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.
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.
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.
hes attacking friendly countries... what a guy lol
Friendly? Not even close. They are suppling money, men and guns to the bad guys.
Who ever made the decision to blow them up should get a medal...
I know Obama would rather invite them to tea, but he'll have to wait ...
Friendly? Not even close. They are suppling money, men and guns to the bad guys.
Who ever made the decision to blow them up should get a medal...
I know Obama would rather invite them to tea, but he'll have to wait ...
so, to them they arent the bad guys , they are there allies ever think about that? and allies support each other do they not. every thing in the world should not evolve around american politicians mouths
US has no right to do so but complain when we have a 9/11
I don't have a problem with them using missiles, especially since they keep hitting the right place and not civilians. And it seems that Pakistan doesn't have TOO much of a problem with the missiles, at least not as much as when we were actually sending soldiers in.
And if obama is smart, he'll continue the practice, which I think he probably will.
so, to them they arent the bad guys , they are there allies ever think about that? and allies support each other do they not. every thing in the world should not evolve around american politicians mouths
US has no right to do so but complain when we have a 9/11
I feel sorry for you, you have a very twisted view on life... sounds like you are one who is pulling for the enemy...
In case some of you aren't reading...we aren't attacking the country themselves, but terror cells within those countries. Sure there are civilian casualties, and that is most unfortunate - however, Bush is president and I suppose he is going to use his "powers" as much as possible these last couple months.
In case some of you aren't reading...we aren't attacking the country themselves, but terror cells within those countries. Sure there are civilian casualties, and that is most unfortunate - however, Bush is president and I suppose he is going to use his "powers" as much as possible these last couple months.
You're so right.
Syria is friendly how, exactly? How is a country "friendly" when all roads are open to smuggling insurgents and weapons into Iraq?
hes attacking friendly countries... what a guy lol
when ever has Syria been friendly?
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.
