I think I've seen his brother on TV before, during the whole Iraq war thing...

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Its a matter of chicken vs egg. They don't need huge military expenditures because security is provided by the US. But if they and all their neighbors had to provide sufficient defense, mostly against the people who are most likely to invade them (i.e. their neighbors), you get an arms race like you have with India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia. The indirect savings and the refocusing of capital and human resources away from the military in all of these allies countries makes the world a much safer place, since war no longer becomes the go to solution for states to resolve differences.

US bases do fall into 2 categories. Allies who don't want to get invaded again, and enemies who lost and became allies. As for Kuwait, that didn't work out well for Iraq, and Kuwait is still independent and an ally. Ukraine has no US bases, Russia would go ballistic if there were (surprisingly appropriate use of the word). ISIS is the anomaly, but right now you can put that down to the fact that Obama really, really doesn't want to put US troops on the ground (think he would hesitate if ISIS invaded England or Australia for example?), and that Iraq's military is trying to handle this as much as possible on their own and clearly having trouble.

I don't know if we need all 800 bases currently or if some are just vestigial. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on the necessity of them, though

Not the one's in Germany...or Japan...or to some extent any in the middle east....but I do get your point. While those two are now allies, the reason the bases are there is because they were enemies, so we denied them the right to have their own military.

Yes, for the same level of effective military, replaced by the countries each of these bases are in, it would cost more overall, I'm sure you're right. BUT...most of them don't need anywhere near the level of military we supply, and they would still be our allies, so have our huge, advanced military backing even if they supplied their own military instead of relying SOLEY (or even mostly) on ours. Also, that $100B per year would be spread out over nearly 300 countries, so far easier to pull off.

About not being invaded...just to name 3....Kuwait had a US military base when Saddam invaded, Iraq has many, and they aren't dissuading ISIS. I actually think we have one in the Ukraine too, but I'm not sure (we certainly have a treaty that said clearly that we were supposed to defend them with the full force of our military if they were ever invaded...so much for that promise though). It's often a deterrent for considerate governments, but not all military agencies are thoughtful or consider the repercussions of their actions (I think the US policy proves that clearly).

Two things, no, actually three:
1. To answer your question directly: because letting LGBT people have these rights has no negative effects for society and requires very little effort. There are no measurable downsides here.
What's supposed to happen? Tell me what the negative effects will be. God's gonna make a pouty face and floods the earth again?
Another thing is, how is it the government's business who you can marry? Why should they get to decide that you can't marry shinyblurry if you really want to? Are you that fond of government intrusion in your life?
2. Capitulate? Are you at war with the gays? Did they stick a flag in your ass and declared it their territoty? Is it really an us vs. them situation? Are you sure you are not actually the problem?
You can only capitulate to an adversary. How are the homosexuals harming you? Are they taking anything away? Are they threatening you? Fact is, you are the one who wants to deny right and limit other people's freedom to be left the fuck alone. You're the agressor here. If you would stop that behaviour, nobody would give a fuck about you.
Why should I, who doesn't care what unknown gay people do, and we, who want them to have their rights, capitulate to agressors like you, who insist on regulating nobody's and especially not their own business? Why can't you leave the homosexuals alone? What's your fixation here?
3. Stop it with that "evolutionary dead end" crap! Every marriage with someone who is unable or unwilling to have kids is according to your definition one. Are you really willing to argue that people who can't procreate shouldn't marry? Are you going to tell every woman over 50 they can't (re)marry? Are you willing to walk up to a soldier who got his nuts blown off in Iraq that he can never ever marry the woman who doesn't care about his lack off balls? I'd love to see that. And what his buddies will do to you. And his wife.

Fact is, you don't like homosexuals. I don't know why but I do know that more and more people don't care about them. We're past the tipping point. That's why you feel it's "capitulating", because you know you're the minority now and your hatred and abuse won't be tolerated for long anymore. That's what you loose, the right to treat other's like shit. You can't kick that dog no more because it found the courage to bite back and we took away your ability to go old yeller on his ass. Must make you mad, foaming at the mouth mad.

Interesting comment on Bill Mitchell's MMT blog:

"You cannot take away hope of decent living from young people. Pushing harder won’t make them entrepreneurs. It will make them literally explode with hatred – directed against the West and the Western civilisation as a whole. One cannot defeat poisonous ideology by dropping more and more bombs on Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya etc. Dropping bombs makes the ideology of hatred only stronger. The only way to defeat IS is to restore hope to people here – including the South-Western suburbs of Sydney."

To a certain extent, but when you look at the most radicalised Arab/Muslim countries, they share a common factor.

Destabilisation due to western, and to a lesser extent USSR, influence prior to radicalisation. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc. Most of the Middle East has been a proxy battleground between the US and USSR, a target for "stabilisation" to ensure the oil can flow, or an incidental and unwilling participant in the establishment of Israel post the British ownership of Palestine stemming from WW1...

I'm not religious but the old adage "reap what you sow" comes to mind. You burn someones house to the ground with his wife and kids inside, how dafuq does he not become radicalised?? Religion offers the only succour in what is a horrible situation, it offers vengeance and the idea that you'll see your loved ones again in paradise. With nothing else to lose accept a painful life of loss, are we surprised that they strap on bombs and are willing to die?

Muslims killed 5k+ odd people in 911 and we haven't heard the end of it for over a decade. It was the trigger that caused at least 2 pointless and expensive wars, killed/displaced/destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people including American and other countries armed forces personnel, led the US down the path of openly torturing people and breaking even more humane laws that it claims separates it from the terrorists. But they aren't allowed to be angry in return?

Their standard of living is a direct result of Western intervention. Western intervention is kryptonite to the high standards of living that would allow education and comfort, but it's the perfect fertiliser for radical religious types and discontent. I am not religious in the slightest, and deplore what mobs like ISIS are doing, but I can understand why these people have landed where they are.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, and I should know about cops and racism because I've been a cop for 30 yrs.

We have black cops, we have female cops, we have lesbian cops, we have asian cops. No one here cares what color skin you have, we only care if you are a problem or not.

I have inlaws raising a biracial child because his father killed his mother, he is now in a Christian college and is a great kid.

My nephew, who did 2 tours in Iraq, has been dating a biracial girl for years. Nobody cares about skin color. It's about what kind of person you are. But you won't believe that because you DON"T want to believe it.

You are so deluded, it's sad that you go through life thinking this kind of crap.

Iraq Daily: Shia Militias Threaten Withdrawal from Tikrit Offensive After US Air Intervention: http://eaworldview.com/2015/03/iraq-daily-shia-militias-threaten-withdrawal-from-tikrit-offensive-after-us-air-intervention/

OMFG. How have republicans thoroughly forgotten bailing out the banks was under Bush?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
BUSH bailed out first the airlines, for nothing in return, then the banks, for nothing in return. Obama sadly continued that flawed policy, but did at least get partial ownership and concessions for our money, and got our money back. Bush simply gave it away with a smile and a nod.

I've been hearing that BS since 3 years into his first term. It's just that, BS. A quick google search, ignoring political sites and sticking with non-partisan factual numbers, and not blindly putting the entire cost of the Iraq war on Obama because Bush kept it's costs 'off the books', will show you quite clearly you're wrong. He's not been good on debt, but a large part of the deficit he did run in his early years are due to the tanked Bush economy, and WAY less taxes coming in without spending cuts. I'll remind you again, republicans turned down a budget that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes, a budget that would have erased the deficit....but you still blame Obama?

Heard that before too...that Democrats forced lowering banking standards for home loans and securities through the republican held congress and against the wishes of the republicans and Bush...absolute BS not worth refuting, they simply didn't have the majority to 'force' anything.

How many people died of exposure, drowning long after the storm, starvation, lack of water, unsanitary conditions at shelters in NJ? As for rebuilding, Jersey insisted they would do it without FEMA, and even though they had the money, they haven't rebuilt a lot of what's damaged, but still probably a larger percentage than New Orleans.

Clinton absolutely did not have intelligence that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil, Bush did. Clinton did not allow Bin Laden's relatives to leave the country after an attack, it's reported Bush did. Clinton had an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, with unknown amounts of collateral damage in a country we weren't allowed into (so an act of war), and decided to not start a war on flimsy 'intelligence'...a good plan now that we know how that goes.

I'm pretty sure you have sand up your ass, and a sever case of cranial rectosis.

Stupid?....well, that's the pot calling the clear glass pitcher black.
Far better leader?!? If only I thought you might be joking, but I know you aren't.
Show me something Obama suggested that's worse than a single one of these Bush/republican plans
Free Bailouts-a Bush/republican idea, repeatedly, getting nothing for it.
9/11- warned about but completely ignored by Bush.
Katrina-do I need to say a word?
The second great depression- (according to republicans)-caused by republicans removing the safeguards put on the stock market and banks, allowing them to play fast and loose, totally screwing our economy.
Iraq-again, do I need to say a word?
Putting the Iraq war 'off the books' to try to blame Obama for the cost that was ignored during Bush-uh...yeah, keep trying that.
Cutting taxes while raising spending outrageously-that was Bush
Raising the national debt more than any president before him-I know fox told you that was Obama, but it was really Bush. Even the first years when federal income was severely depressed (thanks to the economy Bush left us with) he didn't spend like Bush, if you look at the REAL numbers, not the white washed, no war, no homeland security, no bailout numbers the republicans pretend are real.

Because the republicans decided that their plan was to obstruct ANY idea from Obama (clearly stated BEFORE he took office, and followed through), it didn't matter a whit how he led, they refused to follow. It's not about his leadership, it's about the republican leadership thinking that beating Obama is more important than governing. Refusing a 10-1 deal where for every $1 in raised taxes they get $10 in spending cuts....and they said NO! Get real for once, it's not Obama's leadership or lack thereof that's screwing us, it's partisan politics being more important than the nation...and we all know which side plays that game more often and harder. (EDIT: I do admit that both 'sides' play that game, however.)
10 votes total? What the F*&K are you talking about. You mean 10 REPUBLICAN votes in the house? You are simply wrong he only got 10 votes total.
"The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974. However this spring noted that the GOP-led Congress didn’t pass a final resolution in 1998, 2004 and 2006."
..."And the politics of the moment are a far cry from last year, when the House and Senate easily passed Obama’s first budget on the president’s 100th day in office. The budget measure last year did not attract any GOP support."
Well...enough said. I know you won't really take any of this to heart, you drank the fox news koolaid long ago and facts no longer matter.

Treasonous. That's how I would describe the whole debacle.
Odd, during Bush the Republicans stood firm on the idea that 'partisanship ends at the border', but that idea evaporated in their mind the day Obama was elected.
Funny that they use the 'French president opposing the Iraq war' example, since he would have been 100% correct had he been invited to speak to oppose Bush.

My sister-in-law used to fly these and flew missions in Afghanistan (maybe Iraq, I forget). The plane's nickname is the "Bone" (originally from B-One). Their pilots are called Bone Drivers. She never called herself that at family get-togethers though, for some reason.

The crazy thing is that the US military budget doesn't even include the cost of the war in Iraq, which is an additional 2 - 6 trillion dollars....

It's amateur night in Afghanistan, yeehaw!

Unsurprising, really, considering the first Iraq war, 3/4ths of the American casualties were "friendly" (American) fire.

I talked with some Brit soldiers not long after they came back from Iraq #1, they said their Colonel went to liaise with his American counterpart in a Scorpion light tank. The American Colonel stared at their vehicle in amazement, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?"