Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[SlaveNoMore]

Cletus Miller
Serious, non-rhetorical, question: Can someone (preferably Repub) explain what the problem with saying "If we find him/them, we'll go get/kill OBL/Zawahiri if Musharaff won't help us" is?

Don't say that it's a proposal to "invade" an ally--it's not. Don't say it's hypocritical--that's a cop out answer (and untrue).

In two days, he declared (i) that he would invade a nuclear-bomb possessing ally and (ii) in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table.

It reveals that Obama is a bit of tone-deaf clod, and that Hillary is has virtually secured the Dem nomination.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
While Hank drags a lawyer through the mud because of his client (are we sure Hank is a lawyer?) and Slave attacks the Republican's favorite pseudo-Democratic rag, I offer you a reminder of what your Republican elected officials are up to.

Are you really linking to Wonkette, and then immediately criticizing someone for doing porn?

Isn't it ironic, doncha think?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
While Hank drags a lawyer through the mud because of his client (are we sure Hank is a lawyer?) and Slave attacks the Republican's favorite pseudo-Democratic rag, I offer you a reminder of what your Republican elected officials are up to.

Yep. Never go with the Jesse Jackson defense. Not a winner.

aV

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In two days, he declared (i) that he would invade a nuclear-bomb possessing ally and (ii) in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table.

It reveals that Obama is a bit of tone-deaf clod, and that Hillary is has virtually secured the Dem nomination.

You are quite likely right on the 2d point, and his positions do seem somewhat contradictory. Nevermind that he's beholden to a corrupt democratic establishment in Illinois.

That said, on your first point, you're intentionally distorting what was said: On (i) he didn't say he would invade Pakistan--killing OBL does not constitute an invasion (unless you use a very broad definition of "invasion"); on (ii) Obama was asked about using nuclear weapons against terrorist targets Afghanistan and Pakistan, not "all future combat". If you think that "invading" Pakistan is a bad idea, you should agree that nuking Pakistan is a very bad idea.

If Obama had suggested an Iraq-War-sized invasion of Pakistan, his campaign would be over; if Obama had said that nuclear weapons were not going to be used anywhere, against any enemy, under any circumstances, I would wholeheartedly agree that he cannot be President or even Vice President--that he would have limited himself in a fashion that made it impossible for him to confront any hostile power (honestly, even France has maintained the implicit threat that it might use its nukes). Obama did neither of these things and I just don't get why there are people defending OBL because he "happened" to domicile himself in Pakistan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and FWIW I can't see any anti-gay bias in anything you post here, but the word choice did seem odd. GGG on the other hand clearly has issues, but we all knew that.

If you said "Matt Sanchez" to me, I probably wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you said "the Marine, former gay porn star who had his picture taken with Ann Coulter," I would remember.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In two days, he declared (i) that he would invade a nuclear-bomb possessing ally and (ii) in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table.

It reveals that Obama is a bit of tone-deaf clod, and that Hillary is has virtually secured the Dem nomination.

Your analysis would be more plausible if Obama really said that "in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table." However:

• Turns out that the AP story failed to add a very important bit of context. Obama was asked about using nuclear weapons against terrorist targets [in] Afghanistan and Pakistan; the Bush Administration has never ruled out using tactical nukes to root out underground terrorist safe havens. In this much more limited context, Obama was setting some policy: no, he would not ever consider using nuclear weapons on terrorist targets in those two countries.

link

Using nukes on terrorists makes little sense.

Since you are all about accuracy in reporting lately, I'll wait here for your outrage that the MSM erred in a way that made Obama look bad.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Your analysis would be more plausible if Obama really said that "in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table." However:

• Turns out that the AP story failed to add a very important bit of context. Obama was asked about using nuclear weapons against terrorist targets [in] Afghanistan and Pakistan; the Bush Administration has never ruled out using tactical nukes to root out underground terrorist safe havens. In this much more limited context, Obama was setting some policy: no, he would not ever consider using nuclear weapons on terrorist targets in those two countries.

link

Using nukes on terrorists makes little sense.

Since you are all about accuracy in reporting lately, I'll wait here for your outrage that the MSM erred in a way that made Obama look bad.

You mean the AP misquoted someone? Golly!!!!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
On (i) he didn't say he would invade Pakistan--killing OBL does not constitute an invasion (unless you use a very broad definition of "invasion")

Do you think if we knew his precise location and could tactically bomb him we wouldn't? One might need boots on the ground to root him out.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Do you think if we knew his precise location and could tactically bomb him we wouldn't? One might need boots on the ground to root him out.

Of course we would. And, if we believed that we could drop in a spec ops team and take him out, we'd do that, too. That's why I don't get the reaction to Obama saying that. It seems unhinged to support the Iraq war and act like Waziristan is untouchable.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Of course we would. And, if we believed that we could drop in a spec ops team and take him out, we'd do that, too. That's why I don't get the reaction to Obama saying that. It seems unhinged to support the Iraq war and act like Waziristan is untouchable.

I took his comments to suggest something more than dropping in some rangers for a few hours.

I don't think it's unhinged, given what musharraf seems to be holding back politically in pakistan.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I took his comments to suggest something more than dropping in some rangers for a few hours.

Sending in covert black ops into a sovereign friendly nation to conduct assassinations.

Which party's nod is he running for - because last I checked, the KOS kids find such actions an impeachable offense.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I took his comments to suggest something more than dropping in some rangers for a few hours.

This is what he said:

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

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.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally. "

Is there an implication of an invasion? Maybe, but I don't see it any more than I see an implication of invasion in any typical tough talk from a President or candidate.

I don't think it's unhinged, given what musharraf seems to be holding back politically in pakistan.

What happens if, w/o Musharref's permission, we bomb Waziristan? What's the consequence? I agree that we cannot be seen asking and receiving Musharref's permission to attack a portion of his country, but come on . . . is it reasonable for us to not, if we know where OBL is? Isn't that a core goal of the WoT? Doesn't winning involve breaking some eggs?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
friendly nation

not sure pakistan quite fits that description. No more than Iraq in 1980, at least.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sending in covert black ops into a sovereign friendly nation to conduct assassinations.

Which party's nod is he running for - because last I checked, the KOS kids find such actions an impeachable offense.

That's my point--I've seen/heard many complaints about Obama's stance coming from the right. What the hell is their problem? Isn't that what they want to happen? Is it just partisanship?

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
not sure pakistan quite fits that description.

nor France for that matter.