[wapo] U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice

You saw D Wade at a Chic a Fil A? Did you get his autograph?

 

I guess that my position is we will need to negotiate with whoever is in charge regarding the nuclear situation. But our first concern needs to be our protection. If we allow any nation to have terrorists who attacked us living unhindered by the govt. there, then we should do something to stop them.

Musharraf has already received way more value in our aid to him than what we've gotten from him as far as cooperation.

I don't deny that AQ Khan is a potential problem should Musharraf lose his position in the govt. But a new govt. is going to be in need of aid, and I'm sure that with a good diplomatic team in place we could negotiate an aid package in exchange for nuclear agreements. I'm not interested in trying to destabilize another nation. The other nation knows what they can do if they feel our actions will destabilize them.

That's the point about saying it. It may nudge that nation into taking more action themselves. That could preclude the U.S. from having to take any action. Either way I think our highest priority should be eliminating Al Qaeda leadership.

Sorry if I misstated your belief regarding Iraq. I thought in the hillary thread you mentioned that giving the President a strong hand by authorizing force would help in negotiations. It might have been Major.

In reality I don't believe Obama is responsible for this happening. I don't think it was because of him. I do, agree with his position on Pakistan, and believe this attack was in line with what he said he would do.

I can see your point about overtly stating such policy, however in this case, it seems like he was asked about a policy, and he stated what we'd do. I like that a candidate told us a specific policy. It is the kind of substance that people are claiming Obama doesn't talk about enough.

If it was a different nation we were talking about then maybe it wasn't wise to discuss it so openly. With Pakistan, I don't think there is any real harm, and it may strengthen our hand when trying to get them to act on their own.

I think we can see proof that talking about it wasn't so detrimental, because they didn't really do anything when we actually attacked. I'm sure attacking would be more destabilizing than just mentioning the possibility of attacking if certain conditions were present. Yet we did attack, and it is known.

 

and i'm just saying, we go fer our enemies when we find them. understand, no nation particularly Pakistan, that wants to maintain an illusion of strength, however marginalized by a failed terror policy, will write a blank check for US military discretion.

our enemies aren't national, they seek sanctuary where they can. making intl nice is kewl, except we cannot afford to be bound by rules our enemies will never acknowledge.

 

but those rules are what makes us different and right. because we care about law and order and civilization.

secondly you're not infringing on the rights of terrorists when you transgress those international norms. you're infringing on the rights of other nations.

 

no and I didn't take a picture, Its so weird, I go to lunch seldomly in the park shops (mall in downtown houston, next to four seasons where all visiting teams stay) every time i go its a home game, i don't even think about it. when i first walk in, i'm walking next to a guy i don't know and there's a heat player in front of us. i don't know who it was and we both talked about it and i mentioned wade. I'm in line at chic fil a and there's a heat player with his hood over his head, I figure it was him, not wanting to be seen. I get in line and its wade.

one day (i wasn't there) kobe was in line behind my boss at quiznos. anyway I have a camara phone but didn't want to bother him.

 

giving refuge to murders ...

curious how yah'd attempt to counter terrorists? 'cause you've pretty much tied US's hands and made us impotent.

 

So it's ok to bomb them simply because we can? That doesn't seem to fit into your views. I doubt that is what you were trying to say, so please clarify.

 

Now that I think about it that was probably a good call not to bother Kobe or D Wade especially if he's got a hood on he probably doesn't want to be bothered. Its kind of nice to hear that a star like D Wade would still go and stand in line at a fast food place for his lunch.