Obama threatens Pakistan - is he right?

And why no outcry?

from JoeUser Forums

Democratic Presidential Candidate, and current United States Senator from Illinois, Barrack Obama has said: "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won...  The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."*

*quote available in several sources, see The Washington Post, MSNBC, etc.

The implication is that if Obama became president he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan -- with or without permission/cooperation from Pakistan -- in an effort to shutdown the terror camps, training bases, and hiding places that the human rodents that follow Bin Laden have been working in and from.

I have a few questions here -- first, why no major outcry from those that would normally pipe up {oh Clueless One, I'm looking for you here} decrying unilateralism by the U.S.A., and over-reaching by the U.S. President when it comes to defense policies and foreign policy??  If President Bush were to announce today that we will do just what Obama has promised, there'd be, no doubt, a rush to call the President a war monger that doesn't respect international borders or other sovereign nations.  Instead of being seen as leadership, it would be seen as yet another sign that our leader is a mad man, out to destroy the world country by country.

But... because it is Obama making these threats, and because he's a Democrat, and, uh, yeah, because he's a person of Color, not much has really been said against Obama's threat (or is it a promise??)

Is Obama getting a free pass here?  Or, is not much being said against his comments because perhaps his comments are right and just so happen to be coming from someone not named Bush, and not a member of the current administration?

In reality, I'm not sure that Obama isn't right here.  Despite what some of our allies, and most definitely our antagonists in the global community may think, perhaps we should be running roughshod over Pakistan -- at least in some areas -- to accomplish our goals of eradicating these terrorists.  Pakistan clearly doesn't seem to have the stomach to complete the task, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has had to walk a tightrope and not fall too far to the side of the people in his own country that agree with the Taliban while not inciting an attack from the U.S.A. for harboring and supporting the Taliban and their supporters.

Perhaps we should be taking more control of the fight back from Pakistan, but will it happen while Bush is in the White House and every move he makes is seen as yet more signs of warmongering?  I doubt it.

politics
4,207 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ya know, I do sort of wish the comments about Pakistan had been made by Hill-dog, and I really, really wonder what the reaction would have been  if she had made them...
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Obama just had his Macaca moment.  The Hillary camp is not going to let this one die.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
gene must have been talking to obama.


gene wants to do the exact samething.


quit iraq, talk to our enemies no matter the out come, and attack pakistan
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have advocated that we should concentrate our military on the real danger which is al-Qaeda and like organizations. To effectively destroy al-Qaeda we must get our troops off the streets of Baghdad and use them to attack the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Pakistan if the Pakistani government will not deal with al-Qaeda.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have advocated that we should concentrate our military on the real danger which is al-Qaeda and like organizations.


In doing so you create the same vacuum in Iraq that occurred in Afghanistan after Russia pulled out. Either way we still wind up in Iraq.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm, Let's see Terp.

How many countries in that area give us some military support (ie bases)? Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan (oh wait we got booted out), and Iraq. Did I miss anyone? We attack Pakistan at this time we reduced our already slim support.

Pakistan is a delicate situation right now. I think for a time we still work with the Pakistani gov't in military aid and continue our forces in Afghanistan.

Obama would be a fool right now to attack the hand who is trying to help.

JMO
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

In doing so you create the same vacuum in Iraq that occurred in Afghanistan after Russia pulled out. Either way we still wind up in Iraq.


OHHHHHH COLGENE????? did you run away???
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am still for the nuke em all let ollie {allah} sort out the bad Muslims from the couple good ones.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
My thought's on Obama's comment fall into a couple different categories.

1. It's political pandering. Mr. "I'm one of the few that voted AGAINST the war and never wanted it" Obama is making comments about using military force to meet an objective? What about all the talk? Oh, right. I honestly think it's all talk.

2. Pulling a John Kerry - Mr. "I voted against it before I called for it" Obama is changing his tune just to make himself look tough compared to Billary's hawk status.

3. About damn time. I think it's about time that SOMEBODY, no matter how realistic it is that they'd follow up on it, said what everyone with half a brain's been thinking.

And the really funny part? Given Senator Obama's dove status towards Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pakistan government actually took him seriously. They issued a statement recently condemning the statements. Can't they see that he's just in categories 1 & 2 above? Sheesh.