Obama stands up to McCain

xcaricature-obama-lyin.jpg


Obama%20Nation.jpg
 
But Obama linked McCain's national security approach to that of President Bush, calling it "disastrous" and citing the failure to capture bin Laden as evidence.
"The record shows that George Bush and John McCain have been weak on terrorism," Obama told reporters. "Their approach has failed. Because of their policies, we are less safe, less respected and less able to lead the world."
Click to expand...

Yet he doesn't (as far as I have seen) offer anything that will tell us what his plans are to revamp these policies. I haven't been following the politics as much this year so I may be entirely wrong. But telling someone they are doing something wrong without telling them how it should/would be done is arrogant by any standard.

Asked by a reporter how he would proceed if bin Laden were caught during his presidency, Obama said, "we may not be able to capture him alive" and that he may be killed.
"It does not make sense for me to speculate in terms of what the best approach would be in trying him and bringing him to justice," Obama said.
"I think what would be important would be for us to deal with him in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he's engaged in and not to make him into a martyr."
Click to expand...

There is alot said right here about his mindset. He says this and that needs to happen but he has (or appears to have) very little idea on how to accomplish this. Sure, bring in the international scene. Oh yay..Who will preside over the court? Who will recommend the punishment? etc etc. No mention whatsoever of these details. Specualtion indeed.
 
MarinerRhodes

One BIG change is that Obama has said that we would bomb the Taliban held areas in Wiristan Pakistan, even without permission that's something that President Bush and McCain have refused to do. That those terrorist safe areas wouldn't be so safe. That's a departure from the Bush Doctrine which has agreed to tolerate the Taliban safe haven in order to keep Pakistan under Musharaf's fist. If Musharaf is overthrown he would certainly be replaced by a Civilian Democratic leader, one that wont be as easy to manipulate as he has.

The Pakistani cannot be counted on. The Pakistanis have made it clear that they wont hit Islamic extremists unless they pose a DIRECT threat to Musharraf's rule. As long as they dont attempt any crap within Pakistan, they wont be bothered. Thats great for Pakistan, not so good for the rest of the world. The Pakistan military either drags its feet against al-qaeda or colludes with them. Several army units have either refused to obey or defected to al Qaeda when they were ordered to attack.
 
Last edited:
Admittedly I have not followed the political arena as closely as I mught. But I seem to remember hearing about him wanting to pull our troops back home. Isn't this contradicting himself? When you bomb an area you will have alot of collateral damage. One of the reasons (I believe) that it has not been done is due to the possible accusations of civilian deaths instead of taliban deaths.
 
Marinerhodes said:
Admittedly I have not followed the political arena as closely as I mught. But I seem to remember hearing about him wanting to pull our troops back home. Isn't this contradicting himself? When you bomb an area you will have alot of collateral damage. One of the reasons (I believe) that it has not been done is due to the possible accusations of civilian deaths instead of taliban deaths.
Click to expand...

Not exactly...

He wants to withdraw in Iraq, but not from Afghanstan. Unlike someone else i might mention, He hasn't forgotten who really attacked us on 9-11 and it wasn't the Iraqis.

What Obama plans (what he has said during the debates) to do is to pull the troops out of Iraq, let them rest, rebuild, and then send them against the REAL enemy which is al Qaeda and their Taliban allies whom are located in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan.

Afghanstan is the greater danger to America, the Iraqis dont like al Qaeda neither does Iran. There is no way they will be tolerated once we exit, despite conflicts amongst Sunni and Shiite Iraqis are a modern, well educated, civilized people. Before the war they had one of the highest level of education amongst Arab countries.

Afghanistan is exactly the opposite, its the Wild West. They have nothing but worlords, terrorists and criminal organisations. It is a very dangerous place, and you cannot ignore it and hope for the best which is precisely what the Bush Doctrine has called for.
 
Last edited:
Mmarsh, the part I disagree is that although it probably wasn't wise to go into Iraq in the first place, a pullout now could mean creating yet another Afghanistan, except with oil and educated people. I know Al Qaeda isn't exactly a household name in Iraq but it wasn't really a household name in Afghanistan either. Afghans disliked the idea of foreign fighters coming into their land and calling the shots... I think that's a sentiment shared by many of the tribes. However, the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and were eventually walked all over by Al Qaeda. Plus remember that Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization out there. It's just the one that hits the front page.
As for Pakistan and Afghanistan... the book "Ghost Wars" does a pretty good job of explaining the complexity of the whole situation. If you haven't read it yet, read it now. Growing up in Southeast Asia, it wasn't quite what they had there but I've seen some sh*t that's pretty close in terms of the weird factor. It's certainly believable.
And guys, remember that because we are allied or something doesn't mean we're friends as in me hanging out with buddies. It's a business interaction between two entities where each party will try to get the most from the other while giving up the least. Not being able to hit the western tribal areas of Pakistan is like how Cambodia and Laos were off limits in Vietnam.
 
Let the Afghans go after them for invading their sovereign territory. After their raid they can retreat back to the Afghan side of the border under the over watch of US/NATO troops. Life's a *****, ain't it Pakistan?
Put bounties on the head of wanted people and facilities that we need to have destroyed. It'll be the best way Afghans can make a living without growing drugs all the time. Then create a military unit made up of Afghans which will have reasonably good pay and use them like the British use Gurkhas.
 
Last edited:
13th Redneck

I understand you, but I really I don't think that's likely to happen. The Iraqis are not like the Afghans, they are VERY different people.

The Iraqis are educated, even during Saddam. They have culture, music science, sports, women has civil rights (one of the few things Saddam did good) it was very much like Egypt or Jordan before the war.

They simply are going to tolerate a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians trying to bring them back into 11th century.

Since the EuroCup is on and I know your a football fan (as I am) here is an example why. In Afghanistan, the Taliban actually banned playing football. Can you imagine what turmoil if they tried doing that in Football-crazy Iraq. The Iraqis would drag every al-Qaeda in the street at slowly impale them on goalposts.

Civilized countries are extremely difficult to manipulate they way al Qaeda wishes to. The Taliban method only works in places where there is no civilization, where its every man for himself because they were the only type of structure available.
 
How can you get a group of highly educated, cultured and civilized people into following an ideology of hate? Fear.
I am well aware that Iraqis are not like the Afghans and I am sure I mentioned this in a previous post somewhere.
How was it possible for barbarians to invade the heart of the Roman Empire and put an end to their way of life? Their ability to strike fear into the hearts of those they conquered. These same Al Qaeda or other groups ARE capable of taking over a country that is incapable of defending itself. When the Mongols took over the Chinese, in terms of education and civilization it was a complete mismatch in China's favor but the Mongols' ability to fight won them the day.
Al Qaeda can also look like an organizational Robin Hood to many of the poorer Muslims who no doubt have issues about the upper class.
The only time I've really seen Muslims seriously support Al Qaeda is in the context of an Al Qaeda vs USA clash. Alone, Al Qaeda is a pain in everyone's rearside. Truth is, I don't know how we're failing to take advantage of this fact.
 
They can accept a bombing campaign in their western highlands or they can use the nuke and in return have Pakistan converted into a parking lot.
 
mmarsh said:
One BIG change is that Obama has said that we would bomb the Taliban held areas in Wiristan Pakistan, even without permission that's something that President Bush and McCain have refused to do. That those terrorist safe areas wouldn't be so safe. That's a departure from the Bush Doctrine which has agreed to tolerate the Taliban safe haven in order to keep Pakistan under Musharaf's fist.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure we have been launching missiles from drones at these militant safehavens, in fact i think the last attack we did supposedly targeted pakistani troops by accident. Everytime we do bomb across the border there is an outcry about how many civilians and children we killed with collateral damage. The best way to target areas for bombing is to have soldiers calling it in on the radio, otherwise collateral damage will be a bigger issue, so does Obama want to send US troops there to do the targeting? I know we arent talking about a carpet-bombing campaign, but civilian casualties will turn people against us.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Put bounties on the head of wanted people and facilities that we need to have destroyed. It'll be the best way Afghans can make a living without growing drugs all the time.
Click to expand...

I'm no military strategist, but I reckon that would work quite well. The Brits solved the Malayan crisis against Chin Peng in a similar way and it was much cheaper than hunting down the insurgents with armed patrols.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top