But when Obama said this is what should be done he was ridiculed by the right. Now, just like other recommendations of his, it's what Bush decides to do. Perhaps President Bush should bring Sen. Obama into the WH before the election to advise him on other problems.

I understand what they are trying to do and I am all for it, if Pakistan will not deal with this problem then we should. But isn't this the whole invading a soverign nation thing that people get all upset about? Is this case different in some way? Should we invade any country that harbors terrorists (if in hot pursuit)? What if we chased some terrorists back into Iran?

I do see the irony in that there have been several things Obama has suggested that have been done in one way or another. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Good. I see Bushy is finally getting serious about taking out Bin Forgotten. Isn't a little late to start building a legacy?

"Is this case different in some way?"

Er...yeah Sawdust, Al Quaeda attacked the United States unlike Saddam Hussein. That's a detail y'all seem to be confused about. Perhaps the righties will eventually get around to reading PNAC and recognize the fact that the Iraq invasion was planned well before 9-11 and had NOTHING to do with terrorism though that was the excuse used by the Neocons. They called those of us who opposed that invasion Defeatocrats yet when they finally go after the real culprits of 9-11 we are still the ones cheering them on. Obama can and does actually make a better case for his ability to conduct the "war on terror" than the hawks like McCain who seem to think unrelated wars somehow hinder Al Quaeda.

Danni,

Anyone who opposed the invasion was called a traitor, much more serious than a defeatacrat.

Musharraff lost his mojo because he did not go after the terrorists vigorously --- but he went after the $$$$ vigorously.

Now Pakistan is having economic problem and the terrorists are turning on the civilians --- better let the Americans go after the terrorists and get the $$$$$.

OH ISLAM!

But when Obama said this is what should be done he was ridiculed by the right. Now, just like other recommendations of his, it's what Bush decides to do.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-04 11:04 AM | Reply

As usual, you type about something you know very little about, somebody will correct you, and then you'll either ignore the correction or make some useless excuse as to why you were mistaken.

Obama did not say this is what should be done. What Obama said is not even closely related to what happened in the topic of this thread.

All you lefties are fair weather warriors, especially when someone else is doing the fighting. If things don't go as well as planned you defeatacrats will all be screaming to pull out like the pussoes that you are.

It looks like my old unit is involved. I wish them luck. I hope they kill a lot of those so-called civilians who have been aiding the Taliban.

"Obama did not say this is what should be done. What Obama said is not even closely related to what happened in the topic of this thread."

True, sorta. Obama said he would be willing to bomb within Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence that bin Laden was there. Different but certainly not the night and day difference that you're suggesting.

"Obama said he would be willing to bomb within Pakistan..."

I think he actually said "strike". So you can interpret what that word means, I guess.

"All you lefties are fair weather warriors, especially when someone else is doing the fighting. If things don't go as well as planned you defeatacrats will all be screaming to pull out like the pussoes that you are."

So basically you're here to say that you don't understand the difference between fighting the people who attacked us and fighting people who just look like them but who never actually bothered us.

Thanks for letting us know.

Mini Nukes would work well. hell even some raid roach spray over the areas would work! I like the ideal of poisioning the very ground they walk on! That way when they come out to do their little hit and run attacks they will a die slow and painful death! RAAAAAID BITCH!!!

P.S I don't spell check or grammer chec cuzz I don't give a shit!

"As usual, you type about something you know very little about, somebody will correct you, and then you'll either ignore the correction or make some useless excuse as to why you were mistaken.""

""If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said."

That is precisely what we just did.
You ought to try to be better informed 101.
Seems some folks lead and others follow, from Iraq to Iran to Pakistan it seems Obama is leading and he hasn't even been elected yet.

"and then you'll either ignore the correction or make some useless excuse as to why you were mistaken.""

BTW, that part of your post was stupid, I have a better record for admitting errors than just about anyone on this site especially including you.

That is precisely what we just did.
You ought to try to be better informed 101.
Seems some folks lead and others follow, from Iraq to Iran to Pakistan it seems Obama is leading and he hasn't even been elected yet.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-05 09:18 AM | Reply

Tell me who the high valued terrorist target" was Danni? I'll wait for your answer.

This was done not because of a high value target. Apples and Oranges. By HVT, one would naturally assume he meant OBL or Al#2.

No? Nothing? No HVT to speak of?

Attacking a village that hides and supports taliban and al quaeda fighters that conduct cross border raids is not what Obama was discussing (although I may be guilty of simply remembering the HVT portion of his response).

Barack Obama has said, on multiple occasions, that he supports taking actions against terrorists who flee across the border into Pakistan, if Pakistani officials are unable or unwilling to act. Obama's position is consistent with U.S. policy, which Bush has acted on.

John McCain not only disagrees, he's repeatedly criticized Obama's policy, accusing him of wanting to "bomb our ally." Indeed, McCain recently suggested to CNN's Larry King that he, as president, wouldn't even pursue Osama bin Laden if he slipped past the border because "Pakistan is a sovereign nation."

With that in mind, what, pray tell, does the McCain campaign think of yesterday's strike against the Taliban? If he's consistent -- I know, that's too much to ask -- McCain is presumably offended by this violation of Pakistani sovereignty

Will John McCain declare "We are all Pakistanis now"?

101 can try to pretend that there is some imaginary difference between what Obama said and what happened but the more he tries the more foolish he looks.
Obviously the "commanders on the ground" thought a taget of high enough value was there to risk alienating the new leaders of Pakistan. I would imagine that the Bush administration is now putting great pressure on the forces in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden before the election. I expect more incursions before November. To think differently about this president is naive.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

America gets to attack other countries why?

wonder how we would feel if mexico sent a few helicopters into AZ to kill a few people?

101 can try to pretend that there is some imaginary difference between what Obama said and what happened but the more he tries the more foolish he looks.
Obviously the "commanders on the ground" thought a taget of high enough value was there to risk alienating the new leaders of Pakistan. I would imagine that the Bush administration is now putting great pressure on the forces in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden before the election. I expect more incursions before November. To think differently about this president is naive.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-05 09:41 AM | Reply

No, the commanders on the ground followed the militants that attacked on the Afghan side of the border to their village on the Paki side of the border and they attacked them there.
No mention of any HVT's that I've seen. How about you?

oooow, reality bitchslaps 101 again.

And Thom
All you lefties are fair weather warriors, especially when someone else is doing the fighting.

That would be the definition of chickenhawk aka the Bush Administration.-google it.

""If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said."

That is precisely what we just did.
You ought to try to be better informed 101.
Seems some folks lead and others follow, from Iraq to Iran to Pakistan it seems Obama is leading and he hasn't even been elected yet.

#13 | Posted by danni

if this is precisely what we just did, then that means there is a "high-value terrorist target" in this town as Senator Obama put it... Let's hope so... but we don't know.

Obama can SAY we should be doing this all he wants... Bush is the one actually doing it.

Obama can SAY we should be doing this all he wants... Bush is the one actually doing it.

waging a war of agression? attacking a country we arent at war with?

The official could not say if the troops were going after a specific individual. Officials told CNN there was no indication the target was Osama bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"Obama can SAY we should be doing this all he wants... Bush is the one actually doing it."

But of course that isn't the point, and you know it.

Obama was savaged by the right for even suggesting such a thing. His words were twisted by some on here to claim Obama wanted to invade an ally.

And now that Bush, McCain and others are coming around to the same viewpoint on this and other issues, suddenly its a brilliant strategy on the part of the President.

No, the commanders on the ground followed the militants that attacked on the Afghan side of the border to their village on the Paki side of the border and they attacked them there.

How is that any different than this....

"The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Inquiring minds want to know.

I gotta ask the dumb question of the day. If there were no HVT's as 101 puts it. Why the hell would we send our troops across the border of another nation to battle? Before 101 gives the standard Bin Forgotten or Ayman Al Zawa Housh Yo Mamma answer. Wouldn't anyone who cross the border into Afghanistan and then flees be a HVT since they attacked our troops directly? Just wonderin', lmk.

I gotta ask the dumb question of the day. If there were no HVT's as 101 puts it. Why the hell would we send our troops across the border of another nation to battle? Before 101 gives the standard Bin Forgotten or Ayman Al Zawa Housh Yo Mamma answer. Wouldn't anyone who cross the border into Afghanistan and then flees be a HVT since they attacked our troops directly? Just wonderin', lmk.

wonder how we would feel if mexico sent a few helicopters into AZ to kill a few people?

#21 | Posted by truthhurts

Well if those people in AZ went into Mexico and attacked people there, fled back into the US and the US government did nothing to bring them to justice then I would say that we had it coming.

The reality on the ground is a bit more complex than your example.

My bad on the double post. Hamsters on my end were running slow and hit the magic button twice.

Wouldn't anyone who cross the border into Afghanistan and then flees be a HVT since they attacked our troops directly? Just wonderin', lmk.

#30 | Posted by mdloftroad

Nah, it is much better to debate the precise meaning of what "high value target" meant.

It is an excercise in futility to deflect from the fact that Obama's policy was right and now the administration is using it to catch terrorists that have largely been ignored for 7 years because they WERE useful as campaign tools.

Inquiring minds want to know.

#28 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 09:58 AM | Reply

I think you can read anything you want in to that Jimmy. I'll bet in context he means he wants more troops in Afghanistan. Do you have any specific quotes that say he'll cross the border into Pakistan and attack militants, or do you just have the quote we know Danni was talking about regarding HVT's? Your CBS link claims he's said it multiple times. I've looked, and I can't find even one.

If he's claimed it multiple times, and I see those claims, I'll own it.

The reality on the ground is a bit more complex than your example.

we live in a complex world

that is why we have rules

that is why rules are made into laws

and that is why we need to follow laws

at this rate we should be at war with pakistan by 2010

101,

Do you have any specific quotes that say he'll cross the border into Pakistan and attack militants

I already gave it to you. Try hard to keep up.

"Obama can SAY we should be doing this all he wants... Bush is the one actually doing it."

Yes that is true, but he WASN'T DOING THIS or talking to Iran or agreeing to a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq until Obama said that is what we needed to do, then endured the abuse from the right for it, and then quietly watched they lying hypocrits do exactly what he recommended.
What is funny is that some of y'all are so unable to even admit what you have watched happen these past couple of months. Y'all would have been SCREAMING TRAITOR had President Obama done the exact things Bush has done recently.

I already gave it to you. Try hard to keep up.

#36 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:04 AM | Reply

No retard, you didn't.

"I'll own it."

Whether you admit it or not you already do.

Truthhurts,

I see your point. But do you not agree that the terrorist appeasing government in Pakistan (that signed a non agreesion pact with the Taliban) were doing nothing, turning a blind eye while they attacked US and Afghan soldiers and then fleeing back into their safe haven in Pakistan?

I have to beleive that our state department has been giving warnings to the government in Pakistan that this was going to happen and probably received the okay on the QT from the Pakistan government.

101 -- still waiting?

Whether you admit it or not you already do.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-05 10:05 AM | Reply

I don't see you answering who the HVT was that we went after.
As we both know, that is exactly what you were refering to in your initial post.

No retard, you didn't.

#38 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Yes dickbag, I did....

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

www.washingtonpost.com

#20 | Posted by 726 a

101 -- still waiting?

#41 | Posted by mdloftroad at 2008-09-05 10:07 AM | Reply

It could just be me, but the part where you say "before 101 gives the standard" would imply you mistakenly think you already knew my answer and were looking for input from others.

Call me crazy...

the point I see is escalation of conflict, now with an unstable country with nuclear weapons.

I see our military and this administration acting without authorization.

there aint no easy answer here, but there are alternatives.

how bout this one.

put 200,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan and seal the border with Pakistan.

say it cant be done?

we went to the Moon and back between 1961 and 1968 (or was it 69, brain is tired right now), yet we cant defend a limited piece of ground?

anyone who cross the border into Afghanistan and then flees be a HVT since they attacked our troops directly? Just wonderin', lmk.

#30 | Posted by mdloftroad

No... certainly they should be caught or killed but they are not high value.

Anyone can fire an AK-47... not everyone can lead a terrorist group, or think up elaborate attacks, or train future terrorists, or inspire people to kill themselves in an attack... those people are the High Values.

#43 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:08 AM | Reply

Wallback,
Wipe the drool from your face you fool.

Here's what I said, please pay attention stupid: "Do you have any specific quotes that say he'll cross the border into Pakistan and attack militants, or do you just have the quote we know Danni was talking about regarding HVT's?"

1. Take note of the word "specific" for starters.
2. Take special note of everything after "or do you just have the quote..."

We already know about the "HVT's" quote. Unless you can tell me who the HVT's were you're wrong as usual.
As for the other ridiculous quote you provided and somehow think means that he'd cross the border to get Taliban fighters you're a dumbshit. No speicifics in that quote. I think he meant take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan. So does any rational human being.

Sorry Wallback, you lose again.

No... certainly they should be caught or killed but they are not high value

Well the commanders on the ground obviously thought otherwise.

Who would be in better position to make that decision, you or them?

101,

You are talking bullshit, face it you lost. Own it you queef.

Or slink away in shame again.

Well the commanders on the ground obviously thought otherwise.

Who would be in better position to make that decision, you or them?

#48 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:14 AM | Reply

So you have a quote from them claiming they went in to Paki to get HVT's? Please provide it.

101,

You are talking bullshit, face it you lost. Own it you queef.

Or slink away in shame again.

#49 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:15 AM | Reply

Sure Wallback. Danni provided the HVT quote by Obama at 918am, please catch up. We already discussed that the situation is different because there were no HVT's.
Then you provided an absolute rirdiculous quote that has nothing to do with anything about crossing borders and you think you've brought something to the table?

Come on dummy, that doesn't fly and you know it.

Try harder.

Well the commanders on the ground obviously thought otherwise.

Who would be in better position to make that decision, you or them?

#48 | Posted by 726

hopefully there is a "High Value" target inside that city that we aer attacking. But I highly doubt those commanders you are talking about or even Barack Obama, would consider killing Ahmed the Kabab seller with an AK-47 the same "value" as killing Osama Bin Laden.

101,

It is common sense. Something your are woefully lacking in.

But I highly doubt those commanders you are talking about or even Barack Obama, would consider killing Ahmed the Kabab seller with an AK-47 the same "value" as killing Osama Bin Laden.

And your supposition is based on what?

I'd wager they'll get Bin Laden..."just in time"...ahhhhhh the right....

101,

It is common sense. Something your are woefully lacking in.

#53 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag

So in other words you don't have those quotes from Obama or the commander on the ground? Thanks for playing Jimmy.

Then you provided an absolute rirdiculous quote that has nothing to do with anything about crossing borders and you think you've brought something to the table?

How does "taking the fight to them in Afghanistan and Pakistan" have nothing to do with crossing borders?

You are talking in circles, flailing about in vaing trying to pigeonhole the exact meaning of something that is defined by military commanders.

Go ahead and claim false victory, but if you were honest you would know that you are wrong.

Either way this is going nowhere.

And your supposition is based on what?

#54 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:19 AM | Reply

On the fact that everytime we kill 20 militants it's not considered "20 High Value Targets". Are you that stupid?

101,

How many commanders on the ground in Afghanistan do you have direct links to?

When you figure out just how retarded you arguement is maybe you will smarten up.

Good day sir.

And your supposition is based on what?

#54 | Posted by 726

Common fucking sense... the leader of Al Qaeda is worth more then some stinky goat hurder with a rifle...

Either way this is going nowhere.

#57 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:22 AM | Reply

Riiiight. You are a day late and a dollar short. Danni already provided the quote she was talking about at 918am. There has been no mention of any High Valued Targets at this point, so Danni was wrong.
If it turns out it was for a high valued target she will have guessed correctly.

Run away Wallback. Nobody sees it as a retreat except you, me, and anyone else that's reading this.

101,

Are you really saying that we should let terrorists escape after attacking US troops because there were "only 20" of them?

What is your magical number for how many terrorists should be pursued.

There were only about 20 terrorists on 9/11 and they did a lot of fucking damage.

Did you take an extra stupid pill today? Or does it just come naturally?

so the righties are now on record that our military did something wrong? just some goatherder wtih a gun

Call it running away, but arguing with a cement head like you is pointless and basically a waste of time today.

What in the fuck are you talking about dummy? Are you having a hard time connecting the dots and following along?

Let me break it down for you Romper Room style so you can keep up:

Rob says: But I highly doubt those commanders you are talking about or even Barack Obama, would consider killing Ahmed the Kabab seller with an AK-47 the same "value" as killing Osama Bin Laden.

Wallback says: And your supposition is based on what?

101says: On the fact that everytime we kill 20 militants it's not considered "20 High Value Targets". Are you that stupid?

Truth,

According to 101 our military was wrong because it was only "20" terrorists they attacked.

Good to know the level of acceptable terrorism for them.

"I don't see you answering who the HVT was that we went after."

And just how in the hell am I supposed to know who they went after??? Obviously the target was of a high enough value to convince the commander on the ground and I would imagine someone in Washington as well to authorize the attack.

You accused me earlier of not admitting when I was wrong....I think you need to own up dude.
It won't hurt and I, unlike you, won't be reminding you of it months from now.

Are you really saying that we should let terrorists escape after attacking US troops because there were "only 20" of them?

#63 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag

No, I'm not saying anything like it dummy. You've once again shown your inability to follow the thread. That's why I explained it to you romper room style.

the leader of Al Qaeda is worth more then some stinky goat hurder with a rifle...

#60 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Yes, but going after terrorists that attacked US forces or are planning to attack the US is not worth the effort?

so the righties are now on record that our military did something wrong? just some goatherder wtih a gun

#64 | Posted by truthhurts

Huh? Where did I say that... I was talking to 7Douche6 about "High Value Targets" and stupid taliban footsoldiers... Maybe "goatherder" is a bit of a downplay of the average fighter's skill level, but the point I was making is that the term, "High Value Target" exists because some people in Al Qaeda and the Taliban are more important... I'm astonished I actually had to say that to people here, but oh well.

I don't think our military is doing anything wrong here... we should be attacking where ever Al Qaeda is.

According to 101 our military was wrong because it was only "20" terrorists they attacked.

Good to know the level of acceptable terrorism for them.

#67 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:28 AM | Reply

Another lie. Didn't your mommy tell you lying was wrong, or did she "forget"?

Really?

Are you that fucking dense?

On the fact that everytime we kill 20 militants it's not considered "20 High Value Targets".

I don't think our military is doing anything wrong here... we should be attacking where ever Al Qaeda is.

so we should invade pakistan? attack them regularly are harshly? even if this leads to war with pakistan?

Yes, but going after terrorists that attacked US forces or are planning to attack the US is not worth the effort?

#70 | Posted by 726

I don't know where I said that...

All I've said on this thread is that so far, what we know doesn't fit with Obama's criteria for going into Pakistan. Obama very specifically said there would have to be precise intel about a High Value Target. His words not mine. I hope there is a HVT in that city and I hope our troops gut him, but from what we know now, people giving Obama the credit for this are misinterpretting his words.

Wallback,
You can't possibly be that fucking dense. I broke it down to the most basic level and you still don't get it? Holy shit you're beyond help.

Read the 1028am again.

A militant is not a HVT. If every militant was they'd all be called HVT's, which they aren't. God damn you're stupid.

I don't know where I said that...

#75 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-09-05 10:32 AM | Reply

You didn't, it's just that Wallback is extremely confused and is now trying to deflect away from the fact he couldn't provide any quotes.

A HVT is any terrorist that tries to kill an American soldier. A low value terrorist is what????
Is there any such thing????
Semantics.
Nonsense.

the real question everyone is having a stroke about is what targets are important enough to justify disregarding a nation's sovereignty rights.

Sovereignty is a really important issue to consider when deciding how to proceed because we expect other nations to respect ours.

so we should invade pakistan?

Technically haven't we already and repeatedly over the past many months? Invade and kill terrorists especially the High Value Targets then pull back to Afghanistan, don't occupy.

attack them regularly are harshly?

If by them you mean the Pakistani government and military, no. If by them you mean the Al Qaeada militants and Taliban in the border region then yes.

even if this leads to war with pakistan?

#74 | Posted by truthhurts

You're saying Pakistan will declare war on the United States because we were killing Al Qaeda in an area they barely control? If they're dumb enough to do that they deserve the asskicking.

nothing to worry about here

just remember this date 1 2 3 years from now when we are at war withpakistan

A low value terrorist is what????
#78 | Posted by danni

One that is not involved in organizing, planning, recruiting, etc.

A militant is not a HVT

Glad to know that you are not in charge of national security.

Otherwise we would all be fucked.

A HVT is any terrorist that tries to kill an American soldier. A low value terrorist is what????
Is there any such thing????
Semantics.
Nonsense.

#78 | Posted by danni

Danni if that were true there would be no such phrase as "High Value Target," because they'd all be High Value... there would be no need for it.

When Obama said, "high value target," he meant the leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (and probably any other terrorist organization that is a threat to us around the world)

One that is not involved in organizing, planning, recruiting, etc.

#82 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-09-05 10:42 AM | Reply |

That's too difficult a concept for Danni and Wallback to comprehend.

All foot soldiers are HVT's. The planners, recruiters, trainers, and leaders are the same as the grunts...

I don't know where I said that...

All I've said on this thread is that so far, what we know doesn't fit with Obama's criteria for going into Pakistan. Obama very specifically said there would have to be precise intel about a High Value Target.

You said that a stinky goat herder with a rifle is not a HVT. I must have incorrectly assumed that you meant that going after one or two terrorists was not justifiable. Is it worth attacking a cell of 10 or so terrorists even if they are not HVT's?

Obama also said this....

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Now how is "specific intel about a high value target"?

This is exactly what the US is doing, taking the fight to the terrorists.

Has anyone posted this yet? If they have sorry for the double, I didn't see it when I quickly scrolled though:

A low value terrorist is what????
#78 | Posted by danni

One that is not involved in organizing, planning, recruiting, etc.

#82 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Like a chauffeur.

A militant is not a HVT. If every militant was they'd all be called HVT's, which they aren't.

All foot soldiers are HVT's. The planners, recruiters, trainers, and leaders are the same as the grunts...

Get your fucking story straight.

You said that a stinky goat herder with a rifle is not a HVT.

He's not.

I must have incorrectly assumed that you meant that going after one or two terrorists was not justifiable.

You did.

That's too difficult a concept for Danni and Wallback to comprehend....
#85 | Posted by 101Chairborne

No, I just think that what happened kinda sorta sounds like what Obama suggested so they're bending over backwards intellectually in order to be able to say "I told you so, Obama was right all along."

Get your fucking story straight.

#89 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:48 AM | Reply

This guy can't even detect the most obvious sarcasm.

Like a chauffeur.

#88 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

We didn't violate another nation's sovereignty solely to get that chauffer, did we?

High Value Target (HVT) is United States military terminology for a target (a person or resource) that an enemy commander requires for successful completion of a mission.

Exactly. By that definition any terrorist would be a high value target since they required to complete a mission.

20 terrorist soldiers IS a HVT.

1 soldier is a HVT.

Sure it is sarcasm now.

Sure it is sarcasm now.

#95 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:51 AM | Reply

Jesus Christ Wallback. You and Danni are honestly the only 2 idiots here arguing a concept that puts a General and a Private in the same category.

As much as you want them to be, they're not.

A foot soldier is not equivelent to a trainer, recruiter, planner, or cell leader.

How embarrassed should you be right now?

Sure it is sarcasm now.

#95 | Posted by 726

I saw the sarcasm when he posted it.

By that definition any terrorist would be a high value target since they required to complete a mission.
#94 | Posted by 726

It's when that specific terrorist is required. Not when he's just another pawn on the chessboard..... i.e. when any old pawn will do.

No 101, I know that a general and a private are not the same.

I didn't know that AQ had uniforms now to identify the planners and foot soldiers. Just when did you come across that info. Maybe you should pass it onto the pentagon.

So you think that a squad of terrorists attacking our troops in Afghanistan is not worthy of pursuing, capturing or killing because they are not "generals". Good to know.

"No, I just think that what happened kinda sorta sounds like what Obama suggested so they're bending over backwards intellectually in order to be able to say "I told you so, Obama was right all along."

We're bending over backwards???
Ridiculous.
Those who are trying to define HVC as anything except the terrorists that our troops went into Pakistan after and who would have needed permission from very high up in the command structure to do so are hiding behind semantics because they can't admit that 101 made a stupid comment way up the thread.
Even the great 101 puts his foot in his mouth occasionally but what is really funny now about it is that he will pretend he didn't and "ass kissing sychophants" like Rob will go along like obedient children.

Exactly. By that definition any terrorist would be a high value target since they required to complete a mission.

20 terrorist soldiers IS a HVT.

1 soldier is a HVT.

#94 | Posted by 726

You can't just say, "I was wrong about the definition of a High Value Target."

its funny at this point...

I didn't know that AQ had uniforms now to identify the planners and foot soldiers. Just when did you come across that info. Maybe you should pass it onto the pentagon.

So you think that a squad of terrorists attacking our troops in Afghanistan is not worthy of pursuing, capturing or killing because they are not "generals". Good to know.

#98 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 10:59 AM | Reply

This is really getting pathetic Jimmy.

Nobody said any terrorist wasn't worthy of pursuing and you know it. It's only been explained to you multiple times now.

Hagbard Celine explained it perfectly, and you know it. Run along, change names, do whatever it is you need to do to run away.

Hagbard,

I would argue that a cell of terrorists is required to pull of a terror mission. We cannot define terrorists in terms of convential military tactics.

How many #2's have been capture or killed and AQ keeps marching along?

If we kill Osama Bin Laden I would hazard a guess that AQ would continue.

Now if our military commanders in Afghanistan thought that the group that was attacking them and retreating into Pakistan were enough of a HVT to warrant following them and killing them, who am I to argue? None of us are there, none of us have their intel, none of us knows exactly what is happening there.

But Bush and Obama have advocating taking the fight to the terrorists in Pakistan, McCain has said that is a bad plan.

President Bush, who telephoned Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf today said that the United States fully respected Pakistans sovereignty and appreciated Pakistans resolve in fighting Al-Qaeda and other terrorist elements

its funny at this point...

#100 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-09-05 11:03 AM | Reply

It was funny about 30 posts ago. Now it's pathetic.

Danni even quoted at 918am waht she was specifically talking about. Everything up until this point has shown her to be wrong. She can't handle it, and Wallback is too much of a retard to know when he's been whooped.

You can't just say, "I was wrong about the definition of a High Value Target."

its funny at this point...

#100 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

No Rob you are right, I was incorrect about what precisely is a HVT. I will admit it.

But my arguement is that our military commanders by their actions have determined there is a HVT in Pakistan.

Truth,

Musharref hasn't been President of Pakistan for a while now.

OBAMA: To succeed in Afghanistan, we also need to fundamentally rethink our Pakistan policy. For years, we have supported stability over democracy in Pakistan, and gotten neither. The core leadership of Al Qaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan. The Taliban are able to strike inside Afghanistan and then return to the mountains of the Pakistani border. Throughout Pakistan, domestic unrest has been rising. The full democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people have been too long denied. A child growing up in Pakistan, more often than not, is taught to see America as a source of hate and not hope.

This is why I stood up last summer and said we cannot base our entire Pakistan policy on President Musharraf. Pakistan is our ally, but we do our own security and our ally no favors by supporting its president while we are seen to be ignoring the interests of the people who live there. Our counter-terrorism assistance must be conditioned on Pakistani action to root out the Al Qaeda sanctuary. And any U.S. aid not directly needed for the fight against Al Qaeda or to invest in the Pakistani people should be conditioned on the full restoration of Pakistan's democracy and rule of law.

The choice is not between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they are the people we need on our side to win the war against Al Qaeda. That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the Pakistani people -- for education, economic development, and democratic institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in opportunity is our interest as well. That's the promise that America must stand for.

And for his sake and ours, we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for terrorists who threaten America's homeland and Pakistan's stability. If we have actionable intelligence about high-level Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan's border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would, quote, invade or bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have belatedly -- if quietly -- acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed, it was months after I called for this policy that a top Al Qaeda leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember that the same three individuals who now criticize me for supporting a targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9-11 attacks are the same three individuals that supported an invasion of Iraq -- a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.

It is precisely this kind of political point-scoring that's opened up the security gap in this country. We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually is. What we need in our next Commander in Chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3 a.m. phone calls. What we need is a pragmatic strategy that focuses on fighting our real enemies, rebuilding alliances, and renewing our engagement with the world's people.

#99 | Posted by danni

"The official could not say if the troops were going after a specific individual. Officials told CNN there was no indication the target was Osama bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri."

If the target was important enough to justify ignoring Pakistan's sovereignty, we would definitely be hearing about it. But there was no "specific individual."

looking for quotes by repubs refuting obama's position, ie saying we should stayout of pakistan

Oh.

Several of Obama's Democratic rivals, as well as Republican candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney, criticized Obama's Pakistan comments at the time, suggesting that using force within Pakistan could jeopardize the United States' relationship with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who remains a key U.S. ally in the Middle East despite the recent turmoil in the country.

Let's see. Obama says go after 9/11 terrorists in Pakistan and the government does. Obama calls for a withdrawal timetable in Iraq. The administration agrees. Obama's entire campaign is built around change. McCain says it's time for change.
If the republicans are so doubtful about Obama's ability to lead then why do they keep following him?

101 - ok yes you called me out on thinking I knew what your answer would be. So what is the answer to my post? I'm not here for name calling just to see everyone's point of view.

"If the target was important enough to justify ignoring Pakistan's sovereignty, we would definitely be hearing about it. But there was no "specific individual."

Which proves exactly what?? Do you even believe Osama bin Laden is still hiding in a cave???
I think it would be obvious to anyone with half a brain that we don't even know the names of all HVT in Pakistan. The fact we don't know their name doesn't reduce their value.

This is the funniest argument I have ever had here, a bunch of guys can't stand it that I caught 101 making a stupid comment. I think male egos are causing some of y'all to make complete fools of yourselves. When I am wrong I admit it and survive the ordeal of it, y'all ought to try it. I'll still respect you in the morning.

"Do you even believe Osama bin Laden is still hiding in a cave???"

No.
He's living in Cheney's basement.
Out by the Naval Observatory.
Though, in Cheney's honor, it's been renamed the Navel Observatory.

BUSH: I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad. I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that.

didnt bush just attack pakistan?

No Rob you are right, I was incorrect about what precisely is a HVT. I will admit it.

#105 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 11:08 AM | Reply |

Holy fuck that took way longer than it should have.

But my arguement is that our military commanders by their actions have determined there is a HVT in Pakistan.
#105 | Posted by 726 at 2008-09-05 11:08 AM | Reply

You may well be right, but that's not as probable as the fact they had actionable intelligence that there was a village that was harboring cross border attackers.
I wouldn't be shocked to see news in a week that they missed or captured a commander. If that's the case then I would be wrong about the HVT and Danni would be right.

The irony is that you and your ilk would trot out the "another number 3" talking point and dismiss the killing or capturing. But this time you need it to be a HVT in order to be right so you won't mock it.

A vote for Obama, said McCain, can push into office the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan.--

Danni,
The quote you brought out at 918am, which is what you based your initial post in this thread about, is so far incorrect. The fact you can't comprehend that after 120 or so posts is a real indicator that you may be smoking too much weed.

...when Obama said this is what should be done he was ridiculed by the right. Now, just like other recommendations of his, it's what Bush decides to do. -- Danni, #1

I'm still stuck on this one. You're suggesting that agreement between Bush and Obama should make us more confident of Obama's foreign policy judgment?

101 you are pathetic. Obama said he would attack inside Pakistan and got attacked for it. We then attack inside Pakistan and you pretend it isn't what he said. Idiotic. I'm done here. I won here weather you admit it or not.

In an August 1, 2007, speech[1][2] at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said "he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted ... [Obama warned] Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid."[3]

101 admit your defeat

The fact we don't know their name doesn't reduce their value.
#114 | Posted by danni

No, but it should reduce our willingness to disregard national sovereignty to go after them.

The "killem all let god sort them out" approach? Now who sounds like Bush?

I'm still stuck on this one. You're suggesting that agreement between Bush and Obama should make us more confident of Obama's foreign policy judgment?

#120 | Posted by Phoenix

I'm liking Phoenix more and more by the day.

She better not be a dude. ;-p

Hag,
Don't you remeber that you and Phoenix are really just handles for Corky?

Don't you remeber that you and Phoenix are really just handles for Corky?

#126 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Oops. I gotta keep my lies straight.

101 you are pathetic. Obama said he would attack inside Pakistan and got attacked for it. We then attack inside Pakistan and you pretend it isn't what he said. Idiotic. I'm done here. I won here weather you admit it or not.

#121 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-05 11:27 AM | Reply |

Sorry Danni, your quote at 918am (you provided the context to what specifically you were talking about buttercup) says it was for HVT's.

Words have meanings. So did your 918am quote. Chalk up another win for 101.

You're suggesting that agreement between Bush and Obama should make us more confident of Obama's foreign policy judgment?

#120 | Posted by Phoenix

Nah, why would that ever occur. I mean just because Obama said he would attack terrorists inside Pakistan and then Bush does just that, or if Obama proposes a timetable for withdrawal and then Bush agrees to a timeframe for withdrawal, why should that change your opinion.

Especially if Bagdad John opposed both of these positions.

I do see your point though, since both of these proposals were embraced by the Bush Administration it means they HAVE to be wrong.

101 - c/mon dude, I'm always fair, not calling names here, just wondering your thoughts being ex-military.

Here's the question minus my assumption

I gotta ask the dumb question of the day. If there were no HVT's as 101 puts it why the hell would we send our troops across the border of another nation to battle? Wouldn't anyone who crosses the border into Afghanistan and then flees be a HVT since they attacked our troops directly? Just wonderin', lmk.

Bush's reluctance to go into Pakistan was predicated on his relationship with Musharaf. Since he's no longer in power, the logistics have changed.

MDLOFTROAD,

That was my question exactly.

Hagbard,

I would say that is a valid assumption if this were the first time the US struck inside Pakistan.

Fair enough... I think we'll have to agree to disagree about what a HVT is though.

The strike you just posted states:
"...but said the airstrike was justified by the erroneous belief that a top al Qaeda leader was among the group..."

That would be an HVT worth ignoring national sovereignty.

January 6, 2006? I thought Obama came up with this foriegn policy?

Senator John McCain, also concurred.

"It's terrible when innocent people are killed; we regret that," he told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"But we have to do what we think is necessary to take out al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives. This guy has been more visible than Osama bin Laden lately.

"We regret it. We understand the anger that people feel, but the United States' priorities are to get rid of al Qaeda, and this was an effort to do so."

He added, "We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again."

101 - If I missed the answer just let me know. Militarily speaking, rules of engagement, etc. Not personal opinions. If someone comes across the border and attacks our troops then goes back across the Paki border do they become HVT's according to the rules of engagment. I could care less what Obama/McCain/Bush say/said, but just looking for the military definition. LMK, thanks.

...since both of these proposals were embraced by the Bush Administration it means they HAVE to be wrong.

Of course not. Bush did, after all, support the Olympic volleyball team.

But I think this storyline started by Rich (Obama proposed it... now Bush is doing it) is a curious way to bolster Obama's foreign policy cred when, supposedly, Obama is running against Bush's foreign policy record.

McCain says we should never talk to the terrorists as Obama would do!
Aug 4, 2008 Condi sent to talk to Libya, first Sec State since 1954 to do so!

has Bush gotten a hold of Obama's playbook, what does McCain say?

Wow... some folks here are getting a real hard on because America brought down the occupants of two houses? LOL

What the hell is that going to do for you? Except piss off the locals? It certainly won't help you win your "war".

Anyway... this is something very weird and untypical. Listen closely and learn something...

1. Mushi, before leaving, seems to have signed an agreement with US (not with NATO) that allows American troops to engage in "hot pursuit" 6 miles into Pakistan. This target was only one mile inside.

Now the problem...

2. They only attacked one house. WHY risk your choppers and men for something that could've been taken care of by a Predator drone???

U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond directly to Pakistan's complaints. But one official, a South Asia expert who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name, suggested the target of any raid like that reported Wednesday would have to be extremely important to risk an almost assured "big backlash" from Pakistan.

"You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation," the official said.

So they took a huge risk and this will come at a price. The same price they paid last time ("loss" of food, ammo and fuel to US forces. Pakistan supplies 80% of everything to US forces in Afghanistan).

Why did they do this instead of doing it by a Predator? I was only one or two houses they got....

Who were the target? Nobody is talking about THAT.

Anyway... from what people tell me this operation was done to STOP Zaradri from become President of Pakistan, tomorrow, Sunday.

See... America does something inside Pakistan. Zardari's allies in that area leave him and won't vote for him because he is seen as wimp.

This exactly what happened, but it isn't enough. That bastard will become President tomorrow and then everyone is screwed, including the US.

Zardari... Bhutto's husband... is a nutjob who has been diagnosed with Dementia. And he will .. theoretically... have his finger on the nuke button.

America doesn't want him in that position and will do anything to prevent it.

I meant "Saturday". Tomorrow is Saturday... LOL

I'm not even sure when the fucking election is... Saturday or Sunday?

Dementia = Mental deterioration of organic or functional origin.

Guy is out of touch with reality. He has short term memory loss and is known to be addicted to happy-pills (he can't stop grinning... look up his pic, see for yourself).

And we will now have to suffer him for the next 5 years.

Dementia = Mental deterioration of organic or functional origin.

Guy is out of touch with reality. He has short term memory loss and is known to be addicted to happy-pills (he can't stop grinning... look up his pic, see for yourself).

And we will now have to suffer him for the next 5 years.

ooo double post... sorry.

I'm off. It's late.

Where is Danni? I thought that it was Obama's idea to go in to Pakistan and get HVT's? How can that be when John McCain responded as he did on 1/6/2006 in my 1201pm post?!?

I'm curious as to how you'll attempt to rationalize this one...

mdlroad,
I don't know what the specific rules of engagement are. But I can all but promise you that a target doesn't become an HVT because they've fired at our soldiers. They are simply a threat to be neutalized.

Before I leave, I might as well add something else...

I don't know what the specific rules of engagement are.

The specific rules of engagement only allow "hot pursuit".

This was not "hot pursuit". Meaning nobody shot at them and then scooted across the border with Americans following.

No, this was a planned op that targeted people living in two houses. By most accounts these people were unknown.

So this was done either to provoke a political response in Pakistan to upset the elections.

OR.

Considering everyone was shot in the head, this was a spy-execution. (this is the known punishment for spying or double-crossing)

Taliban also execute spies by shooting them in the head. So perhaps this was spy-execution by the other side?

And they didn't go for the neighbors... no other houses were touched. Just these two houses.

I have seriously enjoyed the asswhipping that 101 and his butt buddy the A_hole are getting on this issue.

Thanks and I need to add you are not fooling anyone with your self righteous lunacy 101.

Obama clearly indicated he would follow the Terrorist's into Pakistan and you quibble over the term HVT? When he made the statements you sleazebags were all over him for his inexperience etc and now you try and act like he didn't say it? You guys are so desperate!

Here is another quote and it is clear what he meant.

"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism," he said.

"If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including [Osama] bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should," Obama said. "That's just common sense."

You have really proved what an idiot you really are.

Thanks!

The gates of hell must be in a cave between Afghanistan and Pakistan --- because Osama is hiding there.

McCain is coming....

McCain is coming....

Oh, I don't think John's done that for years.
Bob Dole knows.
Just ask him.
~Bob Dole

then there is this...have we already fogotten?

"Sen. John McCain of Arizona, close to clinching the GOP nomination, called Sen. Barack Obama 'naive' today and...blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan," the Los Angeles Times

If the gates of hell are in Pakistan then McCain won't be going there it seems as that would be naive.

or perhaps since

Obama did not call for bombing Pakistan, ever. Meanwhile the Bush administration is undertaking air attacks against targets in Pakistan. Is this wildly irresponsible? I suppose you could make that case. But McCain isn't interested in an argument about the merits of striking al Qaeda against the costs of undermining Pervez Musharraf. He's just interested in lying about what Obama said in order to portray him as a foreign policy novice.

McCain subscribes to the chairborne101 theory of debate. Carefully twist what your opponent says in order to confuse the issue. Then argue some trivial point that was never made.

If Pakistan shuts down NATO's supply routes, there is gonna be some serious issues with Russia, the country the last NATO supply route goes through, and Bush threatened to punish them. Man this administration is idiotic.

If Pakistan shuts down NATO's supply routes

Pakistan.. this morning... has shut down NATO's fuel supply until we get a good and convincing explanation.

Try getting fuel from Russia now, LOL.

Read the papers:

An American did say "You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation."

Good luck.

Remember last time we withheld ammo and fuel, what happened???

You lost a base to the Taliban and at least 9 American soldiers died because you were short of supplies and they overwhelmed you by numbers.

Prepare for a few more body bags for your buddies. They will be coming home soon.

Prepare for a few more body bags for your buddies. They will be coming home soon.

#153 | Posted by Tosser at 2008-09-06 01:37 AM

Heh... I would be careful what I ask for friend. I do believe no matter what happens in this election you cannot stop America from coming into Pakistan.

If you have OBL or any one we think has even HEARD of him and you can't do the job then we have the right to go in and do it ourselves.

You don't really think that the American people will stand for the wholesale slaughter of your people do you ? But you know as well as we do that innocent people are going to die and mistakes will be made. War is fucked and we shouldn't be doing this at all....we should be done by now.

But, you underestimate the American Military if you don't think they will figure out how to get the job done. It takes them time to "ramp" up but they are good.

Americans do not want to kill innocent civilians and the world knows this.

So, you better pay attention. America is coming to Pakistan and you cannot stop them unless you get the "job" done yourselves.

I think you are running out of time.

Remember what Obama said.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Me? I am betting he is MY next President.

More than 50% of America are with me.

Bush is already doing what Osama says needs to be done because...we have to and Bush and Cheney know it is over soon for them anyway.

So, what do you think are the chances that your country is going to be visited by our troops? Willing to bet on it?

Me? I am just an old Ex Marine.

But, I suggest you do not kill them.

Semper Fi

Donnerboy was a 'jarhead?' What gives?

Americans do not want to kill innocent civilians and the world knows this.

LOL... Rubbish.

America loves killing people, specially if they are unarmed.

Me? I am just an old Ex Marine.

Then you were/are a failure.

But, I suggest you do not kill them.

On no... We won't fight you. What gave you that idea? We don't fight against our "friends".

We will just let your fuel/ammo run low and let the tribals handle you.

If Obama is going to be your next president, maybe he can supply petrol and ammo to NATO? hahahahahaha

Besides, when your Obama is president, you might be surprised by his Pakistani connections.

Me? I am betting he is MY next President. More than 50% of America are with me.

Please name ONE country with a black president that isn't going down the toilet?

You want Obama as your president... sure. Good luck.

LOL

I can't think of any, offhand.

unless you get the "job" done yourselves.

We are doing a great job. Keep reading the papers (Pakistani papers). We have the good taliban fighting against the bad taliban. That is something you people have never been able to do.

We have bombed their positions and make them flee into Afghanistan where... guess what... the American troops are too stupid to get them.

We flush them out and send them your way and you can't do the job. Why? Because you depend on stupid Afghans for your info! LOL

Don't blame Pakistan for the incompetence of American soldiers and intelligence. (WMD! Iraq has WMD!)

Hey Tosser

Just wondering how long before Pakistan blows up. Events working against American hubris look to be accelerating. I estimate by the end of the year. BOOM!

As Tooth-hurts said above "put 200,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan and seal the border with Pakistan."

This is the only way all this will really work.

We will take 5, 10 years to clean up our side.. without killing a whole lot of people... we will take our time and do it right. And do it democratically.

And you can go kill everything in sight on your side of the afghan border. That is all you want to do anyway. Kill anything that moves, man or beast. Paranoid freaks in uniform.

Events working against American hubris look to be accelerating. I estimate by the end of the year. BOOM!

We have a far far bigger problem now than America.

Zardari got elected President today. Look at the swine. He can't stop grinning (happy-pills addict). We are sure he killed his wife for the job.

how long before Pakistan blows up.

Put two fingers up your nose and a thumb up your arse.

Yell, "God Bless America!"

Let's see who blows up first.

"Me? I am just an old Ex Marine"

I don't think I've ever referred to myself as an ex-Marine. Once you are, you are. I find that comment mighty strange to say the least.

I agree with the word "old" Marine though. I've found that out the hard way over the last two years.

Tosser might be at times have an excessive case of perverse logorrhea, but he's essentially on track. Our foreign policy is quite schizophrenic, and if I was a foreigner I too would probably have a good laugh at it. Why just the other day we sent Foxy Brown over to Libya to cozy up with that asshole Ghadaffi. Perhaps in tweny two years if he's still alive ol' Rumsfeld will have Saddam's corpse dug up to re-shake his hand.

We behave like drug addicts, looking for our next fix. Its embarrassing.

If we truly had a united outlook on our position in the world which jived with what the founding fathers noted and what the constitution allows, we might find that the conflicts and wars we fight in, when we fight them, are dispatched efficiently and quickly over with in our favor. Until that happens, however, it will be nothing but quicksand sucking our country ever deeper into dissolution.

Let's see who blows up first.

#162 | Posted by Tosser

I mean blows up against America. I told you a while back that the Washington has infinite capacity to make enemies out of friends. I have no beef with you or Pakistan.