Obama doctrine kills 60 in Pakistan

[Winnie]

Nice list but in complete:


60+- Blackhawk War / Jackson (D)
1500- Second Siminole
625,000- Civil war / Lincoln (R)
919- Indian Wars / lasted 33 yr. 6 of 9 POTUS (R)
3- Korean expedition / Grant (R)
2446- Spanish-American / McKinley (R)
4196- Philipine-American / Mckinley (R) Roosevelt (R) Taft (R)
37- Boxer Rebellion / McKinley (R)
35- Mexican Revolution / Wilson (D)
146- Occupation of Haiti / Wilson (D) Harding (R) Coolidge (R) Hoover (R)
Roosevelt (D)

Maybe you could put a little star by the conflicts you disapprove of?

 

[poppy]

Maybe you could put a little star by the conflicts you disapprove of?

All of them

 

[Winnie]

All of them

Really?? WWI, WWII, ... wow. Well, we are all entitled to our own judgements of history.

 

[poppy]

Really?? WWI, WWII, ... wow. Well, we are all entitled to our own judgements of history.

Wow? How can anyone "approve" of war? Going to war is a total failure of your options. If leaders had to fight their own wars there would be none.

 

[Winnie]

Wow? How can anyone "approve" of war? Going to war is a total failure of your options. If leaders had to fight their own wars there would be none.

Yeah, the North should have just allowed the South to have slaves. (sarcasm off) You have to approve of war when the other choice is intolerable!

 

[scooterbug44]

The anti-war anti-Bush anti-Afghanistan anti-Iraq crowd justifying bombing villages in Pakistan now that a democrat is giving the orders... We have come full circle!

Exactly what did I post that contradicts any of my other posts about the topic?

My views and values didn't change, just your perceptions and preconceived notions about them.

I always question vague articles or posts that accuse w/o evidence.

I've never had a problem w/ killing known terrorists or recognizing that collateral damage is a reality of war. And using drones instead of putting our military personnel in harm's way is a gret way of doing it IMO.

 

[scooterbug44]

Wow? How can anyone "approve" of war? Going to war is a total failure of your options. If leaders had to fight their own wars there would be none.

That must be why we've never had a President who served in the military and then approved of a military action. :roll:

 

[poppy]

Yeah, the North should have just allowed the South to have slaves. (sarcasm off) You have to approve of war when the other choice is intolerable!

I'm going to end this because you are not going to understand what I'm trying to convey and I'm just not interested in explaining it further.

 

[Gidget]

That must be why we've never had a President who served in the military and then approved of a military action. :roll:

That is a very interesting statement. My father was a Republican, he was also a recipient of 2 Purple Hearts and a Silver Star. Fought in WWI (injured in Philippines) and also injured in Korea. He was an Airborne Ranger.

When the Iraq war started (and he voted for Bush) he was very very troubled. He hated war.

G

 

[Winnie]

I'm going to end this because you are not going to understand what I'm trying to convey and I'm just not interested in explaining it further.

Good idea. I think it is inane to compare the political affiliation of the President at times of war in any case.