blatham
 
  1  
Wed 1 Aug, 2007 06:41 pm
Well, you probably want to differentiate between a campaign/war designed to displace/kill the functioning government followed by occupation of the entire state with what Obama proposes here, n'est pas?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 1 Aug, 2007 06:47 pm
He's just letting Hillary chase him around flexing his muscles since he's on the ropes.

What you describe may or may not be different...there aren't too many ME countries where our boots on their soil would be not considered an occupation in any capacity by the public at large....especially the AQ inclined.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 1 Aug, 2007 07:06 pm
Brand X wrote:
He's just letting Hillary chase him around flexing his muscles since he's on the ropes.

What you describe may or may not be different...there aren't too many ME countries where our boots on their soil would be not considered an occupation in any capacity by the public at large....especially the AQ inclined.


Look again at the polls I just posted. "He's on the ropes" is a claim you aren't going to get much agreement regarding. It certainly is the case that the two of them are taking a tack which works to their respective strengths and which they hope will minimize their respective negatives.

But, yes, the two cases I describe above are deeply and profoundly different. In terms of resources required, planning, domestic considerations, foreign relations considerations, moral considerations and certain consequences re Muslim sentiment, sending some missles or bombers and a covert team into Balluchistan has a much closer analogy to the covert CIA operation in Italy than it does to launching the war against Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 1 Aug, 2007 07:19 pm
blatham wrote:
Brand X wrote:
He's just letting Hillary chase him around flexing his muscles since he's on the ropes.

What you describe may or may not be different...there aren't too many ME countries where our boots on their soil would be not considered an occupation in any capacity by the public at large....especially the AQ inclined.


Look again at the polls I just posted. "He's on the ropes" is a claim you aren't going to get much agreement regarding. It certainly is the case that the two of them are taking a tack which works to their respective strengths and which they hope will minimize their respective negatives.

But, yes, the two cases I describe above are deeply and profoundly different. In terms of resources required, planning, domestic considerations, foreign relations considerations, moral considerations and certain consequences re Muslim sentiment, sending some missles or bombers and a covert team into Balluchistan has a much closer analogy to the covert CIA operation in Italy than it does to launching the war against Iraq.


I don't think we'll be doing that again any time soon....but as Iraq created more 'terrorists' regarding our presence...I don't see much difference in that I would expect an escalation if we tromped into Pakistan. Who knows where it would end up and to what depth.

Obama's posturing is directly related to what Hillary did to him in the debate...even if you and the 'polls' don't believe he's on the ropes, he obviously does.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 1 Aug, 2007 07:29 pm
I don't think there is any way for you and I to resolve this presently. Obama's intention ("posture" suggests pretense) is not visible to either you or I and what level of success/failure his campaign perceives presently is likewise unknown. We are making guesses based on little tatters of information. We can continue with it as time carries us further along.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 1 Aug, 2007 07:34 pm
I don't think Pakistan will have to worry about Obama, he has to get elected first... which his chances are about nil.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 1 Aug, 2007 10:03 pm
Waste of time arguing with me. And there's no money in it. You are blessed with certainty (not really a rare blessing but perhaps god has socialist tendencies) and you should put that to real use. Here are your betting odds...
http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/democratic-presidential-nominee/
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 09:08 am
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 10:21 am
Why does Obama want to murder innocent Pakis?

<hangs head in shame about American blood lust>
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 10:29 am
Lash wrote:
Why does Obama want to murder innocent Pakis?

<hangs>


Is this a joke?

Jeez

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 10:53 am
Is it a joke when you guys say it about Bush?

Is there a difference?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 11:08 am
For anyone interested in his whole speech rather than just the exagerated sound bites taken out of context in the media, you'll find it here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 11:17 am
I wonder if anyone is concerned about the unnecessary sabre rattling Obama has employed for headlines--and to curry the favor of the hawks--and the cultural insensitivity he has displayed...?

Obama really miffs Pakis

An excerpt:

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 11:22 am
I find it quite interesting when a democrat becomes a hawk with his words while conservatives call democrats "soft of terrorism," then criticize when they talk tough. They don't understand simple logic.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 11:24 am
CI--- Your logic is the very reason I made the post.

Bush is bloodthirsty/insensitive/culturally ignorant when he makes similar comments...and the ones who accuse him make excuses when Obama does the same thing....

A rather tongue in cheek post for me....laughing when I made it...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 11:36 am
Oh! Sorry bout that, Lash.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 11:47 am
An excerpt from Obama's speech for those that won't click on the link to read it:

Quote:
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.


This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.


But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.


As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.


I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. 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.


And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair - our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.


Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists - probably in the tens of thousands - who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 11:59 am
Part three of Obama's speech for those that won't click. I really encourage you to get the whole comprehensive strategy by doing so.

Quote:
And I won't hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we've ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven't talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven't talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.


It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. 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.


President Kennedy said it best: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Only by knowing your adversary can you defeat them or drive wedges between them. As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won't outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons.
But America must be about more than taking out terrorists and locking up weapons, or else new terrorists will rise up to take the place of every one we capture or kill. That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.


When you travel to the world's trouble spots as a United States Senator, much of what you see is from a helicopter. So you look out, with the buzz of the rotor in your ear, maybe a door gunner nearby, and you see the refugee camp in Darfur, the flood near Djibouti, the bombed out block in Baghdad. You see thousands of desperate faces.


Al Qaeda's new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?


We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim - nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.


And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame - blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.


We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.
When I am President, that will change. We will author our own story.


We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show - through deeds as well as words - that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.


As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say - as Secretary Rumsfeld did - "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.


I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas - often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia - that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well - more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict.


I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new "America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with - and listen to - the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.


As President, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."



0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 12:11 pm
I really suggest for those who refuse to let it click that these are the same things by a man you don't like and a man you do, to think again.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 3 Aug, 2007 12:47 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. 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.

Lash is right. Obama advocates for preventive strikes in foreign countries here. Or in other words, he says that he will respect the sovereignty of Pakistan only if Pakistan does what America wants. We agreed this kind of talk was unacceptable when it came from the likes of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Condoleeza Rice; it is equally unacceptable from Barack Obama. It's the kind of thinking that earned America its reputation as an international bully.

I recognize that the rest of the speech is very reasonable. But this barely matters. National sovereignty is fundamental to international law. If a politician disregards national sovereignty at his convenience, that renders secondary any progress he might otherwise make on the status quo. It's the progress of a cannibal eating with knife and fork.

Unlike Butrflynet, I don't think those press clippings were exaggerated.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 229
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 08/19/2025 at 05:59:21