Obama Invades Pakistan!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]489172[/snapback]</div>

Small correction: Pakistan is a country that is currently ruled by a friendly dictator. If you would walk there on the streets as an American, I think you would soon figure out that the country itself isn't very friendly to you...

Sooner or later, fundamentalists will take over the government there. And, as you remarked correctly, they have the bomb. Personally, I think that this is the likeliest and quickest scenario to create a fundamentalist government with nuclear weapons. Before Iran.

 

Oh, how typical of the schoolyard bully mentality which rules the Neocons.

Billy Pakistan beat you up and stole your lunch money. So you turn around and beat up little Bobby Iraq who was just standing there minding his own business.

Actually, the reason neocons don't want to invade Pakistan have nothing to do with the list in the first post; they don't want to invade because Pakistan has people who have and will hurt America, and neocons, as has been proven time and time again, HATE America. "And the enemy of our enemy is our friend" is their mentality (which is why neocons in the past gave so money to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein).

Why DO Republicans hate America so much?

Personally, I'm against invading Pakistan (since I'm all pacifist and everything), but if you HAVE to invade a country, you might as well invade one that makes sense to invade (ie, not a country whose name starts with an "I").

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 08:39 AM) [snapback]489172[/snapback]</div>

I can't believe this. Obama was my guy.

He "SAID" he was anti-war.
He "SAID" he was against going into Iraq from the beginning.
He "SAID" he would not drag us into a war without knowing the exit stategy.

Now he "SAYS" he would invade Pakistan. Wth

I really thought he was different. I really thought that he would bring change. But no, he is just another politician. I can no longer support him. He has lost my vote.

As a true liberal. I must find a true liberal candidate. I hope Nader runs again. I said in the last election "True liberals vote Nader"

It looks like the only candidate that is truely anti-war is Kucinich. As of now I am switching to Kucinich.

 

I do not agree with invading Pakistan either. But criticizing Obama for having little to no foreign policy acumen is like the pot calling the kettle black for Bushies.

 

And people he is not talking about invasion. He is finally submitting that we go after the people actually responsible for attacking us. Pakistan as our "ally" should have no problem allowing the US to enter for surgical strikes to take out terrorists. What Bush promised to do but insted opted for invasion of the wrong country.

 

I'm fully aware that no matter what I say here, the trolls will continue to proclaim that "Obama invades Pakistan!".

For those who don't pay close attention to what the candidates actually say, and stumble across this discussion accidentally, please be aware that Obama has not invaded Pakistan. Furthermore, please be aware that Obama has not declared that if elected President we would invade Pakistan. For that matter, in the quote being discussed here, Obama didn't say anything about invading Pakistan or any other country at all.

Obama said that he would act on actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets if the leader of Pakistan would not.

When it comes to international politics, there are a great many ways to "act on actionable intelligence". Unfortunately the current administration of the executive branch of government in the United States of America, as well as a few of the anti-Obama trouble makers here, don't seem to be aware of any way to act on actionable intelligence other than invasion.

 

I disagree with the blank statement that he is proposing to invade Pakistan. Afterall the currently held foreign policy is "if you don't do it, we will come in and do it for you" making very, very clear that a military option is ALWAYS on the table. See Iran.

Yup he is young, youth and passion for an ideal are commonly found together. Who can fault him for trying to focus the war on terror back on the terrorists? Will he make mistakes, yuppers. Will he rule the country entirely by himself should he be elected? Absolutely not. There will be other, more sage advisers and stake holders in his administration who will advise him on foreign policy and other matters (gasp!)

Now why is it that we look for a leader who can do everything? I don't get it. Okay looky here: the president of my company doesn't know the first thing about programming, deliveries, QA, support, etc. Yet he is running the company successfully and we are making profit (for once) A leader attracts and challenges people to join his ranks. A leader surrounds himself with those who can (hopefully) make decisions in areas where he knows little. A leader is usually well spoken, charming and can carry the company line to the rest of industry with style and conviction. A leader embodies the vision that will rally a country to its feet to create a better future. Idealistic? Sure, but anything but striving for the ideal is selling your efforts short, is it not?

None of the presidential candidates have shown nothing but the ol' "I can fix this and I can do that and I will do this.." line. I find the lack of admission that the job cannot be done by one man or woman alone, disturbing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]489225[/snapback]</div>

dbermanmd,

I didn't say I was voting for him but was simply implying that it is unfair to criticize him without criticizing our current president who arguably has the worst foreign policy record of any president.

However, if it were a race of Obama vs. Bush (hypothetically of course), I would most certainly vote for Obama. The 2 are clearly not equivalent in terms of vote for vote.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Aug 2 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]489239[/snapback]</div>

So if you don't support Hussein you are a troublemaker?

 

Give war a chance!
....Oh wait, that was a different thread about a different country that doesn't house Osama.

Bomb Iran! Oh wait...that was another different thread about a different "soveriegn country".

I think this is the first time I've seen Dr. B argue against an aggressive act towards Muslims EVER.

I now have an answer to the Iran problem. "Billary" should advocate attacking Iran! Dr. B. and the neocon's hate ANY idea that comes out of the mouths of Hillary, Obama, etc. so much that they will instantly say it's a terrible idea and take it off the table.

How dare Obama have opinions! He should be BANNED from running for office! Hillary too. I don't like her so she shouldn't be allowed to run.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 2 2007, 09:52 AM) [snapback]489244[/snapback]</div>

No but if you claim "Obama Invades Pakistan" (which he hasn't), or if you claim that Obama said he would invade Pakistan (which he didn't), then you are a troublemaker.

For that matter, I went and looked back at the original speech to see exactly what Obama actually said about Pakistan. There was one line about acting on actionable intelligence. Here is what he said about Pakistan with the line about the actionable intelligence removed:


“As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. (Single comment about actionable intellegence removed here)

“And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.â€

Does that really sound like someone who is planning on invading Pakistan? Sounds more like someone who is planning on cooperating with Pakistan and encouraging them to cooperate with us.