Ok...lets step back a sec on this Pakistan thing...

[SaveElmer]

I don't want to be one of those kinds of people who takes a position and sticks to it no matter what...and in this discussion I find myself falling into one side of that...something that I want to back away from

We are taking a complex situation and reducing it to black and white talking points...and hyping those points to an illogical conclusion....

I don't want to contribute to a verbal war that is going to harm our candidates in November...

First, Obama did not say he would go to war against al_Qaeda in Pakistan...that is hyperbole...

Second, those who are criticizing Obama do not believe it is ok to just let al-Qaeda run scot free...that too is hyperbole...

There are conditions where military action might conceivable be appropriate...but they are limited and should be the very last option...and I believe any use of ground forces should be only in the most dire of circumstances....

The problem I have with what Obama said is that it takes this position and puts in front and center in a political speech...words that may be popular here, and may even be essentially correct, are taken in an entirely different way in countries like Pakistan...it unnecessarily causes problems for an ally and could have the the effect of hindering a more peaceful solution to the problem...on this score I agree with Bill Richardson...

As Dennis Kucinich says (I can't believe I am quoting him), you cannot solve the terrorist problem by killing terrorists. He is mostly correct, I would rework that to say you can't solve the terrorist problem solely by killing terrorists(bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders should certainly be killed if possible)...you have to cut off their support...not the George Bush way by trying to kill everyone, but by using the methods that Hillary has previously highlighted and that Obama did today...by being sensitive to the political and economic conditions which have caused a tolerance, even celebration of terrorism in these places...

So I'm gonna back off of this a bit...I still believe Obama made a mistake today, not necessarily in the position he took, but the way in which he took it...pre-announcing a covert operation on the soil of a sovereign nation and ally was not a good idea, particularly one with a significant and militant opposition waiting for a chance to challenge the government...but I am not going to argue Obama is out to start a war...and I am going to hope that Obama chooses his words more carefully in the future...

I see Hillary has said she agrees with the specific statement in that speech that Obama made regarding actionable intelligence...I suppose she felt pressured to say something...but I hope she stops there...I don't think it is going to be helpful in the long run to highlight the military aspects of our position towards Pakistan, or towards terrorism for that matter...

[Adelante]

1. You're a good egg, Elmer

A fair person :toast:

[emilyg]

2. And a smart egg - Elmer. thanks.

[Colobo]

3. Obama will be a great president: The world will respect him.

[Old and In the Way]

4. I have no doubts that all of our candidates would deal with issues of

compelling domestic threats from foreign sources roughly the same. None have ulterior motives for lying about casus belli. Nor would they approach this as a problem to be solved with extended military troops on the ground. Hopefully, we will send an army of accountants to major financial institutions that launder drug money....really go after the source of terror - bankers and politicians who profit from war without end.

[rinsd]

5. Great post, Elmer. (nt)

[bling bling]

6. This is the kind of dicussion that I wish everyone was having 7 or 8 hours ago.

It's not just this issue. But everything we do here lately takes a complex discussion and simplifies it.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record around here. But for those here who are *capable* have regular discussions about our own and other candidates, can we do that more often?

Of course there are people that are "bots" for one candidate or the other. Can we just let them have their attack fests while everyone else discusses politics?

Right now, the "bots" are controlling all the dialog and dividing everybody.

I think Hillary and Obama and Edwards and all of the candidates are going to have similar positions on most things if they are running for the president of this party. Kucinich is really the only one who is very different and as anyone can see he represents a small percentage of the party.

Anyway, off my soapbox and in response to your post....I thought Hillary sounded good when I first read her comments because she had the edge of saying she had recently met with Musharaff (sp?) (at least I thought that's what I read). It came off sounding like she's "all over it." I don't know, it sounded good. Obama sounded ok to me too. I thought it was interesting that a spokesperson from Pakistan "reprimanded" Obama but it was a pretty innocuous reprimandation. I'm interested to see if that goes any further or if what was said will be all.

The whole thing is interesting to me. I like seeing how our candidates respond to these situations and questions.

I just wish everybody here could observe and talk about these things in a more objective manner intead of everyone having to battle all the time depending on who their candidate is. It would make this place so much more interesting and stimilating and enjoyable.

[Cameron27]

7. Very well said SaveElmer

:thumbsup:

[madrchsod]

8. you summed up what i was trying to get across

today about obama`a statement..i think i`ll stay in the lounge for the rest of the night

[sandnsea]

9. Yeah, you have your head handed to you

and get real reasonable and negotiable all the sudden. :eyes:

I'm not buying.

[SaveElmer]

13. And here I thought you didn't have a sense of humor...

I'm learning alot tonight...

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Off to the greatest page for ya .......

I agree that Obama was NOT calling for an invasion of Pakistan. To say otherwise is clearly silly.

What worried me most about this kind of statement by **any** candidate (and most of them have done so) is that it is PURELY about pandering to the knuckle walkers in our country.

You don't need to make glib use of bellicose words like 'kill' and 'capture' and 'invade' and all the other silly 'tough guy' words that do so well with the calloused knuckle, toothless set.

[ProudDad]

11. I think Kucinich was right

"you cannot solve the terrorist problem by killing terrorists"

as far as that goes, it's absolutely correct. Iraq proves that...

There is no terrorist problem. The "war on terror" is a sham and a lie.

There is a RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION PROBLEM. There is a major poverty problem. There is a huge disparity in wealth problem.

Until that is addressed and solved, there will always be a few who are desperate enough and crazy enough commit acts of "terror".

Israel came into being partly through "terrorism" committed by Zionist rebels. The folks in the colonies who rebelled against their masters in Great Britain were "terrorists". "terror" is a tactic not a way of life. It's usually the tactic of the weaker and more oppressed against the stronger and the oppressor...

I posted this from Bill Hicks in another thread -- it fits here too:

"I had a vision of a way we could have no enemies ever again. If you're interested in this. Anybody interested in hearing this? It's kind of an interesting theory, and all we have to do is make one decisive act and we can rid the world of all our enemies at once.

"Here's what we do.

"You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense <and the phony 'war on terror'> every year? Trillions of dollars.

Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for MANY TIMES OVER, not ONE human being excluded...not ONE...we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever."


K&R...

[beachmom]

12. Well, I hope that this will allow us to really discuss foreign policy,

counterterrorism, and specifically Pakistan. There is a thread on a Kerry speech by Prosense, and he gave two examples: Afghanistan and England -- where terrorists hatched plans to attack America. We invaded Afghanistan because the government harbored terrorists, yet we would never bomb or invade England because we would work together as allies. The question is: where does Pakistan fall in this equation? I find them to be at best 50% English, and the other half like Afghanistan. Some parts of the government try to help us, but their shadowy intelligence arm (ISI) likes the Taliban, and may be helping al Qaeda. I mean -- what are we going to do? I also think that Musharraf may not last much longer.

Thanks for a thoughtful thread, SaveElmer.