PDA

View Full Version : Obama and troop deployment:



Stanley Burrell
08-01-2007, 03:46 PM
This is why I will be voting for this man:

WASHINGTON (CNN) –Sen. Barack Obama says he would shift the war on terror to Pakistan and Afghanistan in a speech he delivered Wednesday.

In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

Obama says the war in Iraq has left Americans more in danger than before 9/11.

“The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war,” Obama will say. “He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn’t exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training recruits in Pakistan.”

Despite the challenges, and potentially destabilizing effect U.S. military action inside Pakistan could create, Obama said it was important to remain enagaged there. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again,” he will say. “It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Obama also reiterated his disagreement with the Bush administration’s diplomatic posture. “It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action,” he said. “It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.”

Obama also said he would create an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to address terrorist threats from Indonesia to Africa.

Obama delivered his remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.


The one thing that I feel seperates Obama from any other candidates is how he hasn't sang the six year 9-11 opera about Iraq.

A lot of my staunch friends tell me that Pakistan is a sovereign nation. They (my conservative buddies) use this as an end all Armageddon/WWIII scenario as if mentioning Pakistan's sovereign nation status justifies any and all reasons to keep our largest troop upkeep in Iraq and not Afghanistan.

It is not my belief that a nation who is giving capacity, within its jurisdiction, to those who started Bush's ejaculatory Iraqi fit. It is also not my belief to have an all-too-quick troop withdrawal in Iraq. However, the war we are fighting is a war on terror. I don't call it two seperate wars. I still want our troops to get the bastards who actually created American casualties.

If and when 9-11 part 2 occurs, I don't want our troops dying in Venezuela (although I do believe with every bone in my body that only Dubya as an '00 candidate would have attacked Iraq.)

Right now as it stands, we have our soldiers dying; Americans, who have undoubtedly been the victim of moves made by Iran. Someone please argue against the idea of initial American casualties by the pre-emptive doctrine vs. -- The first, in a string of many, attacks by Iran that have killed our people:

And I hold this in direct contrast to the 0 casualties sustained at the hands of Saddam.

I want to see Osama's head impaled on Odin's Gungnir. I don't see the steps occurring that I believe would make this happen, in fact, I'd say that anti-American sentiment having grown the way it has because of this administration's weetawtedness has bolstered forces who are our true enemies in a post-9/11 Earth.

I don't want war. I'd rather have the U.S.A. secular and pacificistic, but since it seems that war has to be an option, as is applicable to presidential nominees who do have a chance of becoming Commander in Chief, I'd at least want our stupid revenge hard-ons aimed at the "right" target with the constant "strength in numbers" troop banter. I, having been a tad closer to Ground Zero than your pro-Bush country bumpkin living in Assfuck, TN, feel that the Obama platform is solid for such a cause... Even with my overall Anti-Politician sentiments.

Sean of the Thread
08-01-2007, 04:30 PM
We'll just give them HUGS!

serra7965
08-01-2007, 05:04 PM
Yes let us pick a fight with a nation that actually does have a nuclear bomb....

I guess it it's alright to invade a sovereign nation that is a federal democratic republic (albeit one with Muslim as it's state's religion) because it's president won't act....

I think this is going to be Obama's "Dean's Scream"......

Parkbandit
08-01-2007, 05:13 PM
I'm waiting for Clinton to call her future VP naive and politically inept... then make a contribution drive about it.

Dwarven Empath
08-01-2007, 08:24 PM
I'm still waiting and watching if S. Korea will bomb them.

Jessaril
08-03-2007, 01:07 AM
I think it's a fine line we have to walk. You can go in guns blazing and breed even more hatred, you can stand back and let them slap you, or you can do the most difficult thing and find the middle ground. Isn't it funny how no one hates Canada (ok, REALLY hates them), Switzerland or UAE? Both are rich countries, both have many of the same freedoms as the US, britian and other countries yet they experience none of the widespread hatred around the world.

The tricky part is the middle ground doesn't involve military might outside our borders, which sadly is often the easiest way.

Tsa`ah
08-03-2007, 09:18 AM
I think it's a fine line we have to walk. You can go in guns blazing and breed even more hatred, you can stand back and let them slap you, or you can do the most difficult thing and find the middle ground. Isn't it funny how no one hates Canada (ok, REALLY hates them), Switzerland or UAE? Both are rich countries, both have many of the same freedoms as the US, britian and other countries yet they experience none of the widespread hatred around the world.

The tricky part is the middle ground doesn't involve military might outside our borders, which sadly is often the easiest way.

I'm still waiting for more than a half thought out jab from someone who actually took the time to read the article ... (not you Jess).

To address your response, no one bombs Canada because Canada is one of the two main access points to enter the target country.

No one bombs the UAE because the UAE has a hand in the bombings on one side of the extreme.

No one bombs the Swiss because THEY'RE A MOUNTAIN NATION and the bombers are limited to cars and nikes.

To say that no other country experiences the same hatred is rather short sited. Several European nations are pretty much at the cusp of being Muslim nations. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing because I don't label "Muslim" as bad. I would have to side with John Howard when he pretty much said you don't to a country you want to live in and make it the country you left ... assimilate of gtfo.

More directly to the point, Obama isn't suggesting an invasion into Pakistan. He has simply said that the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan should have been our target from day one. If Pakistan isn't going to take care of it, we will. Pakistan isn't going to launch nukes to targets within it's own borders, let alone neighboring nations. It would be absolute suicide if they decided to launch nukes at US targets.

Will they be pissed? Absolutely. They have been playing both sides of the fence trying to keep dead center. I'm sorry, but you don't call us an ally and then turn a blind eye to camps in your back yard.

TheEschaton
08-03-2007, 10:05 AM
And no one should bomb the U.S. because it's across the ocean from most of the other countries in the world that are super-regional in nature.

That's kind of a weak ass argument about why those countries don't get bombed.

I happen to think an invasion of Pakistan, when the enemy isn't Pakistan, but people hiding in Pakistan, will be disasterous. When we invaded Afghanistan, it was easy enough to justify it because the Taliban itself was outright protecting Osama.

-TheE-

Daniel
08-03-2007, 01:49 PM
You're stupid if you think that neither of those countries have their problems with terrorism.

Stanley Burrell
08-03-2007, 02:02 PM
I think I should probably reiterate in saying that a strong presence at the no man's land, which is the Pakistani border, should/could be mustered by sacrificing even a ridiculously fractional upkeep of what'll probably amount to somewhere around the ~trillion dollar Iraqi occupation.

I don't think that'd be throwing rose petals at the anti-American parties in Iraq. And I do think, since every single candidate has their own personal schpiel hellbent on sending a message, that this could be about the clearest message, at least by comparison, in relation to Mr. President's hazy violet-coked out deployment.

TheEschaton
08-03-2007, 02:08 PM
I'm quite aware Pakistan has problems with terrorism. However, the thing is, we're supposedly allied to Pakistan and its leader Musharaff. With all of Britain's problems with terrorism recently, would we put American troops on the ground in London to root them out?

How about having American troops root out terrorists in Germany?

The thing is, you can't put troops in your ally's country unilaterally. In fact, diplomacy almost requires the effort be led by Pakistani troops. Now, maybe a mixed US/Pakistani force would work from a diplomatic standpoint, but I don't think it would work from a strategic standpoint, nor do I think either army would go for it.

Stanley Burrell
08-03-2007, 02:37 PM
I'm quite aware Pakistan has problems with terrorism. However, the thing is, we're supposedly allied to Pakistan and its leader Musharaff. With all of Britain's problems with terrorism recently, would we put American troops on the ground in London to root them out?

How about having American troops root out terrorists in Germany?

The thing is, you can't put troops in your ally's country unilaterally. In fact, diplomacy almost requires the effort be led by Pakistani troops. Now, maybe a mixed US/Pakistani force would work from a diplomatic standpoint, but I don't think it would work from a strategic standpoint, nor do I think either army would go for it.

No candidate with any such priority could ever be elected.

That is, of course, unless Germany became a Muslim nation and was politically geared to create homeland White Flight with respect to a theoretical terrorist state in Europe.