Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always said that after the election if Obama is elected, Bush will launch a strike on Iran to stall its Nuke program. The only thing I don't know is if he will pardon scooter before or after he does.
That is exactly what we need now - another trillion dollar bill from the neocons.
Looks like he'll be leaving an even bigger mess for the new president.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bold U.S. raids into Pakistan and Syria show the stark choice the Bush administration is putting to both friends and adversaries in its final weeks: Clamp down on militants and terrorists or we'll do it for you.
Raids like the one in Syria on Sunday hold the potential to kill or capture wanted al-Qaida terrorists or other militants, but they also risk killing civilians and angering foreign governments and their citizens.
Selective U.S. military action across the borders of nations friendly and unfriendly suggests a new strategy, if not a wholly new counterterrorism doctrine. It's a demonstration of overt military strength that the U.S. has been reluctant to display in public for fear it would backfire on U.S. forces or supporters within the governments of the nations whose borders were breached. Now, senior U.S. officials favor periodic use of the newly aggressive tactics, seeing more upsides than down. They reason that whatever diplomatic damage is done will be mitigated when President Bush leaves office and a new president is inaugurated.
I think that's pretty much right on the mark. I figure Bush is thinking something kinda like this: "hmmm....looks like Obama is gonna be the next Prez. So, let's go bomb those Taliban in Pakistan and Syria NOW, 'cuz he sure ain't gonna..." "Then, after we've made the raids, we'll leave it to him to smooth things over with their governments..."
Don't be so naive. It is all a matter of perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
Then perhaps the 9/11 attacks were on terrorist cells within the US, to use the same logic.
Attacking any sovereign nation is wrong.
Period.
Are you joking? We are not attacking any sovereign nation, we are raiding Al Queda holdouts within those nations - something that probably should have been done a long time ago. By your logic, even invasion of Nazi Germany by the Allies was bad. Your member title "Aging Hippie" certainly suits you well - grow up and get with the program!
I feel sorry for you, you have a very twisted view on life... sounds like you are one who is pulling for the enemy...
whos the enemy the US has no authority to dictate the middle east and they whether citizens should fight back.
what did you think about 9/11 then? attack back right? do you even know how much dust the US has kicked up in the middle east in the last 50 yrs? apparently not, your logic is flawed and twisted,
sorry your just a brain washed fool.. who thinks when our officials say someone is a terrorist they are.. get off isreals ****....
regardless if friendly or not they have the right to help their allies whether we disagree..
attacking and killing their(syrian) civilians is okay with you but americans cannot be killed thats the baddest thing to ever happen in modern humanity
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
