We haven't declared war since WW2.

 

Carry on.

 

yeah, i'm retarted.

 

disregard my post.

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF.

 

Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country.

 

And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support.

 

But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.

We cannot and will not send our military into Pakistan without their approval, period. If Obama is god forbid elected president, I can assure you that this would never ever happen. When we go out on a MEU with the first destination being a port like the Navy base in Rota, Spain, we can't even sail a direct path to Spain, we have to zig zag and go about a thousand miles totally out of the way. Why? Because sailing directly to another country is an act of war, it doesn't even matter if we're sailing to our very own Navy base in Rota. This is just one of the countless exampls of stupid international laws that we must abide by, so you can be damned sure we aren't going to be going into Pakistan without their permission, however it's pretty common knowledge that SOCOM units are there right now, but conventional forces? No friggen way.

 

Now going back to Afghanistan? Hell yeah. Ever since we turned that country over to the army, it's gone to sh*t. It's only a matter of time before we get sent back there to clean up the army's mess since they can't hold down the country.

yeah...that damn international law...keepin us from ruling tha world and shiiiiiite...and i seem to remember sending our military to iraq without their permission...same thing right?...

 

We already rule the world. Itz called teh $$$.

btw, not everyone agrees with Obama because he has a (D) behind his name. Some people are upset with this approach as perpetuating American imperialism, while others see it as the necessary water mark of our foreign policy that brings us back to earth from Bush's extreme doctrine.

"Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

He's also trying to keep up with Hillary.

"Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

I completely agree with that statement and with Accord.

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism.

 

I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison.

 

Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one.

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism.

 

I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison.

 

Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one.

wait...ive seen this before...except it had a decidely texan flavor to it...

 

and you know how muslim extremists interpret peace? by getting off THEIR land...thats what it would take for al-qaeda to take the bullseye off of us

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism.

 

I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison.

 

Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one.

wait...ive seen this before...except it had a decidely texan flavor to it...

 

and you know how muslim extremists interpret peace? by getting off THEIR land...thats what it would take for al-qaeda to take the bullseye off of us

No, it wouldn't.

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism.

 

I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison.

 

Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one.

wait...ive seen this before...except it had a decidely texan flavor to it...

 

and you know how muslim extremists interpret peace? by getting off THEIR land...thats what it would take for al-qaeda to take the bullseye off of us

 

 

Come on man, every one on either side of the spectrum knows better.

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism.

 

I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison.

 

Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one.

 

Pakistan would not attack us if we launch air strikes into the mountain region or even if we sent some special forces in.

 

They know better than that.

 

So if the Pakistanis dont eliminate them what do you propose we do? Stand idly by while Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regroup to launch another terrorist attack on us. That area is becoming another Afghanistan, a safe haven for terrorists.

 

This really isnt a new idea, the Bush administartion has considered launching air strikes in the area if the Pakistanis dont step their game up, and that is the same ultimatum Obama is saying nothing new, except that this time its a Dem expressing this idea.

But progress is being made and Gen Petraeus is doing a decent job.

 

General Betrayus is a miserable excuse for a commander.

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism.

 

I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison.

 

Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one.

 

Pakistan would not attack us if we launch air strikes into the mountain region or even if we sent some special forces in.

 

They know better than that.

 

So if the Pakistanis dont eliminate them what do you propose we do? Stand idly by while Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regroup to launch another terrorist attack on us. That area is becoming another Afghanistan, a safe haven for terrorists.

 

This really isnt a new idea, the Bush administartion has considered launching air strikes in the area if the Pakistanis dont step their game up, and that is the same ultimatum Obama is saying nothing new, except that this time its a Dem expressing this idea.

 

Exactly. What astounds me is that for the last number of years, all we have been hearing is stuff about taking the war to them, not waiting until we get attacked before preventing an attack, and what not. But now, Pakistan has the RIGHT to attack us if we encroach on their sovereignty in anyway whatsoever because they are harboring AQ. Isn't that the same thing as saying insurgents somehow have the right to attack us because we encroached on Iraqi sovereignty?

 

Look at our position pre-9/11. Should we or should we not have attacked the AQ in Afghanistan and encroached on the sovereignty of the Taliban? Everyone post-9/11 seems to think so. So what makes this different?

 

Also, why should we encroach on the sovereignty of Iran but not Pakistan?

 

This is precisely why Iran wants Nukes. It puts countries in the position of never having to fear an attack from the US. It also allows them to take

 

And I can't stand how every single foreign policy debate turns into a conversation about liberals and dems being weenies. We really can't have a nuanced conversation in the bullpen without it turning political.

 

Obama is taking a huge risk with this approach. Last I checked, we were still in the primaries. In the primaries, people don't move to the center, they move to the left or right. If anything, Obama is undermining his chances at winning the nomination.

So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing?

 

You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M.

 

I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil.

 

Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.

Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism.

 

I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison.

 

Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one.

 

Pakistan would not attack us if we launch air strikes into the mountain region or even if we sent some special forces in.

 

They know better than that.

 

So if the Pakistanis dont eliminate them what do you propose we do? Stand idly by while Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regroup to launch another terrorist attack on us. That area is becoming another Afghanistan, a safe haven for terrorists.

 

This really isnt a new idea, the Bush administartion has considered launching air strikes in the area if the Pakistanis dont step their game up, and that is the same ultimatum Obama is saying nothing new, except that this time its a Dem expressing this idea.

 

And I can't stand how every single foreign policy debate turns into a conversation about liberals and dems being weenies. We really can't have a nuanced conversation in the bullpen without it turning political.

 

 

Yeah its a shame how we cant have real foreign policy debate on this board.

 

Thats what wrong with politics these days, everything is right or left, dem or repub.

Ron Paul has several times asserted he would pursue bin Laden, even in Pakistani territory. Ron Paul supporters are well aware of this: http://ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulRad...wPoll080307.m3u