Change in action: Air-raiding villages and killing civilians

Considering the sarcastic thread title it sounds to me like you are criticizing Obama over the policy of launching raids into Pakistan.

 

I fit all three. What does that make me?

I was against Iraq for tactical and political reasons. I thought it was mad to attack and invade a country that was relatively stable in a region filled with "unstable" regimes, that was a counterweight against Iran, that was one of the few "secular" countries in the region, regardless of the government. That would take resources away from the real fight against AQ and their extremist supporters, the Taliban, and when Afghanistan was as it has always been, damned near ungovernable. It was clear to me, and anyone who paid the slightest attention to history, that absolutely nothing could be taken for granted there. That it would take all our guile and our all available resources to produce anything like a stable government for the mid-term, much less the long-term future of the "country." There are certainly more reasons I could list, but I'll add here that I was also against it for the simple reason that wars have unintended consequences, and should never be entered into unless there is a clear and present danger to our vital interests and our national security, which was not the case with Iraq.

And I was against it because I thought, and still think, that to launch a massive invasion of a country that had not attacked us (it had not since the Gulf War and Kuwait), without a declaration of war and knowing that there would be large numbers of civilian casualties, was immoral.

 

no being stupid.

you act like obama has to be bizzaro bush to live up to his change rhetoric, and no one expects him to be totally opposite, its like the messiah claims, no one wants obama to be their messiah, but it sounds like a good criticism so it is constantly repeated

 

Just heard on the radio (no link, but I'm sure one will be available sometime soon): Gates on the Afghan "surge": A lot more troops aren't likely to make the situation better, and could make it worse. There should be an Afghan face on the war. The focus is on training Afghans to take control of their own security and allow for a US exit.

Paraphrase, but as close as i can recall. Wise words, in my opinion.

 

If Pakistan was to collapse I would want obama to stay the hell out. They may have nukes but getting them to the US would prove to be difficult. I am tired of these useless covert mission. Take care of this country, we should not be the world police. If Ron Paul was willing to budge on health care I would be all for him.

 

So you're saying that you will score rhetorical points by mocking a policy that you support. Also considering Obama long ago said this would be his policy your criticism is pretty hollow.

You might want to reconsider who is being hypocritical here.

 

You do understand that Obama is as much a war criminal as Bush is, if he is unwilling to prosecute Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. for their war crimes? You can't legitimately criticize Bush if you're unwilling to accept this. Same corruption, NEW FACE.

 

i agree with this. if you find evidence of unlawful actions and you do nothing to prosecute them or, at the very least, bring them to light, you're what's called an accessory.

 

I don't agree with that at all. Prosecutors often don't press charges or press lower charges for a variety of reasons. That doesn't make them criminals.