-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama Bombs Pakistan
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
Bro. Curtis said:We were never interested in catching him. This was a nation building exercise from the start. All of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Our mission turned into our troops patrolling the streets of two different countries.
If Obama wants to bomb Pakistan, we should declare war on them, thru the congress, like the constitution tells us we have to.
It seems we learned NOTHING from Bush's mistakes.
My understanding the bombing was done under conditions Bush had put in place. Obama has yet to dictate criteria for when to bomb over the boarder or not. He did say in the campaign that he will bomb over the boarder if Pakistan doesn't police it's land and allows the terrorist to attach our soldiers then cross back over the boarder to safety.
I agree with your post 100%, I hope we learn from previous mistakes but what we need right now is a clear objective so we know what we're trying to achieve.
Jim1999 said:They weren't there because Saddam Hussein was..........period!
Cheers,
Jim
Yep he made them play nice in his country. He was the only one doing the mass killings. He was in charge...... :laugh:
Jim1999 said:That is the only rule those countries know....Why do you think England pulled out after 50 odd years of trying to change them?
Cheers,
Jim
I wish we'd of learned from England...
That may not be entirely true, but it is also irrelevant. The fact is that they are there now. And we live now.Al-Qaeda came to Iraq because we were there. They weren't there before we invaded.
The upside is that fewer people are dying with Al Qaeda in Iraq than there were with Saddam in Iraq.
Pastor Larry said:That may not be entirely true, but it is also irrelevant. The fact is that they are there now. And we live now.
The upside is that fewer people are dying with Al Qaeda in Iraq than there were with Saddam in Iraq.
It is very relevant if we caused them to be there... We can't bring people to your country then brag that we saved you from them no more than we can bomb your house and kick in your door in the middle of the night then brag that we brought you clean water and a modern sewer system. The ends don't justify the means.
True it might be fewer deaths but we could sure use those troops in the real war over in Afghanistan instead of the one we started in Iraq.
Not for the point of this thread. Ken said we should go after Al Qaeda wherever they are. He said nothing about what caused them to be there. I think the reason they are in a particular place is irrelevant to the danger that they pose. If they pose a danger, it should not matter why they are there. We should get rid of them.It is very relevant if we caused them to be there
No one is saying that they do. We are having a different conversation here, namely, what about now?We can't bring people to your country then brag that we saved you from them no more than we can bomb your house and kick in your door in the middle of the night then brag that we brought you clean water and a modern sewer system. The ends don't justify the means.
Those who died in Iraq will be sorry to hear that it wasn't a "real war." Such insensitivity is perhaps unintentional, but unfortunate nonetheless.True it might be fewer deaths but we could sure use those troops in the real war over in Afghanistan instead of the one we started in Iraq.
It is also disappointing to here that you don't value human life in Iraq. I find that somewhat strange. I think the people who died in Iraq under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein needed someone to speak up for them and insist on justice.
It is interesting to me that those who are accusing Bush of war crimes and wanting him brought to trial (an unthinkably absurd proposition), seem not to care that Hussein was actually guilty of crimes against humanity. These folks want to take revenge on someone who was fixing a problem rather than on the one causing it.
It is a sign of the lack of value for human life.
Pastor Larry said:Those who died in Iraq will be sorry to hear that it wasn't a "real war." Such insensitivity is perhaps unintentional, but unfortunate nonetheless.
It is also disappointing to here that you don't value human life in Iraq. I find that somewhat strange. I think the people who died in Iraq under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein needed someone to speak up for them and insist on justice..
1. Those who died in Iraq should know they didn't have to die on that battle field. Iraq didn't fly any planes into buildings on 9/11 which was the premise of the war on terror. There deaths on that battle field was the irresponsible actions of the commander and chief and they have a right to know.
2. We can't be the world police at the cost of our young men and women. There is death and atrocities taking place all over the 3rd world and China. More people died during the Rwandan Genocide than Saddam put to death. The way we show concern and handle situations like that is through diplomacy and not our military might. If we needed t invade, it should have been with the UN blessings and support. That's what they are there for.
LeBuick said:1. Those who died in Iraq should know they didn't have to die on that battle field. Iraq didn't fly any planes into buildings on 9/11 which was the premise of the war on terror. There deaths on that battle field was the irresponsible actions of the commander and chief and they have a right to know.
Then Obama has the responsiblity of every soldier who dies in Iraq starting from the moment he accepted office.
Why is he going to take a year or two or three to withdraw if it is an unjust war?
BTW - I was listening to NPR on Friday late morning and an Obama supporter was saying that he thought that Obama would merely "remission" combat troops in Iraq from "combat troops" to "advisors" without bring anyone home.
He said that those soldiers would be doing the same things - patrolling, looking for insurgents - fighting... but they would no longer be "combat troops" - they would be "advisors".
He said that in that way Obama could keep his campaign promise to pull out combat troops without risking making things worse in Iraq.
No, the premise of Iraq was WMDs, not the 9/11.LeBuick said:1. Those who died in Iraq should know they didn't have to die on that battle field. Iraq didn't fly any planes into buildings on 9/11 which was the premise of the war on terror.
If you remember, we tried diplomacy for 12 years.The way we show concern and handle situations like that is through diplomacy and not our military might.
It was.If we needed t invade, it should have been with the UN blessings and support.
Pastor Larry said:No, the premise of Iraq was WMDs, not the 9/11.
That was one very small part of the premise for Iraq. Let's not rewrite history.
When Saddam was eliminated, it created a vacuum, or more likely a vehicle which enabling Al Qaeda to come into power in Iraq.... I don't know how many came out of the wood work, but we killed a ton of them.... Thank GWB for that intelligent strategy...
Islamabad is believed to have a tacit agreement with Washington to allow the missile strikes, which U.S. claim have killed a number of insurgent leaders behind attacks in Afghanistan and beyond.
Pakistan's government has little control over the border region, which is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and other insurgent leaders.
Pakistan helped the United States round up hundreds of militants in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including several al-Qaida leaders still incarcerated at Guantanamo.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=w012406A.xml
Pakistan's government has little control over the border region, which is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and other insurgent leaders.
Pakistan helped the United States round up hundreds of militants in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including several al-Qaida leaders still incarcerated at Guantanamo.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=w012406A.xml
When Saddam was eliminated, it created a vacuum, or more likely a vehicle which enabling Al Qaeda to become more open in Iraq.... I don't know how many came out of the wood work, but we killed a ton of them.... Thank GWB for that intelligent strategy...
targus said:Then Obama has the responsiblity of every soldier who dies in Iraq starting from the moment he accepted office.
Wrong... Obama is not the one who sent the troops into Iraq and America as a whole was lied to by the past administration. That will forever known as Bush' war.
targus said:Why is he going to take a year or two or three to withdraw if it is an unjust war?
Because we overthrew a government and can't leave until stability is built in the country. The point is we never should have gone in without a plan to get out.
targus said:He said that those soldiers would be doing the same things - patrolling, looking for insurgents - fighting... but they would no longer be "combat troops" - they would be "advisors".
He said that in that way Obama could keep his campaign promise to pull out combat troops without risking making things worse in Iraq.
At this point it's just rumors and we shouldn't condemn a man on rumors or because we THINK this is what he'll do.
Pastor Larry said:No, the premise of Iraq was WMDs, not the 9/11.
No, he also said Iraq was a terrorist safe zone but it turned out they came to fight us.
targus said:If you remember, we tried diplomacy for 12 years.
If you call that diplomacy... Bush wouldn't acknowledge them in talks except to make threats and demands. The only true argument against Diplomacy not working is when Saddam wouldn't let the UN inspectors in. Other then that he cooperated.