the goal is to kill Osama and **** up Al Queda and then say peace bitches. Then when you think we gone and get lazy and think we're all at McDonalds reading Us magazine in the US, we drone your ass while you are on the monkey bars doing calisthenics.

Leoslayer:

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was interviewed in 1996 on 60 Minutes:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:

The U.S. have a history of supporting overthrowing democratically elected governments in the Middle East (and throughout the world, actually) and the dictators that take their place. Look up what happened in Iran in 1953 if you like, or how much the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during his prime as the Beast of Baghdad.

I would like you to pause for one moment and answer the following:
Are these examples
a) more likely, or
b) less likely
to encourage terrorist retaliation?

There are countless examples and I could go on, but maybe you're just the kind of guy who puts his hands over his ears and says "lalalalalalala" while the other person is talking, then retorts with:

THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!!!

I'd also like to hear from the pro war liberals in this forum. I remember being a liberal in the bush years, but we were anti-war then, supposedly, but sadly that conviction has morphed into a series of status quo apologetics seeking to justify these wars for corporate profit in order to defend Dear Leaders policies continuing these attacks that we all know were started on lies.

Not at all! No one could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that these innocent people would in fact die, or even that they were innocent. If they were really innocent, why would they associate themselves with terrorists? Why go to that funeral? Even if they are in fact innocent, it was an instance of completely unanticipated collateral damage. No one could've predicted that. War is hell, these sacrifices need to be made. I wish it weren't necessary, but you have to be realistic. We don't live in a liberal fantasy.

Do you really want to roll over and let terrorists destroy America?

All that is currently happening in the middle east is in fact completely UNnecessary. Like a few other posters have said, the US gets involved in other countries internal affairs and should mind its own business. Before we go spreading "democracy" internationally, we should address the version we have here currently. All of our personal freedom is erroding year after year, and this is an unargueable fact.

As for terrorists wanting to destroy America: If an international army came to your city and started kicking in the doors of your neighbors looking for people and groups they claimed commited acts of terrorism back in their country, would you grab your gun and defend your family and fellow countrymen? Lets say this army stayed for a few weeks,then months, then years all the while killing innocent people. People you worked with,family members dead. Do you think this would influence younger generations to have a possitive opinion of this foriegn army. Even if the started rebuilding structues they blew up years ago, would this make you and your neighbors feel better? If someone comes into your house slaps your wife around,abuses her but then makes you dinner- would you invite him to watch TV with you and move in? You know damn well if another country did 10% of what the US does internationally here, you would be in the streets defending your family...and if you were, you would then be a "terrorist" by US government definition. And if you were not defending your family and country, you would be a .....

Yeah, and three thread down from this one is the story of an American soldier who killed 24 civilians in Iraq and got away with a slap on the wrist. Explain to me how that is showing concern for 'collateral damage'?

Installing Solyndra solar panels on every rock..... no oil?.... we be stealing yo sunshine.

im sorry but a lot of you guys seem to not understand that we were soft on terrorism for 30 years before 9/11.
also these guys have been doing these type things for hundreds if not thousands of years.

i didnt follow the court case above but sometimes ppl get off. it does not mean i or others agree with it. see oj simpson.

Leo, click on the Haditha thread and read the OP

There's a difference between "getting off" and the prosecution not even trying

i said i didnt follow any of the case. That being said. If the guy truely did kill them without any reason other than he is just evil then he should have been executed. The prosecuter didnt try? Maybe the guy was just incompetent or maybe he had some prejudice in the case.
Not every member of the military are evil cold blooded killers. There are bad ppl in every profession. I dont condone it.
But it is no reason not to take the fight to our enemies.

You consider anyone to be in support of Obama to automatically be pro-war because his withdrawal of Iraq and his planned withdrawal Afghanistan was and is not immediate. In recent weeks it has become clear that the US is on or ahead of schedule for its withdrawal of Afghanistan so I consider that progress. The leading opposition to Obama (Mitt Romney) opposes having a time table at all. For some reason you consider ending wars under a timetable different than your own to be equivalent to starting new wars.

As for the OP, unless I'm missing something the unclassified report hasn't been posted. At the moment there's nothing to respond to.

I see, and at what point does the death of innocents, either wanton or accidental, NOT justify "taking the fight to our enemies"?

Is it worth killing 40 innocents to kill or capture one terrorist? How about 400, or 4000? How many is too many?

ok dino let me put it this way. accidental death is one thing. gps failure weather some other pure accident.

deliberately targeting a funeral where there may or may not be innocents? id say if air strikes are causing a consistent ratio of 50 to 1 we may have to reevaluate. but surgical spec ops and sniper actions very very rarely result in collateral damage.

how do you think we should deal with the terrorists?

I think if we can actually start getting out of Afghanistan while avoiding Syria and Iran, Obama gains a lot of points in my book.

The post wasn't serious, just listing all the ridiculous talking points the pro war crowd usually makes.

I hope not...

If it wasn't for the NDAA/assassination of US citizen without due process, if he accomplished the above, I might look back on a 2-term Obama as not terrible.. but man the NDAA stuff is so ****ed up.

We should stop creating them.

we dont create them

they hate us for our freedoms DUH

The NDAA thing is definitely super controversial, and I am opposed to it. However, I am more worried about spending and going to war than I am of his potential to abuse that power. I do think something that repeals that clause needs to be put forth, and I don't see why anyone would be against repealing it.

a lot of terrorists want to impose islam on others thru force. they dont hate us for our freedom. abu sayyaf for example wants an entirely separate muslim state..

Who has more terrorists, Afghanistan or the US with its CIA?

The viewpoint of leoslayer is sadly something that is shared with many people. It's their inability to see the situation from the another perspective or in other words, putting themselves in another person's shoes that makes them so ignorant.

Hopefully he's just one big troll but maybe he's not. I met my first santorum-supporter today at work, so maybe there are people like him out there.

War is so easy when you don't have to spill blood with your own hands. It's so easy when you can bomb people since you never have to witness the death and destruction of people.

What's happening with the mission in Afghanistan is the equivalent of trimming the weeds and leaving the roots (Pakistan) intact.