too bad kerry doesn't seem to. so is Obama a conservative? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0409250111sep25,1,7098310.story?coll=chi-news-hed -- U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. . . . Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently. "With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.
Nope. He is a realist, just like John Kerry. He is not a myopic leader with tunnel vision, as is George W. Bush. And, by the way basso, Kerry gets it. He just isn't stupid enough to put on a flight suit, land on a carrier, and declare Mission Accomplished before the mission was actually accomplished.
It isn't. Kerry has consistently said that he would support military action when necessary (key word is necessary), which Iraq clearly was not.
Dakota, are you still patiently contemplating other folks fighting for many years to accomplish state two? How about your kids? Mine will be 18 in a few months. No thanks.
Glynch, I don't want to do it, but sitting back and letting them work it out amongst themselves didn't work either. The job in Iraq is a play for a peaceful Middle East, it is bigger than just Iraq. I think we have to be there for a while, but get those Iraqi security forces up and running. DD
unfortunately that will never happen. ever. those people are entirely too uneducated, too religious, and too easily manipulated by the two to ever have anything remotely democratic work. however, it could work in Iran. there are a lot of fairly educated, free-thinkng 18-35 year olds that an overthrow of the government is feasible. at least a lot more feasible than Iraq.
i've read that in december, once some of the iRaqi security forces are fully trained, there will be a big push into areas like fallujah, this time with iRaqis taking the point.
Molehill, eh? I suppose that next you'll tell me that pictures of Pfc. Lyndie England pointing at naked prisoner's genetalia at Abu Ghiraib is an "anatomy lesson".
That's a serious breech of discipline and maybe policy. Next? It is no reason not to be there trying to clean up the mess-- which seems to me what it was warped into being-- that was another mountain out of a molehill. This has nothing to do with my initial mountain-molehill suggestion. You just want to beat up on him some more.
Weren't they supposed to do that in Fallujah last April and in Najaf in August? I can't help being reminded of South Vietnam 1973 when I keep on hearing the rhetoric about having the Iraqi's take the point. And we all know how well the South Vietnamese protected Saigon.
Obama is suggesting pre-emptive strikes against countries threatening to get nuclear weapons. How has Kerry said he would do something like this? And isn't this just what Bush did in Iraq?
Some might say the same thing about the South and rural Midwest. Of course it then becomes an insult.
last time i checked, we're not spending billions upon billions of dollars and getting troops killed in either of those places.... so what-in-the-hell is your point?
If it became clear that the only way to keep them from getting nuclear weapons was military action, that would make such action necessary, no? No, Bush invaded a nation that was not a threat and could not have become a threat. Iraq was not necessary.
