And we were all thinking that Democrats want d-escalation of the War and sending our troops in harm’s way?
Pakistan is a Nuclear Capable State with an army of over 700,000, armed to teeth by us already; this guy is Naïve, yes Hillary is right I had to admit now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/
2007-08-01 05:11:58 · 11 answers · asked by Thomas B 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Dear Suzy:
I read your answer and am amazed how short memory do you have.
Clinton authorized the war on Serbia. Did you forget Milosevic?
Clinton authorized Operation Dessert Fox.
Clinton authorized: Somalia incursion and we had to run back from there in shame, with US Marines dragged in dirt.
Why would you not see that?
Please wake-up from worshiping Clintons and open your eyes.
Obama is naive correct.
Peace.
2007-08-01 05:53:07 · update #1
where do i sign up hi ho hi ho its of to pakisatn i go hi ho hi hooooo
2007-08-01 05:14:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This story put me over the edge, too. This election should not be about voting for a woman or an African American.
I'm voting for the ONE person who has actual experience living through the experience of potential war and keeping us OUT of it!
There were tense moments during the Clinton administration when we almost declared war, but through DIPLOMACY, the Clintons kept us out of war.
The LAST thing we need is an inexperienced leader using military force as the first option!
Foreign Relations is about one thing and one thing only.
DIPLOMACY DIPLOMACY DIPLOMACY.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/splash
ADDED: Not only do I remember the incidences you name, I remember that we did not actually declare war. Thank you for making my point crystal clear.
Authorizing is not the same as declaring. It is a DIPLOMATIC tactic and an effective one!
Obama is my Senator. I helped to put him there! However, he has chosen *not* to represent his constituents of late because he would rather remain non-committal on important issues for fear of having his opinions known. Therefore, a vote for Obama is a vote for the unknown. I'll go with the tried and true, thank you very much. The Clintons kept us out of war, they eliminated the National deficit, and I happen to like the idea of universal health care.
2007-08-01 05:22:34 · answer #2 · answered by susanmaried 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this is approximately objective. And terrorists have been in touch in Pakistan and Afghanistan way in the previous Iraq. Afghanistan additionally has an oil pipeline... and that's considerable for human beings and the west to maintain carry of it. Lest we forget Russia and Georgia.
2016-10-08 23:47:08 · answer #3 · answered by adkisson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only way Obama is sending troops to the white house is in his dreams.
He's to young, no experience in politics and he's arrogant.
2007-08-01 07:05:15 · answer #4 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the military is already overextended as it is. We need to finish up in Iraq and Afghanistan before considering any new military targets.
2007-08-01 05:16:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He is just inexperienced that's why he should not get the democratic nomination. I would love to see a black president, but he is soooo not ready, YET!
2007-08-01 05:15:44 · answer #6 · answered by kissmeagainnow 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I was thinking who to vote for hiliary or barack but I will be voting for H.Clinton now!!!! We dont need to be invading any more countries.
2007-08-01 05:49:00 · answer #7 · answered by Its me again 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I disagree. I think his point is that militarily he'll do what he has to. Democrats want an end to pointless war for oil. There was never any reason to go to Iraq!
2007-08-01 05:14:40 · answer #8 · answered by europa312 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Pre election promises, they never keep them.
2007-08-01 06:03:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Enough!!!!
no more WARS!!!
2007-08-01 06:01:45 · answer #10 · answered by Sus-Girl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋