Obama '08?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Has Obama stated a position on what he thinks about Italy wanting to try 26 CIA agents for kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan?

Those CIA agents should face justice for what they did. Just like anyone else. There is nothing which grants them the right to break laws.

Cycloptichorn

Is that Obama's position or yours?

If yours, what do you think about the possibility that Obama might launch a military action in Pakistan to capture or kill Bin Laden; without the permission of the Pakistani government.

It's my position.

Pakistan's gov't already allows our special forces to conduct limited operations there. Bush threatened/coerced Musharraf into that long ago. This would merely be a continuance of policy.

Cyclotichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Has Obama stated a position on what he thinks about Italy wanting to try 26 CIA agents for kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan?

Those CIA agents should face justice for what they did. Just like anyone else. There is nothing which grants them the right to break laws.

Cycloptichorn

Is that Obama's position or yours?

If yours, what do you think about the possibility that Obama might launch a military action in Pakistan to capture or kill Bin Laden; without the permission of the Pakistani government.

It's my position.

Pakistan's gov't already allows our special forces to conduct limited operations there. Bush threatened/coerced Musharraf into that long ago. This would merely be a continuance of policy.

Cyclotichorn

Perv said we'd 'regret it' if we came without permission, and he ain't giving any permission.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Has Obama stated a position on what he thinks about Italy wanting to try 26 CIA agents for kidnapping a terrorist suspect in Milan?

Those CIA agents should face justice for what they did. Just like anyone else. There is nothing which grants them the right to break laws.

Cycloptichorn

Is that Obama's position or yours?

If yours, what do you think about the possibility that Obama might launch a military action in Pakistan to capture or kill Bin Laden; without the permission of the Pakistani government.

It's my position.

Pakistan's gov't already allows our special forces to conduct limited operations there. Bush threatened/coerced Musharraf into that long ago. This would merely be a continuance of policy.

Cyclotichorn

Perv said we'd 'regret it' if we came without permission, and he ain't giving any permission.

He was referring to a full-scale invasion. US soldiers have crossed the border of Pakistan more then once going after Taliban elements.

Please do a little research

Cycloptichorn

Musharraf told the Straits Times that U.S. troops would "certainly" be considered invaders if they set foot in the tribal regions. A full transcript of the interview was published on the paper's Web site.

"If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan. I challenge anybody coming into our mountains," he said in the interview in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. "They would regret that day."

1st, I think you forgot the word 'might.' I haven't seen any objective proof that the costs are in fact lowered.

2nd, the question I'm most interested in in this whole thing: if the cost savings work almost as well as without the mandates as they do with it, what's the point of having the mandates?

Once again, the bolded part here is an assertion.

It is without doubt that there will be some who, due to one instance or another, will be forced to pay for health insurance under Hillary's plan, yet cannot afford it.

FreeDuck wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

I concur BUT it makes me twitchy to hear Obama talk easily about invading Pakistan.

Me too. I cringed when he first said that. I hope it's just tough talk aimed at those who like that sort of thing, but that's problematic too.

That's what I thought in late 2002, during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Generally ignorant of military strategy, I read myself through a dozen Middle East strategy papers by the US Army War College. They all agreed that local populations were perceiving the US as the region's schoolyard bully -- my wording, not theirs. They stated that this perception created lots of problems. One of the big ones was that the US made it needlessly easy for Al Quaida and other terrorist organizations to recruit members and supporters. The papers concluded that US military and foreign policy should proceed less agressively than it previously had.

This seemed to make a good match with Bush's talk about America being "a more humble nation in our dealings with the world". Confidently, I concluded that however loudly Bush might be rattling his saber for tactical reasons, in the end he would do the right thing and choose a strategy smarter than war. Even more confidently, I stated this prediction in online communities where it was read by all kinds of people including, cough cough, the initiator of this fine thread here.

That was the stupidest mistake I made during the Bush presidency, and I am resolutely determined not to repeat it with current candidates.

Well, he's apparently given permission many times, b/c we sure have gone in there.

Are you advocating that if we know that OBL is in Pakistan, and Pakistan won't give us permission to enter, we should do nothing?

Don't mistake Musharraff's grandstanding to a newspaper for reality. Support from the US is the only reason he is still in the presidency, we give him many millions of dollars per year to play nice.

Cycloptichorn

Obama, who won the first Democratic White House nominating contest in Iowa on Thursday, reiterated his earlier stance that he would take action in Pakistan even if Islamabad is opposed, if there is strong intelligence on Al Qaeda there. "Back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory," he said.

"What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike."

I think that you have religion about the need for mandates to the level that I do about Obama, however you want to interpret that -

Thomas wrote:

Confidently, I concluded that however loudly Bush might be rattling his saber for tactical reasons, in the end he would do the right thing and choose a strategy smarter than war. Even more confidently, I stated this prediction in online communities where it was read by all kinds of people including, cough cough, the initiator of this fine thread here.

That was the stupidest mistake I made during the Bush presidency, and I am resolutely determined not to repeat it with current candidates.

Well, you have my sympathy. Though I didn't think Bush's tough talk was just talk (it's easier to see bullshit when you're this close to it) I did naively believe that Congress would never authorize it. I remember saying to my husband "he can't do it, Congress has to declare war or give some other authorization, and they'll never do that." Ahem.

We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for WAR seem to know who did it or where to look for them.

I just need more then assertions to believe that there won't be problems with any plan we propose, Obama's or Hillary's.

But how can you avoid repeating it, given that the transformation is perhaps the chief unresolved mystery of the Bush presidency? What made him alter his view, given that his campaign rhetoric appeared genuine and not motivated by any need to counter an opponent on this issue, not to mention the fact that it appears to reflect the current understanding of the wasteful cost in terms of both moral authority and physical resources. Why didn't he/they accept what was, in fact, the conventional military assessment of the time (more or less what you reported it)? Why didn't Colin Powel - who surely knew better - resist, intervene, or resign? It is a mystery.

Well, he's apparently given permission many times, b/c we sure have gone in there.

Are you advocating that if we know that OBL is in Pakistan, and Pakistan won't give us permission to enter, we should do nothing?

Don't mistake Musharraff's grandstanding to a newspaper for reality. Support from the US is the only reason he is still in the presidency, we give him many millions of dollars per year to play nice.

Cycloptichorn

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.

Utopia is not an option.

Thomas wrote:

Utopia is not an option.

I thought it was, Thomas, after I listened to some of the politicians tell me they can insure me, pay off my home loan, stop climate change, get me a job that pays a decent wage with tons of paid leave, take care of my kids, educate them, and make me healthy by providing me a dietician, and on top of that - solve the energy crisis, save the earth, and no more blood for oil. It sounded like heaven on earth.

Both parties have staged tight, seesawing battles for the nominations for November's presidential election. Clinton, the New York senator, and Obama split the first four Democratic contests -- Obama won Iowa and South Carolina, while Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada.

In California, the poll found Obama led Clinton by 45 percent to 41 percent, with a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points. Clinton held statistically insignificant 1-point leads on Obama in New Jersey and Missouri, well within the margin of error of 3.4 percentage points in both surveys.

Obama leads the "most likely to vote" Democrats 53-29 percent over Clinton.

Thomas wrote:

Utopia is not an option.

I thought it was, Thomas, after I listened to some of the politicians tell me they can insure me, pay off my home loan, stop climate change, get me a job that pays a decent wage with tons of paid leave, take care of my kids, educate them, and make me healthy by providing me a dietician, and on top of that - solve the energy crisis, save the earth, and no more blood for oil. It sounded like heaven on earth.