edit out the flares, if they hinder the point one's trying to make.
Well he did at least take out the terrorist, did he?
You said it.
Unless you're laughing at your own , you got me.
It's per se, and again, it's alot easier to take out terrorists with flyover permission, ground assistance in targeting and land bases of operation a few miles away.
You're right, the mission is easier.
But the responsibility and repurcussions of the political fallout are not, and that's where Bush and CLinton, to me, differ.
Nothing funny about that.
What's the difference?But the responsibility and repurcussions of the political fallout are not, and that's where Bush and CLinton, to me, differ.
Are you serious?
Very,
One eliminates terrorist, the other one had the chance to and didn't.
I know you'll bring up tora bora, but bush didn't have him in custody or had a precision attack to Osama available.
But you just agreed with the argument that cruise missles aren't precise.
Which is it?
So your contention is that cruise missle strikes are as precise and reliable as ground-directed Predator drone and AC130 attacks?
That has nothing to do with my point.
I'm ignorant on the technical aspects of military warfare, i'm talking about the political aspect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)