For those who are against the idea of the U.S. using its military to enter another nation harboring terrorist leadership responsible for 9/11, could you please tell me if you supported the initial idea of going into AFghanistan?
Oh you know its the truth I don't know much about Obama, he seems to be a very charismatic speaker. Other than that, he really hasn't done anything, just because he is a fresh face seems enough for people to have the confidence he is the right person to be the next president. Going into Afghanistan is vastly different than Pakistan. For starters, there were factions in Afghanistan actually wanted us there. I am pretty sure no one in Pakistan want our troops in their country. Musharraf's hold of power is tenuous at best, weakening him could turn the Pakistan into the next Iran, except they actually have the bomb already.
Weakening the hold of a dictator shouldn't trump our mission to fight terrorists. furthermore Obama isn't talking about a full scale invasion along the lines of the Afghanistan invasion, but simply going in to do a job and then leaving. Unlike Bush's ventures it has a clearly defined mission, and exit strategy. It would be vastly different, but the reasons justifying it would be the same.
Musharraf's opinion is irrelevant. He's not going to turn on the US if we come in because our money is keeping his regime afloat anyway. The amount of foreign aid and weapons sales to Pakistan is simply unparalleled throughout the history of pakistan. He's not going to turn on the US - the moment he does that, his economy dies and foreign aid disappears and a military coup boots him from office.
they cut deals with local tribes, not with the ones you are talking about. they would be asking for trouble if they did. pakistan does not want extremist rise in their country. and if you read news, you've see for the last few weeks, they've been fighting them. but some other countries in the golf region, don't really do anything. they just cut oil deals with US. no one should ever send army into another country without invitation unless you got invaded first.
Except that a US invasion of Pakistan (and the overt presence of US special forces is going to be perceived as an invasion) would likely lead to Musharraf also losing hold of power and things ending very badly for him. Considering Musharraf cut a deal with the northern tribes to the chagrin of the US already shows that he considers a greater threat coming from extremists in his country than with losing the support the US. I gotta agree this statement seems to me a sign of some desperation on Obama's part to close the gap with Clinton. At the moment Pakistan is a no win situation. Musharraf isn't getting the job done but things could potentially be much worse if the US decides to take matters in our hands. The best solution I could see is somehow growing a spine for Musharraff to take on the extremists.
And attacking the wrong countries. Blade has it right. Why are conservatives, nay, bush followers, so against continuing the war on terror where it should have been all along? It's a geat question
hmmm, again, do you think invading pakistan is that simple, and the populace would just "greet us with open arms?" by extension, i assume you'd support invading saudi and iran, since they're both confirmed terror supporting states?
Correct, naturally even though he's announcing it now, he'd be an idiot to do it later on if he's the president. I would envision something very similar to what Bush did earlier. Just covertly send in special forces and get an under-the-table agreement from Musharraf. I don't think that would be too difficult. We all know this is political posturing. But I still think a resumption of US special forces operations in Northern Pakistan really wouldn't be so bad. I suppose extremists could use it as ammunition against Musharraf but honestly they have tons to work with anyway.
They aren't going in to occupy and control. They don't need extensive local populace support. Unlike Bush's mess in Iraq this would have a clear cut defined, and limited mission. In all likelihood the Pakistani govt. would see that they have nothing to gain by opposing such an action and would indeed cooperate. If we had actionable intel that any nation was harboring the leaders of the group that was responsible for 9/11 then we should do whatever it takes to take out that leadership.
Where have heard this before in regard to another country? I thnk that country's name started with an "I" and ended with a "q".
Sorry to disappoint you basso but no, I don't have the war hard on like you and others here, but if, as Obama stated, there was actionable, verifiable intelligence that warranted a strategic strike in one of those countries, yes, I would. But using your chopped OpEds from right wing websites as "confirmed evidence" doesn't count.
I consider the attack of 9/11 on American soil which killed thousands of innocents to be an attack. Striking at the leaders responsible for that is self defense. Unlike many who support Iraq I am serious about fighting the real war on terrorism. Obama seems to be as well, and I think that is good. We need to finish the job, and a dictator who can barely hold it together shouldn't be the reason we decide not to fight back.
This is Obama's Dukakis moment. He looks like a total fool today. Are you aware that we have to fly over Pakistan on a regular basis? Are you aware that they have a 40 million member army and nuclear bombs? Are you aware that they provide us with key intelligence on the War on Terror? Ya think we might need to finesse this one just a little bit? Obama is a total fool for saything this. If you thought Hillaroid ate his lunch last week, he just served her up a platter of filet mignon to chow down on. Total naive fool.
