I could answer that but many would rush to the keyboard to type, "You wouldn't be saying that if it were Bush"; which is all some know how to reply. So, I'll continue to quote the NY Times article of May 2012. Again these people did not Love Bush, and do not hate Obama. Read it as if it were about Romney picking the targets and see if you feel the difference between a 4 star and a President. "How can the world know whether the targets chosen by this president or his successors are truly dangerous terrorists and not just people with the wrong associations? (It is clear, for instance, that many of those rounded up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks weren’t terrorists.) How can the world know whether this president or a successor truly pursued all methods short of assassination, or instead — to avoid a political charge of weakness — built up a tough-sounding list of kills? It is too easy to say that this is a natural power of a commander in chief. The United States cannot be in a perpetual war on terror that allows lethal force against anyone, anywhere, for any perceived threat. That power is too great, and too easily abused, as those who lived through the George W. Bush administration will remember."
If a president is able to persuade the public that his kill list is targeting enemies of the state. Eventually he'll be able to convince the public that his enemies are also threats. Remember history has a way of repeating itself.
It doesn't trouble me at all. Very good decisions have been made and he is clearly letting his generals have their way. He has stepped up the intensity and quantity of the attacks, not hindered them like Lyndon Johnson. Why are you so timid about hitting the enemy? Why do you defend former Americans who took up arms against their country in Al Qaeda? Perhaps the republicans don't have the balls for the modern presidency?
Nonsense, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. He doesn't make the tactical decisions, he authorizes the tactical operations through the chain of command. We are not at war with Pakistan. Covert operations are always approved at the highest levels and always have been. We are not at war with Pakistan. These are covert actions against terrorists within pakistan. They are strategic decision of the highest order. If you can't see the giant differences between the size and scope, the atrocities and genocides, the casualties, and the nuclear warfare of World War II . . . and some effective air strikes against terrorists in Pakistan, then you are way behind in your military study. You can't possible be this naive. He has never exposed himself to combat. He is doing his job as CINC. As President of the United States he is always a legitimate target of war. Especially with this particular enemy.
Only if they are secret tactics. Many special ops tactics are already well known. Actually that is not what socialism is. Do you seriously believe that all democrats are the delta porch monkeys you despise? Lots of democrats are pretty smart, the universities are filled with them. Lots of them make pretty good money too. Most receive no government benefits. Why are you surprised? Obama added troops and stepped up the military intensity in Afghanistan as was recommended by the generals. More fighting equals more casualties.
You might want to check out DHS watch list and see what kind of "red flags" they are looking for. Tea Party members and Ron Paul supporters shouldn't be on any kind of watch list. Black panthers, skin heads and nation of Islam should
The rules of engagement in Afghanistan is questionable. Even our soldiers over there joke that " at least not all the afghan troops we're training aren't Taliban"
Paragraph 1 - See my second post where I quoted the NYT article. They answer this well. Paragraph 2 - Thanks Red, that was pretty funny.
Damn Red! I didn't realize you were a racist. You automatically assumed I was talking about the black community ? Why is that? My stepmother is a lib. and she has a masters in psychology. The smartest dumbass I know. I'm no rocket scientist but at least I realize that in order for the govt to give people what they want they have to steal from somebody else to get it. The Differences Between Marxism, Socialism & Communism | eHow.com Communism, socialism and Marxism are often used interchangeably. However, they are very distinct and different from one another. Marxism is a set of political ... www.ehow.com/...between-marxism-socialism-communism.The Differences Between Marxism, Socialism & Communism | eHow.com I'm having trouble pinpointing where this country is at at this point in time.
