http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080316/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_missile_attack;_ylt=AvHOEaon_mecLYoJ1DwweVis0NUE

Quote :

" MIRAN SHAH, Pakistan - A missile strike near the Afghan border destroyed the house of a suspected militant leader Sunday, killing at least 20 people, witnesses and state-run Pakistan Television said. ADVERTISEMENT Seven missiles were fired in the strike in the tribal area of South Waziristan, the television report said. The Pakistani military said five or six explosions were heard near Wana, the main town in South Waziristan. Local tribesman Rahim Khan told The Associated Press missiles were fired by an unmanned drone. At least two hit and destroyed the home of a local militant leader and Taliban sympathizer who goes by the single name Noorullah, Khan said. Only U.S.-led coalition forces are known to have unmanned drones operating in the region. Coalition forces based in neighboring Afghanistan have also launched attacks inside the Pakistani border in the past. Khan said the house — a huge, fortress-like compound — was known as a hub for visiting foreign militants. Four of those killed were not locals, he said without elaborating, and seven other people were wounded in the attack. Taliban supporters immediately surrounded the area. Two Pakistani intelligence officials in the area, both speaking on condition of anonymity because of the nature of their work, said another house nearby was also destroyed. Arab and Uzbek militants had been staying in the house, which belongs to a tribesman named Safraz Khan, the officials said. Eight to ten people were killed in the second house, they said. Maj. Chris Belcher, a U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said coalition forces conducted an operation Sunday in Paktika province, which lies just across the border from South Waziristan. But he said he had no information about the Pakistan strike and doubted the two incidents were related. Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaida and Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding out somewhere in the rugged, lawless tribal regions along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Pakistan has been battling Islamic militants linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban in its border regions and the U.S. considers the country's effort vital to the war on terrorism. In January, a U.S. missile strike on a house killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaida militant, near Miran Shah, the main town of neighboring North Waziristan. Pakistani intelligence officials said they found the remains of satellite phones and a computer in that wreckage."

didnt he once make a foreign policy speech where he said he would do this?

3/16/2008 1:55:59 PM

do what, exactly?

i hope you're not making the mistake of equating "unmanned drones" to something like autonomous fighting vehicles. An unmanned drone is still fully controlled by people at a control center, and any missiles or weapons fired from it are under full control of people

3/16/2008 2:01:24 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States. Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said. The Illinois Democrat is trying to convince Americans he has the foreign policy heft to be president after a rival candidate, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, questioned his readiness to be commander in chief. Clinton last week labeled Obama naive for saying he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela without preconditions in his first year in office. A poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News said Clinton has widened her lead over Obama, going up to 43 percent in July from 39 percent in June. Obama tallied 22 percent, down from 25 percent in June. Those polled cited Clinton's experience and competence highest among her positive attributes. Obama said he would make hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistan making substantial progress in closing down training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks on Afghanistan. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Pakistan was working hard to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, and Washington was doing what it could in support. "At the same time, we recognize the sovereignty of the Pakistani government and realize that they're putting on a serious push ... They're taking the fight to al Qaeda," Snow said. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country." But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. "If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said. Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda." Obama criticized President George W. Bush's emphasis on al Qaeda in Iraq and said as president he would end the war there and refocus efforts on the al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan by sending at least two additional U.S. brigades to Afghanistan. He said that "because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.""

3/16/2008 2:07:36 PM

Are you asking if Obama would strike targets inside Pakistan, then the article you posted gives the clear answer of "yes". But, it also raises another quesiton, "so what". The article also notes that both Clinton and Edwards said they would do the same thing. And I doubt Bush or McCain would give a differnt answer.

Quote :

""If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," [Hillary Clinton] said. Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda.""

IOW: Obama agrees with everyone else.
Not exactly headline material.

[Edited on March 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ``]

3/16/2008 2:22:54 PM

except that both hillary clinton and john mccain basically scolded him for saying that shit a couple months ago.

3/16/2008 2:32:40 PM

^ For saying he would attack targets inside Pakistan? I don't think so. I would have to some links to back up that one.

3/16/2008 2:50:27 PM

i know at the very least mccain said "you don't say that you should bomb a sovereign nation" and i'm pretty sure clinton backed him up (what's new?)

3/16/2008 3:12:57 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/08/01/cq_3207.html

Quote :

"It was inevitable that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a top-tier contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, would attempt to flesh out his foreign policy views in a big speech, as he did in Washington, D.C., Wednesday morning. While Obama’s campaign charisma has boosted him in preference polls and fundraising, he has less foreign policy experience than most of the Democratic presidential hopefuls. Skip to next paragraph Congressional Quarterly News and analysis on CQ.com * CQPolitics.com Daily E-mail * CQ Midday Update from Capitol Hill * Congressional Quarterly Free Newsletters The urgency of Obama’s foreign policy speech was heightened by the buzz that has persisted since he stated, during a July 23 Democratic candidate debate, that during his first year as president he would be willing to meet with leaders of nations that are hostile to the U.S., such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner in the Democratic contest, called that position “naïve,” which prompted Obama to call out Clinton for her 2002 vote in favor of the resolution that authorized President Bush to use military force in Iraq. Obama made news several days later when he vowed to go “toe-to-toe with the leaders of rogue nations.” Obama’s speech Wednesday, in which he outlined a five-point plan to succeed in “the war we need to win,” continued his effort to show toughness, particularly against terrorists who threaten U.S. interests. His positions included conditioning continued U.S. support for Pakistan on its efforts to clean out al Qaeda and Taliban elements that use ungoverned areas of Pakistan to stage attacks against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan — with a threat of possible unilateral action if the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharaff does not act aggressively in this matter. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharaff won’t act, we will,” he said. The speech received mixed reviews from foreign policy experts and other political analysts. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Center on Foreign Relations who holds conservative views, said he thought that Obama’s lack of experience is a large reason why Clinton maintains a lead in Democratic presidential preference polls. “We’re a nation at war, and I think even most Democrats are uncomfortable about making commander in chief a guy who a few years ago was an Illinois state senator,” he said. Boot added that Obama’s statements in debates and in Wednesday’s speech are not helping his cause. “Obama doesn’t seem to have learned the old adage when you’re in a hole stop digging,” he said. “In this latest speech,” Boot continued, “he’s sticking by his earlier assertion that you have to meet without preconditions, without any hope of agreement, you have to just go and talk to people. Which further reinforces the image that he’s a neophyte in foreign policy and doesn’t really know what he’s doing, and that Clinton would be a stronger hand on the tiller,” he said. But Wayne Steger, an assistant professor of political science at DePaul University in Chicago, disagreed, saying that the speech would be an asset for Obama. “As a political candidate’s speech, it does many of the right things,” he said. The speech, according to Steger, draws a stark contrast between Democrats and the Bush administration, and also between Obama and the other Democratic candidates. It also is forward-looking, providing a sophisticated view of the future, he said. “There’s a great deal of detail in this speech. It’s very precise in its language, but also it’s fairly extensive as an overview of what directions, what needs to be done, and there’s a lot that’s going to appeal here to Democrats, especially those who are adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq,” Steger said. Samuel L. Popkin, a professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego, agreed the speech was an asset for Obama, although he said the effects of the speech were likely to take months to bear out. “It was well over the bar and will reassure people who were worried about an inexperienced senator at a time of crisis. I don’t know whether it will woo people in addition. We won’t really know until later,” he said. Popkin added that putting a spotlight on Pakistan was a smart move for Obama, who used it to point out that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, although he was not yet a senator when the vote to authorize the war occurred. “He put the focus on Pakistan in a way that is a very subtle dig at everyone who voted for the war, that the invasion of Iraq is making it harder to clean up Pakistan. . . . The unspoken message of the speech was voting for the war let Musharaff off the hook,” Popkin said. Popkin continued, “He said something nobody who voted for the war can say, and said it in a way that makes him look like a hawkish opponent of Iraq, not a dovish opponent of Iraq. That’s actually very clever, what he did.” Even Boot, who said Obama’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq would only embolden Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, said that Obama made a good point about Pakistan. “It’s a positive step that we ought to be taking,” he said. Nonetheless, the campaign of at least one of Obama’s rivals for the campaign for Democratic nomination was not about to allow him to claim center stage on foreign policy unimpeded. Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. has trailed badly in polls so far during this unusually early-starting campaign, and his hopes for seriously competing are predicated largely on his experience on foreign policy issues as a longtime member — and the current chairman — of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And his campaign decries Obama as a “Johnny-come-lately” on the international scene. “We find it a little disingenuous that Sen. Obama is hailing this as a new bold initiative, when he has neglected to join his colleagues in the Senate when the opportunities have been there to redirect our forces into Afghanistan,” Luis Navarro, Biden’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “It’s good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership.”"

does this count?

3/16/2008 3:15:42 PM

^ Note, the policy being called naive in that article is not attacking targets in Pakistan, it's Obama's willingness to meet with leaders that are hostile to the US without any preconditions and without any hope of agreement. That you just have to go talk with these people and apparently magic will happen.

I'm not sure I understand the connection between that article DNL and the one you used to start the thread. Please fill in the gaps.

[Edited on March 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ``]

3/16/2008 3:24:49 PM

Hate to double post, but I thought this was rich.

Quote :

"New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner in the Democratic contest, called that position “naïve,” which prompted Obama to call out Clinton for her 2002 vote in favor of the resolution that authorized President Bush to use military force in Iraq. "

"I am against the Iraq War" + "Unity" + "Hope" = Obama's entire foreign policy platform.

3/16/2008 3:31:21 PM

Quote :

"i know at the very least mccain said "you don't say that you should bomb a sovereign nation" and i'm pretty sure clinton backed him up (what's new?)"

Dude, coming from the same guy who flippantly sang "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?"

Irony!

3/16/2008 3:44:49 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/cia-operation-similar-to-_n_87433.html

Quote :

" CIA Operation Similar To Tactic Obama Advocated, Bush Criticized On the front page of Tuesday's Washington Post was an article detailing how in late January U.S. forces, acting with autonomy inside Pakistan, were able to target and kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander. The strike, which came without the Pakistani government's knowledge and helped eliminate an individual who had long eluded the spy-agency's capture, was an obvious boon in the War on Terror. But the political implications of the operation were just as fascinating. In August, Sen. Barack Obama had made the argument that, as president, he would target Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan even without the country's acquiescence -- the type of attack that, six months later, proved to be successful. At the time, Obama was roundly criticized for his remarks, both by his Democratic competitors for the White House and by the Bush administration. "We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation," said then-Press Secretary Tony Snow. And just one week ago, President Bush himself lambasted Obama's approach to foreign affairs. "I certainly don't know what he believes in," Bush said on February 10, about Obama. "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." To be sure, not everything is known about the extent and execution of the CIA's operation. But, on the surface, it carries similarities to Obama's stated approach towards Pakistan's terrorism problem, the same approach Bush trivialized. Here is Obama's August 2 statement at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges... But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." And here are some excerpts from Tuesday's Washington Post article. In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center. The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan. It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident. Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities."

3/16/2008 3:49:29 PM

nvm

[Edited on March 16, 2008 at 4:13 PM. Reason : just saw the date]

3/16/2008 4:12:27 PM

This seems like a lot of double talk.

McCain criticized Obama saying he would never bomb an ally country without consulting them.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/20/mccain_calls_obama_naive.html

Obama said that he never said such a thing and that McCain was misrepresenting his views. He said he did not propose bombing targets in Pakistan, he said he was talking about special-ops type incursions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K3IpU9Xvfg

Obama's supporters at the Huffington Post backed Obama up and said that he never proposed bombing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/mccain-obama-battle-over_n_87591.html

Then they wanted to turn around and say that McCain criticized Obama's proposal???? Either McCain criticized Obama's proposal or he mischaracterized it. You can't have it both ways.

McCain has never said anything about not using special-ops in Pakistan. Period.

[Edited on March 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ``]

3/16/2008 4:14:34 PM

^yeah. i was remembering that first instance you posted. but yeah. double talk. i agree.

3/16/2008 4:22:09 PM

so does that "go with your first instinct" thing hold true?

3/16/2008 5:42:35 PM

yes this is what Obama wants to do..

yes this is what the USMC has been wanting to do for about 5 years..

this is what we should've been doing instead of fighting a war for Haliburton. every time there is backwardation in crude oil futures, Darth Vader's crew and Ahmedinejad start rattling their sabres at each other. the tactic is getting old, and the CIA has all but told them to STFU.

a friend of mine (and former walk on QB for State) is in an MEU over there right now. there's a lot of NATO troops and only 3000 of our Marines there right now, but its about to change. it seems there will be a lot more of our guys in there soon.

i hope my friend comes back in one piece, and i hope we find that cocksucker once and for all.

3/17/2008 1:57:26 AM

he not only has good judgement, hes a psychic too...

3/17/2008 2:00:27 AM

Well, that's a little disappointing.

An American political consensus in favor of blowing up houses.

3/17/2008 6:55:05 AM

i think the *real* news here, is that DNL just pwnt Socks in TSB.

3/17/2008 7:40:05 AM

I care more about those drones assassinating folks with missiles.

3/17/2008 7:45:01 AM

even if those folks want to chop your mom's head off and pee in her eye sockets in front of you?

fuck 'em. let them go meet their 72 virgins.

[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 9:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2008 9:10:58 AM

Quote :

"even if those folks want to chop your mom's head off and pee in her eye sockets in front of you? "

"You killed those Turings."
The Finn shrugged. "Hadda. Hadda. You should give a shit;
they woulda offed you and never thought twice."

Kind of like that, huh? I prefer Case's initial reaction.

"You killed 'em," Case panted, running. "Crazy motherfucker, you killed 'em all...."

Besides, how about the folks in the house? Were they all guilty? Do we know?

3/17/2008 9:20:10 AM

yes. guilty by association. terrorist groups are extremely difficult to infiltrate because they are so tightly bound. the only reason you would be in that house, in that inner circle is either because: a) you are supporting the procedings in some matter or b) you are planning/participating in future action.

no quarter because none will be given.

3/17/2008 9:27:08 AM

What if the people in question were Americans?

Would you still support assassination by rocket?

3/17/2008 9:38:53 AM

citizen = rights = trial by jury etc etc

terrorist militant in another country = target

is that really hard to grasp?

3/17/2008 10:04:31 AM

Quote :

"What if the people in question were Americans? Would you still support assassination by rocket? "

I dont care if they are American, British, Canine, inbred or other. If they are part of a terrorist network, actively planning and executing terrorist acts against the US and her allies, FUCK EM.

3/17/2008 10:08:07 AM

I understand the distinction fine.

I don't accept it. If we must have legal systems, I'd prefer equal treatment for all humans.

3/17/2008 10:09:05 AM

those people arent human. humans dont saw innocent people's head's off with a dull blade on camera for the world to see. they are animals and should be put down as such.

3/17/2008 10:11:39 AM

Oh, humans do all sorts of horrible things.

Sawing off heads, dropping bombs, using chemical weapons, torture, and so on.

What were the victims in question specifically accused of doing?

3/17/2008 10:22:48 AM

Quote :

"i think the *real* news here, is that DNL just pwnt Socks in TSB."

3/17/2008 10:29:01 AM

Quote :

"What were the victims in question specifically accused of doing? "

being terrorists. this is all very simple.

3/17/2008 1:27:07 PM

Quote :

"This seems like a lot of double talk. McCain criticized Obama saying he would never bomb an ally country without consulting them. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/20/mccain_calls_obama_naive.html Obama said that he never said such a thing and that McCain was misrepresenting his views. He said he did not propose bombing targets in Pakistan, he said he was talking about special-ops type incursions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K3IpU9Xvfg Obama's supporters at the Huffington Post backed Obama up and said that he never proposed bombing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/mccain-obama-battle-over_n_87591.html Then they wanted to turn around and say that McCain criticized Obama's proposal???? Either McCain criticized Obama's proposal or he mischaracterized it. You can't have it both ways. McCain has never said anything about not using special-ops in Pakistan. Period. "

You call it being PWNT, I call it the Obama campaign back-peddling in a last ditch effort to make their candidate look serious on policy.

Toe-mate-oh, Toe-Mah-Toe.

It still does not change the fact that no one disagreed with Obama about targetted attacks inside Pakistan (as opposed to full out bombing). As he was keen to note until the political winds shifted.

[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ``]

3/17/2008 1:30:26 PM

Pwnt Socks``? I didn't see it.

3/17/2008 1:33:57 PM

Quote :

"being terrorists. this is all very simple."

I ask for specifics and that's the best you can do?

"Hey, what are those dudes accused of?"

"Oh, you know, being criminals. Simple stuff."

3/17/2008 1:36:10 PM

dude, I know the game you play. you like to ask rhetorical questions, then when the person qualifies their statement in a manner that you can jump on you use it against them...like your latest post.

they are accused of planning and carrying out violent attacks against Americans. the ringleader they were after has been a known terrorist on the run for years. he met his maker and his virgins. you should be happy for him.

just because you weep for him doesnt change who he is or what he would do to you and your family given the chance. he doesnt care that you are a free thinker and may sympathize with him. he would cut your balls off and feed them to your sister because you dont think like him. dont you get that?

if anything what he stands for is and who he is are exactly the type you hate. he would force his beliefs on you, violently if necessary, were he in charge. we are all NOT equal in the eyes of his brand of Islam.

[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ...]

3/17/2008 1:59:53 PM

Quote :

"they are accused of planning and carrying out violent attacks against Americans."

All of them? Do you have proof?

Quote :

"he would cut your balls off and feed them to your sister because you dont think like him. dont you get that?"

Don't care. I'll defend myself against direct threats. I don't want any assassinations done on my behalf. Especially not indiscriminate assassinations.

3/17/2008 2:07:01 PM

Quote :

"All of them? Do you have proof?"

yeah...I couldnt predict this post do you have proof that your dad supplied your X chromosome, or are you assuming based on a reasonable doubt that he is? this happens sometimes in the real world. fortunately, the govt doesnt have to run each case like this by a jury before they act because nothing would get done.

Quote :

"Don't care. I'll defend myself against direct threats. I don't want any assassinations done on my behalf. Especially not indiscriminate assassinations. "

you may not have the stomach for the harsh reality of this war. I do. thank God my government does.

I love your isolationism, yet you pretend to care for all mankind. you dont care that this animal was getting ready to kill people (by all accounts, it was hardly indiscriminate) as long as it wasnt an attack on you directly. you cant have it both ways. you either value all life, or you value only the lives that are close to you.

I would argue that I care for more of my comrades than you do because I care that this guy was about to kill some people I did not know. you only care if the attack was on you personally.

3/17/2008 2:17:18 PM

Quote :

"fortunately, the govt doesnt have to run each case like this by a jury before they act because nothing would get done."

Yet we're stupid enough to do this type of thing for Americans.

Quote :

"I would argue that I care for more of my comrades than you do because I care that this guy was about to kill some people I did not know. you only care if the attack was on you personally."

Sure. Missile assassinations via drone are the only moral choice. If you don't support blowing up houses, you're a selfish asshole.

3/17/2008 2:46:22 PM

american citizen is an entirely different thing. you know it. dont discount the difference. I am very open with my nationalism. Americans first. everyone else second.

Quote :

"Sure. Missile assassinations via drone are the only moral choice. If you don't support blowing up houses, you're a selfish asshole. "

just pointing out what you said. you said you dont care as long as the bad people leave you alone. I dont want the bad people to harm one American - even the crazy idealist bastards on this site If that means blowing up the houses of bad guys overseas, so be it.

3/17/2008 2:52:16 PM

Quote :

"I am very open with my nationalism. Americans first. everyone else second."

Then it's not surprising we disagree.

Quote :

"just pointing out what you said."

Actually, you are twisting things. I said I didn't care about the personal threat. (You said the terrorist would cut off my balls.) How does that imply I don't care about other people? I don't anyone to be hurt, be they American or otherwise. I'm not willing to support missile assassinates to further this goal.

3/17/2008 2:58:41 PM

how do you suggest we, as a nation, accomplish this without a military option? surely you dont think negociation is an answer. give me something that is probable and/or could actually happen. not a perfect world solution.

3/17/2008 3:02:16 PM

Work with law enforcement in the countries in question to capture and try suspected terrorists.

I'd prefer smashing states, though. No, it might not be as safe as what we have now. I'm willing to take that risk.

3/17/2008 3:05:13 PM

law enforcement doesnt exist in this region of the world.

next.

3/17/2008 3:15:18 PM