Obama Bombs Pakistan Killing 4 Women 3 Children and 12 Other Civilians Wounding Many More
 

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/23/u...n-in-pakistan/

Collateral damage is a given...combat is a dirty affair.

~~~ qft ~~~

At least bush had the balls to see a war through, not just fire drones from 23,000 feet....

There's a war going on.

They allow the president to fly planes in the war zone now? Wow, he really did mean change!

At least attempt to get the facts correct... :helpme

There is a war going on in Pakistan? When did we declare that? Please don't tell me Obama is waging an unconstitutional war.

whew, then Bush didnt invade Iraq the tanks and planes did it! :Oh crap

Was he flying a drone?

Congress did not officially declare war...but Congress did give the power to the President (at the time President Bush...but that very power is still in effect with the current President) to engage our forces however he chooses to. So yes...there is a "war" taking place in Pakistan (they are engaging their military against the Taliban and "terrorist" orgs)...as are we.

This has been in the news for years...maybe you have not been paying attention.

:1orglaugh fucking murders pissing on poor people

bIraq Insane O'Commie

obama rules :thumbsup

Which vote was that? Because even the court ruling up holding the Iraq resolution does not say the president has the right to go to war wherever and whenever he sees fit.

Were they waist deep in smelly water when the bob hit?

:thumbsup:Oh crap

The Iraq war was illegal, Bush was required to prove they had WMD's and he had to prove a 9/11 connection - which he didn't. Now we're forced to clean up the mess.

Afghan, was not an illegal war. Authority was given and they proceeded forward. What happened though is we attacked a Country that did not attack us, that's a war crime against Bush. Which is what Obama changed. We aren't at war with Afghan or Pak, we're at war with the terrorists that attack us, which occupy those lands and today has corporation of the Gov's that also fight these terrorists.

How many terrorists that attacked us came from Pakistan or Afghanistan again?

All of them? I'm sure some were born in other Countries, might have been in other Countries back then being that we had reports of taking terrorists from all over. However, the main core, the battle core, was located in Afghan and now is located in Pakistan. So technically they came from those Countries but aren't part of those Countries - which is why we aren't fighting those Countries.

So are you just re-writing history now? Or maybe I did not ask the question direct enough. How many 9/11 attackers were from Pakistan or Afghanistan.

15 Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese and two from the Union of Arab Emirates

Actually the President has always had the power to engage our military anywhere any time he chooses to...without any prior consent of Congress. The Congress placed certain limitations upon a Presidents authority in 1973.

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

That's not a re-write of history, that is the Countries they were born in. Of course these peoples Countries didn't train, harbor, instruct or help them to attack America. Really no reason to exclude that fact.

I know of this. But Obama is clearly breaking that. We have had armed forces in Pakistan since he got in office.

A quick google search will show how long we have had armed troops in Pakistan.

well if you include India with 'Us', that's a pretty easy question

The vote was made three days after the 9/11 attacks. It says, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Which over rides the War Power Act.

And how many of those children aided in 9/11 terrorist attack? This not give the US free will to bomb the shit out of anyone. You are stretching the law to fit your agenda.

I am confused about this part of the resolution, could you explain it?

Obama is responsible for every pain in the world. Obama did this, obama did that. The guy must have 10 000 clones to be able to do all theses things.

I will repeat...collateral damage is a given when engaging in combat...always has been and always will be...combat is a dirty affair. We had no intention of bombing children...but when children are within the killing zone of a target (and sometimes we are aware of this and sometimes we are not)...they will be injured/killed...and the same applies if a weapon is accidentally off target...which also happens.

BTW...what agenda is it that you think I have.

The Congress chose not to invoke the War Power Act and instead voted to give the President virtually unlimited power to prosecute the "war on terror".

when did obama start flying jets?

I'm strangely comfortable with Obama doing this. What I mean is, it was collateral damage sure but it's enough time Obama shows some testicular fortitude.

we shouldn't be there, period
flying drones in is safer than sending in troops, but mistakes are going to happen. But this is where the US has the advantage in war, if we play by their rules, we loose

I agree...we should have withdrawn when the Taliban Government was overthrown...Bin Laden was not captured...and a new Government was established.

We should have withdrawn from Iraq when the Iraqi military was defeated...the Government overthrown...and a new Government was established.

If needed we can always rinse and repeat. Nation building should not be our responsibility.

My question is why are we using drones instead of B-52s? It seems inefficient.

BTW...the Iraq war was not an illegal war. The President was given a thumbs up by Congress and the last UN resolution prior to the invasion was basically for Iraq to comply or pay the consequences. They did not comply so the U.S. provided the consequences...and there was never a proposed UN resolution in condemnation of the action the U.S. took against Iraq.

I missed the war declaration against Pakiston ... probably watching a skin flick ...

Nothing unusual for you...now is it?

BTW...we are engaged with Pakistan...not against Pakistan as their military is engaged against the very same people that we are.

That cannot be true !!!! :mad::mad::mad:

You are lying .. there has to have been some Iraqis .... :warning

He is responsible for this situation in Pakistan .... creating new terrorist to attack the USA ...

... mainly because he is afraid of the backlash from the republicans ....

Im still trying to figure out these people who are defending this attack.

1) How were the children related to 9/11 attacks

2) How did Obama think this was a fair trade off (20 women and children) for one terrorist? How was this "necessary and appropriate force".

3) Who were they after? Was he tied to 9/11 attacks?

4) Why has the intel be so bad that some estimates have at least 10 civilians killed by drones for every alleged terrorist.

Many questions left unanswered here.

Congress said he had to prove that Iraq had or was creating WMD's and he had to prove a connection to 9/11, all of which he did not do and could not do. He went to war, without providing any proof, that is not a legal war.

So consider 9/11 as collateral damage !

many republicans are turning against the war. he should have no worries about backlash from this. he had no worries about backlash over health care, so he should have none about this.

you have to deal with the fact he is as blood thirsty as Bush.

That simply is not the case...Congress overwhelmingly accepted the intel reports provided to them by the CIA about WMD's. In addition to the CIA...every single major intel agency in the world said that he had WMD's. Congress never required...or even asked about a connection that Iraq may have had with 9/11. Possibly a few individual members of Congress asked...I do not recall if a few did or not.

The targets were not collateral damage...so no...and even the deaths were not collateral damage as it was their intention to kill as many as possible.

That last statement pretty much identifies your ignorant perspective.