Replies

You make a lot of good points -- especially regarding how comprehensive the Congressional approval was regarding the President's authority for engaging Al-queda et al. It still leaves the question of whether there is sufficient "proof" than any particular nation is "harboring" them. Recall how high the leftists raised the standard of proof regarding WMD in Iraq. Who's monitoring this to determine whether Obama is acting within his mandate? Regardless, for the sake of this discussion, I'll concede that point. It's a moot point anyhow, so long as Congress isn't raising any objections. (Which they should be.)

I'll also concede your point about the enemy not being a nation. However, that brings us back to whether the nations hosting the drone attacks are actually complicit. If they are -- then, ipso facto they have declared war on the U.S. A state of war exists. If not, then the U.S. was the aggressor, and a state of war exists. This sort of argument could go on forever, without resolution, as it has between Israel and Arab states. Regardless of who was the initial aggressor; a state of war exists. That brings us back to my original point -- a drone attack is an act of war (whether or not it is the initial act of war). Drone warfare is warfare, regardless of how painless and antiseptic it seems (to the U.S.).

Regarding the "rest of the world"; you've made some good points -- but, I still stand by mine. You've even extended my original point, when you mention China and Russia using drones. Drones have the potential to become as powerful as nuclear weapons as a means of projecting power. However, unlike nuclear weapons, drones don't seem to come with the deterrent of MAD. You rightly point out that other countries are also invading where it suits them (Lybia, Mali, etc.) Yes, the U.S. isn't the only one in the game -- however, that doesn't change the fundamental issues.

Britain once used gunboats to project power in the colonies. In some ways, these gunboats were the drones of the day -- they achieved Britain's military objective without the necessity of a lot of boots on the ground. Then, one day, the gunboats were no longer sufficient -- the Empire collapsed. (I know I'm grossly oversimplifying things here.)

We're in complete agreement on Clinton and Obama being war criminals. It's maddening to reflect on how the leftists label Bush as a war criminal -- even though he followed all domestic and international laws of warfare. Meanwhile, Clinton is considered a world statesman, and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize. If you consider every nation that Obama has sent drones into to be a theatre of war; then Obama has opened up more fronts than any President since WWII. At the very least, this fact needs to be acknowledged -- otherwise, U.S. citizens are seriously deluding themselves.

We're also in complete agreement regarding intervention in Syria.