Obama Invades Pakistan!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]489300[/snapback]</div>

I give up, you win.

It's the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine).

 

It's sad, really, to see such well-thought-out replies to the flame-baiter's questions and statements.

If it isn't obvious already, Mr. Berman isn't going to give well-composed responses to any reasoned argument, he'll just respond with FEAR and CAPITAL LETTERS.

He has simply, repeatedly and completely refused to take Obama's statements in context, so what more discussion can be had?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Aug 2 2007, 11:57 AM) [snapback]489340[/snapback]</div>

And people wonder why I seriously would bet good money that he's some 14-year-old living in his parents' basement.

 

I'll take that bet.
While his debate skills are closed minded noecon parroting at its finest, He clearly is not of the teenage persuasion. Let's not delve right back into the name calling crap again.

What troubles me about his posts (as well as some of the left sided posts here too), is the tendancy to discount anything from the other side of the isle as wrong, simply based on who it came from, instead of what was said. We're not supposed to be cheerleaders for our political representatives. We're supposed to keep an eye on ALL of them and keep them on task. Is it that hard for people to understand that every political idea/decision has drawbacks and merits?

What happened to weighing the pros and cons? Now everything is "you're wrong!...No!..You're wrong!"

 

QUOTE(bestmapman @ Aug 2 2007, 09:07 AM)

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.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 2 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]489257[/snapback]</div>

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that sums up my position.

"I'm already against the next war."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 05:39 AM) [snapback]489172[/snapback]</div>

Ask George W. Bush. Isn't that what he did in Iraq?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ Aug 2 2007, 07:07 AM) [snapback]489209[/snapback]</div>

Those Nader votes got us George W. Bush in 2000.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 07:37 AM) [snapback]489229[/snapback]</div>

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the U.S. invaded in 2003.

 

Replying to OP: there's a difference between "invading Pakistan" and attacking terrorists in the Pakistani mountains and that is we're not attacking a nation, but the threat hiding within her borders.

I, for one, think Obama is right. If you have a terrorist attack looming and know where the terrorists are, then the solution is not to sit on your hands and wait for them to strike; You have to take them out! That said, you'd better have darned good, credible evidence before embarking on such a raid, because you don't want to *ahem* build wars based on faulty intelligence.

 

He's just like any other politician....it sounds good and tough in a race where he is trying to seperate himself from other candidates - but, in reality, is not a very well thought out foriegn policy statement.

Kind of like his comments on nuclear weapons today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]489489[/snapback]</div>

Congress did not declare war on Iraq.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq only thanks to Bush and Cheney and company. We must chase them in Pakistan because that is where the leadership is located. Remember Osama?

 

OK Obama said what!?!? “Actionable Intelligence†from Pakistan! That is such an ignorant statement he should be taken by his staff around to the backside of the shed and slapped like a red-headed step-child. Just one more reason Hillary will win the nomination for the democrats.
Think about it, Bush gets intelligence from every single country in the world that declares Saddam has WMD’s. Including the prior administration and the support of almost every person in Congress which has access to the same intelligence. Even Saddam’s Generals are shocked when they learn he has gotten rid of the WMD’s because they wanted to use them to fend off the inevitable invasion. This one item, of which there were many, was used for the justification of the invasion of Iraq, inevitably proves to be incorrect. Why? Poor human assets and intel on the ground. Now Bush is labeled as a liar and a war monger. BTW we actually had plenty of assets, including the UN weapons inspectors but the quality of the intel was just poor.
Now Obama says he will attack a friendly country if there is “Actionable Intelligenceâ€!!! This is a region we know next to nothing about, have little if any assets, human or otherwise and he wants to attack upon receiving “Actionable Intelligenceâ€! LOL! Sorry, that is about as ignorant a statement as I have heard and Hillary must be so deliriously happy she is dancing naked on the table tops. She would never make such a rookie move as embodied in this statement by Obama.


Wildkow

p.s. Watch the contributors and supporters scatter like rats from a sinking ship. . .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 2 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]489639[/snapback]</div>

I have a feeling using armed drones is what would be practical.Funny ,this was originally Clintons plan,but Bush fumbled the ball.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560293.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KD6HDX @ Aug 2 2007, 07:28 PM) [snapback]489673[/snapback]</div>

That is an awesome post. :lol: As for the actionable intelligence. We have a couple of guys just across the boarder and I can assure you we have a couple more inside Pakistan. So I would say we should pretty much set for 'actionable intelligence'. Unless of course our guys are sharing a bong with lama bin whateshisname's insider and they forgot to text their findings in a timely matter back to white(ish) house.

So as I am joining you on the curmudgeon downhill run today, I say we act on our 'intelligence' and give either Musharref a helping hand or we see to it that Jeb Bush becomes president of Pakistan, either that or we can [caution cynical comment ahead, for comedic use only,not be taken seriously, I am not an Obama advisor] always take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, you know what they say: Its only way to be sure

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ Aug 2 2007, 07:07 AM) [snapback]489209[/snapback]</div>

Sen. Obama suffers from the perception that he is not up to the bar in terms of being able to guide foreign policy. Senator Clinton devastated him with her comment after he eagerly agreed that he would sit down with the world's worst despots; she rightly pointed out that she wasn't going to be used as a propaganda tool, giving the impression that, like every US President since the country began, she would make third rate, tin horn dictators earn a top level meeting with the US.

So I think Sen. Obama had to give a tough foreign policy speech to show that he wasn't naive, and that he was tough ... especially if he expects to win the votes of middle Americans who don't like our losing in Iraq, but still want to kick nice person and take names when it comes to terrorism.

Or, like other Democrats, he's worried that there might be some progress made in Iraq, and with progress comes hope, and with hope comes more support for those Democrats who have not staked out "all or nothing" stances on the war (namely, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Biden). In the general election, if we are winning in Iraq, a peacenik candidate loses big time to any one of the dwarfs running for the Republican nomination.

He misfired a bit, but it is heartening to see him acknowledge that the issues are tough, and it takes more than bumper sticker sayings ... or the left's favorite bromide these days, extreme anger ... to show your authenticity. Perhaps now some of the real issues can be dealt with on the Democratic side.