Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah...McCain is going to initiate combat to make sure that US troops fight 'forever.'

Believe it or not....both are going to do the exact same thing. Keep the troops there until the Iraqi Government is capable of running the country...and then restrict them to permanent bases.

Obama had an estimate of 2012 going at one point...I bet that doesn't sound promising either.

Again, I hope nobody kills themselves when Obama doesn't 'change' everything they wanted 'changed.'

BTW....you might want to double check your point about a longer conflict resulting in terrorism growth and refinement. By all accounts, Al Queda has been 'massively' crippled in Iraq. And somehow I doubt they have the resources to keep fighting like the US does. Even if it costs a few million per minute.

When Obama invades Pakistan its going to cost a few billion per minute.

"massively" crippled' huh. Strange thinking when Al Queda didn't exist in Iraq to begin with.

The way I understand the invading Pakistan floofla is that he would chase Osama across the border if he was in sight. Sounds reasonable to me but you just keep reading, watching and listening and believing in your right wing media.
To be fair there is crap distributed by both sides but that is why god gave us a brain to filter it out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

"massively" crippled' huh. Strange thinking when Al Queda didn't exist in Iraq to begin with.

True.

But that doesn't help now, does it?

The way I understand the invading Pakistan floofla is that he would chase Osama across the border if he was in sight. Sounds reasonable to me but you just keep reading, watching and listening and believing in your right wing media.

Yeah, my right-wing media.

I'm sure the UN and Pakistan wouldn't have a problem with Obama sending in US troops to kill whatever target they want to kill.

In fact, he criticized Bush for pulling back on such an operation that was supposed to be carried out in 2005.

I mean, I like his idea to force results from Pakistan or they don't get anymore aid, but to 'invade' to kill some targets? On a sovereign countries soil?

Of course, he wouldn't invade like the US invaded Iraq, or German invaded Poland....but I wonder how Obama would react if Pakistan sent troops into Dubuque to kill some anti-Pakistani rebels there.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think Obama pretty clearly said he would invade Pakistan WITHOUT approval of the Pakistani government to strike at Al Queda targets.

Oh right, the link.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

No no no, I said we do know how to read.

You obviously do too. Please point out the part in that story where it says he plans on invading Pakistan.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

No no no, I said we do know how to read.

You obviously do too. Please point out the part in that story where it says he plans on invading Pakistan.

Dictionary definition of 'invade.'

You pick which would would represent Obama sending troops into Pakistan.

1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.

Plus, that 'operation' in 2005 that was scrapped? You know, the one Obama would have supported anyways?

The column that broke the news of this aborted op reported that "the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred with "various planners bulked up the force's size to provide security for the Special Operations forces." Said "the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning" of the operation, "The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan."

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Dictionary definition of 'invade.'

You pick which would would represent Obama sending troops into Pakistan.

1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.

A dictionary response? Come on.

When you say "when he invades Pakistan" it sounds like you know it's going to happen and he's said plainly that if he becomes President he will indeed be invading Pakistan.

All I've asked you to do is point out where he said (or why you believe) he will in fact have the military invade Pakistan.

Ya got an answer? Or did you just make it up and expect everyone to believe it?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

True.

But that doesn't help now, does it?

Yeah, my right-wing media.

I'm sure the UN and Pakistan wouldn't have a problem with Obama sending in US troops to kill whatever target they want to kill.

In fact, he criticized Bush for pulling back on such an operation that was supposed to be carried out in 2005.

I mean, I like his idea to force results from Pakistan or they don't get anymore aid, but to 'invade' to kill some targets? On a sovereign countries soil?

Of course, he wouldn't invade like the US invaded Iraq, or German invaded Poland....but I wonder how Obama would react if Pakistan sent troops into Dubuque to kill some anti-Pakistani rebels there.

Your right wing media and you take a story of Obama wanting to make a selective attack on a high ranking Al Queda meeting in Pakistan into a costly war against Pakistan.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A dictionary response? Come on.

Oh, so attacking targets in Pakistan does not qualify as 'invading' the country?

Considering that there would be American boots on the ground, you know, IN Pakistan.

I'd say that is an invasion. And according to the dictionary, I am correct.

But hey, all in the name of good foreign relations....I'm sure Obama will sweet-talk Pakistan into believing that US troops never 'invaded' Pakistan.

When you say "when he invades Pakistan" it sounds like you know it's going to happen and he's said plainly that if he becomes President he will indeed be invading Pakistan.

Oh, so you're saying Obama is lying, and won't be sending troops into Pakistan?

All I've asked you to do is point out where he said (or why you believe) he will in fact have the military invade Pakistan.

Yes, in fact he did say he will have the US military invade Pakistan to kill high profile targets.

Ya got an answer? Or did you just make it up and expect everyone to believe it?

No, you're just trying to spin it off as something else.

Oh, and thanks for avoiding that last part.

"The whole thing turned into an invasion of Pakistan."

Something that Obama supported.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Your right wing media and you take a story of Obama wanting to make a selective attack on a high ranking Al Queda meeting in Pakistan into a costly war against Pakistan.

Yes, ABC News is part of the whole vast 'right-wing' conspiracy.

You sound like Hillary.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, ABC News is part of the whole vast 'right-wing' conspiracy.

You sound like Hillary.

You just don't get it. I never said ABC News is a part of the 'right wing conspiracy', it's your right wing take on the story and it's blinding you to what is really being said.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, so attacking targets in Pakistan does not qualify as 'invading' the country?

No it doesn't. They invaded Iraq. You can take your dictionary as far as you want, but you know and I know that he wasn't talking about another disastrous trick like that.

Funny thing about all this, if some chickenhawk or the incompetent President suggested trying to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan every conservative in the land would think it's a wonderful idea and a great step in THE WAR ON TERROR.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

No it doesn't. They invaded Iraq. You can take your dictionary as far as you want, but you know and I know that he wasn't talking about another disastrous trick like that.

Funny thing about all this, if some chickenhawk or the incompetent President suggested trying to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan every conservative in the land would think it's a wonderful idea and a great step in THE WAR ON TERROR.

Yeah, except every chickenhawk and incompetent President wouldn't be prompting himself up in the public spotlight telling people he would send troops into a sovereign country who just happens to have nukes in order to kill Bin Laden.

I don't see how putting boots on the ground in Pakistan is anything 'else' but an invasion.

Obviously, if you're going to compare it to Iraq, not it wouldn't be an invasion like that. But IT IS still an invasion.

What else can you possibly call it? Even the guys who were involved in an operation in 2005 to do the exact thing Obama is saying he would do said it that the support, logistics and manpower involved turned it into an invasion of Pakistan.

THAT is why it was scrapped.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You just don't get it. I never said ABC News is a part of the 'right wing conspiracy', it's your right wing take on the story and it's blinding you to what is really being said.

I'm not blinded at all.

Sending troops into a sovereign country is AN INVASION.

You're 'invading' their soil.

Its scary really, what Obama can say and people will turn it off as 'something else'....and ignore what he really wants to do.

I guess the sweet-talking HAS gotten into some heads.

[MarchHare]

Yeah, except every chickenhawk and incompetent President wouldn't be prompting himself up in the public spotlight telling people he would send troops into a sovereign country who just happens to have nukes in order to kill Bin Laden.

Uh, Bush Jr. did exactly that with Iraq, only even worse, because Bin Laden wasn't the target. And while in hindsight it turns out that Iraq didn't have WMDs or a nuclear program, senior Bush administration officials insisted that they did.

Anyway, a big part of Obama's platform is that he wants to get American troops out of Iraq. Do you really think he's going to then turn around and invade another country where the Muslim population is even more radical and sympathetic to Al Qaeda?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obviously, if you're going to compare it to Iraq, not it wouldn't be an invasion like that. But IT IS still an invasion.

You said both it would cost "billions per minute" and also quoted some article about how it would include hundreds of soldiers so I really don't know how to respond anymore. It doesn't make sense.

You've twisted one comment into something clearly different than what it originally meant. It's pretty obvious and I don't think anyone other than you (and I doubt even that) has fallen for it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Anyway, a big part of Obama's platform is that he wants to get American troops out of Iraq. Do you really think he's going to then turn around and invade another country where the Muslim population is even more radical and sympathetic to Al Qaeda?

That is exactly what he said.

That he would send troops into a country with a 'known' nuclear program, known to support terrorists....and even more radical and sympathetic towards Al Queda....like you said, in order to kill high profile targets.

How crazy is that?

And please don't turn this into a Bush/Obama argument....I agree with you there.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You said both it would cost "billions per minute" and also quoted some article about how it would include hundreds of soldiers so I really don't know how to respond anymore. It doesn't make sense.

Alright....the 'billions per minute' comment was off base, because I doubt Pakistan would strike back.

But of course, they have nukes, they're pretty crazy, and well, they have nukes. So could a unwarrented invasion into Pakistan to kill some high profile targets create a bigger problem?

Perhaps....which is why the whole idea of sending troops there in the first place is ridiculous. And making it an 'election' issue is EVEN MORE stupid.

I'm sure there are tons of covert options in Pakistan....or did Obama forget about that? There was even a operation a while back with a drone which killed some pretty high profile terrorists. If I could remember where I read it I'd provide the link. But sending actual US Military troops into Pakistan? I don't think so.

You've twisted one comment into something clearly different than what it originally meant. It's pretty obvious and I don't think anyone other than you (and I doubt even that) has fallen for it.

Yeah I doubt that.

Perhaps you should google "Obama invade Pakistan" and take note of how many 'associated press' articles have it in their title.

Yeah, but I'm the only one who thinks that way.

[MarchHare]

This is Obama's exact quote:

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

Of course, what he meant be that is open to interpretation, but I don't think he was talking about an invasion with large amounts of ground forces, and I certainly don't think he was talking about using American forces to topple Musharraf's regime. More likely he meant airstrikes and/or small covert operations against Al Qaeda training camps and hideouts in the remote mountainous regions of Pakistan near the Afghan border, where Taliban and AQ forces are known to be holed up.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Dictionary definition of 'invade.'

You pick which would would represent Obama sending troops into Pakistan.

1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.

Plus, that 'operation' in 2005 that was scrapped? You know, the one Obama would have supported anyways?

The column that broke the news of this aborted op reported that "the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred with "various planners bulked up the force's size to provide security for the Special Operations forces." Said "the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning" of the operation, "The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan."

Oddly enough, when I was googling for Obama's exact quote, I found this link where another commentator used the same argument as you, right down to resorting to the dictionary.com defintion of 'invasion'. I'm sure that's entirely coincidental, right?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ama-propo.html

And how does that article conclude?

I emailed our resident expert, Anthony Cordesman, who told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be considered an "invasion."

"Technically," Cordesman writes, "an invasion is an incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Moreover, since Pakistan has both admitted that hostile forces come from its territory to Afghanistan and said it cannot stop all of them, an incursion to defeat the insurgents is probably legal under international law.

Emphasis added.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is Obama's exact quote:



Of course, what he meant be that is open to interpretation, but I don't think he was talking about an invasion with large amounts of ground forces, and I certainly don't think he was talking about using American forces to topple Musharraf's regime. More likely he meant airstrikes and/or small covert operations against Al Qaeda training camps and hideouts in the remote mountainous regions of Pakistan near the Afghan border, where Taliban and AQ forces are known to be holed up.

I know what he said.

It just so turns out that the last such operation was canceled because that 'small' covert operation turned into a pretty big deal.

And either way....he is doing it without the approval of a nation that happens to be an ally of sorts, AND they have nukes.

Is this right-wing 'warmonger' the only who worried about Obama making comments like this?

I suppose he is a politician...and they all lie.

But once he becomes President, we should hold him at his work and expect American troops in Pakistan right after the inauguration. Because by all accounts, there are some pretty high profile targets hiding out in Pakistan.

I wonder if he would attack Iran too.....Saudia Arabia...I mean, it'll just be a covert operation, airstrikes and the such.....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Oddly enough, when I was googling for Obama's exact quote, I found this link where another commentator used the same argument as you, right down to resorting to the dictionary.com defintion of 'invasion'. I'm sure that's entirely coincidental, right?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ama-propo.html

And how does that article conclude?

Emphasis added.

Yeah I noticed that.

So I assume Pakistan would have absolutely no problem with Obama sending troops into their country to kill terrorists.

No? Because surely they would support something the UN would deem legal.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/early...n_pakista.html
Obama says that "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." He also says the United States must not "hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." The U.S. must "recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same."

"Substantial progress"? The phrase sounds familiar. It will just prompt a debate about whether the progress is substantial enough. That's Washington in a nutshell. In the end, Obama's perspective is a confused muddle that sounds to me a lot like the policies of the Bush administration -- and is no different than the "Bush-Cheney Lite" Obama has accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of pursuing.

I like his stance on Pakistan in regards to them making more happen with the war on terror....but I still do not agree with invading/attacking/whatever you want to call it depending on who said it....another sovereign country who just happens to have nuclear weapons.