?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So I have to choose between Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama?

So my choice is, 'or death?' Well, I'll have the chicken then. Tastes of human sir....

 

[jon_mx]

You can say a lot about Carter, but he was always honest.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim about this:

But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

When did Carter use bombs?

 

[timschochet]

Tim about this:

But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

When did Carter use bombs?

he didn't directly as President. But like all Presidents during the Cold War, he supplied guns and bombs to our "friends" around the world, including the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, who used them against the Soviet Union.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From the original source article:

First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic state build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” he said. “Then when [iSIS] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned.”

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/10/07/6182968/carter-unhappy-with-obamas-policies.html?rh=1

Uh, Jimmy, couldn't we say the same thing about Iran?

 

[cstu]

Isn't having your foreign policy criticized by Carter a good thing?

He's the genius who said this:

Months before the revolution, on New Year's Eve, December 31, 1977, American president Jimmy Carter further angered anti-Shah Iranians with a televised toast to the Shah, declaring how beloved the Shah was by his people.

 

[tommyboy]

this is like Ted Bundy complaining about Jeffrey Dahmers methods being unscrupulous

 

[Josie Maran]

"--Jimmy Carter unloads on Obama--"

This sounds like the worst porno ever.

 

[tommyboy]

"--Jimmy Carter unloads on Obama--"

This sounds like the worst porno ever.

might not be so bad if your name is David Axelrod or Bernie Sanders

 

[KingPrawn]

jimmy carter wasnt a very good president. if he thinks something is wrong, doesnt that mean it's probably working pretty good?

If timmy thinks Obama is right, doesn't that mean it's probably not working very good?

 

[fatness]

The undecides will break for Romney and he'll win walking away.

this is just one example of why i feel very confident in Romney- Ryan:

yes, i'm well aware of the process. As the thread title explains, i feel that Romney is going to win this thing handily, The 2 pt gap in pennsylvania that showed up today in a poll that is skewed Democrat +6 in the sampling tells me that Romney is going to win Pennsylvania. That's just one swing state. I'm pretty sure he'll crush obama when this is all said and done. The country doesn't like Obama, even the people that voted for him don't like him. He's toast.

 

[timschochet]

The undecides will break for Romney and he'll win walking away.

this is just one example of why i feel very confident in Romney- Ryan:

yes, i'm well aware of the process. As the thread title explains, i feel that Romney is going to win this thing handily, The 2 pt gap in pennsylvania that showed up today in a poll that is skewed Democrat +6 in the sampling tells me that Romney is going to win Pennsylvania. That's just one swing state. I'm pretty sure he'll crush obama when this is all said and done. The country doesn't like Obama, even the people that voted for him don't like him. He's toast.

Yes, tommyboy is often wrong in his political prognostication. (In fact, since I have a pending $500.00 wager with him over the immediate future of Obamacare, I'm frankly counting on him being wrong again.)

However, this has no bearing whatsoever on his views on this topic, so I'm not quite sure why you brought it up.

 

[The Commish]

Isn't having your foreign policy criticized by Carter a good thing?

This was essentially my point before...you were much more concise.

 

[FlapJacks]

which would be worse: Jimmy Carter thinking you are doing a bad job or George W Bush thinking you are doing a good job?

Both of these gentlemen are reasonably intelligent human beings with the unique perspective of having sat in the captain's chair and have had time to reflect on what worked and what didn't. Regarless of their successes and failures, their opinion/perspective does have some credibility,

 

[Tau837]

As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter

For decades following World War II, this country had critics like Daniel Ellsberg tell us that there was no such thing as "strategic bombing" because far too many innocent people were killed every time. Ellsberg, Chomsky, and others who made this criticism were considered radicals and their views were rarely reported in the mainstream news, except during the latter half of the Vietnam War. It's a legitimate argument, but it's also a pacifist argument, and anyone who made it has to be opposed to all warfare in order to be consistent, since there is no way to engage in modern industrial warfare without killing innocent people.Now we have drones which are far more specific than any other previous weapon, so much so that their existence really does make "strategic bombing" a reality for the first time ever. There is no question that they save much more lives than any previous attempt at bombing. (And not incidentally, they also save the lives of our service men and women because they can be fired with accuracy from anywhere without risk from those who use them.) But ironically, the use of these weapons, perhaps because they target individuals so precisely, are condemned much more loudly than strategic bombing ever was. Now if you were a pacifist all along, like an Ellsberg or Chomsky, then It's perfectly fine for you to criticize the use of these weapons. But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.

The issue of some of the targets being American citizens is different, and a bit more troubling (at least to me). But if they have chosen to embrace radical terrorism against the United States, then they should IMO be regarded as enemy combatants in time of war, and are therefore subject to be killed if our government deems it necessary.

The technology is capable of targeting individuals precisely. A problem most of us "pacifists" are very concerned about is that the people directing the drones don't really seem to be doing due diligence in verifying that the individuals the drones precisely target are actually dangerous in some way. And of course there's the whole violation of due process, etc. as well, but you waffle on that one day to the next, so I don't know if that's an important issue for you today.

First off, I am not suggesting that anyone who criticizes drone warfare is a pacifist. I am suggesting that if you criticize ANY kind of warfare in which innocent people are killed, then you have to be opposed to ALL modern warfare to be consistent. (I am not referring here to the DELIBERATE killing of innocent people- we can regard that as immoral under any circumstance.) Second, your objection seems focused on the way these drones are specifically being used- if indeed not enough due diligence is being performed, then in principle I would agree with you that this is objectionable. However I don't know if that's the case, and I'm wondering how you know that it is the case. To be clear, it would not surprise me if there have been screwups and mistakes made. This is, after all, our government. But that in itself is never enough, at least IMO, to find the whole program objectionable.

I already gave an answer about due process, but to simplify it:

1. We are at war with radical terrorists who seek to harm the United States.

2. The best way for us to win this war is to kill these terrorists.

3. It's irrelevant if some of these terrorists are American citizens; if they are terrorists, and if we are at war with them, then we have the right to kill them, and due process doesn't apply.

So what is your proposed solution?

Try to arrest the terrorists in foreign countries to give them due process? (And by whom?)

Walk away and stop trying to pursue them altogether?

Revert to use of inferior technology that is less precise?

Please be specific.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Carter continues to be such an embarrassment and seems to have zero self awareness about what an absolute failure he was in office. As a former President, it is also extremely undignified to criticize the current President even if it may be justified.

 

[timschochet]

Carter continues to be such an embarrassment and seems to have zero self awareness about what an absolute failure he was in office. As a former President, it is also extremely undignified to criticize the current President even if it may be justified.

good point. It's a political no-no. I can't recall the last one whose done it. I'm betting Carter has been snubbed at some point by Obama (or more than one). Carter is known to be petulant.

 

[Dondante]

Carter continues to be such an embarrassment and seems to have zero self awareness about what an absolute failure he was in office. As a former President, it is also extremely undignified to criticize the current President even if it may be justified.

When did politicians begin worrying about their dignity, again?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Carter continues to be such an embarrassment and seems to have zero self awareness about what an absolute failure he was in office. As a former President, it is also extremely undignified to criticize the current President even if it may be justified.

Yep, he broke the code.

 

[Gr00vus]

So what is your proposed solution?

Try to arrest the terrorists in foreign countries to give them due process? (And by whom?)

Walk away and stop trying to pursue them altogether?

Revert to use of inferior technology that is less precise?

Please be specific.

If it were up to me, we'd have nothing to do with the region. Stop propping up regimes indirectly through our dependency on oil (even if we don't buy directly from them, our demand still helps hold up prices).

If you're going to use drones, you need 100% certainty that you're using them on the correct target. If you don't have 100% certainty, you don't fire. Pretty simple.