Why I will not be voting for Obama.

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
Since 2009, the US Government has killed at least 661 individuals in Yemen, a nation we are not at war with; only 32 of those individuals were on any type of vetted and approved "kill-list"; 106 were definitely civilians (meaning they were women, children, or the elderly); the other 518 were simply "suspected" militants (meaning they were military-aged males...to include a 16-year old boy, of whom the CIA admitted they had no evidence that linked him to terrorism; yet, he was still officially categorized as a "suspected" terrorist). Over the same period, the US Government has provided weapons, training, and money to the Yemeni Government, while the Yemeni Government killed over 600 civilians. On the contrary, during the same four-year period, militants in Yemen have only killed 275 civilians in Yemen.

Prior to 2009, there was only one US drone strike which took place in Yemen. This took place in 2002 and killed 6 civilians. Due to the high civilian casualty toll, the Bush Administration placed a moratorium on drone strikes in Yemen. That moratorium was lifted in 2009 and both strikes and civilian casualties have increased every year since.

There are a lot of issues being tossed around this election cycle. However, the fact that this incumbent is not only ordering a number of assassinations previously unheard of in the history of the US, but that these assassinations are being carried out in the sloppiest manner possible (at least 10 civilians killed per target) should at least factor into the decision-making process.

Are these strikes making the US any safer, or are they simply breeding more hatred?
Is personal economic well-being and comfort (if you think Obama will provide that) worth the continued program of targeted-killings and assassinations ?

Of course, one could easily retort and say that these programs will not end, regardless of who is in office. This may or may not be true, we do not know; what we do know, is that the Obama Administration has consistently escalated the drone program each and every year he has been in office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
therealUT said:
Since 2009, the US Government has killed at least 661 individuals in Yemen, a nation we are not at war with; only 32 of those individuals were on any type of vetted and approved "kill-list"; 106 were definitely civilians (meaning they were women, children, or the elderly); the other 518 were simply "suspected" militants (meaning they were military-aged males...to include a 16-year old boy, of whom the CIA admitted they had no evidence that linked him to terrorism; yet, he was still officially categorized as a "suspected" terrorist). Over the same period, the US Government has provided weapons, training, and money to the Yemeni Government, while the Yemeni Government killed over 600 civilians. On the contrary, during the same four-year period, militants in Yemen have only killed 275 civilians in Yemen.

Prior to 2009, there was only one US drone strike which took place in Yemen. This took place in 2002 and killed 6 "civilians". Due to the high civilian casualty toll, the Bush Administration placed a moratorium on drone strikes in Yemen. That moratorium was lifted in 2009 and both strikes and civilian casualties have increased every year since.

There are a lot of issues being tossed around this election cycle. However, the fact that this incumbent is not only ordering a number of assassinations previously unheard of in the history of the US, but that these assassinations are being carried out in the sloppiest manner possible (at least 10 civilians killed per target) should at least factor into the decision-making process.

Are these strikes making the US any safer, or are they simply breeding more hatred?
Is personal economic well-being and comfort (if you think Obama will provide that) worth the continued program of targeted-killings and assassinations ?

Of course, one could easily retort and say that these programs will not end, regardless of who is in office. This may or may not be true, we do not know; what we do know, is that the Obama Administration has consistently escalated the drone program each and every year he has been in office.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this, but fixed the one part that I was most familiar with. Wrong place for details, but if you are referring to the target I think you were, that was a valid target.
 
#5
#5
On a serious note - this is one more example of why the administration contention that the protests are ONLY about the video is complete BS. The press happily laps it up for some reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
volinbham said:
On a serious note - this is one more example of why the administration contention that the protests are ONLY about the video is complete BS. The press happily laps it up for some reason.
Click to expand...

That's because they're so far up Obama's arse you would need a shoehorn to remove it.. You would swear they donate to his campaign , oh wait.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
volinbham said:
On a serious note - this is one more example of why the administration contention that the protests are ONLY about the video is complete BS. The press happily laps it up for some reason.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine why....

I try not to watch much news, and now listen to sports radio more than anything else. The propaganda allowed to persist about this video is 1984 scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Iraqi casualty estimates range from 110,600 to over a million. So take the AP estimate of 110,600 inflicted by the Neoconservative Republicans and compare that to the casualties inflicted by President Obama. Romney has already hired Neocon advisers who want more wars. If you don't think that is what you'll get with a Neocon Romney administration, then you are NOT thinking.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
On a serious note - this is one more example of why the administration contention that the protests are ONLY about the video is complete BS. The press happily laps it up for some reason.
Click to expand...

add to that the fact that our UN ambassador continues to make the claim that there is no indication that the embassy attacks were anything more than a spontaneous event.
 
#11
#11
Vol Main said:
Iraqi casualty estimates range from 110,600 to over a million. So take the AP estimate of 110,600 inflicted by the Neoconservative Republicans and compare that to the casualties inflicted by President Obama. Romney has already hired Neocon advisers who want more wars. If you don't think that is what you'll get with a Neocon Romney administration, then you are NOT thinking.
Click to expand...

obama did a great job of ending iraq and shutting down guatanamo. wasn't that his rallying cry?
 
#13
#13
YorkVol said:
I agree with all of this, but fixed the one part that I was most familiar with. Wrong place for details, but if you are referring to the target I think you were, that was a valid target.
Click to expand...

He was not killed, though, and the government does not know the identities of any of the six in the car. They other five were considered justified collateral damage because of the target; yet, it was a case of mistaken identity (he was only "identified" because someone in Nevada thought they recognized his voice over some chatter).
 
#15
#15
Definitely not my top reason to not vote for Obama.

Five trillion plus of debt in three and half years.

His budget proposal didn't get a single vote in either House of Congress.

Next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
therealUT said:
Since 2009, the US Government has killed at least 661 individuals in Yemen, a nation we are not at war with; only 32 of those individuals were on any type of vetted and approved "kill-list"; 106 were definitely civilians (meaning they were women, children, or the elderly); the other 518 were simply "suspected" militants (meaning they were military-aged males...to include a 16-year old boy, of whom the CIA admitted they had no evidence that linked him to terrorism; yet, he was still officially categorized as a "suspected" terrorist). Over the same period, the US Government has provided weapons, training, and money to the Yemeni Government, while the Yemeni Government killed over 600 civilians. On the contrary, during the same four-year period, militants in Yemen have only killed 275 civilians in Yemen.

Prior to 2009, there was only one US drone strike which took place in Yemen. This took place in 2002 and killed 6 civilians. Due to the high civilian casualty toll, the Bush Administration placed a moratorium on drone strikes in Yemen. That moratorium was lifted in 2009 and both strikes and civilian casualties have increased every year since.

There are a lot of issues being tossed around this election cycle. However, the fact that this incumbent is not only ordering a number of assassinations previously unheard of in the history of the US, but that these assassinations are being carried out in the sloppiest manner possible (at least 10 civilians killed per target) should at least factor into the decision-making process.

Are these strikes making the US any safer, or are they simply breeding more hatred?
Is personal economic well-being and comfort (if you think Obama will provide that) worth the continued program of targeted-killings and assassinations ?

Of course, one could easily retort and say that these programs will not end, regardless of who is in office. This may or may not be true, we do not know; what we do know, is that the Obama Administration has consistently escalated the drone program each and every year he has been in office.
Click to expand...

Surely this isn't true. I'd think the media would be all over this! Just like they were with that war criminal Bush
 
#17
#17
Vol Main said:
Iraqi casualty estimates range from 110,600 to over a million. So take the AP estimate of 110,600 inflicted by the Neoconservative Republicans and compare that to the casualties inflicted by President Obama.
Click to expand...

Still trying to run Obama against Bush?
 
#19
#19
Vol Main said:
Iraqi casualty estimates range from 110,600 to over a million. So take the AP estimate of 110,600 inflicted by the Neoconservative Republicans and compare that to the casualties inflicted by President Obama. Romney has already hired Neocon advisers who want more wars. If you don't think that is what you'll get with a Neocon Romney administration, then you are NOT thinking.
Click to expand...

1. Your facts are wrong. The low-end is 126,000 Iraqi civilians. I am not concerned with the upper end, since that relies on almost pure speculation. My facts are the lowest possible number of persons killed in Yemen. They are verifiable deaths. So, let's compare like to like.

2. The deal was already done between the GOI and the US for the withdrawal date prior to Obama taking office. Obama did nothing to end the war in Iraq.

3. The war in Afghanistan was much smaller (and, for the most part, contained to a single country: Afghanistan) when Obama took office. He has escalated that war tremendously. Since Obama has taken office (4 years) there have been twice as many civilian casualties in Afghanistan as there were from 2001 through 2008. Moreover, more civilians have been killed in Pakistan than in Afghanistan during Obama's tenure (130 drone stikes in 2010, at least 909 civilians killed).

Moreover, the choice this fall is not between Bush and Obama; it is between Obama and Romney. Obama has proven that he is just as much of a murderer as Bush. Romney, as I said, might continue these programs...he might not, though. I'll take the guy who is not yet a killer.

In the spirit of full-disclosure (since Vol Main is most likely not that familiar with me), I will be casting a write-in ballot again this cycle. So, my choice is actually between a known murderer and someone who does not in any way align themselves with hawks and/or neocons.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
TheDeeble said:
Still trying to run Obama against Bush?
Click to expand...

On foreign policy, that's a definite yes. Romney has already hired his foreign policy advisers from the same big government, pro war circle of Neocons that Bush did. Bush allowed them to turn his administration into one of the most unpopular in history before he left office. Romney would do the same. If not, then why did he hire those maniacs, and why is he relying on them right now for foreign policy advice?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top