President Bush and Obama are both justified striking alqaeda targets in Pakistan

[deadlyaj]

hate or love bush/obama - they both are justified striking terrorists targets in Pakistan.

thats where the terrorists are!

so i ask the pakistan strike haters to plz stfu

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. And ONLY terrorists...no kids, wedding parties, religious gatherings...

...just terrorists.

That's why we have model planes fixed with missiles raining hell from the skies, I guess.

[deadlyaj]

3. Collateral Damage is a bitch, and I believe the us military does their best to avoid it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. Until noon on Tuesday, many people here would claim they specifically sought it out

Now we have "collateral damage is a bitch?"

On WHICH points are we now consistent?

[deadlyaj]

21. Not my posts...

Im all for killing the real people who attacked us

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. I am, too, but the potential for error is too great

And it is very disingenuous to call the military bloodthirsty one day, and merely mistaken the next. Perhaps you're not guilty of that, but it has happened elsewhere.

[deadlyaj]

26. I believe afghanistan will spill into pakistan

its def something we all should be prepared for

[Trajan]

66. While I agree with your sentiment; your methods are lazy and dangerous to innocents

Why not send in HONORABLE squads that can, at great risk to themselves, visually separate friend from foe, and SELECTIVELY attack the bad guys ?

Using these standoff weapons, like the Predator missile, is too dangerous for use in populated areas ...

There should be ZERO acceptance of 'collateral damage' ....

Let's use an analogy:

A gang of thugs takes over a house in a Dallas neighborhood .... The police arrive, and instead of waiting out the thugs, they immediately bomb the house from a helicopter, with the victims still inside ...

Would that be moral ? ..... Isnt there a better way that does NOT include killing those who are innocent? .... I think so, yes ... The cops could have, instead, crept towards the house, at GREATER threat to themselves, but at a LESSER threat to the innocents, and picked out the 'bad guys' from the 'good guys' ... Yeah .. It is an imperfect analogy, but it is close enough for many of us ...

I do not accept that 'collateral damage' argument .... It is lazy and dishonorable ...

[deadlyaj]

68. Collateral Damage is something we must accept if we're not going to use troops to clean this mess up

Id be willing to listen to other means

simply doing nothing IS not acceptable

[Trajan]

84. It is immoral to accept the AVOIDABLE death of innocents ...

Doing nothing is preferable to acting without a moral justification ... Frankly, using those weapons without first resorting to placing one's own ass on the line IS immoral, in my view .... The fact that it is 'hard' to do this right is not enough cause to resort to a process that causes MORE innocent death, and hence, MORE anger and MORE hatred ....

The ONLY rational approach: The Afghanistan government needs to take control of their countryside, as do the Pakistani government need to take control of the tribal areas. They need to scour the landscape from border to border, and clean out the bad guys themselves : If they need help, then they should ask the world, upfront and on top, to give them the help they need to go after al Qaeda, and to let EVERYONE in those lands know what they are doing, and that they are after the al Qaeda bosses exclusively ....

To stand back and just lob missiles into populated areas is simply an unacceptable alternative to a steady, determined ground force that has a clear goal to capture the al Qaeda upper hierarchy, and to take secure control of the land itself ...

To stand back and just lob missiles into populated areas is simply immoral and counter-productive ....

[deadlyaj]

87. Paki and Afghan govt need to take care of their countryside.

But what do we do, when they do not?

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. How many civilian deaths can be justified by saying "Well, we killed a terrorist with this strike"?

1? 5? 10? 100? What if we killed 150 innocent women and children while succeeding in killing a top terrorist? Would that be okay?

What's the cutoff here? I'm sure there is a top end to the number of innocents that can justifiably be slaughtered in the quest for one terrorist life.

Do you see how the death of innocents in this case creates more hatred?

[deadlyaj]

88. No one wants innocents killed. But what are we to do? Let them move freely and attack people?

[Texasgal]

2. Huh?

Just who are YOU telling everyone to STFU?

This is a DISCUSSION board where people DISCUSS things and have differing OPINIONS.

Just who in the FUCK do you think you are? Have you become the grand POOBAH of DU discussion?

Jesus!

[Peregrine Took]

5. I couldn't agree MORE, Texasgal! I hate folks that tell us how and what to

think here on DU.

That kind of mind control belongs on another forum that rhymes with Spree Rethuglic. Ugh!!!!!!!!

[deadlyaj]

7. Im a democrat but not a pacifists...

[Texasgal]

13. STFU!

See how that works?


Idiot.

[deadlyaj]

8. stay on topic :P

[Trajan]

85. I dont see you lasting long here in DU ....

Nuff said ....

[deadlyaj]

9. stay on topic :P

[Danger Mouse]

4. I don't know anybody named STFU. Could you introduce me to them?

[mtnsnake]

11. There was a guy on my street once

His name was Harvey STFU. Only one with that name I ever met before, although I guess it's pretty common in the South.

[Danger Mouse]

25. Oh yeah, good old Harvey STFU.

I'd see him out on the street and yell, 'Hey! STFU!' and everybody would get all pissed off at me. I never understood that. I was just trying to talk to Harvey!

[mtnsnake]

6. ...

[Xipe Totec]

10. No offense but,

who the FUCK are you?

and how dare you compare a real President to GWB?

[deadlyaj]

15. Bush was the president, and justified in attackin Pakistan. So is Obama.

I hate bush as much as the next democrat - but in these instances, I was behind him

[DRoseDARs]

12. Three children were among the dead...

No one is really criticizing the targeting of terrorists. They're criticizing the collateral damage missile strikes cause almost without fail. I for one would rather see snipers go in for the kill of high-profile targets if we must kill, but targeting from afar with missiles can't give a high rate of confidence that only terrorists will be killed.

[sandnsea]

18. That's the info I was waiting for

High value terrorists is one thing, but any time we kill kids we are losing the battle, not to mention it's just plain wrong. I hope Obama changes that directive immediately.

[deadlyaj]

22. Afghanistan cannot be won without cleaning out NW Pakistan.

Obama should bring in sniper teams to take out high value targets

But, drone strikes will have to do

[DRoseDARs]

30. You're missing the point: Missile strikes make more terrorists than they kill.

There's a far-greater degree of risk for sending snipers in (Pakistan will never allow it anyway, so this is all moot I suppose) instead of guiding bombs in, but as I said missile strikes almost always cause some form of collateral damage. It's viewed as indiscriminate bombing rather than precise targeting and that perception is what gets passed around the village echo chamber and plastered onto the terrorist recruitment posters/flyers. Pakistan's problems won't be bombed into submission, only inflamed further. And they have nukes. Fan-fucking-tastic.

This is a far more complicated issue than you're trying to pass it off as and telling us to shut the fuck up about it does not help bolster your opinion.

[deadlyaj]

31. im for moving troops into NW Pakistan

stikes will have to do in the meantime

[sandnsea]

45. Respectfully, you're nuts

You're talking about invading a soverign nation. We can't just put troops into Pakistan. We could probably get by with very limited sniper teams, like less than 5 total. But other than that, we need to be working to resolve the issues in the region that is creating the terrorism. No war is won militarily. War is what you do when you're too stupid to resolve a conflict.

[deadlyaj]

47. NW Warzirastan isnt Pakistan. its controlled by warlords. Its the heart of alqaeda

and must be defeated

[sandnsea]

50. It is Pakistan

That's like saying some gang block in L.A. isn't the U.S. and consequently must be defeated because it's the heart of the crips - who have killed more US citizens than al qaeda, I would add.

[deadlyaj]

52. Not True, its soveign tribal land. Kinda like an indian reservation in the usa

[sandnsea]

59. No they are like Mexican gangs

who have ancestors who were on this land long before we were. Which doesn't mean some section of Arizona or New Mexico or California suddenly become tribal land if the US decided to shoot rockets into gang neighborhoods.

I would think 8 years of Bush warmongering would have been enough for anybody.

[deadlyaj]

60. The point I was making is that the Paki govt cannot stop them

[sandnsea]

64. And we cannot stop every US gang

so?

We can't just keep lobbing rockets in there. Israel should be an obvious lesson on what not to do.

Why can people not look and learn.

[deadlyaj]

65. Short of putting troops into Pakistan, its the best we can do currently

until diplomacy REALLY starts working and the Pakistani's clean up their own mess

[sandnsea]

70. Actually, we could contain the area

for 3-6 months, and see where diplomacy took us after that. Which is what I suspect he will do when he has a chance to get the particulars together.

[deadlyaj]

73. No way it could be "contained" without troops ont he ground... at least, effectively

[sandnsea]

77. There are troops on the ground

On the Afghanistan side.

[DRoseDARs]

53. Let's break this down:

If we move troops into NW Pakistan, it will have to be a significant number, in the thousands, in order to have any meaningful progress in stamping out the cockroaches. Pak's govt will NEVER approve that, but let say they do. Their people will revolt UTTERLY and the government will fall. So now we'll be dealing with NW fighting as well as chaos in the rest of Pakistan, nevermind figuring out who has control of their nukes. India will take care of that for us: They'll bomb the shit out of any suspected Pakistan nuclear sites to prevent anti-India groups from taking control of them. Yay clusterfuck!

Now let's say Pakistan DOESN'T give approval. Now we've illegally invaded a sovereign country with several thousand troops, this time completely without any sort of flimsy paper justification like what the Bush Administration had going into Iraq; that UN resolution I'm forgetting the name of at the moment. The Pakistani government has to respond or else the people will revolt and overthrow them. And we're right back to having fighting in the NW, chaos everywhere else, and India bombing targets to protect its own national security. Yay clusterfuck!



This won't be won with missiles.

[deadlyaj]

55. I agree, it wont be won with missiles

The diplomats are hopefully working overtime -- I know our soldiers are -- this is not about winning, its about stemming the tide of taliban attacking afghans. If they can just run across the border and be protected by a invisible line -- how long do you think that will work before we go all out and take them out?

[ShortnFiery]

14. Cool! Perhaps you can help explain the rationale of killing innocents with our bombs when

you SCORE that audience with Saint Peter.

No, I will not STFU when MURDER is committed in our (USA) name.

[deadlyaj]

19. Im sure Obama isnt losing any sleep over taking out terrorist targets, you think he is ?

[ShortnFiery]

27. I'm sorry but seemingly UNLIKE you, I don't consider Obama my "KING" - he's wrong on this.

BOMBS are indiscriminate and kill babies and children as well as those dreaded "evil-doers."

I don't want that on my conscious and I don't want our Country to be a damn WEAPONS FACTORY. We need to scale down our munitions and stop bombing the shit out of everyone that we're AFRAID OF. It's just putrid and yes ... IMO, a COWARDLY way to attack one's enemy. ... TECHNICALLY akin to hunting deer with an assault rifle.

[deadlyaj]

29. Sorry, you're simply wrong. We're totally 100% justified in attacking Terrorists.

so stuff it

[ShortnFiery]

37. OK, if you can justify such insanity with your conscious, that's fine BUT it's VILE.

You may DEMAND that you are on "God's side" but I think YOU SIN.

Suffice to say that if there is such a thing as an afterlife, my accommodations may include air conditioning.

When I was younger, I used to love to go on Patrols with a special faction of our R.O.T.C. who were training for Ranger School. I was the first woman Black-Hat in this little league organization in the late 70s. Oh how I loved "Raids" the best ... setting off grenade simulators after we charged through the objective. .... YEAH, I think I know the "allure" of the WE ARE ALL mindset.

However, when you get a little bit older, you either choose to idolize FICTIONAL characters such as "Jack Bauer" on 24 OR real life heroes like "Jimmy Carter" who will stand tall and continue to be THE PEACEMAKER no matter how much he is savaged in the M$M or by the political ruling classes.

I hate to break it to you but GOD is on *HUMANITY'S" side, not JUST the USA.

Remember the little ditty - The last shall be first and the first shall be last? If not, then "A large dose of KARMA is going to destroy our once noble nation if we don't reach down and DEMONSTRATE or quest for upholding humanity."

[deadlyaj]

Sorry, you're wrong.

They're rearming the taliban and trying to kill Afghans and American troops. Im all for diplomacy, but currently, they're attacking us and helping the enemy. until diplomacy works we cannot allow them to rearm terrorists or run camps. Sorry.

[ShortnFiery]

43. Yeah yeah, God's on OUR side - "Oh lord, let's rend the enemy from stem to stern!"

[deadlyaj]

44. There is no god as far as I know - I say attack them, its the heart of alqaeda (nw pakistan)

[ShortnFiery]

56. How fucking maniacal and self-serving. If most Americans think/feel as you - we have LOST our soul.

[deadlyaj]

58. Bullshit, stop apologizing or feeling bad about killing someone whos trying to kill you

they wouldnt care about your soul

[ShortnFiery]

92. That's the point, it's NOT that SIMPLISTIC. We are killing an equal number of "innocents."

We are CREATING more terrorists than we are killing.

[TayTay]

33. No, but they are not all terrorists.

This overly simplistic approach seems to say that everyone who dies is a terrorist. Not so.
We fuel the insurgency, as our own Generals on the ground acknowledged, when we give the terrorists martyrs. We have to oppose religious radicalism with better ways. War begets war and it will never end unless we do something different.

BTW, there are no surgical military strikes that only magically hit the terrorists. The people that die have families and relatives who want revenge on those who hurt them.

[deadlyaj]

35. Again, collateral damage ... i know that sounds harsh, but it happens when you do strikes

[TayTay]

36. No, it's not "just harsh"

It's against what the Generals on the ground, the Rand Corporation, the Defense Secretary and others who have studied this problem have said.

It's not harsh, it's stupid and counter-productive the very cause the we say we are fighting for.

We cannot win this way. We could not in Iraq and we can't win here using these methods.

Answer me this: How do you defuse an insurgency? How has it been done in the past? Any clue whatsoever to what methods worked and what didn't?

[deadlyaj]

38. fyi, nw pakistan is not an

[TayTay]

42. Not what?

Happy to be bombed? Well, ah, no one is happy to be bombed.

What is the political structure of Pakistan? Who is the ISI and what is their relationship to the current govt and to the Taliban? Are they a controlled force? Is the current govt capable of reining them in? Who actually can affect the FATA region? What tribal affiliations cross the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Who the hell are you bombing? Do you even know?

[uppityperson]

96. "pakistan is not an"...? That is just your opion.

[uppityperson]

95. So you equate "collateral damage" with "someone whos trying to kill you"

[deadlyaj]

102. Collateral Damage can happen when you're defending yourself from people trying to kill you

[uppityperson]

104. Collateral Damage can happen when you're indiscriminately bombing places

[sandnsea]

82. I imagine there is the rare situation

Where only fighters are gathered for strategy purposes, or whatever. I doubt they're with their families every minute. For the truly high value targets, and I mean Bin Laden and a few others, it's worth the blowback. But that's it. Obviously we've either had horrible intelligence or way too broad a net. I get the impression they're shooting rockets at anybody who ever shook the hand of the hand of the hand of someone who might have been a terrorist.

[uppityperson]

94. I bet Obama feels crappy about killing innocents. Do you?

Did you miss that this is a "discussion" board, what with your stfu and "stuff it"s? Maybe you missed that part, or maybe you just like playing a manipulative asshole on an anonymous forum?

[deadlyaj]

99. I personally wouldnt be

just like my grandfather didnt mind bombing berlin (killing innocents)

[uppityperson]

103. But you were asking about Obama, as I did. And you didn't answer.

You don't answer what I asked, but tell an anecdote about a grandparent. huh.

[ShortnFiery]

107. Wow, my dad who was a combat engineer had to kill a number of people "up close and personal"

Although he was able to maintain his commission after WWII and retired as a Major, THE FACES of the men he killed "haunted him."

Perhaps if we were FORCED to SEE the mangled bodies and faces of collateral damage victims like my father (up close and personal) we may be less inclined to CHEERLEAD that we bomb them to "kibbles and bits?"



http://www.rawa.org/events/sevenyear_e.htm
http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-07_e.htm

[mtnsnake]

17. Why did you change the title of your thread?

I thought it was fine the original way you had it. What a wuss.

[deadlyaj]

20. 1 stfu is more than enough :D

[mtnsnake]

23. LOL

[lonestarnot]

28. Shew fly shoe!

IBTL

[Cali_Democrat]

32. It's amazing to me how people on DU never actually listened to Obama

When he was running for president he said again and again that he would expand the war in Afghanistan and strike targets in Pakistan.

[deadlyaj]

34. AMEN!!

[sandnsea]

48. High value targets, not kids

And no he did not say he would expand the war in Afghanistan. He said he would increase troops to go after al qaeda in the border region. We already have troops there. Reenforcing them wouldn't be expanding anything.

[deadlyaj]

51. I dont understand how people are suprised by the Presidents actions when he said he was gonna dothis

[existentialist]

39. The BBC reports that among the accidental victims of

the most recent attacks, was one of the few prominent locals who supported the United States.

OK, in theory I can see why these attacks may be necessary, but unless we can stop hitting innocents and allies they are highly counterproductive.

Greater fire power will not win a war if the side that has it uses it to hit itself.

[ShortnFiery]

46. But SHIT, we have all these pretty weapons in storage and those bombs won't blow up themselves!

[deadlyaj]

49. yes, all for killing badguys

until we get a diplomatic anwser to this, its what we should do

[ShortnFiery]

54. I got your "bad guys" (evil-doers?) right here cowboy.

[deadlyaj]

57. Christ - do you just 100% hate our military?

your types make me sick and the reason democrats were the politcal wilderness for so damn long.

i am democrat and pro military -- proud of it.

Yes, they are bad guys ...

[ShortnFiery]

61. Hello? I just told you a few posts back... I served in the AD Army - I love the MILITARY but NOT...

when we are sent to bomb like "cowardly little girls" from 30,000 feet. That's just fucking VILE.

Hey there, I will always be grateful for the opportunity to serve my country and my Veteran's benefits paid for my masters from SDSU.

SO DON'T GO THERE!

But if you truly wish to help the WAR EFFORT, why don't you go in with the first wave of INFANTRY. You know, mano A mano?

It's NOT TOUGH in the least to bomb people from afar ... how bout you show us what a real man you are and volunteer for the Airborne Infantry?

No? I didn't think so.

[deadlyaj]

63. You love the military ... BUT! (btw you're right we should do TONS more)

I just went there.

Its not about being tough, or vile or cowardly.

Drones really, are all we're able to do in this region of the world -- Im with you

we should be doing alot more.

[ShortnFiery]

78. WHAT GIVES US THE RIGHT to unilaterally attack within another sovereign country just because we can?

My father was battlefield commissioned during WWII but till the day he died he regretted the killing he was FORCED to do. Further he said that the most HORRID and TERRORISTIC action was that of Arty or Bombing because it was .... wait for it ... *INDISCRIMINATE.*

Damn, I can't believe some in our party. It is NOT HONORABLE to EXECUTE PEOPLE and "collateral" innocents via long range just because we are the biggest bad asses on the block.

We are the WORLD's BULLY along with our best buddies ISRAEL.

It's a piss poor way to USE our honorable military ... it is again, JUST VILE.

You're in good company though. Macho Men and self-loathing women sycophants are going "orgasmic" at our unilateral use of massive firepower. But the rest of the world looks on ... in fear and loathing.

[deadlyaj]

83. Sorry... thats where the guys who attacked on 9/11 are

they started it

[ShortnFiery]

90. Nope, I believe that Bin Laden's HOME OF RECORD is Saudi Arabia.

[deadlyaj]

91. Wrong, hes been exiled from Saudia Arabia and citizenship revoked for sometime

chances are, hes right there in that region

[ShortnFiery]

89. Went where? Do you know what a DD 214 is? Do you have one?

If you are a veteran, instead of being a keyboard ranger, I think you should get "back in the shit." I know a number of men ... some who I actually liked (kind of) who LIVE for BATTLE.

Your talents are being lost on us here - the Airborne Infantry, USMC Recon, Navy SEALS awaits PATRIOT! Go kill us some EVILDOERS!

[deadlyaj]

93. ...

silly

[Harry Monroe]

40. STFU??

Oh, "Start Thinking For Urself" That's great!!

[stillcool]

41. You can justify anything..

[ProSense]

62. Sorry, conflating Bush and Obama on Pakistan makes no sense.

Cheering on an escalation of the Afghanistan war with the hopes of moving into Pakistan makes even less sense. That is not Obama's plan.

A study in 2007 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that economic, humanitarian and development assistance under Bush amounted to no more than a quarter of all aid, less than in most countries.

The criticism helped provoke a group of senators who now have powerful new roles -- Joseph R. Biden Jr., Clinton and Obama -- to co-sponsor legislation last July requiring that more aid be targeted at political pluralism, the rule of law, human and civil rights, and schools, public health and agriculture.

It also would have allowed U.S. weapons sales and other military aid only if the secretary of state certified that Pakistani military forces were making "concerted efforts" to undermine al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In her confirmation statement, Clinton reiterated her support for such a legislative restructuring of the aid program, while reaffirming that she opposed any "blank check."

Some Pakistanis have been encouraged by indications that Obama intends to increase aid to the impoverished country, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani who directs the South Asia Center of the Washington-based Atlantic Council of the United States. Nawaz said Pakistanis may be willing to overlook an occasional missile lobbed at foreign terrorists if Obama makes a sincere attempt to improve conditions in Pakistan.

"He can't just focus on military achievements; he has to win over the people," Nawaz said. "Relying on military strikes will not do the trick." Attaching conditions to the aid is wise, Nawaz said, because "people are more cognizant of the need for accountability -- for 'tough love.' "

link

That is the legislation Senator Kerry, who is now the lead sponsor, wrote about here.

[deadlyaj]

67. not Conflating -- simply stating both are RIGHT to attack this lawless region

[ProSense]

71. Yes, you are conflating. You're focusing solely on more missile strikes and a bigger war,

That is not a strategy for anything but pissing more people off and killing more civilians.

[deadlyaj]

75. Strikes are going to continue unless we put boots on the ground into the region or diplomacy works

[ProSense]

79. You mixing up a lot of stuff here.

There is a global counterinsurgency and there is diplomacy. They serve different purposes. The strikes are against terrorist targets. The U.S. isn't at war with Pakistan.

[DRoseDARs]

69. KERRY Op-ed: Pakistan needs our support:

Posting as a new OP reply since this thread has already ballooned into several conversations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Key bit:
"This is why I will seek swift passage of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, which would triple non-military assistance to Pakistan through projects that will directly support the Pakistani people, strengthen democratic institutions, promote economic freedoms, and encourage investment in the agriculture, education and infrastructure sectors."

[deadlyaj]

76. I can only hope Pakistan can govern its country ...

[OwnedByFerrets]

72. So, using your logic, you dont mind if China strikes suspected

"terrorist" sites in america either right?? Cuz that is what you are suggesting is just fine with you. And you, can tell me to stfu all you want to. Wont bother me one little bit.

[deadlyaj]

74. Well, if American Terrorists struck China and continued to plan to strike China -

I could see why they would wanna strike us

[cherokeeprogressive]

80. Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror

Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror

Do you LOOK like George Walker Bush as well? Because you sure SOUND LIKE HIM.

Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror TerrorTerror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror Terror

[deadlyaj]

81. Hate as much as you want, Obama won but the threat is still there

[ShortnFiery]

98. Obama MUST listen to the American People. If we STOP the blood-lust, then just perhaps ...

we can loosen the STRANGLEHOLD that the Military Industrial Complex, specifically The Pentagon has on our Foreign Policy. We are driven by our CORPORATE WAR INDUSTRY first and NOT by any sincere desire to calm the tensions in the Middle East.

This INSANE behavior must end or we will destroy all of humankind.

[deadlyaj]

101. Sorry, its justified

action of force is justified in this matter

[ShortnFiery]

106. No, it's not "justified" ... only in the deluded minds of those Americans who follow the directives

of the Corporate Interests within the Military Industrial Complex.

Thanks M$M ... Thanks Heritage Foundation ... Thanks American Enterprise Institute ...

Now go out and BOMB another "Terrorist for Jesus."

[Danger Mouse]

97. I was cold, but this thread is warming me up very nicely.

[uppityperson]

100. Yup. Sure seems that way to me too.

[DRoseDARs]

105. Don't know about the heat, but my blood pressure is up.

Yay clusterfuck!

Not one of the more maddening threads I've been in, but annoying nonetheless. And I'm not even terribly disagreeing with him, it's just the circles he keeps going in.

[mvd]

108. Locking

"STFU" is a GA, and thread is flamey anyway.

mvd
DU Moderator