It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's First Missile Strike

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
And this is why I could never support him. I knew he wouldn't actually be change. It's the same change line the democrats run on every election. Clinton ran on it and so on.

2 parties, 1 agenda. Blue team, Red team but still the same game.




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I totally agree with you on this one, this did not go down with the C.I.C. knowing and approving the actions taken. I dont think the kool-aid has worn off of the obamanation yet, so such insinuations are yet to be fathomed by said supporters. Hold on for the great CHANGE we are in store for!!!

[edit on 1/25/2009 by cal7man]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


This is a misrepresentation of how it all works, so policies are previously in place but the intel constantly changing has our military and POTUS looking at an ever-changing ballfield, thus we cannot blindly lob missles into an area with the previous agenda being the only reason and ryme for doing such and making this a potentially BAD incident for the US. OBAMA KNEW VERY WELL WHAT WAS GOING DOWN, and made it so.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by munkey66
....
Can you name me a country that the US hasn't been involved with that hasn't ended in a war?



Ok, I've got one for you.
Why is it that ALL the conflicts in the world today involve the so called "Religion Of Peace"?

And some of these conflicts are not against the infidel either.

so asking a question answered the original question?

And to answer your question China/ tibet North Korea/south korea
South ossetia and georgia,, georgia and Russia.

your turn to answer.


Hmmm, not bad.
Google must be your friend.

Hate to dissappoint you but there is a difference between conflicts and skirmishes.
These you've mentioned are skirmishes, some of these may even end before Obama gives his next press conference.
Either that or they certainly no longer make the headlines.

These are nothing like we continue to see involving the ROP and generational conflicts.

But to answer your question, I guess you are correct.
Since the US has just about helped every country on this planet in one way shape or form, and since we may heading for WWIII soon, I guess the US is already being blamed for what is coming next in the form of global annihilation.

Oh that Bush did it again.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Hate to dissappoint you but there is a difference between conflicts and skirmishes.
These you've mentioned are skirmishes, some of these may even end before Obama gives his next press conference.

So the Korean WAR, as it is commonly known by its veterans, was just a skirmish?
The so-called "war" on terror is not a war. War involves defined and well-structured sides. The terrorist associations are loose at best. Most of whom the US declared "enemy combatants" are just people defending their homes and countries, or people wanting revenge for their dead relatives. There's no opposing army.
Israel-Gaza, not a war either. Thats more what I'd call rape against an opponent in handcuffs.

Whats your huge peeve with Islam anyway? Christianity is no different.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I can't see why people are surprised, Obama is merely acting on one of his campaign promises, to tackle the real element of terrorism in these remote regions of Pakistan and escalating the battle in Afghanistan. Those of you calling out for Obama to "talk" and "negotiate" with these people are walking deaf and blind. You think these loons understand "diplomacy"?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


To Whom It May Concern:

It seems as though our 44th President is approaching a
lasting peace via "give 'em Hell Harry" (S. Truman)
We're letting Musharaf know we mean more than business...
not a cool beans place to be.

Best,
Dave P.
Educator San Francisco Unified School District



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 



No one is down playing the Korean War, it wasn't even brought up.
The topic turned to North and South Korea.

When was the last time the media even covered anything involving tension between North and South Korea?
Even if they did, there certainly were no missiles involved

Seems like you are suggesting that radical Islamic fundamentalist idealogies represent Islam as a whole?

Please explain.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by TheRandom1
Is it just me or is anyone else worried that this is all a ploy to get Pakistan to nuke us?


Pakistan does not have a missile with the range nessesary to hit the CONUS. However, Iraq.

Far more concerning is the cozy realtionship the ISI had/has with the Taliban. A small nuke in thier hands would be scary indeed

But the Chinese Missiles can reach Alaska and the western U.S. I'm positive if America starts trouble in that region again, China will intervene since it will directly affect China's interests, and surely China won't take it.

By the way Taliban holding a small nuke is not as bad as America having nukes, prove me wrong and deny ignorance and also stop deleting my posts just because it goes against your own opinions. We all have the right to express ourselves.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Apparently women & children, as well as innocent male civilians, were killed in this attack. Three days into this presidency and he's already a murderous war criminal.

If there were indeed "bad guys" in Mir Ali, the Pakistani police should've moved in to arrest them. Or US Delta Force. But dropping a missile from a drone is a cowardly, scumbag, criminal thing to do.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Civilian204
 


feels real bad.
but his position on the death penalty has eroded over the years from opposition as an organizer, to moratorium as a senate candidate, to "heinous crimes only" as a presidential candidate to drone bombings and collateral damage days into the presidency.
a politician's stand on capital punishment is a good barometer of potential hawkishness.
damn. damn. damn.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Does everyone think the prez dreams up these attacks and then has them implimented. They all get there advise and info from the pentagon. These were never Bush/Cheneys plans, but the pentagons and now Obama is here to keep the ball rolling.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Civilian204
 


This is what concerns me, rather than the dialogue he promised and many hoped for me included, nearly falling the "Change" he just created another whole region of nurtured hatred for the US if the terrorists were there or not, anger and pain will lead to more radicalisation, and when the next Taliban or crazy Jihadist comes to that area he will be listened to, and be able to get his claws in the young.

The cycle just gets bigger and bigger. Longer and Longer and deeper and deeper.

This is not a solution, but as when kids are bullied or abused, they grow up to do it to their children or become aggressive, so the young people in this area or relations of the dead will again in 20 yrs be a new threat.

Suppose it keep the shares high for long term growth on the military industrial complex eh?

Elf



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Well after being accused of making up the story, or laying responsibility where it dot lay, by the many who refuse to believe or contemplate any Obama such actions the following has been shown now to be the case:


Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

The gaurdian UK

So he was consulted and it was his decision.

Much has been shown in this thread, and the responses by some IMHO on the "Sacred Obama" myth.

For me the issue is not so much that he authorised it, but the complete condemnation of any such thoughts by many posters.

Where as mentioned on ATS they would have been adamant and strong in any condemnation of the Bush team for doing the same, myself included.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I live in Pakistan and here these incidents are widely reported, known and demonstrated against. These covert operations have been going on for a long time. The real question is what is their agenda i.e. what the hell are they doing in these areas and what have they got against Pakistan. If you are a US citizen and you don't know what your military is up to or weren't told that has a lot to say about how your government conducts its 'business' around the world and when it gets any token response, calls it terrorism.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join