[video] Obama speechless as Code Pink founder heckles over Gitmo

[smoothie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltxDCAHcfXg

Obama's face is a face of a guilty man who has been at the helm of killing many innocent people abroad based on nothing of substance.

[Lethn]

Leaders are always going to get people killed because of their decisions, that's why I think we don't need them, they also tend to be the ones who are expected to take the blame for everything too.

[RoadToHell]

Leaders are always going to get people killed because of their decisions, that's why I think we don't need them, they also tend to be the ones who are expected to take the blame for everything too.

As long as there are people then there will be people killing other people.

The job of leaders of state, as concerns the topic of killing, is to minimize the number of people from their country that are killed by people from other countries.

It is the nature of human kind that some people like to be in control of other people AND that some people are happy to let someone else do the heavy lifting of making the world go round.  So if the world ever evolves/descends to a state of statelessness (no borders) AND there are any people still in existence then I am afraid we will still have leaders of some type.  And one of the jobs of those leaders will be to minimize the number of their constituents that are killed by the constituents of other leaders.  Part of that will entail killing people under those other leaders.

[Spendulus]

Leaders are always going to get people killed because of their decisions, that's why I think we don't need them, they also tend to be the ones who are expected to take the blame for everything too.

As long as there are people then there will be people killing other people.

The job of leaders of state, as concerns the topic of killing, is to minimize the number of people from their country that are killed by people from other countries.

It is the nature of human kind that some people like to be in control of other people AND that some people are happy to let someone else do the heavy lifting of making the world go round.  So if the world ever evolves/descends to a state of statelessness (no borders) AND there are any people still in existence then I am afraid we will still have leaders of some type.  And one of the jobs of those leaders will be to minimize the number of their constituents that are killed by the constituents of other leaders.  Part of that will entail killing people under those other leaders.

Drones in the air without boots on the ground and clear military objectives is tactically the identical problem Nixon made with B52s....

Offering opinions about "killing people" without the other factors listed is implicitly an acceptance of the problem, rather than it's use as a solution.

EG, political killing can never, ever succeed, while military operations certainly can.  Incidentally, some of the drones are operated by the CIA.

[RoadToHell]

Leaders are always going to get people killed because of their decisions, that's why I think we don't need them, they also tend to be the ones who are expected to take the blame for everything too.

As long as there are people then there will be people killing other people.

The job of leaders of state, as concerns the topic of killing, is to minimize the number of people from their country that are killed by people from other countries.

It is the nature of human kind that some people like to be in control of other people AND that some people are happy to let someone else do the heavy lifting of making the world go round.  So if the world ever evolves/descends to a state of statelessness (no borders) AND there are any people still in existence then I am afraid we will still have leaders of some type.  And one of the jobs of those leaders will be to minimize the number of their constituents that are killed by the constituents of other leaders.  Part of that will entail killing people under those other leaders.

Drones in the air without boots on the ground and clear military objectives is tactically the identical problem Nixon made with B52s....

Offering opinions about "killing people" without the other factors listed is implicitly an acceptance of the problem, rather than it's use as a solution.

EG, political killing can never, ever succeed, while military operations certainly can.  Incidentally, some of the drones are operated by the CIA.

Sorry - my comments were not meant to convey that we shouldn't be concerned about killing ordered by leaders just because the killing is done elsewhere.  They were meant to pragmatically point out that regardless of whether or not one thinks we need leaders, we will always have leaders.

And I agree with everything you said.

The solution with the drones, as you have inferred, is to not use them outside the context of a rare military operation that has clearly defined goals, parameters, and exit point.

[Littleshop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltxDCAHcfXg

Obama's face is a face of a guilty man who has been at the helm of killing many innocent people abroad based on nothing of substance.

How is he different then the past presidents?  He has done many things that are clearly illegal just like other presidents.  The last one lied to start the war that killed so many and really worked against our own interests by making Iran so much more powerful. 

[Lethn]

That's easy, some Americans out there can only see the 'other' side as bad, when it comes to their own side they are completely flawless and of course you definitely can't have opinions different from the two mainstream parties, that's impossible, in American politics you're either a Republican or Democrat, left or right.

[Hawker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltxDCAHcfXg

Obama's face is a face of a guilty man who has been at the helm of killing many innocent people abroad based on nothing of substance.

So Obama agonises over his mistakes and is trying to change the system to reduce drone hits and close Gitmo.

Isn't that a good thing?  As it happens,  the great American public will fight him every step of the way on both reducing drone attacks and closing Gitmo but I prefer that Obama is at least going to try to persuade them a better way is possible.

[maz]

All that silly shouting. She should have invested in bitcoin.

[TimJBenham]

How is he different then the past presidents? 

Change. Yes we can.

[AzureEngineer]

So Obama agonises over his mistakes and is trying to change the system to reduce drone hits and close Gitmo.

Isn't that a good thing?  As it happens,  the great American public will fight him every step of the way on both reducing drone attacks and closing Gitmo but I prefer that Obama is at least going to try to persuade them a better way is possible.

Those were part of his campaign promises back before the 2008 elections. He isn't trying to keep either of them.

[Hawker]

So Obama agonises over his mistakes and is trying to change the system to reduce drone hits and close Gitmo.

Isn't that a good thing?  As it happens,  the great American public will fight him every step of the way on both reducing drone attacks and closing Gitmo but I prefer that Obama is at least going to try to persuade them a better way is possible.

Those were part of his campaign promises back before the 2008 elections. He isn't trying to keep either of them.

The drone promise cannot be kept without "boots on the ground" and all the unnecessary deaths that involves.  So I agree with you about that.

He did try to close Gitmo.  It was the US public pushed back insisting it stay open and insisting that it would to "too dangerous" to try KSM in New York.  He is trying again - I still think he will fail but lets see.

My point is that to complain about his having a conscience seems a little off.

[Lethn]

U.S Public? Where's your source for that? Last I saw it was a bunch of the local politicians who didn't want the terrorists in their prisons that were responsible for stopping him not the U.S 'public'.

[Hawker]

U.S Public? Where's your source for that? Last I saw it was a bunch of the local politicians who didn't want the terrorists in their prisons that were responsible for stopping him not the U.S 'public'.

Believe it or not, the local politicians have to stand for re-election and that's why they jumped on the bandwagon. 

[TimJBenham]

He did try to close Gitmo. 

He is commander-in-chief. He can decide the US military no longer needs to keep those prisoners and instruct the commandant of Guantanamo Bay to escort them to the perimeter gate at any time. This does not require Congressional authorization. Cuba has already indicated that it would assist in repatriating the prisoners.