Obama: Fight terror in Pakistan

[OutThere]

Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday that the United States should shift its military focus away from the Iraq war to a broader fight against Islamic extremism, vowing to dispatch American forces to eradicate terrorist camps in Pakistan if that nation failed to take such action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

What the hell is this. We need to get out of there, not spread even thinner chasing ghosts in Pakistan. I couldn't vote for someone who advocated sending U.S. troops to one more country in the middle east. Get our troops back home, patch up the wounds we've made so far. What good is going to come from wandering (and that's what it'd be, seeing how good our 'intelligence' has been) off into Pakistan? None.

I just lost a ton of faith in Obama...oh how I wish Kucinich was running a real campaign.

[hulugu]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

What the hell is this. We need to get out of there, not spread even thinner chasing ghosts in Pakistan. I couldn't vote for someone who advocated sending U.S. troops to one more country in the middle east. Get our troops back home, patch up the wounds we've made so far. What good is going to come from wandering (and that's what it'd be, seeing how good our 'intelligence' has been) off into Pakistan? None.

I just lost a ton of faith in Obama...oh how I wish Kucinich was running a real campaign.

Wow. I disagree, sending relatively small groups of troops into Pakistan to grab the leaders of Al Qaeda is the reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place. I say we take the troops out of Iraq and move some of them back to Kabul where maybe we actually can do some good.

[OutThere]

Wow. I disagree, sending relatively small groups of troops into Pakistan to grab the leaders of Al Qaeda is the reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place.

And look how well that worked out. :rolleyes: We've created the world's biggest exporter of heroin.

[leekohler]

Wow. I disagree, sending relatively small groups of troops into Pakistan to grab the leaders of Al Qaeda is the reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place. I say we take the troops out of Iraq and move some of them back to Kabul where maybe we actually can do some good.

I'm right there with you. If we can send limited amounts of troops into those places to help the local government, rather than take over, I'm all for it. I certainly don't think Obama is talking about invasions here.

And look how well that worked out. :rolleyes: We've created the world's biggest exporter of heroin.

Because rather than help the folks in Afghanistan, we invaded Iraq. We basically abandoned Afghanistan.

[hulugu]

And look how well that worked out. :rolleyes: We've created the world's biggest exporter of heroin.

Well, if that's a consequence for removing the Taliban from power then I'm all for it, I wish the same equation was the consequence of removing Saddam Hussien as well instead of the internecine violence we're currently experiencing.

[PlaceofDis]

i'd rather see our troops going after terrorist cells rather than creating the mess that is in iraq

[OutThere]

Well, if that's a consequence for removing the Taliban from power then I'm all for it, I wish the same equation was the consequence of removing Saddam Hussien as well instead of the internecine violence we're currently experiencing.

Ah but we didn't even do that right. There has been a marked resurgence of the Taliban in the past year, with new problems that didn't happen the first time around with the Taliban (suicide car bombers and such). The citizenry has been rioting as well, because there's been an effort to destroy the poppy crops that support the peasants. Basically, the Taliban will be back before long, and we will have accomplished nothing by going into Afghanistan.

I'm right there with you. If we can send limited amounts of troops into those places to help the local government, rather than take over, I'm all for it. I certainly don't think Obama is talking about invasions here.


We wouldn't be doing it to help the local government—it's under the condition that the government doesn't do anything on its own. Once again we'd go in, unwelcome, and ******* over some innocent people to search for people who may or may not even be there. What reason do I have to believe that there really are al qaeda / O.B.L cells in the area of Pakistan that we'd be invading? It's not like the administration lied through its teeth about the WMDs or anything.

I'm so done with funding the government's worthless BS in the middle east. Nothing truly, tangibly good has come from what we've done.

[leekohler]

Ah but we didn't even do that right. There has been a marked resurgence of the Taliban in the past year, with new problems that didn't happen the first time around with the Taliban (suicide car bombers and such). The citizenry has been rioting as well, because there's been an effort to destroy the poppy crops that support the peasants. Basically, the Taliban will be back before long, and we will have accomplished nothing by going into Afghanistan.



We wouldn't be doing it to help the local government—it's under the condition that the government doesn't do anything on its own. Once again we'd go in, unwelcome, and ******* over some innocent people to search for people who may or may not even be there. What reason do I have to believe that there really are al qaeda / O.B.L cells in the area of Pakistan that we'd be invading? It's not like the administration lied through its teeth about the WMDs or anything.

I'm so done with funding the government's worthless BS in the middle east. Nothing truly, tangibly good has come from what we've done.

OK. Got you. But Obama has to say something to get elected. I don't think he'd actually do what you're claiming. And trust me, there's Al Qaeda all over Pakistan. Tons of the "liberals" (read realists) in these forums have been saying that for years. It's not that military force isn't needed to combat terrorism, it just needs to be applied correctly. That's our main criticism of this administration.

[solvs]

See, I'm torn about this. One of my main criticisms of this war was that we took our eyes off of the fight with the real terrorists. Pakistan isn't doing much, but we shouldn't be out sourcing again. But I don't want another mess on our hands that we can't handle. This administration has screwed things up so badly, it's sad we have to second guess ourselves as much as we do, but it's the reality now.

The cynical part of me thinks he's just trying to quell some of the unrest over what we still see, probably justifiably, as the terrorist threat from that region. The talk is tough, appeases those who think he's soft on the issue and wonder if he has enough experience. Not sure if it's better if it's just talk, or if it's better he acted on it though. Tough call.

[obeygiant]

I still like Obama. Besides, everyone knows cadidates say things they don't mean before they're elected. Like Bush said we wasn't going to get into nation building before he got into office.

It probably doesn't matter anyway. Hillary will probably get the nomination unless a miracle happens and Obamam gets it.

[FFTT]

If we had concentrated on OBL all this time, we would have gained international support to continue into Pakistan if that meant he would be captured.

Kinda hard to justify a war in Iraq when the original bad guys are mostly
Saudis hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I still think the real motive was to declare a perpetual state of war
to take advantage of the resulting profits.

We were sold the concept of stability in the Middle East
when in reality the results are chaos in the entire region.

Recent arms trade agreements back up my theory.

It's all about power oil and all the money they can siphon off
with as little oversight as possible.

When you consider the actual cost and projected costs, we have a trillion dollar scam in the works.

[Swarmlord]

I still like Obama. Besides, everyone knows cadidates say things they don't mean before they're elected. Like Bush said we wasn't going to get into nation building before he got into office.

It probably doesn't matter anyway. Hillary will probably get the nomination unless a miracle happens and Obamam gets it.

And when the neoprogressives see her using the military just as her husband and also the current president does, they are going to have one huge WTF moment.

[leekohler]

And when the neoprogressives see her using the military just as her husband and also the current president does, they are going to have one huge WTF moment.

"Neoprogressives" Haha! You're so desperate it's laughable.:) By the way- we all know she's more of the same. Haven't you been paying attention?

[Swarmlord]

"Neoprogressives" Haha! You're so desperate it's laughable.:) By the way- we all know she's more of the same. Haven't you been paying attention?

Oh, I know she's the same. I just can't help pointing it out for the benefit of those that think that getting rid of Bush is going to solve all the world's problems. Another 4 or 8 years of partisen vitriol ahead I'm afraid.

[leekohler]

Oh, I know she's the same. I just can't help pointing it out for the benefit of those that think that getting rid of Bush is going to solve all the world's problems. Another 4 or 8 years of partisen vitriol ahead I'm afraid.

Seems to me you've been enjoying it.

[Swarmlord]

Seems to me you've been enjoying it.

Well, it is good to live in interesting times. The country is polarized right down the middle and I just recognize that under conditions like this, things usually get worse before they get better.

[dswoodley]

I can admire Obama for wanting to take the fight to Al Qaida, but the timing is terrible. Pervez is on a very precarious throne. Troops in Pakistan would only create intolerable levels of hatred against America. I'd predict the current regime wouldn't last 3 months.

[Ugg]

And when the neoprogressives see her using the military just as her husband and also the current president does, they are going to have one huge WTF moment.


You're so funny!

[dswoodley]

"Neoprogressives" Haha! You're so desperate it's laughable.:) By the way- we all know she's more of the same. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm still confused. What's a neoprogressive? i don't care of he made the term up. I just want to know what it is.

[leekohler]

I'm still confused. What's a neoprogressive? i don't care of he made the term up. I just want to know what it is.

He doesn't know. He just made it up to be his usual abrasive self.

But you know what? I bet he's busy making up a definition right now! ;)

[PlaceofDis]

I'm still confused. What's a neoprogressive? i don't care of he made the term up. I just want to know what it is.

its a made up word as far as i know.
so it means nothing?

[obeygiant]

neoprogressives

Awesome. the NeoProgs. I love that one.

[Swarmlord]

He doesn't know. He just made it up to be his usual abrasive self.

But you know what? I bet he's busy making up a definition right now! ;)

Nah, I can't take credit for the term. I was watching either the Beltway Boys or that show with Neil Gabler and that mixed forum of news figures and one of them coined it when the neo con term was used by someone else as if it had any meaning either. I figure if we all use it often enough it will stick like the made up neocon label did. Especially since liberals like to use the term progressive now.

[dswoodley]

Nah, I can't take credit for the term. I was watching either the Beltway Boys or that show with Neil Gabler and that mixed forum of news figures and one of them coined it when the neo con term was used by someone else as if it had any meaning either. I figure if we all use it often enough it will stick like the made up neocon label did. Especially since liberals like to use the term progressive now.

That's fine. But what does it mean?

[leekohler]

Nah, I can't take credit for the term. I was watching either the Beltway Boys or that show with Neil Gabler and that mixed forum of news figures and one of them coined it when the neo con term was used by someone else as if it had any meaning either. I figure if we all use it often enough it will stick like the made up neocon label did. Especially since liberals like to use the term progressive now.

Looks like the term means a lot, and has a history too. Read up, swarmy.

Neoconservatism is a political movement that emerged as a rejection of liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s. It coalesced in the 1970s and was influential in the Reagan administration, George H. W. Bush administration, and George W. Bush administration. It has received so much attention because it represented a realignment in American politics and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side."[1] Because the neoconservatives knew liberalism from the inside, they were more effective than previous conservatives at criticizing the failures of liberalism, and one of their first accomplishments was "to make criticism from the right acceptable in the intellectual, artistic, and journalistic circles where conservatives had long been regarded with suspicion."[1]

The term neoconservative was first used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to make clear that a group, many of whom called themselves liberal, was actually a group of newly conservative ex-liberals. The name eventually stuck, both because it was reasonably accurate, and because neoconservatives came to accept that they were, in fact, conservative.[2] The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" became one of the central themes of neoconservatism,[3] and by the 1980s, being considered a conservative was far from an insult.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

[Swarmlord]

Looks like the term means a lot, and has a history too. Read up, swarmy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

Ok, it was coined as a derisive term by a socialist. Great! Then use of neo progressive should be as widely embraced.

[leekohler]

Ok, it was coined as a derisive term by a socialist. Great! Then use of neo progressive should be as widely embraced.

You said the term had no meaning. It does. Proven wrong once again.

[AHDuke99]

i like the idea of going into pakistan. i think that's been needed for some time, as that's where bin laden is if he's still alive.

however, obama is still way in over his head. today he comes out and says that he wont use nukes under any circumstances. how stupid. so an enemy comes out and says they're going to nuke america and obama wont retaliate? i dont understand how someone could support him.

i hate hillary, but at least she even said that was an idiotic comment.

[hulugu]

i like the idea of going into pakistan. i think that's been needed for some time, as that's where bin laden is if he's still alive.

however, obama is still way in over his head. today he comes out and says that he wont use nukes under any circumstances. how stupid. so an enemy comes out and says they're going to nuke america and obama wont retaliate? i dont understand how someone could support him.

i hate hillary, but at least she even said that was an idiotic comment.

This is hardly a realistic scenario in the coming years. First, the US must know where the weapon came from and be willing to send an equivalent response. This means a scenario in which North Korea, a good example, launches an ICBM. Would nuking Pyongyang really be the best response, especially considering the fallout affects for Seoul, not to mention Japan? Or would a conventional response be more effective? Especially a targeted attack on the leadership and CCC facilities?

I'd remind Obama that the US continues to carry this big stick and should never complete dismiss its use, but when push came to nuclear mushroom cloud it's not always wise to respond in kind.

[solvs]

Haven't you been paying attention?
What do you think.

I just can't help pointing it out for the benefit of those that think that getting rid of Bush is going to solve all the world's problems.
No one thinks that. Unlike some people, we will criticize her just like we criticize Bush if she pulls the same crap. The only difference is, maybe then you'll finally be on board because she has a (D) after her name.

Awesome. the NeoProgs. I love that one.
Of course you do.

[Music_Producer]

Pakistan has been and is THE safest haven for terrorists. The replies in this thread shows how most people are completely ignorant of this fact. As an Indian who has seen countless number of terrorist acts being committed back home.. it has always been Pakistan that is involved. It all started with the Kashmir issue.. and since then it snowballed into general terrorism.

Even their so called ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) .. kinda like a CIA, actually funds and recruits terrorists. Ask any Indian and he/she will be puzzled as to why the US seems to be so friendly to Pakistan all the time, when they basically abhor the US :rolleyes:

[Swarmlord]

You said the term had no meaning. It does. Proven wrong once again.

Whoa! Breathe deep and get some fresh air. I said I didn't coin the term and then pointed out where I first heard it on TV. That's is NOT the same as saying it has no meaning. The coiner of the term obviously ascribed some meaning to it in the context he used it.

I do remember some time ago saying the the term Neocon was rediculous though and any label starting with the prefix "neo" is always questionable. However, since the neocon term is firmed locked into the lexicon by the libs as a derogatory term, I will forever use the term neoprogressive to balance the equation.

[Swarmlord]

You said the term had no meaning. It does. Proven wrong once again.

By the way, the reason that I think that neocon has no meaning is that the term neo has been used in the context of neoclassical, neolithic, etc. where a something that existed some time ago is resurrected to the point of embracing all its characteristics. To say that somehow conservatism disappeared and then was resurrected is silly.

[leekohler]

By the way, the reason that I think that neocon has no meaning is that the term neo has been used in the context of neoclassical, neolithic, etc. where a something that existed some time ago is resurrected to the point of embracing all its characteristics. To say that somehow conservatism disappeared and then was resurrected is silly.

Ok wait- first you said it has no meaning, then you say you never said it had no meaning. Now you're saying it has no meaning again. Which is it? You're going in circles.

And no, conservativm wasn't resurrected. It's been perverted though.

[Swarmlord]

Ok wait- first you said it has no meaning, then you say you never said it had no meaning. Now you're saying it has no meaning again. Which is it? You're going in circles.

And no, conservativm wasn't resurrected. It's been perverted though.

A pundit ascribed meaning to it, but I don't accept the argument that anything about conservatism is "new" and thereby "neo".

[imac/cheese]

i like the idea of going into pakistan. i think that's been needed for some time, as that's where bin laden is if he's still alive.

however, obama is still way in over his head. today he comes out and says that he wont use nukes under any circumstances. how stupid. so an enemy comes out and says they're going to nuke america and obama wont retaliate? i dont understand how someone could support him.

i hate hillary, but at least she even said that was an idiotic comment.

I think it is a realist who says he wouldn't use nukes under any circumstances and I find that rather refreshing. I can't think of a single situation where nukes would be advantageous for the US to use. Our military has such pinpoint accuracy with its current weaponary that the use of nukes is only good in a situation where we don't care if we wipe out thousands/millions of civilians. In today's society the US probably cares more about killing innocent civilians than the enemies we would be trying to kill. Do think Bin Laden cares about the civilians around him? Did Saddam? Does Kim Jong-il?

I personally don't think I would vote for Obama but I feel his honesty and realism is refreshing.

[OutThere]

By the way, the reason that I think that neocon has no meaning is that the term neo has been used in the context of neoclassical, neolithic, etc. where a something that existed some time ago is resurrected to the point of embracing all its characteristics. To say that somehow conservatism disappeared and then was resurrected is silly.

Get your word origins right. 'Neo-conservative' was a term used to describe a number of originally liberal politicians and thinkers, who, in the 1960s, motivated by a distaste for leftist movements among other things, developed a much more conservative ideal. They were termed 'neo-conservatives' because they were newly conservative, even if they didn't classify themselves as conservative.

Today the term refers to people who have come from the same school of thought, bred in the same think-tanks developed by the original neo-cons in the 60s. As political realists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relations%29) they share a common thread in foreign policy, among many other things.

[solvs]

However, since the neocon term is firmed locked into the lexicon by the libs as a derogatory term, I will forever use the term neoprogressive to balance the equation.
It's a derogatory term because you guys screwed everything up. Stop screwing up and we'll stop saying it as derogatory. Neoprogressive doesn't mean anything because there is no new progressive movement that is different than the past, or of people coming from a different belief system. Just a lot of really pissed off people who don't like what's going on with the current administration and frustrated with the lack of opposition who the current minority of Repubs wants to paint as liberal to attempt to smear their anger as partisan. All 70+% of us.

Besides, "liberal" was the term you already made derogatory, which makes "neoprogressive" even more pointless.

Get your word origins right. 'Neo-conservative' was a term used to describe a number of originally liberal politicians and thinkers, who, in the 1960s, motivated by a distaste for leftist movements among other things, developed a much more conservative ideal.
Lee already tried explaining it to him, I doubt he'll listen to you either.

[leekohler]

It's a derogatory term because you guys screwed everything up. Stop screwing up and we'll stop saying it as derogatory. Neoprogressive doesn't mean anything because there is no new progressive movement that is different than the past, or of people coming from a different belief system. Just a lot of really pissed off people who don't like what's going on with the current administration and frustrated with the lack of opposition who the current minority of Repubs wants to paint as liberal to attempt to smear their anger as partisan. All 70+% of us.

Besides, "liberal" was the term you already made derogatory, which makes "neoprogressive" even more pointless.


Lee already tried explaining it to him, I doubt he'll listen to you either.

Well, when one's skull is made of concrete...:)

[solvs]

Well, when one's skull is made of concrete...:)
When one chooses to make their skull concrete.

I hate using the ignore feature, but this is still like hitting our heads against that concrete over and over and getting nowhere. Yet we're the partisans who aren't open to the beliefs of others. Even though we're the ones criticizing Obama and Hillary for actual, legitimate reasons. K.