Why a duck?
He doesn’t seem very bright, so probably a lot lesson that.
Spam me if you wish … I’m ashamed enough for the both of us.
Because it quacks!
Because it quacks!
(is there an echo in here?)
Don’t be silly. Ducks don’t echo.
It’s not about ducks … it’s about shame … and being ashamed of how you treated that other idiot … he deserved better from us … [stamps foot] … don’t make me cry again.
You seem to misunderstand me, we agree Americans don’t care enough about who w’re bombing. American soldiers deployed anywhere in harms way makes a difference though, which is why drones are financially cheap, but politically discount bin. Their use is then a given. What, a certain person might be bad and no US politician risks anything at all by killing him, hell, lets do it because it would only be a mistake to not kill a potential terrorist.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The fear of drones doing something bad is more or less a constant buzz in our national security discussions.
[/QUOTE]
More than American pilots put in harms way in order to kill critical targets? I don’t think so. Not even remotely, which is how we’re now projecting our power and our values.
Again, not saying that we should ground this effective tool. I’m saying you cannot get something for nothing, which seems to be the deal the American public is buying.
Not sure we ought to be putting soldiers *or equipment * in harm’s way in the first place. The net result of every American military adventure in the past 70-odd years has been non-positive; perhaps we should institute mandatory 100% conscription to force ourselves to put a little more thought into this adventurism stuff. As solutions go, drones are pretty a chickenshit kludge for keeping on with the same old stupid.
Oh yeah? When was the last time you saw a Grenadan tank rolling down your street, comrade?
Going back 80-odd years tells a different story … now doesn’t it …
I think the 1991 Gulf War went pretty well.
I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. Particularly this issue. Please enlighten us on Mickey Mouse.
The invasion of Panama was also a net positive, although it was the result of the US supporting Noriega initially.
That was not a “war”, it was a brief battle in an ongoing war that stretches back to at least 1953.
Yes, it was a war by any reasonable definition. Otherwise you could say the “war” goes back to 1914 or maybe the First Crusade if you want to.
Best not mention the highlighted word in any thread involving Barack HUSSEIN Obama. It’s a power word that makes him go all fuzzy around the edges, and who knows what that may lead to.
48 hours without our Special Ed OP returning to the boards. I guess his mommy caught him molesting the sheep again.
The tell-tale stench of lanolin. So I’ve heard.
Oh, that Obama!