Markt85 said:
Challenger1978 said:
WW3 is not going to break out for anyone that's concerned.
For WW3 to break out it would need the US to be involved. Which isn't going to happen as Obama is a weak president and has no appetite for war. He's fine using drones to kill people at weddings that's can't fight back. As soon as there's an opponent that can fight back though he shits himself and backs down. He might gob of a bit to save face, that's all he'll do though as he's a pussy.
what a load of crap
Time for a bit of a Raffa rant so here are some facts for you.
He's backed down on numerous occasions over North Korea.
You want America to wage war with China allies North Korea ? At last The U.S. is striking the right balance in responding with rhetorical restraint while showing resolve , The U.S. is looking for China, North Korea’s largest trade partner, to use its leverage to persuade Kim to back down. North Korea are little threat and certainly not worth going in and bombing surely ??
He's backed down over South Ossetia in Georgia.
this was 2008 under Bush regime ? what do you want Obama to call for now ? As what is being shown now in Crimea, its a massive call to declare all out war.
Instead of carrying on in Afghanistan and making sure the Taliban and their Allies Al-Qaeda never again regain control he's pulled out.
He hasn't pulled out, hes slowly withdrawing the troops which is the call of the nation and are nation, there are still over 60,000 troops out there and will remain for still a long time, we've been at war with Afghanistan for 12 years now and achieved nothing - how long do you carry on ? how many dead and wounded must be carried home in body bags until enough is enough ?
unlike the British and the Russians, which did occupy Afghanistan in the past, the US is not an occupying. The Taliban can no longer use this as an excuse to commit there atrocities.
Lets also not forget under the Obama administration we got Bin Laden.
He likes to use drones to illegally enter other countries air space and kill civilians at weddings in the hope of maybe killing one or two possible terrorist.
since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, now i can understand your arguments against this policy especially if innocents are being killed as a result but in war zones or unstable countries, such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, arresting militants is highly dangerous and unrealistic. We do not know if the drone strikes have made the world a safer place, we do know thousands of terrorists have been killed at the price of hundreds of innocent civilians, morally right or wrong ? its impossible to be a judge on this issue. I do understand the arguments against drone strikes though and i wish we lived in a world which there was no such a thing, its a subject very hard to defend