Obama might send troops into Pakistan

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
[ ... ]
That said, after reading more of Obama's speech on this issue, I am one step closer to voting for the guy. My favorite Obama quote is this one: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

His plan to meet with leaders face-to-face, including Cuba's Castro, was also encouraging. I believe it's time we bring Cuba, regardless of their government of choice, back into good standing. The cold war ended 17 years ago, so it's time to put aside old policies and sanctions against Castro. I know this will upset the Cuban Florida Lobby, but I don't care. Shedding the anti-Cuba policies will go a long way in showing the world that we're ready to shift directions. It will also regain some respect that we'll need to impose REAL sanctions on countries down the road who REALLY deserve it...

We may have finally found a candidate who is "less scummy" than any of the others... Here's to hoping he stays that way and follows through with his courageous ideas! :beer:

I'll be damned. We agree on something. A couple of things, even.

:beer:

 

[Lemon law]

I have to admit that I have been called out on this anyone who advocates invading Pakistan is out of their mind---OK OK---even if Obama is using some conditionals weasel words , he is still making some ill considered and dangerous statements I can't endorse. But in the grand scheme of things, its still a sticks and stone will break my bones but being in charge and then being stupid is the acid test.

 

[mfs378]

The difference between Bush saying we're going to Pakistan and Obama saying it is that Bush has no credibility left. And he has no one to blame but himself and his administration. Bush has proven to be untrustworthy and a poor commander in chief. He doesn't accept that he has made mistakes and so the door is wide open for him to repeat them. Same goes for the other republicans who still tow the Bush line.

I'd be much more receptive to someone who says - we've messed up in Iraq, but we've got to do X. No matter what X is. Obama just happens to fit that bill, but so could any number of people.

If you've got a general who's made bad decisions in the field, how willing would you be to do what he asks of you? Same thing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?

No one voted to go into Iraq.

There would be no war in Iraq if not for Democratic support of that war.

You can deny it all you want, the record stands for recorded history.

Wow how sad for and all your other Bush supporting buddies.

History clearly shows you and your heroes fed the Dems and the American people the biggest lie in history.

Where is that WMD?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
[ ... ]
That said, after reading more of Obama's speech on this issue, I am one step closer to voting for the guy. My favorite Obama quote is this one: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

His plan to meet with leaders face-to-face, including Cuba's Castro, was also encouraging. I believe it's time we bring Cuba, regardless of their government of choice, back into good standing. The cold war ended 17 years ago, so it's time to put aside old policies and sanctions against Castro. I know this will upset the Cuban Florida Lobby, but I don't care. Shedding the anti-Cuba policies will go a long way in showing the world that we're ready to shift directions. It will also regain some respect that we'll need to impose REAL sanctions on countries down the road who REALLY deserve it...

We may have finally found a candidate who is "less scummy" than any of the others... Here's to hoping he stays that way and follows through with his courageous ideas! :beer:

I'll be damned. We agree on something. A couple of things, even.

:beer:

More :beer:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I have to admit that I have been called out on this anyone who advocates invading Pakistan is out of their mind---OK OK---even if Obama is using some conditionals weasel words , he is still making some ill considered and dangerous statements I can't endorse. But in the grand scheme of things, its still a sticks and stone will break my bones but being in charge and then being stupid is the acid test.

We are talking about cynical sick and sociopath men who will send naive children to die in bombing attacks for the purpose of killing as many innocent people as they can. If you can stop them why would you let a border get in your way? If you ask permission and are refused, too damn bad. You go in anyway. There are times when I frankly don't care that I'm out of my mind.

On the other side of the coin you better make sure you lead your own life in a way that doesn't create terrorist. You need to be on the side of right if you take up arms.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

Are you kidding me?!

If Bush proposed this, you'd be all over him within 2seconds of him mentioning it. You Dave are a partisan hack, you have no morals or principles, just blind and wholehearted support for your Democrat leaders. How sad...

So true....so true.

 

[skwicz212]

I think US would need Pakistan approval before doing anything of this sort. Pakistan isnt Iraq or even Iran.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: skwicz212
I think US would need Pakistan approval before doing anything of this sort. Pakistan isnt Iraq or even Iran.

Given a real imminent threat involving the loss of lives if action is not taken, you don't need approval to act. You would likely ask for approval, you would expect to get it, but wouldn't need it.

 

[1prophet]

Trying to defeat an enemy such as this by relying on weapons forged by the hand of man is no different than putting out a fire using gasoline.

 

[ayabe]

Well we missed a great opportunity in 2005 to attack a meeting of senior AQ leadership.

If we get good intelligence, ask Pervez to act and he doesn't then we have to do what has to be done.

This doesn't mean a full invasion it means airstrikes with SpecOPS on the ground to mop up if necessary.

QED

All the doom and gloom about Islamacists taking over Pakistan won't happen and the fact that they have nukes doesn't matter. They won't use them or they will be done.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: HarveyAs of 8/1/07 11:10 am EDT, your Traitor In Chief has murdered 3,657 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq. Whether or not you agree with Obama's position, at least, he's basing his views on facts, and he wouldn't bullshit Congress and the American people about why he undertook any such action.

We'd also have a lot more American troops still alive than we do, today.

Unlike Bush, Obama has a functioning brain. I doubt he'd pursue any military action without the kind of realistic input, analysis and planning from our military leaders that Bush only talks about and then ignores.;

Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

Well, this kind of pisses on your parade

 

[simondedalus]

i was locked for quoting another site(few days ago for giving link of bbcnews)............but this is getting hit here.......it is a dual policy......plz redress it ...

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

It also has a potential for a full scale war. Musharraf will not last long if he doesn't start listening to the people. I, a moderate am for a full-scale resistance to any American operation on my soil just as the foreign minister pointed out. This will not be a walk in the park. Thousands of Americans would die without Chinese or Russian intervention or influence. The American nuisance in our country and their meddling in our politics has cost us enough lives and money. It needs to stop.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: skwicz212
I think US would need Pakistan approval before doing anything of this sort. Pakistan isnt Iraq or even Iran.

Given a real imminent threat involving the loss of lives if action is not taken, you don't need approval to act. You would likely ask for approval, you would expect to get it, but wouldn't need it.

Give me one reason I should believe the Americans? They are already responsible for a million deaths in Iraq. I would rather fight the Americans than see my country become an Iraq or Afghanistan.

You have no right to invade sovereign countries, let alone invasions based on lies. Threats of war must stop. You have as much chance of getting permission to send troops inside our country as a peacock has of giving birth to a chicken.

Until America doesn't stop it's imperialistic ways of thinking more 9/11s wont stop. An American invasion (any action will lead to it) of Pakistan is likely to get a strong response from China, Russia and even Europe.

I want to see proof of a threat from within my Country before I would even consider doing more than we already are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

It also has a potential for a full scale war. Musharraf will not last long if he doesn't start listening to the people. I, a moderate am for a full-scale resistance to any American operation on my soil just as the foreign minister pointed out. This will not be a walk in the park. Thousands of Americans would die without Chinese or Russian intervention or influence. The American nuisance in our country and their meddling in our politics has cost us enough lives and money. It needs to stop.

So if the Americans in Afghanistan start training suicide bombers to cross the border in Pakistan and start blowing up Pakistani citizens you wouldn't meddle in Afghan politics or intervene?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

It also has a potential for a full scale war. Musharraf will not last long if he doesn't start listening to the people. I, a moderate am for a full-scale resistance to any American operation on my soil just as the foreign minister pointed out. This will not be a walk in the park. Thousands of Americans would die without Chinese or Russian intervention or influence. The American nuisance in our country and their meddling in our politics has cost us enough lives and money. It needs to stop.

So if the Americans in Afghanistan start training suicide bombers to cross the border in Pakistan and start blowing up Pakistani citizens you wouldn't meddle in Afghan politics or intervene?

I was not aware of a terrorist attack in America after 9/11. Please enlighten me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: skwicz212
I think US would need Pakistan approval before doing anything of this sort. Pakistan isnt Iraq or even Iran.

Given a real imminent threat involving the loss of lives if action is not taken, you don't need approval to act. You would likely ask for approval, you would expect to get it, but wouldn't need it.

Give me one reason I should believe the Americans? They are already responsible for a million deaths in Iraq. I would rather fight the Americans than see my country become an Iraq or Afghanistan.

You have no right to invade sovereign countries, let alone invasions based on lies. Threats of war must stop. You have as much chance of getting permission to send troops inside our country as a peacock has of giving birth to a chicken.

Until America doesn't stop it's imperialistic ways of thinking more 9/11s wont stop. An American invasion (any action will lead to it) of Pakistan is likely to get a strong response from China, Russia and even Europe.

I want to see proof of a threat from within my Country before I would even consider doing more than we already are.

I am not saying such a threat exists. I am saying that if it were to be established that a real imminent threat inside Pakistan were, somehow and some future date, to be ascertained with evidence and proof, not some phony desire of the part of somebody like Bush, but objective and genuine, we would be obligated to intervene with or without approval. As to proving to you that such a threat were real, given some actual real threat, how can one know whether you would agree or not. If you are blinded by nationalism and denial for some ridiculous patriotic reasons it wouldn't matter what you think, and if you are objective and the threat truly real you might agree to the intervention. The important point to me, and this would apply to any country anywhere, is that if there is within any nation a real and imminent threat to another nation the threatened nation has a right to take action. If some secret group in the US were plotting the murder of thousands on Pakistani citizens, if the Pakistani government found out about it, had proof, presented that proof and were rejected by the US and the US did nothing to stop that threat, Pakistan would have the right to take out that threat themselves if they could, in my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, this is getting interesting.

Linky

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

What's interesting about it?

It's not a false war for oil.

It's going into Pakistan to get real Terrists like Osama hiding in the Pakistan mountains.

What is interesting is resident Republicans against it.

It also has a potential for a full scale war. Musharraf will not last long if he doesn't start listening to the people. I, a moderate am for a full-scale resistance to any American operation on my soil just as the foreign minister pointed out. This will not be a walk in the park. Thousands of Americans would die without Chinese or Russian intervention or influence. The American nuisance in our country and their meddling in our politics has cost us enough lives and money. It needs to stop.

So if the Americans in Afghanistan start training suicide bombers to cross the border in Pakistan and start blowing up Pakistani citizens you wouldn't meddle in Afghan politics or intervene?

I was not aware of a terrorist attack in America after 9/11. Please enlighten me.

Huh?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: HarveyAs of 8/1/07 11:10 am EDT, your Traitor In Chief has murdered 3,657 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq. Whether or not you agree with Obama's position, at least, he's basing his views on facts, and he wouldn't bullshit Congress and the American people about why he undertook any such action.

We'd also have a lot more American troops still alive than we do, today.

Unlike Bush, Obama has a functioning brain. I doubt he'd pursue any military action without the kind of realistic input, analysis and planning from our military leaders that Bush only talks about and then ignores.;

Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

Well, this kind of pisses on your parade

This joint resolution authorized the use of force AS AN OPTION, it was not a vote to invade Iraq no many how hard you try to spin it. Hope that piss isn't too warm for ya. I am not at all surprised by your willful inability to admit the truth. :thumbsdown: You would think the title of the resolution would give you a clue..

Congress authorized the President ?to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary?.

Voting to invade Iraq and voting to give the President the authorization to use force as he sees fit are two totally different things. Congress (imo irresponsibly) delgated its constitutional responsibility to go to war to Bush.

This was all based on phony info that the administration promoted, including the discredited notion that Iraq was behind September 11, and that Iraq had nuclear bombs poised and ready to kill us all. The decision to use force lies soley with Bush, NOT our congress.

 

[OutHouse]

obama will not win the election now. its just another case of a politician thinking that the voting americans are just stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Citrix
obama will not win the election now. its just another case of a politician thinking that the voting americans are just stupid.

I can sure see why you would think voting Americans are stupid. You vote, right?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: HarveyAs of 8/1/07 11:10 am EDT, your Traitor In Chief has murdered 3,657 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq. Whether or not you agree with Obama's position, at least, he's basing his views on facts, and he wouldn't bullshit Congress and the American people about why he undertook any such action.

We'd also have a lot more American troops still alive than we do, today.

Unlike Bush, Obama has a functioning brain. I doubt he'd pursue any military action without the kind of realistic input, analysis and planning from our military leaders that Bush only talks about and then ignores.;

Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.

Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.

Well, this kind of pisses on your parade

This joint resolution authorized the use of force AS AN OPTION, it was not a vote to invade Iraq no many how hard you try to spin it. Hope that piss isn't too warm for ya. I am not at all surprised by your willful inability to admit the truth. :thumbsdown: You would think the title of the resolution would give you a clue..

Congress authorized the President ?to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary?.

Voting to invade Iraq and voting to give the President the authorization to use force as he sees fit are two totally different things. Congress (imo irresponsibly) delgated its constitutional responsibility to go to war to Bush.

This was all based on phony info that the administration promoted, including the discredited notion that Iraq was behind September 11, and that Iraq had nuclear bombs poised and ready to kill us all. The decision to use force lies soley with Bush, NOT our congress.

Given that Obama wasn't yet a senator and would have voted against the resolution given his extremely outspoken views against war with Iraq (back in 2002), does it matter either way?

Text - Transcript of Obama speech given October 2002 at an anti-Iraq War rally

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

No link? More "out of context" partisian BS?

another useful comment, from an esteemed member of the P&N village

I guess your too dense to realize that when I posted you had no link.

I don't know, ain't very much more dense than someone making a stupid partisan comment when its obvious the link was missing

it gets even better when they are called on it.


married to or related to dave?

With HS's hsitory and no link given you think the title "Obama might send troops into Pakistan" with no commentary form him wasn't enough to QUESTION that this was "More out of context partisian BS?"?

Naw, like Bush, his reputation precedes him. He made his bed and now he has to lie in it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Given that Obama wasn't yet a senator and would have voted against the resolution given his extremely outspoken views against war with Iraq (back in 2002), does it matter either way?

Not really and good point.