If you fight a war you have to use everything you have. The only limiting factor is own survival and post war public opinion, decided largely by who wins. There is nothing moral or legal about wars, every bet is all-in.

You only want to wage wars with clear objectives that at least your own population understands and that you know you will win, and be able to justify after the war is over.

Putin got something wrong. Or everything.

You really don't know the history of your own religion, do you?

"Hey, Protestants, convert or die!" says the French Catholic.
"Hey, Catholics, convert or die!" says the Austrian Protestant.
"Hey, Jews, convert or die! Uh, but lend us money first -- we need to kill those false Christians over there!" says both the French Catholic and the Austrian Protestant.

You know Christians waged wars on each other over whether the Bible should be in common vernacular or not, right?

Also, you have no fucking clue about Islam. Learn about them? I've gone to a mosque (Sunni); I've watched them pray; I've talked to an Imam. Which of any of the above three have YOU done, O Scholar of Islam?

Come on, it's ok if we agree on something . Your African examples aren't really oppressive dictatorships, they are collections of failed states or outright anarchy, which I'll readily agree is easily possible with or without a well armed population. If you want to note African examples, when Kagame seized control of Rwanda, he didn't exactly decide to leave the genocidal opponents he cast out open ended gun rights. As is always the case, removing their ability to wage war was kind of prerequisite to his control of the country.

Touche. You are correct, I overstated.
Treason is unpatriotic, period?
Edit:even then there's the likes of Chelsea Manning, who some would say was a patriotic traitor....so what is my point?

I'm not prepared to debate the morality of a different timeline, but I disagree that force wouldn't be justified to try to preserve the Union from armed secession....now if 2/3 of the state's voted to disband...or 3/4, whatever the line is, yes, monstrous to wage war to force it's preservation, but they didn't do that.

What do the west do? You mean apart from waging war across the middle east and trying to oust Russia's ally in Syria on trumped up charges?

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

Trying split up addressing your points and enoch's here, forgive me if things bleed over between a bit.

Large terrorist networks like Al Qaida were and still are using your definitions against your country. They operated with impunity and effectively as their own autonomous state within the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The question is whether acts of war launched from that region then are classed as an act of the Afghan or Pakistani state. If they are, then Afghanistan and Pakistan are to be held to account as states launching the act of war. If they are not, then they have for intents and purposes yielded the sovereignty of that territory to a new independent state waging it's own independent war.

The jihadists are trying to hard to live in an international loophole where they are operating with the autonomy of a state right up until another nation state wants to wage war back against them and then suddenly they are just citizens of the larger state they are technically within the borders of.

When the Bush admin pushed back hard, the Afghanistan government refused(more on this in my reply to Enoch) while the Pakistani government extremely begrudgingly agreed to at least pretend they weren't friendly with them in back channels anymore. Thus act of war met with war in Afghanistan, and yes, I would insist a war that Afghanistan initiated and NOT GW.

As for Saudi Arabia, they are more responsible for Jihadi ideology and funding than any other state, and yes the west largely has ignored it so long as they sold their oil and then used the money to buy back top of the line American made military hardware. I have to say I think it's a bit shortsighted to have made Saudi Arabia number 3 on the global military budget charts... You won't find my hypocritically trying to defend them, they are the ones sending most of the money into Pakistan's mountains to build the madrasa's that don't seem to teach anything after how to fire and assemble your AK.

@ChaosEngine
never going to happen.
the obama administration has been waging war against whistleblowers for 8 years.prosecuting more whistleblowers using the archaic "espionage act of 1917" to pursue and prosecute more whistleblowers than any other president in americas history COMBINED.

unless there is a massive public outcry to force the executive branch to pardon snowden,it is never going to happen.

but as long as we are making a wishlist to the fairy godmother of shit-that-is-never-going-to-happen,let me add to that list:

1.repeal the NDAA of 2017,which is an addon to the NDAA of 2012,which is a simply continuation of the MCA of 2006 (look em up folks,those "rights" you claim to have are really mere suggestion due to these abominations.

2.pursue and indict ALL wall street players who knowingly engaged in fraud and collapsed the global economy.strip them of all begotten gains to pay back the american people,and throw them in the most vile of maximum prisons (hopefully with a bunkmate nicknamed 'anal destroyer").

3.recind ALL expanded powers that the bush administration enacted (thanks to neocons addington and woo) and which the obama administration actually expanded even further,and NOW trump will be executive over the most powerful executive branch in american history .(this would be a nice one eh?).

4.have the DEA and ATF actually honor obamas original statement that his administration would not pursue federal law in regards to marijuana,mandated by referendums by the citizens of those states (to which he had promptly disregarded,and raided local dispenseries).

5.reduce americas prison population(2.4 million,largest on the planet) by pardoning the non-violent drug offenders,and disallowing companies like nike and apple to abuse prison labor (slave labor).

6.stop the practice of military intervention at the behest of corporations to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable.

7.stop the practice of regime change at the behest..oh this is becoming familiar...corporations wishing to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable for their resources.

8.and could we possibly,maybe..stop with targeted drone strikes? a.k.a "assassinations". how a constitutional law professor reconciles his law pedigree with his "value target tuesday" i.e:murder just boggles my mind.

man,i should stop.my wishlist is becoming to long..and depressing.

i voted this video up because i will not ignore that obama did some good,and even some great things during his presidency,but i also will not ignore his very disturbing failures.

and there are a LOT of disturbing failures.

so i will sit and hold hands and sing kumbaya as we all remember our very smart president,but let us not forget..this very same president expanded an executive branch that trump will be taking over the reigns very soon.

and on that note,i have to give him a failing grade.

Control of the national security state goes to... the Orange One!
Control of the drone program goes to... the Orange One!
Ability to wage war without a DoW by Congress goes to... the Orange One!

Remember how many people said we shouldn't complain about the security state so much, because Barry is a decent fella who wouldn't abuse it? It was a mighty thin argument back then, but now it's just Monty Python material.

Some bloke on Twitter had it right: "Whatever power you give the government, remember that one day it will be wielded by a Trump."

The "fun" thing, as well: These people are able to monetize their targeting of individuals through YouTube ad share/crowdfunding and have incredibly vitriolic fan base that will wage war against their favorite YouTuber's targets in a myriad of ways... so you get what is, essentially, the "professional victimizer".

http://boingboing.net/2015/01/14/how-crowdfunding-helps-haters.html

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

That's basically all there is left to say about TTIP, TPP, CETA, TiSA, etc, isn't it...

-------------------------------------
"It is of the utmost importance to work alongside other world leaders."

Just a small note on that one: thanks to the actions of Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland and the Nazi-supporting, oligarch-empowering regime of Yanukovich/Poroshenko in Ukraine, the "working alongside" part seems to fall awfully short when it comes to the Bear in the East. The Putin administration does some fucked-up shit, but all those tanks taking part in Anaconda 16, the biggest excercise since the end of the Cold War, they don't sport Russian insigniae. That's NATO, excercising a "Invasion of Russia" scenario at the border of Russia.

Maybe it's because I live in what would have been the battlefield of WW3, maybe it's because parts of my family come from Königsberg/Kaliningrad, but I support the old notion of "There is no safety in Europe against Russia, there is only safety in Europe with Russia".

Somehow, he doesn't seem to have issues working alongside the Saudi royalty who support all kinds of extremism while waging a war of aggression against Jemen. You know, the kind of extremism that gave the war mongerers in Washington an excuse to wage war in multiple nations.

How's Clinton doing, by the way? Still hailing her push to turn Libya into a failed state as an accomplishment and a sign of her experience in foreign policy? Still defending her vote for the illegal war of aggression in Iraq? Still pushing for more war in Syria? I would be interested in what Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, would have to say about the Bush administration, the Obama administration and our cherished Presidential Candidate in spe, HRC. Maybe he'd commend them on their oratory prowess or sense of fashion...

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

"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.

I agree with your 70%

It sounds better than we have here, we have the incumbents who want to wage war on the poor and not tax the rich, and Labor who want to stay very quiet until the election because Abbott and co are doing such a fine job of selling them (or at least burying themselves).

I used to think that the UK would be a nice place to live until it turned into a police state a few (?) years ago.