Obama goes to war




 
--
Boots
 
August 3rd, 2007  
phoenix80
 
 

Topic: Obama goes to war


On Wednesday the U.S. Democratic presidential campaign officially underwent its time-honoured quadrennial metastasis into a contest of foreign-policy machismo. For about a week, Hillary Clinton's campaign had been goading Barack Obama over his opinion, ventured in the July 23 CNN/YouTube debate, that there is no foreign leader a U.S. president must categorically refuse to interview face-to-face. He would be perfectly willing, he had said, to sit down with Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give them a stern talking-to about their policies and ambitions. "The fact of the matter is," he later argued, "when we talk to world leaders, it gives us the opportunity to speak about our ideals, our values and our interests, and I am not afraid to have that conversation with anybody."

Senator Clinton called this "irresponsible and naive." I'm honestly not sure how irresponsible it is; looking back over the last 10 years, it is, in fact, a little hard to understand how the tradition of summit diplomacy fell so quickly into desuetude. The United States' problems with Iraq arguably began in the first place because Saddam Hussein received mixed messages about the invasion of Kuwait from diplomatic functionaries, rather than an unambiguous "Don't go there" from the head of state. But a Democrat can't get away with saying that talk has value. When an average American voter hears that from a Democrat, what he hears is that only talk has value.

Candidate Obama can't afford to let people think that President Obama is likely to try solving U.S. foreign-policy dilemmas by going abroad, giving dictators all the propaganda victories a little uranium ore can buy, and spraying around the same "audacity of hope" soft-soap he does at home. In the first flush of fame, not long after his memorable 2004 Democratic convention speech, Obama won more headlines with a memorable apophthegm delivered at a peace rally: "I'm not against war, I'm against dumb wars." (By "dumb," he means "Republican.") But the criticism from the Clinton camp demanded a stronger response.

And what could be stronger than a tirade against an all-new enemy? On Wednesday Senator Obama delivered a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, in which he promised the poor bloody American infantryman that he has every intention of pulling him out of Iraq if elected. The bad news is that he's not coming home. Obama intends to send him still further abroad, to the treacherous crags and narrow passes of northwest Pakistan. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," Obama told his audience (after circulating a copy of the speech). "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."

It is easy to see why Obama was tempted to propose such a refocus in American foreign policy. Reminding Americans that there exists such a person as Osama bin Laden, and that he has eluded capture, is good for the Democrats. Holding out the hope of actually catching him, and suggesting that it has no chance of succeeding as long as the U.S. military is bogged down in Iraq, is even better. If Sen. Clinton attempts a critique, it simply provides Obama with another opportunity to remind Democrats that she voted for the "dumb war."

So why does one get the uneasy sense that Barack Obama has just mounted his motorcycle, pulled on his leather jacket and jumped the shark with yards to spare? In waving aside any potential objections over his "actionable intelligence" from President Musharraf, the senator speaks of taking the troops that are currently struggling to control an ethnically divided country less populous than Canada and using them to put down resistance from a nuclear-armed state of 157 million citizens, roughly 156 million of whom loathe the U.S.

(Actually, he says he wouldn't use all of them; some would go to Afghanistan.) Assuming that doesn't lead to rampant civil chaos and Islamist extremists intercepting the nuclear football from Musharraf, those soldiers would still have to pull off the main mission: pacifying Pakistan's lawless Pashtundominated areas. No one likes to bet against the U.S. Army, but what Obama's talking about is a much taller order than the war of attrition now being conducted by a much broader coalition -- one which has the sanction of a sovereign government --in Afghanistan.

But perhaps the senator is not talking about a proper invasion. Perhaps he's talking about the kind of half-assed operation that went so well in Somalia back in '93. If you liked seeing dead American troops dragged through the streets of Mogadishu like sandbags bound for the levee, we bet you'll just love what Pakistan's goat-herding dope-fiends come up with.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/c...9-a06e3961231d
August 5th, 2007  
03USMC
 
 
Obamba would have us speaking Farsi and observing Sharia laws in no time.After his "stern talking to" of course.
August 6th, 2007  
A Can of Man
 
 
Department of Education will get a huge funding boost to get everyone to convert from English to Farsi... some people find that surrendering is a short cut to an end in hostilities.
But they kind of forget what happens to you AFTERWARDS.
--
Boots
July 27th, 2008  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Department of Education will get a huge funding boost to get everyone to convert from English to Farsi... some people find that surrendering is a short cut to an end in hostilities.
But they kind of forget what happens to you AFTERWARDS.
I got $10 that says I know what happens after AFTERWARDS
July 27th, 2008  
major liability
 
 
Pulling out of Iraq would be totally irresponsible at this point because we're committed and we can't leave another broken country in the Middle East.

I do like the idea of taking out terrorists inside Pakistan regardless of clearance, but I'm not sure that's a realistic option when dealing with a nuclear power.

I don't see why we can't talk to even the most extreme countries. Worse comes to worst all that will happen is a reiteration of our mutual animosity. They're just words, might as well give it a shot before the bombs start dropping.
July 27th, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by major liability
Pulling out of Iraq would be totally irresponsible at this point because we're committed and we can't leave another broken country in the Middle East.

I do like the idea of taking out terrorists inside Pakistan regardless of clearance, but I'm not sure that's a realistic option when dealing with a nuclear power.

I don't see why we can't talk to even the most extreme countries. Worse comes to worst all that will happen is a reiteration of our mutual animosity. They're just words, might as well give it a shot before the bombs start dropping.
1. We can help Iraq by leaving, that's what people don't understand. Leaving is better for the Iraqis not just for us. Nobody wants us there, not the Sunni, the Shiite, the Malaki Government or the other countries in the region. There is nobody in the world begging us to stay in Iraq. The only reason we are there is because of oil and even more so pride. The situation in Iraq is a STALEMATE, like the war in Algeria was just like most other wars in the Middle East. But Our pride to accept the situation for what it is getting alot of good people killed.

What will happen afterwards will be the Malaki Government will collapse, there will be some more violence between Sunni and Shiite and then the situation will stablize itself, most likely with a Iran backed Shiite Dictator. That might not sound great, but its much better than we have now.

McCain idea for victory in Iraq is for the terrorist to come up with their hands up waving a white flag, the incompetant and corrupt Government of Iraq will become some great Democracy and the US will establish permenant bases there. Thats pure fanasty, a neocons wet dream. That is just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN and its extremely naive of him to think it will.

2. We have always talked to our enemies, including the British, Spainish, Confederates, Germans, Japanese, and North Vietnamese. This government is the first in our history that thinks talking is bad. And the results have been disasterous.

To their credit, the Bush Administration has FINALLY decided to stop listening to the neocons and listen more to the Diplomats. (Dad fearing J.R is going to go down as the worst president in history must have stepped in) its too little, too late, to save W legacy but at least its a small step in the right direction. A small measure of atonement perhaps...

Now wnter John McCain. He doesnt agree with all this diplomacy. His idea is to return to the hawkish threats and sabre rattling that proved so effective during the first 7 years of the Bush Administration, espicially about Iran. The conclusion of this policy was which starting a civil war in a country who we thought had the bomb but didnt. And that 2 countries that didnt have the bomb before have either got it or will get it.

I am wondering what else he has planned to destablize the world? Give Nukes to Taiwan? Why not? Every other world hotspot has the bomb.
July 28th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
Vote Republican!

10 out of 10 terrorists strongly recommend voting Democrat.
July 28th, 2008  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AikiRooster
Vote Republican!

10 out of 10 terrorists strongly recommend voting Democrat.
I knew there was a second reason I didn't like democrats
July 28th, 2008  
wolfen
 
mmarsh, doesn't the Geneva convention apply to the Iraq situation?
July 28th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
Most of the people in Iraq that don't want us there probably don't want America to exist either, so who really gives a (beep) what they want?
 


Similar Topics
On War Funds, Democrats Saw No Option But To Cede Ground To Bush
How US Is Deferring War Costs
Misjudging War
Pearl Harbour one more lie?????
Controversy Rages as TV Show Lists U.S. War Dead