Why I will not be voting for Obama.

[Vol Main]

1. Your facts are wrong. The low-end is 126,000 Iraqi civilians. therealUT

An estimate is not a fact. I gave an AP estimate, which was the lowest on that chart.

With his drone strikes, President Obama is targeting those who are waging a declared war against the American people. As far as I am concerned, they are the right targets in this war which they declared and waged. Don't you remember September 11, 2001?

 

[vols-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.

Is this a joke? Lol

I have 999 reasons to vote for or against each party and this ain't one of them.

 

[therealUT]

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?

Who are these individuals that Romney has hired and consults for his foreign policy advice. Again, humor me.

The following are who I see:
Rich Williamson (State)
Jim Talent (Senate)
John McCain (Senate)
Dan Senor (State)
Condi Rice (State)
James Baker (State)
Mitchell Reiss (State)

Seeing as one of the main barbs against Bush was that he listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld too often, while ignoring the State Department, I would say that Romney's advisers are materially distinct from Bush's.

 

[BigPapaVol]

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?

who are they? if they aren't Rumsfeld and Cheney, then you're just babbling. Oh, wait...

 

[therealUT]

1. Your facts are wrong. The low-end is 126,000 Iraqi civilians. therealUT

An estimate is not a fact. I gave an AP estimate, which was the lowest on that chart.

With his drone strikes, President Obama is targeting those who are waging a declared war against the American people. As far as I am concerned, they are the right targets in this war which they declared and waged. Don't you remember September 11, 2001?

I do remember September 11, 2001. I was in MacArthur Short when it happened; then, I made my way across the Apron, past the Patton Statue in front of the library, and into Thayer Hall where I sat in class for the rest of the day. That night, I could not have Shade's pizza; I was distraught.

Obama is killing individuals that have been convicted of no crimes. In doing so, he is also killing, on average, 10 bystanders. Moreover, the individuals being killed have absolutely nothing to do with September 11 (to say they did would be about as correct as saying that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks; but, we went down that road before).

Do you think we should kill everyone who expresses a desire to see America fall? What about anyone who expresses joy at seeing dead Americans? Because that is basically the gist of the charges against most of the individuals that have been targeted and killed.

 

[Vol Main]

who are they? if they aren't Rumsfeld and Cheney, then you're just babbling. Oh, wait...

Colin Powell on Romney's NeoCon Advisors.mpg - YouTube

Why Colin Powell Bashed Mitt Romney’s Foreign-Policy Advisers - ABC News

Grasping at Straws | The American Conservative
"There is no point in putting one’s hopes in the “real Mitt Romney,” as if this Romney is going to be revealed at some later date to be nothing at all like Romney the candidate. If Romney has campaigned as an extremely hawkish nationalist surrounded by neoconservative advisers, it is much more likely that he will govern that way, too. Does he “really” believe the things he says? In the end, it doesn’t make much difference as long as he thinks it is politically necessary and useful for him to say them and to act on what he is saying.

As for neoconservatives and “the base,” I have to protest. Romney didn’t include neoconservatives on his foreign policy team to keep “that part of the base happy.” They aren’t part of “the base.” Neoconservatives are almost entirely movement and party elites, and they are the ones Romney was trying to satisfy. They have little or no representation at the rank-and-file level. If he didn’t have Robert Kagan and the like on his foreign policy team, 90% of Republican voters wouldn’t even notice, but neoconservative activists and pundits in Washington would."

Steinbock: Watch for China
"Seven of ten of Romney’s foreign policy advisers used to work for President George W. Bush.[ Unsurprisingly, critics of this foreign policy vision have already dubbed it the “more enemies, fewer friends” doctrine. It is reminiscent of the Bush unilateralism.

After being branded as too liberal by conservative GOP activists during the 2008 campaign, Romney opted for an alignment with the neoconservative hawks to protect his right flank."

Did the Neocons Blind Bush to 9/11? | The National Interest Blog
"Why has Romney filled his camp with (Neocon)advisers whose advice led to one of the most calamitous and costly debacles in American history? ... "we can't ever know" if the (9/11)attacks would have been stopped. But it's worse than than that. The Bush administration, it seems, never even tried."

 

[therealUT]

Well, if Colin Powell bashes it, it must be bad. Powell is a hack who should have been charged years ago for his role in covering up the My Lai Massacre.