[wapo] U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice

bingo. These liberals are the most self-righteous, all knowing people of all time. If you don't believe me, just ask them!

 

it should be noted that bigtexxx now puts PRC interests above his american citizenship and doesn't want to see america succeed.

 

Not sure why the OP needs to spin this in favor of Obama. We have been doing this for a long time. I remember we hellfired a car in a middle east that killed an American citizen traveling with suspected terrorists several years ago.

 

More info on the poor fellow citizen who was executed by our government without trial in Yemen back in 2002:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Hijazi

 

I've edited out the personal attacks on Obama.

Obama does deserve credit for this, because he stated this exact idea before. Prior to his stating this, Bush had not been doing it. The article mentions the way it had been done before, and how different it was than this.

Obama received criticism for his plan. Yet what he talked about was put into action with success. I guess it pains you to give credit where credit is due in this case, but Obama stated this as his way of dealing with terrorists in Pakistan. It has shown to be effective.

There isn't much else that needs to be said on this.

 

We haven't been doing this in Pakistan, and if it wasn't such a new thing that America has been doing, why did everyone criticize Obama when he talked about it?

The fact of the matter is, Bush has had all the time that Al-Qaeda has been in Pakistan to do this, and didn't until after Obama voiced his plan to handle things in this way.

 

Well, because he publicly talks about it. When we are doing something dirty, we should do it in the dark.

Also, if we did it in Yemen, I don't see why we can't foresee we are going to do the same in Pakistan. But of course your mileage might vary.

 

Not to change the subject, but I'm sure this is all about Musharraf getting his ass kicked in elections and what will be his subsequent wane in power.

When he was top dog dictator, we wouldn't cross him. Now that the is a George Bush-esque lame duck, who cares what he thinks?

 

Same approach over and over again. Any critics towards Obama is an attack, no matter from whom, no matter what it is about.

Credit for what? Brilliant idea to suggest US to take military action somewhere in the world when it's needed? Like US never did that before, other countries never did that before? There are things you do but you don't openly advocate. That's how international politics are always about. You might go in with your super power force if you feel it's needed, but you don't openly advocate to attack an ally. You call that honesty or brilliant idea, I call that stupidity. You are putting the other party into a must-object-you position, to satisfy domestic outrage. That's why Obama is extremely inexperienced in international affairs. He was criticized for that comment, rightfully so.

It doesn't pain me at all to give credit to anyone or anything, if I believe where credit is due. I just don't see any credit for his play on that part. It's just my opinion. If Clinton says today that the Sun will rise from the East tomorrow morning, and if the Sun indeed rises from the East tomorrow, AFTER Clinton MAKES THE STATEMENT TODAY, I will still not credit her for that.

But you have to have the final word on this.

 

Well the loyalty of people to him doesn't really matter, the loyalty of the military to him is what really counts. I don't think there is any news that says he is losing support from the military.

 

im sorry but there is this thing called sovereignty which countries have. if you wish to not abide by that...then declare war. otherwise this half assed impinging on other nations' sovereignty is really a middle finger to a part of the world we should be more courteous of.

 

brilliant analogy, its perfect.


---->

 

It doesn't have to be final, I just disagree with this take on it

Taking military action without getting approval in Pakistan is a new idea. You can claim it isn't, but the article talks about the previous approach used. Then Obama came out with a different idea. Whether or not Bush borrowed his idea doesn't matter. What matters the idea advocated by Obama and criticized by others was used successfully.

You can try and broaden it to just taking military action against terrorists has been used, but we are looking at something more specific, and dealing with the how.

 

I agree there is something called sovereignty which countries have. Ours was broken when a particular group of terrorists plotted from without to kill our citizens.

If they are in another nation that won't crack down on them within their sovereign territory then we should by all means do something.

I disagree that our action has to be declaring war or not. This attack is a perfect example. We didn't declare war, we did make an attack within Pakistan, it was successful, and not near as costly as if we had declared war in order to accomplish this same goal.

A measured response seemed to have been the better choice.

 

thanks for disregarding international law. you cannot attack another nation unless theres an imminent threat. you know the kinds of things you attack dubya for? well this is an example of that. and for you to cheerlead it says a lot about how much law matters in your eyes.

 

We didn't attack another nation, we attacked terrorists who are residing in that nation. There were no attacks on the govt. of Pakistan. If the terrorist leaders are now part of the Pakistani govt. Then we should explore the option of declaring war.

The rule of law is important to me, and had we attacked Pakistan, the nation I would have been upset.

I will cheerlead going in after terrorist leaders that attacked us.

 

except this isn't attacking a nation, its going after terrorists, no ones trying to unseat pakistan's government.

 

Think about what we will think if a foreign country does the same thing on us. For example, Iran killed some of the neo-cons on the US soil.

 

if we had some neocons who attacked iranians, we'd probably hand them over, but thanks for another ridiculous analogy, they're flowing like water now. the obama hate train, all abooooarrddd

 

I would like to hand them over to the Iraqis....