No, I think I want to hear your definition…

My definition what I learned at OCS and explained in 18 USC CHAPTER 113B

The term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of a declared war, armed conflict whether or not war has been declared between two or more nations or armed conflict between military forces of any origin

If we armed a drone and flew it in another countries air space without their permission and attacked a target it would be an act of war. Got it now?

Well, George Bush, for one. But if anyone would screw it up, it would be him. Let’s hope there’s no “actionable intelligence” until 2009.

Well the Media loves to distort things don’t they? I decided to use a US media source because the Guardian really warps things normally.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/bush.karzai/index.html

Asked whether he would act unilaterally if he had intelligence about al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, or whether he would wait for permission from Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, even if that were to mean missing an opportunity to attack, Bush did not respond directly.

“We’re in constant communications with the Pakistan government,” he said, adding, “I’m confident that, with real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done.”

While the Media tried to make it sound like he would do it with their permission just like Sen. Obama, that is NOT what he said. This is just like the “Mission Accomplished” statement that never happened, but the media promoted as him saying.

Seriously, anyone who mocked Obama for his comments on Pakistan looks pretty silly now that Bush just said the exact same thing today. Unless of course they mock Bush for it now, too. But I won’t hold my breath.

I do not know of any Republican stating they are willing to commit an Act of War on a Nuclear Power who also is our Ally now.

Well, George Bush, for one. But if anyone would screw it up, it would be him. Let’s hope there’s no “actionable intelligence” until 2009.

I suggest you learn what is considered “An Act of War” in todays world.

No, I think I want to hear your definition…

This should be good.

And Nuclear weapons off the table???

When were they ON the table? Did I miss a day? When was it suggested we start lobbing nukes around to kill indivual terrorists and small groups????

I believe you read and understood my most recent post. Thank you.

The link you provided had nothing on predator drones and it was short on quotes from Sen Obama and had no links to the speach he gave. But OK, Sen Obama reaffirms his position to go after the terrorists, and their supporters, who attacked us on 9/11.

OK, changing gears and taking a tangent -

I do not know of any Republican stating they are willing to commit an Act of War on a Nuclear Power who also is our Ally now.

Actually, Pres Bush said as much and I stated it in one of my earlier posts.

It is our policy, established by Pres Bush, to go after the terrorists where ever they are. It is called pre-emption and that is what was done in Iraq. Yes, there were bells and whistles that had to be rung along with hoops to be jumped through, but it was done and we attacked (invaded, liberated, whatever) Iraq.

Although, I have stated it before, Pres Bush mentioned no caveats or qualifications about going after terrorists.

He simply said, either you are with us, or against us (with the terrorists). He did not say anything about allies and nuclear weapons being an acceptable position for us not go after the terrorists and their supporters.

presto -

I am not sure what you want to me to link to.

How about something like:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=6891139

Obama told a goup in Elko, Nevada that he didn’t think he’d made a mistake in suggesting that he would use military force in Pakistan if necessary to root out terrorists.

Pakistan has been considered a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. Obama also sought to clarify his assertion, prompted by a reporter’s question, that nuclear weapons would be — quote –”off the table” in such an attack.

The only thing Sen. Obama won’t attack (which is committing an Act of War) Pakistan with is nuclear weapons. I suggest you learn what is considered “An Act of War” in todays world.

I am curious about one of your biggest problems, is it still a problem when Republicans say it?

I do not know of any Republican stating they are willing to commit an Act of War on a Nuclear Power who also is our Ally now.

presto -

I am not sure what you want to me to link to.

How about something like:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=6891139

Obama told a goup in Elko, Nevada that he didn’t think he’d made a mistake in suggesting that he would use military force in Pakistan if necessary to root out terrorists.

Pakistan has been considered a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. Obama also sought to clarify his assertion, prompted by a reporter’s question, that nuclear weapons would be — quote –”off the table” in such an attack.

The only thing Sen. Obama won’t attack (which is committing an Act of War) Pakistan with is nuclear weapons. I suggest you learn what is considered “An Act of War” in todays world.

I am curious about one of your biggest problems, is it still a problem when Republicans say it?

I do not know of any Republican stating they are willing to commit an Act of War on a Nuclear Power who also is our Ally now.

“Yakkety Yak, Don’t Talk Barack!”

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/yakkety-yak-dont-talk-barack/

eric

I am not sure what you want to me to link to.

Sen Obama said, ‘They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005.’ How do you think we were going to act? How do you think that chance would have been pulled off?

We had acted before using drones over Pakistan. Anyway, here’s a link that discusses predator drones. My bad, I thought it was common knowledge that we had alternative platforms (drones and CIA) in Pakistan to deal with terrorists.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/07/pakistan_protests_but_knows_th.html

I did not make my point very clear about quoting etc.

Sen Obama said -

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Sen Obama did not say -

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t militarily invade, we will.

Sen Obama did not say -

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t drop fluffy stuffed animals, we will.

That is what I meant about quoting someone and not assigning motive, meaning, and intent. Changing his words to exaggerate and paint an entirely different picture from what was exactly said is not helpful, nor is it intellectually honest.

I am curious about one of your biggest problems, is it still a problem when Republicans say it?

Don’t forget the two-letter acronym for Barack Obama is BO. Entirely appropriate.