- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Another one who either didn't read the article or reads 10,000 WPM, which is it since you responded to the post in less than two minutes , not even enough time to go to the link and read all three pages.
No, I just read your summary of it. I thought that was the purpose of giving a summary so one didn't have to read the article. Otherwise, you just wasted your time with all that jibber jabber when you should of just posted the link and said nothing more.
How many people that defend Clintons decision to not risk hurting civilians also defend Obama's decision to use drones to take out possible terror targets?
If Clinton had drones available he would have ordered the strike. Civilian casualties are minimalized with drone attacks compared to conventional air attacks.
Last I checked, drones are armed with the same missiles and bombs that conventional aircraft are armed with. Or are you saying that Drones have friendlier and nicer missiles?
Interesting that not one word on post #48 are my words, all just a copy and paste, nothing more than a paragraph excerpt from the article.
You do know what these mean don't you ? >" "<
No, they have fewer and more accurately placed missiles which results in fewer civilians in harms way. You obviously don't know how drones work.
My old man was an officer in the RAF and based on a signals base in Cyprus and they would debrief the CIA on the location of Bin Laden on a regular basis and he was there till 1999. Anyone that thinks the US didn't know where he was is a fool, they underestimated the threat that much is certain.
Back in 1999, the Clinton administration had already established Janet Reno's the "wall" so the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS, ONI,military intelligence and law enforcement were forbidden to share information with each other and Al Qaeda was to be treated as a law enforcement issue not a national security issue.
Really? I never knew that very interesting. I will have to read up on it as that seems like an absurd ruling.
I do. The Sudanese offered him to us on a platter, and there was at least one other opportunity offered as well, both of which were turned down.
It's all can be found in the 9-11 Commission Report.
So...civilian casualties are OK then?If Clinton had drones available he would have ordered the strike. Civilian casualties are minimalized with drone attacks compared to conventional air attacks.
The 9/11 commission investigated those claims and concluded, "The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."
I do. The Sudanese offered him to us on a platter, and there was at least one other opportunity offered as well, both of which were turned down.
Nah. I'm not arrogant enough :lol: Nor am I willing to work in the NCR if I can avoid it at all. I'm on the military side of the community.
Just let us know if you think Clinton should've killed 300 people then. Just say it. No need to beat around the bush.
... killing the leaders of rival organizations is generally a bad strategy unless you are willing to commit to a full scale war.
The 9/11 commission investigated those claims and concluded, "The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."
How many people that defend Clintons decision to not risk hurting civilians also defend Obama's decision to use drones to take out possible terror targets?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?