Obama: Attack Pakistan

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Obama talks tough on al-Qaida in Pakistan

Democratic hopeful Barak Obama said this week that if elected president he wouldn't hesitate to attack al-Qaida in Pakistan to disrupt its safe havens...

The Illinois senator criticized US President George W. Bush for making America "less safe than we were before 9/11"...

Obama... stress(ed) that he didn't oppose the use of force when necessary or dispute Bush's characterization of the terror threat as a war, or disagree that providing freedom and hope was an essential antidote to the threat.

"Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremist... Muslims, but the threat is real," he said in prepared remarks. "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America."

He also declared, to murmurs from his rival candidates, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Source: Jerusalem Post

Golly, he's sounding just like Bush/Cheney!

And if I've got this part straight: attacking Iraq made America less safe, but attacking Pakistan will make America more safe. Is that correct?

[TheAnvil 0]

Read the man's article in Foreign Affairs magazine, and you'll get a glimpse about how little the man knows of foreign policy. He wrote a nice populist piece - but not one to be taken seriously.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[shropshire 0]

Enough innocents have been killed already... It's time for a good dose of common sense to be served all round.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Golly, he's sounding just like Bush/Cheney!

And if I've got this part straight: attacking Iraq made America less safe, but attacking Pakistan will make America more safe. Is that correct?

Note that he's talking about attacking AQ targets within Pakistan, not about overthrowing the Pakistani government. A subtle distinction, but an important one nonetheless.

Not that I agree with him.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Golly, he's sounding just like Bush/Cheney!

And if I've got this part straight: attacking Iraq made America less safe, but attacking Pakistan will make America more safe. Is that correct?

1) If you look at a different source you'll get a more balanced representation of his chest thumping. My guess is that he wouldn't need to attack Pakistan. Withdrawing the $20 million or so we give them every month might get the desired results.

2)No, this doesn't sound like Bush/Cheney. They would prefer to attack Venezuela than to pursue the al Qaeda leadership where it actually is.

3)Yes, attacking Iraq was the worst possible blunder if you're really talking about the "war" on terror. Continuing the attack on al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Pakistan would have made much more sense. You're going where the enemy is, not attacking the middle east country with the least ties to terrorism. Hell, al Qaeda has done more training in the US than it did in Iraq before the invasion.

4)No, I'm not calling for an invasion of Pakistan but it is nice to hear some of our leaders publicly acknowledge that we're in the wrong theater. Hmmm....maybe some sort of Ron Paul/Obama ticket might be the ticket

[kallend 2,183]

Quote

August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need

It was Washington's conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States "finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda." He warned that a "dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq would result in an "occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is "persistent and evolving." Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

....

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[algboy 0]

Dem, Repub--what's the difference? They're all part of the same party: The War Party.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

Golly, he's sounding just like Bush/Cheney!

And if I've got this part straight: attacking Iraq made America less safe, but attacking Pakistan will make America more safe. Is that correct?

Note that he's talking about attacking AQ targets within Pakistan, not about overthrowing the Pakistani government. A subtle distinction, but an important one nonetheless.

Not that I agree with him.

Seconded.

[virgin-burner 1]

why dont the US just nuke the whole world!? i mean, that way, no-one's left to harm the good guys..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

News:

Obama talks tough on al-Qaida in Pakistan

Democratic hopeful Barak Obama said this week that if elected president he wouldn't hesitate to attack al-Qaida in Pakistan to disrupt its safe havens...

The Illinois senator criticized US President George W. Bush for making America "less safe than we were before 9/11"...

Obama... stress(ed) that he didn't oppose the use of force when necessary or dispute Bush's characterization of the terror threat as a war, or disagree that providing freedom and hope was an essential antidote to the threat.

"Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremist... Muslims, but the threat is real," he said in prepared remarks. "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America."

He also declared, to murmurs from his rival candidates, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Source: Jerusalem Post

Golly, he's sounding just like Bush/Cheney!

And if I've got this part straight: attacking Iraq made America less safe, but attacking Pakistan will make America more safe. Is that correct?

No John, you're right its a load of bollocks.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca