Well, Joe there does seem to be particular behavior that goes with left-leaning people and i don't know why. It is possible that left and right cannot meet in the middle, that certainly seems to be the political atmosphere here the last 20 years or so, the democrats and the Republicans seem absolutely incapable of working together as they once did.<shrugs>

Skip

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:

What do you suppose will happen if Obama wins the election and attacks Pakistan as he said in the second debate? Just so you aren't confused by what I mean by that question, I am not suggesting that attacking Pakistan alone will cause another world war. I am asking precisely what the words imply. There is always a cause and effect. What do you suppose the effect will be of Obama's military attack on Pakistan?

Just what kind of military leader broadcasts his plans the way Obama does? It doesn't take a military genius to realize that when you tell your enemy your plans, they make preparations to counter those plans. So, if Obama wins the election, Pakistan and our enemies in that country will take action knowing that an attack is eminent in Pakistan.

I can give my opinion - it would be a complete disaster. If Obama really belives that this is a good idea then he appears to be off his rocker.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is strongly nationalist. It is also 'nominally' a ally in the fight against terror. If America attacks it then Pakistan will become a safe haven for terrorists as the govt has to appease it's own people by fighting back against America.

Is he in the real world? Or does he just think that a country that has nuclear weapons like Pakistan won't use them?

Quoting FUBAR:

Quote:
To: Pauls42

Obama said the following on August 1, 2007:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"

This in no way says he wishes to attack Pakistan.  I believe Obama is saying what any and all Americans would wish of their government, and that is that he isn't willing to pass up on any opportunity to get Bin Laden, and that includes going after him in any foreign country including Pakistan when that country isn't willing to act.

So please tell me exactly how Canada would respond to this:

1. Pakistan asks Canada for help in capturing a "terrorist" living in Canada.
2. Canada refuses to cooperate with Pakistan for whatever reason
3. Pakistan violates the sovereignty of Canada by sending a military force into Canada to retrieve the "terrorist".

Do you really believe that Pakistan has the right to behave that way?

Obama is claiming that we have the right to do exactly that.  I'm amazed that the liberals of this country are actually OK with that position!  It is just slightly hypocritical, IMHO.

Quoting FUBAR:

Quote:
To: hal9g

This isn't just any terrorist, it is someone who killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Center.

Canada would go after this terrorist with complete vigor if he was in our country, as would virtually every country in the world.

If on the otherhand we (Canada) ignored going after this particular terrorist then we should expect the US to do what Obama has stated he will do in Pakistan.

Are you saying you wouldn't go after Bin Laden in Pakistan?

If Pakistan would not help, then I would authorize covert action to get him.  But that is not what Obama said.  Blatant violation of the sovereignty of another country is not acceptable behavior for any country, regardless of the individual involved.  We already have serious problems with relationships with Pakistan.  Overtly invading their country would put a precarious relationship over the edge.  The President of Pakistan would never survive such an incident if they did not take serious action against us.  That is absolutely the wrong approach with this situation and just further demonstrates Obama's naivete and lack of experience in dealing with international issues.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Blatant violation of the sovereignty of another country is not acceptable behavior for any country, regardless of the individual involved. 

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Blatant violation of the sovereignty of another country is not acceptable behavior for any country, regardless of the individual involved. 

Does that mean you also oppose the US invasion in Irak?

There is no comparison between the situation in Iraq and pursuing an INDIVIDUAL terrorist!

Not only did Iraq invade its neighbor Kuwait, and murder its own citizens with chemical weapons, it also ignored 17 UN resolutions.

I really don't think we need to revisit everything that led up to the war in Iraq.

Trying to link gettign a single terrorist with what happened in Iraq is simply absurd.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Blatant violation of the sovereignty of another country is not acceptable behavior for any country, regardless of the individual involved. 

Does that mean you also oppose the US invasion in Irak?

There is no comparison between the situation in Iraq and pursuing an INDIVIDUAL terrorist!

Not only did Iraq invade its neighbor Kuwait, and murder its own citizens with chemical weapons, it also ignored 17 UN resolutions.

I really don't think we need to revisit everything that led up to the war in Iraq.

Trying to link gettign a single terrorist with what happened in Iraq is simply absurd.

Not wishing to delve deep into these political discussions, but just a couple of points:

1) I suppose FUBAR was referring to the current invasion of Iraq, which eventually started as a result of the attack on WTC - not the first war due to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq

2) That short quote doesn't specify any action to catch any individual terrorist, but "terrorist targets" which of course is very different matter altogether

3) If Obama decided to take action against terrorist targets in Pakistan, as in that quote, I don't think it would be much different from the times when U.S troops hunted down the taliban fighters on the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't think I am much wrong here, if I say that the Afghanistan/Pakistan-border operations were very much motivated by finding a certain individual, not to mention the hunt for Saddam during the same conflict.

I admit that I haven't been following everything the presidential candidates have been saying during the campaign, but based on solely that quote by Barack Obama, I wouldn't worry too much about his war mongerism.

Quoting Draxen:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Blatant violation of the sovereignty of another country is not acceptable behavior for any country, regardless of the individual involved. 

Does that mean you also oppose the US invasion in Irak?

There is no comparison between the situation in Iraq and pursuing an INDIVIDUAL terrorist!

Not only did Iraq invade its neighbor Kuwait, and murder its own citizens with chemical weapons, it also ignored 17 UN resolutions.

I really don't think we need to revisit everything that led up to the war in Iraq.

Trying to link gettign a single terrorist with what happened in Iraq is simply absurd.

Not wishing to delve deep into these political discussions, but just a couple of points:

1) I suppose FUBAR was referring to the current invasion of Iraq, which eventually started as a result of the attack on WTC - not the first war due to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq

2) That short quote doesn't specify any action to catch any individual terrorist, but "terrorist targets" which of course is very different matter altogether

3) If Obama decided to take action against terrorist targets in Pakistan, as in that quote, I don't think it would be much different from the times when U.S troops hunted down the taliban fighters on the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't think I am much wrong here, if I say that the Afghanistan/Pakistan-border operations were very much motivated by finding a certain individual, not to mention the hunt for Saddam during the same conflict.

I admit that I haven't been following everything the presidential candidates have been saying during the campaign, but based on solely that quote by Barack Obama, I wouldn't worry too much about his war mongerism.

Click the second link in my earlier post. It isn't as simple as the quote you site, would imply.