Obama: Would Raid Pakistan Again If Militant Found

Obama really pissed off Pakistan, if you hadn't heard. Who knows what might happen if a second invasion occurred without consulting them... They are a sovereign country, you know? If he's going to cross their borders again, he should attempt to gain their permission. That's what I would do.

 

LOL so your in charge and you hear that bin bag is in a certain place You contact the Pakistani goverment and if they say No what do you do? or if they dither what do you do? and then you have the possibility that they will say yes but someone within the goverment might well have informed the Terr's that you are sending a couple of choppers in Oops there goes your Seal squad
You are talking as though these people are soldiers, they are not they wear no uniform they do not fight against soldiers they target civillians you asked did osama have the right to send people into the US the answer is NO they were not Soldiers they were not Goverment sponserd they were and are criminals people like that loose there rights
Osama was a Saudi what has the US done to them?

 

I think that you’re too partisan to even understand the issue you are laughing about. It isn’t a matter of Democrats and Republicans reversing roles. To honestly believe that Democrats have suddenly become warmongers shows how naïve you really are. People don’t transform themselves that easily with the election of any president, not even Republicans. Democrats are still antiwar and Republicans still see themselves as the only “real” Americans in this country. That hasn’t changed.

What has changed is the guy making the decisions to go to war or not to go to war. Unremarkably, Democrats trust Democratic presidents to not start pointless wars and invade countries for pointless reasons while they don’t trust Republican presidents to make sane choices when it comes to going to war or not. Your fundamental belief that Democrats have suddenly become warmongers is just infantile reasoning brought about by partisan blindness. So what else is new?

 

If there is a direct and obvious threat to our national security being harbored by a foreign country, I am ok with going in and neutralizing that threat if that is what is decided as the best option. Of course, it needs to be something that is not done lightly nor for matters that are not a direct threat to our national security. And, we better be prepared for casualties and for the other country to fight back because it is their right to do so.

I am not, however, ok with what we are doing in Libya. It pretty much fails any test I would use for the use of our military forces.

 

I have no argument on that score Stu, personaly I would let the Arab world sort it out itself

 

We are part of the UN. And they are doing so.

 

No. It's asking a question. You are to supply the answer. See how that goes?

 

Don't be a dick. Wouldn't there be a reason?

 

So, let me get this straight. You're saying you're ignorant, right?

 

They didn't suddenly become warmongers. They've been warmongers all along. Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs/Vietnam, Johnson with Vietnam, Clinton with Mogadishu/Bosnia-Herzegovina, Obama with Libya.

 

And still you exhibit dick-like behavior. But yes I am ignorant. There are many things I dont know. But unlike you, I dont try to BS my way through.

 

Actually it was Eisehower who intially sent in ''advisors'' into Vietnam. And kennedy didnt send any troops into the Bay of Pigs. That was the issue with conservatives.

 

What's wrong with advisors?

I didn't say he sent troops. Do you actually read or do you just gloss over what's written? Anyway, Kennedy backed the invasion of Cuba which, if you didn't know, was and still is a sovereign nation. From Wikipedia: The Bay of Pigs Invasion was an unsuccessful action by a CIA-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba, with support and encouragement from the US government (emphasis mine), in an attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The invasion was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States.

 

...

 

Now maybe you are getting an idea of why I will not honor the idiot with a response. He has no sense of reality.

 

Hoo Boy! You're tellin' me! It's like the love child of Gomer Pyle and Edith Bunker escaped from its jar of formaldehyde shortly after birth, grew up, joined this forum, called itself "craig a" and now believes it can put forth intelligent conversation. We are now having to deal with the consequences. Shazam!

 

Your argument appears to be that the Democrats, while pretending to be anti-war, are in fact War-Mongers once in power. You sited a few examples of various Democrat presidents who ordered hostilities to be carried out on many different sovereign nations. Would you characterize Republican presidents the same way, or are they different?

Did Ronald Reagan's policies (see the "Reagan Doctrine") reflect a less aggressive presidency? Did his successor, George Bush, Sr. also have less than aggressive tendencies? As I recall, wasn't Bush Sr. the head of the CIA for a time? Was he docile then? And Bush Jr. ...how would you characterize his aggressiveness... was it less than Obama's?

The tendency to focus on one particular party's behavior, and deem it less than adequate, while ignoring the opposite party's equally inadequate behavior is known as partisanship. Partisanship has little usefulness, it creates hostility and anger, and lessens our abilities to find solutions to our problems.

America, and other countries, cannot survive by being overly docile... history has shown that docile nations are unable to defend themselves from invasions and quickly come under the conqueror's rule. Overly aggressive nations eventually overextend their ability to govern over their conquests and are also doomed to fail. The trick is to have a balance, don't attack unnecessarily, and maintain your armies abilities to defend yourself from attacks. With the exception of Bush Jr. (in Iraq), I'd say we haven't done too bad.

 

so then how is he a war monger? Doesnt there even need to be a little scuffle on the US side to earn that title?

 

You wont do it because your a sniveling little imp. No other reason.

 

Is that the best ya got? Contractions?