Were their consitutional rights protected?

DRUDGE:

OBAMA WAR: 18 KILLED DURING SUSPECTED U.S. DRONE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN..

.

Were their constitutional rights protected before they were killed by Obama?

Keli they were killed by a US drone, not by Obama.

Now that Bush is out of office, the distinction will be made.

Remember Clinton and the bombing of the Serbs? If you do you are in a minority. Democrats get a pass by the media. No one ever brings up Kosovo or the lack of US attention to Rwanda (now I wouldn't mind a lack of attention if we were consistent about it) because Clinton was president.

Now that Obama is president, scrutiny by the media, and the consequent scrutiny by the world community, will surely lessen greatly. Prisoners on Guantanamo Bay will be treated in the same way just at a different location, and everyone will forget about them until 2012 or 2016 when a Republican gets elected.

Well Obama campaigned on the issue of Afghanistan and going after the real terrorists there along the border.

Instead of occupying Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack on us.

I for one have been saying the same thing for 5 years.

I support going after the terrorists 100%.

Just as I would if Bush had done it.

Do you favor occupying Afghanistan and fighting Pakistan because that is what will have to happen if we 'go after the terrorist' as you wish.

No Aaron I do not.

You are a very strong-willed debater on here and I understand that.

But I do not accept your "given" that in order to go after the terrorists we have to occupy Afghanistan or anyone else.

I do not think it is "either/or".

There are other options.

Perhaps you should familiar yourself with Afghanistan and then you would see in that country, no there are not many options.

Due to terrain and the protection of local chieftains, the Pakistan borders on one side and that re-emergence of the Taliban on the other, we will not find OBL with a small amount of troops.

We've been trying for going on 7 years now and were still not finding any success. The only way we will get him is to put enough troops to keep him from going into Pakistan on the west, keep the Taliban out on the right and then go in the mountains and root him out and that's going to take troops and time.

And unless the military is allowed to go in with a clear mission of finding him at all cost, then the causalities will be high. History tells us that both in the USSR’s war occupation of Afghanistan in the 80’s and out 10 year cold war battle in Vietnam.

The best thing we can do is put in a battalion of special forces and use satellites and intelligence and use cruise missiles to attack and pull the bulk of the troops back home.

sodbuster wrote:No Aaron I do not.

You are a very strong-willed debater on here and I understand that.

But I do not accept your "given" that in order to go after the terrorists we have to occupy Afghanistan or anyone else.

I do not think it is "either/or".

There are other options.

For example, the UN can pass another impotent resolution.

"For example, the UN can pass another impotent resolution."

Well Sheik do you think those are the only options?

It is always easy to be a naysayer and come up with reasons things won't work.

But there are also those who try to get things done.

I am amazed that so many on here have no faith in the USA, and just say woe, woe, poor pitiful me.

I am confident our military can take out or capture Osama b laden if given that mission.

Without occupying the country.

And without the UN

Sherm,

First of all my song is not poor, poor pitiful me.

It's "poor me, poor me, poor me, pour me another shot of whiskey."

Get it straight.

Second of all our military can defeat terrorism without occupying a country. I agree with that. However, it is going to mean that innocents are going to be harmed because terrorists do not play fair. They hide themselves with children and near hospitals. If our military is going to defeat terrorism we have to allow for a lot of bad things to happen. We have to be willing to say that very bad things that we do not intend to happen will happen, and that the "world opinion" of us is irrelevant, and lastly we need to then say that whenever we get the terrorists, we'll be leaving the rest of the country alone.

But the first thing that has to happen is the US has to begin putting a priority on the US.

But the first thing that has to happen is the US has to begin putting a priority on the US.

You've got that right, Mike.

sodbuster wrote:"For example, the UN can pass another impotent resolution."

Well Sheik do you think those are the only options?

It is always easy to be a naysayer and come up with reasons things won't work.

But there are also those who try to get things done.

I am amazed that so many on here have no faith in the USA, and just say woe, woe, poor pitiful me.

I am confident our military can take out or capture Osama b laden if given that mission.

Without occupying the country.

And without the UN

It's not about being a naysayer Sodbuster. History has proven what will happen. The USSR was there for 10 years. Hell, even the Obama administration knows this as Biden was on Face the Nation yesterday saying causalities would escalate in Afghanistan.