Democrats call for invasion of Pakistan

BlackSheep

Member
Mar 29, 2008
36
0
6
Oh, boy, here we go yet again with Senator Barak Hussein Obama. Barak Hussein Obama, candidate for the Democratic nominee for President of the USA, calls for invading Pakistan with U.S troops. Great, just what we need, Senator.

It's bad enough that this empty suited moron called for nuking Pakistan and Iran and now he wants ground troops:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/01/politics/p051646D98.DTL&type=politics


Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

(08-01) 05:39 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.

Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America.

The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.

Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.

Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.


"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Obama said that as coofftopicnder in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.
 
For our friends across the pond that do not know about Obama's prior calls for nuclear warfare: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell | Tribune staff reporter

September 25, 2004
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.

"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."

A last resort

Obama's willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion.

Invitations were extended to both Obama and Keyes several weeks ago to appear before the Tribune editorial board in a debate-style setting. Obama accepted and Keyes did not, even though the Republican has accused his rival of ducking debates and has declared a desire to take on Obama in any venue.

"How can I be any clearer about this?" Keyes said in an Aug. 10 news conference. "I don't care what the format is. I don't care what the topics are. ... I am ready to go to any forum put together in any way that is in the best interests of the people of Illinois."

A Keyes aide said the Republican would not appear because the session was not a public forum that could be covered by media other than the Tribune. Obama and Keyes have agreed to three public debates in October, though Keyes had sought more.

Also during the session, Obama said that, if elected, he likely would make the health-care crisis his first priority. He said he would seek to expand the federal program that gives aid to poor children without health coverage, improve the COBRA program to allow for greater portability of coverage, and push for small businesses to receive tax credits to help pay for employee health insurance.
 
I don't exactly follow US politics closely, but I get the impression that to have a cat-in-hell's-chance of getting elected right now, a Democratic presidential contender has to show that he's just as 'tough' as a Republican, and that means coming out with crap like this.
 
YES! Very.
Thats the whole problem for the last 20 years most of us vote against someone as opposed to for someone. Choosing the lesser of 2 evils so to speak. Some of the better sounding candidates are not in the 2 big political parties but not enough people will take a chance in voting for an independent so we end up with the same old crap.
 
Sure why not?
I mean really... the US has stuck it's foot into it everywhere in the Middle East and South Asia. Why shouldn't Pakistan not get it's fair share?

Pakistan is one of the biggest problems the US actually faces. They've got more madrassas that are ripe for the terrorist picking than just about anywhere. They got the most porous border in the entire region... a virtual free for all with Afghanistan. They don't have any more control over that border than America does with Mexico.

America needs it's enemies. They can't keep defense spending so astronomically high without the continual threat of Al Qaeda or the Taliban or whoever else they can put in place support and then split... knowing full well that it'll come back to haunt them. Only it doesn't haunt 'them' - the them in this process are busy lining their pockets... slimebags like Cheney and Rumsfeld and the whole crooked lot make loads from this sort of foreign policy. What else is new. Different bag... same 50lbs of BS.

It'd make zero difference if it was Obama or Dubya or whoever else making these sorts of proclamations honestly. America's foreign policy is at an all time low. It can't possibly get any lower or get any worse.

The entire OP strikes me as nothing more than anti-democrat agenda.

In reality... the US is obviously not going to send it troops in to Pakistan. Why would they... they dump millions in military aid to Pakistan already. They couldn't anymore win a war in Pakistan than they could in Iran or than they are in Iraq. They don't stand a snowflakes chance in hell of holding down a country like Pakistan. Look at their abysmal track record in Afghanistan.

I'm curious why you think Obama should be taken any more seriously than any other of the loudmouthed senators the US seems to get stuck with?

Why would anyone think this is more than run up to election year politiking?
 
LOL,
Gosh politicians are quite funny no? I tell ya things like this is the reason I don't like to vote. Why should I be forced to choose the lesser of two evils???
AHHHHHH Politics
 
Yep, the remaining 10% are British politicians, they're not mad - just slimy and crooked!
 
Because if you dont, you run a higher risk of getting the greater of 2 evils.

Not voting is just stupid imo as everyone complains with hindsight, but didnt vote to stop it.
 
You're right.

I was going to vote for Ken Livingstone, just to keep that buffoon Boris Johnson from getting in as mayor. (Shudder!)

Then I remembered that I don't live in London any more. Doh!
 
Although I don't agree with everything he said the reality of the situation is the people who are actually to blame for 9-11 are located in this area, at least he would be going after the right people.
 
It continues. Let's go mess up the middle east some more, because we don't have enough war on our hands already. Seriously, what the hell are they thinking?
 
Lol, well, if you don't vote at all then you really have no chance of expressing your views. If everyone voted for what they really wanted as oppossed to just sitting home and bitching about how things went after 40% of the country chose the government things might actually start to change. the politicians know they only have to please 40%-50% of the public as that is all that votes.
 
Back
Top