You can destroy it, or steer clear. Destroying is a huge commitment, but the long term benefit is obvious. Steering clear has short term benefits, but results in an expansion of the nest, even creating new nests, and the number of stings just keeps growing.

As Bush turned over the presidency to Obama, our strategy in the mideast changed from destroying to steering clear. Combat troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and many Americans agreed with this change. Now we are starting to see the result - the Benghazi attack, a revolution in Syria (with potential use of chemical weapons which the democrats say don't exist), a near-revolution in Egypt, and Iran moving toward nuclear weapons.

The administration's response? Benghazi swept under the rug. As for Syria, at an Aug. 20 news conference, Obama said “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around..." He warned of consequences. But now after reports that chemicals have been moved around, and mixed for use as weapons, Obama’s “red line” appears to have shifted. Now there will be consequences only after the fact, if such chemicals are "used" and thousands lie dead.

These troublemakers in the Mideast understand that America is no longer a serious threat to their activities, that America is now "steering clear". Some of you may think that's ok, but we WILL have to deal with the consequences.

I tottaly agree. To me a problem exists WHEN THE PRES. the C.I.C. of our troops, who with no military background, announces to an enemy what our withdrawel date is. I feel for the last of the troops who will be there. Obama might just as well of said "hit me now" (the troops).

BULLSHIT> when you are off the land for several thouand years,it aint your homeland anymore.it's more of that bible bullshit again. they didn't go in and take it back.the UN inserted them in and moved the palistinians out by force. the U.S. has been standing behind them with a big stick for 65 yrs. hell, we give them weapons we wouldn't give our allies.while you are at it, where has the country of palistine been since 1948? refugee camps do not count as a country.

There was no "country of palistine," there was a Palestinian Mandate run by the Brits. Before that, the area was occupied by the Turks. Try reading some history.

so let's see, we have the turks,then the brits but in and set up a mandate,then here come more jews. so where do the palistinians fit in?

so let's see, we have the turks,then the brits but in and set up a mandate,then here come more jews. so where do the palistinians fit in?

Here we go again, another thread that ultimately only shows how uneducated Americans are in world history and geography (as well as economy).

You should stick to photography and leave the world alone since your answer to everything is: let's kill the bastards! Then again, if you are only good at sticking to weird opinion, photography takes the back burner.

This begs a question: Why the fuck are you discussing world events in a photography board when there are dedicated political board? Is it because your thought process is so weak that it cannot be supported by anything concrete???

Here we go again, another thread that ultimately only shows how uneducated Americans are in world history and geography (as well as economy).

You should stick to photography and leave the world alone since your answer to everything is: let's kill the bastards! Then again, if you are only good at sticking to weird opinion, photography takes the back burner.

This begs a question: Why the fuck are you discussing world events in a photography board when there are dedicated political board? Is it because your thought process is so weak that it cannot be supported by anything concrete???