Drone attacks, kill lists: isn't the real problem an undeclared war?

[hedgehog]

I don't fault Obama on this - he's had to deal with the hand he was dealt. But we are in very uncharted territory. Ultimately, what is the difference between authorizing a drone attack and authorizing an invasion in the absence of a declaration of war? If anything, I have to commend Obama for his attempts to limit the killing and for taking responsibility by making the decisions himself instead of passing them off to hidden CIA operatives or some such.

[pipoman]

1. A war declaration would be on another sovereign state

this is against a borderless enemy of the US.

[RC]

2. And the "enemy" is half way around the world!

How does that make it OK?

[SoutherDem]

3. Since Obama is a Democrat I doubt much will be said,

Could you imagine the Republicans looking like the doves for once?

I can see the campaign ad now. "Bush invades two countries one for WMDs and the other to get Bin Laden. At the end of 8 years no WMD's and Bin Laden still free to plan terrorist attacks. President Obama focuses on the real problem, Bin Laden and now he is gone, also his #2 is gone. Who do you want to be the Commander in Chief? A proven leader who will use the latest technology and most highly trained troops to surgically remove the top two terrorists in the World. Or, a business man who has no military training and who has suggested going to war with Iran?"

Plus, what would McCain have done?

[CJCRANE]

5. Good points

except that the latest drone attack got Bin Laden's #2's #2 (because, with Bin Laden gone, his #2 became #1).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. You should not give Obama a pass on this if you think it is a bad thing

Its his administration. He has been in charge long enough to stop it. He is actively allowing it to go forward. He owns the current drone attacks. Not Bush, Cheney, or McCain, but Obama