Okay so you support your commander and chief. I find it pretty ironic how many democrats are playing dumb right now
I'm really not sure why you think that's a valid question to ask. If I say i don't support this choice, it doesn't change anything. If I say I do support it, it doesn't change anything. Since most liberals I know aren't in favor of war, period, that should be a clear indication about what my answer would be. But it's not like one has to 100% agree with the President (or someone in the party you consider yourself affiliated with), nor does the President (etc) doing something you don't yourself believe in, mean you are now against said President. So you asking these questions, which come off as attempted "gotcha!" questions (™ Sarah Palin), doesn't really make sense. If I don't agree with making a military strike here (which since I didn't agree with Afghanistan or Iraq, shouldn't be a surprise), it doesn't make voting for him wrong, or your vote for your candidate correct.
A simple yes or no would be sufficient. I too don't support the bombings. What I don't get is why democrats are either beating around the bush about their answer or playing dumb. Then there are ones like you that give 2 paragraphs to answer why you don't support it but can support your president. I've come to expect these types of answers. It's pretty common
If I came down against the air strikes on an internet message board, the bombings would stop, according to Denny.
No, it's that you don't want to voice your opinion because it goes against the grain of your political party you support. As Denny pointed out earlier, you had no problem voicing your opinion on burger king and tax evasion. Why is this any different?
Because there, there's a pretty clear concept that I'm against, companies exploiting loopholes to avoid taxation. When it comes to war, I think it should be avoided where possible but it's not always possible. So it's a tough call and I'm not at all sure of the right course here. Considering I had the same viewpoint for Bush's war, it's probably not due to party lines.
I didn't say that, now did I? If you came down against the air strikes, you would be on record as being against them from the start.
I am more of antagonist than moderator. I totally lack the will to be fair. Just read the 1st chapter of the Art of War to brush up. Two main issues standout here on day one. . The sovereign with moral authority has the best chance to win. The Citizens will follow him. Obama is way short of 50%. I don't even know who the opposite sovereign is. . The Best General usually wins if the sovereign's cause is just. Lets see, General Schwartzkopf lead the 1st war in the Gulf, Tommy Franks I think started the 2nd . I don't know who is the commander of this operation? God help us, I think it may be Valerie Jarrett.
How? Do you read every fourth word or something? If you're really anti-war, you might go out and protest. Carry a sign or something. Speaking of which, where are the tens of thousands of anti war protesters normally to be found? Can we give Obama a second Nobel Prize?
Well, as I said, I'm not strictly anti-war. I'm more of a "war is to be avoided if possible, but it's not always possible" sort of person.
