Author Topic: what is a just war? (Read 4363 times)

rio grande · « **Reply #90 on:** November 23, 2009, 07:54:54 PM »

Quote from: TeamNelson on November 23, 2009, 07:19:52 PM

Don't misunderstand me RG, no way do I advocate might making right. I'm a noninterventionist as opposed to an isolationist. But ... we are as of this moment in a war perhaps not of our choosing. So we fight it justly (adverb) and pray never to have to again. I do also believe that when God gifts a nation with resources and abilities He expects them to be used for His glory. Sometimes that's famine relief, sometimes it's protecting the weak no different than if I'm the only or strongest man present when a womans car breaks down, or she's being attacked.

I shouldn't have been so obnoxious, sorry.
I'm working on that. Thanks for your measured response.
And I thought, "well, if somebody was breaking into my house, with evil on their mind, and my family there, I'd shoot them if they didn't give up", so I sure don't want to sound holier than anybody else. But TN that's the difference between a just war and an unjust one I think, is defense, not offense, and while I'd shoot someone attacking me or you or my family I wouldn't go across town or over the oceans looking for trouble.
And I just get all worked up lately about what seems to be a love of death and violence, you see it, I see it. A lot of people seem to glorify it, and never stop to think about loving your neighbor, or turning the other cheek, or forgiveness, or compassion. And how that's really the only way to have peace in our world.
But missiles flying, or sniper rifles, bombs falling, domination and destruction... well some people just love that, don't they?

teamnelson · « **Reply #91 on:** November 23, 2009, 08:58:46 PM »

RG, Watching the Patriot last night reminded me how experiencing war first hand makes me never ever want to see it again. And yet, when it comes ... We should be no greater friend, and no worse enemy. There is a case for just war in the offense but it truly is defensive in nature, like taking the gun out of infants hand. The threat is real, but you don't nuke the baby - you take the gun, with painful force if necessary. You initiated because you knew what was coming. The potential is to make mistakes here, but the alternative is unfatomable so you err on the side of protecting people.

ironglow · « **Reply #92 on:** November 24, 2009, 12:48:16 AM »

  I must disagree with the term "nation building", simply because we are doing no such thing. If we were, we would be putting forward certain people to dictate to the people of that country. We may be preventing a nation from falling into complete domination by the Taliban, but that is only for our best interests. In Afghanistan, they have elected their own leaders and hopefully if we can aid these elected leaders for a time, they can soon shoulder the load with their own forces.
  The model has worked thusfar in Iraq, and should do the same in Afghanistan.
  C4;
  I hear you when you say you don't give a flip about the ME countries...but that is where the old geographical boundaries idea is outdated.
   Again, ...We are being attacked by a worldwide, evil ideology. Quite simply, we can work to defeat them in their nests of incubation.. or draw in, hunker down and assume the role of a dart board. All this, while the infection spreads in our own homeland.

   Do you really believe that if we "play nice" and leave them alone, they will "play nice" and leave us alone?

   Is that how they behaved leading up to and including 9/11?

  RG;
   While I respect your opinions, I also know that not all Christians react to evil in the same way. Yes, your pope tells you how to think about issues, but please keep in mind..not all Christians consider the pope as anything more than another man. We do not feel compelled to acquiesce to his dictates.
  ...And I expect you would not feel compelled to abide by every suggestion made by a Pat Robertson, a D. James Kennedy or even a Billy Graham... So don't feel put upon when others may not take the pope's declarations as "the final word".

beerbelly · « **Reply #93 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:27:41 AM »

C4 you say this war is because of our past pollicis. I don't think so. The rag heads say this war started about four or five hundred years ago, with the crusaders.
We were not a country then. This is a holy war, at least to them and they consider that it has been on going ever since.
No this war is not our fault! And if we don't fight them your children will be bowing to Mecca.
Beerbelly

ironglow · « **Reply #94 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:36:06 AM »

For those who don't think we should be going after Al Queda & the Taliban; just one question.

What should be our course of action when they hit us again..and again..and again ?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #95 on:** November 24, 2009, 04:15:39 AM »

Until we accept the fact that our failed foreign policy is the reason for them hating us, we will never change the course of our go-forward actions nor will the terrorist ever change theirs. The fight with the terrorist did not start back in the crusades. It started when this country decided its foreign policy must include inserting puppet dictators (Shaw and others) and or pushing democracy (Iraq/Afghanistan and others) as the cutting edge of foreign policy. There is nothing wrong with wanting democracy to flourish but inserting it is a different and high stakes approach. Now, that oil is the precious commodity and we are so dependent on foreign oil imports from the M.E., we feel the need to take a high stake position in the stability of the M.E.

IG, you asked what should we do when we are attacked. First, we better change our course as I state above. Second, we go after those that perpetrate the acts. I have no issue with surgical strikes on terrorist base camps and strong holds (no nation building, no hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground). Third, we need to secure our borders and prevent these people from getting in here to begin with. We SHOULD profile those requesting visa’s and any Arab that comes here on a passport. Enforce our immigration and visitor policies. This, would have prevented 9-11. We should seal off our porous southern and other ports and borders. Stop trading with these Arab nations that promote or foster hatred.

beerbelly · « **Reply #96 on:** November 24, 2009, 05:16:49 AM »

You may not believe that this started with the crusades but they do! As far as boots on the ground over there, Not one was drafted and forced to go! They volunteered, knowing they were going to war! So it was their choice, why dose that bother you?
Beerbelly

Cabin4 · « **Reply #97 on:** November 24, 2009, 05:24:56 AM »

Quote from: beerbelly on November 24, 2009, 05:16:49 AM

You may not believe that this started with the crusades but they do! As far as boots on the ground over there, Not one was drafted and forced to go! They volunteered, knowing they were going to war! So it was their choice, why dose that bother you?
Beerbelly

Them volunteering does not bother me one bit. Our government sending them in as pawns to die for an unjust cause does. We need a military. How we deploy or troops is a different discussion. That is a leadership and foreign policy issue far outside the hands of those serving in uniform.

We are not following our constitution. We are failing our founding principles. We are fixated on all the wrong solutions. We are going down the drain. Our foreign policy and these wars are like a plunger, pushing us further down.

teamnelson · « **Reply #98 on:** November 24, 2009, 06:44:07 AM »

This war is about our foreign policy like antI-gun legislation is about saving children ... excuses but not reasons. Both sides here have rendered the enemy one dimensional, and THAT C4 is why we will be in it a very long time. Until Americans become less ethno-centric, there will be a line around the equator of ideologies that want a crack at us. Most Muslims Ive met will be happy when we don't televise every time Britney forgets her underwear, and on that I can agree.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #99 on:** November 24, 2009, 06:58:28 AM »

I seem to recall that terrorists took control of our embassy in Iran back in the late 70’s due to our unyielding support for the Shaw. I further seem to recall that Al Qaeda’s own stated reasons for attacking us is because we landed boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia as a base for the first Gulp War. In addition, they also stated that Hussein, although a huge issue for the Arab’s, was an Arab problem not a “western” problem. In addition, Al Quda has stated repetitively that our unyielding and double standard support for Israel is another premium issue. I can’t recall anything about Brittany’s underwear as the reason for the 9-11 attacks. Maybe I’ve missed something and the Arabs, Al Qaeda and the rest of the muslin terrorists actually support our foreign policy.

In all honestly TN, if you think this is all about Brittany’s underwear and the Hollywood moronic crowd, you’re listening to much to Sean Hannity. While I will agree that muslins have a dislike for our culture, it is our actions they see as against them directly that is causing the hate for us. I’m sure you can point out statements from a muslin that they think our culture is corrupt, but these are just side line issues. They could care less is we glorify fornication with farm animals just as long as we don’t export it into their country.

teamnelson · « **Reply #100 on:** November 24, 2009, 08:30:32 AM »

Well C4, as I've discovered, I'm one of the few on here that actually has fluency in the Arabic language, and has travelled extensively throughout the Muslim Arab world, taking my family with me, and enjoying the hospitality of countless Muslim Arabs in their homes. As the only Arabic speaking Chaplain in the Navy, I also got some unique time with our detractors on the ground in Iraq. Started for me in 1991, so I'd say I've got about 18 years of direct first hand from the horse's mouth understanding of reasons for this war.

Its not Britney's underwear, obviously C4. That's one dimensional thinking again.

They are tribal, Islam is a religion specifically tailored for tribal cultures, and tribal cultures operate on honor and shame. We are not tribal, we have no shame or honor. When we help them, we shame them. When we overwhelm them militarily, we shame them. When the little guy scores a small hit on the twin towers, billions around the world rejoice - they share honor. Its not about foreign policy, oil, or any of the other crap spewing out of both sides of congress. We are the enemy and will remain the enemy as long as we are powerful, international, and shameless. You don't think like an Arab, you don't have an inkling how their world works, you have no idea their motivations, really.

Ever read an Arabic paper? If you could you'd discover that our foreign policies in the Bush administration were welcomed by the wealthy Arab nation states, but viewed as embarassing to the Arab people that the once world leaders now need the help of a foreign power. Iran actually had more respect for us (honor/shame) under Bush. Usama Bin Laden was ashamed to have US/CF Forces liberate Kuwait, and petitioned to have an all Muslim force push Iraq back. I've sat in numerous Sheikh/Imam councils where they were flat hostile to our presence, because they wanted to do it themselves - it was embarassing that we were helping them, and that they needed our help. Why don't you study the economic situation in those countries from whom Al Qaeda recruits? The older devoted want to go back to the traditional tribal culture while the younger.

It is sloppy to blame this on foreign policy or Jihad - it is far far more complex than that. And until we admit the complexity, we will be fighting this war a long time.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #101 on:** November 24, 2009, 08:40:19 AM »

TN,

All well and good. So the issue is more complex than I described. I'm not going to write a theses on this subject. But why do you are anyone here feel that we MUST deal with these people at any level? The hell with them. Lets them kill each other off for all I care. Why is it that we feel our policy as a nation must be to meddle in their internal affairs? I don't want the muslin nations meddling in our internal affairs... so why should we expect to meddle in theirs?

We should pretend they don't exist from a policy standpoint.

teamnelson · « **Reply #102 on:** November 24, 2009, 09:45:18 AM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on November 24, 2009, 08:40:19 AM

TN,

All well and good. So the issue is more complex than I described. I'm not going to write a theses on this subject. But why do you are anyone here feel that we MUST deal with these people at any level? The hell with them. Lets them kill each other off for all I care. Why is it that we feel our policy as a nation must be to meddle in their internal affairs? I don't want the muslin nations meddling in our internal affairs... so why should we expect to meddle in theirs?

We should pretend they don't exist from a policy standpoint.

C4, this one has already started, and will not finish because we change our policy mid-war. Going forward I would concur with a non-interventionist approach, but still believe as long as our economy is linked to the world we have a responsibility to be engaged in world affairs. From the Arab Peninsula economic news outlets, oil on the AP will only last another 20 years, so they need us in the long haul more than we need them. We've got bigger fish to fry, I concur.

ironglow · « **Reply #103 on:** November 24, 2009, 12:30:13 PM »

TN;
  Thanks for your insight into this complex problem.
  For othgers;
   One thing that must be cleared up however, the US was not guilty of "unwavering support" for the Shah. In fact, the Ayatollah Khomeni could never have taken over Iran, had Jimmie Carter not withdrawn support for the shah. Yes, prior to that time the shah was a customer for US, French and other weapons but if it had not been ours it would have been Russian weapons which he bought. Jimmie Carter paved the way for the crazy ayatollah to leave Paris and become boss in Teheran....and look at the thanks he got for it!
  What really boiled the ayatollah's egg was the fact that the west refused to hand over the shah for torture by the ones with frothing mouths.
  Had you asked me some years ago, I would have said , "develop our own oil and leave them alone as long as they leave us alone."..But we are deeply involved now and there is only one option. ....And that is using counter-insurgency principles to defeat the wild radicals and gradually turn the task over to a stable govt that can handle their own problems with their own nutsies.
Even if we withdrew right now, that would not end it..they still have hate/revenge memories lingering from the 12th & 13th centuries.
   When TN mentioned Brittany's britches or lack thereof, he was using a single incident to illustrate a large problem we have brought upon ourselves, vis a vis the ME peoples.
  The liberals like to point out "our failed foreign policy" (e.g. Carter) as the focus of our differences, but they are being purposely dense to reality. You can see how their women dress etc, that they are very concerned with modesty. We offend them greatly with our sex laced Hollywood films, TV and the decadent lifestyle of many in the west. They view abortion as an infanticide worse than strapping a bomb to your own child.
  Hypocritical? ..Perhaps, but that is how they see it...

  So, considering that politicians on both the left and right have unknowingly offended them, obviously the liberals share more of the blame, because their pet causes such as decadent lifestyles, support for homosexuality, abortion etc are heaped upon already smarting wounds.
  That being said, all the "offence" in the world doesn't justify the murder of 3,000 people in one fell swoop, nor the continued bombing and killing of innocents all over the world.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #104 on:** November 24, 2009, 12:58:57 PM »

Quote from: ironglow on November 24, 2009, 12:30:13 PM

.
The liberals like to point out "our failed foreign policy" (e.g. Carter) .

Just for the record, please don't confuse me with being a liberal. Being a conservative is not about blindly supporting failed policies. If following the constitution as it was written makes me a liberal, then what the heck is a constitutional conservative?

In addition, I think that Carter and every president after is guilty of a failed foreign policy. In fact, our failed polices date back to Kennedy. Our foreign policy cannot change with the simple change in president. We have legislation and practices in place that live for years after a president is out of office. This is a federal apparatus issue that effect congress, State Department, CIA, DOD and many other departments that carry out policy practice. It will take decades to finally correct our failed policies providing we have the fortitude to change it.

rio grande · « **Reply #105 on:** November 24, 2009, 01:51:14 PM »

These wars are bankrupting us, regardless of their morality or lack of.
3.6 BILLION DOLLARS a MONTH for the war in Afghanistan. 1 MILLION DOLLARS cost per year for ONE U.S. soldier there.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63121-crs-calculates-cost-of-us-troop-presence-in-afghanistan Money down a rat hole.
Our country has enough problems to deal with without adding to them.
And does anyone really believe Iraq and Afghanistan will be better places in 10, 20, 30 years because of our efforts there?
These 'wars', supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, just add to the misery of the world - they are a stupid waste of people and money.
And knowing this and 'staying the course' out of pride or to save face - that's insane.
What's the definition of insanity? Making the same mistake over and over again, hoping the outcome will be different 'this time'.
Time to get out of there, mind our own business, take care of our own problems at home.

rio grande · « **Reply #106 on:** November 24, 2009, 02:13:53 PM »

Quote from: TeamNelson on November 23, 2009, 08:58:46 PM

There is a case for just war in the offense but it truly is defensive in nature..... You initiated because you knew what was coming. ......... you err on the side of protecting people.

Orwellian 'doublespeak' - TN, there is no 'just war' in the offense.
And pre-emptive attack - 'initiating' - Hitler would agree whole-heartedly with you on that one!
And Tojo too, his attack on Pearl Harbor would be justified using your logic.
"Protecting people" by pre-emptive attack - classic!

Well TN, you should be happy at any rate - "your" President and Commander in Chief, "your" boss, Obama, is all set to declare a troop surge in Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6640563/Barack-Obama-to-announce-30000-Afghan-troop-increase-next-week.html

teamnelson · « **Reply #107 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:04:51 PM »

Quote from: rio grande on November 24, 2009, 02:13:53 PM

Quote from: TeamNelson on November 23, 2009, 08:58:46 PM
There is a case for just war in the offense but it truly is defensive in nature..... You initiated because you knew what was coming. ......... you err on the side of protecting people.

Orwellian 'doublespeak' - TN, there is no 'just war' in the offense.
And pre-emptive attack - 'initiating' - Hitler would agree whole-heartedly with you on that one!
And Tojo too, his attack on Pearl Harbor would be justified using your logic.
"Protecting people" by pre-emptive attack - classic!

Well TN, you should be happy at any rate - "your" President and Commander in Chief, "your" boss, Obama, is all set to declare a troop surge in Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6640563/Barack-Obama-to-announce-30000-Afghan-troop-increase-next-week.html

RG, if by "your" you mean I voted for him, then you're inaccurate. My absentee military vote while deployed to Iraq was not counted along with thousands of others strangely, and had it been it was not cast for Obama. If you really meant "our" because you're an American citizen too, then please know I share the pain of his decisions pretty closely. If we must fight this war, a surge will only gain us a lulll in order to withdraw, which I wish was happening yesterday and is justification enough for me for a surge. "Winning" is not really possible. The longer he's dragged this out, the more difficult he has made it to withdraw safely. I've had ringside seats to this debacle for a couple years now, and would like it over.

Its not Orwellian doublespeak; its Jus Ad Bellum as developed by the Church over 2000 years, the most ardent defenders of which are the RC church today. There is a difference between the pre-emptive strikes of Hitler, Tojo, etc. and what I'm describing. According to the RC, “Just War” is war undertaken only to repel an aggressor. It is not undertaken as a “pre-emptive” measure or as a means to impose a system of government upon another nation." Since the 4th Century, back to St. Aquinas, this has been interpreted as it is not necessary for the agressor to have inflicted harm first; merely to be an agressor with the means and intent to inflict harm. In which case it is just to remove the means of war only. A pertinent example would be the Iranian nuclear weapons program; once they have the real means to launch, and once they have expressed the sincere motive to fire, to preserve the victims of such an act, it is just to destroy the means, i.e. the weapons, but not to nuke Iran (in my earlier example the baby with the gun.) It then qualifies as a defensive act, not as an offensive act, and proportionality and minimal collateral damage still apply. If you'd still consider that equivalent with Tojo, Hitler, et al, then we do in fact disagree.

Just make sure you have me pegged right before you declare open season.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #108 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:17:34 PM »

Quote

Obama, is all set to declare a troop surge in Afghanistan.

I sure hope so! Here is news!! If he does and fights that war to win it ~~I'll vote for him in 2012.~~

Naw, I was just outa my head there for a second!

ironglow · « **Reply #109 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:22:34 PM »

  "No just war in the offense":
   please review from the Israeli perspective, the "Six Day War";
  1) Israel's neighbors were determined they were going to wipe Israel out.
  2) Egypt massed a huge amount of troops, supplies and weapons on Israel's southern border
  3) Syria to the north and Jordan to the east planned on bottling up Israeli forces and placed great quantities of
   men , arms and munitions on the border while...
4) Other nations to include Iraq, Saudi arabia, sudan, Tunisia, morocco and Algeria also contributed arms and troops.
5) Syria prepared to thrust a powerful armored force to sever Israel in two at her very narrow
   midsection..which was only 12 miles wide at that point.

  Israel struck first and gave all of them a good thrashing in just six days. She gained the Siani peninsula, Gaza, Golan heights, the west bank and east Jerusalem..They have since given back the Sinai, Gaza and parts of the west bank..for "peace".
   I and many others believe that Israel was totally justified in striking first!

BTW: Cabin 4, I in no way meant to infer that you are a liberal; I know from past posts you are not.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #110 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:43:42 PM »

Quote

I and many others believe that Israel was totally justified in striking first!

I'm one of em! Those people are hated for their existance, but they exist! Probably cause their Muslim neighbors fear them, and they are Gods chosen people!

teamnelson · « **Reply #111 on:** November 24, 2009, 04:04:48 PM »

IG, I've studied that one specifically for Just War theory. Lots of folks missed how much more damage couldve inflicted but excercised restraint instead. They used a proportional response to the threat of imminent distinction and it's estimated saved lives on both sides.

powderman · « **Reply #112 on:** November 24, 2009, 04:10:46 PM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on November 24, 2009, 03:43:42 PM

Quote
I and many others believe that Israel was totally justified in striking first!

I'm one of em! Those people are hated for their existance, but they exist! Probably cause their Muslim neighbors fear them, and they are Gods chosen people!

YEP, me too. POWDERMAN.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #113 on:** November 24, 2009, 04:24:11 PM »

Well, it looks like the pro Afgan war crowd is about to have a dream come true. It was announced today that oboma is going to send 34,000 new targets there shortly.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #114 on:** November 24, 2009, 04:42:38 PM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on November 24, 2009, 04:24:11 PM

Well, it looks like the pro Afgan war crowd is about to have a dream come true. It was announced today that oboma is going to send 34,000 new targets there shortly.

You are all about supporting the troops huh Pal? That is an indefensible statement! Its despicable!

teamnelson · « **Reply #115 on:** November 24, 2009, 07:11:21 PM »

Do you understand the surge strategy? It's an EXIT strategy folks. Get a grip. McChrystal needs to stomp Helmand province hard enough to create a lull in the tempo. Politicos declare a decisive victory, we turn it over to ISAF, bring 'em home, then it falls to crap when the bad guys have caught their breath. It's a paper win; Obama claims a win, and our guys come home sooner. What we coulda done in Nam. Not a just ending or a just war; just an acceptable exit strategy that reduces losses and gives the appearance of control.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #116 on:** November 25, 2009, 04:06:46 AM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on November 24, 2009, 04:42:38 PM

Quote from: Cabin4 on November 24, 2009, 04:24:11 PM
Well, it looks like the pro Afgan war crowd is about to have a dream come true. It was announced today that oboma is going to send 34,000 new targets there shortly.

You are all about supporting the troops huh Pal? That is an indefensible statement! Its despicable!

Yes I am about supporting our troops. Get them out. These additional troops are just that, more targets for the American haters to shoot at. More of our sons blood to be spilled for a people and culture that hate us and don't want us in their country to begin with.

teamnelson · « **Reply #117 on:** November 25, 2009, 07:27:22 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on November 25, 2009, 05:44:00 AM

The surge predicates pullout...? After 'King David' Petraeus couped Adm Fallon out of Centcom how do you figure that...since we are still in Iracq? Since Afghanistan is a center for the world's fourth largest industry I will believe we are pulling out when I see it.....not to mention the high stakes for the trans Caucus oil and natural gas resources. What are the rare earths located in Afghanistan..? C'mon....cui bono..? It is all about the money.

Real unemployment in the USA is about to reach 25%....this is considered a tinder point. When the average US citizen realizes he has been played, and rank and file in the military does as well...than shtf day may be close at hand. Of course, the government will try to fall back on mercs and UN tied forces here and false flag muzzie attacks and or bump the war up a notch or two. Major Hasan's speciality apparently had something to do with getting troops to struggle against their own peoples...either as subject or observer-trainer.

Cyber war?....can a US tank aquire and sight targets the old fashion way...as backup...?

Umm, yeah ... there's alot of ground truth coming back from the folks I know in Afghanistan that stands in sharp contrast to your assumptions posted here. The military is working towards exit; you may be right, others may be working against that, but all military strategies on the ground right now have withdrawal as the desired end state. Many might think that's obvious, it really isn't so the fact that its stated that way is significant. We'll see who wins that toss.

Don't read too deeply into what has been said about Major Hassan's training. All of his training was benign, all of it. Could it be used for an evil personal agenda? sure. But that's like saying all of our soldier's were trained to kill children, when in fact they were all simply trained to fire a weapon. I'm trained to train mental hardening, battlemind, etc. ad nauseum. We're not staring at goats.

The cyberwar is not targeting military platforms, so nav systems on ships and targeting systems on tanks are not even in the battlespace. The cyberwar is targeting civilian infrastructure. Grasp the significance of that, and who is doing it. TM7, I'd have thought you'd be up to speed on that by now.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #118 on:** November 25, 2009, 08:03:55 AM »

Haven't read all , but it seems to me we train the best officers and soilders in the world . THEN tie them down - STUPID really . If all else fails then give the military a mission with a well defined GOAL AND GET THE HEL_ OUT THEIR WAY !
When they reach their goal its over unless they recive orders for another goal then again stay out their way .
The military is our security and to mix politics with our security is the most dumb azz thing we can do .
The idea of a just war is pure BS the real question is the war nessary or not ? Its not about feeling good about it ( JUST) . ITS ABOUT STAYING ALIVE and FREE ! a real nessary thing to some of us.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #119 on:** November 25, 2009, 08:27:20 AM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on November 24, 2009, 04:42:38 PM

Quote from: Cabin4 on November 24, 2009, 04:24:11 PM
Well, it looks like the pro Afgan war crowd is about to have a dream come true. It was announced today that oboma is going to send 34,000 new targets there shortly.

You are all about supporting the troops huh Pal? That is an indefensible statement! Its despicable!

I thought he was going to make the announcement next tuesday, What- someone leaked it to the press so they can watch the poll numbers?, no that can't be possible, his administration is transparent remember? What a farce!